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: 6
25
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   
You dont need "EMP technology" thats what a nuclear weapon does. The explosion from a nuke creates an Electromagnetic Pulse. When detonated high above land in the atmosphere over a country, the EMP shockwave fries all the electronics below.




Originally posted by fonenyc
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 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Maybe if the world had HELPED Iran build it's nuclear reactors....

If all the world governments got their collective heads out of their arses, we wouldn't have a problem would we?

This all boils down to the west's irrational fear of EQUALITY. Yes, equality, think about it.

I say if WE are allowed to have/build it, THEY should be allowed the same.

I applaud Iran and Russia for doing what is in THEIR best interests. Good for you both. I even wish that my government had helped, as we make some pretty good reactors up here.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by BattleStarGal


Is this something we should be concerned about?

Is Iran really just trying to build a nuclear power plant? Are they really not trying to pursue nuclear weapons?

I have a hard time believeing that!

This feels like the Cold War, part two....

Do you think that Iran can enrich the uranium fuel to weapons grade uranium?


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



Yes they can. Welcome to the final countdown - something is going to happen, because neither the US, nor Europe, nor Israel, nor the Arabic states want the Persians to possess a nuclear capacity.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Britguy
 

Thank you - good post. The US government has become
a dictatorship. World dominance is their mission.

Hurry up and let the revolution begin.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 11:08 PM
link   
Not with O'Bama at the helm. Negative.





Originally posted by FeastofTrumpets
reply to post by Britguy
 

Thank you - good post. The US government has become
a dictatorship. World dominance is their mission.

Hurry up and let the revolution begin.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 11:41 PM
link   
The Iranian Bushehr Reactor is a light-water reactor. You can't make weapons grade plutonium in a light-water reactor. If you put U338 in the light-water reactor you get all sorts of plutonium isotopes like Pt 340. These isotopes make compression/implosion bomb break up and fizzle. So the most you would get is a dirty bomb. Only a heavy-water reactor makes weapons-grade Pt239.

To make a nuclear bomb you need to 1. concentrate Uranium 235 to over 85% which is very slow and expensive process, or 2. You concentrate to 20% U235 and place rods in heavy water that will convert U238 to Pt239. You can easily separate U238/Pt239 using solvents instead of gas ultracentrifugation which is why the Savannah River Site is loaded with barrels of toxic solvent mixed waste left over from bomb making.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 01:44 AM
link   
Russia fuels Irans reactor, Israel bombs reactor, it all starts from there.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Britguy
 

Well said. I would add that the US Neo-cons and UK Leadership who pushed for the last Iraq war, appear to have cried wolf. Who now would 100% believe the rhetoric and propaganda machines of either states in the wake of that?

The ongoing UK inquiry into that war and the increasing calls for a full inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly, do nothing to quell the fears I held all along that that war was committed to for reasons other than those offered at the time, or since, by either government.

Why else would they so clearly override, re-write or misrepresent the advice and reports from their own intelligence communities and the UN weapons inspectorate?

Hundreds of thousands of people and families paid, and are still paying, for that decision to [prematurely in my view] abandon the apparently successful, and cost effective policy that existed of sanctions, covert operations and diplomatic pressure that was in place at the time.

We knew then, as we know now, that Iran was already flagged as a/the concern/target by the US, and I remember opening my old school atlas and immediately understanding why a military focused on Iran might want to secure bases in Iraq...but could not believe this was not pursued by our MSN...


Just ask yourself this: What have either wars in Iraq or Afghanistan proven to have succeeded at?

Creating new stable happy countries with minimal civilian casulaties of war, and a populous that generally appreciates the action taken? No.

Creating stable western model democracies? No.

Was it really ever likely to given what we knew from earlier conflicts and campaigns (i.e. British, Russian) in those countries over the past 200 years? No.

Creating a network of bases, supply chains, training and R&D grounds in which to develop tactics, hardware and battle hardened troops and a military at home in the Middle east theatre surrounding Iran? Yes


I really wonder whether things would still look as grim now if we had stuck to the previous, smarter (IMO) and more sophisticated path?



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by davedan978
 

I believe there is far, far more to this game than we could probably hope to pin down, given our lack of access to intelligence and key diplomatic debates.

However, I think it may well have more to do with global economics and power struggles, defending/attacking the dollar's position as the default reserve currency, the control of oil markets for that purpose, [apparenty Iraq was about to abandon the US dollar for oil trading when it was invaded last - now Iran is] . Also logistical/strategic struggles for trade routes and regional access.

I also feel that the recent economic collapse may have been a part of that conflict, and that western military/intelligence/leadership already acknowledge that behind as yet closed doors...I don't think they are anywhere close to really explaining to us what is going on, we don't even really understand who has done what or who the main threats are - as yet...




top topics



 
25
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join