Iran Warns of Pre-Emptive Action in Nuclear Dispute

reply to post by OldCurmudgeon


Well let's look at military conflicts that Iran started in the last 100 years.

Other than internal rebellions, Iran has not been in an actual armed conflict with another nation since the Iraq-Iran War, in which Iran was invaded.

Sure, it's perhaps had some though talking points. We know that the real people in charge of Iran ( the religious dictatorship) isn't a peace loving, wanting person. However that does not give us the authority to invade their land and cause hundreds of thousands of civilians deaths in the process. Simply to remove a dictator the US helped put in place.

If we are speaking strictly from a military aggression standpoint, I would argue that the United States has been far more "aggressive" in it's Middle Eastern Foreign Military Policy than Iran ever has been.

Employing primary source materials and what now is seen by most in the world as history, Iran has finacially supported Hezbollah and Hamas. As many countries including the US always strives for plausible denial and we all know every country in the world uses propoganda and BS, including Iran and the US, the fact remains, there is as much proof of Irans finacial ties to terrorist organizations as there is proof against it.

By it's own definitions the CIA, the FBI, the NSA are all terrorist organizations which not only used tactics on it's enemies, but also it's own citizens in the form of fear propaganda and unlawful acts. It's historically supported the the United States has had a hand in placing most if not all of the dictators they've currently been on a crusade of removing. All the way back to the 1950's.

When I look at the odds of the United States having good reason to start a war and telling the truth about it's "enemies", I can't help but stack those odds against it's historical precedence of meddling in other nation's affairs for it's own benefit.

~Tenth

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

There is no proof or solid evidence that Iran is working on developing nuclear weapons. Where is your proof and evidence and where is IAEAs proof?

If there is no evidence to prove these accusations it is illegal according to IAEAs resolution 533 to attack Iran's nuclear program.

Accusations are not solid evidence.

edit on 27.06.08 and by spy66 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

I am pretty sure that the iaea had indications that Iranians were tinkering with detonations and ignition devices at the panchin base..

What Xcathdra also suggest, there are too many roads that lead to the indication that they either try to enrich uranium above research level 20 or with heavy water reactors to acquire plutonium warheads..

to come back to the topic, a country with such ambitions, while supporting numerous terrorist organizations, constantly threatening Israel, And stating such pre emptive notions..really ..must be stopped and dismantled

Originally posted by EvolEric
This post isnt meant to offend...

Nor is it meant to please either...

(The United States) can suck it...

Why does the masses here at ATS love (The U.S.)?
Have conspiracies blinded us?
Cos all i hear 90% if the time is "poor poor (United States)"

Cos last time I checked (The U.S.) wasnt exactly the poster child for "peace and love"

Executing left and right over barbaric ideologies...

They are extreme fundsmentalists (Who HAVE) nuclear weapons...

Their idea of sound foreign relations is (Drone strikes)...

If (The U.S.) strikes first they deserve what they get in return..

I support no war...

But dont tell me (The U.S.) deserves to kill thousands of innocents cos of some sanction...

edit on 2/21/12 by EvolEric because: (no reason given)

Now then, does this sound any different when you put the U.S. in the place of (Insert Middle Eastern country here)??

In my opinion, ALL countries can "Suck it". Not the people in the countries, the imbeciles who run them, including the U.S. and Iran.

I'm just sick to death of people puffing their chests and claiming they are the moral authority, because all countries have done bad things to innocent people, and none have the right to claim supremacy.

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by superman2012

 

I have to ask did you even read what you posted? For it says 20% is weapons usable, crude but usable, form your post i put in bold

Highly enriched uranium (HEU)

Highly enriched uranium (HEU) has a greater than 20% concentration of 235U or 233U. The fissile uranium in nuclear weapons usually contains 85% or more of 235U known as weapon(s)-grade, though for a crude, inefficient weapon 20% is sufficient (called weapon(s)-usable);[2][3] some argue that even less is sufficient[citation needed], but then the critical mass for unmoderated fast neutrons rapidly increases, approaching infinity at 6%235U.[4] For critical experiments, enrichment of uranium to over 97% has been accomplished.[5] and some wonder why they held their breath at the first bomb test.

Don't worry, I am guilty of not reading posts properly all the time too!
My point was to show that it could be for what Iran is saying it is for...medical research. I wasn't even talking about weapons...just that it could potentially be exactly what Iran says it is for.

edit on 24-2-2012 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)

PS- That wasn't from my post, nice try though.

edit on 24-2-2012 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)

reply to post by Foppezao

I am pretty sure that the iaea had indications that Iranians were tinkering with detonations and ignition devices at the panchin base..

Do you mean the triggers Iran bought from Germany some times around 2004 or 5. According to the news around these times. It was said that Iran was trying to create a EMP weapon. A non nuclear EMP.

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

what if it is on line and they can produce 75% now , that is not too far from 90% weapons grade now is it, lets say in 3 months time they Iran could have 6 nukes, one on Israel 3 on the US 2 just to have 2, and then say "we have nukes? HA HA we can not make weapons grade!!!, come see." so then IAEA is let in and they prove Iran did not have 90% capability but has 75%. Queens bishop takes kings pawn, kings rook takes Queen, check mate in 2 moves

I'm afraid that makes no sense. Would you kill your neighbors wife (because you hate your neighbor) knowing that doing so will result in the death of most of your family? Plus your numbers are wrong:

The fissile uranium in nuclear weapons usually contains 85% or more of 235U known as weapon(s)-grade, though for a crude, inefficient weapon 20% is sufficient (called weapon(s)-usable); but then the critical mass for unmoderated fast neutrons rapidly increases, approaching infinity at 6%235U. For critical experiments, enrichment of uranium to over 97% has been accomplished.

They could have already sent out dirty bombs if they were gung ho on starting a war, but they haven't yet.

Originally posted by superman2012

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

what if it is on line and they can produce 75% now , that is not too far from 90% weapons grade now is it, lets say in 3 months time they Iran could have 6 nukes, one on Israel 3 on the US 2 just to have 2, and then say "we have nukes? HA HA we can not make weapons grade!!!, come see." so then IAEA is let in and they prove Iran did not have 90% capability but has 75%. Queens bishop takes kings pawn, kings rook takes Queen, check mate in 2 moves

I'm afraid that makes no sense. Would you kill your neighbors wife (because you hate your neighbor) knowing that doing so will result in the death of most of your family? Plus your numbers are wrong:

The fissile uranium in nuclear weapons usually contains 85% or more of 235U known as weapon(s)-grade, though for a crude, inefficient weapon 20% is sufficient (called weapon(s)-usable); but then the critical mass for unmoderated fast neutrons rapidly increases, approaching infinity at 6%235U. For critical experiments, enrichment of uranium to over 97% has been accomplished.

They could have already sent out dirty bombs if they were gung ho on starting a war, but they haven't yet.

so as to no confution as to whom I am replying to as you can see from the last of your post

"but they haven't yet"

that as far as we know they haven't, remember they are dead set on showing the would what they have

reply to post by Foppezao


I must say that you do being up a great way of looking at the situation, it comes down to the fact that simply having technology like that in that area can only lead to a wrong thing wrong hands types of situation. True.

The only issue with that theory is we are not dismantling Iran we are going to do the same thing we have done and are getting ready to re-do all over the middle east. The game is actually becoming very apparent.

1. Pick country.
2. Find out who doesn't like country.
3. Make countries leaders seem like...well...terrorists...I am really beginning to loath that term.
4. Make American people feel like we are the only hope.
5. Give the rebels weapons and have at it. We have been doing it for years and only have recently been so much more apparent about it.

Now think about this...we just gave possible Taliban/Al Qaida brand new military arms all for the sake of taking down Muammar. I wonder where those unused arms will end up.

I say we take every last soldier, pay him a little bit more, save tons in overseas bullshish, and DEFEND our BORDERS, not defend our... morals?

reply to post by bekod


Right, they haven't yet. Which is not to be confused with, "they will later". I don't know what their plan is but, I will not say with 100% certainty, that they will never develop nuclear bombs. My point was to point out others errors, it could be for medical research.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Respectfully, Iran doesn't get to play both sides of the fence. They can't ignore / violate IAEA / NPT obligations and then turn around and try to hide behind them to prevent their program from being attacked.

But it's ok for the US to do the same? How about Israel?(Not even a signatory of the NPT.) You are right though, it does work both ways. While the US is high and mighty (as well as Israel) stopping these "terrorists" from gaining nuclear weapons (no proof of that), they themselves are not holding 100% to the NPT. While also supporting another terrorist supporting theocracy (nope not Iran, Israel).

See how confusing it can get? Why would the US support one terrorist nation with nukes, while claiming they are trying to stop another "terrorist" nation from gaining nuclear weapons? Does that mean that, one is enough? Also, where is their concrete proof? I love how everyone forgets about Iraq's WMD, and jumps right on the Iran has WMD bandwagon. Those that forget the past are doomed to repeat it...isn't that the quote?

reply to post by superman2012
This whole thing reminds me of a snake hunter, finding a snake, knowing it is a pit viper and saying it could be not venomous.

reply to post by bekod


While that could be true, a more accurate analogy would be to say it is a person with no clue what the snake is, saying it might be venomous without even having the knowledge of what it is. The bottom line is that we have no idea what Iran is planning on doing. We have absolutely no proof they are building bombs, all we have is circumstantial evidence hinting at that. We have the US saying they aren't building bombs, the IAEA saying they aren't, ISIS saying they can't, and Iran saying they aren't. I don't understand why people are still confused.
Until there is rock solid proof that they are building bombs I will never support an invasion of Iran. People seem to forget Iraq and their WMD's that turned out to be a lie. Why fall for the exact same lie again!?