Is THIS the Evidence Iran is building a NUCLEAR weapon?

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 303
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 5:56 am

PostFri Nov 25, 2011 12:26 am » by Headhunter711


Good Evening, (and Happy Thanksgiving!!)
Generally it has been my preference to give commentary on matters
more EXTRATERRESTRIAL, but on occasion certain global scenarios develop
that escalate to a point that it fallw within my mandate to discuss. This is one
such subject.
As many of you within the DTVerse are aware, Iran has recently been accused
of trying to develop a nuclear weapon, presumably to use against the nation of
Israel. The latest evidence cited for this has been a recently leaked IAEA report.
Under "normal conditions" this information wouldn't be forwarded through me to
the public at large, but because of the fact that Israel may use this as their main
reason to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran, and how those consequences
may affect all of you, the decision has been made to make this IAEA report readily
available to DTV. This report was acquired through a link to SKY NEWS, so
the hierarchy of DTV should feel it's safe to allow.
http://www1.sky.com/news/irangov2011-6.pdf

What do you think? Is Iran developing nuclear weapons? Does Israel have the right
to make a pre-emptive strike? How will this affect the world?
All responses are appreciated :hugging:

Again, Happy Thanksgiving!!

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 3897
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:21 pm

PostFri Nov 25, 2011 12:34 am » by Mrmcnuggets


The chances of everything getting out of hand once Iran is producing nuclear arms is the problem. They have poor security, bribes will buy almost anything, and they have a lot of hate towards their neighbors.

Like Iran stated they are only trying to equip them selves with them as everyone else around them has them, and at that point if any global war broke out, the only option would be to give up with out being able to counter measure.

Though what is Iran going to say when some regime steals a nuke if we give them the rights to produce them. Can you get your hands on a nuke in the streets of the U.S? No.

But if lets say the Hezbollah gets nukes and sets some off. Iran will most likely just say that the targets had that coming to them and that is the real problem. Russia and China have already stated they have irans backs, so iran should have, nor see no reason to pursue such actions unless they are trying to provoke something. The forces that back Russia and China alone are enough to make any military force question invading that section of the world alone anyways.
"There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. A high-powered mutant of some kind never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die. "

I AM an endangered species.


Upload to Disclose.tv


Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 4204
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 2:30 pm

PostFri Nov 25, 2011 12:47 am » by Aragajag


Nobody should have them, to late though the cat is out of the bag.

50 Facts About U.S. Nuclear Weapons
http://www.brookings.edu/projects/archi ... ns/50.aspx
44. Number of U.S. nuclear bombs lost in accidents and never recovered: 11
Image
'Gee, I wish we had one of them Doomsday Machines, Stainsey..' General "Buck" Turgidson

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 3897
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:21 pm

PostFri Nov 25, 2011 12:53 am » by Mrmcnuggets


aragajag wrote:Nobody should have them, to late though the cat is out of the bag.

50 Facts About U.S. Nuclear Weapons
http://www.brookings.edu/projects/archi ... ns/50.aspx
44. Number of U.S. nuclear bombs lost in accidents and never recovered: 11



yeah, there was that huge thread about the US nuclear weapons, though consider 11 lost out of 200,000. And none of them belong to civilian extremist regimes here with in the country, and at least a quarter of that 11 were lost at sea making the only ones who could recover is other countries with spec ops capable. (russia, china, isreal, germany.)

Look at the black market in europe though, and specifically Bulgaria how easy it is to obtain a nuclear warhead from russia or dirty war head. Our security is still quite at the top, even when considering accidents and sabotage do happen. The largest weapons heist in the world was right under Russias nose, and included nuclear submarines and other exquisite military vehicles of destruction.
"There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. A high-powered mutant of some kind never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die. "

I AM an endangered species.


Upload to Disclose.tv


Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 303
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 5:56 am

PostFri Nov 25, 2011 1:08 am » by Headhunter711


The whole Middle East region is so unstable and complicated. Besides the animosity
between Israel and Iran, then add facilitators like China, Russia, and North Korea,
mix in some terrorists and anarchists, and then top that off with nuclear weapons,
and what do you get? :shooting: :ohno:

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 5477
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 5:03 pm
Location: བདེ་འབྱུང

PostFri Nov 25, 2011 1:08 am » by Iamthatiam


:rtft: Ultra-trace analysis of krypton-85 using a magneto-optical trap

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by Heiner Daerr and Markus Kohler

The Atom Trap Trace Analysis experiment is designed to enable both the international community of states and non-government organizations (NGOs) to detect a possible violation of the NPT Article III (every handling of fissionable materials must be reported to the IAEA). In particular, it aims to provide evidences for clandestine reprocessing of burned nuclear fuel or neutron-activated uranium. The indicator used is the krypton isotope with the mass number 85 of which the known anthropogenic background is negligible (~5 orders of magnitude smaller than anthropogenic sources). As a rare gas, it is not subject to loses through natural chemical conversion. This isotope is produced by nuclear fission processes that the entire atmospheric stock is traced back to civilian or military nuclear fission. Parallel to the fission occurring in reactors, there are several other core-neutron interactions like the neutron capture by uranium 238. This leads to the breeding of plutonium which is, in manageable amounts, good to build up a nuclear device.

The krypton released during reprocessing is generally discharged to the atmosphere as retention would be technically complex and expensive. At a certain place in a certain time, the concentrated krypton is thinned out over time through atmospheric processes, whereas a significant high concentration of krypton could be detected up to several hundreds of kilometres from the point of release. Therefore, it is in principle possible to find a trace of the source even at a greater distance from the source.

In order to locate more precisely the source region, a major foundation of information is needed which can be achieved through a better time resolution of the passing krypton-85 plume. In this regard, traditional methods are not applicable as both the daily and weekly samples are inaccurate. Thus, this includes small samples which are but not currently analysable within reasonable measurement times.

The ATTA project aims to fill this gap: A sample size of one litre of air for the determination of krypton-85 content to be analysed in few hours time interval. This will be implemented through the use of a magneto-optical trap (MOT) which is capable to stimulate only those krypton isotopes for radiation of light and then those that are with significance are to be counted. This is possible through the fact that the atomic shell’s state of stimulation is linked to the physical properties of the atomic nucleus. This causes the varying nuclear spins and different masses in the absorption spectrum. These differences are so big that only a specific isotope in the MOT can be caught.

To specifically activate certain krypton isotopes, very narrow-band light sources, lasers in general (determined by the absorption spectrum), are required. The selected atoms scatter light continuously, which is used for detection. This type of detection drives a considerable expenditure. Sixteen different infrared wavelengths through laser should be supplied; moreover, a source of vacuum ultraviolet (VUV) is also required.

In 2008, laser sources were tested, characterized, produced in sufficient quantity and calibrated for this experiment. Now, there are eight grating-stabilized lasers available in the experiment. For this purpose, a wavelength measuring device whose basic structures were provided by the research group of Prof. Sengstock, was newly reconstructed. Similarly, the krypton lines for stabilization using a Doppler-free saturation spectroscopy were discovered and the corresponding krypton isotopes were assigned. A large part of the laser system is now available. The ultra-high vacuum chambers were partly designed. The first components will go into production in spring 2009. Important VUV lamps are newly built for the final design so that the usage in combination with an ultra-high vacuum system could be made possible.

The first tests have already been very successful. The relocation of the laboratory in December 2008, however, led to an unforeseen delay in the built up of the laser system as this has to be constructed as portable. The last two months of the year have been largely sacrificed due to the relocation. It can also be assumed that even the first few months of 2009 were needed to reach the level of October 2008 again. Despite this unintended delay, it is expected that during the year 2009, a large part of the construction could be completed so that at the beginning of 2010, the first atoms of krypton in the trap could be calculated.

In the course of this project, two Diploma theses have been completed and the third one will be completed in January 2009. At the beginning of 2009, two candidates are already at the starting blocks of their Diploma thesis.
The ATTA Metrology is part of the main research subjects of ZNF: atmospheric krypton-85-trace gas analysis for the detection of clandestine plutonium production. Included in this area is a new measurement technique for krypton-85 and for other atmospheric calculations. In addition to these two points, further aspects of this thesis will be examined. These will be covered by three doctoral works, respectively.

The goal is to design a measurement technology that could be used routinely, for example, by the IAEA. For this, it is important to be able to analyze small samples of air in a short measurement time so that the thousand samples analysable to a year and the sampling in small volume are possible everywhere. The entire project could serve to augment the methods of verification of the IAEA and thus, to strengthen it. Even the method of non-state actors can be used to carry out their own independent analysis and make the results available to the public.
The actual measurement can also be used to determine the krypton-85 concentrations in groundwater and other media to examine the sustainable use of resources. The measurement technology in itself can neither be used as a weapon nor it can be used to produce weapons material. Nevertheless, the measurement results could be abused to pursue personal interests by concealing it and by time selection for disclosure.

PROJECT TITLE
Ultra-trace analysis of krypton-85 in the atmosphere

COORDINATION
Prof. Dr. Martin Kalinowski
Prof. Dr. Klaus Sengstock

STAFF
Dipl.-Phys. Heiner Daerr
Dipl.-Phys. Markus Kohler
Cand. Phys. Hauke Gravenkamp
Cand. Phys. Enno Peters


COOPERATION PARTNER
Institute for Laser Physics of the University of Hamburg

PROJECT TERM
Since June 2006

SPONSORED BY:
German Foundation for Peace Research
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

http://www.znf.uni-hamburg.de/ultraspurenanalyse-kr85_e.html
Image

"The Heaven's Lights are fed by the energy generated inside the furnaces of Hell; I AM One Conductive Wire! "

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 5477
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 5:03 pm
Location: བདེ་འབྱུང

PostFri Nov 25, 2011 1:13 am » by Iamthatiam


There is no nuclear threat – but if we attack Iran, there soon will be

An attack on Iran would prompt an enraged Iranian government, backed by a united Iranian public, to speed up the country's nuclear programme.

It has become an annual event in international affairs: the "Iran crisis". Belligerent politicians and febrile commentators refer to the "drumbeat of war", the "ticking clock" and how "all options are on the table". My own, oft-repeated favourite is "the window of opportunity" - to thwart Iran's nuclear programme through military means - "is closing". Is it? Is it really? For more than a decade now, the alarmists have warned that Iran is - take your pick - "one year", "two years" or "four to five years" away from acquiring nuclear weapons. Wrong, wrong, wrong. These random deadlines have come and gone without Iran building the bomb. The window is jammed wide open.

As the leading US arms control expert, Jeffrey Lewis, of the Monterey Institute of International Studies, asked on his blog on 7 November, in the wake of the latest bout of feverish commentary on Iran's nuclear programme: "Just what technical or political fact has brought the deadline to the crossroads?"

“The driver in all of this is Israel," a former senior MI6 official tells me. As long ago as November 2002, the then Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, demanded that the Bush administration turn its full attention to Iran "the day after" the Iraq invasion was over. The Israelis now have the backing of (Sunni) Arab states, alarmed by the prospect of (Shia) Iranian nukes. According to a WikiLeaks cable, Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah urged the US to "cut off the head of the [Iranian] snake".

Iranian uranium

However, consider three very important issues. First, there is no hard evidence that Iran is in possession of nuclear weapons or working on a nuclear weapons programme. The Iranian government insists that its enrichment of uranium is for domestic energy only. And you might not have guessed it from the coverage on CNN or Fox News but, in 2007, the US intelligence community estimated with "high confidence" that Iran had halted its alleged nuclear weapons programme in 2003 - a view reiterated in testimony to Congress by the US director of national intelligence, James Clapper, in March.

Even the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) report of 8 November on Iran, which prompted the latest bout of sabre-rattling, failed to produce a "smoking gun". There were some ominous references to weapons-related research and development, high explosives, computer simulations and assistance from foreign scientists - much of this based on "secret intelligence" from western governments. But the IAEA's report provided no new information on whether Iran is building - or intends to build - a nuclear weapon.

The UN nuclear watchdog's credibility is at stake here. Under its former director general Mohamed ElBaradei - who once described the Iranian nuclear threat as "hyped" - the IAEA stood up to US pressure in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq invasion. Yet, according to State Department cables released by WikiLeaks, ElBaradei's replacement, the Japanese diplomat Yukiya Amano, told the US government in 2009 that "he was solidly in the US court on every key strategic decision, from high-level personnel appointments to the handling of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons programme".

For the sake of argument, however, let's assume Iran is indeed bent on acquiring nuclear weapons. The second key issue to consider is whether or not such intent would merit a military response. In a world where nine nations - the US, the UK, France, China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea - are believed to possess nuclear weapons, would a tenth make a such a difference (beyond a slight shift in the balance of power in the Middle East)?

No threat

I'd prefer to see a global ban on nuclear weapons but, in the absence of such a utopian measure, are we expected to believe that Iran would behave any more irrationally or irresponsibly with its (hypothetical) nukes than North Korea? Or Pakistan? Paul Pillar, the CIA's national intelligence officer for the Middle East between 2000 and 2005, wrote last month that, contrary to conventional wisdom, there is nothing "in the record of behaviour by the Islamic Republic that suggests irrationality".

In spite of the claims from the Israeli prime minister, Benajmin Netanyahu, and his neocon allies in Washington DC, the truth is that a nuclear-armed Iran wouldn't be an "existential" threat to the (nuclear-armed) state of Israel. According to the former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy, in a speech on 3 November: Iran's nuclear capabilities are still "far from posing an existential threat to Israel".

And the Israeli defence minister, Ehud Barak, who visited the UK earlier this month to build support for a military attack on Iran, has admitted that the ayatollahs in Tehran are unlikely to order the dropping of a nuclear bomb on the Jewish state. "Not on us and not on any other neighbour," Barak told Haaretz in May.

Above all else, however, an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would be self-defeating. It would prompt an enraged Iranian government, backed by a united Iranian public, to speed up the country's nuclear programme and drive it deeper underground - and outside the IAEA's purview. As Robert Gates, the then US defence secretary, conceded in May 2009: "A military attack will only buy us time and send the [nuclear] programme deeper and more covert."

Hans Blix, the UN's former chief weapons inspector, agrees. "You cannot scare a country away from going down the path of [building] nuclear weapons," he tells me. Diplomacy is the only viable option. In a warning that should set off alarm bells inside foreign and defence ministries across the west, he adds: "If the Iranians haven't yet made up their minds to make a nuclear weapon, then they will certainly do so once they have been attacked."

http://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2011/11/nuclear-weapons-iran-israel
Image

"The Heaven's Lights are fed by the energy generated inside the furnaces of Hell; I AM One Conductive Wire! "

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 3897
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:21 pm

PostFri Nov 25, 2011 1:17 am » by Mrmcnuggets


iamthatiam wrote:There is no nuclear threat – but if we attack Iran, there soon will be

An attack on Iran would prompt an enraged Iranian government, backed by a united Iranian public, to speed up the country's nuclear programme.

It has become an annual event in international affairs: the "Iran crisis". Belligerent politicians and febrile commentators refer to the "drumbeat of war", the "ticking clock" and how "all options are on the table". My own, oft-repeated favourite is "the window of opportunity" - to thwart Iran's nuclear programme through military means - "is closing". Is it? Is it really? For more than a decade now, the alarmists have warned that Iran is - take your pick - "one year", "two years" or "four to five years" away from acquiring nuclear weapons. Wrong, wrong, wrong. These random deadlines have come and gone without Iran building the bomb. The window is jammed wide open.

As the leading US arms control expert, Jeffrey Lewis, of the Monterey Institute of International Studies, asked on his blog on 7 November, in the wake of the latest bout of feverish commentary on Iran's nuclear programme: "Just what technical or political fact has brought the deadline to the crossroads?"

“The driver in all of this is Israel," a former senior MI6 official tells me. As long ago as November 2002, the then Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, demanded that the Bush administration turn its full attention to Iran "the day after" the Iraq invasion was over. The Israelis now have the backing of (Sunni) Arab states, alarmed by the prospect of (Shia) Iranian nukes. According to a WikiLeaks cable, Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah urged the US to "cut off the head of the [Iranian] snake".

Iranian uranium

However, consider three very important issues. First, there is no hard evidence that Iran is in possession of nuclear weapons or working on a nuclear weapons programme. The Iranian government insists that its enrichment of uranium is for domestic energy only. And you might not have guessed it from the coverage on CNN or Fox News but, in 2007, the US intelligence community estimated with "high confidence" that Iran had halted its alleged nuclear weapons programme in 2003 - a view reiterated in testimony to Congress by the US director of national intelligence, James Clapper, in March.

Even the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) report of 8 November on Iran, which prompted the latest bout of sabre-rattling, failed to produce a "smoking gun". There were some ominous references to weapons-related research and development, high explosives, computer simulations and assistance from foreign scientists - much of this based on "secret intelligence" from western governments. But the IAEA's report provided no new information on whether Iran is building - or intends to build - a nuclear weapon.

The UN nuclear watchdog's credibility is at stake here. Under its former director general Mohamed ElBaradei - who once described the Iranian nuclear threat as "hyped" - the IAEA stood up to US pressure in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq invasion. Yet, according to State Department cables released by WikiLeaks, ElBaradei's replacement, the Japanese diplomat Yukiya Amano, told the US government in 2009 that "he was solidly in the US court on every key strategic decision, from high-level personnel appointments to the handling of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons programme".

For the sake of argument, however, let's assume Iran is indeed bent on acquiring nuclear weapons. The second key issue to consider is whether or not such intent would merit a military response. In a world where nine nations - the US, the UK, France, China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea - are believed to possess nuclear weapons, would a tenth make a such a difference (beyond a slight shift in the balance of power in the Middle East)?

No threat

I'd prefer to see a global ban on nuclear weapons but, in the absence of such a utopian measure, are we expected to believe that Iran would behave any more irrationally or irresponsibly with its (hypothetical) nukes than North Korea? Or Pakistan? Paul Pillar, the CIA's national intelligence officer for the Middle East between 2000 and 2005, wrote last month that, contrary to conventional wisdom, there is nothing "in the record of behaviour by the Islamic Republic that suggests irrationality".

In spite of the claims from the Israeli prime minister, Benajmin Netanyahu, and his neocon allies in Washington DC, the truth is that a nuclear-armed Iran wouldn't be an "existential" threat to the (nuclear-armed) state of Israel. According to the former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy, in a speech on 3 November: Iran's nuclear capabilities are still "far from posing an existential threat to Israel".

And the Israeli defence minister, Ehud Barak, who visited the UK earlier this month to build support for a military attack on Iran, has admitted that the ayatollahs in Tehran are unlikely to order the dropping of a nuclear bomb on the Jewish state. "Not on us and not on any other neighbour," Barak told Haaretz in May.

Above all else, however, an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would be self-defeating. It would prompt an enraged Iranian government, backed by a united Iranian public, to speed up the country's nuclear programme and drive it deeper underground - and outside the IAEA's purview. As Robert Gates, the then US defence secretary, conceded in May 2009: "A military attack will only buy us time and send the [nuclear] programme deeper and more covert."

Hans Blix, the UN's former chief weapons inspector, agrees. "You cannot scare a country away from going down the path of [building] nuclear weapons," he tells me. Diplomacy is the only viable option. In a warning that should set off alarm bells inside foreign and defence ministries across the west, he adds: "If the Iranians haven't yet made up their minds to make a nuclear weapon, then they will certainly do so once they have been attacked."

http://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2011/11/nuclear-weapons-iran-israel



spot on. And the only country pushing for a dominant attack against iran is Isreal.

I like the pattern this nwo has going on. Isreal makes the calls, the UK and the US head them, and then the US as its largest and strongest supporting nation is used as a scape goat. Wonderful. :roll: I said it once, i'll say it twice. Fuck the mossad, and fuck isreal, I am not jewish, islam or catholic so I do not care what happens with that rock, which more or less will be gone in a thousand years anyways.
"There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. A high-powered mutant of some kind never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die. "

I AM an endangered species.


Upload to Disclose.tv


Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 7400
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2009 9:09 pm

PostFri Nov 25, 2011 1:22 am » by Mozi!!a


iamthatiam wrote:There is no nuclear threat[color=#FF0000]but if we attack Iran, there soon will be[/color]

An attack on Iran would prompt an enraged Iranian government, backed by a united Iranian public, to speed up the country's nuclear programme.

It has become an annual event in international affairs: the "Iran crisis". Belligerent politicians and febrile commentators refer to the "drumbeat of war", the "ticking clock" and how "all options are on the table". My own, oft-repeated favourite is "the window of opportunity" - to thwart Iran's nuclear programme through military means - "is closing". Is it? Is it really? For more than a decade now, the alarmists have warned that Iran is - take your pick - "one year", "two years" or "four to five years" away from acquiring nuclear weapons. Wrong, wrong, wrong. These random deadlines have come and gone without Iran building the bomb. The window is jammed wide open.

As the leading US arms control expert, Jeffrey Lewis, of the Monterey Institute of International Studies, asked on his blog on 7 November, in the wake of the latest bout of feverish commentary on Iran's nuclear programme: "Just what technical or political fact has brought the deadline to the crossroads?"

“The driver in all of this is Israel," a former senior MI6 official tells me. As long ago as November 2002, the then Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, demanded that the Bush administration turn its full attention to Iran "the day after" the Iraq invasion was over. The Israelis now have the backing of (Sunni) Arab states, alarmed by the prospect of (Shia) Iranian nukes. According to a WikiLeaks cable, Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah urged the US to "cut off the head of the [Iranian] snake".

Iranian uranium

However, consider three very important issues. First, there is no hard evidence that Iran is in possession of nuclear weapons or working on a nuclear weapons programme. The Iranian government insists that its enrichment of uranium is for domestic energy only. And you might not have guessed it from the coverage on CNN or Fox News but, in 2007, the US intelligence community estimated with "high confidence" that Iran had halted its alleged nuclear weapons programme in 2003 - a view reiterated in testimony to Congress by the US director of national intelligence, James Clapper, in March.

Even the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) report of 8 November on Iran, which prompted the latest bout of sabre-rattling, failed to produce a "smoking gun". There were some ominous references to weapons-related research and development, high explosives, computer simulations and assistance from foreign scientists - much of this based on "secret intelligence" from western governments. But the IAEA's report provided no new information on whether Iran is building - or intends to build - a nuclear weapon.

The UN nuclear watchdog's credibility is at stake here. Under its former director general Mohamed ElBaradei - who once described the Iranian nuclear threat as "hyped" - the IAEA stood up to US pressure in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq invasion. Yet, according to State Department cables released by WikiLeaks, ElBaradei's replacement, the Japanese diplomat Yukiya Amano, told the US government in 2009 that "he was solidly in the US court on every key strategic decision, from high-level personnel appointments to the handling of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons programme".

For the sake of argument, however, let's assume Iran is indeed bent on acquiring nuclear weapons. The second key issue to consider is whether or not such intent would merit a military response. In a world where nine nations - the US, the UK, France, China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea - are believed to possess nuclear weapons, would a tenth make a such a difference (beyond a slight shift in the balance of power in the Middle East)?

No threat

I'd prefer to see a global ban on nuclear weapons but, in the absence of such a utopian measure, are we expected to believe that Iran would behave any more irrationally or irresponsibly with its (hypothetical) nukes than North Korea? Or Pakistan? Paul Pillar, the CIA's national intelligence officer for the Middle East between 2000 and 2005, wrote last month that, contrary to conventional wisdom, there is nothing "in the record of behaviour by the Islamic Republic that suggests irrationality".

In spite of the claims from the Israeli prime minister, Benajmin Netanyahu, and his neocon allies in Washington DC, the truth is that a nuclear-armed Iran wouldn't be an "existential" threat to the (nuclear-armed) state of Israel. According to the former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy, in a speech on 3 November: Iran's nuclear capabilities are still "far from posing an existential threat to Israel".

And the Israeli defence minister, Ehud Barak, who visited the UK earlier this month to build support for a military attack on Iran, has admitted that the ayatollahs in Tehran are unlikely to order the dropping of a nuclear bomb on the Jewish state. "Not on us and not on any other neighbour," Barak told Haaretz in May.

Above all else, however, an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would be self-defeating. It would prompt an enraged Iranian government, backed by a united Iranian public, to speed up the country's nuclear programme and drive it deeper underground - and outside the IAEA's purview. As Robert Gates, the then US defence secretary, conceded in May 2009: "A military attack will only buy us time and send the [nuclear] programme deeper and more covert."

Hans Blix, the UN's former chief weapons inspector, agrees. "You cannot scare a country away from going down the path of [building] nuclear weapons," he tells me. Diplomacy is the only viable option. In a warning that should set off alarm bells inside foreign and defence ministries across the west, he adds: "If the Iranians haven't yet made up their minds to make a nuclear weapon, then they will certainly do so once they have been attacked."

http://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2011/11/nuclear-weapons-iran-israel


:flop: :cheers:

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 303
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 5:56 am

PostFri Nov 25, 2011 1:26 am » by Headhunter711


And then there's this:
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Iran_ ... m_999.html

This report says in essence that this system (the Bavar 373) is being constructed
with help from NORTH KOREAN engineers. Good information or not, it definitely
may not bode well. :scary:


Next

  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook