Nuclear attack on Iran

Originally posted by Vorta
BBC News - Iran 'misled UN on nuclear work'

See link above.

Lets them analize that shall we ?

Iranian presidential favourite Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani has told the BBC that Iran did not report all nuclear work.

"It's possible that at times, Iran has not reported its activities," Mr Rafsanjani told the BBC's Newsnight television programme.

And he accused the UN watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), of neglecting its duty to help Iran make peaceful use of nuclear technology.

Mr Rafsanjani, a former Iranian president seen as a frontrunner in Friday's presidential election, insisted his country would not abandon its nuclear programme.

But, he said, there was no risk of war with the US because Iran was not pursuing a nuclear bomb.

What's obvious here ?
- We've got a runner up on the coming elcetions, what ? yes that's right, a politician, accusing the UN and IAEA of not doing its job. Is he serious ?
- Then he says there's no threat of a war because Iran isn't pursuing a nuke. Okay, then where exactly did the UN fail ? Don't get it. Where's the threat ?

Iran is seeking the closure of a two-year UN investigation into its nuclear programme, which it says is solely for peaceful civilian purposes.

What's clear here ? Iran is working with chemicals, BUT, under the UN's supervision.


Link 2
Todays Iran News brings us:
Iran will reopen nuclear facility

Iran has begun preparations for the resumption of uranium processing at a nuclear plant, a top official has said.
Iranian experts and UN inspectors are setting up surveillance equipment before the uranium conversion process is initiated, the official said.

- Like I said before, Iran is ressuming chemical work, but that's very different than military nuclear weapon building facilities. And what's worst, the UN is supervising it. So why should they wait for paperwork and negotiation ? Can you give me a good reason ?

Frances Harrison, in the Iranian capital, says Tehran has long engaged in brinkmanship over the nuclear issue, but this time appears to be serious about resuming its nuclear programme.
It ceased uranium processing at its Isfahan plant in November 2004.
Iran insists it wants only to use its facilities to produce power, but the US suspects it of running a secret nuclear weapons programme.

- Iran says they've waited long enough, and that politicians are just slowing down their power production on purpose.
- And on the other hand, the US claims they have a 'secret' nuclear weapons programme.

Who are you gonna believe ? Honestly

Until I see legitimate PROOF.... .
There all a bunch of lying b@stards.


[edit on 2-8-2005 by GlobalDisorder]

Yeah, they're working on nuclear power plants, but how many PEACEFUL uses of enriched Uranium are there? Not freaking many. Come to think of it, about the only thing it's used for are nuclear weapons. Now IRAN has admitted that they're purusing enriched Uranium, does this mean they're working on a Bomb, probably, but not necessarily. I didn't say that they had a bomb, I simply stated that THEY admitted they were working on enriching Uranium, which would be used in a Bomb.

Originally posted by GlobalDisorder
Until I see legitimate PROOF.... no one.
There all a bunch of lying b@stards.

I see you've taken the sensible side.

The problem with that is, I don't think there's ever going to be legitimate proof and if there is I don't think the public will ever get their hands on it.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Yeah, they're working on nuclear power plants, but how many PEACEFUL uses of enriched Uranium are there? Not freaking many.

True there is only one. It feeds the nuclear power plant. After neutrons are inserted into the U-235, which Iran has in the providence of Yazd which is in South-Central Iran which has to be enriched in order to be useful, a reaction occures. This reaction give off the energy and this energy is used to make electricity. In Iran's case a 1000-megawatt reactor is just sitting there.

Originally posted by Zaphod58Come to think of it, about the only thing it's used for are nuclear weapons.

They can be used in nuclear weapons if they are enriched to over 90% purity. Iran plans to enrich them just enough to be useful in a reactor.





[edit on 2-8-2005 by Sep]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Well if you listen to Iran, they WERE working on enriching materials for a nuclear bomb, but stopped to see if the EU could work out a deal where they wouldn't produce anymore. They had until today to reach a deal, otherwise Iran would start attempting a limited enrichment program again. I personally think that they have small amounts of nuclear material, but that's just the first step in making a bomb. The WANT to produce one, but I personally think it's going to take them awhile to get it right. The tolerances in making one are EXACT. My understanding is that if you are off even by a few milimeters, when it comes to the explosives needed to start the reaction, you get a "fizzle".

Hey. Only Israel may have WMD's in the middle east. AKA southwestern asia. If the Muzzies get em we're all doomed.

Sep,

I agree with your statement. Uranium is a great source of energy for electric power plants. Iran has had those power plants sitting around and they haven't used them because they've been waiting for politicians of another country to make up their minds. Which they obviously aren't planning on doing so.

They've run out of patience and now they're being accused of secretly making nukes. Thats ridiculous. How much patience is a country supposed to have ?


[edit on 2-8-2005 by joyouslyhumored]

I 've never understood why America is the worlds' 'Nuclear police'.

The USA has the biggest arsenal of nukes and are known for using them. How does that qualify them as a 'referee' on who's to have Nukes and who isn't...

The only thing i ask is why they need to have nuclear power plants to produce electricity in a country with vasts amount of oil. They are making a nuclear bomb , ok thats allowed isnt it?

Originally posted by Bulldog 52
The only thing i ask is why they need to have nuclear power plants to produce electricity in a country with vasts amount of oil. They are making a nuclear bomb , ok thats allowed isnt it?

It is a cleaner source of energy than Oil, and Oil has probably a higher importance(relative worth) as a source of income than to be used as fuel to burn.

This sounds an awful lot like scare mongering to me. Besides, even if they did make a bomb, the US with it's intelligence network would be the second people to know about it - long before any delivery system is capable of doing harm to anyone in the west.

Isn't it bad enough they lied to get people into Iraq, now do you really feel like beleiving them again? C'mon man. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

Btw, why does an attack on Iran have to be nuclear? Unless you think we will be using bunker busting micro nukes.

I do agree that Iran is developing a nuclear weapons program.

Like to know who will get the nuke the Iraniens are building , i guess Israel.

Originally posted by Passer By

Originally posted by Bulldog 52
The only thing i ask is why they need to have nuclear power plants to produce electricity in a country with vasts amount of oil. They are making a nuclear bomb , ok thats allowed isnt it?

It is a cleaner source of energy than Oil, and Oil has probably a higher importance(relative worth) as a source of income than to be used as fuel to burn.

This sounds an awful lot like scare mongering to me. Besides, even if they did make a bomb, the US with it's intelligence network would be the second people to know about it - long before any delivery system is capable of doing harm to anyone in the west.

Isn't it bad enough they lied to get people into Iraq, now do you really feel like beleiving them again? C'mon man.

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

A bit off topic, but I can't help but laugh when remebering ole' GW butchering the heck out of this one . . .

Animated GW but the audio is VERBATIM

As with the elementary school on 9-11, the 90 sec. silence during the debate with Kerry (Mr President you have 90 seconds to respond . . . . total silence till the last fews secs. and then . . . umm . . . umm), and SO many others, it's becoming evermore apparent that the poor guy is just a puppet and that he's just doing the will of the willers.

Good Boy Ole' Gdub . . . Good Boy!

;O)

Originally posted by Bulldog 52
The only thing i ask is why they need to have nuclear power plants to produce electricity in a country with vasts amount of oil.

President Ford thought it was a good idea for Iran to have nuclear energy when Iran could pump out more oil and had less internal demand for electricity.

The US will not attack Iran until there is a serious high level threat of a Chinese attack on Tawain. The crusades into the middle-east have been a win win situation as it has surely derailed any thought China has had on attacking Tawain. This is why I believe people were posting about Chinese authorities talking about a nuke-first strike initiative. A desperate attempt to by pass the certain aspects of gouging oil necessary for a war.

Iran is China's majority supplier of oil and gas. This is a chip to be used wisely, play it only when the greater evil (China) outweighs the lesser (Iran). Chances are if China invades Tawain, Russia would be wise to take a step back in supplying the rogue country, Iran on the otherhand wouldn't be so obligied.

Originally posted by XyZeR
I 've never understood why America is the worlds' 'Nuclear police'.

The USA has the biggest arsenal of nukes and are known for using them. How does that qualify them as a 'referee' on who's to have Nukes and who isn't...

I think you answered your own question. We've got the bombs, we've got Los Alamos, the Global Hawk, B-2, HAARP, Area 51, Giagantic Tesla Coils, earthquake makers, clone factories, etc...

What an issue, nuke attack on Iran. We attacked Afghanistan and Iraq without just cause, and what have we learned? To ask if to nuke Iran a possibility? Of course it is. Bush and followers must continue a fear campaign in order to get back on track, to draw the few nations that refuse to join up with the United Nations (Commonwealth of Nations), that is, Iran and North Korea, two holdouts. So Bush & Blair, two fascist-globalists will continue their campaign of blunting the storm that followed the Iraq war, play down the problems of the Iraq warm so he can continue his course of aligning the powers that be. But to nuke? Probably, because these days, nukes are very precise, can hit a target within 10'. They probably have a nuke all lined up for Iran, with inscriptions such as Let's Roll, God Bless Bush, We Are The Champions, et cetera. Meanwhile, our gas prices continue to rise, China becomes a superpower (practically overpowering the USA), the dismantling of the American rights continue...Bush the flunky cowboy (most believe Bush was born in Texas...not at all, he was born in Connecticut). He's sold his image to Oklahoma (where I live) as if he was some gun toting cowboy, and all he really is is someone who plays with plastic cowboys. The guy is a fake. But Bush counts on us to fall for another Korean War, Vietnam War, Afghanistan War, Iraq War...Iran War. North Korea? As long as the Chinese on the way they are going (actually, China is the real threat), Bush will never attack or nuke N. Korea. But Iran...sure, because what could they possibly say or do...Allaahu Akbar! Throw sand! Shoot a rifle! Or lay down and surrender...welcome to Bush's menu, more of the same: fat fat fat!!!!

All this talk about Nuclear deterence through using nuclear weapons is pouring gas on the fire.
Look at North Korea. The more you tell them they are a rogue nation, and an axis of Evil, the more the push for a hard core deterent for their own protectin.
It seems, that North Koreas has been able to bolster their position as well as talks by doing it. The precedent has been set.

By our nation not being diplomatic, we have forces threatened countrys to take action in whatever manner they have.

Before one thinks about dropping a nuclear bomb on anyone again, take a hard looks at what really happened in the past. Nuclear deterents in a first strike nuclear situation is insanity. You think we have terorrist issues now, youd have a billion Muslims really pissed off, and no they wouldnt all be Iranian.

It sounds cool and tough to say words of turning their deserts into glass, but honestly, I think no man would want devestation on that scale. Not to mention the long lasting effects. Were talking nuclear here. Skin falling off your body, eyes hanging out of your head, burns, hair falling out, birth defects.....its not a simple turn key solution. Read and think.

Gentlemen and women, this is a no win situation. Read some of my links below, witness the horroe, and realize that these weapons should have never been developed.

Heres a couple of links regarding Hirsohima and Nagasaki..A reminder to the present, you cant turn back the clock on a society that hasnt learned....

People that lived.... www.lclark.edu...

Items in the blast... www.lclark.edu...

Another account.. www.wtj.com...

WARNING: MIGHT BE DISTURIBING: Effects with notes of victims
www.nvccom.co.jp...

Heres a blast radius effect Applet that gives you an idea of how devestating the reality of a nuclears blast is. Keep in mind, Hiroshima was 13 Kt. Kiloton not, megaton like they are now. Plug in youir city, and the delivery method and see how bad it can really be.
www.fas.org...

For your own safety in the event of a nuclear attack:
www.survival-center.com...

Lets pray this never happens again.

Peace

[edit on 4-8-2005 by HIFIGUY]

Proof?, let's hope the rumour you speculate is only a rumour and that "proof" is not given through an atmospheric mushroom.

I'll settle for 'opinions' in this area anytime..though I think something big is coming one of our free nations.

Dallas

Oh, and BTW, Iraq 'had' the most powerful military in the ME (barring Israel), it took the US a total of 2 weeks to defeat the military...in both wars. That's a week per war. Iran fought Iraq for ten years. Why drop a nuke on a country that couldn't do what the US did twice in a combined 2 weeks?