IAEA: Iran doubles underground nuclear capacity

reply to post by ALF88


[continues...]

The buzz is always coming from people, that I don't trust from my bed to the loo. Sorry.

And you are entitled to your suspicions.

However, I believe that certain matters are of major importance, and a country pursuing nuclear weapons without being clear about it, in my opinion, is a subject to pay attention to.

If the claims of Iran having dubious facilities are unfounded, I'm sure history and further investigations will determine that someone was feeding bad information.

I'm assuming you agree that even the U.S. - when they rushed their intelligence about Iraq - can't get away with lying to international community. Eventually, someone finds out.

Personally, I believe in that individuals and organizations - governments and such - are entitled to innocence until proven guilty. But an investigation and inspection isn't a statement of guilt, it's just that, an investigation.

Ask the United States what they are doing at Area 51 and Groom Lake.

I don't need to.

It's well known that the Area 51 is used to develop secret aviation technology - that's why it has such long runways, I believe - and was once used to test nuclear warheads, underground and at surface level.

You see, even a facility like Area 51 can't hide all of it's secrets. That's why there is no point in Iran hiding Parchin because they don't have anything worth hiding, in my opinion.

There is more danger coming from those to places for world peace than the rest of the world together.

I disagree with that. A lot of the technology coming out from those places allowed the U.S. to have effective operations that prevented bigger conflicts. Kosovo is an example of that, since the F-117 (developed in Area 51) was used there.

But that's going into politics, and those are way to subjective.

That is not the point and you know it. Iran has a right to keep their military installations secret, just like every other country as well.

Yes, I know. But Iran also has to raise the question to them-selfs if it's worth it to hide some secrets and go to war with trigger-sensitive Israel, or open the door slightly to allow IAEA inspections.

We are not talking about Israeli or American influence, but IAEA's. And I refer again that, if Iran wants to use IAEA to justify and validate their nuclear program, then they also have to give in and recognize IAEA credibility to inspect their sites.

That's how I see it.

Do you think the pressure on Iran will get less if they leave the NPT?

Yes, I do.

It's possible it could get worst before getting better, but I believe it would be the only suitable exit for Iran other than allowing access to IAEA/U.N. inspections.

If they leave, there are two scenarios that I can imagine:

1- Iran isn't going for nuclear weapons.

2- Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

If 1 is true, then Iran is free to pursuit their economical goals for nuclear energy and oil production. If they continue to state that they don't want nukes, people will doubt them less than before, because Iran won't have a reason to lie about it anymore. This seems a bit stupid, but it's true. If they have no obligation, their statements could be more credible than signing the NPT and then having dubious behavior.

If 2 is true, then Iran is free to do so. Nobody will have the legal authority to ask them to halt the program, or to disable any nukes. They will be fully entitled to have all the secret facilities they wish, and deny access to them.

Either way - 1 or 2 - Iran is going to face some consequences for leaving the NPT. They will lose international support, monetary and technological - which has aided them in the exact goals they deem as their own - and will be to their own responsibility to house, develop and possess that technology.

I use my bases for this opinion on what has happened with North Korea, Pakistan and India. They are clearly open about their nuclear programs, and people might disagree or object to their existence, but they gain more respect because they are making their own rules and acting on their own responsibility.

Israel would either have to commit to their own measures to stop Iran and have no legal background to protect them-selfs, or they will have to accept Iran for what they are, like the world accepted all non-NPT nuclear powers.

It's better to be alone than to be poorly judged by world agencies because you fail at certain key articles of an agreement.

However, we will have to live with the risk of making such a decision.

Its Orwells 1984! Iran has right to the bomb according to learned authorities quoting Nuclear NON -PROLIFERATION Treaty - double double triple speak. Peaceful nuclear programs are in, inspection of military programs are out! One does not begat the other nor does the other mean ill intention. Go nuclear save the oil !!! they all say. Besides its all a zionest plot anyway so whos to blame them for peacefully, very peacefully wiping Isreal off the map. Please stop the Isrealis from making the Iranians peacefully making a bomb. Dont forget the missiles and their proliferation either remember outerspace is peace, peace is outerspace and all that. No ballistics here! If you explosively squeeze an larger orb of metal down to walnut size - is that considered peaceful? or maybe just for the squirrels sake.

See I can make just as much sense as the rest here

Look folks ascribe way to much power to Isreal a very small country surrounded by enemies on all sides. Fact is 1, 2 or 3 weapons set off will destroy that country and they know it as well as their enemies. If another politically hostile nation develops the means to militarily destroy Israel then its kind of stupid on their part to sit on their thumbs and await the day especially given the history in the region.

All that is even assuming some kind of conventional delivery ability by another nation such as Iran. What about delivery via martyr vis a vis a Hezbollah such as is being done with rocket attacks etc. etc. The Israelis would only have to err once while others may keep trying time and again.

1948 attacked by four enemy states, 1956 Israel attacked Egypt after suez canal nationalization, 1967 Isreal pre-emptive attack based on mobilization of Eygpt, Jordan and Iraqi militaries. 1973 Eygpt and Syrian surprise attack. 1981 Israel pre-emptive strike at Osirak. 1982 Isreal attacks Lebanon after PLO attacks. 2006 Israel attacks Lebanon after Hezbolla artillery attacks. 2007 Israel attack Syrian reator site.

By the above pre-emption has a long history in Israel and is more the norm than passively defending itself after being attacked. It should come as no surprise if and when they think its proper time to address Irans threat.

Israel has both the ability to attack conventionally (effective or not is debatable) and has the ability to defend herself afterwards from Iranian or other regional powers without direct intervention or help from the U.S.

Thats the facts to me.

Now if Russia or China decides to intercede after that is the question, and at that point questions of U.S. involvement comes to the table.

One would have to demonstrate a case for Russia or Chinas interests to be deemed worth the further confrontation, I dont see that today and I dont think either is quite ready for that level of conflict just yet.

The U.S. is being de-toothed from within and the process may speed up or slow depending on internal developments next few months.

The current state of affairs with the U.S. dictates hasty if not rapid action by Isreal while the U.S. still maintains a deterrent capability where a cold calculation can be made regards non-regional responses to an attack on Iran by Israel.

Nukes in the hands of Iran will be a disaster for Israel. US and Israel should act before it is too late.

Fundamental question all must seriously ponder upon and ask:-

WIth the delay, as long as 5 years and news that Iran has developed enrichment processes slightly above the needs for mere peaceful energy needs without even saying the infrastructure lines to link such power to human population centres, , and with this latest developements of news that that MORE doubling of its nuke capacity, is troubling, if not frightening for all mankind, more so with its leader's deluded promotion of end times today.

How much are they in developement of nuke power to weaponisation today?

Once they have nukes on hand, and coupled with evidences of their continued destabilization of nations - both muslims and non -muslims states, the spectre of a N.Korean little kim ghost who had gotten what he want each time he threatens the world, looms.

Only this time, it won't be food like little kim wanted in the past. World domination and religious supremacy awaits, along with the collar chains of enslavement standing by.

It is a difficult time for parties seeking to be free. But to delay, mankind will be in even more difficult times. Perhaps, just do it, and bear the blame alone, and in time, when the truths are revealed,a saviour of mankind is acknowledged?

Originally posted by GarrusVasNormandy
reply to post by ALF88

 

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.

FAS - Nuclear Weapons - Iran

Recent Developments:
Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council Resolutions 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008) and 1835 (2008) in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Report of the International Atomic Energy Agency, February 19, 2009.
There are ongoing investigations by the IAEA concerning Iran's compliance with the NPT. At the end of August 2003, the IAEA stated in a confidential report leaked to the media that trace elements of Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) were found in an Iranian nuclear facility. In June of 2003, an IAEA Director General report stated that Iran had not met the obligations required of it by the NPT. A November 2003 report identified further violations. In February 2004 it was discovered that Iran had blueprints for an advanced centrifuge design usable for uranium enrichment that it had withheld from nuclear inspectors. In December 2003, Iran signed an additional protocol authorizing IAEA inspectors to make intrusive, snap inspections of Iran's nuclear facilities. The protocol was signed as an addition to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Remaining uncertainties surrounding Iran's uranium enrichment activities were addressed in the IAEA's November 2004 report. IAEA Deputy Director for Safeguards, Pierre Goldschmidt, reported in June 2005 that Iran had admitted to separating out small amounts of plutonium as recently as 1998.

Despite suspending its enrichment and conversion programs in 2003, Iran resumed uranium conversion in 2005 and enrichment in 2006. In 2009, it was revealed that Iran had secretly constructed a second enrichment facility within a Revolutionary Guards military base twenty miles from the city of Qum. The enrichment facility near Qum is smaller than the Natanz enrichment facility. The smaller size of the Qum enrichment facility combined with its location within a military base suggests to some that this second enrichment plant is not for enriching uranium required for generating civil nuclear power. Iran maintains that the facility is necessary for enriching uranium for its research reactor and it was built due to worries that the Natanz facility is vulnerable to attack. One study notes that the Qum enrichment facility is potentially too small to be an effective enrichment plant for weapons grade material. In the study’s conclusion, the authors note that the Qum enrichment facility is “neither ideal for commercial nor military purposes.”

reply to post by Xcathdra


The facility mentioned in your source is Parchin?

I did research about it when making the previous reply, but some sources only mention Qum, while others mention specifically Parchin. I didn't want to put certainty in any claims regarding those sources because I didn't follow up the research to find out if there are other military bases (the information on Parchin in the media seems a bit confusing) near Qum.

I read your source and later found the association I was searching for:

In late May 2012, satellite imagery revealed that Iran has potentially engaged in “ground-scraping activities” in Parchin to conceal facilities and equipment that could be associated with developing nuclear weapons before United Nations inspectors could visit the site.

Thanks for the information.

Call me crazy, but isn't the fundamental issue with the Iranian nuclear proliferation this argument: Because nuclear weapons are inherently an existential threat to the survival of mankind, no nation, particularly politically and social unstable nations, must be allowed to possess them, for fear that it will bring about the collective destruction of our species and biosphere. If that is the central point against Iranian (and any particular nations, really) nuclear weapons possession, than would it not make more sense for nations to solve this issue by collectively (or individually) creating a weapon that neutralizes the threat (or aftermath) of nuclear weapons. Because honestly, the history of global preventive nuclear armament has been one fraught with failure. It is time for the global community to admit that this problem can not be solved with unilateral or even multilateral military actions, and just accept the fact that any nation who feels threatened by any other nations is going to act on their interest for survival, even if it means developing nuclear weapons. That's just pure and simple grade school logic. So perhaps another alternative route should be considered that doesn't involve various nations increasing collective paranoia by using brazen and pointless military bravado? Yes?

The problem i see allowing IAEA "peaceful organization" in to inspect is who else will have access to that info. I bet Israel and the US will be given access to help them plan attacks. Do you blame Iran for maybe not wanting to give IAEA unlimited access any time they want it.

Originally posted by Echo007
Do you blame Iran for maybe not wanting to give IAEA unlimited access any time they want it.

Yes - If they have issues with it then maybe they should withdraw from the NPT and the IAEA. Both treaties are voluntary and a nation can come or go as they see fit.

For reference see North Korea.

Originally posted by waveydavey
Seriously who cares anymore? I don't care what Iran has or has not got, they haven't attacked anybody ever. Yet the world police, USA, the ONLY nation to EVER use Nuclear weapons in ANGER has the gall to dictate to anybody who should or should not have these weapons. Please, I'm not anti American I'm anti US Government.
Idiots.

Of course your pissant country would have gladly sacrificiced 1,000,000 of YOUR soldiers to kill the ENEMY IN WARTIME you brainless eurotwat parroting that most ignorant mantra only the weak minded so enjoy.Do stfu.The most idiotic reasoning copied by the basest of ATS trash.Of Course the Germans or Japanese would have NEVER considered doing it had they the chance.I usually don't waste my college degree setting the feeble straight.

reply to post by AgentX09


Huh?
Whats up? Did you get your period or something?

What exactly is wrong with my opinion?
You have wasted your college degree "setting the feeble straight" as I suspect your degree is in cookery, actually no drama would be more suited to you!
Move along now.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by waveydavey
Seriously who cares anymore? I don't care what Iran has or has not got, they haven't attacked anybody ever.

Incorrect - Iran supports Hamas / Hezzbullah who attack Israel. Secondly if you research Iran going way back you will find they have attacked others.

Originally posted by waveydavey
Yet the world police, USA,

Because the last time the US tried to remain neutral it resulted in 2 world wars.

Originally posted by waveydavey
the ONLY nation to EVER use Nuclear weapons in ANGER

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.

Secondly research Japanese war crimes during WWII and you will quickly find Japan killed more civilians / pows than those killed in the bombing attacks.

Tip oif the day - Dont start a war and then whine at the end when you lose.

Originally posted by waveydavey
has the gall to dictate to anybody who should or should not have these weapons. Please, I'm not anti American I'm anti US Government.

Why not? As you pointed out we have used nukes so what could be better than the US trying to limit them in the world by citing example?

Secondly Iran is violating their treaty obligations .with the UN, not the US. The US is not the only country whatching / tying to resolve the issues with Iran. We arent dictating to them, the treaty is. They are more than welcome to withdraw.

Originally posted by waveydavey
idiots.

Yes, Iran is very much an idiot.

What a load of BS... the US has NEVER been neutral in regards to ANY war. It was the US that was attempting to destabilize Germanys western areas through France, before they even started killing innocent people. BEFORE....

Everytime there has been a war, there the US have been in advance spreading propaganda and inciting fear. Why you ask? Because the way your country is build up, you can NEVER ever live without wars instigated by the US. You need those special deals and US friendly governments, you depend on them like a baby depends on breast milk. When you can't have it you steal it, you plunder and you murder.

So no... the US has never been neutral.

But, I do agree that the common American man and woman might see themselves as being neutral and pure. But you really soon have to start looking at the monster you had the chance to counter, but didn't do so, because you bought into all the lies and deceit.

Last remark..... 1 9 5 4

Originally posted by theghoster
Call me crazy, but isn't the fundamental issue with the Iranian nuclear proliferation this argument: Because nuclear weapons are inherently an existential threat to the survival of mankind, no nation, particularly politically and social unstable nations, must be allowed to possess them, for fear that it will bring about the collective destruction of our species and biosphere. If that is the central point against Iranian (and any particular nations, really) nuclear weapons possession, than would it not make more sense for nations to solve this issue by collectively (or individually) creating a weapon that neutralizes the threat (or aftermath) of nuclear weapons. Because honestly, the history of global preventive nuclear armament has been one fraught with failure. It is time for the global community to admit that this problem can not be solved with unilateral or even multilateral military actions, and just accept the fact that any nation who feels threatened by any other nations is going to act on their interest for survival, even if it means developing nuclear weapons. That's just pure and simple grade school logic. So perhaps another alternative route should be considered that doesn't involve various nations increasing collective paranoia by using brazen and pointless military bravado? Yes?

edit on 6-9-2012 by theghoster because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-9-2012 by theghoster because: (no reason given)

With that in mind... why are these two allowed to have them:

A. The US... the only country in the world to have ever used nuclear weapons on innocent people... you even used two of them... A country who relies on waging war because it's weapons industry is so large that it would ruin it twice if they couldn't invade another country. A country that even has and is supplying weapons etc. to countries and factions which most likely later will become their enemies

B. Israel, basically a country of potentially free and peaceful people, governed by psychopathic terrorists. A warmonger state, a delusional regime which believe so badly in imaginary fairytales of being chosen that they would actually kill for it...


Why are these allowed to posses weapons? I certainly don't see the US as having done ANYTHING good in the world for... well... ever since money became more important than moral and being good to your neighbour.

EDIT: On-topic.... IAEA is a stooge, nothing more. They too are depending on special relationships. So what if Iran is doubling their efforts. They still can enjoy the benefit of the doubt until proving guilty! We cannot allow ourselves to fall once again for pointing fingers at something that simply isn't there!!! Iraq anyone? What a load of manure?! It's the same thing all over again, and people are stupid enough to buy into because your government talks about how bad Iran is and oh they will be able to do this and that..... diddly squat! Iran will never be in a position to threaten US soil... NEVER. And if you start talking about your so-called soil in the middle east: you don't own jack s***.... you stole it, your government is criminal, they are a threat to world security and they are simply using the IAEA to generate fear / reasons to go in and cause devastation in yet another country.

Oh, how are things in Iraq and Afghanistan by the way? I guess those guys are really happy you came in there, took their resource deals and messed up both countries? Dammit... your soldiers are getting shot down by the very people they are training to take over security of the country. If that isn't a huge hint, then I don't know what is.

Stop paying attention to organizations like the corrupt IAEA and start thinking for yourself. This is NOT about nuclear weapons. This is about resources that the US wants and cant have. End of story!