|
Nuclear weapon from Iran within a year (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MisterOpus1 |
Ahh, yes, the IISS. Let's take a trip down memory lane with them:
| quote: | Downing Street has described as "highly significant" a report from an independent think tank saying Iraq could produce a nuclear bomb within months.
The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) says Saddam Hussein would first need to obtain supplies of radioactive material.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2245505.stm |
Not that I completely discount the think tank on all issues, but I think we need to have a slight bit of caution when they yell about such warnings given their record in the past (not to mention other think tanks similar to them).
So this article states that by the end of 2009, Iran could possibly have enough uranium to make 1 bomb. Let me play devil's advocate for a second and ask if the IISS or anyone else has any verifiable evidence that Iran is, in fact, making a bomb, please submit it now. Because at this point I have yet to see actual evidence of this.
So it seems we have a continuation of low-enrichment uranium manufactured at a civilian IAEA-monitored facility, and we are to therefore concluded without any evidence pointing us towards the idea that such enrichment is for nuclear weaponry?
The IAEA is monitoring this, yes?
Iran has also made decent offers and concessions to place more restrictions on their program, i.e. opening it up for international participation:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04...ion/edzarif.php
I get the fact that Iran obtaining nukes is bad. But without concrete evidence supporting this assertion, is it really too much to ask that we consider not jumping the gun just for one ing moment?
Because I'm a little ing sick of one of the wars we got into based on a former Administration too damn eager to manipulate the intelligence and our fears. Call me weird, but I think we should be a little cautious before we decide to confront yet another country over there. Perhaps it would behoove us to have a wee bit more evidence first? Pretty ing please? |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Iran does not have key nuclear material
WASHINGTON – Iran does not yet have any highly enriched uranium, the fuel needed to make a nuclear warhead, two top U.S. intelligence officials told Congress Tuesday, disputing a claim by an Israeli official.
U.S. National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair and Defense Intelligence Agency Director Lt. Gen. Michael Maples said Tuesday that Iran has only low-enriched uranium — which would need to be refined into highly enriched uranium before it can fuel a warhead. Neither officials said there were indications that refining has occurred.
Their comments disputed a claim made last weekend by Israel's top intelligence military official, who said Iran has crossed a technical threshold and is now capable of producing atomic weapons.
The claim made by Israeli Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin runs counter to estimates by U.S. intelligence that the earliest Iran could produce a weapon is 2010, with some analysts saying it is more likely that it is 2015.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090310...ligence_threats |
|
|
|
| Clovis |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
no, not at all. what i'm saying is that there are rules/laws and standards of character to be considered before letting someone posses firearms. nothing too different going on here.
|
Yet we're the only ones who have ever dropped TWO A-bombs on entire cities and civilian populations. Different debate entirely of course.
I understand what you mean, I don't want Iran or North Korea to have weapons of that sort, but we hardly set a nice example invading countries on false premises and given our past history with nuclear armament. |
|
|
| Clovis |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Call me weird, but I think we should be a little cautious before we decide to confront yet another country over there. Perhaps it would behoove us to have a wee bit more evidence first? Pretty ing please? |
Not to mention that with the current escalation in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq still a little ways away from fully winding down, it would put untold stress on our armed forces to act against Iran in any meaningful way. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Clovis
Yet we're the only ones who have ever dropped TWO A-bombs on entire cities and civilian populations. Different debate entirely of course.
I understand what you mean, I don't want Iran or North Korea to have weapons of that sort, but we hardly set a nice example invading countries on false premises and given our past history with nuclear armament. |
Not to defend a nutso like Q5 but comparing the use of nuclear weapons when only the US had them to how the US might use them now when lots of countries have them is really pointless. |
|
|
| Clovis |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
Not to defend a nutso like Q5 but comparing the use of nuclear weapons when only the US had them to how the US might use them now when lots of countries have them is really pointless. |
The point stands that we used them on two very large civilian populations and I think our moral credibility on nuclear issues is somewhat damaged by it. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Clovis
The point stands that we used them on two very large civilian populations and I think our moral credibility on nuclear issues is somewhat damaged by it. |
Seeing that Iran has been invaded and dominated time and again in the last 100 years, especially by western nuclear powers, how else are they going to project an effective deterrent against those who seek to impose undue foreign influence on the country...namely, regime change. Code word for: puppet government. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Clovis
The point stands that we used them on two very large civilian populations and I think our moral credibility on nuclear issues is somewhat damaged by it. |
No, it does not stand actually.
The credibility of using nuclear weapons that you think the US has is based on a decision the US made when no other country had nuclear weapons and the fear of nuclear retribution was nonexistent.
There is no moral credibility now when talking about nuclear weapons either. Back then maybe, but now its a choice, at least for the major nuclear powers, of destroying the world or not destroying the world.
Nuclear weapons on the super/major power stage exist to not be used, and using them defies the purpose they have.
Its a completely different scenario than it was in 1945. |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
Iran has enough energy in the form of fossil fuels to last it many years. This nuclear power plant has cost them a fortune and its not nearly done yet.
The whole issue with nuclear energy is the obvious goals of the some Muslim leadership in the region - primarily the ones threatened by USA and Israel - to build these "nuclear powerplants" - Iraq attempted to build one and got it blown up, then Syria just few months ago got theirs destroyed.
Iran's terrain is not suited for nuclear power plants as most of the country is in some serious seismic activity. In my mind, Iran wants to develop nuclear technology for the sake of weapons as a deterrent against American or Israeli military strike, i.e. to become fully independent and safe from attack. This would safeguard their tyrannical regime for decades if not more.
We all know that Iran is an evil regime that executes children and has a horrible human rights record. They lie often and consider the West as infidels, and Ahmadinejad once proclaimed to "wipe Israel off the map". Their claims of "peaceful" "nuclear energy" should absolutely NOT be trusted. Iran needs to get things sorted out first before getting this kind of serious technology be accepted by the world community.
They certainly have a right to that energy, but USA and Israel are rightfully worried that these weapons may fall in the wrong hands - imagine if terrorists who are not afraid to blow themselves up then take control over Pakistan's nuclear arsenal? Today, there are serious issues in that country.
Recall Pakistan getting nuclear technology? How many nuclear power plants are up and running - can someone tell me?
|
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
Iran wants to develop nuclear technology for the sake of weapons as a deterrent against American or Israeli military strike, i.e. to become fully independent and safe from attack. This would safeguard their tyrannical regime for decades if not more.
|
And? They are an independent and sovereign state. As long as they don't hurt anyone else that is a perfectly legitimate case for the possession of nuclear weapons. Especially when a country that declared them as "evil" has invaded two of its neighboring countries.
Do I think Iran should have nuclear weapons? No, not really, but they are different reasons than yours. Pakistan has nuclear weapons and they have had brutal government after government and yet no one really cares because they know that more than likely their possession is a deterrent force to India and the US. If Pakistan had no nukes, the US would have been in their in a much stronger fashion than it has been in the past. |
|
|
| Lemonad |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
We all know that Iran is an evil regime that executes children and has a horrible human rights record. They lie often and consider the West as infidels, and Ahmadinejad once proclaimed to "wipe Israel off the map". Their claims of "peaceful" "nuclear energy" should absolutely NOT be trusted. Iran needs to get things sorted out first before getting this kind of serious technology be accepted by the world community.
|
Just because you think so doesn't make it everyone.
They have laws that disgust you, and Russia has laws that are even worse.. same goes for any other country.
Did you actually just say "Ahmadinejad once proclaimed to "wipe Israel off the map"", wow your a moron aren't you? It was proven that he never said those words yet your dumbass still brings it up.
Go hang yourself Kremlin. |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
Iran has enough energy in the form of fossil fuels to last it many years. This nuclear power plant has cost them a fortune and its not nearly done yet.
The whole issue with nuclear energy is the obvious goals of the some Muslim leadership in the region - primarily the ones threatened by USA and Israel - to build these "nuclear powerplants" - Iraq attempted to build one and got it blown up, then Syria just few months ago got theirs destroyed.
Iran's terrain is not suited for nuclear power plants as most of the country is in some serious seismic activity. In my mind, Iran wants to develop nuclear technology for the sake of weapons as a deterrent against American or Israeli military strike, i.e. to become fully independent and safe from attack. This would safeguard their tyrannical regime for decades if not more.
We all know that Iran is an evil regime that executes children and has a horrible human rights record. They lie often and consider the West as infidels, and Ahmadinejad once proclaimed to "wipe Israel off the map". Their claims of "peaceful" "nuclear energy" should absolutely NOT be trusted. Iran needs to get things sorted out first before getting this kind of serious technology be accepted by the world community.
They certainly have a right to that energy, but USA and Israel are rightfully worried that these weapons may fall in the wrong hands - imagine if terrorists who are not afraid to blow themselves up then take control over Pakistan's nuclear arsenal? Today, there are serious issues in that country.
Recall Pakistan getting nuclear technology? How many nuclear power plants are up and running - can someone tell me?
|
dude Ive noticed that your view towards many things has changed alot in the last few weeks.Seems like you are leaning more toward the right side of politics.:p |
|
|
|
|
