Israel - Iran nuclear bomb 'still three years away'

Israel - Iran nuclear bomb 'still three years away'

www.bbc.co.uk

Iran's nuclear programme has been hit by technical problems, and it could be still three years away from making a bomb, an Israeli minister has said.

The statement came a month after Iran said centrifuges used in uranium enrichment had been sabotaged.

There are suspicions, denied by Iran, that the centrifuges were targeted by the Stuxnet computer worm.

(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Iran reported on brink of nuclear weapon!
Israel stands ready to bomb Iran's nuclear sites

This in a sense may not be new news to a lot of people, but this article does give a time table. That is something that has not necessarily been talked about before. The article mentions that the centrifuges were damaged so they are estimating three years to complete a bomb. Can't really say any of that is a good thing but just posting because it is news.

www.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

And this is under the assumption that Iran wants a bomb. Iran has said that they want nuclear energy.

In the run up to the Iraq genocide, we were bombarded with endless mantras about the dangers that Iraq presented. Hundreds of thousands of dead lives later, we know that it was untrue. Its criminal.

reply to post by gladtobehere


Yes that is all true. Which is why I said this may not be anything new, but it does list a time table. Also its not like the information can be verified.
So it comes down to are we going to wait for a mushroom cloud over Israel before any ones says yes they were developing the a bomb?
thanks for posting

What they are trying to say is Iran has nuke capability we just dont really have a way to gain support for an airstrike so lets say they are 3 years away. Give us time to think this through

reply to post by RedGolem


The problem I have with the idea of taking the words of Israeli spokespersons as gospel truth, is the same problem I have with assuming that any political body, or person representing that body, is sincere. That would be that they all lie for thier own ends, no matter which nation, religion, political ideaology or lobby group they represent.
The last time the world took the word of powerful men as the truth, we ended up blowing seven shades of the brown stuff out of a nation which could barely defend itself against a feather duster , never mind the combined might of the western military. I refer of course to Iraq, which in pure military terms was poorly defended, by ill disciplined and poorly equiped forces (the guerilla actions after the invasion were only any kind of problem because of the nature of guerilla warfare, and not because of any particular martial skill on the part of the participants) .
I would hope that we can agree that the invasion of Iraq on the shaky grounds on which it was made, was a mistake, and one that we should seek to avoid making with other nations. In order to avoid such a catastrophic gaff in the future, it must be agreed upon by nations whom it may concern, that in the future, an attack cannot be planned, or executed based on anything but the firmest intelligence, confirmed from more than one source. So for instance, there must be NO action based on Israeli intelligence, if they are the only group to hold confirmed intelligence on a target. Similarly, if the US or UK get wind of an excuse to murder countless civilians while hunting a tiny number of nutcases, they also must hold off until other nations confirm by way of thier own intelligence operations, that the cause for concern is indeed warranted and not just a fabrication , as was most certainly the case with the Iraq invasion.
Further more, it must be made illegal for civillian contractors to be imported by a nation or body, into a nation which is under invasion or occupation. All tasks requiring experts must be done using local expertise, which would prevent the outsourcing , and outward travel of commerce from the attacked nation, to the invading nation. It would also mean that civillian casualties would have to be kept to the single figures per hundred thousand, in order to ensure the preservation of local experts in the infrastructure required to run a town, city or province.
But mark my words, if we ever trust the word of officials on ANYTHING ever again, then we are damned by our own willful ignorance of the fact that you cannot ever trust a person who has an agenda, no matter what it might be, or even if you agree with it.

reply to post by superluminal11


Hmm ok guess that could be it.
On the bright side that does take us past 2012. So that would mean they should not be involved in the destruction of the world.

Wish they would make up there mind
Why didnt he just say The US wont bomb Iran for us so...
everything we said in the past was a lie.
The next headline you will see in a year or so reads as>>In a big surprise Iran has secretly developed a few crude weapons, now we have to negotiate and live with a Nuclear IRAN...we didnt see this coming

Sooooo, the bombing of Iran is being postponed again?
Cool.

Originally posted by concernedcitizen519
Sooooo, the bombing of Iran is being postponed again?
Cool.

Israel can't bomb Iran now, at least not their nuclear facilities... To do so now or at any time in the future would cause an unimaginable human catastrophe. Bombing Iran's nuclear facilities now or in the future would create clouds of extremely lethal radiation that could spread throughout densely populated areas and potentially kill tens of thousands of Iranians.... The global condemnation and isolation of Israel that would follow would make any such preemptive strike too great of a risk to Israel.

The strategic placement of these facilities and the bold provocative rhetoric coming from the Iranian regime shows that they do not fear such an attack.

As for Iran's ability to manufacture its own nuclear warheads at this point is irrelevant, they could easily obtain nukes from their "nuclear" allies in a crisis... I would suspect that Iran already has some, maybe not their own, but enough to stand as a strong retaliatory deterrent, or readily available for use in Israel by Iranian proxies (terrorists).

Israel is actually in a very tough position in regard to any military options on Iran... They are damned if they do, and threatened and provoked if they don't.

Israel's last and best option would be to expend every bit of time, money and effort on peaceful agendas, and to allow an independent Palestinian state. They need to realize that they are no longer going to be the only nuclear power in the region, and accept that reality going forward, as any military options Israel has now are quickly becoming suicidal. They soon will no longer be the neighborhood bully with the biggest guns.

reply to post by Fractured.Facade


Fractured
I do agree that it would probably be a bad idea for Isreal to bomb Iran's nuke sites I do not think that alone would stop them from doing so. I say that because they did bomb Iraq's nuke sites back in 1981.

Operation Babylon[1] (Codeword: Opera, Hebrew: אופרה‎)[2] was a surprise Israeli air strike carried out on June 7, 1981, that destroyed a nuclear reactor under construction 17 kilometers (10.5 miles) southeast of Baghdad,

wiki

Actually a time line has been talked about by other intelligence agencies beyond the US, UK and Mossad. The time table was within a year. Iran finally came out and gave some more info about the Stuxnet virus, and the damage being more extensive than first talked about.

When this happened, we strted seeing reports that the virus set their program back about 2 years. 2 year setback, added onto the 1 year timeline before they could mve forward with their supposed program, and you get the 3 year time line.

I think the virus is coming from a western source, and I think it was done as an alternative to military action by the United States. We are still engaged in 2 wars, and are having issues on the Korean Penninsula, which again we have talked about the timing of that issue as well in other threads.

Im thinking the virus was intended to buy time... I think whoever made it and planted it got more than they thought when Iran tried to remove it themsleves, which apparently made the problem worse.

reply to post by RedGolem


Right, but those Iraqi facilities were attacked before completion of construction... Major difference.

They were simply blowing up a construction project.... Not active nuclear facilities.

Not the same situation at all... Perhaps war and invasion and taking control of Iran's nuclear facilities could be an option... But again, the risks and costs would be extremely high.

Realistically there is no longer a viable military option for Israel now.

It is what it is.

reply to post by Fractured.Facade


I think it would be easier taking out an active site than a non active site. With the active site you dont have to destroy the entire thing, but only need to damage a part of it to cause a shutdown. Do it right, and you can get a massive problem that is isolated to one area.

The other issue I see, and I think this will work against Irans intentions, is the placement of their facilities, which are under mountains and what not. Its already been shown their facilities can be infiltrated. Since these sites are remote and under rock, all that is need is for a person to infiltrate with a low power explosive, or computer virus that turns alarms off for system monitoring, and you just destroyed the facility, most likely people in the facility, and because of the strategic placement, its contained.

Video from last night

Originally posted by paradiselost333
Wish they would make up there mind

Why didnt he just say The US wont bomb Iran for us so...
everything we said in the past was a lie.
The next headline you will see in a year or so reads as>>In a big surprise Iran has secretly developed a few crude weapons, now we have to negotiate and live with a Nuclear IRAN...we didnt see this coming

The flip side to that coin is the problems it would cause in the international community. Its one thing to bash the US and our support for Israel while they have an undiclosed nuke program. Do we honestly beleive though that if IRan, or even N. Korea popped off a nuke, that they would loose their allies in Russia and China?

Russia and China intrests in this area run along the same lines as the US. Those 2 countries will have a choice, defend your allies who just dragged you into a war, or remain neutral / side with the rest of the world in taking action.

Its like dad giving his drunk son a loaded gun and forgetting to give the responsibility speech. The end result is going to be bad, for son as well as dad.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Fractured.Facade

 

The other issue I see, and I think this will work against Irans intentions, is the placement of their facilities, which are under mountains and what not.

They do have secret underground facilities, most likely for constructing weaponry and warheads as well as storage.


Does this facility look like it is underground, or under a mountain?

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade

Right, but those Iraqi facilities were attacked before completion of construction... Major difference.

yes, however the centrifuge has been damaged so it is being repaired. I am not a nuke physicist but it would seem the worst of the radioactive material would have been removed for the rebuilding to happen.

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade

Does this facility look like it is underground, or under a mountain?

I am sure Iran has underground facilities also. The photo you posted may not be an underground facility but I don't think it has any bearing on any nuke site under a mountain or other wise.

reply to post by Fractured.Facade


Well yes and no... Just because there is a building above ground does not mean there is nothing below it. The best place to hide a secret facility is in plain site.

Does this facility look like it is underground, or under a mountain?

Mount. Weather