Iran's illegal Nuclear Weapons Program

Well you'll just have to take their word for it. All that heavy water from the new Arak plant, and the 40MW thermal reactor...it could produce maybe 4 or 5 bombs worth of material p.a.

But President Ahmadinejad has said on numerous occasions that they're not in it for the plutonium.

And even if they were there is nothing the United States or Israel can do about it. If the Iranians really have had a secret bomb programme for the last 25 years, and they admit to being well advanced in nuclear engineering, its quite possible they already have enough fissile material. And missiles capable of reaching Israel. So what are you going to do about it eh?

Might be a start if President Bush replied to that letter Ahmadinejad sent a couple of years back.

The Americans dont seem to understand who's calling the shots in the middle east. Iran is the regional superpower. Tehran controls what happens in s Iraq where the British have lost it. Your simple little plan to knock down a series of regimes has fallen at the first hurdle, and you've created a nightmare.

Oh and if you think you can take out Iran's nuclear programme with a few surgical strikes, think again. Its well hardened, widely dispersed, and they now have a cadre of dedicated nuclear engineers who will build the bomb for the Islamic Republic of Iran, eventually, if Allah wills it. And Allah's on their side.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

Well you'll just have to take their word for it. All that heavy water from the new Arak plant, and the 40MW thermal reactor...it could produce maybe 4 or 5 bombs worth of material p.a.

But President Ahmadinejad has said on numerous occasions that they're not in it for the plutonium.

And even if they were there is nothing the United States or Israel can do about it. If the Iranians really have had a secret bomb programme for the last 25 years, and they admit to being well advanced in nuclear engineering, its quite possible they already have enough fissile material.

They've only just started enriching, and the plutonium-production reactor hasn't gone online yet.

Steve 41oo wrote:

Oh and if you think you can take out Iran's nuclear programme with a few surgical strikes, think again. Its well hardened, widely dispersed, and they now have a cadre of dedicated nuclear engineers who will build the bomb for the Islamic Republic of Iran, eventually, if Allah wills it. And Allah's on their side.

We know where the key sites are. The Arak reactor is not all that shielded. We wouldn't have any trouble blowing it up.

The Natanz enrichment site is shielded, but we have conventional weapons that are more than capable of penetrating that shielding.

The uranium conversion facility at Isfahan isn't well shielded, and could be easily blown up.

There are tunnels in the mountains by the uranium conversion facility. Collapsing those tunnels might pose a bit of a problem, but I don't think they are a big target. And we could always pop off a few thermobaric bombs in them.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

we have conventional weapons that are more than capable of penetrating that shielding.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/07/20/big.bomb

http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=123187

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

dyslexia wrote:
oralloy, just exactly what constitutes an "illegal nuclear weapons program"? Does Iran need the US to allow/permit? If so, what is the basis for such "illegality?"

The Non-Proliferation Treaty makes it illegal for Iran to have a nuclear weapons program.

Had Iran chosen not to join the treaty (a choice that Israel, India, and Pakistan made), it would have been legal for Iran to produce nuclear weapons.

But when Iran chose to join the treaty, they made it illegal for themselves to have nuclear weapons.

The regime in Iran that signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty was an illegal, dictatorial regime--that of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran--that was forcibly and undemocratically installed by the US and British governments after their coup in 1953 of the democratic government of Iran which at the time was under the prime ministership of Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh.

0 Replies

InfraBlue wrote:

oralloy wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
oralloy, just exactly what constitutes an "illegal nuclear weapons program"? Does Iran need the US to allow/permit? If so, what is the basis for such "illegality?"

The Non-Proliferation Treaty makes it illegal for Iran to have a nuclear weapons program.

Had Iran chosen not to join the treaty (a choice that Israel, India, and Pakistan made), it would have been legal for Iran to produce nuclear weapons.

But when Iran chose to join the treaty, they made it illegal for themselves to have nuclear weapons.

The regime in Iran that signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty was an illegal, dictatorial regime--that of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran--that was forcibly and undemocratically installed by the US and British governments after their coup in 1953 of the democratic government of Iran which at the time was under the prime ministership of Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh.

If the current regime had wanted to develop nuclear weapons legally, they could have withdrawn from their treaty *before* they started their weapons program.

0 Replies

Again this strange logic comes into play. Iran says they are not building nuclear weapons. But because you dont believe them, and Iran is an npt signatory, you are prepared to bomb their facilities and kill thousands of people...because of a signature?

The way to make Iran less of a threat in the region is to deal with them honestly. If the US attacks it will rally the people around their government. They are patient people, and hard working. They will rebuild.

There is no military option for containing Iran other than the massive use of nuclear weapons. Are you ready to risk WW3? I rather think you might be.

0 Replies

Why is the US so concerned that Iran may be trying to build a nuclear device, if they succeeded would they be any more dangerous than America which has more weapons of mass destruction than anyone else, what is more they are the only country ever to use nuclear weapons and they are still using them with depleted uranium?

Rather than threatening to obliterate Iran why not take them at their word and offer to help them develop nuclear energy; I'm sure it would cost a lot less than declaring war and blitzing them with shock and awe which is just a euphemism for death and destruction?

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

Again this strange logic comes into play. Iran says they are not building nuclear weapons. But because you dont believe them, and Iran is an npt signatory, you are prepared to bomb their facilities and kill thousands of people...because of a signature?

Not because of the signature. That is just the basis of my claim that their program is illegal.

I want to bomb them because they are a hostile country that would cause even more trouble in the region once they make nukes.

Brazil's nuclear weapons program is also illegal, but so long as they aren't a force for evil, I don't see a need to bomb it.

Steve 41oo wrote:

The way to make Iran less of a threat in the region is to deal with them honestly. If the US attacks it will rally the people around their government. They are patient people, and hard working. They will rebuild.

Probably the best long term solution to the Iran problem is massive aid to Israel's nuclear weapons program, to strengthen their deterrent against Iranian aggression.

Steve 41oo wrote:

There is no military option for containing Iran other than the massive use of nuclear weapons. Are you ready to risk WW3? I rather think you might be.

I'm willing to fight a nuclear war for a good cause.

But I don't see a role for nuclear weapons in the fight against Iran unless we are retaliating against their own use of nuclear weapons.

0 Replies

anton wrote:

Why is the US so concerned that Iran may be trying to build a nuclear device, if they succeeded would they be any more dangerous than America which has more weapons of mass destruction than anyone else,

Yes they would be. The same way a criminal with a gun is more dangerous than a police officer with a gun.

anton wrote:

what is more they are the only country ever to use nuclear weapons and they are still using them with depleted uranium?

Depleted uranium is not a nuclear weapon.

anton wrote:

Rather than threatening to obliterate Iran why not take them at their word and offer to help them develop nuclear energy;

For the same reason why the police don't embark on a program to give guns to felons.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

I want to bomb them because they are a hostile country that would cause even more trouble in the region once they make nukes.

I'll grant thats an honest opinion.

0 Replies

I see oralloy and the US as a greater source of "evil" for wanting to bomb the **** out of anyone or anything that doesn't tell them what they want to hear, do what they want them to do, or be who they want them to be.
How many countries has Iran invaded in the last 10 years?
How many foreigners deaths' have they been directly responsible for?
How many times has Iran used a nuclear weapon?

Oralloy and the US need to check their heads and give up this false sense of entitlement they have to kill people they don't trust or when they disagree with them.

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

I see oralloy and the US as a greater source of "evil"

Of course you do and you are cute as a button for saying so.

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

How many foreigners deaths' have they been directly responsible for?

There is the bombing of our Marines in Lebanon in the 80s and of our soldiers in Saudi Arabia in the 90s.

0 Replies

Iran Sponsored Terrorist Organizations

Lebanese Hizballah
HAMAS
Palestine Islamic Jihad
Palestinian Rejectionist Groups
Mujahedin-e-Khalq
Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps
Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security

0 Replies

I do find it quite incredible that so many in the US are incapable of seeing things from the other side.

The West (Britain and America) have a history of interferring and meddling in Persia/Iran which should make us blush.

Ever since the Anglo Iranian Oil Company (now BP) started taking oil from that country in the early part of the last century.

Britain and Russia invaded Persia during WW2, Britain quite obviously to protect oil interests.

We organised a coup d'etat against a legitimate government of Mossedegh when he made moves to nationalise the oil industry.

We supported Saddam against Iran when the Iranians lost millions dead in the Iran Iraq war. The USS Vincenes shot down a civilian Iranian Airbus. (And the ships crew honored by Reagan I seem to recall).

The US continues to wage economic warfare against Iran and obstructs and hinders Iranian attempts to modernise the country at every turn. I believe the US government is even now obstructing the development of an Iranian oil bourse because they are scared they might start trading in euros.

make no mistake, I dislike their theocratic regime intensely. But all they are asking for is to be treated with some respect in their own right. They are a people of 60+ million ? with an amazing history, spectacular mineral wealth and occupying an important geographic position in the heart of the middle east. The history of Western dealings with Iran is to treat them with contempt. Its time those who would be quick to unleash death and destruction again on Iran learned a little history.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

au1929 wrote:
oralloy wrote:
au1929 wrote:
oralloy wrote

Quote:
And Hillary is just as likely (if not more likely) to bomb Iran as Bush is if she gets elected.

Are you a seer or perhaps a possessor of a crystal ball. Based on what brings you to that conclusion.

I base it mostly on the foreign policy statements she's made, both in general, and in relation to Iran.

Plus, I think she is close to Bill policy wise. The Clintons just seem to me like they have a good handle on foreign policy, and aren't afraid to bomb people when it's in US interests.

In other words it is your opinion with nothing to substantiate it.

Yes. It is my opinion that Hillary will be willing to bomb Iran if Bush doesn't do it, if she is elected.

I detect your hope for an attack on Iran (that you hope for war, that you actually like the whole warfare thing, comes through rather clearly) oozing over into the next administration. This February, which I recall was your previous guess on when this administration would probably launch military action, doesn't seem to be in the cards. I'll wager that the State Department isn't your favorite governmental department.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

oralloy wrote:
au1929 wrote:
oralloy wrote:
au1929 wrote:
oralloy wrote

Quote:
And Hillary is just as likely (if not more likely) to bomb Iran as Bush is if she gets elected.

Are you a seer or perhaps a possessor of a crystal ball. Based on what brings you to that conclusion.

I base it mostly on the foreign policy statements she's made, both in general, and in relation to Iran.

Plus, I think she is close to Bill policy wise. The Clintons just seem to me like they have a good handle on foreign policy, and aren't afraid to bomb people when it's in US interests.

In other words it is your opinion with nothing to substantiate it.

Yes. It is my opinion that Hillary will be willing to bomb Iran if Bush doesn't do it, if she is elected.

I detect your hope for an attack on Iran (that you hope for war, that you actually like the whole warfare thing, comes through rather clearly) oozing over into the next administration. This February, which I recall was your previous guess on when this administration would probably launch military action, doesn't seem to be in the cards.

I wasn't putting a lot of analytical processes into the guess. But February still seems like a good guess to me.

blatham wrote:

I'll wager that the State Department isn't your favorite governmental department.

I've no major objection to them.

The nonsense about negotiating with the Palestinians seems like a waste of effort. But it's their effort, not mine. Let 'em waste it if they want to.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

I believe the US government is even now obstructing the development of an Iranian oil bourse because they are scared they might start trading in euros.

Not likely that anyone in Washington really cares what currency the Iranians use to sell oil in.

If we want to buy any Iranian oil, I'm sure we could find a way to exchange the currency.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:
I believe the US government is even now obstructing the development of an Iranian oil bourse because they are scared they might start trading in euros.

Not likely that anyone in Washington really cares what currency the Iranians use to sell oil in.

If we want to buy any Iranian oil, I'm sure we could find a way to exchange the currency.

You dont understand how important this is. The United States depends on imported oil. The dollar as the world's reserve currency depends to a large extent on the fact that oil is traded in dollars. Everyone needs oil and therefore if they have to buy the stuff on the open market, they need dollars. To get dollars they have to sell goods to America. Oil props up the dollar's value, and that in turn supports American living standards. Saddam Hussein started selling oil in euros in November 2000. One of the first things the American administration in Baghdad did was to sell Iraqi oil in dollars again. What did you think the Iraq war was about?

0 Replies

So the "latest intelligence" report says Iran is years away from a nuclear bomb and they dont know if Iran is even trying to develop one Shocked

In a few minutes Stephen Hadley will say the US administration has to find "a diplomatic solution" with Iran Laughing

Oralloy, I am so sorry for you. Never mind, put the bombs away for now. I'm sure you'll get to play with them another day.

0 Replies

Iran's illegal Nuclear Weapons Program

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know