reply to post by waveydavey
That was then, this is now.
History has a way of repeating itself.
Persia was once a great power.
Russia was once a great power.
France was once a great power.
Germany once a great power.
Britian once a great power.
Rome was once a great power.
etc, etc....
One thing is for sure though. They all want to be again what they once were.
It's the US's turn now, and like those before her, she'll more than likely fall as well.
And the cycle repeats.
IAEA: Iran doubles underground nuclear capacity, page 2
reply posted on 30-8-2012 @ 04:10 PM by buster2010
reply to post by GarrusVasNormandy
Is a source from the UN good enough? Just shout out if you need help with the big words.
The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)
Is a source from the UN good enough? Just shout out if you need help with the big words.
The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)
reply posted on 30-8-2012 @ 04:21 PM by Panic2k11
reply to post by CALGARIAN
Good for them. I do not recognize any fairness in negating Iran nuclear capability while preserving Israel nuclear capability. Even if I was afraid of a nuclear Iran I would counter that by getting a few bucks by selling nuclear tech to Saudi Arabia, in any case the nuclear genie (literally) is out of the bottle, after Pakistan got the capability it is only a matter of time for it to spread, any noise is only a delaying tactic to prepare for the first nuclear terrorist assault and the downfall of the large urban centers around the world, after that happens nations will start to behave or urban life will be no more (leading probably to a drastic ecological collapse). All because those in power have failed time and time again to work toward global human improvement.
Good for them. I do not recognize any fairness in negating Iran nuclear capability while preserving Israel nuclear capability. Even if I was afraid of a nuclear Iran I would counter that by getting a few bucks by selling nuclear tech to Saudi Arabia, in any case the nuclear genie (literally) is out of the bottle, after Pakistan got the capability it is only a matter of time for it to spread, any noise is only a delaying tactic to prepare for the first nuclear terrorist assault and the downfall of the large urban centers around the world, after that happens nations will start to behave or urban life will be no more (leading probably to a drastic ecological collapse). All because those in power have failed time and time again to work toward global human improvement.
reply posted on 30-8-2012 @ 04:23 PM by buster2010
reply to post by Xcathdra
Pretty ignorant about WW2 aren't you? Japan didn't start it America did with the sanctions we placed against Japan.
Sanctions on Japan in WWII
Also nukes were not needed to end the war we could have accepted their offer of surrender that they were giving. America used the bombs to throw a scare into the Russians.
If you are going to play stickball in Brooklynn you better know the rules. Japan started the war, not the US. Japan also had a nuke program, just like the Nazis, and I guarantee if Japan or Germany got them first things today would be a lot different. We deployed nukes in order to force an end to the war instead of an invasion of the Japanese main islands that would have resulted in many more deaths than the nukes did.
Pretty ignorant about WW2 aren't you? Japan didn't start it America did with the sanctions we placed against Japan.
Sanctions on Japan in WWII
Sanctions to Japan started in 1939 when US denunciated Treaty of Commerce and Navigation. Since this treaty was central to the trade with US, due to the lapse of this treaty, Japan had a tremendous damage to its economy. Amount of import to Japan was limited by US, which made it really hard for Japan to keep fighting with China. Not only gasoline for airplane, but also other resources were cut down; scrap iron, ironstone, pig iron, copper, nickel, white vitriol and etc. Since Japan was heavily relied natural resources on US, this sanction meant depletion of Japan’s fuel supplies, and Japan was driven into a corner.
Also nukes were not needed to end the war we could have accepted their offer of surrender that they were giving. America used the bombs to throw a scare into the Russians.
reply posted on 30-8-2012 @ 04:29 PM by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by miniatus
Yeah.. Russia offered it to them, at a price.
That makes them look guilty for a millisecond until you realize, maybe they just don't want to be reliant.
I am not convinced that they want a nuke, and even if they did, I flat out don't believe they would use it.
Actually I would bet all my money that they would never use it unless someone attacked them first.
Yeah.. Russia offered it to them, at a price.
That makes them look guilty for a millisecond until you realize, maybe they just don't want to be reliant.
I am not convinced that they want a nuke, and even if they did, I flat out don't believe they would use it.
Actually I would bet all my money that they would never use it unless someone attacked them first.
reply posted on 30-8-2012 @ 07:37 PM by GarrusVasNormandy
reply to post by buster2010
I wasn't saying Wikipedia isn't trustworthy... I was saying the exact opposite, it just sounded funny to me that in another related discussion about Iran/Israel you dismissed my source (wikipedia) in response to my posts, but then you posted it here when it suited your point of view.
Just a friendly advice, if you are going to dismiss what other people say or think about a specific issue based on their poor sources for information, at least be sure to be coherent about it and not use them yourself.
*Sorry for the short off-topic*
I wasn't saying Wikipedia isn't trustworthy... I was saying the exact opposite, it just sounded funny to me that in another related discussion about Iran/Israel you dismissed my source (wikipedia) in response to my posts, but then you posted it here when it suited your point of view.
Just a friendly advice, if you are going to dismiss what other people say or think about a specific issue based on their poor sources for information, at least be sure to be coherent about it and not use them yourself.
*Sorry for the short off-topic*
reply posted on 31-8-2012 @ 09:36 AM by GarrusVasNormandy
reply to post by ALF88
You are correct.
But if there is evidence that the possibility of Iran using that facility to pursue nuclear weapons, then Iran should allow access to it. Like I said multiple time, the terms of that access can be negotiated.
What matters here is that if you agree with something like the NPT, you must do everything in your power to show your intentions. Iran has secrets, and has the right to governmental privacy. But shouldn't we support transparency? I'm not talking about Iran, but to all countries.
In my opinion, if you are going to participate in something like the NPT, then you should be aware that the members will make huge amounts of pressure in case there is the smallest amount of suspicion.
I disagree that Iran should negate all types of access, but I agree they don't need to allow full access. Like I said in my previous reply to your post, it's as simple as covering sensitive information but allowing inspectors to search for radiation evidence.
In another thread I was speaking with several members about radiation detection technology, and we have tech that is able to detect radiation from space. I'm sure that the IAEA has measurement tools that allow them to search an area - a bunker, storage units, crates - without having to see what kind of weapons or explosives are being developed.
It's a matter of giving something to them in return for full cooperation from the whole agency.
As for Israel, although some people paint me as pro-Israel, I don't support their offensive rhetoric. In my opinion, Israel is only in IAEA with no-member or non-signatory status, which takes away their credibility and power to influence IAEA decisions.
Israel words and stand only makes the whole issue worst. It's like background noise when people are trying to solve thing's through negotiation.
Yes, but you should be aware that complying with the NPT means no pursuit of nuclear weapons. They have to check facilities in order to know if they are actually complying with the NPT or not. As sad as it may be, we can't trust the word of governments or leaders...
I apologize, that was my mistake for not clearing that up.
What I mean is that Iran blocks access to key locations inside bigger facilities. Someone (can't remember which member) compared it to allowing police to search your house, but deny access to a closet.
Iran does allow access to all surface facilities, or has allowed access after further negotiation. But they deny access to certain parts of the facilities. One of which was suspected to have high-velocity explosives.
I'm sure you are aware of the recent buzz about the clean-up job.
Why? I don't understand that logic, with all due respect.
Iran doesn't have anything that the U.S. or any allied country doesn't have better or in larger numbers. If you are referring to military power assessment, then the CIA, Mossad and other intelligence agencies have plenty of resources to know exactly that.
However, we are talking about specific spots in a building that could have illegal nuclear material. Military power is very easy to understand. The U.S. and the Soviet Union did it to each-other for decades.
Yes, but why are you dismissing as invalid the accusations of Iran hiding stuff from the IAEA? I'm not trying to be offensive or disrespectful, but you seem to have double standards.
As we debate further, it appears that you believe in one side, but refuse what the other says. In that way, we are not talking about the truth or being unbiased.
How can you talk about freedom and right's to privacy, and then impose a treaty to the world?
It's voluntary. Which makes Iran even more responsible to cooperate and facilitate the investigations. If Iran doesn't want IAEA to study them, then they should leave. And leave the US and Western dollars they received at the IAEA when they leave. Many people often forget about that...
Parchin is a military installation. Therefore there is no violation of the NPT, if they don't grant access.
You are correct.
But if there is evidence that the possibility of Iran using that facility to pursue nuclear weapons, then Iran should allow access to it. Like I said multiple time, the terms of that access can be negotiated.
What matters here is that if you agree with something like the NPT, you must do everything in your power to show your intentions. Iran has secrets, and has the right to governmental privacy. But shouldn't we support transparency? I'm not talking about Iran, but to all countries.
In my opinion, if you are going to participate in something like the NPT, then you should be aware that the members will make huge amounts of pressure in case there is the smallest amount of suspicion.
Can they ask Iran to allow inspectors to access it? Yes, but they can't expect to be granted access or threaten Iran with war, period!
The West, Israel and the UN have to back off.
I disagree that Iran should negate all types of access, but I agree they don't need to allow full access. Like I said in my previous reply to your post, it's as simple as covering sensitive information but allowing inspectors to search for radiation evidence.
In another thread I was speaking with several members about radiation detection technology, and we have tech that is able to detect radiation from space. I'm sure that the IAEA has measurement tools that allow them to search an area - a bunker, storage units, crates - without having to see what kind of weapons or explosives are being developed.
It's a matter of giving something to them in return for full cooperation from the whole agency.
As for Israel, although some people paint me as pro-Israel, I don't support their offensive rhetoric. In my opinion, Israel is only in IAEA with no-member or non-signatory status, which takes away their credibility and power to influence IAEA decisions.
Israel words and stand only makes the whole issue worst. It's like background noise when people are trying to solve thing's through negotiation.
Their job is to check if Iran complies with the NPT, nothing more, nothing less.
Yes, but you should be aware that complying with the NPT means no pursuit of nuclear weapons. They have to check facilities in order to know if they are actually complying with the NPT or not. As sad as it may be, we can't trust the word of governments or leaders...
You are using the plural (places) again. What places are those? So far you have only mentioned Parchin.
I apologize, that was my mistake for not clearing that up.
What I mean is that Iran blocks access to key locations inside bigger facilities. Someone (can't remember which member) compared it to allowing police to search your house, but deny access to a closet.
Iran does allow access to all surface facilities, or has allowed access after further negotiation. But they deny access to certain parts of the facilities. One of which was suspected to have high-velocity explosives.
I'm sure you are aware of the recent buzz about the clean-up job.
Again if I was Iran I wouldn't let my enemies access military installations and expose my military capabilities and secrets either.
Why? I don't understand that logic, with all due respect.
Iran doesn't have anything that the U.S. or any allied country doesn't have better or in larger numbers. If you are referring to military power assessment, then the CIA, Mossad and other intelligence agencies have plenty of resources to know exactly that.
However, we are talking about specific spots in a building that could have illegal nuclear material. Military power is very easy to understand. The U.S. and the Soviet Union did it to each-other for decades.
(...)especially if you consider the fact that Iran accuses the IAEA to have given secret information about their nuclear scientists to the US and Israel (...)
Yes, but why are you dismissing as invalid the accusations of Iran hiding stuff from the IAEA? I'm not trying to be offensive or disrespectful, but you seem to have double standards.
As we debate further, it appears that you believe in one side, but refuse what the other says. In that way, we are not talking about the truth or being unbiased.
In that case we don't need the NPT. Either it is the same for everybody or we abolish it.
How can you talk about freedom and right's to privacy, and then impose a treaty to the world?
It's voluntary. Which makes Iran even more responsible to cooperate and facilitate the investigations. If Iran doesn't want IAEA to study them, then they should leave. And leave the US and Western dollars they received at the IAEA when they leave. Many people often forget about that...
reply posted on 31-8-2012 @ 01:22 PM by GarrusVasNormandy
reply to post by ALF88
There is evidence. The only discussion that comes out of it - again - is what people accept as credible evidence or not.
That is not for me to decide, since I'm not neither a nuclear physicist nor a nuclear warhead expert.
Iran developing and enriching their own uranium isn't a NTP breach. That was never put into question by any government or agency involved.
However, Iran has been asked several times to halt - not fully stop, nor completely dismiss it - their enrichment activities. This was mostly done in order to allow IAEA if there is any concrete violation, and void any suspicion of nuclear weapons development.
It was meant as a pause, not as a prohibition.
Iran has disobeyed that order, and continues to defy it.
This attitude has caused severe consequences, the most relevant being expressed in this paragraph of a European Union resolution:
Source (EU document database)
I pasted point B to further explain that I'm not arguing Iran is in breach of the NPT for pursuing their own fuel.
But point C portrays my argument that Iran does jeopardize the feeling of trust it must have to continue their nuclear program without foreign interference.
I'm not painting Iran as the same example as I'm about to use, but it's just a historical comparison.
Prior to World War 2 Germany was prohibited or pursuing offensive military vessels for it's navy. Most importantly, battleships - which were considered at the time in the same category as Aircraft Carriers are in our days - that were feared by international community, along with U-boats.
Germany, under the Nazi Regime, didn't breach the armistice agreement. They simply developed new technology and new vessels that didn't literally breach the armistice. Their solution? Build smaller, lighter (without heavy armor) battleships, that wouldn't have a water displacement large enough to breach the agreement.
Those battleships were later used against several western nations.
Nazi Germany in the 30's didn't breach any agreement. But they did destroy the relationship of trust. The same type of relationship of trust that Iran is destroying by adopting secretive attitudes and actions.
Yes, and the right to do so. Also, any country is entitled to a defensive force (at least).
That is not the same as having secrets that can pose a threat.
Source?
source
In your opinion. Mine is the opposite of yours... I consider what the IAEA states as being "suspicious", credible enough to have doubts of my own.
Thank you for the consideration and keeping a polite conversation.
The same we are talking about before. Parchin.
Iran can't give credibility to IAEA saying that they will state they are in compliance, and then say they can't go to Parchin because they are Western spies. They can't have it both ways to suit their arguments...
[ran out of space, continues next post]
There is no evidence
There is evidence. The only discussion that comes out of it - again - is what people accept as credible evidence or not.
That is not for me to decide, since I'm not neither a nuclear physicist nor a nuclear warhead expert.
and as Iran sticks to the NPT
Iran developing and enriching their own uranium isn't a NTP breach. That was never put into question by any government or agency involved.
However, Iran has been asked several times to halt - not fully stop, nor completely dismiss it - their enrichment activities. This was mostly done in order to allow IAEA if there is any concrete violation, and void any suspicion of nuclear weapons development.
It was meant as a pause, not as a prohibition.
Iran has disobeyed that order, and continues to defy it.
This attitude has caused severe consequences, the most relevant being expressed in this paragraph of a European Union resolution:
B. whereas the report further takes note of the fact that Iran continues its nuclear enrichment and reprocessing activities, which it is obliged to suspend under several Security Council Resolutions; whereas however the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Treaty as such does not rule out enrichment activities by its state parties and whereas Iran’s enrichment program is therefore not in breach with the NPT;
C. whereas in breach of its obligation under the NPT, Iran has clandestinely constructed an enrichment facility at Fordo close to Qom and only notified the IAEA of its existence long after its construction started; and whereas such secretive approach further undermines the trust in Iranian assurances about the purely civil character of its nuclear program;
Source (EU document database)
I pasted point B to further explain that I'm not arguing Iran is in breach of the NPT for pursuing their own fuel.
But point C portrays my argument that Iran does jeopardize the feeling of trust it must have to continue their nuclear program without foreign interference.
there is no need for the IAEA to stick their nose in there.
I'm not painting Iran as the same example as I'm about to use, but it's just a historical comparison.
Prior to World War 2 Germany was prohibited or pursuing offensive military vessels for it's navy. Most importantly, battleships - which were considered at the time in the same category as Aircraft Carriers are in our days - that were feared by international community, along with U-boats.
Germany, under the Nazi Regime, didn't breach the armistice agreement. They simply developed new technology and new vessels that didn't literally breach the armistice. Their solution? Build smaller, lighter (without heavy armor) battleships, that wouldn't have a water displacement large enough to breach the agreement.
Those battleships were later used against several western nations.
Nazi Germany in the 30's didn't breach any agreement. But they did destroy the relationship of trust. The same type of relationship of trust that Iran is destroying by adopting secretive attitudes and actions.
Every country has secrecy to a certain extent.
Yes, and the right to do so. Also, any country is entitled to a defensive force (at least).
That is not the same as having secrets that can pose a threat.
Why don't they do this with all countries. Saudi Arabia probably got nuclear weapons already, they helped Pakistan to get theirs.
Source?
Saudi Arabia is not known to have a nuclear weapons program. From an official and public standpoint, Saudi Arabia has been an opponent of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, having signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and is a member of the coalition of countries demanding a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in the Middle East. Studies of nuclear proliferation have not identified Saudi Arabia as a country of concern.
source
They don't have evidence.
In your opinion. Mine is the opposite of yours... I consider what the IAEA states as being "suspicious", credible enough to have doubts of my own.
I never thought that you are pro Israel and by the way I am not anti Israel either.
Thank you for the consideration and keeping a polite conversation.
Which facilities?
The same we are talking about before. Parchin.
Iran can't give credibility to IAEA saying that they will state they are in compliance, and then say they can't go to Parchin because they are Western spies. They can't have it both ways to suit their arguments...
[ran out of space, continues next post]
Russia announces enormous finds of radioactive waste and nuclear reactors in Arctic seas
Posted 12 days ago with 49 member flags
Posted 12 days ago with 49 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
North Carolina May Ban Tesla Sales To Prevent “Unfair Competition”
US Political Madness: 45 minutes ago
US Political Madness: 45 minutes ago
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
Large tornado plowing through Moore OK, southern OKC right now
Fragile Earth: 12 hours ago, 72 flags
Fragile Earth: 12 hours ago, 72 flags
Is freedom of speech dead? Activists Rally to Free Adam Kokesh.
Political Issues: 15 hours ago, 20 flags
Political Issues: 15 hours ago, 20 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
Large tornado plowing through Moore OK, southern OKC right now
Fragile Earth: 12 hours ago, 330 replies
Fragile Earth: 12 hours ago, 330 replies
1000-year-old coins found in Northern Territory may rewrite Australian history.
Ancient & Lost Civilizations: 15 hours ago, 40 replies
Ancient & Lost Civilizations: 15 hours ago, 40 replies
Where Are We Now? Post Feminism and the Modern World
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 16 hours ago, 40 replies
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 16 hours ago, 40 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.003 seconds
Page processed in: 0.274 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.003 seconds
Page processed in: 0.274 seconds
