Panetta admits Iran not developing nukes, page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times

Topic started on 10-1-2012 @ 05:56 AM by trustnothing

Panetta admits Iran not developing nukes

www.rawstory.com

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta let slip on Sunday the big open secret that Washington war hawks don’t want widely known: Iran is not developing nuclear weapons.

Appearing on CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday, Panetta admitted that despite all the rhetoric, Iran is not pursuing the ability to split atoms with weapons, saying it is instead pursuing “a nuclear capability.”

That “capability” falls in line with what Iran has said for years: that it is developing nuclear energy facilities, not nuclear weapons.

(visit the link for the full news article)

reply posted on 10-1-2012 @ 05:56 AM by trustnothing

Well well, pretty much what we've known all along, hopefully this is American starting to show its true hand. Im still on the fence with this guy but he seems to be less of an evil bastard than the likes of Bush snr. Wonder how the Israeli lobby will respond to this.

I guess in a few more years Iran will be ready for some Acid house, maybe they just want Glow Sticks that will last all night!

Time to stop the war mongering and return to diplomacy.

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

reply posted on 10-1-2012 @ 06:03 AM by THEDUDE86

reply to post by trustnothing

If they looked for uranium they were looking for a nuke

They already have enough material to make 1 or 2 small bombs. What they don't have is a delivery device. Some device would need to air burst, and travel over 300 miles...Iran just isn't there yet, but 6 Months from now this will be huge news

edit on 10-1-2012 by THEDUDE86 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 10-1-2012 @ 06:07 AM by THEDUDE86

Originally posted by THEDUDE86
reply to post by trustnothing

If they looked for uranium they were looking for a nuke

They already have enough material to make 1 or 2 small bombs. What they don't have is a delivery device. Some device would need to air burst, and travel over 300 miles...Iran just isn't there yet, but 6 Months from now this will be huge news

reply posted on 10-1-2012 @ 06:11 AM by chaztekno

Thats all well and good and im glad they have admitted it, but building nuclear reactors in a major earth quake zone is an accident waiting to happen, I fail to see how any earth quake 'safe guards' that are built in can perfectly protect the reactor and guarantee safety for the local and not so local population. Stopping them now is a good idea in my opinion, what ever the means.

reply posted on 10-1-2012 @ 06:14 AM by InsideYourMind

Originally posted by THEDUDE86
reply to post by trustnothing

If they looked for uranium they were looking for a nuke

They already have enough material to make 1 or 2 small bombs. What they don't have is a delivery device. Some device would need to air burst, and travel over 300 miles...Iran just isn't there yet, but 6 Months from now this will be huge news

edit on 10-1-2012 by THEDUDE86 because: (no reason given)

I doubt it (reffering to 6months).

Allegedly. Iran was already capable of having functioning nuclear weapons since 2006-2007.
5 Years later... the same horn is being blown by the west.

I honestly think that if Iran wanted a nuclear bomb they would have had one many years ago.

reply posted on 10-1-2012 @ 06:16 AM by trustnothing

Originally posted by chaztekno
Thats all well and good and im glad they have admitted it, but building nuclear reactors in a major earth quake zone is an accident waiting to happen, I fail to see how any earth quake 'safe guards' that are built in can perfectly protect the reactor and guarantee safety for the local and not so local population. Stopping them now is a good idea in my opinion, what ever the means.

OK so are you saying we should attack Japan and the US if they refuse to decommission their plants which are built on top of fault lines?

"Stopping them now is a good idea in my opinion, what ever the means."

reply posted on 10-1-2012 @ 06:19 AM by THEDUDE86

Originally posted by chaztekno
Thats all well and good and im glad they have admitted it, but building nuclear reactors in a major earth quake zone is an accident waiting to happen, I fail to see how any earth quake 'safe guards' that are built in can perfectly protect the reactor and guarantee safety for the local and not so local population. Stopping them now is a good idea in my opinion, what ever the means.

Can you name on earthquake that has damaged a nuclear reactor..
Keep in mind I work in emergency management and have been involved on several nuclear incident training scenarios

reply posted on 10-1-2012 @ 06:19 AM by GLontra

Ahmadinejad is in Venezuela, and Hugo Chavez joked about having a "big atomic bomb" under the lawn of the presidential palace.

news.yahoo.com...

The guys have good humour...

reply posted on 10-1-2012 @ 06:25 AM by chaztekno

reply to post by trustnothing

We are allies with the USA and Japan so no is the answer. Germany is leading the world in doing the right thing.

reply to post by THEDUDE86

Fukushima

reply posted on 10-1-2012 @ 06:33 AM by THE666OCCULT

Here is the link to the video of the conversation.

youtu.be...

So they are going to "wipe Israel of the map" with what again?

reply posted on 10-1-2012 @ 06:33 AM by THEDUDE86

reply to post by THEDUDE86

Fukushima

No, the reactor survived the quake.

The tsunami took out the reactor by destroying the pumps and batteries...

Nuclear reactors are designed to withstand a jet impact, and during an earthquake will shut down. However the back up cooling devices were not as well mitigated from the tsunami hazard.

The overheating because of the loss of cooling devices created hydrogen gas, then exploded which created the run off on the reactor. The mistake was putting the reactor by the ocean not putting it in the quake zone.

Think about all the other reactors that had zero dagamge in japan

reply posted on 10-1-2012 @ 06:37 AM by milkyway12

Iran already has Nuclear weapons. They will just be easy to shoot down is all. They are from the USSR , bought off the black market after the Soviet collapse.

reply posted on 10-1-2012 @ 06:37 AM by jazzguy

"Nuclear reactors are designed to withstand a jet impact"

thats what they said about the WTC lol

reply posted on 10-1-2012 @ 06:42 AM by DJW001

Since "nuclear capability" means "capable of building nuclear weapons," your headline and the source you based it on is simply wrong. If Iran isn't trying to acquire a nuclear capability, they are insane.

reply posted on 10-1-2012 @ 06:43 AM by DaarkSyde2012

Are you serious? What about Fukushima? I think there was more than one reactor damaged there, don't you?

edit on 10-1-2012 by DaarkSyde2012 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 10-1-2012 @ 07:04 AM by whenWEallFALLdown

Oh, and American politician told the truth! Good thing those guys never flip-flop round this MF'r ya dig

reply posted on 10-1-2012 @ 07:42 AM by THEDUDE86

Originally posted by DaarkSyde2012

Are you serious? What about Fukushima? I think there was more than one reactor damaged there, don't you?
edit on 10-1-2012 by DaarkSyde2012 because: (no reason given)

Read my explination which you missed earlier
2nd line

Pages: ^^TOP^^