- #71
Anttech
- 233
- 0
Yonoz said:It's good to know someone cares for us.
I wouldn't be worried either if I was you. Iran won't attack you, unless you attack them, or the USA attacks them. Its as simple as that, so why are you worried?
Yonoz said:It's good to know someone cares for us.
Anttech said:I wouldn't be worried either if I was you. Iran won't attack you, unless you attack them, or the USA attacks them. Its as simple as that, so why are you worried?
Evo saved me the trouble with her quote from the article I cited.kyleb said:I don't suppose I could get a bit of fairness for my question in the form of a direct answer. Do you see anything you can quote in the article Yonoz linked (or yours for that matter) that backs his claim?
Umm, not quite. Nuclear weapons do not require missiles to deliver them to far away targets. Any terrorist group could deploy nuclear weapons anywhere in the world. A major concern during the cold war was the 'suitcase' bomb, which is much less sophisticated than MIRV's, and which are roughly the size of artillery shells, which one individual could carry.But personally I am not worried, since I live far enough away for them to never be deployed here.
Evo said:I think anyone that is so naive to believe that Iran has no plans for nuclear warheads needs to think again. Does anyone really think that once they have the capability, they won't use it?
"Iran already is equipped with the Shahab-3 missile, which means "shooting star" in Farsi, and is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. An upgraded version of the ballistic missile has a range of more than 1,200 miles and can reach Israel and U.S. forces in the Middle East."
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/4144563.html
Astronuc said:Umm, not quite. Nuclear weapons do not require missiles to deliver them to far away targets. Any terrorist group could deploy nuclear weapons anywhere in the world. A major concern during the cold war was the 'suitcase' bomb, which is much less sophisticated than MIRV's, and which are roughly the size of artillery shells, which one individual could carry.
Unfortunately, this problem will be with us for a long time.
Astronuc said:Umm, not quite. Nuclear weapons do not require missiles to deliver them to far away targets. Any terrorist group could deploy nuclear weapons anywhere in the world. A major concern during the cold war was the 'suitcase' bomb, which is much less sophisticated than MIRV's, and which are roughly the size of artillery shells, which one individual could carry.
Unfortunately, this problem will be with us for a long time.
Funny... I somehow don't think the USA had that kinda of power back then, nor do I think they have that kind of power now... The worlds a big place...The window of opportunity to prevent this disaster has now unfortunately closed. The only way it could have been stopped was in 1945 the world's then only nuclear power (the USA) should have called for the unconditional surrender of every nation on Earth and established one World Govt. then taken control of every military organisation. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
No, nor did I indicate those thoughts. I simply stated that it is possible for nuclear weapons to be delievered anywhere in the world, without the use of a nuclear missile. I said nothing of the motivations or whom might do such a thing, but anyone with access to a pit and appropriate hardware could do it. That leaves the matter wide open for a spectrum of possibilities based on speculation and the wildest imagination possible.Anttech said:You believe that Iran will give its nuclear technology to terrorists groups so they can cart suitcases around Europe or other places and set them off? Is this *actually* what you think?
Perhaps not directly, but if you look at your post within the context of this thread, you could conclude that this is what you thought Iran was going to do..No, nor did I indicate those thoughts.
United States 5,735/9,960[2]
Russia (formerly the Soviet Union) 5,830/16,000[3]
United Kingdom <200[4]
France 350[5]
People's Republic of China 130[6]
India 75-115[7]
Islamic Republic Of Pakistan 65-90[8]
Oh but I believe you would.Anttech said:I wouldn't be worried either if I was you.
Before starting over, and in the interests of mutual understanding, I am still trying it figure out your point in posting that first article while making the claims you did:Yonoz said:kyleb, let's start over: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#The_Israeli_stance":I hope you see my point.
Yonoz said:http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/01/280f9a59-88b6-489b-bd03-f76267db36fa.html" .
Could you please quoute from your link whatever you believe backs your claim?Yonoz said:I stand corrected, but it is nevertheless quite clear from the article that the technology was transferred in a deal to allow all 3 nations: Pakistan, Iran and North Korea to benefit from each other's advances to produce a nuclear balistic missile program. Obviously some will disagree but I think they would not be so happy about having a nuclear-capable Islamic fundamentalist neighbour whose leaders repeatedly describe the destruction of their state as a noble goal.
Certainly.kyleb said:Could you please quoute from your link whatever you believe backs your claim?
Importantly, Samore says, the types of centrifuges now turning up in Pakistan, Iran, Libya, and North Korea are all thought to be based on Urenco's designs from the time that Khan worked there. "I think it's well established that when Mr. Khan worked in the Netherlands for a company that was involved in a European consortium developing centrifuges to produce low-enriched uranium for nuclear power fuel, Mr. Khan obtained blueprints and technical information for three or four different types of centrifuge machines. And these machines were later reverse engineered and duplicated in Pakistan in order to support Pakistan's nuclear weapons program -- apparently, the same kind of machines have now turned up in Libya, Iran, and North Korea.
That's just a belief. Not something to wager our nation against. You believe it because it fits your world perspective. Had you really been I, you certainly would not be so "firm" in your belief. :)Anttech said:Why should I be, I am firm in my belief that Iran won't use them against you.
No, you do not. I was not addressing that question at all.kyleb said:So then, do I underderstand correctly that you do not know of any evidence which demonstrates that Iran has been pursuing nuclear ballistic missile program or other weapons-only nuclear technology?
Since the end of the Iran-Iraq War, Tehran redoubled its efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and ballistic missiles. In addition to Iran's legitimate efforts to develop its nuclear power-generation industry, it is believed to be operating a parallel clandestine nuclear weapons program. Iran appears to be following a policy of complying with the NPT and building its nuclear power program in such a way that if the appropriate political decision is made, know-how gained in the peaceful sphere (specialists and equipment) could be used to create nuclear weapons (dual-use technologies have been sold to Iran by at least nine western companies during the early 1990's). Also, in this atmosphere of deception, unconfirmed reports have been made that Tehran purchased several nuclear warheads in the early 1990's.
The representative office of the National Council of Resistance of Iran in Washington, D.C., revealed on Wednesday, 14 August 2002, two top-secret nuclear sites in Iran and the clerical regime’s new nuclear, biological and chemical weapons projects at a press conference in Washington, DC. On the surface, the Iranian regime’s main nuclear activities are focused on Bushehr’s nuclear power plant, but in reality secret nuclear programs are at work without the knowledge of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). One of these top secret projects is Natanz’s nuclear facility. Natanz is about 100 miles north of Isfahan. The other one is Arak’s atomic facilities. Arak is a city in central Iran, 150 miles south of Tehran.
The IAEA announced that its secretary-general, Muhammad al-Baradei, would visit Iran on 25 February, Iranian state radio reported on 19 December 2002. According to previous reports, Tehran had postponed al-Baradei's visit several times despite a February 10 announcement that there would be no limit to the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) ability to conduct inspections in Iran, and he denied that Iran plans to use nuclear technology for military purposes, IRNA reported on 11 February.
The IAEA team led by ElBaradei which visited Iran in February 2003 detected that Iran had introduced some uranium hexafluoride into the gas centrifuges, which would be a clear breach of the NPT.
President Mohammad Khatami said on 09 February 2003 that the Islamic Republic of Iran had decided to utilize advanced technology including those in the nuclear industry for peaceful purposes. He said that the government has adopted plans to exploit the uranium mines 200 km off Yazd and set up plants in Isfahan and Kashan to extract uranium composites to provide fuel for generating electricity. President Khatami said that his government has decided to generate some 6,000 megawatts of electricity from nuclear energy adding that Bushehr power plant has been designed to generate 1,000 megawatts of electricity. President Khatami's admission of Iranian uranium mining came only two weeks before the 25 February 2003 visit to Iran of the International Atomic Energy Agency's Director General, Dr. ElBaradei and the International Atomic Energy Agency experts.
...
Iran's admission that it had been mining uranium, when Russia had agreed to provide all the uranium fuel for lifetime of the Bushehr reactor, raised serious questions about Iran's supposedly peaceful nuclear program. Some accounts of the Khatami remarks said he also asserted that Iran planned to reprocess spent fuel from Bushehr. If press reports suggesting that Iran will reprocess spent fuel were accurate, this would directly contradict Iran's agreement with Russia to return all of the spent fuel to Russia.
...
The IAEA found two different types of HEU in Iran. Iran has tried to explain away that finding with a belated admission that its senior officials erred in repeatedly telling the Agency, the Board and the world that the Iranian centrifuge enrichment program was wholly indigenous.
...
While Iran has denied having any program to develop nuclear weapons, the IAEA has collected evidence to the contrary. The most recent report was issued 10 November 2003.
In January 2004 Tehran acknowledged that it was continuing to assemble additional centrifuges. This appeared to violated the the 31 October 2003 agreement -- brokered by France, Britain and Germany -- to suspend uranium enrichment activities.
On 12 February 2004 the International Atomic Energy Agency found designs for the advanced P2 centrifuge that should have been, but were not, mentioned in Iran's October 2003 declaration of its atomic program. Pakistan had supplied Libya with the same type of plans for a gas centrifuge but also with a weapon design. It was unclear whether or not the Pakistanis had also supplied Iran with a nuclear weapon warhead design.
...
On 09 March 2004 Alireza Jafarzadeh, who disclosed in August 2002 Iran's facilities at Natanz and Arak, said Iranian leaders decided at a recent meeting to seek an atom bomb "at all costs" and begin enriching uranium at secret plants. "They set a timetable to get a bomb by the end of 2005 at the latest," the former spokesman for the National Council of Resistance of Iran said. "They will heavily rely on smaller secret enrichment sites at Karaj, Esfahan and at other places."
The Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Involved in the Construction of a Secret Tunnel
According to my sources inside the Iranian regime, sources that have been proven accurate in the past, Iran is constructing a top-secret tunnel as part of its nuclear weapons program.
The secret tunnel carries the codename “Hormuz Tunnel.” It is intended to further the regime’s nuclear weapons research and development. The tunnel is located in the vicinity of the Mini-City (Shahrak-e Bazi), northeast Tehran.
The location of this tunnel is next to Tehran-Lashkarak Highway in the vicinity of Mini-City sited in the northeastern part of Tehran. This tunnel is to be found in the northern part of Mini-City, in the mountain slopes. It is situated so that it faces the mountain on one side, and from the other, it is positioned at the far end of a residential area. This location is close to a residential area so that it might blend in with a community. That is, it would not appear to be a suspect nuclear site in such a place. This location might deceive inspectors who would not imagine a sensitive nuclear site to be located near a neighborhood.
The design for this tunnel was completed in 2004. Its construction began in March 2005. The construction company in charge of building this tunnel is Hara Company. Hara is an engineering firm associated with Khatam Al Anbia, which is the main engineering headquarters for the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC).
...
The Iranian leadership does not hate Jews as long as they live under Muslim rule.Anttech said:If Iran hates Jews, then why is the biggest Jewish community outside of Israel in the ME live in Iran (~25,000)? If you believe they want to commit genocide on Jews in Israel by wiping them out with a Nuc, why not start by killing all the Jews in Iran? The current Iranian Administration is opposed to Zionism, (not Judaism) and the perceived unfair treatment of Muslims living in Palistein. Need I remind you not so long ago, Iran and Israel had a great relationship up till 1979.
I am firm in my belief that if you were living in the same situation as I, you would be very worried about Iran developing nuclear weapons.Anttech said:Lets not get into a semantical discussion. "If I were you" is a figure of speech, typically meaning if *I* (me, not you) were living in the same situation as you.
If *I* was living in Israel I wouldn't be worried about a nuclear attack by Iran, I would be worried about a whole lot of other things, but not that!
Yonoz said:The Iranian leadership does not hate Jews as long as they live under Muslim rule.
Let us drop the absurd pretence Iran is developing nuclear weapons to support the Palestinians. As I previously stated, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_massacre" .
Even so, is this a power you would trust with a nuclear weapon? Will your belief remain so firm for the next 5, 10, 20 years? Is this a way to make it to the 'big boys table'? Should this behaviour be rewarded? Is this the kind of nation you wish sat at the 'big boys table', backed by a nuclear arsenal?Anttech said:I never stated that Iran wants Nuc's to help Palestinians. It wants nucs so it can sit at the 'big boys table' in global politics. It wants them for self-preservation, and self-growth.
You mean the one that was revoked by resolution 4686?Anttech said:Iran is against Zionism because it agrees with UN Resolution 3379, it is not against Judaism.
Here's the video: http://www.herzog.org.il/video/un_speeches.wmv". Note the other bits of the speech:In his address to the United Nations General Assembly the same day, 10. November 1975, Israeli Ambassador Chaim Herzog stated:
"I can point with pride to the Arab ministers who have served in my government; to the Arab deputy speaker of my Parliament; to Arab officers and men serving of their own volition in our border and police defense forces, frequently commanding Jewish troops; to the hundreds of thousands of Arabs from all over the Middle East crowding the cities of Israel every year; to the thousands of Arabs from all over the Middle East coming for medical treatment to Israel; to the peaceful coexistence which has developed; to the fact that Arabic is an official language in Israel on a par with Hebrew; to the fact that it is as natural for an Arab to serve in public office in Israel as it is incongruous to think of a Jew serving in any public office in an Arab country, indeed being admitted to many of them. Is that racism? It is not! That... is Zionism."
In his response he also said that the resolution was:
"another manifestation of the bitter anti-Semitic, anti-Jewish hatred which animates Arab society. Who would have believed that in this year, 1975, the malicious falsehoods of the 'Elders of Zion' would be distributed officially by Arab governments? Who would have believed that we would today contemplate an Arab society which teaches the vilest anti-Jewish hate in the kindergartens?... We are being attacked by a society which is motivated by the most extreme form of racism known in the world today... expressed so succinctly in the words of the leader of the PLO, Yassir Arafat, in his opening address at a symposium in Tripoli, Libya: "There will be no presence in the region other than the Arab presence..."
Herzog ended his statement with the words:
"For us, the Jewish people, this resolution based on hatred, falsehood and arrogance, is devoid of any moral or legal value. For us, the Jewish people, this is no more than a piece of paper and we shall treat it as such."
As he concluded his speech, Herzog tore the document in half.
You see, the UN is only really good at kicking an opponent while they're already down.You yourselves bear the responsibility for your stand before history, for as such will you be viewed in our history. We, the Jewish people, will not forget.
...
For us, the Jewish people, this is but a passing episode in a rich and event-filled history. We put our trust in our Providence, in our faith and beliefs, in our time-hallowed tradition, in our striving for social advance and human values, and in our people wherever they may be.
Ahh, so you did make the leap from 'centrifuges which can be used in the production of weapons' to 'those centrifuges prove Iran is developing nuclear missiles' without any evidence to do so. Thank you for clearing that up.Yonoz said:Certainly.
I'm still getting the impression that you don't know of any evidence of Iran pursuing any weapons-only nuclear technology though. At least that is what I gather from all of what you sited, the first being highly speculative with qualifications like "is believed to be" along with "Iran appears" and such. Skimming the rest the only hard evidence I found in your quotes was use of uranium hexafluoride, which is claimed as "a clear breach of the NPT" but after reading that report it seems the lack of disclosure was the only breach there, and that is under corrective action. Besides, use of uranium hexafluoride isn't nesscarily evidence of nuclear weapons development either.Gokul43201 said:No, you do not. I was not addressing that question at all.
Its the only way, let's face it. You either yield to the almighty power of the security council who is controlled more or less by the US, or you do your own thing. Just like India and pakistain. Its not a matter of rewarding (Anyway stop being so hypocritical!) its a matter of having the cards to play global politics..Even so, is this a power you would trust with a nuclear weapon? Will your belief remain so firm for the next 5, 10, 20 years? Is this a way to make it to the 'big boys table'? Should this behaviour be rewarded? Is this the kind of nation you wish sat at the 'big boys table', backed by a nuclear arsenal?
Hmmm.. as far as I know enemies are always try to underestimate their hostile, but US is always overrate Iran's capabilities. Doesn't that tell you anything?Evo said:"Iran already is equipped with the Shahab-3 missile, which means "shooting star" in Farsi, and is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. An upgraded version of the ballistic missile has a range of more than 1,200 miles and can reach Israel and U.S. forces in the Middle East."
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/4144563.html
Do you think they're crazy enough to start aa nuclear war? Well sure you do want to think that way. Sorry but The majotiry of posts in this thread reminds me of people who're howling in fear and just are going to use any irrational excuse to accuse the imaginary enemy they're frightened of in order to take the actions against. See people your comments seem so inconsistent. Your governments use any kind of weapons against other countries who don't have that sort of capability and it seems to me that you're fine with it. But now you talk about Iran as a threat to world peace since they might get weapons 1 day and start a war. So the main problem you have here is that you do not want your life to be threatenedbut you do not care about other humans living in other countries. don't try hard to make us believe that you're worried about the future of the world and humanity. iN FACT YOU'RE JUST WORRIED ABOUT YOUR OWNLIFE AND AMAZING THING IS THAT YOU DO NOT EVEN APPRECIATE THE SAME CONCERN THAT MIGHT PEOPLE FROM OTHERCOUNTRIES MIGHT HAVE!
If one looks at post #75 and #80, I do not even mention Iran. I did not conclude that I thought Iran was planning to do this.Anttech said:Perhaps not directly, but if you look at your post within the context of this thread, you could conclude that this is what you thought Iran was going to do..
Anyway THAT is why I wanted to know your stance, so we could clear that up.
Hot air balloons and regular mail are possible, but as one mentioned highly improbable or unlikely. An eagle cannot lift a nuclear device as the smallest possible one (one that could be detonated) is too heavy, so that option is impossible.Anttech said:Iran could also deliver nukes using hot air balloons, or on the back of trained eagles (very small ones), or perhaps using a the regular post. All of which are possible, but unlikely!
If they feel they have something to gain by it, such as in the case their rule will end, yeah I'm pretty sure they will use nuclear weapons. But they don't have to. They can indeed supply a terrorist group with a small nuclear device. They could use a nuclear arsenal as leverage to support their exported terrorism. Suppose Iran had nuclear weapons during this latest conflict and threatened to use them if Israel keeps what it calls self defence. I'm sorry, but that's not the middle east I think you and I should live in.Lisa! said:Do you think they're crazy enough to start aa nuclear war? Well sure you do want to think that way.
Noone's taken any new action against Iran so far, and I hope it will not amount to that.Lisa! said:Sorry but The majotiry of posts in this thread reminds me of people who're howling in fear and just are going to use any irrational excuse to accuse the imaginary enemy they're frightened of in order to take the actions against.
So do other Arab governments but Iran never seemed to have a problem with that. Let's talk about chemical weapons use. Let's talk about suicide bombings. Let's talk about "wiping Israel off the map", as Ahmedinejad put it.Lisa! said:See people your comments seem so inconsistent. Your governments use any kind of weapons against other countries who don't have that sort of capability and it seems to me that you're fine with it.
No, Iran has quite an impressive military as it is, it comes standard since Iran's such a big oil producer (with a penchant for Uranium enrichment). My problem is with nuclear weapons - which, when used, create a tragedy for generations. Suppose the tensions are high between the two countries and both militaries are at high alert. This increases the chances of mistakes happening. Now, considering the middle east's nature of being such a tense spot, do you think, as an ordinary person, that it is wise for Iran to pursue nuclear capability?Lisa! said:But now you talk about Iran as a threat to world peace since they might get weapons 1 day and start a war.
That is not true. Honestly, I care for my life more than I care for other people's lives, and to different degrees I also care for every member of our race. I feel for the Chechens, I feel for the Tibetans, I feel for the Africans in Darfur, I even feel for the Palestinians. That has nothing to do with my view of which is innocent or responsible in different degrees for the suffering. Tragedies are tragedies are tragedies and we must always work to end them.Lisa! said:So the main problem you have here is that you do not want your life to be threatenedbut you do not care about other humans living in other countries.
Oh I appreciate. I even understand it. I don't think any less of you for thinking what you do because I'm aware that we have differences. I only ask that this will become a mutual respect. Iran needs to recognise Israel's right to exist. Iran has the right to its own foreign policy, energy initiatives and even weapons programs - no one is arguing against any of those. But it must realize that the world cannot allow it to possesses nuclear weapons technology because of its own interests. Respect us and we'll respect you. Everyone is playing this game - the Russians, the Chinese, the Americans, the French - everyone is a dirty player - even Iran, and guess what - Israel too. If Iran wants in on the big stakes it needs to bridge some gaps with the west, developing nuclear weapons is not the way to go. Look at Egypt. Look at Lybia. Look at Turkey and Jordan. They're all prosperous nations. Turkey's a good example of a secular Muslim state (and they too have a dark history). Were you alive before the revolt? My dad lived in Tehran when he was growing up. He loved every minute of it, he told what a great people the Persians are. I hope the Persian people make Iran the modern wonder it once was.Lisa! said:don't try hard to make us believe that you're worried about the future of the world and humanity. iN FACT YOU'RE JUST WORRIED ABOUT YOUR OWNLIFE AND AMAZING THING IS THAT YOU DO NOT EVEN APPRECIATE THE SAME CONCERN THAT MIGHT PEOPLE FROM OTHERCOUNTRIES MIGHT HAVE!
Israel never fired a nuclear weapon. I'm just as afraid it will fire one by accident as I am afraid of Iran firing one on purpose.Lisa! said:You just keep quiet when your goverments pass laws for using nuclear weapons against un-nuclear states. So what you're afarid of is tasting alittle of what you force others to taste.
Why does it seem that way to you?Lisa! said:I'm sure that no crazy person in the world is going to use nuks against a country with nuks!
Note that I don't want Iran to get nuks but sometimes it seems to me that western countries are going to force Iran to have them.
Funny how the alien always agrees with the person who decides to bring it up.Anttech said:Historically and actualised facts would point an 'alien' who came to this planet
I don't know. Are you absolutely, positively convinced that they won't? If so, then please share; it would be nice to have a good reason not to consider it.Lisa! said:Do you think they're crazy enough to start aa nuclear war?
hehe.. That was funny.Funny how the alien always agrees with the person who decides to bring it up.
One of my friends asked me this weekend what I thought about Iran's nuclear ambitions and I told him that because they are ruled by a coalition of clerics and not an individual madman (ie, N. Korea), there likely is a collective logic behind what they do. Li'l Kim could stub his toe, get mad, and launch a bunch of missiles at Seoul, but such a thing is far less likely when you have a bureacracy - even a fanatical one - to deal with.Lisa! said:Do you think they're crazy enough to start aa nuclear war?
Arab nations. Let's play a game called "middle east geopardy". The first topic will be "use of chemical weapons" for $100 - "This Arab nation used chemical weapons against Yemenites in this little known conflict". Anyone?Anttech said:If you looked at the facts historically over the last century completely from a completely non-biased perceptive, who would you say has the tendacy to invade other countries the most, and force upon them their vaules?
bargaining for what?russ_watters said:For that reason, I think Iran's rhetoric is almost exclusively a bargaining tactic.
Well then, that leaves Iran out. :rofl:Yonoz said:Arab nations.
I can site plenty of exported terrorism. I wish the Iranian regime would be honest enough to declare war and face its enemies directly rather than force other nations to bear the toll of its wars.kyleb said:But seriously, since Iran is the subject at hand here, could you sight some examples of Iran invading other countries?