It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NEWS: Iran Warns G8 It Will Not Halt Nuclear Program

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 08:31 AM
The United States is the most powerful country in the world at the moment. Clearly other countries would like to ahve the same or similar the US is leading by example it is a very difficult task to convince other countries that they should not have nuclear weapons when the US probably has the largest nuclear armoury in the world.

What a bunch of hypocrites? What makes the US better than other countries? What makes the US more responsible with nuclear weapons than other countries will be?

posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 10:13 AM
Voice of Doom:

When you have a pre-emptive policy where you need little or no mirage of justification for attack, like the US now has, it leaves other countries no choice. Since they cannot compete militarilly with the US they have two options, terrorism and WMD. This conclusion is self-evident and axiomatic.

That's the clearest way I've seen it presented. Bravo! This is the inevitable backlash of a pre-emptive policy. Iran can say "Well, we need to have assurances that no country will just pre-emptively invade us for whatever reason, so we are developing nuclear "deterrents".


What a bunch of hypocrites? What makes the US better than other countries? What makes the US more responsible with nuclear weapons than other countries will be?

I was wondering the same thing. I'm still unaware of any other country that dropped atomic bombs on civilians other than the US in WWII. Not once but twice.

posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 10:42 AM
Voice of Doom:

When you have a pre-emptive policy where you need little or no mirage of justification for attack, like the US now has, it leaves other countries no choice. Since they cannot compete militarilly with the US they have two options, terrorism and WMD. This conclusion is self-evident and axiomatic.

Iran can say whatever it likes, but Iranians know that they are not up against a force that has any interest in exterminating them. The same can not be said for the West and its allies. Iran does have a natural security objective of acquiring deterence (that objective being to serve the security of its Medieval undemocratic state), and the US and its allies have a natural security objective of denying Iran that deterrence capability(which can be used for more than deterrence).


What makes the US more responsible with nuclear weapons than other countries will be?

The perception of the people who have power, and the perception of the people who want to take civilization forward rather than backward.

posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 08:27 AM
I truly believe that Iran and North Korea are the greatest threats to the world today due to their nuclear capabilities and their lack of, pardon me, common sense. Totalitarian states such as these cannot be expected to act rationally. The former Soviet Union was never quite as over the edge as Iran and NK. Iran's problem is its radical "religious" beliefs while NK's is that it is so poor and it's people have never known anything better. That, combined with a flake for a leader is trulu scary!

posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 09:58 AM
Iran's Mullahs: World must accept Iran into nuclear club.

Thats the headline from a story in the Jeruselem Post, now admittedly this news organization will paint Iran in the worst light but the announcement by Irans mullahs is not lessened in importance by its Israeli reporting.

Jeruselem Post

Iran's top diplomat said Saturday the country won't accept any new internationally imposed obligations regarding its nuclear program and that the world must recognize Iran as a nuclear-capable nation. "We won't accept any new obligations," Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi told reporters, suggesting a toughening of Iran's position two days before the 35-nation board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, meets to discuss Iran's nuclear program. "Iran has a high technical capability and has to be recognized by the international community as a member of the nuclear club," Kharrazi said at a press conference

As I said in an earlier post on this subject, "a page taken right out of NK's playbook of the 1990's" Iran seems to be following the same path as NK but there is one big difference Iran does not have China next door to worry about when its time for action.

posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 04:19 PM
However, Kharrazi said ''The water reactor plan is no violation of IAEA regulations and serves, as the rest of our nuclear programmes, peaceful purposes.'' The reactor had also been reported to the IAEA, he said.


There is no real need for a huge heavy water plant as this if the only purpose were peaceful.

Light water reactors are the preferred engineering solution for power generation.

However, heavy water reactors have some significant advantages in the production of weapons-grade plutonium. Similarly so do graphite-moderated reactors.


However, a heavy water reactor is among the most dangerous in existence from a proliferation perspective. One reason is that the low neutron cross section of heavy water allows a high number of U238 (uranium-238 isotope) atoms to absorb neutrons, resulting in the production of a greater quantity and better quality of plutonium product from a heavy water reactor compared to a light water reactor. According to David Albright, Director of the Institute for Science and International Security, the IR-40 will be able to produce 8-10kg of plutonium per year - approximately one to two bombs' worth of nuclear material. The IAEA holds that 8kg of plutonium constitutes a "significant quantity" - enough to build a nuclear weapon.

For instance, Werner Heisenberg, while leading the Nazi A-bomb project had heavy water plants for this exact purpose.

And also:

Heavy water is the key to one type of reactor in which plutonium can be bred from natural uranium. As such, the production of heavy water has always been monitored, and the material is export controlled. In addition, a source of deuterium is essential for the production of tritium and 6LiD, two ingredients of thermonuclear weapons. A nation seeking large quantities of heavy water probably wishes to use the material to moderate a reactor, and may be planning to produce plutonium. However, CANDU (CANadian Deuterium Uranium) reactors designed and built in Canada are used for commercial electric power production.

Heavy water, D2O, is water in which both hydrogen atoms have been replaced with deuterium, the isotope of hydrogen containing one proton and one neutron. It is present naturally in water, but in only small amounts, less than 1 part in 5,000. Heavy water is one of the two principal moderators which allow a nuclear reactor to operate with natural uranium as its fuel. The other moderator is reactor-grade graphite (graphite containing less than 5 ppm boron and with a density exceeding 1.50 gm/cm 3 ). The first nuclear reactor built in 1942 used graphite as the moderator; German efforts during World War II concentrated on using heavy water to moderate a reactor using natural uranium.

The importance of heavy water to a nuclear proliferator is that it provides one more route to produce plutonium for use in weapons, entirely bypassing uranium enrichment and all of the related technological infrastructure. In addition, heavy-water-moderated reactors can be used to make tritium.

posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 04:59 PM
Never fear.
Action was taken on Iraq nuclear reactor(s), and Iran may well be next.

Reading what some are saying here about the US, and the two uses of the 'nuke' by the US, seriously, let's just give every nation in the world nuclear capabilities. Hell, that would solve all this crap, wouldn't it? I mean everyone would have it then, right? Every country has the right to have nucleur capabilities since the US is such a hypocrite and has utilized them in the past, right? Yeah, that would definitely solve everything....then the first time one is used on say Canada, the UK, Germany, France, Russia, etc. some of us can just shrug our shoulders and say 'so sorry, but we told ya so' .....


[edit on 12-6-2004 by Seekerof]

posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 05:21 PM
Just wondering if anyone believes that Israel will act alone and take out Iran's nuclear reactors like they did in Iraq in the 80's?

And if that happens what will we (U.S.A.) do if Iran does retaliate?

Also with Russia so involved with Iran in the building of these reactors could that then spark a new cold war... or worse?


posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 05:29 PM
Yes the Israelis will take out Irans nuclear facilities if they get too advanced and present a national threat not tolerable to them. The USA will claim ignorance of the operation while slapping a meaningless censure on Isreal for once again using its supplied weapons in a provocative manner. Russia will make noises at the UN and in the press but it will go away soon in the realization that Isreal has once again done the world at large a great favor.

posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 02:00 PM
Israel can't take out Iran's nuclear capabilities like they did with Osirak in Iraq.

First, Iran is further than Iraq from Israel. And to make the Iraq raid, Israel had to modify its planes to make the range.

Second, Iran has much more substantial defenses now.

Third, and most important, Iran's nuclear installations are multiple (not just one reactor, unprotected), underground, and with many anti-aircraft defenses.

In reality, it would take a sustained raid by multiple B-2's, with a substantial number of outings, to have a chance. And even then, it is probable that
a large amount of Iran's capability will survive. Even when we know where the
targets are, seriously hardened bunkers can survive. And we probably don't know where all the targets are either. Iran isn't stupid and has been preparing for this possibility for a long time.

And of course Iran now has substantial ballistic missile capability.

posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 03:46 PM
I say let them have their nukes. If they only use it as a deterrant then that means they'll never use it and if they use one out of aggression we won't have any more whiners when we seal their desert world in a layer of glass.

Originally posted by Lukefj
What a bunch of hypocrites? What makes the US better than other countries?

The way we treat our citizens and allow them to speak & travel freely. Not better then all countries, but clearly better then the one were referring to here.

What makes the US more responsible with nuclear weapons than other countries will be?

Bottom line - more nuclear weapons in the world means one more likely to be used. If that's what you wan't then you may get what you wish for.

posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 04:35 PM
Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons is not as a deterrent.

What real enemies do they have? Iraq is now prostrate and without any significant
military capability, and won't have any for generations.

USA? What has the USA done to them recently that they haven't started first?

Israel? Israel has been subjected to Hezbollah attacks for a while now, but hasn't
touched Iran despite a fair amount of justification.

Iran's foreign minister, the equivalent of Colin Powell, has stated---on the record---that
"the existence of Israel is contrary to Iran's national interests" .

When you have some blowhard saying "zionist bad meanie bad bad" that's one thing, but when a top official says, cooly, as a matter of state policy it is against "national interests" that is very important.

Nations don't say things like that generally unless the mean it and a phrase like that is about as strong as it comes in diplomatic code.

Notice that they didn't say something like "the rule of the Sharon and Likud regimes", etc.

Winston Churchill and FDR didn't say anything like "the existence of Germany is against the national interests of the US and UK".

The logical conclusion is that the Iranian government is building weapons for thermonuclear genocide. they do have sufficient terrorist power to make it happen WITHOUT an obvious missile launch which can be tracked to the source.

I don't think that even the elected government has any real control over this. It is being run by the mullahs and the Revolutionary Guard. I doubt that in a free election the people there would actually vote for this.

In general the Iranian population is less radical than their leaders, the Arab populations are more radical than their leaders except in Kuwait.

posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 05:46 PM
Reading all your post take me to the only question to ask,

How long it will take US to be ready to invade Iran?

posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 06:34 PM

Iran is much more difficult than Iraq.

posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 07:07 PM
What would it take to penetrate the processing facilities at Natanz and what if the Israeli's have access to the proper weapons.

For example this bomb, details courtesy of Global Security .org
"The new EGBU-28 (the “E” being for enhanced) replaces the GBU-37. This latest version of the “bunker buster” uses the Global Positioning System for guidance so that it can be dropped with accuracy at higher altitudes in foul weather. The amount of rock and concrete that the EGBU-28 can penetrate is classified, but Major Dick Wright, who was the weapon’s test manager in 1991, said that the older version “went though 20 feet of concrete like butter” and when dropped onto hard ground, penetrated down to 100 feet."

One could surmise that the performance is much better than Major wright indicated. The EGBU-28 is listed as a weapon for F-15 aircraft

In 1985, Israeli F-15s refueled in flight and bombed the headquarters of the PLO near Tunis, Tunisia, at a distance of more than 2,000 kilometers from their bases.

The Israeli's have Boeing 707's modified as tanker aircraft and long range F-16I's that could fly cap role and possibly double as AA suppressors.

So I am wondering if they can crack this nut.

posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 07:09 PM
I don't think an invasion is necessary. One possible outcome is like Serbia's. Air strikes and special ops to neutralize nuclear facilities and obliterate military targets. Use the next generation of UAVs to target mad mullahs and the Revolutionary Guard. Enforce embargoes to cripple Iran's economy. If this is managed well, then like Serbia popular revolt will kick the Ayatollah's *ss out of power.

posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 02:15 AM
I think America will eventually try to take over any country that they see as some kind of threat... a terrorist threat... if they try to invade iran, the US will probably get control but the country... but people of the country will be so piss'd that there will be uprises like those seen in Iraq.

However... this country does have nuclear weapons... an attempted or successful invasion of iran make result in these weapons being used...

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in