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.

 

The Truth About Iran's Nuclear Program

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 


Great Post! S&F.

At this point it is highly unlikely that Iran can load a warhead onto an ICBM. However, as u posted it is not at all difficult to make an improvised device, I don't think anyone can argue this. The question of the day is if the regime has the DESIRE to have a bomb, as I believe the oppurtunity is there. This is where the msm is trying to convince the american public that the iranian regime are fanatical.

So do you think the regime has the desire to have a bomb?




posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by SharkBait
reply to post by audas
 


I would suggest you read the whole story before you comment....Here's one of my points ..

The U.S Don't buy oil from Iran .....Then you point out in your post that i said we buy from Iran. Read properly - No wonder you don't understand what i posted.

[edit on 3-8-2009 by SharkBait]

[edit on 3-8-2009 by SharkBait]


Excuser me - it is YOU who is utterly mistaken - I made reference to your reference of oil sales to America from Iran (which you claim is zero and true) - I never EVER said the US buys oil from Iran - YOU READ PROPERLY.

Further your entire assumption that the US does not currently buy oil from Iran means the have nothing to gain by going to war with the regime is profoundly ignorant - extremely ill informed and is nothing more than ignorant hubris. Allow me to back up these accusations regarding your udnerstanding of the subject -

The very basis of regime change is to put in place a government which is compliant to US interests - this means granting access to US oil companies to extract the product, or to purchase the extracted product in an economic climate which is conducive to the US - this is the entire premise of all geo-political politics and if you don't know that you have no idea......FACT.

Take a deep breath here buddy because you are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of your depth.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by SharkBait
 


Hey, don't write so much. I didn't read past the first few sentences.... You say nothing to gain? The US has nothing to gain?

Okay, we will try econimics again. supply, and demand. When Iran is hit, over 40% of the world's oil will be stopped, no going to the pump.

Besides Iran's impact on the World's supply the blockage of both the Suez Canal, and The Straight of Hormuz will cause 40% stoppage....

Which means the US is going to be heavily impacted. How about like this, when 40% is taken from 100% this leaves only 60% in the entire world.

Iran is fully ready to block both those waterways, and has stated that. They are not the aggressor, nor have they been.

Remember Deny Ignorance!



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 



Sorry but I must object to this post - there is no question that Iran has the technology that is not even in doubt - this is completely achknowledged by ALL and sundry ...

afp.google.com...

More specifically is this article ---

www.timesonline.co.uk...

THE POINT has always been that the west has claimed that they are enriching Uranium to build the said bomb - and that they would be able to deploy it by 2010 - 2015 remember it is not the technology that takes the time - it is the enrichment process which requires Uranium to be spun to move the heaviest compounds to the extremities for extraction - hence Ritters comments of contamination which cause it too explode -

The Iranians have always claimed that they have no interest in spinning uranium to weapons grade, the inspectors agree, however the west has imposed sanctions based on a complete cessation of enrichment which is profoundly unfair and basically illegal as they have every right to do so.

I would also like to point out that the Syrians are no where near where Iraq was and are a considerably more advanced society than you make out - albeit not Iran - but not Iraq....

[edit on 3-8-2009 by audas]



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by audas

Originally posted by SharkBait
reply to post by audas
 


I would suggest you read the whole story before you comment....Here's one of my points ..

The U.S Don't buy oil from Iran .....Then you point out in your post that i said we buy from Iran. Read properly - No wonder you don't understand what i posted.

[edit on 3-8-2009 by SharkBait]

[edit on 3-8-2009 by SharkBait]


Excuser me - it is YOU who is utterly mistaken - I made reference to your reference of oil sales to America from Iran (which you claim is zero and true) - I never EVER said the US buys oil from Iran - YOU READ PROPERLY.

Further your entire assumption that the US does not currently buy oil from Iran means the have nothing to gain by going to war with the regime is profoundly ignorant - extremely ill informed and is nothing more than ignorant hubris. Allow me to back up these accusations regarding your udnerstanding of the subject -

The very basis of regime change is to put in place a government which is compliant to US interests - this means granting access to US oil companies to extract the product, or to purchase the extracted product in an economic climate which is conducive to the US - this is the entire premise of all geo-political politics and if you don't know that you have no idea......FACT.

Take a deep breath here buddy because you are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of your depth.




Can you explain why the Chinese and other foreign investors also got a chunk of Iraqi oil that has been sold so far if the Iraq war was for oil as it's main purpose? If you cannot prove previous wars for oil, then you're just spouting the same nonsense.

It's amusing how you arrogantly declare somebody else wrong, and you make such a blunder in your own analysis. You did that on some other thread - providing mountain after mountain of conjecture without any real evidence, and rudely accused of "not knowing the truth", whilst ignoring any evidence put forward by others whether anecdotal or actual proof, just because it contradicts your own conjecture.

And that's hardly an educated or intelligent method of argument or discussion!


[edit on 3-8-2009 by john124]



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by audas
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 



Sorry but I must object to this post - there is no question that Iran has the technology that is not even in doubt - this is completely achknowledged by ALL and sundry ...


Iran has a space programme, rockets, developed its own jet-fighters and tanks. And the UN did inspect certain areas of certain enrichment facilities. They have the scientists and have had the time to develop the technology to build a nuke.


THE POINT has always been that the west has claimed that they are enriching Uranium to build the said bomb - and that they would be able to deploy it by 2010 - 2015 remember it is not the technology that takes the time - it is the enrichment process which requires Uranium to be spun to move the heaviest compounds to the extremities for extraction - hence Ritters comments of contamination which cause it too explode -

The Iranians have always claimed that they have no interest in spinning uranium to weapons grade, the inspectors agree, however the west has imposed sanctions based on a complete cessation of enrichment which is profoundly unfair and basically illegal as they have every right to do so.


Of course the regime wouldn't tell us they were enriching to weapons grade, that would be silly to assume they would! They can't even tell the truth about what colour socks they are wearing. The inspectors did not inspect every plant, therefore their analysis was incomplete and based on incomplete data.

If the western governments are so mighty and powerful as the proponents of evil west going after oil often say, then why couldn't they just persuade the UN inspectors to lie for them!!?

It's not illegal to prevent an illegal Islamic extremist regime from attaining a nuclear weapon, who beats & murders it's own people for protesting on the streets.

I don't even need to go into detail about the threat to Israel, as it's not even needed if you understand & acknowledge the brutality of this regime towards its own people for over 30 years.


I would also like to point out that the Syrians are no where near where Iraq was and are a considerably more advanced society than you make out - albeit not Iran - but not Iraq....


Irrelevant, as Iran has the capability, which has already been demonstrated. And Iranian culture is much more advanced than any other middle eastern country, despite the regime oppression.

Please note you said this on a different thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


I have just completed a masters dissertation which included operations of the secret intelligence operations of the united states and united kingdom


How was your dissertation??? I hope you used a better standard of english than you do on ATS. Note: "no where" is supposed to be "nowhere". I don't think that's a typo, as to press a spacebar would take longer to type. Therefore you did your dissertation in a foreign language or you reek of uneducatedness. Which one is more likely!? Your use of phrases indicates American as my guess!

Oh, and you also said this:


this is an opportunity to educate yourself without being thoroughlyand publicly embarrassed....


That was quite funny, as you were only embarrassing yourself as you are on here by ridiculously discrediting other whilst only providing conjecture for your own case, which was against solid evidence, and also some anecdotal, but was accepted to be only anecdotal. And when the anecdotal agrees with the evidence that constitutes as close to proof as we have on here at this moment in time. Unless we can send a team of scientists to Iran to do some rigorous scientific research for us.

[edit on 4-8-2009 by john124]



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by sanchoearlyjones
 



Wow this is just full of misinformation its hard to know where to start so ill start with the easy stuff.The forth fleet was newly reactivated June 15th 2008 its based out of Mayport US Naval Station in Florida.Personally cant think of a reason we don't have a naval fleet in the gulf of Mexico only makes sense. Now There are zero permanently assigned ships in the Fourth Fleet, nor is there any intention of permanently basing ships in the region. The Fourth Fleet headquarters has no permanent deployable forces.

Whats there job you ask coordinating allies in the region and helping with drug intra-dictions. So i guess there goes that now your supposed bomber bases in Venezuela and Cuba there is no Russian strategic bombers based in either country. Venezuela offered the Russians this option but they declined. They did let the threat linger since they were in conflict in Georgia(not the state you worry me) trying to make sure the united states didn't interfere but thats another story.

So in the future when you try to spout off how much you know and tout your superior knowledge and want to call other people ignorant might want to check to see if your not the fool!



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 01:16 AM
link   
U.S. companies are banned from the oil and gas business in Iran. And you know that's gotta hurt, considering the huge potential profits they are missing out on by not being able to develop in one of the world's top oil reserves.

And while the US does not directly import oil from Iran, the last time there was a major disruption to Iran's exports, it led to gas lines miles long in the US. So yes, you can bet there is considerable interest and pressure from Big Oil to get a grip on this situation. After all, it represents the top two favorite New World Order must haves: profits and control.

But using Iran's non-existent nuclear weapons program as a fake means to an end is getting old. They just don't have the public support they need for the invasion, and especially when you have people like Ritter and ElBaradei running around debunking all their attempts to sell the public on the propaganda.

Me thinks they are going to need to come up with something else to get their way. Something like a new Gulf of Tonkin incident in the Persian Gulf might do it. I am far more suspicious at this point of the US planning some crazy scheme like this to "justify" attacking Iran than I am of Iran's intent or capabilities to build nuclear weapons.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 04:59 AM
link   
reply to post by audas
 

It is not exactly propaganda, I think Iran would benefit from a nuclear capability and they know it. They have Israel on their ass so they need a deterrent. They know a nuclear weapon, whether they have it or others just think they do, is invaluble...
Its kind of like saying Im buying a gun is it to kill people? No, but the thought crosses your mind, if someone assaulted you with a weapon in your home, well...

I think for them it is mostly intimidation effects. But the possibility Im sure is in the back of their minds. I think they probably do want the reactors for electricity, but I do not think they would be afraid to use a nuke if desperate. The worst things are always done in defense...



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 


That was a nice post Agit and I hear you loud and clear.
I know we cannot be certain, and the possibilities exist they may have a crude device like you say.

But that "crude" device still requires a mastering of the nuclear fuel cycle, and all indications from more than one source, including Ritter, the IAEA, and the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, are that they have not even begun work on this yet- despite their considerable progress in the fields you mention.

Another consideration is Iran's potential reaction to the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT), which has been in the works now for years. Smaller countries and non-nuclear states tend to want drastic nuclear weapons cuts from the US and Russia as part of the treaty, while larger countries and nuclear states seemed to be more concerned with verification and associated costs of verification. These concerns vary from country to country, and so far I have not seen a comment from Iran on this issue- maybe because Iran has not produced any yet?

Note that even if they have, there are other uses for fissile material such as research reactors and nuclear-powered submarines.

A good read for anyone interested in these issues is a recommendation list to the Obama administration from this center, compiled by many experts and agencies:

Strengthening U.S. Security Through Non-Proliferation and Arms Control: Recommendations for the Obama Administration
www.armscontrolcenter.org...

Factsheet on the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT)
www.armscontrolcenter.org...



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   
How does Reuters get away with this?


The Islamic Republic is at odds with major powers which suspect it is secretly pursuing nuclear weapons capability.

It denies this, saying it is refining uranium only for electricity so it can export more oil, though it has no nuclear power plants to use the low-enriched material it is stockpiling.


in.reuters.com...

That portion in bold is a flat out, 100% LIE. LIE LIE LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Russia: Bushehr power plant operational in 2009
Thu, 23 Jul 2009 07:32:19 GMT
Russian atomic agency chief Sergei Kiriyenko says that Iran's first nuclear power plant in the southern city of Bushehr would be switched on by the end of this year.

"Plans remain for a start-up of the reactor near the Iranian city of Bushehr by the end of the year," Russia's state-run RIA-Novosti and ITAR-Tass quoted Kiriyenko as saying on Wednesday.

The Bushehr plant, which is situated near the Persian Gulf, is Iran's first nuclear power generation facility.

The nuclear power plant, which was built in a joint project with Moscow, is under the surveillance of its Russian fuel suppliers and inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

The plant will run on Russian fuel, which is delivered to Iran in containers sealed and inspected by the United Nations nuclear watchdog.


www.presstv.ir...

Every fricken news editor at Reuters knows quite well that the Bushehr nuclear power plant has been in existence for years and years. It was scheduled to be operational on August 22, 2009 as a matter of fact:


The Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant (Persian نیروگاه اتمی بوشهر) is located 17 kilometres (11 mi) south-east of the city of Bushehr, between the fishing villages of Halileh and Bandargeh along the Persian Gulf. Construction started in 1975 by Kraftwerk Union AG, but was halted in July 1979 following the 1979 Iranian Revolution.[4] The reactor was damaged by Iraqi air strikes during the Iran-Iraq war in the mid-1980s. Construction resumed in 1995, when Iran signed a contract with Russian company Atomstroiexport to install into the existing Bushehr I building a 915 MWe VVER-1000 pressurized water reactor.[5][6] In December 2007 Russia started delivering nuclear fuel to the Bushehr nuclear power plant.[7] The construction was completed in March 2009.[8] The plant is planned to begin production by 22 August 2009, and would be brought up to full capacity by the end of March 2010.[9]


en.wikipedia.org...

For now it is the reason that Iran has been enriching uranium, only to a low level, and not to weapons grade level.


Iran wants to be able to export more oil, and they can do this by reducing internal consumption with the aid of nuclear power plants. But with Israel breathing down its neck, closely followed by the Big Oil agenda driven US, this has been near impossible. There have also been other technical setbacks.

At this point it is unclear whether Bushehr will go online this year, but all indications are that it will. Who knows, it may already be operational, but I couldn't blame Iran if they were being very careful about releasing the news that it is operational, for fear of unjustified international outcry.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Intelligence Agencies Say No New Nukes in Iran
Secret updates to White House challenge European and Israeli assessments.

Sep 16, 2009
By Mark Hosenball | Newsweek Web Exclusive


The U.S. intelligence community is reporting to the White House that Iran has not restarted its nuclear-weapons development program, two counterproliferation officials tell NEWSWEEK. U.S. agencies had previously said that Tehran halted the program in 2003.

The officials, who asked for anonymity when discussing sensitive information, said that U.S. intelligence agencies have informed policymakers at the White House and other agencies that the status of Iranian work on development and production of a nuclear bomb has not changed since the formal National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran's "Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities" in November 2007. Public portions of that report stated that U.S. intelligence agencies had "high confidence" that, as of early 2003, Iranian military units were pursuing development of a nuclear bomb, but that in the fall of that year Iran "halted its nuclear weapons program." The document said that while U.S. agencies believed the Iranian government "at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons," U.S. intelligence as of mid-2007 still had "moderate confidence" that it had not restarted weapons-development efforts.


www.newsweek.com...

Don't be fooled. Iran ain't done jack!



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Here, have another thread, ATS, on Iran's nuclear program. I mean we must combat this non-stop stream of never ending BS coming from those that are jumping on the attack Iran over nothing bandwagon.




top topics



 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join