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.

 

If 250 warheads have gone loose, how can you be sure Iran does not possess any?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 01:51 AM
link   

The 200-kiloton warheads were due to be returned to Russia in 1992 after Ukraine declared itself a nuclear-free zone following a payment by Moscow to Kiev of approximately $500 million. The missing warheads were inventoried on papers Ukraine submitted to Moscow that were officially accepted by Russia.

Besides reimbursement, Ukraine was to receive uranium for its reactors from Russia’s AES as part of the deal.

Sergey Sinchenko, a member of a parliamentary commission investigating illegal arms trafficking, revealed the discrepancies. According to Sinchenko, the nuclear warheads could remain combat-ready up to at least 2010.

Ukraine’s ForUm news agency reported on April 3 that Russian General Staff Chief and Deputy Defense Minister General Yuri Baluyevsky said, “Russia’s General Staff has no information about whether Ukraine has given 250 nuclear warheads to Iran or not. I do not comment on unsubstantiated reports.”


source

That's my question to those who believe that the Iranian threat is merely a Western fabrication. Many nuclear warheads have ''disappeared'' from former Soviet States, not just Ukraine but also for example Kazakhstan. If people would only conduct their own research, they would be aware that Iran has been actively after an enrichment program since the early 1990s.

It has even been confirmed by Russian sources that they do have nuclear weapons: Iran does have nuclear weapons", the very same general whom refused to commend on the missing Ukrainian nukes years later, Yuri Baluyevsky, the Russian Deputy Chief of Staff told journalists, that Iran has obtained nukes: "Of course, these are non-strategic nuclear weapons. I mean these are not ICBMs with a range of more than 5,500 kilometers and more. But as a military man, I see no danger of aggression against Russia by Iran. source

Not just Russia knows so. Israel does so too:


DOCUMENTS INDICATE IRAN HAS NUCLEAR WEAPONS
ISRAEL LINE THURSDAY, APRIL 9, 1998

According to Iranian government documents in Israel's possession, Iran
received several nuclear warheads from a former Soviet republic during the
early 1990s, THE JERUSALEM POST reported.


source

Are so people deliberately naive or simply to lazy to conduct their own research? The only fabrication is that the West and Israel are pretending it is still a race that can be won. As soon as they would tell the public that Iran is nuclear, there would be very little public support for a bombing campaign, nor is it in the interest of Iran to admit they have secretively acquired the bomb. So what's happening right now? A handful of warheads is not enough, taking into consideration the advanced missile defense systems Israel has in use. They need more and especially they need more advanced ballistic missiles with a greater range, perhaps intercontinental ballistic missiles.

It can be safely assumed that nuclear warheads is a niche market within the black market. Only few groups would be capable and interested to obtain ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads, among them are ''rogue'' states. Those who believe Iran has no nuclear weapons and is not after more, I am curious what you think happened to these warheads. Have they vanished into thin air?

I'm curious if someone can debunk my theory.



[edit on 9-6-2010 by Mdv2]




posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Mdv2
 


Iran has a big something. I say this because of the political stances they have been taking. They act like a kid with an older brother who can take anyone in town in a fight.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by onequestion
 



This is all supposition

In any event, with israel and its humungous arsenal barking like a rabid dog for years

who'd blame Iran for putting a little something by, for 'just in case' ?



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Dock9
 


I agree. I personally believe that we don't give the middle easterners enough credit for their intelligence. They are have roots. They are smart. Believe it or not, they probably know what they are doing. Their values more then likely are different, and their view of the world.

Who knows what is really going on, i highly doubt any of us do. The second we think we know, we typically find out different.

[edit on 9-6-2010 by onequestion]



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 02:09 AM
link   
Maybe Iran does have 1, maybe so does Spain, Ireland, Sweden, Saudi Arabia, Manchester United, Tiger Woods, Homer Simpson and my grandma's fat scabby cat.

Lets invade them all just in case, I meen whats the worst that could happen? Look how we saved Iraq



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 02:12 AM
link   
I have always thought/felt that Iran has nuclear weapons and their recent sat developments indicate to me they are looking for a delivery platform..

Those weapons are not a lot more than useless as a national deterent without a credible delivery vehicle..(which I think Iran now has) this is one of the reasons I speculate why Israel has not yet attacked.

And why IMHO it appears Iran feels confident enough to take the *issues*fight*Challenge* whatever you want to call it to Med... I'm not suprised considering Israel is meant to have a sub off the Iranian shores...

Edit to add: My hope is, this does not turn nasty...



[edit on 9/6/10 by thoughtsfull]



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by thoughtsfull
 


Hmmm, nukes but no delivery system???

And Iranian ships on the way to Gaza that might be intercepted and taken to an Israeli port...

Just a thought.....



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 02:32 AM
link   
After the break up of USSR and the things that have gone missing I always
feared more of an organized gang having one then a country that wasn't on the radar until recently

example who would do more damage knowing the outcome:
Russian Mafia
Italian Mafia
MS-13
or ( insert large gang name here)

you don't need a missile to set it off

there are more organized gangs that could do damage then a country
lets say this group of Mexicans that want to take over AZ and NM for reuniting them with Mexico ( can't remember the name)
had one which would be worse? Iran ( that wouldn't start something, cause they know what it would lead to ) or a gang/mafia that would not get caught
( some might )
and build upon what happened?

I'm just rambling with cat in my lap don't mind the spelling mistakes



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 02:34 AM
link   
PLEASE don't turn this into a battle about the question if Iran should or shouldn't be allowed to have and develop nuclear weapons. That's a whole other story and doesn't help to a constructive discussion as for Iran already having nukes or not.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 02:53 AM
link   
Whose to say that one isn't burried on your back yard? UUhhhh... What if Finland has one somewhere, I think I better start building my fallout shelter. See how speculation works?



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Mdv2
 




PLEASE don't turn this into a battle about the question if Iran should or shouldn't be allowed to have and develop nuclear weapons.

PLEASE don't turn this into a battle about the question if Iran should or shouldn't be allowed to have and develop peaceful nuclear technology.

Iran is against Weapons of Mass Destruction, go research that.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 03:10 AM
link   
if iran did have a nuke or two
what pupose would it serve to keep it secret till after they have been glassed?
firing it off then would benefit them how...?

in the states in the low crime areas they call it open carry
meaning lets "keep it civilized see..."

MADD they call it

from
www.rense.com...

Average folks are a lot more worried about this:

By Warner D. Farr, LTC, U.S. Army
The Counterproliferation Papers
Future Warfare Series No. 2

USAF Counterproliferation Center
Air War College - Air University
Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama
September 1999

Appendix: Estimates of the Israeli Nuclear Arsenal 23
This paper is a history of the Israeli nuclear weapons program drawn from a review of unclassified sources.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by virgom129
reply to post by thoughtsfull
 


Hmmm, nukes but no delivery system???

And Iranian ships on the way to Gaza that might be intercepted and taken to an Israeli port...

Just a thought.....


I was honestly thinking of a credible delivery system that provides national defence (and offence) Any nation that has nuclear capability IMHO seeks a credible defence weapon, and a decent delivery system.

Actually Britiains first nuclear test in 1952 was to see the effects of an ship smuggled bomb..

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 03:23 AM
link   
So, Iran has a lot of ex- Russian nuclear weapons?

We are told, over and over again, that we must attack Iran because it MAY develop nuclear weapons at some time in the future, to "wipe Israel off the map".

If they have allegedly had these nuclear weapons since the 90's, and certainly have the missiles capable of hitting Israel, then why haven't they "wiped Israel off the map" yet?

Simple answer, they don't have the alleged nuclear weapons and have no intention of wiping anyone off any map. Unlike Israel of course, who do have a big nuclear / chemical / biological weapons capability and have indeed wiped Palestine off the map and are still working on finishing off it's population.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 03:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


It is obvious that Iran is trying to buy time. Like I have said before, if they do have nuclear warheads indeed, it will be a very limited number. Not enough to guarantee the destruction of the state of Israel should it come that far. No, I am not saying that's what Iran wants, on the contrarily - the seek to defend themselves with nuclear weapons against offensive moves by their enemies and to gain political power on a regional and global level.

Nuclear weapons would balance Israel, much alike the SU balanced the US during the cold war and hence, limited each other's leeway. From an Israeli perspective, that's the biggest threat they face and the reason they want to deal with Iran. They have spend two decades on researching nuclear technology and are since a number of years capable to enrich uranium.

Like I have said before, they have also spend many years on developing a ballistic missile program and need more time to develop a working platform to make their nuclear weapons a real threat against its enemies to prevent them from messing with their country.

The more time, the bigger the chance they succeed in becoming a serious counterweight to Israel.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Britguy
Simple answer, they don't have the alleged nuclear weapons and have no intention of wiping anyone off any map.


They do have the weapons, they don't have the intention like I have explained in the post above.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 03:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Britguy
 


Flipping that around then why has Israel not attacked Iran if they are so concerned about Irans nuclear capability since it is much more advanced than any of the other ones they have attacked already?

I think both states have nukes... hence why they've not butted heads in a direct way.

But a nuke on it's own is an ineffective deterent without a credible delivery system since that puts said device in the realms of suit case nukes and terrorism, and we know where that leaves any nations that are felt to follow that path, Iraq being a case in point.

However we see it, Trident is sold as a deterent simply due to the delivery system it employs.. and Iran would not tell the world it had nukes unless it has a credible delivery system that can define said weapons as a deterent.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by thoughtsfull
 


Simple answer - Israel will only attack Iran as an absolute last resort. after all, they need to be able to claim victimhood all the time.

So, they'll just keep up the pressure and propaganda, pushing for the US and other suckers to attack Iran. Something they have invested heavily in, buying all those politicians and running so many globalist banks that our leaders put us all in hock to! It's called calling in the markers.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Mdv2
 


OK answer this question, why doesn't Israel just deny that they have nukes, or accept that they have nukes?

It is because they want the world to know they have nukes, but do not want to declare them at the same time giving them advantage on both sides. The advantage of fear, and the advantage of intelligence.

Nukes without declaration doesn't give you anything.

The only thing that nukes give you is respect in the eye of your enemy.

Iran has alot of friends, and also enemies (hence predominantly West).

If Iran had nukes it would allow them to act as a protector amongst its allies, it would have so many advantages.

There is no need for hidden nukes.

Even Israel won't deny they have nukes.

And to sum it up, you need to bring evidence that Iran is either pursuing or already have nukes.

Up to now I haven't seen sh1t.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by LittleSecret
reply to post by Mdv2
 


OK answer this question, why doesn't Israel just deny that they have nukes, or accept that they have nukes?


Have you actually read my OP? It doesn't look like it. Israel pretends it's still a race against time. If they would say that Iran already has them, public support within Israel would quickly fade. It's a purely strategical move. If you would have read what I wrote a few posts back, you would know why I think Israel won't accept a nuclear Iran. Iran is a threat, but it is a threat that grows bigger by the day. As soon as they have a fully functional platform and a significant number of armed ballistic missile (and I'm not talking about a handful), they will announce it as that's the moment they can effectively balance Israel as a regional superpower. Until they reach that moment, they will try to buy as much time as possible to achieve their goal.

Israel will do everything to prevent them from reaching that point and before it happens, they will attack Iran.



And to sum it up, you need to bring evidence that Iran is either pursuing or already have nukes.

Up to now I haven't seen sh1t.


You haven't seen #? I haven't seen any evidence from naive people like you who don't conduct their own research and either believe Iranian or Western propaganda. My opinion based on my own research and differs from the Western and Iranian official stances.

It takes a fool to believe that Iran would want to go through so much hassle for nuclear peaceful energy. you really think that peaceful nuclear energy is worth the consequences that Iran faces? Iran could be a prospering and emerging nation, much alike India and China. Instead they are trapped in isolation and put under sanctions that prevent their economy to flourish. On the contrarily, their economy is suffering badly from these sanctions. Do you really believe that peaceful nuclear energy weighs up against these major drawbacks? It's simply not worth it, making the assumption that they are expanding their nuclear arsenal and developing a supportive platform an explanation that is way more plausible.

No evidence right? Start with my OP. I've posted a number of sources that indicate that Israel knows as early as 1998 that Iran already has nuclear weapons and so does Russia. Now I am asking you to provide evidence they are not after nuclear power. And don't come up with some Iranian crap because I'm not siding with the official Western propaganda standpoint either.

[edit on 9-6-2010 by Mdv2]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join