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.

 

Russia Says It Will Begin Fueling Iran's First Nuclear Plant Next Week

page: 5
25
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 09:41 PM
link   

'Israel likely to hit Iran, consensus of 40 speculates'




‘The Atlantic’ magazine says Pentagon issued directive not to shoot down Israeli planes in Iraqi airspace


www.jpost.com...

Jordan and Saudi Arabia would not shoot them down either, so its up to Israel. Iran needs to wave the white flag here before the worst nuclear war in history erupts. God Bless Israel and may all her pilots make it home safe.




posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Sky watcher
 


I see no reason for Israel to carry out it's mythical air strikes.

IF they do.. and I mean IF... Anything that happens to Israel as a result will be it's own doing.

Before the worst nuclear war in history erupts... There has never been a nuclear war man haha. I know you just worded it funny.

[edit on 13-8-2010 by Nomad451]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:10 PM
link   
From what i gather , there are tens of nuclear targets which would have to be bombed. Of those targets many would require multiple precision strikes .

All of this hinges on Israel getting its huge numbers of aircraft to their targets safely over hostile territory - with the defenders anticipating your attack .

The Israeli aircraft would require mid-air refuelling to the targets and on the return leg of their journey, this is of course provided that they have run the gauntlet of Iranian anti aircraft batteries successfully .


Just to set back the Iranian nuclear program a few years .

[edit on 14-8-2010 by UmbraSumus]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Britguy
Everything Iran has produced so far has been inspected and monitored, and there has been no diversion of any material for other uses.
The US pushing Iran to prove they are not engaged in weapons development is a move calculated to provide only one outcome - they can't! It is impossible for them to prove they are NOT doing something, and the US government know it.

I don't lie awake at night worrying about what Iran is up to, they are not a threat to us. The only ones getting all worked up are those pushing for war, at any cost, both in lives and financially, to enrich themselves both financially and politically. They worry me.... a lot!


I agree with you on both points:

  1. It is impossible to prove a negative to someone else. The lack of something leaves no trace, no empirical evidence to offer as proof of its nothingness.
  2. Government terror eclipses that of any foreign entity.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 11:16 PM
link   
all the reasons given to attack iran iask you a few balancing questions

if a country supplied nukes to non nuklear countries
and supplied countries with nuke power plants
and suggested pre-emtive attacks
and demanded sactions

would you bomb them because america is guilty of acullay doing these things

so are you going to bomb yourself pre-emptivly aswell?

i dont support iran
i dont support israel
i dont support russia
i dont support any country

i support people not lines on a map



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Final Solstice
Fair enough.

I don't think any thing will come of this to be honest. And no, it won't start world war 3. I think we have a few more months to go before SHTF.

[edit on 13-8-2010 by Final Solstice]


You think we have a few months? I think we have less than a week until Israel launches an attack.

If you think we have a few months, you need to check into Israel's actions in other scenarios such as these.

It's highly unlikely they will let these fuel rods be put into the reactor.

I hope I'm wrong on this.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by hawaiinguy12
 


Israel is not about to strike Iran when there are a bunch of Russian nationals on the ground at the facility. If they are going to do something they will either need to do it before then or wait until the fueling is completed and the Russians are out of there.


Given their track record, they will probably do it before.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 11:36 PM
link   
The only way a small country can gain national security is by arming itself with nuclear weapons.

IF Iran acquires long range missiles with warheads, it will not be invaded.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER
all the reasons given to attack iran iask you a few balancing questions

if a country supplied nukes to non nuklear countries
and supplied countries with nuke power plants
and suggested pre-emtive attacks
and demanded sactions

would you bomb them because america is guilty of acullay doing these things

so are you going to bomb yourself pre-emptivly aswell?

i dont support iran
i dont support israel
i dont support russia
i dont support any country

i support people not lines on a map



Answer this you people! The world exploder demand an answer.
so are you going to bomb yourself pre-emptivly aswell?

I'm behind you exploder, dont explode yet ok.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 12:56 AM
link   
The only worthwhile outcome of this can only happen if everyone would leave Iran alone to build their reactors in peace. They have shown enough transparency with their program and aren't obligated to prove anything to bullies. Iran is a democracy, and they are reasonable (when not being pushed around by thugs). This is ridiculous - the only right and true choice here is one of non-violence.

The only other outcome that would be acceptable would be Israel going bonkers on Iran and nobody, not even the U.S. backing them up. Then let what happens to Israel happen and we can Pontius Pilate ourselves of them when the wolves descend from all directions. I call that a win - win.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 02:44 AM
link   
I would be more concerned about North Korea.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 04:00 AM
link   
Russia is very upset about the USA using HAARP against them and causing all the fires there. This is their response.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 04:00 AM
link   
You can always call a stranger a threat, after you have pushed his children down, stole their money, punched them in the nose a few times, and then continue to spit propaganda at them.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by noneo
Russia is very upset about the USA using HAARP against them and causing all the fires there. This is their response.


Russia has it own HAARP The "Sura Ionospheric Heating Facility" and probably more.

Haarp is not new technology. There are 7 in America alone.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by brutalsun
Look up weapons usable uranium. It's 20% enriched and used in a lot of reactors that make power. It's also the MINIMUM needed to make a rudimentary nuclear device.


The only power reactors on the planet that I am aware of that uses 20% enriched Uranium are some experimental fast reactors in Japan, Russia, and (soon) China. The VVER plant in Iran isn't designed for it, and will have a maximum enrichment of approximately 5%. Furthermore, I can't see why a country would build a 20% enriched Uranium weapon, which would be horribly inefficient, heavy, and no more powerful than a large conventional explosive. I have an easier idea - make a large conventional explosive. No country on the entire planet has originally developed a nuclear weapon from a civilian power reactor - it just doesn't make sense.

[edit on 14/8/2010 by C0bzz]



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by MojosGhost

Originally posted by noneo
Russia is very upset about the USA using HAARP against them and causing all the fires there. This is their response.


Russia has it own HAARP The "Sura Ionospheric Heating Facility" and probably more.

Haarp is not new technology. There are 7 in America alone.



I have been thinking about that why haven't they used it? Or Silver iodide to seed the clouds?
Might It be easier to heat the molecules then to cool them off or to create clouds with the radio waves above water..?



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz

Originally posted by brutalsun
Look up weapons usable uranium. It's 20% enriched and used in a lot of reactors that make power. It's also the MINIMUM needed to make a rudimentary nuclear device.


The only power reactors on the planet that I am aware of that uses 20% enriched Uranium are some experimental fast reactors in Japan, Russia, and (soon) China. The VVER plant in Iran isn't designed for it, and will have a maximum enrichment of approximately 5%. Furthermore, I can't see why a country would build a 20% enriched Uranium weapon, which would be horribly inefficient, heavy, and no more powerful than a large conventional explosive. I have an easier idea - make a large conventional explosive. No country on the entire planet has originally developed a nuclear weapon from a civilian power reactor - it just doesn't make sense.

[edit on 14/8/2010 by C0bzz]



In Holland and Canada we also have these ["20%"]reactors and we actually provide 50% of the worlds hospitals with medical isotopes ..But its not about that its about the centrifuges [at Natanz] if we want we can also make a nuclear weapon between 1 or 3 months by enriching uranium very fast.
But once again the reactor at Osirak [iraq] was also the same light water reactor and also bombed to pieces, u can always make a plutonium weapon out of it, but its likely to be contaminated with Pu240..Needless to say if Iran made a weapons grade [plutonium]reactor it would have been a little suspicious..



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by EnkiCarbone
The only other outcome that would be acceptable would be Israel going bonkers on Iran and nobody, not even the U.S. backing them up. Then let what happens to Israel happen and we can Pontius Pilate ourselves of them when the wolves descend from all directions. I call that a win - win.



I'll go with this, let them fight to oblivion though a table war would be better.

I also agree to this
I would be more concerned about North Korea.

North Korea is the real proven badass and now Great Leader have new toy, I'll migrate now if I'm Korean.

When will the governments understand, bomb and bullets cannot talk ?



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 11:14 AM
link   
This is all heading toward a stalemate, where no one will make a move because of the threat of nuclear war; the END GAME...... what the United States should do is develop EMP technology to the point of disabling the world's electronics capabilities and prepare secretly an attack on all "threats" to freedom with conventional weapons such as swords, bows and arrows.... it would catch every "catching up" country by surprise lol



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   
20% wont even make a nuclear wepaon unless you are talking about a dirty bomb which can be done with just waste from a hospital. You NEED to have over 90% to make a nuclear explosion.



Originally posted by brutalsun
Look up weapons usable uranium. It's 20% enriched and used in a lot of reactors that make power. It's also the MINIMUM needed to make a rudimentary nuclear device.




top topics



 
25
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join