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.

 

Top US Nuclear Expert Tells Obama: There Is No Weapons Threat From Iran

page: 2
22
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by jonnywhite
 


You seem to forget that their installations are currently and have been under constant monitoring.

I don't understand where you came up with this flawed conclusion of yours.

It appears you have been spoonfed by the MSM.

ETA:

BTW I'm still waiting for you to show me which parts of the report prove Iran seeks nuclear weapons.

You threw that report around like it was the word of god in one of your previous posts, and then ignore my request to show me where the proof from the report is.

I know this report very well so please choose wisely because what if's and may be's don't count.
edit on 17-1-2012 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


This is an expert opinion. This man can only speculate as he has not actually been to Iran to inspect what they have. I am sure that Pres. Obama has many experts rendering their opinions on this but an inspection will be the only way to insure what Iran is saying is true.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by karen61057
 


The facilities are under routine inspection!

How many times do I have to repeat this?



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Perhaps I'm stating the obvious but the whole nuclear argument is in my opinion just a pretext for war. What is to be gained by the U.S. by bombing Iran back to the stone age, Obama trying to improve his image, Iran's natural resources, installing a friendly (controllable) government, opening a channel to distribute oil from the Caspian to the Arabian Gulf, war profiteering, what? Ask yourself the question who would benefit the most and this may provide the answer?

Besides even if they do have/get a nuke they have to have a delivery system to get it over here (U.S.) and any plane, missile, or ship would be taken out before it even got close. Suitcase nuke? Highly unlikely unless they had help from U.S. or Russia or some other nation with the capability to produce that kind of weapon. I would be more concerned for neigboring countries within striking distance of Iran that are friendly to the U.S. like Isreal, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc. not to mention our armed forces that ring the country. No, I'm not for Iran having a nuke.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by gunaire
 


Iran has been in bed with Russia for a few years now.....I do not feel a delivery system will be hard to accomplish with Russian missile technology.

2nd.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by radpetey
 


True, True, but if Russia is giving Iran missile technology with the intent to enable them to attack us then we have much bigger problems...



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by radpetey
 


..... Than starting a war in Iran.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by karen61057
 

The facilities are under routine inspection!


Who exactly is inspecting these facilities on a routine basis? The IAEA has been kicked out of Iran or restricted on so many occasions that it's difficult to know if anyone is inspecting anything at all. While there have been inspections on occasion it is a REAL stretch to say they are routine or comprehensive.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Muttley2012
 





Unless this individual has been to Iran and inspected all of their facilities (including secret facilities), then how could anyone call him credible.


Well how about the people who have never been to Iran, but still assume that they have bad intentions, or they are terrorist. From what you said that gives no one the right to assume Iran is a terrorist, and will use the nuclear capabilities for harming others. The U.S. Government is not a credible source..Period



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   
I think we tried to tell President Bush the same thing about Iraq....that got us a good ten years in the desert! Let's hope President Obama is a better listener than Bush.
edit on 17-1-2012 by Cosmic911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by bussoboy
 



Why do you just keep posting the SAME message in every thread you reply to, were not going to your hyped up link

You have posted this message, the exact same message cut and pasted in at least 10 threads if not more, give it a rest, add a comment or stay away from the threads



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by bussoboy
 



With this Iran thing, if you go to the Project Camelot achieves you will find an interview “The Anglo Saxon Mission.’ The whistleblower concerned was invited to a meeting which he thought was a council meeting and the other people at the meeting assumed he was one of them.


Achieves Link ?





With this in mind, read the article above in the Project Camelot achieve and all will become clear.



Which Link?




edit on Jan-18-2012 by xuenchen because:




posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


I looked up that report, it's an interesting read. Mostly contradicting announcements from Iran and failed responses to communication. So conjecture, basically. As far as I've read recently, this data is out of date and they actually do now have replies. I suggest all who are commenting read it, it's not too long. www.iaea.org...

Not reason enough for the economic sanctions for sure, and certainly no pretext for war. In fact, I think we would all sleep sounder if we knew Iran DID have nukes. Then we'd be sure the mighty NATO would tread more carefully, contrast to their usual gung-ho shoot first ask later approach.
edit on 19-1-2012 by Pr0t0 because: Forgot link



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Iran doesn't need to make nukes, Russia builds the finest suitcase nuclear weapons on the planet, that can't be detected and will freely give them to Iran when the time comes



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   
My first post here

I pretty much joined to ask this question.

"Why wouldn't Iran have WMD's?"

I recall the investigation where a Nato / United Nations investigator went there but its unlikely Saddam (thats how long ago it was, Saddam was still alive) would just attach a leash to the investigator, and lead him right to his WMD's.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by MorpheusPsyche
 


You're thinking of Iraq, not Iran



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweetnlow
Iran doesn't need to make nukes, Russia builds the finest suitcase nuclear weapons on the planet, that can't be detected and will freely give them to Iran when the time comes

Thats quite a statement.

Can you throw a guy a link, a direction , where I can learn about this?



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Pr0t0
 


I'm glad you took the time to read the report. Many people just throw that report around as if it's definitive evidence even though they have never taken the time to read it. They are believing what they heard on the MSM or on here and are presenting it as truth.

Peace.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 


Both the USA and Soviet Union miniaturized nukes during the Cold War/ With today's military technology it doesn't surprise me one bit. There's not much public information, but that's not to say they don't have them.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join