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.

 

It was Uncle Sam who first gave Iran nuclear equipment

page: 1
20
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   

It was Uncle Sam who first gave Iran nuclear equipment



news


Washington – For all the recent uproar over Iran's nuclear program, little attention has been paid to the fact that the country which first provided Tehran with nuclear equipment was the United States.

In 1967, under the "Atoms for Peace" program launched by President Eisenhower, the US sold the Shah of Iran's government a 5-megawatt, light-water type research reactor. This small dome-shaped structure, located in the Tehran suburbs, was the foundation of Iran's nuclear program. It remains at the center of the controversy over Iranian intentions, even today.
(visit the link for the full news article)


[edit on 4-10-2009 by GoldenFleece]




posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Surprise, surprise. Just like Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction", it's always the U.S. who furnishes biological, chemical and nuclear weapons to anyone and everyone, then later claims to be threatened by the same weapons that it sold.

Just another example of the Hegelian Dialectic -- problem/reaction/solution.

news
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Wasn't it also the US that helped North Korea get there nuclear reactors as well ?

Please correct me if I am wrong .



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


S&F for this, great post.


It's exactly as Noam Chomsky says in 'What we say goes'.. He lays it all out exactly as it happened..

It sure shows the historical amnesia of the public, and cynical nature of governments all beating the war drums towards Iran..

It really boggles me that so few people know about this.. Stupid media..



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by purehughness
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 

S&F for this, great post.


It really boggles me that so few people know about this.. Stupid media..

Thank you. While I totally agree with you about the worthless corporate-controlled media, in this case I have to give credit where credit is due to the Christian Science Monitor.

Now if only someone in the MSM would investigate government complicity in 9/11.

Maybe in 20-30 years...

BTW, this is the correct link to the article.


[edit on 4-10-2009 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Sounds about right.

It was also the US that sold weapons to Iran in exchange for hostages. Knifing our good buddy at the time in the back, oh what was that guy's name again? It's on the tip of my fingers, Detroit gave him the key to the city, oh it is right there.

Oh yea Saddam Hussein.

Funny how relationships change.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Yup.. and we gave them military hardware such as F-14s and we were going to give them four Spruance Class destroyers built close to the original design spec (before the US Congress had the design pared back to cut costs on the ones we built for ourselves)

But then... a certain US President decided that supporting an ally was not a good idea, and Iran fell to the radical Muslims.


Thank you Jimmy [the bone head] Carter.









[edit on 4-10-2009 by RoofMonkey]



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by RoofMonkey
 


Exactly...

When was that again....?

Ummm. it's on the tip of my tongue.

Wait it's coming...

Oh in the middle of the cold war about a million years ago which has nothing really to do with the present situation other than to take jabs at the US



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Speaking of how relationships change, who was that guy that the CIA backed in Afghanistan in the 1980's, to fight the Soviets? And they gave him weapons and trained his men? Osama bin Laden.

Coincidentally, Bush's first business partners in the oil business were... the Saudi Bin Laden family.


It's almost comical how we turn to making out all these people to be "bad guys" after we put so much effort into aiding them with the very things we complain about now.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by The-Hammer
Oh in the middle of the cold war about a million years ago


Lmao, a million years ago?

Have you never seen Donald Rumsfeld shaking Hussein's hand? It's the exact same people involved with all this crap. Barely a single generation's difference. Try about 20-30 years ago. War makes money. The military decides our foreign policy. And you actually are ignorant enough to defend them for it.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Speaking of how relationships change, who was that guy that the CIA backed in Afghanistan in the 1980's, to fight the Soviets? And they gave him weapons and trained his men? Osama bin Laden.

I believe his CIA name was "Tim Osman."


Originally posted by bsbray11
It's almost comical how we turn to making out all these people to be "bad guys" after we put so much effort into aiding them with the very things we complain about now.

Yep, almost comical -- if these friends-turned-foe situations didn't always turn into trillion-dollar wars.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 



In 1967, under the "Atoms for Peace" program launched by President Eisenhower, the US sold the Shah of Iran's government a 5-megawatt, light-water type research reactor.


I have a question.
Excuse my ignorance, but is this reactor capable of creating weapons grade fuel? I'm no atomic scientist. So please again excuse my ignorance.

Thanks

Slay



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 

I honestly don't know. But the next two lines are pertinent:


This small dome-shaped structure, located in the Tehran suburbs, was the foundation of Iran's nuclear program. It remains at the center of the controversy over Iranian intentions, even today.





[edit on 4-10-2009 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 



The Shah of Iran was a US ally. But even so, the US had qualms about providing him with nuclear technology. The worries were very like those of today: officials thought it possible that Iran would build on nuclear power programs to develop nuclear weapons technology.

A 1974 Defense Department memorandum, recently declassified and posted on-line by the National Security Archive, noted that stability in Iran depended heavily on the Shah's personality. Should he fall, "domestic dissidents or foreign terrorists might easily be able to seize any special nuclear materials stored in Iran for use in bombs".


I personally have no issues with Iran having nuclear energy. I understand the subtleties of the situation with Israel and all that but...

If Israels greatest fear is a nuclear armed Iran becuase of religious fanatics. Why didn't the "Fanatics" create a dirty bomb then or now? It seems to me we are overlooking the obvious here. Iran could have easily attacked Israel with a dirty bomb already.

A dirty bomb would have been more effective than blasting the place to bits.

Just an observation.

I would like to see the whole region Nuclear weapons free.




[edit on 4-10-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Not without further processing...




The use of ordinary water makes it necessary to do a certain amount of enrichment of the uranium fuel before the necessary criticality of the reactor can be maintained. The light water reactor uses uranium 235 as a fuel, enriched to approximately 3 percent. Although this is its major fuel, the uranium 238 atoms also contribute to the fission process by converting to plutonium 239; about one-half of which is consumed in the reactor. Light-water reactors are generally refueled every 12 to 18 months, at which time, about 25 percent of the fuel is replaced.



en.wikipedia.org...

The remaining plutonium 239 that doesn't react could be extracted from the waste pellets and later used to make a reaction mass for a weapon.

en.wikipedia.org...





[edit on 4-10-2009 by RoofMonkey]



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 



I have a question.
Excuse my ignorance, but is this reactor capable of creating weapons grade fuel? I'm no atomic scientist. So please again excuse my ignorance.


No it isn't.

To the poster who took the cheap shot at Jimmy Carter (there are plenty of legit things to take shots at Carter over, lol) the sale or lack of sale of navy ships to the Shah had nothing to do with the Iranian revolution, which had been festering long before Carter came into office. It's a good thing we didn't make that sale, that would be more weapons in the hands of the Mullahs. I figure his advisers and CIA intelligence told him something was up and not to continue and weapons programs with Iran.

Off topic, but don't forget too, that Iraq launched a missile strike against the USS Sims in the 1980s, killing 30 sailors. No reprimands, of course as we were supporting them in their war against Iran.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
I would like to see the whole region Nuclear weapons free.


So does that mean we should start by dismantling the nuclear weapons that everybody already knows Israel has?



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


India, Pakistan, Iran and Israel.
Hell the whole planet for that matter.
There is no honor in atomizing somebody.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


Actually... we did make that sale. The lead ship was launched and in final fit-out / sea trials when the overthrow occurred.

USS Kidd - August 11, 1979
USS Callaghan - 1 December 1979
USS Scott - March 1, 1980
USS Chandler - 28 June 1980

Just think how it would have worked out if they had waited a year. The Kidd class DDG was far more advanced that the normal Spruance that it was derived from.

(BTW - they belong to Taiwan now)

As for Carter, he was the most prolific klutz we have elected.. sans Obama

And yes, you are correct... it was festering. And where was the Ayatollah holed up until it all erupted?

France.

Now there is an ally you can count on.





[edit on 4-10-2009 by RoofMonkey]



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Very true , there is no honer in it but it does at times serve a goal .

Just another chip in the great game .



new topics

top topics



 
20
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join