Arab media: 2 Israeli Navy ships passed through Suez Canal

page: 6
41
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Caetano
 
The US will not take any part in an attack of Iran. Granted they are in southern Afghanistan in force. If anything, it is a nod and a wink for Israel to do the deed on their tod. Overall, any attack from any source is stupid, and would have consequences.




posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   
this news is from LAST SUMMER! these noats are probably home already, so whats the big drama?ww3 is not staring in feb, so just chill out.

I swear afetr missing out on the start of the last TWO world wars all the americans are just getting a tad over excited over the prospect of ww3.

jokes aside, be mindful that by joining in the beat of the drums of war you may be making it happen?

i dont know what the publics opinion of war with iran is in the usa.but im seeing a lot of pro war comments coming out.

seriously whats wrong with letting them have the bomb?

all of the "bad guys" already have the bomb, and guess what? the "good guys" (usa) are the only ones that have used the bomb!

live and let live



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Rentor
 


How many hundreds of Patriot & other missile interception systems are there protecting Israel etc?

I wouldn't be that worried if Iran said it had "a bomb" like Little Boy!



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by hans kammler
 
Hi Hans,
The Ynet report says 06/02/2010, there were unconfirmed reports of other Israeli boats last summer, however. Is that what you mean.



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by antonia
 


Are you saying that the article in the OP is from the summer time? That's not true, it's from yesterday, February 6, 2010. The only time it mentions Israeli ships and the summer is from this sentence here:


According to the reports, one Israeli missile boat already passed through the Suez Canal in June and July of last year. In one case, the Israeli ship was said to have been accompanied by an Israeli submarine.


So last summer, one Israeli missile boat (and a submarine according to some reports) passed through the Suez canal. But the other day two more Israeli ships passed through the Suez Canal, bringing the total of Israeli ships that will possibly be in the Persian Gulf to four.


No, I said the article itself states a similar event occurred during summertime. As for the total amount of ships you are assuming the ones that went to the area during summertime stayed but you have no proof of that.

[edit on 7-2-2010 by antonia]



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by seism
 


Does Egypt own / control the Suez Canal?

Do they have the right to say who an use it?

Sorry if dumb question, just thought it was a free for all shipping lane!



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


ah ok, if the ships went throuh the other day then i stand corrected.

but they went through last year and no war, and im betting they will be through next year too.



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by minkey53
reply to post by seism
 


Does Egypt own / control the Suez Canal?

Do they have the right to say who an use it?

Sorry if dumb question, just thought it was a free for all shipping lane!


Nothing is a free for all shipping lane my friend
.

Yeah, since it's in their territory I do believe they share it with Iran directly along with a few other countries, but they have primary access through Egypt.

I think anyway...

~Keeper



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rentor
Like as I stated on page 3 on the thread. Iran president gave the okay to enrich the uranium to 20%. That's enough uranium to make a nuclear bomb the size of little boy. It would take three to four weeks to enrich it to 20%.

EDIT TO ADD Little boy killed over 140,000, when it was dropped. Small nuclear arm is still very deadly.

[edit on 7-2-2010 by Rentor]


If I am correct aren't you talking about the Little Boy which was created in 1945?


The core of Little Boy contained 64 kg of uranium, of which 50 kg was enriched to 89%, and the remaining 14 kg at 50%. With enrichment averaging 80%, it could reach about 2.5 critical masses. "Fat Man" and the Trinity "gadget", by way of comparison, had five critical masses.

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 7-2-2010 by December_Rain]



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by hans kammler
reply to post by smurfy
 


ah ok, if the ships went throuh the other day then i stand corrected.

but they went through last year and no war, and im betting they will be through next year too.

I hope so too Hans, but this huge NATO force now in Southern Afghanistan could be seen as a wedge between Iran and Afghanistan, leaving Iran isolated and exposed, and at the same time stopping Irans supplies to Afghanistan, and thereby leaving the Taliban also exposed, and bereft of supplies. I imagine the Pakistan supply line is by now pretty much closed also. So, if the Israelis wanted to do something, now would be the time. It's all stupid stuff,but, it seems, this the way the Dr Strangelove military types think.

[edit on 7-2-2010 by smurfy]



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by December_Rain
 


It was a mistake on my behalf...thanks for pointing it out. I rather be wrong then right in this case


[edit on 7-2-2010 by Rentor]



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Israel Versus Iran



It's all coming together.. once this starts, you had better hold on, because this will be like nothing the world has ever experienced in recorded human history.

www.ynetnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


And the award for most dramatic post on ATS goes to....

Really? You mean this could be bigger than the 20 million + that Stalin exterminated? Bigger than the 300,000 that were raped and butchered in Nanking? Bigger than Bush being elected twice?

IF war does break out here, it'll be a mess but please, don't expect mass populations being wiped out. I'd say a few missiles here and there. Nothing new.



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rentor
Iran ups enrichment to 20%

Do you know it only takes 20% enrichment to make a usable nuclear weapon. The Israeli ship movements come after as Iran president stated this. I take back what i said earlier...something is gonna happen...so thats why Israel and U.S. been putting important weapon assets everywhere.

Enriched uranium only needs to be 20% to make a small nuclear weapon.


Actually the article states:

Low-enriched uranium (LEU)

Low-enriched uranium' (LEU) has a lower than 20% concentration of 235U. For use in commercial light water reactors (LWR), the most prevalent power reactors in the world, uranium is enriched to 3 to 5% 235U. Fresh LEU used in research reactors is usually enriched 12% to 19.75% U-235, the latter concentration being used to replace HEU fuels when converting to LEU.


Nuclear weapon require enrichment of 80% or more


Highly enriched uranium (HEU)
A billet of highly enriched uranium metal

Highly enriched uranium (HEU) has a greater than 20% concentration of 235U or 233U.

The fissile uranium in nuclear weapons usually contains 85% or more of 235U known as weapon(s)-grade, though for a crude, inefficient weapon 20% is sufficient (called weapon(s)-usable); some argue that even less is sufficient, but then the critical mass for unmoderated fast neutrons rapidly increases, reaching infinity at 6%235U.


So you are saying Iran will opt for an inefficient crude weapon (with 20% enrichment) instead of effective weapon (with 80% enrichment) ?

[edit on 7-2-2010 by December_Rain]



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
reply to post by Israel Versus Iran
 



For starters Iran has the capability to shut down the strait of Hormuz, which 20% of the worlds daily oil supply travels through, also the Iranian Revolutionary guards are a far more formidable force than was Saddam Husseins army.


Problems with this:

1. Iran can never match our Naval might, not by .001 percent. We can and we would clear the strait anytime we wish too

2. And as for the Rev Guards? At the time of the Iraq War, the same thing was said about Saddam's personal guard. You remember them? The ones that gave up when they first saw us?

I'm sorry, but as far as military might and tech goes, Iran would simple be a fly in our ointment in full on combat. Now the aftermath could be another story like in Iraq now.

Also understand I am NOT advocating any of this, nor do I particularly support any conflict with Iran, I am simply talking logistics here. Hope you understand..

Thanks

Semper


The thing that you're not understanding is that Iran can easily - and truly - use WMDs on Israel, and they will. Consider it a complete loss if Iran decides to nuke Tel Aviv.

The other thing you're not understanding is that Iran is NOT Iraq. Iran is a much, much larger country. It will be extremely difficult - if not impossible - for the Americans and their good friends the Israelis to cover that whole country, while their military is already strained to the limit fighting two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the U.S. economy is on is knees begging for a respite.

Also, Iranians are Persians, not Arabs. Persians have proven themselves historically in battle to be extremely resilient and tough. Iran will not be the pushover you seem to think they are.

Watch and learn.



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by December_Rain
 


How effective would a 20% enrichment then
wouldn't it be good have some kinda effective weapon compare to none?



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by JRCrowley
 
Hi JR,
Iran itself is becoming more and more unstable, its government is under internal pressure by the people themselves. All the sabre rattling by the Iran government against Israel or whoever is not stopping the street protests like this, (this one is about money for instance)

www.payvand.com...

And because of all the sabre rattling, If Iran was attacked and probably not by the US, My guess is that the whole government, and fundamentalist ideals would be overthrown by the people themselves. They have had enough.



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Why can't we all just...get along? And admit that ancient texts dating back to 2,000 years ago are mythology. Then instead of arguing over these foolish ancient religions, we'd be inspired to seek out a new religion to give meaning to our existence in this densely populated universe.



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   
The Suez Canal is under total control of the Egyptian government. In terms of warships, it has been the policy of Egypt to be neutral in this respect allowing use by all that pay the fee. (With the obvious caveats, and exceptions) but saying this I agree with you that Egypt was sending a message to Iran. I also think they were sending a message to Israel letting it know that at least for now it did not have to worry to much about it southern border. Many Middle East nations are terrified of a nuclear armed Iran, knowing they can do nothing of substance to stop it.
This is one reason I feel that we in the U.S. have shamed ourselves. The U.S. regardless of the slant you may put on it, has been a force for good in the world. As such we should be willing to stand up and do what we should have done long ago, and take out Iran’s nuclear facilities, knowing full well that our failing to do so would force Israel to respond and bring with it the large scale war and destruction that will proceed from that strike. While a strike by the U.S. would cause a response from Syria, Lebanon, (by that implying Hezbollah) all puppet regimes of Iran, it would give the other Arab nations cover for coming out against attacks on Israel in retaliation as a tit for tat for us taking out this threat.
I fear that once again we have come to a decisive point in history. Points that come to all nations, that time when we must either put up or shut up. Yes we will take wounds for these actions, maybe even serious wounds, but the alternative is far worse in the long run. Alas I fear we will shut up this time.



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rentor
reply to post by December_Rain
 


How effective would a 20% enrichment then
wouldn't it be good have some kinda effective weapon compare to none?


Less than 20% is normally used for light-water commercial reactors and Research. They have stated before their intentions are not to weaponize their program (not that I believe that) so the enrichment wouldn't be that much of an issue in that context.



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Phedreus
 
Hi Phed,
Are you saying that the Arabs would prefer that Irans nuclear weapons facilities were left alone?





new topics
top topics
 
41
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join