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.

 

An Iraqi Nuclear Weapon

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   

At the urging of the United States, the United Nations Security Council passed on Wednesday a resolution permitting Iraq to have a civilian nuclear program. The resolution, which also lifted prohibitions on exports to Iraq of certain materials that could be used to develop nuclear and other unconventional weapons, was one of several U.S.-backed measures to end restrictions that dated from before the invasion that removed Saddam Hussein from power. The Council's action represented a retreat from its earlier position that it would not lift the nuclear restrictions unless Baghdad accepted an additional protocol to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that provides for more intrusive international inspections. The Council's action in affirming Iraq's right to a peaceful nuclear program is ironic in view of the obsessive campaign to deny the country on its eastern border the same right.


nationalinterest.org...




posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 12:29 PM
link   

...one of the most commonly voiced worries about Iran possibly acquiring a nuclear weapon is that it might touch off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, with Arab countries trying to acquire their own nuclear weapons. In any inventory of candidates to wage an arms race with Iran, Iraq—which fought a highly destructive war with Iran in the 1980s—should be at or near the top of the list. Even if one continues to turn a blind eye toward the Israeli elephant, it is a fallacy to think of Iran as the originator of all proliferation evil, or potential evil, in the Middle East.


nationalinterest.org...

If there is a fear of an arms race, why would Iraq be allowed a nuclear program? Some of the materials could be used to make a nuclear weapon. Is it wise to allow an unstable country a nuclear program and access to these materials, especially when Iran is not even allowed a civilian program? Given the history between the two nations (Iraq and Iran), how can we even think about something this foolish?



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   
It would be, most likely, 100% funded by the U.S...
This will boost exports in America plus initiate more " *blank* for Oil programmes".



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   
all i can say is OMG



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Gotta love American brazen hypocrisy. What happened to "Al-Qaeda" being in Iraq and being responsible for the insurgents. One has to wonder how Iran will react if this happens.




posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by DevilJin
 


Iran will recognize the need for nuclear energy for Iraqi citizens as I can imagine power outtages to not be rare in Iraq also. What is not acceptable is the hypocracy of the US, the EU, Israel and friends towards this issue.

I hope that people will understand that having power outtages in hospitals and in your capital is not something anyone wants to have, so the reliable energy that comes from nuclear power plants is godsent. This was the case in Iran and that is why Iran is so happy about the first reactor functioning. And that is why Iran would also be happy for the Iraqi citizens.

Unfortunately, with the US behind this ordeal, I can only guess what the reaction will be.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by DevilJin
Gotta love American brazen hypocrisy. What happened to "Al-Qaeda" being in Iraq and being responsible for the insurgents. One has to wonder how Iran will react if this happens.




First off, who cares what Iran thinks. Second, Turn about is fair play if Iran wants a nuclear program then why not Iraq? and Third, If Iraq is going to have a nuclear power program it actually plays into Iran's hands. They [Iran] will have all the justification and moral high ground at that point to continue it's development program.

And Finally the threads title is misleading. The article refers to Nuclear power not Nuclear weapons. Because if that's the case then Iran by the same logic has lied about it's endeavors.


edit on 20-12-2010 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 




And Finally the threads title is misleading. It states Nuclear power not Nuclear weapons. Because if that's the case then Iran by the same logic has lied about it's endeavors.


How ironic of you to say such a thing. And what a logical fallacy the italic is! Ignorance is bliss huh?

edit on 20-12-2010 by Zamini because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 




In regards to having the higher ground, that was my point.

Like I said, what will Iran think about this? The colossal amount of news coverage and scrutiny Iran gets for wanting a nuclear program (for more then 10 years to be exact) and the U.S. want to give Iraq, an unstable country, a nuclear program warrants Iran's criticism of the U.S. being the biggest hypocrites in the world. This isn't about giving Iraqi citizens a peaceful nuclear program. It's about building up Iraq so it can be another pawn, like Saudi Arabia, against Iran. Now Iran has Pakistan (which will probably be unstable if the U.S. has its way) and soon Iraq to worry about.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


It is the title of the article, which states that the nuclear materials could be used to make weapons. Pretty close to the argument used to bar Iran from having a civilian nuclear program.
edit on 20-12-2010 by InvisibleAlbatross because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
2

log in

join