Iran steps up nuclear warhead work, Israel media reports (Reuters)

page: 4
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by cconn487
 


I agree.
The shocking fact is that 2,053 nuclear devices have been detonated on this planet that we know of.





posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by morethanyou

10 years back and forth for Iraq and Iran. IDF will smash them in 3-4 weeks.

They may well can.

If you really believe this is about Iranian aggression and nuclear weaponry, you have my pity.

TheRedneck


OMG you guys!!!!!

WTF could there be other than what this is about?NUKES< the ability to build them and the ability to deliver them to other terrorist hands?

YOu value life (id assume) so do I.

The Iranian leadership values death. Not really the type of blokes we want to have a BOMB.

OMG you guys!!!!!

Pity yourselves for being so blind and full of USA/IDF hate.

OH BTW, just saying.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by g146541
 



It appears we do agree on something, there is no proof, other than tech for a nuke reactor.
Yet the terrorist israelis constantly ask the US to bomb them back to the stone age before it is too late.


Yes, we do agree on some grounds. And most of the debate is around reading the evidence available, rather than actually supporting or not the proof at hand.

I'm just one of those people that don't like to label Israel like terrorists, or their actions as unjust, because, well, they might actually be right, and we will just be the idiots who thought badly about them for ages.

I don't want to take the chance to look at this through years on end, and being wrong about it. Or being so focused on one side of the issue, that we ignore valid points on the other side.

I'm the first to blame Israel for their wrong doings, but I'm not the first to dismiss anything their say. Something along the lines of the Peter and the wolf analogy.


If they are going to do this, I just ask they do it without my children, my cash and my bombs.


There is something I agree with.

If this turns out to be a global threat, like Iran or Iran allies attacking several western countries, then yes, I would appreciate the U.S. support and force in the issue. The same way I appreciate all the american people lost in WW2, fighting in a land that wasn't their own.

But local problems to local countries, and Israel doesn't have the excuse of not having the power to do it alone anymore. They have been gaining support and funds from the west for decades. Including from Germany and the rest of Europe.


But the terrorists keep the story in the media how we are just about out of time.
If they are gonna set off a powderkeg I cannot do anything about it, what I can do however is teach the terrorist subversion that has murdered US citizens and then covered up.


Although I don't agree with it, I do understand their feel for urgency. I just think they could do it in a different manner. They act and talk too desperately, and that ends backfiring into their credibility.

Most of the events you call terrorism being done by Israel, it's caused by their rush to act, and more often than rarely, they make colossal mistakes.


I have good reason to believe I will be writing in a vote once again.
I cannot vote for the lesser of two idiots.


Well, if you are saying that Obama and Romney are idiots, I do agree with you.

Ron Paul however, seems to be the only one with enough reason and logic in his mind that would enable him to make the U.S. as strong and rightful as it was in the past. U.S. credibility has been tainted, and I don't like that.

The world needs a super-power that, at least, believes in the idea and concept of freedom. As much as it might seem lost during a period of time. I don't see those ideals and concepts in many parts of the world that are currently being "defended" in public opinion.

People are so desperate to prove the U.S. wrong, that they end up siding with countries that have very few good ideals, and much less standards in which we could all look forward to live under.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   
The amount of times they've 'stepped up' their preparations they should be in orbit, if the press are to be believed.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mimir
I guess what you'r saying is that more people would have died if the US didn't use those nukes and your most likely correct on that part.

The casualty numbers for an invasion of the Japanese mainland ranged from 250k up to almost a million casualties - just for the US military.

Secondly it does get annoying when people constantly want to use WWII and the use of nuclear weapons while completely and totally ignoring the fact that Japan attacked the US, not the other way around. The moral highground people try to claim with casualty amounts of the 2 bombs is based on a lack of knowledge about the war in the pacific.

The number of civilians that were killed / executed by Japanese forces just in the Phillipines exceeded 80,000 people. The numbers for China and Korea are also up there. It does not take into account that Japan failed to follow the rules of war, executing, starving, forced slave labor from those who were captured.



Originally posted by Mimir
But do you really see it as self-defence to melt 400.000+ people, many of them children or elder women who definatly wouldnt be any danger to the US? .......400.000 murdered as collateral damage on purpose to create a new level of fear.......what if the situation is reverses and you lost family members as collateral damage from a purposely nuke-attack on a major US city, would it still be ok to you, because...afterall the "enemy" only acted in self-defence?

Japan attacked the US, not the other way around. The goal was to win the war and because of Japanese society and beliefs they were not going to surrender unless they absolutely had to and even then it would be problematic. The Japanese are the closest thing on Earth to Klingons - Duty and death before dishonor.

Also, again, please check the stats for civilians killed by Japan as well as Germany during the war. It was a world war and one way or another, one side is going to win.



Originally posted by Mimir
My definition of selfdefence: Lets say you attack me and i attempt fend you off i execute some level of selfdefence. I presume this would be ok to you right?

If one nation attacks another nation, it is an act of war. How the nation who was attacked responds depends on the circumstances they are in.


Originally posted by Mimir
If instead of fending of your attack directly, I decide to pull my gun, shoot your mom and indicates to you it might be a good idea for you to bugger off Im not using selfdefence - atleast not in my view.

Again, Japan attacked the US and we responded. You are also ignoring the civilian death counts that Japan ran up from their military actions.

Japan... Germany... both had nuke programs going on and the Germans came damn close to beating us to the punch with a working weapon. If either one of those nations got the bomb first do you think they would not use it against the US?

In the case of Japan we are not looking at Japan attacking pearl harbor to stop the US from uysing it as a naval base. It was the opening attack with the end goal being the domination / conquering for the Empire of Japan. Less people forget the invasion of the Phillipines by Japan was an attack on US territory. The Phillipines did not become an independant nation until after WWII.

Rule of thumb for armed conflict -
If you are going to attack another country and start a war, you better be damn sure its something you can win.

Japan was given the option to surrender and only after they refused several times was the first bomb dropped. Again they were told to surrender and they refused, resulting in the 2nd bomb being dropped.
edit on 13-8-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Telos
How come the news about Iran and the alleged Iran's nuclear program comes always from Israeli media?
edit on 13-8-2012 by Telos because: (no reason given)


Because Iran does not have freedom of Press and do not allow their media outlets to independantly report on issues inside Iran.
edit on 13-8-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by GarrusVasNormandy
 


Every nation on Earth is trying to get a nuke. Let's not be Coy about this. Having one nuke is essentially having a vote in global events.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by queenannie38
 


Thank you for your post, I think it raises some very nice arguments to the whole discussion.

Most interesting, is the wording being used by Israel. Very similar to what we have today.

I'm assuming most people will spin that out to justify an agenda or an objective, but I would just like to mirror my view on what your post portrays:

That case is about Iraq. And we all know how that turned out to be.

Although some people argue with the possibility that the attacks made by Saddam Hussein using chemical weapons, were actually being carried by Israel, I will believe that Saddam actually used them until proven otherwise. What makes me believe this is the brutality that Saddam used often to control tribes that didn't obey him.

It's not a unknown reality how Saddam used to control his masses through fear, torture and executions. His family that was brave enough to oppose him had special treatment, and that was to be expelled from Iraq. Anyone below them faced certain death of life in prison.

This played in favor of the U.S., which allowed them to have a government that was stable enough for economy growth, and wasn't hostile towards anyone else. That changed, however.

The fact that Iraq didn't admit to the bombing until Israel talked about it, seems a bit strange. If you have nothing to hide, and if there wasn't a harmful objective behind those structures, why not yell "illegal play" against Israel? Why keep it in silence?

A bit confusing considering that French citizens and companies were working there.

And even though the actions of Israel are very similar to what we have today, we all know what happened next. Iraq did invade Kuwait a couple of years later, leading up to Desert Storm operation. That's a move of aggression. Which makes you wonder if Iraq wasn't really trying to get nuclear weapons.

Most importantly, Iraq did have chemical weapons. The confusing part that everyone mixes up, is that post-9/11 intel stated that Iraq had several WMD's. Which was not the case. The chemical weapons that Iraq did have were moved, or delivered after Desert Storm. During the same time period in which several diplomats (and even family of Saddam) tried to reach the U.S. government, to seek support for a coup against Saddam.

Where and when those WMD's were moved, I have to research a bit further.

But all things considered, looking at things like that, does make it a hard time believing in Israel "honesty" regarding Iran. But, who knows? They could be right twice. And it wouldn't be the first time two separate countries had the same objective.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino
I'm not too happy at the thought of a Islamic religious extremists possessing Nuclear weapons.

Its not too difficult to understand why Israel is not too keen on the idea.


edit on 12-8-2012 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)


Wow. Just wow.
Very relevant, what country are you from?

If you're gunna categorize a whole nation of innocent families, children, taxpayers, and everyone else from one nation into "extremists" then you had just aswell say (in your own terms) that you aren't happy with america owning nuclear weapons because every citizen is a bible-bashing airhead.

Which is clearly not the case.

You have a bunch of "we are the chosen people", zionists who are in charge of Israel, technically extremists who are part of a cult... they have nukes, they have not signed any treaties to allow UN inspectors in at all. And yet you are saying "i can see why Israel aren't keen"? If anything, that is a reason for Iran to be allowed to build nuclear warheads. For self defence, as Israel is run by a cult.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Telos
How come the news about Iran and the alleged Iran's nuclear program comes always from Israeli media?
edit on 13-8-2012 by Telos because: (no reason given)


Because Iran does not have freedom of Press and do not allow their media outlets to independantly report on issues inside Iran.
edit on 13-8-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)


Yeah, and that's why i shook hands with a PressTV reporter last year who was doing a report on the riots which happened in London.... congratulated him and said that i have much respect for the work their reporters are doing.

I must have really long hands to be standing in London and being able to shake hands with a reporter who isn't allowed outside of Iran.

Iran has much more freedom of the press than what your murdoch media tells you.


EDIT: just realised i misread you for "inside/outside", but i'll leave what i wrote above

PS; You speak of freedom of the press, yet in the US as one big example... look at what wikileaks did, not one law broken, and yet look at the reaction and censorship that came with it. The western world has no freedom of the press, same for the UK and other countries that are "ganging" up on Iran.
edit on 13/8/2012 by InsideYourMind because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by morethanyou

It's about money, not lives.

Iran is at war with the US... an economic war. They are retaliating in this economic war for the economic missiles we have been lobbing at them for several decades. Their only 'nuke' is to knock the oil price supports out from under the US dollar as the International Reserve Currency.

There has been no evidence, none, nada, zero, zip, that I can find showing any indication that Iran has enriched fuel to beyond 20%, save 'trace amounts' that were found at 27% one time. Nuclear weaponry uses 85% or greater. Power production uses 3-5%; nuclear research reactors (for use in medical and scientific research) use up to 20%. Neither is considered weapons-grade.

I have personally been on a witchhunt for nearly a week now, scanning every source and story and link that I could find, pouring over UN documentation, trying to find one, just one, instance where a measurable amount of uranium inside Iran has been found beyond the 20% enrichment level. I found none. I even asked ATS for help finding anything that would verify these claims... still nothing. So I am let with the only logical option left: There are no nuclear weapons under development in Iran.

If you know of any information showing improper enrichment in Iran, please please please post it!

I fear there may be some soon, though... the economic repercussions of depegging their oil from our dollar are so severe that we may introduce some nukes warhead-first... and since it would be folly for a superpower like the US to directly launch such an attack against a country with diplomatic ties to Russia and China, I expect the opening salvo to come from our ally Israel.

I know what you have been told; I once believed it myself. But I am finding out that, while Iran, like any country, is no angel, the US is today the much larger devil.

And Israel is our front line.


TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by InsideYourMind
 



If you're gunna categorize a whole nation of innocent families, children, taxpayers, and everyone else from one nation into "extremists" then you had just aswell say (in your own terms) that you aren't happy with america owning nuclear weapons because every citizen is a bible-bashing airhead.


Although this is a muddy discussion, I'll step into it...

The U.S., although having a lot of lobby systems (which I don't agree with, to be honest), doesn't have a religious group pulling the strings. Much less a religious group that calls for death or destruction of other people (whoever that might be, is beyond my current point).

Iran actually has that. Ahmadinejad doesn't literally obey to, but has to follow the guidance of the Ayatollah. That raises some red light alerts in my mind.

I don't trust a government that is in close ties with a religious group. And I'm not anti-ME or anti-Islam. I'm anti-fanatics.


You have a bunch of "we are the chosen people", zionists who are in charge of Israel, technically extremists who are part of a cult... they have nukes, they have not signed any treaties to allow UN inspectors in at all. And yet you are saying "i can see why Israel aren't keen"? If anything, that is a reason for Iran to be allowed to build nuclear warheads.


To be fair, you can also see that in the U.S. . I'm pretty sure "God Bless America" is a must-say phrase by any president. For someone that isn't very friendly towards religion (any religion), I've a hard time saying it's fair to point fingers at Israel while dismissing the same occurrences in other countries. Everyone thinks they are special, we just respect each-other. Even the British praise their Queen and God.

Personally, I think we have too many countries with nukes. One more, whoever that might be, is too many.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


The ONLY thing that comes close, to Iran "maybe" trying to develop "something", is their hidden facility(s). I would think having a hidden facility, and one that they didnt want anyone to know about, doesnt make them guilty of trying, but sure makes people question it. They already have facilitys, above ground.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1

I'm actually not finding anything other than accusations about hidden facilities either. Nothing concrete, no intelligence reports that uranium is being delivered to this undisclosed facility, no radiation readings from areas where there are no known facilities... nothing.

Iran is developing detonators that are used in nuclear weapons... but then again, those same detonators have other uses as well. They have repeatedly given out information about their activities (including those detonators!) to the IAEA, some of which was not known until it was freely revealed. I'm not seeing a coverup here, sorry. I'm seeing a witchhunt.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 



Iran is at war with the US... an economic war. They are retaliating in this economic war for the economic missiles we have been lobbing at them for several decades. Their only 'nuke' is to knock the oil price supports out from under the US dollar as the International Reserve Currency.


I agree. If that sort of action is good or bad, is debatable.


There has been no evidence, none, nada, zero, zip, that I can find showing any indication that Iran has enriched fuel to beyond 20%, save 'trace amounts' that were found at 27% one time. Nuclear weaponry uses 85% or greater. Power production uses 3-5%; nuclear research reactors (for use in medical and scientific research) use up to 20%. Neither is considered weapons-grade.


Well, since nuclear energy takes a lot more resources than a bomb, I wouldn't expect to find the same amount of enriched material for both uses. A small amount (compared to the rest) of +20% enrichment could actually lead to a possible nuclear warhead being manufactured.

And although I do agree with most of your remarks, I have a too much fertile imagination that takes away the possibility of not contemplating the "asymmetric warfare" tactics that Iran actually brags about.

If they reach for asymmetric warfare in other fields, like using car bombs and covered-up attacks on foreign targets, why wouldn't they do the same with nuclear power?

They might not reach for an operational and full-scale nuclear bomb. They can fulfill their objectives (or even more) if they use 30/40/50% enrichment.

Think of it this way, if they spend all their resources into making a nuke similar to what Russia, China or the U.S. has, they will provably be able to build one, or two. And although that's scary enough, you have to consider another tactic.

If they opt to make less enriched material (%), but choose to make several dirty nuclear bombs(which do not require ~80%), they could actually be almost ready to do it. A asymmetric warfare philosophy applied to nuclear weapons.

I just think there is a chance to it. But you are right in your points, there is very few evidence supporting Israel's claims.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Yes. I agree...I do not feel...from doing my own research some time back as you are doing...that there is any threat of a nuclear warhead or bomb coming out of Iran.

I'm not sure about Iraq and the incident in 1981 but I do think that I'm glad that the President of Iran, for all intents and purposes, does not appear to be a hothead or easily provoked.

Because if he were, it might be another story altogether...he has been provoked and poorly dealt with by our diplomats (not all of them but many, most) and even outright ignored by GW Bush and Obama both when he's sent courteous but truthful letters to the President in the White House. He also sent the American People a letter, too, that I had to go to the Iranian website to actually read. Not many know about that letter just the same as the one sent to the US in November of 2001 giving detailed, and pretty much legitimate, reasons for what they felt was provocation by the US in Afghanistan.

Not to go off topic, but by the time I discovered what I did in regard to Iran, I was no longer as easily shocked as I was when I first began to research the commonly held beliefs about world history. It is not as we have been taught or allowed, even led, to believe and to support with vehemence...not any of it.

Iran is not Afghanistan, Iraq, or any other nation. It is unique to itself as is every nation and each SHOULD be dealt with accordingly and with courtesy by default.

Missiles cannot keep the peace...especially when it has never been established in the first place. Diplomacy is used as a tactical maneuver rather than a means to develop friendly relations with other countries for the benefit of the citizens of each.

Nuclear proliferation started out as a strategy to alleviate our fears following WWII...fears we are partly responsible for, whether well-intentioned and necessary or not. But all it has done is increase both fears not only for Americans but for the whole world as well as waste money, lives, and time...putting everyone in far more peril than we were to begin with.

All just my opinion, mind you...but I don't consider my opinion an uneducated one at all.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by GarrusVasNormandy
 


Yes, it does expand the issue quite significantly, doesn't it?

Thank you for your comments...many of the same thoughts I had.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by InsideYourMind
Yeah, and that's why i shook hands with a PressTV reporter last year who was doing a report on the riots which happened in London.... congratulated him and said that i have much respect for the work their reporters are doing.

I must have really long hands to be standing in London and being able to shake hands with a reporter who isn't allowed outside of Iran.

Possibly or it may be because you failed to read what I typed and decided to give an example that has nothing at all to do with what I stated.

Independent media - Iran does not have one. Reporting the Olympics has nothing at all to do with my point. My point is if Iran is using their nuke program to develop nuclear weapons, PressTV is not going to be reporting that story.

If the Iranian government executes homosexuals, presstv is not going to be reporting that.
If the Iranian government is receiving assistance from North Korea on their nuclear power program, presstv is not going to be reporting it.

Contrary to what you are trying to state, they are 2 completely different issues.


Originally posted by InsideYourMind
Iran has much more freedom of the press than what your murdoch media tells you.

No they don't... I can access Presstv from the internet. Are Iranians able to access Israeli media from inside Iran? Iranian media is not allowed to report on issues concerning the Iranian government. That was apparent during the issues between Ahmadenijad and the Ayatollah.

Presstv can come to the US and report. Are US media outselts authorized to go to Iran and report?
Western media can crticise and question their elected officals. Can Iranian media do the same?

So no Iran does not have greater freedom of press than what murdoch tells us. If Iran did I would not need to read about it in foreign media.


Originally posted by InsideYourMind
EDIT: just realised i misread you for "inside/outside", but i'll leave what i wrote above

okedoke




Originally posted by InsideYourMind
PS; You speak of freedom of the press, yet in the US as one big example... look at what wikileaks did, not one law broken, and yet look at the reaction and censorship that came with it.

Wikileaks did break the law. They received and disseminated classified information. Its against the law for a media outlet to report classified information. The Pentagon papers issue is what people cite yet they dont bother to read / understand the result of that case.

Secondly Pvt. Manning has been charged and is currently going through the legal process. Something that is not extended to individuals in Iran.

Even after it was leaked and disseminated the US government made no attempt to go and round up every single individual who accessed the information. Warnings were issued to members of the military because of the different laws they operate under than what civilians do.



Originally posted by InsideYourMind
The western world has no freedom of the press, same for the UK and other countries that are "ganging" up on Iran.
edit on 13/8/2012 by InsideYourMind because: (no reason given)

Actually they do have freedom of the press. Constantly repeating they dont over and over does not make it true.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


I will look into it also, as we hear so much about it. The Problem is this. The US has already stated, they dont believe Iran has one, or is in the process of getting a bomb. Guys like you and me, dont have the inside information, like a Government would have on another country. I believe if Iran did have these weapons, they would have already been bombed, ages ago. I also believe this is the reason, the United States, hasnt given the green light, on attacking Iran, even though Israel is going to do it, regardless if the United States, says dont. Not EVERYTHING can be found on the Internet, thats for sure.......

edit on 13-8-2012 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Nations who are part of the IAEA / NPT are required to notify the UN agency when they are planning on new facilities for their program. They are to be disclosed first per the agreements to be tracked / inspected by treaty stipulations.

The Iranian facility that is underground near Qoms (their holiest city) was built without notifying the UN. It was not until the US / UK / France exposed the facility did Iran give the UN notification - back in 2009.

Can you tell me why Iran needs an underground nuclear facility near their holiest city? Could it be an effort to restrict what might happen to it should it be attacked? I guarantee if the sites are bombed Iran is going to state the city was bombed and not the facility itself.

Obama condemns Iran over secret nuclear plant


The US, Britain and France issued a strongly worded ultimatum to Iran today after US officials disclosed the existence of a secret nuclear plant which the Iranian authorities have kept hidden from UN inspectors for years.

Days ahead of a showdown meeting with Iran in Geneva, Barack Obama demanded that the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) be allowed access to the plant, which is built inside a mountain near the ancient city of Qom, one of the holiest Shia cities.



The icing on the cake...

Obama described the site, apparently a second Iranian facility for enriching uranium, as a "disturbing revelation". Iran denied it was clandestine and said it had informed the IAEA about the plant earlier this week.






top topics



 
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join