independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Iran worked on nuclear bomb design: U.N. watchdog
« Previous topic  Next topic »
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 11/08/11 12:32pm

rudedog

avatar

Iran worked on nuclear bomb design: U.N. watchdog

http://news.yahoo.com/ira...25019.html

VIENNA (Reuters) - Iran appears to have worked on designing an atomic bomb and may still be conducting research relevant for such weapons, the U.N. nuclear watchdog said in its most detailed and hard-hitting report on military dimensions to Tehran's nuclear programme.

Citing what it called "credible" information from member states and elsewhere, the agency listed a series of activities applicable to developing nuclear weapons, such as high explosives testing and development of an atomic bomb trigger.

The hotly anticipated International Atomic Energy Agency report, preceded by Israeli media speculation of pre-emptive air strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, presented new evidence pointing to concerted efforts to obtain nuclear arms capability.

Some of the cited research and development activities by Iran have both civilian and military applications, but "others are specific to nuclear weapons," said the report, obtained by Reuters on Tuesday ahead of an IAEA board of governors meeting.

Tehran quickly rejected the report. "(It) is unbalanced, unprofessional and politically motivated," said Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran's ambassador to the IAEA.

The United States and its allies are expected to seize on the document to press for more punitive sanctions on the major oil producer over its record of hiding sensitive nuclear activity and lack of full cooperation with U.N. inspectors.

"I think the facts lay out a pretty overwhelming case that this was a pretty sophisticated nuclear weapons effort aimed at miniaturizing a warhead for a ballistic missile," said prominent U.S. proliferation expert David Albright.

"It's overwhelming in the amount of details, it is a pretty convincing case," he told Reuters from Washington.

Tehran has dismissed the allegations of covert atomic bomb research, based largely on Western intelligence funneled to the IAEA, as fabricated and baseless.

The IAEA said it had carefully assessed the information passed on from member states and found it consistent in terms of technical content, individuals and organizations involved and time frames. It said it had gathered its own supportive details.

"The agency has serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme," the IAEA said in the report, which included an unusual 13-page annex with technical descriptions of research with explosives and computer simulations applicable to nuclear detonations.

The Vienna-based agency said the data "indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device."

It added: "The information also indicates that prior to the end of 2003, these activities took place under a structured programme, and that some activities may still be ongoing."

"The voter is less important than the man who provides money to the candidate," - Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens
Rudedog no no no!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 11/08/11 12:53pm

V10LETBLUES

As long as Obama, Paul or Romney win next November everything is cool. But it's another scary story if any of the other crackpots running on the R side were to win.

As far as Iran getting the bomb, it's only a matter of time anyway. I do not think any nation will ever wage a nuclear war against another. It's mutually assured destruction. Will never happen.

Terrorists? That's another story. That's scary shit. We need to be super vigilant and assure they never get their hands weapons grade uranium.

[Edited 11/8/11 12:54pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 11/08/11 12:57pm

2freaky4church
1

avatar

An Israeli ambassador once said that Iran would be crazy not to build a nuke.

To be honest, Seymour Hersh said Iran had zero nukes.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 11/08/11 1:09pm

AKABubbleup

And whatever happened to the three folks who reported via the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate's report that Iran, as of 2003 had altogether halted their nuclear weapons program? Find out here and here. (opinion pieces but factually correct).

The outcome of the report changed the course that our 'then' administration intended to pursue to halt a suspected nuclear weapons development program.

The outcome of the report demonized the 'then' adminsitration's war mongering (or how about war prevention) strategies

The outcome of the report has not only enabled Iran's uninhibited pursuit of nuclear weapons but now puts many tens or even hundreds of thousands of our planet's (seemingly) innocent civilians (men, women and children) at risk of being engaged as victims of nuclear attacks.

Two of the three who rinitially eported the halt of Iran's nuclear weapons program, Vann H. VanDiepen and Ken Brill currently hold high ranking positions in President Obama's administration for.... get this, National and International councils for the Non-Proliferation and Counter-Proliferation of WMD's

And here we are...

neutral

My wife? She's my keel, and I'm her pesky boulder in shallow water... http://kideuphrates.wordpress.com/
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 11/08/11 1:13pm

V10LETBLUES

The only reason we wouldn't want Iran to have nukes, is because there is still some desire by some to attack it.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 11/08/11 1:35pm

AKABubbleup

V10LETBLUES said:

The only reason we wouldn't want Iran to have nukes, is because there is still some desire by some to attack it.

So there's no concern on your part that these nukes might get into the wrong hands (or are already in the wrong hands to begin with)?

Believe me, I'd rather take the mountains of funds sustaining any protective efforts (Int'l security) and apply it to the Keystone Pipeline (but to do so might not be in the best interests our of country or those neighboring Iran & we're still in the midst of fighting some domestic battles to get Keystone underway ...)

My wife? She's my keel, and I'm her pesky boulder in shallow water... http://kideuphrates.wordpress.com/
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 11/08/11 1:51pm

V10LETBLUES

AKABubbleup said:

V10LETBLUES said:

The only reason we wouldn't want Iran to have nukes, is because there is still some desire by some to attack it.

So there's no concern on your part that these nukes might get into the wrong hands (or are already in the wrong hands to begin with)?

Believe me, I'd rather take the mountains of funds sustaining any protective efforts (Int'l security) and apply it to the Keystone Pipeline (but to do so might not be in the best interests our of country or those neighboring Iran & we're still in the midst of fighting some domestic battles to get Keystone underway ...)

India, Pakistan, and Israel are already armed with nukes, and now Iran too maybe. There are enough nukes in the area already to wipe out the middle east.

Like I said, what concerns me more than anything in the world is terrorist getting hold of the weapons grade uranium from the former soviet union. Iran not so much.

I think the odds of weapons grade material from Pakistan or India making it's way to terrorists are better or the same as Iran. Pakistan had Osama Bin Laden sitting pretty kicking-it on their sofa for many years for god's sake.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 11/08/11 1:54pm

lust

avatar

No Islamic nations should be allowed to have nuclear weapons due the posibility that future regimes may be of a jihadist mentality thus nullifying the paradox of two countries not going down the nuclear war path for fear of anhiallation. Those countries are too unstable to be trusted with such weapons.

If the milk turns out to be sour, I aint the kinda pussy to drink it!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 11/08/11 3:59pm

StonedImmacula
te

avatar

lust said:

No Islamic nations should be allowed to have nuclear weapons due the posibility that future regimes may be of a jihadist mentality thus nullifying the paradox of two countries not going down the nuclear war path for fear of anhiallation. Those countries are too unstable to be trusted with such weapons.

No one should have nukes. PERIOD.

Destroy the technology and get rid of the fear.

To say that only Islamics are untrustworthy with said technology is ridiculous and prejudiced.

blunt music She has robes and she has monkeys, lazy diamond studded flunkies.... music blunt
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 11/08/11 4:25pm

lust

avatar

StonedImmaculate said:

lust said:

No Islamic nations should be allowed to have nuclear weapons due the posibility that future regimes may be of a jihadist mentality thus nullifying the paradox of two countries not going down the nuclear war path for fear of anhiallation. Those countries are too unstable to be trusted with such weapons.

No one should have nukes. PERIOD.

Destroy the technology and get rid of the fear.

To say that only Islamics are untrustworthy with said technology is ridiculous and prejudiced.

I'm just refering to the minority jihadists. It's an ideology which exists and removes rationality from the equation due to exteme religious faith. That's not prejudiced. It's recognising a reality. Being PC is all well and good but this is a pretty serious subject and concern with causing offence should not prevent airing concerns that could have such wide reaching implications for many innocent people.

If the milk turns out to be sour, I aint the kinda pussy to drink it!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 11/08/11 4:54pm

Tremolina

"I think the facts lay out a pretty overwhelming case that this was a pretty sophisticated nuclear weapons effort aimed at miniaturizing a warhead for a ballistic missile," said prominent U.S. proliferation expert David Albright.

was?

This is critical

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 11/08/11 4:57pm

Tremolina

Relating also to:

"The information also indicates that prior to the end of 2003, these activities took place under a structured programme, and that some activities may still be ongoing."

as well as technological sabotage

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 11/09/11 7:34am

AKABubbleup

V10LETBLUES said:

AKABubbleup said:

So there's no concern on your part that these nukes might get into the wrong hands (or are already in the wrong hands to begin with)?

Believe me, I'd rather take the mountains of funds sustaining any protective efforts (Int'l security) and apply it to the Keystone Pipeline (but to do so might not be in the best interests our of country or those neighboring Iran & we're still in the midst of fighting some domestic battles to get Keystone underway ...)

India, Pakistan, and Israel are already armed with nukes, and now Iran too maybe. There are enough nukes in the area already to wipe out the middle east.

Like I said, what concerns me more than anything in the world is terrorist getting hold of the weapons grade uranium from the former soviet union. Iran not so much.

I think the odds of weapons grade material from Pakistan or India making it's way to terrorists are better or the same as Iran. Pakistan had Osama Bin Laden sitting pretty kicking-it on their sofa for many years for god's sake.

More so the case with Pakistan (than India) don't you think?

It concerns me that the Middle Eastern region may have to trudge though same Cold War exercise that the US/ Soviet Union did.

It concerns me more that some weaponized Nations in the region would be more inclined to use them on the offensive rather than sustaining them for defensive/ preventative / counter measures.

My wife? She's my keel, and I'm her pesky boulder in shallow water... http://kideuphrates.wordpress.com/
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 11/09/11 8:01am

V10LETBLUES

AKABubbleup said:

V10LETBLUES said:

India, Pakistan, and Israel are already armed with nukes, and now Iran too maybe. There are enough nukes in the area already to wipe out the middle east.

Like I said, what concerns me more than anything in the world is terrorist getting hold of the weapons grade uranium from the former soviet union. Iran not so much.

I think the odds of weapons grade material from Pakistan or India making it's way to terrorists are better or the same as Iran. Pakistan had Osama Bin Laden sitting pretty kicking-it on their sofa for many years for god's sake.

More so the case with Pakistan (than India) don't you think?

It concerns me that the Middle Eastern region may have to trudge though same Cold War exercise that the US/ Soviet Union did.

It concerns me more that some weaponized Nations in the region would be more inclined to use them on the offensive rather than sustaining them for defensive/ preventative / counter measures.

Yes, I guess I would say Pakistan slightly more than India, but corruption and bureaucratic ineptitude is just as bad in both nations.

Nuclear weapons is a cat we cannot put back in the box. There are all types of better scenarios I wish we had. But we can only deal with the one's we have now. That region has been living the same Cold War with each of their neighbors since biblical times. That's the terrible scenario we have now. I cannot see how it will change any time soon.

An attack on Iran may delay the inevitable unless ALL of the nations in the region enter into a nuclear weapons prohibition treaty together. That is the only solution, but I do not see that happening in any of our lifetimes.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 11/09/11 3:37pm

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Don't buy any of the false bullshit about Iran:

http://www.juancole.com/2...cture.html

The Supreme leader of Iran said that nuclear arms are un-islamic. Believe me, the Supreme leader doesn't do fatwas for their health. These are religious nuts, they mean that shit.

There is no proof Iran has shit.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Iran worked on nuclear bomb design: U.N. watchdog