It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iran Nuke Bomb Warning

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Iran Nuke Bomb Warning


Source Link: news.sky.com

Military action against Iran would speed up Tehran's drive to create a nuclear bomb, experts have warned.
Pre-emptive strikes would result in a "crash programme" to develop a crude nuclear device within months.
Frank Barnaby, who formerly worked at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston, created a report for the Oxford Research Group think-tank.
He said that with "inadequate intelligence" about the full scale of Iran's nuclear facilities, air strikes were unlikely to succeed in destroying the programme.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Building a nuclear bomb takes time...it is not something you can built "fast". Unless Iran already has all the capabilities to make a nuclear weapon, if all they have been doing is trying to have nuclear power for peaceful reasons it would take them 10-20 years to procure a nuclear bomb. But i remind you that Iran was working for almost 20 years on a nuclear program when they were not supposed to have it.

In that time they built underground facilities and were working on their nuclear program in secret until a dissident came out with information on that program. But now there are people who believe the regime of Iran, when it is now claiming they want to just have a "peaceful" nuclear program?.... and that's after senior Imams a couple of years ago issued a fatwa that Iran could have nuclear weapons and use them?....


[edit on 5-3-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Building a nuclear bomb takes time...it is not something you can built "fast". Unless Iran already has all the capabilities to make a nuclear weapon, if all they have been doing is trying to have nuclear power for peaceful reasons it would take them 10-20 years to procure a nuclear bomb. But i remind you that Iran was working for almost 20 years on a nuclear program when they were not supposed to have it.

In that time they built underground facilities and were working on their nuclear program in secret until a dissident came out with information on that program. But now there are people who believe the regime of Iran, when it is now claiming they want to just have a "peaceful" nuclear program?.... and that's after senior Imams a couple of years ago issued a fatwa that Iran could have nuclear weapons and use them?....


[edit on 5-3-2007 by Muaddib]


This just seems like more spin/propoganda imo. Where is the evidence? Show us the evidence that this is for non-peacefull purposes. They have not even suggested any evidence, let alone shown us and after the Iraq complete
up, how are the public supposed to get behind them on this one? Oh I know, They'll stage a convenient little attack to blame on Iran. Did someone say "Mossad"?

If someone can convince me otherwise please do. I'd like just some evidence please.

[edit on 5-3-2007 by Xeros]



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Building a nuclear bomb takes time...it is not something you can built "fast".

[edit on 5-3-2007 by Muaddib]


Actually, it is. The US built one from scratch in 3 or 4 years.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan

Actually, it is. The US built one from scratch in 3 or 4 years.


Could you please tell us exactly what are you talking about?

Iran had a secret nuclear program for 18 years... If it was that easy they would already at least have a nuclear weapon, if not more.

Are you saying they already have nuclear weapons?

[edit on 5-3-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xeros

This just seems like more spin/propoganda imo. Where is the evidence? Show us the evidence that this is for non-peacefull purposes.
.........................
If someone can convince me otherwise please do. I'd like just some evidence please.


What "spin and propaganda"?... Are you saying that iran didn't have a secret nuclear program for 18 years when they were not supposed to have one? Is it a spin that you need to have expertise and it takes time, and lots of money to test and build a nuclear weapon?...

BTW...why is it that everytime something is said about certain countries some people immediately claim "Mossad/CIA is behind it"?......

The world does not begin or end with Mossad or the CIA....

Countries/regimes are very well capable of doing things such as having secret nuclear programs without the CIA or Mossad....

[edit on 5-3-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 09:17 PM
link   
I have said it once and I will say it again, it is not Iran going nuclear in the middle east that we should worry about, not by a long shot. It is Pakistan, already nuclear in the middle east suffering another coup and falling into the hands of pro-Taliban, pro-Al Qeada forces in the military that is the biggest danger. And, the most likely. Musharref is not secure and intelligence and military leaders are known to be Taliban/Al Qeada supporters.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Maybe they've been able to buy a few nukes, for study / use. Maybe they’re far more advanced than we know. After all Iran was portrayed as a backward repressive state, not the case, just a bit insular, prob with very sharp teeth!



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 09:29 PM
link   


it is not Iran going nuclear in the middle east that we should worry about, not by a long shot. It is Pakistan,


Any person, country, country's leader, or terroist group who wants to blow isreal off the map is a threat to the whole world. Iran is one of those, so is Pakistan. Terroists oh yeah they would love to destroy isreal too. if a nuclear bomb did go off in isreal, we would retaliate and isreal would also. I know they have nukes supplied by us on hand just for that occasion. Now what i dont know is, will the UN back up the US if we retalliated on a nuke attack on isreal? I think Russia will back up Iran and China will be undecided on whose side to take. North korea has been quiet latley. this will be their perfect opportunity to strike us. I know iraq is right between isreal and iran so you can see how our troop presence is cruical right now.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 10:21 PM
link   
The Oxford study has been around for a while now. They also did one for the Iraq war as well. Still people will ignore it because its inconvenient for Israel's needs and wants. They want Iran attacked or they want to attack. Just like with Iraq.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Uhhh Mauddib....the US built one in WW2 in about 3 to 4 years from scratch. Granted the theoretical knowledge had been around for awhile, but the US had to beat the Germans to get a working version ready for war. But thats the point, it went from blackboard to Trinity explosion in just a few short years.

But you're bragging about the Iranians having a program for at least 20 years, and still haven't got anything to be frightened about yet off the ground that we know of.

Sounds like a whole lot of incompetence to me.

I mean, I'm sure the Russians have given them some hints to play with.
I'm sure spies have helped them some. I'm sure sympathizers have helped them. I'm sure that guy from Pakistan and the nuclear black market have helped them. I'm even sure they even weasled some students into some nuclear technology degrees under everybody's noses.

And yet its taken them this long to get something rolling. Please.
All this knowledge available now, and they can't do it. By your reasoning they couldn't even pass an exam with a cheat sheet. I guess thats where the russians have to step in and fill in the test questions themselves.

By your reasoning, the US and Russia should have never developed super arsenals of nuclear tipped missiles. So if it was 1 bomb for every 20 years, then we would each have about 3.

What a bunch of tards. Can't be built fast...sheesh!!



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover...It is Pakistan, already nuclear in the middle east suffering another coup and falling into the hands of pro-Taliban, pro-Al Qeada forces in the military that is the biggest danger. And, the most likely. Musharref is not secure and intelligence and military leaders are known to be Taliban/Al Qeada supporters.


All too true. In the other thread, CIA Rushing Resources to Bin Laden Hunt, this is exactly my take also. We are witnessing with front row seats the beginning of another major operation in that region.

[edit on 3/6/2007 by Matyas]



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
I have said it once and I will say it again, it is not Iran going nuclear in the middle east that we should worry about, not by a long shot. It is Pakistan, already nuclear in the middle east suffering another coup and falling into the hands of pro-Taliban, pro-Al Qeada forces in the military that is the biggest danger. And, the most likely. Musharref is not secure and intelligence and military leaders are known to be Taliban/Al Qeada supporters.

I am biting my tongue as I say this, but I agree with grover on this one. At least partially. Pakistan is a huge concern, but we still need to worry about Iran. The entire region will become even more politically destabilized if Iran posesses the bomb.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by CAPT PROTON
Uhhh Mauddib....the US built one in WW2 in about 3 to 4 years from scratch. Granted the theoretical knowledge had been around for awhile, but the US had to beat the Germans to get a working version ready for war. But thats the point, it went from blackboard to Trinity explosion in just a few short years.


exactly, the US had no prior expierence, it had never been done before. we didnt even know if it would work it or not. As proton said, the theoretical work was there, but that was about it.




And yet its taken them this long to get something rolling. Please.
All this knowledge available now, and they can't do it. By your reasoning they couldn't even pass an exam with a cheat sheet. I guess thats where the russians have to step in and fill in the test questions themselves.

By your reasoning, the US and Russia should have never developed super arsenals of nuclear tipped missiles. So if it was 1 bomb for every 20 years, then we would each have about 3.

What a bunch of tards. Can't be built fast...sheesh!!


yeah, I know what you mean. I guess them kids in the middle east or wherever have got to have something to brag about even though it isnt original.

Anyway, yes iran can develop a nuclear weapon quickly if it had to.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by XphilesPhan

Actually, it is. The US built one from scratch in 3 or 4 years.


Could you please tell us exactly what are you talking about?



Im talking about the manhattan project. If your going to drone on and on about nuclear weapons, at least know where the hell they came from.




Iran had a secret nuclear program for 18 years... If it was that easy they would already at least have a nuclear weapon, if not more.

Are you saying they already have nuclear weapons?

[edit on 5-3-2007 by Muaddib]


No, im saying Iran was working secretly and didnt have the infrastructure they needed to build a nuclear weapon quickly. Its difficult to build a bomb when your trying to keep it a secret you know?



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan

Im talking about the manhattan project. If your going to drone on and on about nuclear weapons, at least know where the hell they came from.


......Why is it that people try to become patronizing when they themselves have no idea what they are talking about?... and then some don't understand why I respond to such patronizing and naive comments with sarcasm....

You actually think that the invention of the nuclear weapon "from scratch" began in 1942 when the first nuclear reaction was sucessfully achieved?......

Projects like that don't just come out of nowhere, and if you would read a bit more on the subject you would understand that it took a bit longer than 3-4 years to be able to make such a weapon...

Before a nuclear weapon is build, you have to experiment and be able to enrich uranium, and then experiment some more to attain fission until the reaction is achieved, and it has to be repeatable... and before that you need to have the nuclear reactors built so you can start the experiments....

Perhaps next time you should follow your own advice, before you start trying to be patronizing about a subject you obviously don't understand, you should find out what the hell you are talking about....

You can't just build a nuclear weapon from a "nuclear factory supposedly built for peaceful purposes".... you wouldn't be able to enrich the uranium to weapons' grade for a nuclear weapon.

The Manhattan project was just the last stage of building from "scratch" nuclear weapons....

Actually if you want to be correct, the building from "scratch" of the atomic weapon began when Einstein came up with the equation E=MC2 in 1905, and if you want to play semantics the first discovery that led to the atomic bomb was in 1896 when Henri Becquerel discovered radioactivity.

Although the Iranians didn't have to discover radioactivity, or come up with Einstein theory again, it still takes longer than 3-4 years to build a nuclear weapon from scratch...more so when "supposedly" you don't have the nuclear plant, and the centrifuges to enrich uranium to weapon's grade, and in order to do so you need to enrich uranium at least at 20%, to make it at least weapon's usable, but normally the fissile uranium in nuclear weapons have a concentration of 235U at 85%, which is known as weapons-grade.



Originally posted by XphilesPhan
No, im saying Iran was working secretly and didnt have the infrastructure they needed to build a nuclear weapon quickly. Its difficult to build a bomb when your trying to keep it a secret you know?


They just didn't have the expertise, or at least that's what the countries of the west thought. The Iranians bought most of what they needed from countries like Russia, China and North Korea. But just having the factories and reactors built to especification doesn't make you an expert or able to build a nuclear weapon sucessfully.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by grover
I have said it once and I will say it again, it is not Iran going nuclear in the middle east that we should worry about, not by a long shot. It is Pakistan, already nuclear in the middle east suffering another coup and falling into the hands of pro-Taliban, pro-Al Qeada forces in the military that is the biggest danger. And, the most likely. Musharref is not secure and intelligence and military leaders are known to be Taliban/Al Qeada supporters.

I am biting my tongue as I say this, but I agree with grover on this one. At least partially. Pakistan is a huge concern, but we still need to worry about Iran. The entire region will become even more politically destabilized if Iran posesses the bomb.


Don't bite your tongue josbecky... we agree on things occasionally.


In regards to this whole Iran nuclear weapons debate... and what I maintain is the real danger, Pakistan, I reminded of that old adage that is is not the dog that is barking that you have to worry about.

Look at it this way with such a blow hard as the Iranian president (who as I understand it has very little actual power) spouting of inflammable rhetoric, the Iranian military would be damned fools to do anything with their (real or imagined) nuclear weapons (covertly or overtly) because the attention the world has focused on them. So in this way of looking at things having an idiot for a president is a deterrent (OH were that the case with us
) but with Pakistan despite repeated warnings from the CIA and others about the volatility of the political situation there, the whole thing is pretty much ignored. This administration seems to think that since they need Pakistan as an ally, that it is best to focus on Musharref and hope the worst doesn't happen. But what if it does? What if he does fall and is replaced by a general with strong ties to the Taliban and Al Qeada? That is then really something to not only fear but to tread gingerly around.

[edit on 6-3-2007 by grover]

[edit on 6-3-2007 by grover]



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 07:34 AM
link   
...it's very likely that Iran would use Nuclear Weapons on Israel. Islam considers certain areas under Israel’s control to be holy land. They don't just want Israel gone at ANY cost. They want Israel out of territory they want to use. Nuking Israel will probably make their perceived holy land unusable by them.

It's more likely that Iranian Nukes will be lobed into regions that are controlled by Infidels.

They will more likely try to destabilize the rest of the western world so they can make an attempt to kick Israel out of their land using conventional weapons.

Remember, they believe that when Islam gets into a world war with the Infidels, Mohamed will come back to help wipe out all Infidels. They believe that they don’t really need enough fire power to wipe out the western world. They believe they need just enough to get the world war started.

Boy, how history repeats itself. Wasn’t THAT long ago that Christianity was trying to ram their beliefs down the rest of the worlds throat. Only difference? The label of the unbelievers that need to be converted at any cost. Heretics / Infidels? Same thing.

“Believe what we demand you believe or die.”



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 07:37 AM
link   
out of curiosity... why is it everyone slams every other nation for having nuclear bombs... whats the big deal exactly? if you have them your considered a threat and respected... in todays world... thats basically how its looked at... so when the states turn around and see someone building a bomb they get ticked... why? because someones taking a whiz in their sandbox... did you hear the americans are planning on replacing all their existing nuclear war heads with more "efficient" and "effective" nuclear devices... so explain to me... who is the REAL threat... a bunch of guys making sand castles... or a multi trillion dollar nation which seems to have its overweight fingers in everything... just a thought *shrugs*



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 07:50 AM
link   
Islam, Shiia or Sunni do not believe that Muhammad will return at all, in any way shape or form. Some varieties of Shiia, specifically the Twelvers of Iran believe that the 12th Imam will return but it is still not in the way that Christians believe that Christ will return... more like the once and future king of Arthur. In short, even they know its a myth.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join