Does Iran already have nukes?

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Iranian Bravado Backed Ny Nuke?
My biggest concern about the Iranian bravado has been it is a dumb game to play if they did not yet have a nuclear warhead of some kind. They saw how bluffing the US worked for Saddam. The Mullah’s may be mad - but they are not stupid. Now some are saying what I suspected and feared:

Rafi Eitan suspects that Iran already has enough enriched uranium fissionable material to manufacture at least one or two atom bombs of the Hiroshima type. “Otherwise Iranian President Ahmadinejad would not have dared come out with his declaration that Israel should be wiped off the map,” repeating it in various versions. His efforts at denying the Holocaust in which six million Jews were slaughtered prove that there is method in Ahmadinejad’s madness. “Don’t treat him like a madman,” Chief of General Staff Dan Halutz recently cautioned.

Eitan’s assessment of the situation is especially important because of his extensive intelligence experience in Israel’s struggle for its existence, even before its establishment in 1948. Eitan was among those that laid the operational foundations for the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) and the Mossad.

Eitan told me: “I am convinced that the Iranians already have at least one or two nuclear devices. They have been operating centrifuges for a number of years now, they have natural uranium, and who on earth believes the Iranians when they say that they have closed down one facility or another? You would have to be an idiot or terribly na ve to believe them.”

Eitan says that this view was bolstered by conversations he held with various experts from abroad who came to the Herzliya Conference - that Iran already has a an atom bomb. What should concern not only Israel but Europe too, continues Eitan, is the fact that the Iranians have acquired cruise missiles with a 3,000-kilometer range. They tried to purchase nine missiles of this kind in Ukraine from the arsenal of the former Soviet Union, but Russia thwarted part of the deal and Iran received three or four such missiles.




posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 07:38 PM
link   
I am inclined to believe that Iran either may have enough material to build a bomb or two or are very close.

The alphabet kid wouldn't talking as tough as he is without knowing he has something to back it up.



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 09:20 PM
link   
I read something last week, wether it be here on ATS, or a news report via someone else but it kinda rung a few bells.

The US managed to build a bomb, from nothing to soemthing in 5yrs?
with the technology from the 40's, and only a hand full of scientists and a limited budget.

Iran have the technology of today, many more scientists, a larger budget and have had a cladestine nuclear programme for what... 20yrs?

yet we still say they are 10-15yrs away?

QUESTION,

the IAEA can locate the origin of uranium after bomb goes off correct?

Would that be correct for ALL nuclear material EVER MADE?
IE India, Pakistan, Russia, Israel?

It would seem to me If Iran were dead bent on aquirering a nuclear weapon,
and WERE 10yrs away..
wouldnt they just purcahse one off the black market?
Atleast purchase the MATERIAL needed?

A country that big,
with that much desire for nuclear fuel.. doesnt strike me they'd blow this much steam and demand a talk date over the package in mid august, if they didnt have something to back themselves up.

These puzzle pieces dont fit quite as squarley as the US and its Allies would make us think.



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
The US managed to build a bomb, from nothing to soemthing in 5yrs?
with the technology from the 40's, and only a hand full of scientists and a limited budget.


Agit8d
Just remember though, back then there were no laws in regards to any of the items necessary to fabricate anything needed to build the bomb. Anyone who makes anything that can be used to fabricate a centrifuge, the metals needed to shield or manufacture a bomb, and anything else that can be used in the process will more then likely be monitored pretty heavily and fully accountable for quantities on hand or quantities sold. It sounds easy if you put it in the terms you suggest IF there was no monitoring and laws in effect.


Pie



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 09:53 PM
link   
I agree ,being it was the first device built such back in the 40s means there were no restrictions.

But hasnt pakistan already sold the required equipment to Iran?

from my understanding,

they have the equipment.
they have the ability
they have had HELP from nuclear nations
they have the desire and funds

yet they are a decade away?

Im not a nuclear scientist and dont know the enrichment cycle and so forth.
But why would IRAN declare its amount of centrefuges?

if they were intent on making a nuke,
surely they woudlnt tell us there total output capicity?



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
I agree ,being it was the first device built such back in the 40s means there were no restrictions.

But hasnt pakistan already sold the required equipment to Iran?



I believe it was in this order. China sold it to Pakistan who in turn sold it to Iran, which in no means is illegal. This was one of the reasons why there were higher percentages of enrichment of trace gases that were found on the centrifuges by the IAEA which were still well below weapons grade enrichment at something like 40-50%.(You need higher then 90% for weapons grade I believe) The whole idea behind the NPT is that member countries can and do share technology to a certain degree. Used equipment is included in the sharing of technology.

Pie





top topics
 
0

log in

join