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.

 

Attack on Iran Would backfire

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Attack on Iran Would backfire


www.guardian.co.uk

Any military action against Iran's atomic program is likely to backfire and accelerate Tehran's development of a nuclear bomb, a report today by a British former nuclear weapons scientist warns.

In his report, Frank Barnaby argues that air strikes, reportedly being contemplated as an option by the White House, would strengthen the hand of Iranian hardliners, unite the Iranian population behind a bomb, and would almost certainly trigger an underground crash program to build a small number of war.s as quickly as possible.

"As soon as you start bombing you unite the population behind the government," Dr Barnaby told The Guardian. "Right now in Iran, there are different opinions about all this, but after an attack you would have a united people and a united scientific community."

In a foreword Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector at the time of the Iraq war, argues that an assault in Iran could turn out to be every bit as disastrous.

"In the case of Iraq, the armed action launched aimed to eliminate weapons of mass destruction - that did not exist. It led to tragedy and regional turmoil. In the case of Iran armed action would be aimed at intentions - that may or may not exist. However, the same result - tragedy and regional turmoil - would inevitably follow," Dr Blix wrote.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.guardian.co.uk




posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 01:38 PM
link   
I am glad to hear someone of some importance actually saying this. I have been asserting that it would be a bloodbath for some time now. Like most of the world the majority of Iranians love America, it is our government that they fear. no matter how polarized Iran is however within, if we or Israel were to attack them, they would unite. Iran is not Iraq. It is twice as large, a much larger population, technological and wealthy. To attack them would be to release the whirlwind like nothing the Middle east has seen yet, and in the long run there is no way we could win.



[edit on 5-3-2007 by grover]



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Iran is wealthy? As of 2002 40% of it's population was still below the poverty line.

www.indexmundi.com...



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 02:28 PM
link   
The graph doesn't state whose poverty line they are talking about, ours or theirs plus its over 2 years old. Besides all that I wasn't talking about the people per say but the state.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 03:30 PM
link   
This pretty much sums up what I was assuming. US or Israel attacks Iran, causing Iran to build up a system to defend itself, with the threat that either of these countries will use a nuke on Iran. Then after the war is done, US or Israel would find the nukes made, and use it as justification for going to war.

It's like a police officer threatening to shoot someone because they're capable of owning a gun, so the person buys a gun to defend themselves, and the officer shoots them, using that as justification.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 03:47 PM
link   
What is the alternative then? Just let Iran continue to develop their nuclear program, which has NOT gotten a clean bill of health from the IAEA? It is bad enough that the NPT genie is out with Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea. How many more nations need to join the "club" till something awful happens? The ones causing this crisis are the President of Iran and the Mullahs that are really the power over there. Without enriching uranium like they have, this crisis doesn't become a crisis.

The option of just leaving things the way they are, is not a sustainable situation. What is your solution to this problem?



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 03:51 PM
link   
As i stated on another thread, making a nuclear bomb is not something you can build quick.... It takes decades to develop a nuclear program. To make plans, test and develop just one weapon takes decades.

Let's take a look at the satement by the former weapons inspector.


Any military action against Iran's atomic program is likely to backfire and accelerate Tehran's development of a nuclear bomb, a report today by a British former nuclear weapons scientist warns.


If they don't have a nuclear program for weapons like they have claimed, despite the fact that they had a secret nuclear program for almost 20 years which they were not supposed to have, how can anything done to them "accelerate Tehran's development of a nuclear bomb"?....

How can you accelerate a program they supposedly don't have?...

If such a statement came from the Iranian regime it would only tell us that they have a nuclear weapons program, and if this former weapons inspector is saying this then he thinks Tehran already has a nuclear weapons program.

Perhaps he is saying this out of the fact that but a year or so ago Senior Iranian mullahs declared a fatwa that it was alright for Iran to have nuclear weapons and use them if necessary, apart from the fact that the Iranian regime had a secret nuclear program for almost 20 years before an Iranian dissident brought us proof and the Iranian regime had to finally come clean about their nuclear program...

[edit on 5-3-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 06:18 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 @ 06:27 PM
link   
I agree with you grover . . . while people debate the rights of Iran to have nukes and their evilness against "Israel" many completely forget that Pakistan is already on a Nuclear path and with a very unstable government holding by a thread and that the majority of the population is also pro taliban . . .

I guess the only reason our own administration is just oblivious of Pakistan and its nuclear program is because they have no oil . . .

But, does Israel have concerns about a coup in Pakistan that will take hold of the country by the taliban and they using the nuclear weapons on them?

You do not hear anything about that very good possibility . . .

Because at the end is not about Iran going nuclear and never has been . . . is about finishing the take over of Iran and Iraq and their resources. . .



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 06:27 PM
link   
I agree with you grover . . . while people debate the rights of Iran to have nukes and their evilness against "Israel" many completely forget that Pakistan is already on a Nuclear path and with a very unstable government holding by a thread and that the majority of the population is also pro taliban . . .

I guess the only reason our own administration is just oblivious of Pakistan and its nuclear program is because they have no oil . . .

But, does Israel have concerns about a coup in Pakistan that will take hold of the country by the taliban and they using the nuclear weapons on them?

You do not hear anything about that very good possibility . . .

Because at the end is not about Iran going nuclear and never has been . . . is about finishing the take over of Iran and Iraq and their resources. . .



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 06:56 PM
link   
This topic is covered here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

To the original poster, Copy Paste is limited to 500 characters.

Please contribute to the existing discussion.

Thread Closed.




top topics



 
0

log in

join