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.

 

Iranian war fears spark closure of Israel reactor

page: 3
31
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   
I've thought previous talk about war with Iran was just hot air, but if this is true about shutting down this reactor, it would be the first action that doesn't seem like just hot air to me. But is it true? I'm not sure.


Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
How long would it take to shut down a large megawatt plutonium reactor,or a series of?
An hour or so I would guess,which may be too long if there are incoming missiles.
Flicking the shutdown switch takes milliseconds. The earthquake detectors automatically shut down the Fukushima reactors as soon as the earthquake was detected.

But we see how that ended. Once a reactor is shutdown, it's still in "hot shutdown". It takes a long time to remove heat from the fuel rods....(I think it's months but that may vary by reactor), before it can be called "cold shutdown".

Even then the fuel rods are still hot and in Fukushima were stored in fuel storage pools.




posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


The switch takes milliseconds to press,but the mechanical devices which remove the fuel rods take alot longer.

Not worth the risk if missiles are incoming.
must be done sooner IMO.

I hope we do not get to that point.




edit on 9/1/2012 by Silcone Synapse because: spelling again



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I'm with you Wrabbit!

She's about to BLOW


Interesting that Southern Iran just experiences a 5.3 Mag earthquake just over an hour ago...if I was living there, that would've made me gulp some!
edit on 9-1-2012 by SpaceJockey1 because: add paragraph



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by xecoybh
 


Uhm.. PressTV refers to a lot of media outlets, which is not what im calling into question. Its the hatchet job they do on those media sources material to put their story together, which usually invovled leaving out any information that is pertinent and true.

As I said, the comment about the facility and it being a nuclear weapons producer does not fit.
edit on 9-1-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)


You would "call into question" any news from non-aligned nations, regardless of what they are reporting. Posting the same "PressTV is bad" line in every thread based from a PressTV article doesn't make your argument seem all that constructive; in fact, I think that is considered trolling, especially when there are few people around here who share your sentiments.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Patriotsrevenge
 


Those SM-3s will be exhausted trying to defend the CBG, not the THAAD systems, even these systems do not approach 99% kill probability in conjunction with the CIWS and EW suites. It is highly unlikely that they will all be shot down. Remember the inferior scuds that killed a lot of US troops in the 1991 Gulf war?



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by Patriotsrevenge
 


Those SM-3s will be exhausted trying to defend the CBG, not the THAAD systems, even these systems do not approach 99% kill probability in conjunction with the CIWS and EW suites. It is highly unlikely that they will all be shot down. Remember the inferior scuds that killed a lot of US troops in the 1991 Gulf war?


I remember that Patriots had something like a 3% success rate when it came to intercepting the Scuds. And those scuds were extremely inaccurate.

Anyone who prioritizes missile defense to protect themselves from ballistic missiles is a fool, considering that attacking the launch sites/vehicles yields much more success.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Military Alliances. Simulating World War III

A World War III scenario has been the object of numerous simulations and war games, going back to the Cold War era.

We have no details regarding the geopolitical assumptions underlying the TIRANNT war scenarios, --i.e. regarding analysis of major military actors, alliances, etc. From the available information, the simulations pertained to an all out war (bombing campaign and ground war) directed against Iran, without taking into account possible responses by Iran's allies, namely China and Russia.

In 2006, The Pentagon launched another set of war simulations entitled Vigilant Shield 07 (conducted from September through December 2006). These war simulations were not limited to a single Middle East war theater as in the case of TIRANNT (e.g. Iran), they also included Russia, China and North Korea.

The core assumption behind Vigilant Shield 07 is "Global Warfare". In the light of recent war preparations directed against Iran, the Road to Conflict in the Vigilant Shield 07 war games should be examined very carefully. They anticipate the "New Cold War". They reflect US foreign policy and military doctrine during both the Bush and Obama administrations. The declared enemies of America under Vigilant Shield are Irmingham [Iran], Nemazee [North Korea], Ruebek [Russia], Churya [China]

Vigilant Shield 07 is a World War III Scenario which also includes an active and aggressive role for North Korea.

The simulations are predicated on the assumption that Iran constitutes a nuclear threat and that Russia and North Korea --which are allies of Iran-- will attack America and that America and its allies will wage a pre-emptive (defensive) war.

While China is included in the simulations as a threat as well as an enemy of America, it is not directly involved, in the simulaitons, in attacking America.

The war simulations commence with Iran and Russia conducting joint air defense exercises, followed by nuclear testing by North Korea.

A terrorist attack on America is also contemplated in Vigilant Shield 07 based on the assumption that the "axis of evil" "rogue states" are supporting "non-State" terrorist organizations.

The diplomatic agenda is also envisaged as well as a media campaign to discredit Russia and Iran.

It should be understood that the conduct of these war scenarios with America under attack is also intended as an instrument of internal propaganda within the upper the echelons of Military, Intelligence and participating government agencies, with a view to developing a an unbending consensus pertaining to the preemptive war doctrine, --i.e that the threat against the "American Homeland" is "real" and that a pre-emptive attack --including the use of US nuclear weapons-- against rogue enemies is justified. And that premeptive warfare is an instrument of peacemaking which contributes to global security.

FULL ARTICLE
Lots of interesting information on the above site.

Looking very much like the above scenario is falling into place...



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


Whatever it is, only an idiot would strike a facility that might have nuclear materials during a war when your homeland is basically a country over.

The nuclear emissions would land on everyone, including you, and you'd get blamed for it.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Woah, so they are actually shutting it down now.

this cant be good.


A terrorist nation shutting down their nuke weapons plant? Should we start cheering now or wait an appropriate amount of time.


You misread the biased story, Israel is the one shutting down the plant, not the terrorist nation Iran. You're welcome for the clarification.


You misunderstood his implication. Israel is the terrorist nation (with verifiable proof of nuclear weapon production, unlike Iran).

You're welcome for the correction.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by crazydaisy
Even if the reactor is shut down
would it not still be a target and
dangerous? Does anyone know
what a safe amount of time it would
be for the reactor to be shut down.
So many questions but I feel things
are really heating up now.


Even if it was shut down, and still hit by a missile...what about the spent fuel rods? I'm sure they are stored at another facility, but if a missile was to hit the fuel rod depository? It may not be enough to engage a reaction from the spent rods, but it very well could be a dirty bomb type of fallout



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   
Either go to war or be done with it, I'm so sick of the barking thats going on by both sides... Every day its something new.....



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 





Nuclear Power Generating Station as well?


Bizarre that the article claims Israel makes "nuclear weapons there".

Its a nuclear power plant.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Just shutting down a reactor does not make it safe. To make it safe you would need to remove the fuel rods and even then you would need to take them away to somewhere else far enough away, like out of the country.

The fuel rods are the part that can overheat and melt and give off radiation if they are not cooled by water at all times and kept within the containment.

A shut down reacter could still be hit with a missile which damages the containment, leaks water, and then you have a serious problem along the lines of Fukoshima, Three Mile Island, etc



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


That would be a wise move on Israel's part. I'm sure any nation with a nuclear reactor would do likewise if they know a threat is coming.



there is no threat if they would leave Iran alone



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   
23rd of January.

This is the date that the war with Iran finally starts.

ALS



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by CALGARIAN
UPDATE:

IDF to hold military drills at Dimona Nuclear Site.

www.presstv.ir...


PressTV... such a reliable source.

Assuming the info is real, we could see something else going on.

With the uptick in instability, neutral countries will take extra precautions about allowing/assisting countries with manuevers / training. Shut the plant down to simulate a missile attack / earethquake? It also has the added benefeit of being able to simulate an attack on it without much scrutiny than if they left the plant open and didnt do any other drills. This way it can be explained away as part of the training if questions are asked.

Also a few observations -
#1 - PressTV - Enough said
#2 - Israel has never publicly acknowledged they have a nuclear weapons program (yes we know its the worst kept secret). I mention this because they arent going to announce / go on the record with a media source that a facility manufatures weapons, especially nuclear weapons.


edit on 9-1-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-1-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-1-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)


So presstv isn't a reliable source, neither is Rt news either (even though you have used it as a source). What exactly is reliable? You don't work for Fox News do you?



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


Ive never used RT as a source for anything. I have used PressTV to highlight the propoganda comin from it, as well as to shove it back down the throats of the people who swear by it when they post stories those people dont like or want to hear about.

As far as FoxNews goes, I do look at them, in addition to CBC, Harretz, Bloomberg, several out of Turkey as well as Asian countries. My point has been and always will be that when comparing media, one must take into account the ability of the reporting agency to be able to be challeneged, as well as able to challenge themselves the government, country, president, leadership etc etc etc.

When I see sometihg in Foxnews I dont care for, I can research and find other information from other media outlets in the same market. The same cat be said about PressTV or even RT for that matter, because most of the oppositiion sources are either non existent (as is the case in Iran) or severely curtailed / in danger of being wiped out (as is the case in Russia).

If you cant see that and make the distinction, thats not my problem.


As I pointed out in my post, that you ignored, is the fact Israels nuke program is not comfirmed by the government, and for a media outlet to report a location and that its being shut down because they manufacture nuclear weapons there and that they are afraid of a Iranian strike, it raises red flags, especially since Israel has more than one nuclear plant.

Why that one and not the others?

IR the reporting media outlets not only didnt do their own homework, they flat out lied and misled - IE Propoganda, especially when its not corrected.
edit on 9-1-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   
My guess is that they are taking Dimona, to a cold shutdown.

A cold shutdown is where they do not have to circulate coolant just keep the coolant level up to cover the fuel rods the same as is done in spent rod storage facilities.

Its always been my understanding that Israel kept there spare weapons pits (or weapons) stored under the reactor so they could not be counted by detectors on satellites and Only keep a few ready weapons under heavy shielding at military bases.

The only countries with these detectors on satellites is the US and maybe russia. and nether is going to admit it but years ago a Russia satellite (Cosmos 954 )with a reactor on it broke-up over Canada and the US was able to pinpoint some of the pieces of the fuel from it so it could be recovered. But never told how they found the pieces.

This is the reason no one knows if or how many nuclear weapons Israel has .



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 11:34 PM
link   
As far as I have ever been able to determine and I have looked into this issue several times over the years Dimona is not an electric power plant now and I know it was not designed to be an electirc power plant.

Like Israel itself it is designed to produce pure evil.

It was a nuclear research plant when it was first designed and supplied by the French. Of course the Zionist wanted it to build their hell-bomb before it was ever extorted from France.

If you look into Israel Electric Corporation it does not show a single watt of electric power from nuclear sources.

Of course the Zionist could be lying because they lie about everything - as we all know.

Here is a link to the company that used to be called something like the Palestine Power Company before the Zionists started to deny that Paelstine ever existed.

Israel Electric Power by source

Israel is the problem - tell everyone



Originally posted by CALGARIAN


Very interesting.

Pardon my ignorance, but is Dimona just a weapons facility or is also a Nuclear Power Generating Station as well? Either or, a complete shut down of a Nuclear Site isn't an easy task and not one to be executed unless the government fears it's going to be leveled.

IF a war does break out, I can see the Iranian military going tit-for-tat if the Iranian Nuclear Sites are hit.

www.theaustralian.com.au...

www.theaustralian.com.a u
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 04:21 AM
link   
In my opinion, Israel did shut down their own power plant, I can assure you they did it for multiple benefits.

You add up the military drills being near the power station and you get military exercises for commandeering other power plants. Israel wants to invade Iran. Bing bang boom.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join