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 'has atomic bomb capability'

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Iran 'has atomic bomb capability'


GHANA MMA.com

The UN's nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, says Iran has amassed more than 1,300kg of uranium - well over the amount needed to make a single atomic bomb.

Iran has ignored UN resolutions ordering it to stop enriching uranium, saying its programme is peaceful.

In a separate report about Syria, the IAEA says particles of manmade uranium have been found at a research reactor in the capital, Damascus.
(visit the link for the full news article)

If you are just joining the thread,my apologese for the BBC having removed the first article from there site.
The headline was exactly as above and not written the same as what they have replaced it with.

[edit on 5/6/09 by gallifreyan medic]

[edit on 5/6/2009 by Mirthful Me]

[edit on 5/6/09 by gallifreyan medic]



[Mod Edit - Replaced source link as requested by the OP]

[edit on 6/6/2009 by Sauron]




posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   
So Iran now has nuclear bomb capability.

Do you think that there should be a worry over this?
Personally I dont.
Iran despite from what the media puts out for us to believe,are progressing and growing on the right path to becoming a stable nation.
Unlike the situation we in the west are going through which is regressing.
I would like to hear your views of why and why not to worry.


GHANA MMA.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 5/6/09 by gallifreyan medic]


[edit on 5/6/2009 by Mirthful Me]




[Mod Edit - Replaced source link as requested by the OP]

[edit on 6/6/2009 by Sauron]



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by gallifreyan medic
 

I wouldn't get worried. Now when there is a test of a nuclear weapon by Iran I would be worried but just having uranium is nothing to be worried about. Just more fear mongering to gain approval for an attack on Iran IMO.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ShAuNmAn-X
 


I totally agree.
What has been seen with the North Korea situation,with all the headlines that
came out.We will see the same with Iran.

Here in the west,our leaders have become to arrogant in there thinking of' that
they have to police the world.
Countries can develop at a natural rate,sometimes by regressing or progressing with the wanted help of other nations.It should not be done by the way the west
thinks it should be.
The known and sad fact that we do interfere is becuse of what can be gained better word would be pilliged from it.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by gallifreyan medic
 

I agree with you 100% the only reason we haven't attacked NK is because it won't benefit us. Occupying Iran would be lucrative because of a three letter word that rhymes with foil.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ShAuNmAn-X
 


Iran won't test any nuclear weapons. That would pretty much shoot down their deniability, wouldn't it? While this report is far from conclusive, if the uranium is highly-enriched, rather than low as reported, it is WELL over the amount needed for a nuclear bomb.

So the world sits and watches and waits for them to transfer the completed weapon to a mule route that does what it does best.

I disagree with you both; I think as long as the world has the current administration in Iran, they are very dangerous, however not in the classic sense of world expansion, but in the sense of starting out the incredibly high-charged powder keg that is the Middle East.

Could we hear any worse news? yes, I suppose so. We could hear that Israel has had enough of do-nothing sanctions and that they've elected to level the place. That, also, would set off the incredible tensions that are everpresent in the Middle East, as well as the rest of the globe.

So, Iran -- if this story is vetted and truthful -- has won. They played the cat-and-mouse game to perfection. Russia supplied the nuclear material for their "peaceful energy" endeavors, and the world said, "oh, gee, let's let them be, they just want nuclear energy." All the while, we read stories wherein there are FAR more than the 5,000 centrifuges listed in this story -- upward of 13,000 reported at one point, as referenced by their own President.

So congratulations world. You let it happen. All in the name of peace.

I will continue to hope and pray that the current President is voted out, and that that makes a difference. It wouldn't give me an atom of pleasure to say "I told you so." I hope it is you two -- two years from now -- saying that to me.

Let it be so written. Selah.


+1 more 
posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   
I bet North Korea tested Iran's bomb



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by gallifreyan medic
So Iran now has nuclear bomb capability.

Do you think that there should be a worry over this?
Personally I dont.

I would like to hear your views of why and why not to worry.




So I assume you also have no problems with allowing British citizens to freely own handguns again?

After all, if you're comfortable with allowing a state who supports terrorism access to nuclear weapons, why would you be concerned if a little old lady has a .38 with which to defend herself.

Just trying to see if you're consistent.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by gallifreyan medic
 


I sure do. North Korea has nukes? Doesn't bother me. Iran has nukes? That very much scares me. If religious fanatics were not in charge, that would be fine.. But I fully believe they would use it, thinking they were fulfilling some sort of prophecy.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Retseh
 




So I assume you also have no problems with allowing British citizens to freely own handguns again?


I have seen quite a few similar statements on ATS recently, but no one has answered my question yet.

When did the British give up their guns?

I don't think we ever had them in the first place.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Miraj
 


But couldn't the same thing be said about Israel?

1. Their whole nation is based on a religion
2. They have nuclear weapons
3. They have define numerous UN treaties



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by argentus
 


Yes we know what nuclear weapons can do.
Forget all the western BS of we are better than them and that they only want to develop them to use against us.

There are many countries in this world now that have nukes,its clear that another country would have the thinking of wanting the same as a defense.

Do people not realize,as we view other nations,they can and do view us the same way.Especially against counties who try to dictate how they should
be.
It doesn't take that much to have common sense tell you that a country would want to have a defense that matches that of others?Right?
So loose the westernized ego then.

It still amazes me that we in the west think we are more civilized when we
do not even use our own individual thinking.

Try it.Try to find the start of what gives you the view you have and what still feeds that view.
Be prepared and accepting and you'll be able to start being you as you were born to be.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   
If Iran or North Korea Atomic Weapon propaganda really accelerate , then it might be time to worry. It might mean the same forces that instigated 9/11 are about to nuke a city and blame it on them.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Hellmutt
 


Maybe they did.
No different than when the the US tested nukes for other countries.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Firstly you're supposed to title your news thread with the same title as the article being referenced.


You must use the original story headline from your source. If the headline is biased or otherwise inapporpriate, explain why you think it is so in your submission comments.


Source

In your case the source article is entitled 'Uranium found at second Syria site - IAEA '.

Nowhere in the article does it state that Iran has nuclear capability. The closest it comes is:


David Albright of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security think-tank has said that Iran now had enough LEU to convert into high-enriched uranium (HEU) to make one atomic bomb.

However, he said Iran would need to overcome some technical hurdles to achieve this - a process that could take several years or more.


The headline and distorted context drawn seem overly alarmist in my view.

edited for clarity

[edit on 5-6-2009 by Chris McGee]



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Retseh
 


That is the worst analogy I have ever seen.

A star for you for the good laugh I had.

Isn't a terrorist someone who causes deaths while trying to impose there view?
Like the conflicts that my country and the US has had over the last few years
using one form of terrorism against another.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by gallifreyan medic
 


Please, in the future, spare me the lecture. You're making huge assumptions about my background, world experience, and cultural influences. Trying to talk down to me really doesn't further your argument.

I think you exhibit more than a smattering of "western ego". I wonder if you even know what you mean.

It's real simple for me, and yes, I am pragmatic about it: In a world sense, any nation has the right to defend itself, and develop the toys that others have. Except whom? Except those that make public blatant statements about world domination and executing those that don't worship the same diety, live the same way.

Certainly, Gallifreyan, there have been all manner of inconsistencies and horrors perpetrated by the U.S., Israel, and allied nations. I don't recall any of them, however pledging to execute or otherwise destroy others based solely on their difference of religion.

So, yes, I'm apparently an infidel, and one with Western ego -- an ego that says I'm officially against anyone who wants to backshoot me or mine -- in actually or metaphorically.

The real and true shame of all of it is the Iranian people, who are held hostage to the violent aspirations of their leadership. They are the real victims.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by gallifreyan medic

Iran 'has atomic bomb capability'


news.bbc.co.uk

The UN's nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, says Iran has amassed more than 1,300kg of uranium - well over the amount needed to make a single atomic bomb.

Iran has ignored UN resolutions ordering it to stop enriching uranium, saying its programme is peaceful.

In a separate report about Syria, the IAEA says particles of manmade uranium have been found at a research reactor in the capital, Damascus.
(visit the link for the full news article)

I visited the link and found it was written somewhat different that than the quote supplied


To be honest, the way it looks like this story is being posted is to put the idea into peoples heads that Iran is a threat again while trying to play the role of supporting them.

looks like half truths trying to paint a picture that isn't really there



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Miraj
 


I have used my own mind to see what is with Iran.
Iranian leaders of past have been a worry,what I have seen with the present leader is someone who is trying to develop and advance the progress of the country.
He has been willing to sit at the table so to speak,but has been rebuked.We have been constantly feed a view that hasn't always been what is.

I really wish people would actually follow what goes on,instead of just jumping on the band wagon of BS.
I watch the US news and I can not believe it when I see you're being told something totally different than what is in UK news.
The UK news is starting to steer to the same way unfortunately.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Chris McGee
 


It was the exact headline at the time of posting. BBC has since changed it, but it was the correct headline and quote. I saw it when it was posted.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join