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.

 

UN team has 'serious concerns' about Iran's nuclear program

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Agarta
 





I mean look at it, if you were a little country and had the worlds super powers and half the globe trying to bully you and breathing down your neck wouldn't you vamp up your ability to defend yourself or create a deterrent?


They haven't even said they were making weapons and yet you somehow know that their only intentions would be self defense?

You seem quite eager to give Iran the benefit of the doubt.




posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by MDDoxs
 

Not so long ago I remember reading an article here on ATS about 38 thousand pounds of Plutonium and Uranium being "missing". Some people are just careless I guess.
ATS thread on missing nuclear materials



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by TsukiLunar
 


Maybe I am. I don't have all the information as do any of us, but history shows so much jumping the gun maybe it would be nice for people to stop and think it through for once rather than jumping to conclusions based on partial information.

Edit to say: Another thing is consider the source of the fear. Do a search on here of the UN and check out all the things that go against the grain and who owns it in reality. Check out its true intentions and who they work for. Are there any sources from Irans point of view? Nope, only the aggressors of western philosophy. Do I think Iran is the good guys? Not necessarily but I do not think we are getting the whole truth either, nor do I see anyone looking for it. I see a one sided source full of holes and begs for questions that posters are taking as complete fact even with the history of black flag events, lies, and propaganda spoon fed to us by tptb. I just think an opinion on this situation is premature and facts need to be sought out first.
edit on 24-2-2012 by Agarta because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by TsukiLunar
 
They are two examples of the same issue for me. The issue being that the UN inspection team's findings are not credible after the way they were used in the lead up to the Iraq War. They have "serious concerns", well so do I. I'm concerned about a whole bunch of innocent civilians dying because of faulty and misleading intelligence, like they did in Iraq.

How do you stay on topic by changing the topic yourself?



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
More propaganda without substance. Exactly like Iraq, there will a lot more people dead with this if we do not remove the traitors within our government.


So which is it, "Professional" -- the NRC finds nothing or the NRC finds something? Which scenario would be best for you?

Which one would you accept?



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   
These are some of the strangest responses I've seen to an otherwise serious thread. Is anyone offering any evidence that Iran did not prevent inspections? Or that Iran has a perfectly logical explanation for its missing material?

Instead posters are claiming that IAEA took bribes, the US and the Security Council control the UN forcing the report to come out the way it did, that the report will help Israel by destabilizing the Middle East, and that the US will benefit economically from a war. All contentions with so little supporting evidence as to be silly..

But the most frequent, and ludicrous, response is that ten years ago IAEA, with the same people, said Iraq had nuclear weapons and they were wrong, so they can't be believed now. That response is invalid logically and factually.

IAEA didn't say that Iraq had nuclear weapons, it is not saying that Iran has nuclear weapons, and the IAEA has different leadership. Even if all of the assumptions were true, it is a fallacy to say that an error ten years ago means there must be an error today.

Consider also the stand of many posters who say they won't believe the IAEA evidence. They certainly won't believe American evidence. (Unless as one poster makes clear, that evidence can be used to support their position.) So what evidence would the posters believe? Will they wait until Iran announces the existence of a bomb? What if Iran never does, will it never be believed?

The IAEA is concerned, it should be, it has evidence supporting that concern. Can we please have a resonable discussion?



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
These are some of the strangest responses I've seen to an otherwise serious thread. Is anyone offering any evidence that Iran did not prevent inspections? Or that Iran has a perfectly logical explanation for its missing material?

Instead posters are claiming that IAEA took bribes, the US and the Security Council control the UN forcing the report to come out the way it did, that the report will help Israel by destabilizing the Middle East, and that the US will benefit economically from a war. All contentions with so little supporting evidence as to be silly..

But the most frequent, and ludicrous, response is that ten years ago IAEA, with the same people, said Iraq had nuclear weapons and they were wrong, so they can't be believed now. That response is invalid logically and factually.

IAEA didn't say that Iraq had nuclear weapons, it is not saying that Iran has nuclear weapons, and the IAEA has different leadership. Even if all of the assumptions were true, it is a fallacy to say that an error ten years ago means there must be an error today.

Consider also the stand of many posters who say they won't believe the IAEA evidence. They certainly won't believe American evidence. (Unless as one poster makes clear, that evidence can be used to support their position.) So what evidence would the posters believe? Will they wait until Iran announces the existence of a bomb? What if Iran never does, will it never be believed?

The IAEA is concerned, it should be, it has evidence supporting that concern. Can we please have a resonable discussion?


i have just as much to go on saying they don't as you do to say they do, in the end we may never know. one thing always seem prevalent though and goes unwavering and unmatched in it's precision, follow the money.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by LittleBlackEagle
 

We have multiple news reports that Iran has refused the inspectors. We have the IAEA report with sources indicated. There is no evidence that Iran is limiting itself to peaceful energy, or that it is allowing inspections, other than Iran government press releases.

We do know that they are violating the NPT. There are reasons for concern.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by LittleBlackEagle
 

We have multiple news reports that Iran has refused the inspectors. We have the IAEA report with sources indicated. There is no evidence that Iran is limiting itself to peaceful energy, or that it is allowing inspections, other than Iran government press releases.

We do know that they are violating the NPT. There are reasons for concern.


again, we heard all this before and since the same society and system is in place, why would anyone logically deduce it would be any different. that's the definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and expecting different results. we seem to have a lot of that in our collective world governments.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   
If there program is peaceful why the stonewalling of the IAEA? They flip flop with regards to stating they want to resolve outstanding concerns, and when the time comes Iran changes their mind.

They invite the inspectors back, no preconditions, and change their mind.

Its looking like a stalling tactic and nothing more.

As far as peaceful nuclear energy goes im all for the Iranian people having that (although I have serious concerns about the Iranian government and their constant, wreckless actions).

Iran has a few different types of nuclear generation abilities. The new LWR are efficient and safer, not to mention requiring less maintenance while generating the same if not more power. The enrichment of Uranium is the sticking point.

* - SEU requires 2%-5% enriched uranium, and the newest technology allows that level to power heavy water reactors now.

* - LEU - For power generation it requires enrichment of 4% - 5%.
For a research reactor, which is what they are using to justify higher enrichment levels, only requires 12% to a max of 19%. Since Irans infrastructure in the area of nuclear medicine is still coming into its own rights, their requirements will be on the low end.

That brings us to -
* - Highly enriched Uranium. Generally a nuclear bomb requires enrichment to 85%. However, 20% enrichment is high enough to still get a nuclear explosion out of it. Highly enriched uranium category starts at the 20% mark up to the 99.95%.

That brings us to IR-40. This site will be coming online between now and 2014 if I remember right. IR-40 is a newer heavy water reactor, which will prduce about 20-35 pounds of plutonium each year (enough for a couple of nukes).

The West and the IAEA have maintained the same position since the beginning - That Iran has a right to pursue a peaceful civilian nuclear power program. The concern is the enrichment levels and the reason Iran cites or needing it.. Then we have Iran building secret facilities for their nuclear power program, which actually violates the IAEA guidelines, which require=s a nation to notify the IAEA of the plans and locations before construction begins.

The site outside of Qom was not disclosed until after Western Intelligence agencies released the information.

Their actions just don't fit the claims they are making. Thats the concern...

Would it not make sense for Iran to confront the accusations? If they could then the western nations pushing for more sanctions / military actions would lose credibility.
edit on 24-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
If there program is peaceful why the stonewalling of the IAEA? They flip flop with regards to stating they want to resolve outstanding concerns, and when the time comes Iran changes their mind.

They invite the inspectors back, no preconditions, and change their mind.

Its looking like a stalling tactic and nothing more.

As far as peaceful nuclear energy goes im all for the Iranian people having that (although I have serious concerns about the Iranian government and their constant, wreckless actions).

Iran has a few different types of nuclear generation abilities. The new LWR are efficient and safer, not to mention requiring less maintenance while generating the same if not more power. The enrichment of Uranium is the sticking point.

* - SEU requires 2%-5% enriched uranium, and the newest technology allows that level to power heavy water reactors now.

* - LEU - For power generation it requires enrichment of 4% - 5%.
For a research reactor, which is what they are using to justify higher enrichment levels, only requires 12% to a max of 19%. Since Irans infrastructure in the area of nuclear medicine is still coming into its own rights, their requirements will be on the low end.

That brings us to -
* - Highly enriched Uranium. Generally a nuclear bomb requires enrichment to 85%. However, 20% enrichment is high enough to still get a nuclear explosion out of it. Highly enriched uranium category starts at the 20% mark up to the 99.95%.

That brings us to IR-40. This site will be coming online between now and 2014 if I remember right. IR-40 is a newer heavy water reactor, which will prduce about 20-35 pounds of plutonium each year (enough for a couple of nukes).

The West and the IAEA have maintained the same position since the beginning - That Iran has a right to pursue a peaceful civilian nuclear power program. The concern is the enrichment levels and the reason Iran cites or needing it.. Then we have Iran building secret facilities for their nuclear power program, which actually violates the IAEA guidelines, which require=s a nation to notify the IAEA of the plans and locations before construction begins.

The site outside of Qom was not disclosed until after Western Intelligence agencies released the information.

Their actions just don't fit the claims they are making. Thats the concern...

Would it not make sense for Iran to confront the accusations? If they could then the western nations pushing for more sanctions / military actions would lose credibility.
edit on 24-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)


wall of text but let me ask you this, why hasn't Israel joined the NPT and allowed inspectors into their country? i'm fairly certain the zionist regime in israel is just as bat chit crazy as the one in iran, so why no focus on them? if you don't see the game being played then you are either a shill or ignorance has found you.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Aw, geesh, I am so sick of the war-mongering!!!

According to an article by the LA Times:

"...As U.S. and Israeli officials talk publicly about the prospect of a military strike against Iran's nuclear program, one fact is often overlooked: U.S. intelligence agencies don't believe Iran is actively trying to build an atomic bomb..."

(Snip)

"...The most recent report, which represents the consensus of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies..."
www.latimes.com...




This is very telling, as well:

A "Mother Jones" article today (Why Does the Military Love Ron Paul?) says this:

"...One of the speakers at last weekend's rally was retired Air Force Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, a former Pentagon analyst and key figure in revealing how the Bush administration sold the Iraq war based on bogus intelligence. "I'm 95% in harmony with Ron Paul's candidacy and his philosophy," Kwiatkowski—who's running for Congress in Virginia as a Republican—told me in an email. "I hold the DoD as a federal bureaucracy in a bit more contempt than he [Paul] does because I spent way more time in it, and I saw close up the actual CONSCIENTIOUS, DIRECT POLITICAL LYING TO PROMOTE WAR, invasions and occupations—none of which were sanctioned or even reviewed in accordance with the Constitution..."

motherjones.com...



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ralphy

UN team has 'serious concerns' about Iran's nuclear program


worldnews.msnbc.msn.com

The U.N. nuclear agency says Iran has rapidly ramped up production of higher-grade enriched uranium over the last four months, in a confidential report that feeds concerns about how quickly the Islamic Republic could produce an atomic bomb.

Friday's report by the International Atomic Energy Agency also said Iran had failed to give a convincing explanation about a quantity of missing uranium metal. Diplomats have said the missing amount could be used for experiments used to arm a warhead.
(visit the link for the full news article)


edit on 24-2-2012 by Ralphy because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-2-2012 by Ralphy because: (no reason given)


Yes...the IAEA who loves to rattle the war drums. People have short memories, don't you remember those WMDs in Iraq?


Stop being sheep to the defence lobby for crying out loud.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by LittleBlackEagle
wall of text but let me ask you this,

Ill try to dumb it down then. I include the info since the topic is more complex than what people want to admit. People are also lacking in the research area on this topic, choosing to find only the facts that fit their argument while ignoring the info that does not. Or I guess in your case you just call them shills.


Originally posted by LittleBlackEagle
why hasn't Israel joined the NPT and allowed inspectors into their country?

Because they are not a signatory to the treaties and therefore it does not apply.Which is the same for Pakistan, India, North Korea.....

If Iran wants nukes, all they have to do is withdraw from the treaties, just as North Korea did.

What does that have to do with Iran?



Originally posted by LittleBlackEagle
i'm fairly certain the zionist regime in israel is just as bat chit crazy as the one in iran, so why no focus on them?

Well for starters, Iran is the crazier of the 2.

Israel does not constantly threaten to wipe Iran off the map on a daily basis. Israel doesn't call for the Cancer that is Iran to be cut out of the Middle East. Israel has not made statements that they would fund any group that attacks Iran, as Iran is doing towards Israel.

Israel has had nukes for a long time, and yet when they were faced with combined Arab armies back in the day, they kept it conventional.

The wing nuts in Tehran, who are constantly talking about ending Israel, are not "mature" enough to have a nuclear program, let alone a weapons program. They want to usher in the end days, which requires them to start a war so the 12th Mahdi can return. I dont believe the Iranian government values human life, instead choosing to view it as pawns / mindless automatons - expendable without their consent in order to keep the Iranian government in power.

Hell Iran is wanting to murder a man simply because he is Christian. That mentality is not compatible with nuclear weapons.


Originally posted by LittleBlackEagle
if you don't see the game being played then you are either a shill or ignorance has found you.

yeah yeah blah blah.. The accusations of shill, Mossad / CIA being behind *insert conspiracy blame of the day here*. I guess that makes you an apologist for Iran then.

Good luck with that. Keep in mind if "they" win, they are not going to care about your viewpoints. You will either convert, pay extortion not to convert and to keep them from killing you, or outright refuse it all and be put to death just the same.
edit on 24-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 

I think you have raised some excellent points about Iran's enrichment and I have to say I agree with you there, they should most certainly do more to ease concerns about the levels they are pursuing, and although it may be an overly simplistic view I do not feel that national pride is worth being attacked over.

The only part of your reply that I feel lets you down is this;



Good luck with that. Keep in mind if "they" win, they are not going to care about your viewpoints. You will either convert, pay extortion not to convert and to keep them from killing you, or outright refuse it all and be put to death just the same.


Are you suggesting this is a war against Islam in general then? Or do you mean Iran specifically?


I don't see Iran waging a nuclear war against the rest of the world if they aren't attacked by NATO + Israel. "They" seem to do perfectly good business with Russia and China who are not Islamic states, and in fact have both had their own problems with Muslim extremists within their borders.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by anarky1965
 





They are two examples of the same issue for me. The issue being that the UN inspection team's findings are not credible after the way they were used in the lead up to the Iraq War.


They may be the "same issue" to you, but in reality the two have almost nothing to do with each other.




They have "serious concerns", well so do I. I'm concerned about a whole bunch of innocent civilians dying because of faulty and misleading intelligence, like they did in Iraq.


Right... but by not coorperating with the U.N. isnt Iran the source of problem with faulty intellegence?



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Big Raging Loner
 


The last comment was in reference to radicalized Islam as well as the views from Iranian leadership. I truly feel they are defiling their own religion with some of their actions. The comment is based on the Iranian governments actions towards the Christian Pastor.

While they claim he was sentenced to death for security issues, the Iranian Supreme Court posted their decision on voiding the death sentence and sending it back down to the lower court. The argument the Supreme Court made is based on the Apostasy charge, not security related issues.

How does that tie in? If their government is willing to twist their national law as well as Sharia law, while at the same time violating specific laws on religious worship in an effort to execute one man, what else is that mindset capable of?

The incident with the Quran and those books being burned is another example. An Afghan soldiers murders 2 US soldiers, who weren't even connected to the incident in the first place, because the Taliban and others called for the killing of Americans wherever they are found.

I still have yet to see an apology from the Afghan government for the death of those soldiers, nor have I seen anything about an investigation into their deaths. The Qurans were written in in an effort to pass messages back and forth. What is being ignored is writing in the Quran is a no no, and absolute no no, punishable by death. Not one word from the zealots going after the detainees who wrote in their holiest book.

I just feel they hide behind when its convenient, use it to justify murder etc etc.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 03:13 AM
link   
reply to post by TsukiLunar
 

The NNPT does not give the UN the right to inspect every Iranian military base, or "witch hunt" until they find something.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by anarky1965
reply to post by TsukiLunar
 

The NNPT does not give the UN the right to inspect every Iranian military base, or "witch hunt" until they find something.


Actually yes it does - Treaty obligations require a signatory to disclose all locations that are part of the nuclear program and allow inspections to ensure compliance of security and safety guidelines as well as to ensure resources are not diverted from civilian to military programs.

United Nations - Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)


Article III

1. Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards, as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency in accordance with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Agency’s safeguards system, for the exclusive purpose of verification of the fulfilment of its obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. Procedures for the safeguards required by this Article shall be followed with respect to source or special fissionable material whether it is being produced, processed or used in any principal nuclear facility or is outside any such facility. The safeguards required by this Article shall be applied on all source or special fissionable material in all peaceful nuclear activities within the territory of such State, under its jurisdiction, or carried out under its control anywhere.


Click link for the remainder of treaty obligations.


Its a good read, and lays out whats required for a nation who is a member / signatory to the IAEA / NPT. Just reading the requirements of the NPT alone very clearly show where Iran is in breech.

IAEA membership requirements - Article XII

A quick snapshot -

ARTICLE XII: Agency safeguards

A. With respect to any Agency project, or other arrangement where the Agency is requested by the parties concerned to apply safeguards, the Agency shall have the following rights and responsibilities to the extent relevant to the project or arrangement:

1. To examine the design of specialized equipment and facilities, including nuclear reactors, and to approve it only from the view- point of assuring that it will not further any military purpose, that it complies with applicable health and safety standards, and that it will permit effective application of the safeguards provided for in this article;

2. To require the observance of any health and safety measures prescribed by the Agency;

3. To require the maintenance and production of operating records to assist in ensuring accountability for source and special fissionable materials used or produced in the project or arrangement;

4. To call for and receive progress reports;

5........................


Click link for remainder of obligations


Its as simple as that - verification that a civilian nuclear program is not being used for military purposes.
edit on 25-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 
Actually no it doesn't.

The main hold up on negotiations is the military base at Parchin, Parts of the base at Parchin were investigated in 2004 when the IAEA suspected nuclear activities at the site and nothing was found. It is not a declared nuclear facility. IAEA inspection agreements only allow access to declared nuclear sites. However binding UN Security Council resolutions against Iran do call for the country to strengthen it's nuclear inspections with the agency. If Iran allowed unfettered access to each and every one of it's military bases it would leave itself open to espionage. That is not the initial design of the treaty or is it?




top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join