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.

 

Just why cant Iran have nukes?

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by Aeons
 





There is no source that would be good enough for you. Sense about their actual energy needs has no impact on you. People link up actual members of their leadership telling you this, and you guys dismiss it.

Tell me the standard of proof you need.


Yes. A reliable source. Not your opinion or conjecture. Something from an impartial third party, like the newest IAEA report, or anything from the IAEA saying that Iran is building a weapon. Can't find it? Not surprised.

Their energy needs? How much power do they consume in a year? What is their estimate for growth that they need for the next decade? How much power will the Nuclear power plants give them? Are they enriching in order to sell the rods to other countries? How big are they looking to expand their medical facilities? These are just questions I thought up while I am writing this. Until you have answers to these questions (more to follow if you need), then you have no proof.

Standard of proof: Impartial third party.

Edit: what do you mean "you guys"?
edit on 1-2-2012 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)


How about that in those IAEA reports they continue to find traces of highly enriched uranium? Hm?


Link to source please. Then I will comment.

Edit: Oh I see. You are referring to the 2004 report. You might be educated...sorry surprised to hear this:


After analysis of swipe samples, IAEA experts now say the HEU was Pakistani and presumably came to be in Natanz because imported centrifuge components were contaminated. The origin of the LEU contamination has yet to be established but there are some indications it is of Russian provenance.

edit on 1-2-2012 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 07:04 PM
link   
In all of the discussion in this thread (and damn fine logical discussion at that) I have never once seen the accusation that the US in particular does not abide by the NPT. The countries that had nukes were supposed to dramatically reduce their WMDs over time. This has not happened. It sucks!

The other point to consider is that Iran has had years to study US invasion tactics and while they may not be able to win, they can certainly kill thousands upon thousands of US military. As the US found in Iraq it is on thing to take a country, quite another to keep it. Iran has had all this time to develop tactics to kill a force trying to hold the country.

Iran could hide tens of thousands of troops in their cities, armed with 50 calibre sniper rifles just waiting for the army of occupation.

P)



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by pheonix358
In all of the discussion in this thread (and damn fine logical discussion at that) I have never once seen the accusation that the US in particular does not abide by the NPT. The countries that had nukes were supposed to dramatically reduce their WMDs over time. This has not happened. It sucks!

The other point to consider is that Iran has had years to study US invasion tactics and while they may not be able to win, they can certainly kill thousands upon thousands of US military. As the US found in Iraq it is on thing to take a country, quite another to keep it. Iran has had all this time to develop tactics to kill a force trying to hold the country.

Iran could hide tens of thousands of troops in their cities, armed with 50 calibre sniper rifles just waiting for the army of occupation.

P)


Didn't I bring up the NPT?!? Damn, I thought I did. I do every other time! What was the prize?

You are talking Iran's forte. Asymmetric warfare. I did a thread on this. Link if you are interested.
edit on 1-2-2012 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 




Might want to try triple checking then. Iran has not been found to have nuclear weapons. US government said so, Iran says so, IAEA says so, and ISIS says so. Why are they only people that say they do, on ATS or MSM?


I'm aware of that but the thread title is Just why cant Iran have nukes? so that's what I've been discussing.



Ridiculous to suggest that Iran would attack Russia and China simply because they are part of the "original nuclear club".


I never suggested that, I suspect either you've misinterpreted me or I haven't expressed myself very clearly, or maybe a combination of the two.

I included them as they were the original nuclear powers who have proven experience of having nuclear weapons and not using them and that they are far more advanced technologically than Iran are and are likely to be for some considerable length of time.
For accuracy they were included, that's all.....I think it's ridiculous to suggest that Iran would attack any of those nations, especially using nuclear weapons as they could, and quite possibly would, be wiped off the face of the earth if they did.



Not a nuclear war, but, an invasion of Iran would leave them with higher than they are used to casualties.


Possibly, bit I thought we were discussing a nuclear confrontation?

And if it was a conventional war along the lines of WWII where little regard was given for civilian casualties then I suspect the outcome would be pretty much the same.

Let's hope that neither occurs.



I agree that not everything is as it seems to be in global politics, but they are on opposing sides of how to deal with Iran, US has placed sanctions against China for this. Read.


The USA started sanctions against Iran in 1995, well before any UN approved sanctions.

Personally I disagree with the use of sanctions....they would hardly effect any nuclear weapon programme, if it exists, and sure as hell won't affect the Mullah's and Ahmadinajed etc and the only people who suffer are the ordinary, everyday Iranians.

And I agree the US is over stepping the mark with China by imposing sanctions on them based on a domestic US Law which has no support in the UN.

But ultimately they agree with the US that Iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, they just disagree on how Iran should be handled.



The only time they were aggressive was when they won the Iraq-Iran war and after beating the Iraqis, they kept fighting for years


Maybe aggressive is the wrong word.
Inflammatory and uneasy are probably more accurate.
There is a mutual hatred between many Arab nations and Iran with some countries even advocating mlitary confrontation as they are scared of the implications of Iran gaining nuclear weapons.
Obviously the underlying reason for this is the bitter Sunni - Shia hatred that many have for each other.



"The west" destroyed a country under false pretenses. They are trying to garner public support to do it again.


I agree.
And we can't let them do it again.

What's the answer?
I don't know.....but neither sanctions or military conflict are acceptable.



No. I would just hope they would show the same patience if they had a nuke like they have shown without one.


And what are the consequences if you are wrong?

If the Ayatollah had one at his disposal would he have used it during the Iran - Iraq war?



I never said they were, I said they are the hypocrite in this case.


I suspect we'll never find agreement on this.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


Great reply!
Star for you.

I hope neither side steps this up to more than a battle of "who looks toughest". Iran is playing a dangerous game, and the US is as well, if they are proven to be wrong.
edit on 1-2-2012 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by mandroids
 


I get your point in regards to them wanting to have nukes due to some of their neighbors already possessing them but I personally don't feel comfortable with any theocratic regime having the ability to unleash devastation on such scale. I understand there are reasons why the United States isn't looked on with love by Iran but when you have a supreme religious leader who isn't shy about wishing death to the West you have to be realistic in looking at it from a defense standpoint. Our borders are open enough to allow millions of illegal immigrants and billions of dollars worth of drugs to flow into the country every year, how hard would it be to sneak something across into the country with planning and resources.

I doubt there are too many people who are happy with the way the US has been sold out by its politicians to the point where we stick our noses in places it doesn't belong for monetary gain, but if anyone thinks its ok to allow the possibility of a major city going up in a mushroom cloud they need their head examined. As mad as we get at our government and corrupt business leaders and politicians we shouldn't leave ourselves open to a sucker punch that would take the lives of hundreds of thousands of our daughters and sons, grandparents and friends.

In trying to remain informed of the true state of affairs in the world I've had my eyes opened to false flag events being perpetrated by governments, but the fact remains that true terrorism also exists in the world. You gotta wonder if our military leaders have reasons for not wanting Iran to have any nuclear capabilities whatsoever.

The world is full of so much propaganda and mis-info its hard to tell which way is up anymore.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by QuestionsEverything
 

Israel is a theocratic nation. Pakistan is as well. You are too late if you don't feel comfortable with them possessing these weapons.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 09:44 PM
link   
I'm not worried about Iran having nukes as much as I am the only country in the world to ever use them against another country having nukes. Oh, wait, that's us...........................



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


Valid point, and no I'm not comfortable with either one of them having nuclear weapons in their arsenal either but the cats kind of already out of the bag on that one. I wouldn't feel safe with a country run by the Islamic version of the Westboro Baptist Church having the ability to attack on American soil just as I was concerned when we had a president who professed to receive divine guidance when making decisions having access to The Football.

Seems like some members on here are just so Anti-American government that they turn a blind eye to the fact that there does need to be protections carried out to ensure that this doesn't happen.

I'm a new member here without a long post history but I am a firm believer there are two sides to a coin, even if both of them are evils. I'm far from a warmonger but I think it's naive to think that (due to some of our foreign policies and corrupt overseas business practices) if a nuke were to go off in Anytown USA, half of the world wouldn't be dancing in the streets in celebration. Even if there's a lot of evil being perpetuated by our leaders I don't want to turn and the noise and find Seattle is history and there's a fallout cloud heading in my direction.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


I do have to say Pakistan's nuclear capabilities along with their methods of delivery falling into Taliban hands due to coup or popular revolt have me more worried then Iran gaining a bomb so kudos on pointing that out.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by QuestionsEverything
 





I'm a new member here without a long post history but I am a firm believer there are two sides to a coin, even if both of them are evils. I'm far from a warmonger but I think it's naive to think that (due to some of our foreign policies and corrupt overseas business practices) if a nuke were to go off in Anytown USA, half of the world wouldn't be dancing in the streets in celebration. Even if there's a lot of evil being perpetuated by our leaders I don't want to turn and the noise and find Seattle is history and there's a fallout cloud heading in my direction.


Post history doesn't mean crap, I'm sure you are more intelligent than half of the people on here. Just from you saying there are two sides to a coin.
I think the same thing. I also think it is a damn shame that a once great nation such as USA, would spend soo much money and time and resources on a "what if" scenario. If Iran is developing nuclear weapons, and I stress if, I don't believe they would use them. I believe they would use it as a deterrent. I mean, North Korea hasn't, Pakistan and India haven't nuked each other, so why would Iran use them on Israel?



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by QuestionsEverything
reply to post by superman2012
 


I do have to say Pakistan's nuclear capabilities along with their methods of delivery falling into Taliban hands due to coup or popular revolt have me more worried then Iran gaining a bomb so kudos on pointing that out.


Yes, and the "king of terror" was in Pakistan, in plain site. If pakistan is helping Al-Queda, couldn't they let them "steal" enough material for even a dirty bomb? But even they haven't been stupid enough to do anything like that.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by mandroids
 


iran has to do with nukes as much as italian bakers with sushi. everything between the US and Iran is Israel and the control of the oil flow. I dont know when it was the last time it was that Iran invaded a handful of countries but i can name the ones US has been in just off the top of my head.

Either way, there will be war and it will be horrible, and it will have world wide repercussions and so forth and so forth, been said before, been done before. The only thing im wondering is when will it start and im guessing late this year if its to go with the whole 2012 thing, if not, id be tremendously surprised if it doesnt start before 2014. US keeps poking around too much for something not to happen. Theyre as subtle as gay men in a Banana Republic store.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by NightSkyeB4Dawn
reply to post by BooKrackers
 


Are you saying that this is the way Iran feels about you?

Or is this the way you feel about Iran?

When did they inform you of this uncontrollable hatred they have for you? If they hated you this much they wouldn't wait for nukes to attack you. Their hatred would overrule all intelligence and they would be unable to control their need to destroy you.

Since their rabid hatred has not lead them to attack you or anyone else, I have great difficulty in accepting your statements as fact.

Propaganda flows on both sides.

By the way, why did the US give nukes to Pakistan?








I don't care how Iran feels about me...and I dislike everyone equally...you failed to understand the analogy. If you hate yer neighbor and you are on equal footing...would you not wait for an Achilles heel to get your neighbors attention?

Do you watch current events at all? I am fully aware the history of Iran.....I also am very aware of the history of America...you misunderstand me......I don't care if both sides destroy each other......I don't vote. I have nothing vested in either argument. I'm merely pointing out that the Ayatollah is a fanatic much in the same premise that the US corporate interest is. Both sides are dangerous equally where global stability is concerned.

Pakistan? I don't care.....maybe they were hoping Pakistan would nuke all the Dell customer service centers in India and do us a favor. Perhaps its to offset the number of 7-11's sprouting up in the country? I know why the US gives out nukes......to support their vested interest in the region...that is....until the dictator they prop up falls leaving them with egg on their face.

Is the west right for what they have done to exploit Iran? No....... Is Iran right for acting like a schizophrenic bi-polar baptist preacher with touretes? No....... neither side deserves sympathy....and if that's what they're looking for it's in the dictionary in between sh*t and syphilis.

And BTW...just because your neighbor isn't knocking on yer door to punch you in the face, doesn't mean that he isn't slashing your tires, talking crap about you to other neighbors, detaining your cat in a furry prison of pain, or urinating on yer garden while your away. Iran does not attack directly they have said this is their strategy many times......Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon should have taught you that.....if you knew history that is...

What...you were expecting more propaganda?
edit on 1-2-2012 by BooKrackers because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


By bringing up my post history I just meant to convey that there isn't a Manifesto of Me floating on this site yet showing what I am and am not aware of and the depth of my philosophy on topics such as this.

True Bin Laden was in Pakistan in plain sight and I've often wondered about the possibilities that some kind of an exchange has already taken place, although I would think if they had a dirty bomb it would have already been utilized. I know there are radiation sensors and such at the major points of entry but is it farfetched to think there may be things that could sting us already within our borders waiting for the go ahead to be unleashed? I don't know as I'm not privy to that information but it isn't outside the realm of possibility.

I've read info on the USSR having smuggled weapons in to the US during the height of the Cold War, who's to say some former KGB operative thats fallen on hard times may want to cash in.

I don't even know if Iran is actively seeking weapons, there are x media outlets and governmental organizations putting forth that they are just like there are numerous outlets saying they just want the enrichment capabilities to produce uranium for civilian power.

I just know from personal experience if the threat of violence is imminent from someone, I'm not going to allow someone the chance to get to a weapon or do me great bodily harm, I'm going to use maximum force ensure it doesn't happen. I'm assuming our military commanders subscribe to the same philosophy I just hope our military won't be used to enrich Halliburton any more then it already has.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   
Again, no one should have nukes..........not one country for anything.....if you want nuclear energy? Use thorium...its more abundant than you think.

No one deserves to have the coolest weapon ever invented....no one.....we're still a race of children on the playground and the US is the fat kid....and Iran is the midget with glasses sucking on his inhaler.......holding a letter opener behind his back......



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by mandroids
 


Why?

Because they are a Theocracy with a crazy fake President who thinks he is living in the last generation where the Last Imam will be heralded by him.

Because of his religious fanaticism shared by the real Dictators in that Theocracy and becuase Iran funds and arms known Terrorists group who's own Charter says they want to wipe the Jews of the face of the planet and then do the same to the Western World and they mean it.

Pretending that is not true is insanity and quite frankly the result of propaganda spread by people in on it, or as nuts as these radicals are. They are also a serious threat to real Muslims all over the world. The people they support kill more Muslims than wars ever did.

The real question is why do you want them to have a Nuclear Weapon? Do you want to wipe out the Jews and the Western World?
edit on 2/1/2012 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


I really do wonder that you believe that Iran is that intent on wiping people out. I just do have to wonder. You make it sound like they are so very savage and brutal, more so than any other people on Earth, from your depiction above. Are you serious? Do you read the news within your own country? Do you not think that things are blown way out of proportion by the media? Show me your non-media sources for your analysis. Unless you've spent a great deal of time in that region or have some other intimate knowledge such as ancestral heritage (which you will also need to expound on should that be the case), you cannot have insight into their culture that was not cherry-picked and spoonfed to you by media propagandists.

I wonder if you people know how the US looks to the outside world. Do you honestly think you look like the pillar of freedom you see yourselves as? ANYTHING BUT - let me tell you. I was born and raised there, but I've lived here for 26 years and the image you project is anything but honorable or admirable. Believe it. Only those who buy into the illusion think things are great there. Interesting, yes, but baby, "I wouldn't want to live there!"



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by flexy123
 



You are just repeating the usual "pro Iran" pseudo-arguments the other, like-minded people use.


If you are going to start with personal attacks, and start misjudging and labeling my opinions in such a ignorant manner, you are going to regret it.

I'm not "pro-Iran", nor am I "anti-american". I actually feel kind of offended by that statement, since I actually worked in the behalf of the United States.


Let's start with the fact that in the past AMERICA hardly ever initiated (!!) military engagement, rather INTERVENED for the sake of a purpose.

Whether it was Nazi Germany, Saddam Hussein's attack on Kuwait etc..etc..


Nobody is saying the US doesn't have purpose in it's actions. The actual purpose, that is not discussed within public eyesight is the problem.


In this case, Iran is/was getting caught going for nuclear weapons and Iran was TOLD BEFOREHAND this is not being tolerated by threatening them with SANCTIONS - *NOT* military action.


Besides the "fact" being an outright lie, you are stating "facts" without providing any evidence for them. When actually, there is evidence that Iran isn't going for nuclear weapons.

IAEA itself stated that, and who would have "guessed", Israel ignored such report.


Iran however insisted on continuing their "civil" (LOL) nuclear program, giving the US and the rest of the world the finger, actually it was IRAN starting military action by saying they will block the Street of Hormuz if sanctions are imposed - starting their "military exercises".


You are ignorant in your statements, and you confuse your patriotism feeling and emotional response with actual facts.

1- Iran didn't start anything. They have been feeling US pressure for decades and actually stepped down every single time the US confronted them. If you aren't aware of such episodes, learn some history. Non-propaganda history would suit you better.

2- Iran has been threatened several times due to their nuclear energy program. At first they gave in, signing the NPT treaty and allowing IAEA to investigate them. It was only when (years ago) Iran started to feel that IAEA was a US/Israel "puppet" that they started cutting information flow and denying access to their facilities.

Mind you, they aren't doing anything the US wouldn't do if the case was inverted (US being inspected). And furthermore, Iran is only demaning fair treatment. They have stated several times they will comply with every single treaty, if they are treated fairly within the world community. They have not been treated that way, they are clearly demonized.

And no, it wasn't Iran to start any "hostilities" or "aggression acts". You need to be very close-sighted if you haven't notice the amount of war the US started around Iran territory. Instead of pulling emotional arguments of your own imagination, why not look at a world map and see which are the countries Iran borders with?

I would love to see your speech in case it was the US being faced with wars from it's rivals in Canada and Mexico. Would you feel safe?

And as for the "military exercises"... The US actually makes a serious effort into making exactly the same type of exercises close to their rivals/enemies. Or haven't you noticed what happens around North and South Korea?

As for the Straight of Hormuz threat, you should read news more often, and remember their timeline. Iran threatened of closing the straight after the US threatened Iran with further sanctions. The Iranian threat was a response, not an actual threat.


The US/Western Europe then reacted TO THIS saying that blocking the Street of Hormuz is not acceptable...which should not be surprising since there are countries depending on Oil going through the street....


Again, you are mistaken.

The Libyan war was an effort from southern european countries to replace Iran's oil supply. Instead of buying from Iran, after taking out the Libyan leadership, they have now access to their oil.

Analysts assume that if a military confrontation happens with Iran, is when the sanctions will come into effect. That is mid-July. Libya's oil supply will be back to pre-conflict levels mid-June.

Furthermore, Saudi Arabia has stated they will make any effort possible into replacing any percentage of oil lost from Iran, with their own reserves. SA is an ally, in case you don't know.

That's not a coincidence, and it shows premeditated action, way before any Iranian threats. In case they would murder Iran, this would give them the death penalty. (comparison example)


Now tell me..THE US IS THE "AGGRESSOR" here?


The US along with the UN green-light and NATO cooperation has been the aggressor since the end of WW2. If justified or not, that's another issue.

(continues next post)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by flexy123
 



Because we voiced our concern about nuclear weapons in Iran and only after idiotic "ego games" by Iran we acted by reacting to THEIR military deployment?

Now again: Where are WE the aggressors here?


The US didn't voice their concern, the US threatened and punished Iran without actually having proof of such accusations. That's why the US is using sanctions this moment, and not actual military action. Even the US wouldn't have the balls to take out Iranian targets without being able to prove they actually have them. Especially after the Iraq political face-plant.

But then again, if most americans think the same way you do, they can say whatever they want and people will swallow it and ask for second.

Iran hasn't deployed anything. They are moving around in their own backyard. That's why this is such an pointy issue for the US and Israel. Iran does have the right to do whatever they want in their own waters, the same way americans do every day.

Again, you seem to not even know enough geography to understand the problem.


Your argument with "defense purposes" is really "cute"...


Thank you. Maybe you can lend me your propaganda lipstick? I say this because most your arguments came straight out of a blind self-enlightened patriotic view of the world.


because for me this hasn't to do anything with defense purposes....


That's your opinion, you are entitled to it.


but simply Iran's plan and pride/egoism to get a Nuclear bomb as soon as possible.


Pride and egoism?

Iran wants a nuclear energy program because they know their oil won't last forever. Actually, everyone knows oil won't last forever, and even if it would grow again, world consumption is so great that it wouldn't be enough.

Oil still is Iran's main income source, which means without it, they are dead in the water economically.

Their attitude towards nuclear power is more of survival and looking into the future, than anything else.

The fact that people like you fail to comprehend such attitude is beyond belief and only shows how much americans have closed their minds around their personal beliefs. There is a world outside your country, in case you don't know, and not everything depends of the US to exist. The United States is a nation, not the cent of the universe.

And just to make clear...

The US has nukes since the Manhattan Project. They are actually the only country to use nuclear weapons since their existence (justified use or not), were 50% responsible for the Cold War and nuclear arms proliferation (due to M.A.D. panic), and the US has more nuclear power-plants, nuclear submarines and nuclear carriers that you can count with your hands and feet.

Iran has none (yet).

And Iran is the one being selfish and being egocentric?

Your defiance of logic is amusing.


if you (and others) really think that Iran having nuclear weapons is the better option.


It's not the best option. By far it's the worst.

But even worst than that, is Iran being attacked by the west (US/Israel/NATO). This has to end, the world does not belong to the US and their international policy.

As much as I love the United States and as much as I fear Iran, I cannot accept with a calm spirit that the US continues pushing Iran into a corner.

Not because I love Iran, but because I actually fear and I'm aware of the possible consequences of such action. Clearly, you are not.


If anything, the situation in the middle-east will only get MUCH worse as a result of this..


No it won't.

The US only does what it has been doing because nobody has enough power to face them. Iran with a nuke will be such a serious threat they will be left alone, and since they are actually being honest, that option could end better than yet another country in the Middle East torn apart by Western sanctions and constant threats of war and confrontation and isolation from the world community.


The US has nuclear weapons and did NOT use them for 70 years now. Let's see how long it takes Iran to use theirs...


Yes, but again, the US is the only country to actually have used them, which makes your argument a bit contradictory.

And as far as Iran using nukes:

Your argument is based on the notion that Iran wants to wipe out the world and it's rivals with nuclear weapons, while they have always claimed they want civilian energy. Indirectly, you claim Iran is not responsible enough to own nuclear weapons, since they are bound to use them.

India, Pakistan, North Korea (just to name 3 of the most obvious examples) do have nuclear weapons. North Korea in particular is an unstable regime, with an obsessive opposition to the West.

Have they used them?.............................................



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join