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.

 

Iran: who attacks first US or Israel?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 09:01 PM
link   
The latest news from Iran is that they are now producing 'industrial scale' nuclear fuel, which can be used among other things to produce a warhead. We have long been waiting for the US to launch an attack on Natanz and other nuclear facilities in Iran, with most betting on a short aior campaign. It would not be surprising if Israel started to grow impatient and launched its own attack soon ahead of any US attack. Or the US tired of the Iraq war might negotiate with Israel behind the scenes for Israel to go first.



posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 09:19 PM
link   
I always figured it would be Israel that starts it. The US still seems a little too hesitant to jump in first.



posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Normally i would agree. But Olmert seems like such a weak president that i doubt they do anything. Hell they cant even stop Hizbullah on their own border because Olemrt was too weak to finish it out. The US is scared and Iran knows it.



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 01:12 AM
link   
Who is this 'we' you speak of having been waiting for someone to attack Iran?

I don't think Olbmert is too weak or the US is too hesitant, I think Iran is too powerful with nukes and everyone could care less at this point. What would an attack accomplish? War? Then what?



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 01:36 AM
link   
Industrial grade nuclear fuel being used in nuclear weapons?

Your sources have it COMPLETLEY wrong. Industrial grade nuclear fuel is 5-10% enriched uranium. It takes a 90% enrichment of uranium to make a uranium based nuclear bomb.

Whoever told you that industrial grade nuclear fuel can be used in nuclear bombs is full of sh**, and I highly suggest you never take them seriously again my friend.

Clearly the source is playing on the laymans misunderstanding of the differences between nuclear fuel, and nuclear weapons.

Sure, you can make a dirty bomb... but whats that going to do? It could contaminate one city block... wowee... yeah, thats some badass weapons. Give me a break, lol.

If they enrich their uranium to 90%, then we can talk about the dangers of nucelar weapons.



posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 03:32 PM
link   
If the rumours are to be believed, the USA is already attacking Iran. Noticed any increases of terrorism inside Iran lately? Its not a coincidence. Its hardly a secret that the USA inherited control of many of Saddam's anti-Iranian terrorist groups after 2003 and is presumably putting them to what it sees as a good use.

As for the strike, I can't see Olmert doing it. He's hated in Israel, going by the polls, to such a degree Bush looks like a popular leader. Should the Israeli government change soon however, I can see them engaging in a first strike. Saudi Arabia is talking with a lot of Iran's military and security people of late, and the Iranians have to know anything they say to the Saudi's will end up in Washington. So signals are being sent and it seems there is still some sort of diplomacy going on. But Israel is out of the loop. If the USA doesn't pass on what its getting from its local allies, Israel may just decide to go ahead and attack anyway, based on Iranian rhetoric and actions.



posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 07:14 PM
link   
ohnsky is spot on in my opinion. As signees of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran are entitled to enrich uranium on an industrial scale which by all accounts is exactly what they are doing.

en.wikipedia.org...

They are years away from developing a nuclear bomb and even if they do build one in a decade or so, so what? As much as they get demonised by western propaganda, they aren't mad. Why is the west allowed to have a 'Nuclear deterrent' and Iran develops a bomb and OMG the're going to nuke us all!



posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Quote: "They are years away from developing a nuclear bomb and even if they do build one in a decade or so, so what? As much as they get demonised by western propaganda, they aren't mad. Why is the west allowed to have a 'Nuclear deterrent' and Iran develops a bomb and OMG the're going to nuke us all!"

They arent mad yet they threaten to wipe Israel off the map? They repress their own citizens. But to think they would want to harm anyone else with a nuke is insane?



posted on Apr, 13 2007 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by princeofpeace
They arent mad yet they threaten to wipe Israel off the map? They repress their own citizens. But to think they would want to harm anyone else with a nuke is insane?


Oh the old '"wipe Israel of the map "again!

Thanks for making my point about Iran being demonized by western propaganda. I suggest that you go and educate yourself about what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad actually said.

www.thetruthseeker.co.uk...
www.theinsider.org...

Then I suggest you research how propaganda works so that you won't fall for it hook, line and sinker next time.



posted on Apr, 13 2007 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnsky
Industrial grade nuclear fuel being used in nuclear weapons?

Your sources have it COMPLETLEY wrong. Industrial grade nuclear fuel is 5-10% enriched uranium. It takes a 90% enrichment of uranium to make a uranium based nuclear bomb.



But it would make a great "dirty" bomb!!!

Also, as Iran is not the most honest and forthright county, you don't know that they are not going to enrich past 10%.



posted on Apr, 13 2007 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Since the discussion is now focused on whether Iran has or will have capacity to produce nuclear bombs, I would like to add a source which says that the 3,000 centrifuges that Iran claims to have in operation are enough to produce a nuclear bomb. The same source says that 50,000 to 60,000 centrifuges are needed to build what it calls a warhead:


U.S. experts said 3,000 centrifuges was enough to produce a nuclear weapon but added their skepticism over Iran's claims, saying they had strong doubts Iran really had the capability to operate so many devices, a highly complicated process.

Experts say the Natanz plant needs between 50,000 to 60,000 centrifuges to consistently produce fuel for a reactor or build a warhead.

www.haaretz.com...


According to ATS discussion Iran in fact aims at operating 50,000 centrifuges:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 15 2007 @ 03:04 PM
link   
double post

[edit on 15-4-2007 by Styki]



posted on Apr, 15 2007 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by nobodyv2
Oh the old '"wipe Israel of the map "again!

Thanks for making my point about Iran being demonized by western propaganda. I suggest that you go and educate yourself about what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad actually said.

www.thetruthseeker.co.uk...
www.theinsider.org...

Then I suggest you research how propaganda works so that you won't fall for it hook, line and sinker next time.


From your sorce (The Truth Seeker)


The most accurate English translation of the original Farsi is "the occupation of Palestine should dissapear from the pages of history".


If you think about it this quote is not better than the last. It seems like he was quoting somebody else but that's pretty much supporting the idea. Sure you can dig up some sources that say the guy was mis-quoted but you should read what the qoute should have been before lowering your guard. First of all the quote "wipe isreal or the map" is a good qoute for the everyday person who just reads headlines and says something is wrong here.

The original quote is talking about Israel (the occupation or Palestine) dissapearing from the pages of history. For someone how looks at news articles and thinks about what they are saying the original quote can seem worse. Not only are they wiped off the face of the map but they want to write books as if they didn't even exist. For someone to dissapear from the pages of history they can't exist anymore. Then we all know the saying after a war is the winners write the books. The books are our history.

Im not even going to get into what this statment has to do with religion. What makes things worse is that in the interveiws he never says that is not what he meant to say. He always kind of gose around the question. And that's from the source that you have provided me with!!! It's almost as if he didn't mean to say Israel should be wiped off the face of the map but somebody likes it and he dosen't want to say that it's not what he ment.

Thank you for pointing me in the right direction to get educated.

Styki



posted on Apr, 15 2007 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Also, more on topic I would like to say that the US is not in a position where we could launch a full scale invasion on Iraq at the moment. However, the US could launch a massive air strike which would bring Iran down a couple of levels. Some of you may not think an airstrike would be all that effective but we have information in this artical that proves that it would. When you think about the time it takes to develope anything these days dealing with how complex things have become. Iran is looking to build two nuclear reactors which is going to take around 11 years.

Look at the impact of the 9/11 attacks on the US. Not trying to downplay the attack or anything like that but they were vary small. Huge to the US and it's people who are not used to being attack in this way. It's really nothing comparied to a "shock and awe" campain that can be launched by the US.

On that note this is a great reason why Iran should not be able to produce WMD. This may seem unfair to those of you who wish for everything to be equal but it is a huge factor. Every country who has nulcear weapons at the moment has them for defense but they also have other means of defense. What I mean by this is that smaller countrys developing WMD may be doing this as their only defense.

What this means is that if the US gets attacked like on 9/11 some country is not getting nuked to the point where there is nothing left. They can attack that country by other means without killing everyone in the country. During WW2 the US used WMD to end the war and after the fact the would realized that the effects or doing this was massive. Sure US was the first and only country to use them before the world realized what the effects where going to be but how many countries where racing to get the technology before hand? And after the fact nobody abandonded the technology accept for I believe Southern Afirca.

When getting attacked the US has the technology to provide accurate attacks that will minimize civilian death. Over years of war civilian death is going to happen but the US has that option over killing a massive amount of people in one strike. I didn't even talk about the power the US has in the UN and other options of dealing with counties.

I would rather trust a country who has many options (which current nuclear powers have) to have WMD than a country who has only one.

Styki




top topics



 
0

log in

join