If 250 warheads have gone loose, how can you be sure Iran does not possess any?

The Question that the Land of the Aryans(Iran) has nuclear weapons is open for discussion who knows this sounds like more scare mongering that USrael would produce.

He say she say crap
here is some facts on Iran

Iran has been open in regards to inspections and found to comply of late with the NPT.

They are members of the non-proliferation treaty, and have been since it was conceived.
Iran has agreed in principle to export most of its enriched uranium for processing .and have been open in all other matters regarding enrichment .

Iran and has been pushing for the removal of all weapons of mass destruction across the globe:

They are not the Rouge Nation USrael are the ones we should be worried about

Israel has reportedly received an assurance by US President Barack Obama that it would not be pressured into accounting for its alleged nuclear arsenal or signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

In a meeting with, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu obtained President Obama's guarantee that the White House would continue a 4-decade-old secret deal to allow Israel keep a nuclear arsenal without opening it to international inspections,
The Washington Times has reported on quoting officials familiar with the matter.

"The president gave Israel an NPT treaty get out of jail free card," said a Senate staffer speaking on the condition of anonymity. "What this means is that the president gave commitments that politically he had no choice but to give regarding Israel's nuclear program."

Going on the said finding I would speculate that I'f any warheads were on the market in the 1990's USrael would of been the first to get their hands on them.

What about USraels hidden Dimona nuclear weapons factory


And On Sunday October 5th, 1985 The Sunday Times Insight Team revealed that Hidden beneath the Negev desert,was a factory that has been producing atomic warheads for the last 20 years.

So don't worry what Iran has or has not.... worry who has

thanks

Ocker

Iran may indeed have some of these mini nukes and who blames them when Iserail has 200-400 nukes given to them by america and is running around the playground like a big bully.

Iserail has been involved in so many false flag operations that it's iserail i fear and not Iran and they also have a tight grib on the worlds banking system and we can all see whats happening with that.

Iran is doing nothing when compared to iserail but iserail is allowed to get away with it because they bribe everyone in goverment and no one wants to upset the IMF else they won't get the loans.

anyway it's biological weapons that is the real danger.

Originally posted by ocker
Iran has been open in regards to inspections and found to comply of late with the NPT.

That's not true: Iran Not Cooperating with IAEA

Iran has agreed in principle to export most of its enriched uranium for processing .and have been open in all other matters regarding enrichment .

If you would have done your homework, you would be aware that they are thought to still have enough uranium left for further enrichment:

During the time it took to negotiate the deal, Iran accumulated more uranium. According to some analysts, Iran could follow through with the Turkey deal and still have enough uranium for a nuclear warhead.

source

Sounds plausible not? They have imported plenty of uranium from Kazakhstan, Zimbabwe, South Africa and many other countries as well as from domestic mines. As soon as you run out of options to buy time, you agree with a deal while you have plenty of uranium left to keep the centrifuges running. (not for one warhead as the report claims, but to expand its current arsenal).

Iran and has been pushing for the removal of all weapons of mass destruction across the globe:

They are not the Rouge Nation USrael are the ones we should be worried about

Gosh... and the US seeks to spread democracy across the globe. Should I now be happy and believe them?

Going on the said finding I would speculate that I'f any warheads were on the market in the 1990's USrael would of been the first to get their hands on them.

Of course they have intercepted some, but the chance is very small that they achieved to intercept hundreds of warheads of which many have likely been sold on the black market.

What about USraels hidden Dimona nuclear weapons factory

Nowhere, I am saying Israel is any better or has more rights than Iran to have nuclear weapons. My reasoning is not based on bias, in contrast to some other people on here.





[edit on 9-6-2010 by Mdv2]

reply to post by Mdv2


one cobalt 60( super dirty, not even really a Nuke)
one hit on Dimona
one nuclear war in that small area
even the DU now already spread is creeping death blanketing that whole area
while we are considering what might be
maybe we should take alook at what is...
Israel is already being irradiated
by its proximity to Du dust from the Balkans and Iraq

reply to post by Mdv2


Hi
Since this has become a tit for tat

That's not true:

The Heritage Foundation is a conservative American think tank.
one sided don't you think since the US hangs off the tail of the rouge dog.

If you would have done your homework, you would be aware that they would still have enough uranium left for further enrichment.

And I do my homework not that that matters here. Yes they would have more left over and the point is

Nowhere, I am saying Israel is any better or has more rights than Iran to have nuclear weapons. My reasoning is not based on bias, in contrast to some other people on here.

Never said you did whats with the defensive and sarcasm

I only stated in my post that I would not be too worried about Iran

No Bias intended in contrast

Thanks

Ocker

[edit on 9/6/2010 by ocker]

well Isael having nukes and not signing is in violation of us law
no nation is to recieve aid while possesing nukes and not signing NNPT
so indeed
lets talk about the iranmaybes....


[edit on 9-6-2010 by Danbones]

Originally posted by ocker
The Heritage Foundation is a conservative American think tank.
one sided don't you think since the US hangs off the tail of the rouge dog.

That's irrelevant as they used the BBC as their source while it was Amano himself who was directly quoted. Regardless of the site it was posted on, it doesn't change anything about that fact.

Iran is not co-operating with the UN nuclear watchdog's investigation into the country's nuclear programme, the new head of the agency has said.

Iran's insistence its nuclear programme was peaceful could not be confirmed, Yukiya Amano told the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna.

And I do my homework not that that matters here. Yes they would have more left over and the point is

The point is that you are insinuating that Iran is fully cooperating, whereas they are not, nor does this deal make any difference if a substantial part of uranium is left behind in Iran so that the centrifuges can remain fully operational.

Never said you did

whats with the defensive and sarcasm

I only stated in my post that I would not be too worried about Iran

No Bias intended in contrast

As soon as one dares to question Iran's intentions, people start immediately about Israel and their nuclear weapons and hence it shows their bias. That's why I mentioned that I don't think Israel has any more right or is any better than Iran. However, Israel's nuclear arsenal is irrelevant to the question if Iran does or doesn't have nuclear weapons. You are pretending that Iran is all good, in fact you say they want to rid the world of nuclear weapons, but you are either biased or very naive to fall for such populist claims. Especially considering the fact that it has every appearance that Iran seeks to expand its nuclear arsenal itself.

To all of you who believe Iran hasn't got and doesn't want nuclear weapons, I'm still looking for a plausible explanation why they would find peaceful nuclear power worth so much hassle. If they would have simply obtained the fuel rods from Russia or France, they would not be trapped in isolation and their economy would become one of the biggest in the region. It furthermore makes much more sense that they seek to use nuclear weapons as a strategical leverage against hostile powers such as Israel than that they would go through so much trouble for relatively unimportant nuclear power. It's simply not a plausible motive.

reply to post by Mdv2


Ok you seem to be trying to push buttons for some reason.

I could not care less if Iran has or has not nuclear weapons
I've said that here already. and I don't pretend

As soon as one dares to question Iran's intentions, people start immediately about Israel and their nuclear weapons and hence it shows their bias. That's why I mentioned that I don't think Israel has any more right or is any better than Iran. However, Israel's nuclear arsenal is irrelevant to the question if Iran does or doesn't have nuclear weapons. You are pretending that Iran is all good

You seem to change from day to day to whom and what you say in regard to Israel and Iran.

best I put your foot in your mouth for you

This is quoted only yesterday by you in regard to Israel

Haha, hypocrisy. The pot calling the kettle black. Israel has nuclear weapons itself but tells Iran that it cannot have them. They tell Palestinians en other neighbors to obey UN resolutions, yet when it comes to a resolution against them, they call it biased and ignore it.
What do these idiots think? They are the last in line with a right to speak about hypocrisy,

Much the same as you by the sound of it

Homework... Yea i do my homework
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Ocker

reply to post by ocker


If it wasn't clear to you from the example you have stated, I question or criticize every party which I think deserves it. Not just Israel or Iran. If I think Israel is hypocritical, I'll say so. If I think that the extremist Iranian regime is after nuclear weapons, I'll say so too - that's hardly bias. In contrast to many others on this forum, I'm not on one side or the other, I judge every situation individually - that's why my statements 'change' from situation to situation. Perhaps more people should try so instead of taking a certain position to open fire from onto the enemy.

That's my last two cents regarding this matter.




[edit on 9-6-2010 by Mdv2]

reply to post by Mdv2


I was talking about Israel accepting/denying that Israel has nukes?

What is the reason behind it?

If you know the reason, then you would understand that in this day and age there is no need for rogue nukes/hidden nukes.

reply to post by LittleSecret


It ain't really so hard to understand why Israel doesn't acknowledge it has nuclear weapons:

There is no formal record of the agreement nor have Israeli nor American governments ever publicly acknowledged it. In 2007, however, the Nixon library declassified a July 19, 1969, memo from national security adviser Henry Kissinger that comes closest to articulating U.S. policy on the issue. That memo says, "While we might ideally like to halt actual Israeli possession, what we really want at a minimum may be just to keep Israeli possession from becoming an established international fact."

Mr. Cohen has said the resulting policy was the equivalent of "don't ask, don't tell."

The Netanyahu government sought to reaffirm the understanding in part out of concern that Iran would seek Israeli disclosures of its nuclear program in negotiations with the United States and other world powers. Iran has frequently accused the U.S. of having a double standard by not objecting to Israel's arsenal.

source

If they would acknowledge it, it would not only embarrass the US, they would give Iran a legal right to withdraw from the NPT under article X:

1. Each Party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other Parties to the Treaty and to the United Nations Security Council three months in advance. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.

source

It would become very hard for Israel and the US to sell the public that Israel can have nuclear weapons and Iran cannot as soon as Israel's nuclear arsenal becomes factual.

As I have now answered your question, I kindly ask you to answer the questions I've asked you as well:

It takes a fool to believe that Iran would want to go through so much hassle for nuclear peaceful energy. Do you really think that peaceful nuclear energy is worth the consequences that Iran faces? Iran could be a prospering and emerging nation, much alike India and China. Instead they are trapped in isolation and put under sanctions that prevent their economy to flourish. On the contrarily, their economy is suffering badly from these sanctions. Do you really believe that peaceful nuclear energy weighs up against these major drawbacks? It's simply not worth it, making the assumption that they are actually expanding their nuclear arsenal and developing a supportive platform an explanation a way more plausible explanation.

Now I am asking you to provide evidence they are not after nuclear weapons. And don't come up with some Iranian crappy populist statements because I'm not siding with the official Western propaganda standpoint either.