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.

 

IAEA Chief: Iran 6 months to a year from producing nukes.

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 09:33 AM
link   

IAEA Chief: IRan 6 months to a year from producing nukes.


poligazette.com

Via Holly comes this video at Memri of IAEA director-general Mohamed ElBaradei saying that Iran is able to produce nuclear weapons within six months to one year time. Most of you will remember that progressives often argue that Iran won’t be able to develop nuclear weapons any time soon. Well, ElBaradei -not exactly a hawk to put it mildly - disagrees. And quite strongly so.
(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 24-6-2008 by TruthWithin]




posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 09:33 AM
link   
It is unusual for the IAEA to make such a statement, and this certainly coincides with the new EU sanctions. The article suggests that if inspectors were gone that the Iran would not need a lot of time to to build a nuke.

poligazette.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 09:56 AM
link   
I don't know - a lot can happen in "6 months to a year - at least".

Also, have they expelled the inspectors? Have they left the NPT?

I suppose there is reason for concern, but the pressure being brought to bear seems to be out of proportion considering we have other nuclear powers in the area who deserve similar scrutiny.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 09:58 AM
link   
After the alliance Iran made with Russia last year, is there any doubt that if Iran wants Nukes, they can have them for a price?........02c



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by TruthWithin


It is unusual for the IAEA to make such a statement, and this certainly coincides with the new EU sanctions. The article suggests that if inspectors were gone that the Iran would not need a lot of time to to build a nuke.



IAEA didnt make this statement, if you simply quote El Baradei. Whatever he seems to stipulate at "memri" (which is not a serious news source, the quote is probably taken out of context as zionist fearmongers always do), IAEA conclusion, even after having seen the Bush administration's secret bogus "rock-hard" evidence is that there is no evidence whatsoever of a military program, as, apparently truthfully claimed by iranian authorities. All this bogus "evidence" hate- fear- and warmongering from our israeli "friends", who'd, in their unlimited greed and bloodthirstyness want to pull off yet another genocide.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 10:32 AM
link   
It's a fail safe prediction. If you say they have potential to have nukes in 6 to 12 months then bomb the hell out of them. You have officially prevented the production and use of nuclear weapons; regardless if it was the intention of Iran or not. Now they don't even need to claim WMD, just the potential to make them.

Gotta love the new world standard, guilty until proven that they have been eradicated.

Anyone feel like playing Russian roulette with a single barrel shotgun? .......... you go first.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 04:58 PM
link   
He has said this and people also need to know that the IAEA does not have full permission to inspect everywhere they want in the facility at Natanz. What about any secret sites that we don't know about, You can build a bomb in the basement of a house.

Israel and the U.S. need to play this with caution and strike the nuclear sites now before they get a fully operational warhead made and its to late. Iran has been caught with bomb designs twice recently by the U.N.
They have been testing warheads in space by launching them on their Shihab-3 missiles out of the atmosphere with an unspecified payload.
They have uranium with the centrifuges to make it weapons grade.
Just because a country is in the NPT doesn't mean they wont build a bomb.

My money says they are very close to having a working long range warhead after it has been found that AQ Kahn had designs for a smaller warhead design that will work on the Scud and larger missiles that he might have sold.

Here is a better source.

wcbstv.com...



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Sky watcher
 


Agreed. This isn't an example of a country like France or even Pakistan developing a nuclear weapon. It's a nation with a history of not just making government sponsored statements about genocide and attacks against their neighbors, but carrying through with them as well. Iran has never given the world a reason to believe that they would use a nuke as a last resort self defense measure. They have given the world plenty of reason to believe they're perfectly capible of using one to instigate an offensive, however.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Iran was 6 months away from building nukes 5 years ago. Elections are coming up and the Repulicans just want to reinforce the homeland security issue thats all.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Even if this is true, wouldn't be less expensive for the Iranian regime to mix up some cyanide laced kool-aid and do a re-enactment of Jonestown?

One nuclear weapon? What do they plan to do with that? What is the payload of this single nuclear weapon? Why at all would anyone be concerned about Iran building, and then using, one nuclear weapon?

Iran is not at all a threat to anyone but itself. If they build a weapon and its confirmed, Russia or China will hit them before we do. Especially after becoming such a huge embarrasment, for the people that are protecting them right now. Only an Israeli pre-emptive strike can justify Iran ever possessing a nuclear weapon and Israel isn't going to attack them anyway.

Whoever it is that's out there trying to get people worried about the Persians is really pathetic. Why don't you guys face it; Your war effort is Doomed!! And nothing will save you now.

What would be more impressive is if the Iranians had somehow developed a weapon system more powerful than a nuke. If you knew anything about defense you wouldn't even put this crap online.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cyprus
Iran was 6 months away from building nukes 5 years ago. Elections are coming up and the Repulicans just want to reinforce the homeland security issue thats all.


I love how an Egyptian that is working for the IAEA through the U.N. is now a Republican.

Get a clue. Bush has nothing to do with what the U.N. or its inspectors say.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 05:50 PM
link   
And another thing. Iran is surrounded on all sides by the NATO alliance, no missle would ever make it to Israel anyway.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by bruxfain
Iran is not at all a threat to anyone but itself. If they build a weapon and its confirmed, Russia or China will hit them before we do. Especially after becoming such a huge embarrasment, for the people that are protecting them right now. Only an Israeli pre-emptive strike can justify Iran ever possessing a nuclear weapon and Israel isn't going to attack them anyway.

Whoever it is that's out there trying to get people worried about the Persians is really pathetic. Why don't you guys face it; Your war effort is Doomed!! And nothing will save you now.

What would be more impressive is if the Iranians had somehow developed a weapon system more powerful than a nuke. If you knew anything about defense you wouldn't even put this crap online.


Oh you think that million people killed in one nuclear weapon detonation in Israel is something that Israel can live with? Or say one on a truck drove into Baghdad and ten million die? Best yet would be something they have already tested in the Caspian sea. Load a few Shihab-3s on a freighter and launch them off the coast of L.A. or somewhere on the west coast and make it air burst to take down the whole power grid in the U.S.

I guess the fact that Iran gets missiles to Hammas and Hesbola is not a concern either, They could just as easily get a nuclear warhead from Iran through the same routes that Syria gets its weapons from so you need to think more before you think that you know it all.

Welcome to ATS



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by bruxfain
 


There are so many things wrong with your post...

1. We're not talking about Iran being a threat to Iranians. We're talking about them being a threat to neighboring countries. Let me ask you, would YOU drink a glass of Kool-aid if the Ayatollah or Ahmindinajad handed it to you? Neither would anyone else in their right mind outside of his allies ("Here guys, my mom made Kool-Aid for us! You having a glass, Vladimir? How about you, Hu?")

2. Feel free to ask the people of Nagasaki or Hiroshima what one nuclear weapon can do. Now multiply that destruction by at least 20 assuming Iran builds a very low grade modern nuke. (Unless they somehow managed to get full assistance from Russia, which would be a worst case scenario indeed as the Russians built Tsar bombs that were 20,000 times more powerfull than what we hit Nagasaki with.) Now ask the good people of Tel-Aviv why they should be concerned that Iran might have "just one nuclear weapon." Don't be shocked if you get yelled at.

3. Where do you think Iran has recieved most of their information and many of their parts from to build this nuke? China helped them build their enrichment facillities and Russia has been supplying Iran with weapons and the equipment needed to develop a delivery system since the mid 90's. Russia and China will do exactly what they did when North Korea tested their nuke: "Tsk, tsk, tsk... oh well, boys will be boys!" and carry on as if nothing has happened.

4. Israel doesn't rattle their sabre too many times before acting on it. While they have become a little more barking dog-ish over the years, the fact still remains that Israel gives their enemies only so many warnings and threats before they say "Screw it" and unleash hell. They've taken a lot more crap from Iran than they would have from most anyone else purely because of two things... they have a history with Iran that predates the current mutual hatred and there are a ton of Jews living in Iran. Otherwise Iran would have been hit hard and often for all the threats and crap they've talked over the past decade.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by bruxfain
And another thing. Iran is surrounded on all sides by the NATO alliance, no missle would ever make it to Israel anyway.


Oh you think that the Patriot missile is infallible? You need to check its record. It is not as good as we hope it is but they are working on it.

The Arrow system is the only thing that may work good enough and I don't think Israel is going to take that chance. We can afford to take a few hits but they cant.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 06:28 PM
link   
I think we'll get so many looks at one of Iran's missiles that it won't make a difference, the quality of the Patriot system.

If Iran is formulating a strategic military strategy based on having one nuclear weapon, their end is near.

We have over ten thousand of them and in many shapes and sizes and they don't help you to win wars.

Telling me that the Iranians are thinking more like westerners militariliy isn't making them more frightening. Or me more concerned.

Can you not see? We have got Iran surrounded, nothing will happen in that country we don't know of. If a missile left on a 1000 mile journey to Israel, the Iranian regime would no longer exist before it reached its destination.

[edit on 24-6-2008 by bruxfain]



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by bruxfain
Can you not see? We have got Iran surrounded, nothing will happen in that country we don't know of. If a missile left on a 1000 mile journey to Israel, the Iranian regime would no longer exist before it reached its destination.

[edit on 24-6-2008 by bruxfain]


The question is not whether Iran attacks someone. Iran has shown in the past 300 years that it didnt stage any conflict, but was often the victim of aggression. There is no reason to believe any iranian weapon would be used differently than in a purely defensive manner. So what does this saber-rattling amount to ? hate- and fearmongering, and nothing else. The same propagandistic strategy was being used towards the innocent Iraqis, to justify yet another american-made genocide.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ergoli

Originally posted by bruxfain
Can you not see? We have got Iran surrounded, nothing will happen in that country we don't know of. If a missile left on a 1000 mile journey to Israel, the Iranian regime would no longer exist before it reached its destination.

[edit on 24-6-2008 by bruxfain]


The question is not whether Iran attacks someone. Iran has shown in the past 300 years that it didnt stage any conflict, but was often the victim of aggression. There is no reason to believe any iranian weapon would be used differently than in a purely defensive manner. So what does this saber-rattling amount to ? hate- and fearmongering, and nothing else. The same propagandistic strategy was being used towards the innocent Iraqis, to justify yet another american-made genocide.


Iran is also the most passive aggressive nation in world history. Iran has developed a science out of getting people to attack her, an artform out of portraying herself as being a victim of the world.

While I don't support any analysis that portrays Iran as a threat militarily, because she isn't, I also dont subscribe to the notion that Iran is peaceful. Iran is an instigator of conflict, she is sneaky, greedy and a liar. She is willing to sacrifice the lives of her children to advance her political agenda, which happens to be world conquest, and is just as responsible for the madness of this world as any other nation.

Psychologically, Iran is a woman. She is not a supportive wife, mother, sister or daughter, but a vindictive, unfaithful and sadistic dog. Part of her strategic plan is to provoke an attack from either Israel or the United States to turn world opinion to her cause. That way she can justify herself in the history as the protective mother and not as I know she is.

So when you say, "There is no reason to believe any iranian weapon would be used differently than in a purely defensive manner", you are certainly correct. Iran possesses her weapons for defensive purposes only, now all she has to do is get us to attack her. Provocation after provocation.

The only real solution to her is to finish destroying the terrorist army she most likely created and sent to Iraq, finish destroying the insurgent movements she is supporting in the levant, africa and the indian ocean, box her in on all sides, and defeat Her candidate for President at the polls in November. By the end of the year she'll wake up and realize that all of her trickery only produced a prison for herself.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 06:58 AM
link   
Man, im scratching my head at how its all of a sudden 6 months.
6 months, thats the end of this year.

Holy crap, its like saying there's definatley going to be a world altering event before this year is out.

Because Israel will hit them if America doesnt first...and neither will wait for them to get a weapon.

...I dont hold much faith that Iran WILL get them in 6 months, but its the perfect 'excuse' for Israel/America

'' Well, the IAEA said 6 months, and we cant afford to double guess that estimate ''



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 07:49 AM
link   
As usual.. more sensationalism and spin from the folks at MEMRI who brought us the famous "wiped off the map" quote.

El Baradei is saying there's nothing to worry about, we'd have at least 6 months even if the Iranians threw out the IAEA tomorrow and went full tilt at making a bomb.



ElBaradei: “It would need at least six months to one year. Therefore, Iran will not be able to reach the point where we would wake up one morning to an Iran with a nuclear weapon.




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join