Israel - Nuclear Weapons, with links to premier sources
McGentrix wrote:Steve 41oo wrote:You might suspect Iran is up to no good. I might suspect Iran is up to no good. But calling someone a liar when they say they are behaving honorably does not constitute proof that they are indeed up to no good. The simple fact is there is no evidence, no proof at all that Iran has a clandestine weapons programme, and I can say that with certainty because if there was, you can be sure the United States and Israel would be shouting it from the highest mountain top.
The United States is playing a familiar game here. They have no evidence and so demand proof of a negative which of course cannot be provided. Let me see now where have I heard similar arguments in relation to weapons of mass destruction...in a country in the middle east, begins with I...neighbouring Iran....
Then you agree that Israel probably does not have nuclear wepons. That's awful good on ya Steve.
I dont see how that conclusion can possibly be deduced from my argument. Especially when there is plenty of documentary evidence that Israel does indeed possess nuclear weapons and that Britain supplied much of the material for Israel to build them in the first place.
Steve 41oo wrote:McGentrix wrote:Steve 41oo wrote:You might suspect Iran is up to no good. I might suspect Iran is up to no good. But calling someone a liar when they say they are behaving honorably does not constitute proof that they are indeed up to no good. The simple fact is there is no evidence, no proof at all that Iran has a clandestine weapons programme, and I can say that with certainty because if there was, you can be sure the United States and Israel would be shouting it from the highest mountain top.
The United States is playing a familiar game here. They have no evidence and so demand proof of a negative which of course cannot be provided. Let me see now where have I heard similar arguments in relation to weapons of mass destruction...in a country in the middle east, begins with I...neighbouring Iran....
Then you agree that Israel probably does not have nuclear wepons. That's awful good on ya Steve.
I dont see how that conclusion can possibly be deduced from my argument. Especially when there is plenty of documentary evidence that Israel does indeed possess nuclear weapons and that Britain supplied much of the material for Israel to build them in the first place.
You don't see that conclusion? Huh. Been to an eye-doctor lately?
Steve 41oo wrote:You might suspect Iran is up to no good. I might suspect Iran is up to no good. But calling someone a liar when they say they are behaving honorably does not constitute proof that they are indeed up to no good. The simple fact is there is no evidence, no proof at all that Iran has a clandestine weapons programme, and I can say that with certainty because if there was, you can be sure the United States and Israel would be shouting it from the highest mountain top.
The United States is playing a familiar game here. They have no evidence and so demand proof of a negative which of course cannot be provided. Let me see now where have I heard similar arguments in relation to weapons of mass destruction...in a country in the middle east, begins with I...neighbouring Iran....
It's not just the US making this claim. Add Germany, France and England to the list of countries that doubt Iran's peaceful intentions.
Quote:As of February 2006 Iran formally announced that uranium enrichment within their borders has continued. Iran claims it is for peaceful purposes but England, France, Germany, and The United States claim the purpose is for nuclear weapons research and construction.
LINK
Well I think we are going round in circles. I dont trust the mad mullahs as far as I could through a couple of kilos of enriched uranium but as of now there is not one iota of proof or evidence that they are actually in breech of the npt. Does the doubt justify a strike against Iran? I say emphatically no.
Steve 41oo wrote:throw
Wait a sec ... are you saying "through" is
not the way you proper English blokes spell "throw"?
Ticomaya wrote:Steve 41oo wrote:throw
Wait a sec ... are you saying "through" is
not the way you proper English blokes spell "throw"?
you got me there tico. After the cricket and a bottle of not especially good Aussie wine doubt I can do much more than through up. Ask Walter, I always do. He knows everything. Especially about proper English bloke speak.
It all looks pretty ominous to me. Striking against Iran's nuclear industry will not stop Iran developing a nuclear weapon. Neither will it produce a coup d'etat and the overthrow of Ahmadinejad...so whats the point?
The Iranians are clever, hard working, patient, control the West's oil supply and moreover have God on their side, which is always an advantage.
Quote:Iran's unprecedented refusal to allow access to the facility at Natanz
Israel, of course, has refused to become signatory to the NPT because 1) they desire no external determination of their programs and stockpiles and 2) because they were not in need of help in establishing their technology as the US provided that assistance.
blatham wrote:Quote:Iran's unprecedented refusal to allow access to the facility at Natanz
Israel, of course, has refused to become signatory to the NPT because 1) they desire no external determination of their programs and stockpiles and 2) because they were not in need of help in establishing their technology as the US provided that assistance.
What does this have to do with Iran's refusal to allow inspections? They DID sign the NPT.
McGentrix- I am sure you are acquainted with the mind set of the Soviets and the USA during the "COLD WAR". Both had massive Nuclear Missles aimed at each other ( and may still have some in that posture) but the prospect of MAD( mutual assured destruction ) and the fact that they could not feed their people and keep up with the US in an arms race, caused the Soviets to implode.
BUT BOTH COUNTRIES WERE RUN BY SANE PEOPLE.
Now, we have a madman frothing at the mouth, backed by a fanatic set of VERY RADICAL IMAMS IN IRAN who, actually believes in the Twelfth Imam--He believes that the Twelfth Imam will return( proabably after an Apocalypse--Nuclear?) and restore the world under the rule of ISLAM!!!--THE WHOLE WORLD!!!
I would not be concerned if I knew the Iranians were not led by religious fanatics who are willing to unleash nuclear holocaust on the Israelis and perhaps the rest of the world, but I do know what the motto of the Mossad is-------------N E V E R A G A I N.
and given the information below, it will not happen again unless Iran wishes to see Tehran look like Nagasaki( as a response,of course, to the nuclear destruction of Tel Aviv---I don' t need to tell you, McGentriz, that the Iranian leadership is so fanatical that they would also wipe out tens of thousands of Arabs living in Israel if they struck at Israel with nuclear weapons.
But if there is just ONE non fanatic among the Iranian leadership, he may point out the following:
one analyst concludes that "the Israeli nuclear arsenal contains as many as 400 deliverable nuclear and thermonuclear weapons." Harold Hough, "Could Israel's Nuclear Assets Survive A First Strike?" Jane's Intelligence Review, 9/97, p. 410. Israel's nuclear capability is by most accounts quite sophisticated, and may include "intercontinental-range, fractional-orbit-delivered thermonuclear weapons; thermonuclear or boosted nuclear-armed, two-stage, solid-fuel, intermediate-range ballistic missiles with a range of 3,000km; older, less accurate, nuclear-armed, theatre-range, solid-fuel ballistic missiles; air-deliverable, variable-yield, boosted nuclear bombs; artillery-delivered, enhanced-radiation, tactical weapons; and small nuclear demolition charges."
McGentrix wrote:blatham wrote:Quote:Iran's unprecedented refusal to allow access to the facility at Natanz
Israel, of course, has refused to become signatory to the NPT because 1) they desire no external determination of their programs and stockpiles and 2) because they were not in need of help in establishing their technology as the US provided that assistance.
What does this have to do with Iran's refusal to allow inspections? They DID sign the NPT.
Unfortunately, it has much to do with Iran's refusal.
Treaties gain whatever force they have from the general notion that nations, once they agree with other nations to the terms of some treaty, will then abide by those terms. It is essentially an honor system theoretically working for the good of all.
But what happens to that honor system when a nation or nations retract or go back on a treaty to which they are signatory?
Iran, and everyone else, is quite aware for example that the US itself has acted in violation of signed treaties. It knows, as does everyone else, that the US has refused to sign treaties which would be beneficial in terms of the general good but which the US perceives to be damaging to its own interests. Iran knows that Israel (like Pakistan and India) refused to sign the NPT in order to have free reign as regards nuclear technology. Iran knows as well that Israel remains in violation of a number of UN resolutions.
Thus Iran may well see little reason, either legal, moral or strategic to abide by the NPT or UN resolutions/mandates when its perceived opponents have themselves operated in violation of treaties and resolutions in order to forward their own perceived advantage.
Asherman wrote:Is there an Israili nuclear power plant?
Yes.
Asherman wrote:There has never been an Israeli nuclear test, so an Israeli bomb would be no more relaible than one manufactured in the DPRK.
Well, they probably tested a stolen design for a US nuclear artillery shell over the Indian Ocean in the late 1970s.
Asherman wrote:Where would Israel have acquired nuclear technology and weapons?
They mainly acquired the technology from France. They built the weapons themselves.
Steve 41oo wrote:You might suspect Iran is up to no good. I might suspect Iran is up to no good. But calling someone a liar when they say they are behaving honorably does not constitute proof that they are indeed up to no good. The simple fact is there is no evidence, no proof at all that Iran has a clandestine weapons programme, and I can say that with certainty because if there was, you can be sure the United States and Israel would be shouting it from the highest mountain top.
They were conducting their enrichment-related activities in secret from the world for many years.
I consider that to be proof of an illegal weapons program.
blatham wrote:Quote:Iran's unprecedented refusal to allow access to the facility at Natanz
Israel, of course, has refused to become signatory to the NPT because 1) they desire no external determination of their programs and stockpiles and 2) because they were not in need of help in establishing their technology as the US provided that assistance.
We provided very little (if any) of that assistance.
However, I propose that we change that stance by withdrawing from the NPT and openly sharing our nuclear weapons technology with Israel.
blatham wrote:McGentrix wrote:blatham wrote:Quote:Iran's unprecedented refusal to allow access to the facility at Natanz
Israel, of course, has refused to become signatory to the NPT because 1) they desire no external determination of their programs and stockpiles and 2) because they were not in need of help in establishing their technology as the US provided that assistance.
What does this have to do with Iran's refusal to allow inspections? They DID sign the NPT.
Unfortunately, it has much to do with Iran's refusal.
Treaties gain whatever force they have from the general notion that nations, once they agree with other nations to the terms of some treaty, will then abide by those terms. It is essentially an honor system theoretically working for the good of all.
But what happens to that honor system when a nation or nations retract or go back on a treaty to which they are signatory?
Iran, and everyone else, is quite aware for example that the US itself has acted in violation of signed treaties. It knows, as does everyone else, that the US has refused to sign treaties which would be beneficial in terms of the general good but which the US perceives to be damaging to its own interests. Iran knows that Israel (like Pakistan and India) refused to sign the NPT in order to have free reign as regards nuclear technology. Iran knows as well that Israel remains in violation of a number of UN resolutions.
Thus Iran may well see little reason, either legal, moral or strategic to abide by the NPT or UN resolutions/mandates when its perceived opponents have themselves operated in violation of treaties and resolutions in order to forward their own perceived advantage.
The fact that Iran did sign the NPT means that they quite clearly have a legal reason to abide by the NPT.
I don't see how our refusal to join certain treaties justifies their violation of a treaty they have joined.
What treaties have we violated?
