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 will have nuclear weapon in three years: Mossad

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2008 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by 16grit
 


I think it's important people maintain that very distinction you mentioned 16grit, between the types of nuclear weapons there are, and how each type, strategic or tactical, potentially affects just about all aspects of discussion on the topic here and elsewhere. So thanks again for bringing that up.

And biggie, you make some great points as usual.




posted on Feb, 17 2008 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Check this out.

A Chinese medium is quoting Yuri Baluyevsky in 2006 that...


I can confidently say that what Iran is doing today does not allow it the possibility, either in the near or distant future, to make a nuclear weapon.


english.peopledaily.com.cn...

This seems frustrating that officials on either side have fickle opinions about Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program. Are we to attempt a paradox and believe everything they say about the matter? Or should we just make the assumption that these guys are pulling their words from various bodily orifices?

That last article I posted from Y Net News had plenty of names in the Israeli govt. to look up.

I love a hot pursuit.



posted on Feb, 17 2008 @ 06:37 PM
link   
For the record would you please explain the differences between a tactical nuke and a strategic nuke?

I have an idea, but you seem to know something on that subject. Plus, as you said, it would put into context the quotes we can gather from these "leaders."

I know this thread is about the Mossad/Israeli claims, but I believe every word and name it comes from needs to be thoroughly scrutinized in the context of the big scheme. Please call a foul if there is a different system in place I am unaware of. After all...

I am 16grit. I am new.



posted on Feb, 17 2008 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by 16grit
For the record would you please explain the differences between a tactical nuke and a strategic nuke?


Basically, a lot of it has to do with the "yield" of the explosion, as well as the types and capabilities of the delivery system. Lower yield nukes intended to take out specific targets and minimize collateral damage could be classified as tactical. Much larger nukes with big yields and mounted on Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM) can be intended to take out entire metropolitan areas, killing millions of people. These can be classified as strategic. But there is some gray area there.

www.cdi.org...&f/database/nukearsenals.cfm


The START treaties, and the Bush-Putin agreement now being discussed, do not deal with tactical nuclear weapons. The exclusion of tactical nuclear weapons from current U.S.-Russian discussions is unfortunate. Tactical nuclear weapons, because of their small size, are the weapons most likely to fall into terrorist hands — where they could be employed "strategically" in an asymmetric mode.


In other words, a smaller tactical nuke in malicious hands could possibly be placed strategically. An example is if one were to take out the Super Bowl, or something like that, with a clear intent to inflict massive civilian casualties and damage, as opposed to being used strictly on military targets such as troops, ships, etc.

Where things get even more complicated is the situation in Iran for example. Imagine the US or Israel using tactical nukes on a nuclear research facility nestled inside a university. Is that a tactical use or a strategic use? I think both points could be argued.

In any case, a quick search on google for tactical nukes will yield plenty of information. Hope that helps.

[edit on 17-2-2008 by TrueAmerican]



posted on Feb, 18 2008 @ 08:19 PM
link   
I am amazed this thread went nowhere after a day. Are people too worried about whether Mohammed was the devil, or space aliens abducted someone's dog's chew-toy who ate the chew-toy and now the dog is probed distorting someone's TV signals?

We have a MOSSAD CHIEF basically saying Iran needs to be stopped in 3 years.

3 years before this statement a fellow party member said Iran would develope nukes in 1-2 years.

I suppose this is off topic, sort-of, but..

Around that time a Russian deputy chief of staff claimed that Iran DOES HAVE nukes, which the French press that gave that report claimed no one else heard Yuri say that...(which is a rather suspicious claim to make as a journalist, though I doubt the French are tryiong to foment a war here)

1 year later, a Chinese news source quoted Yuri that Iran WON"T HAVE a nuke in the near future.

Many conflicting statements and it stinks just like the WMD claims of Iraq. I for one do not want another set of Niger Forged Documents to surface(which came from convicted AIPAC spy Larry Franklin and Zionist PNAC AUTHOR Douglas Feith), and cause another disgusting war in which hundreds of thousands more people will die in the name of my tax-dollar funded US of Israel, yet the same sort of people are making the same claims, and people are taking their word for it, apparently.

Peace and Love.

[edit on 18-2-2008 by 16grit]



posted on Feb, 18 2008 @ 08:55 PM
link   
That Jerusalem Post article I posted no longer works and I can't edit that post. No matter here it is another...

www.jpost.com...


Sorry about that tirade, by the way.

[edit on 18-2-2008 by 16grit]

So, a link to a JP story fails even though the story is still up.

oh well I will quote it


Iran will attain offensive nuclear capabilities within three years and remains the central strategic threat to Israel, not only because it is striving for the attainment of nuclear weapons but also because of its influence on more imminent threats - such as Hamas, Hizbullah and Syria - according to an assessment presented to the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee by Mossad head Meir Dagan Monday.
[Mossad chief Meir Dagan...]

Mossad chief Meir Dagan reading a report on Iran.
Photo: Ariel Jerozolimski

Iran is acting on two tracks, Dagan said, one towards the enrichment of uranium and the other towards manufacturing surface to surface missiles with large payloads. He claimed that Iran had not yet attained full control of the knowledge necessary to produce weapons-grade uranium, but was not far from reaching that benchmark point.

Iran, he said, was upgrading its relationship with Syria, especially with regards to the transfer of information, and was supplying the Palestinians with weapons, technology and training, especially in the Gaza Strip. He claimed that Iranian assistance would improve the range of the projectiles that the Palestinians could fire into Israel.

According to the Mossad chief, Syria and Hizbullah had studied the lessons of the Second Lebanon War and come to the conclusion that they cannot overpower Israel and contend with its far superior firepower. Therefore, he said, they were investing their energies in developing missiles to target the home front, which they had recognized as Israel's weak point.


[edit on 18-2-2008 by 16grit]



posted on Feb, 18 2008 @ 09:15 PM
link   
More conflicting statements from the same dude.

From that ynetnews source I posted Dagan is quoted


"This phenomenon[Iran's nuclear weapons program] also worries countries like Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon, which feel that their governments are endangered,"


I added the brackets.

From the jerusalem post article///


Iran, he said, was upgrading its relationship with Syria, especially with regards to the transfer of information, and was supplying the Palestinians with weapons, technology and training, especially in the Gaza Strip. He claimed that Iranian assistance would improve the range of the projectiles that the Palestinians could fire into Israel.


So it went from everyone being scared of big bad Iran to Iran helping everyone kill more Israelis? Granted both statements are 3 years apart, I think the best way to understand what Mr. Dagan is trying to convey would be to find the transcript of that particular Knesset meeting.



posted on Feb, 18 2008 @ 09:20 PM
link   
While I can appreciate what you are doing, 16grit, please note that the irony of conflicting intelligence is already pointed out in the OP. It's the main reason I posted the thread. You might want to re read it.

There's no clear answers, and it is a convoluted mess. One thing that is becoming increasingly clear though is that the Mossad and CIA both contain some pretty clandestine, sinister elements that do real, real bad things. Immoral things. It's as if one whole section of our government has split off from the rest of reality and continues to manufacture their own, which then turns into ours years later.



posted on Feb, 18 2008 @ 11:00 PM
link   
You are right, TrueAmerican. I was so carried away in all that digging around different sources that I forgot the entire point of the OP, continuing the relentless beating of the dead horse.

Nice meeting you, sir.



posted on Feb, 18 2008 @ 11:11 PM
link   
Well, why dont we just let them have a nuke or two? The second they use them we will turn Iran and whoever is backing them into a glass parking lot. I would prefer they do not have them and I dont think they ever will but you dont always know.



posted on Feb, 18 2008 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by 16grit
Nice meeting you, sir.


lol, no sweat man, likewise. And I like you already. You seem to have that motivation to go dig up stuff.
Love it. I typically star posts that advance the thread in some way, and will also star for just sheer effort as well as critical points made. Sometimes I will just cause I liked the response- but I try to limit those.

The dead horse of conflicting intelligence and even more baffling action unfortunately needs to be continually beat into unexposed brains, and so for that I thank you.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join