• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

'Alarming': IAEA obtains Iran blueprint for nuclear warhead

Tashah

DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,233
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
World Tribune — 'Alarming': IAEA obtains Iran blueprint for nuclear warhead

Nuclear warhead blueprints? High explosive detonators? Missile re-entry vehicles?

Yes indeedy. All key ingrediants of generating nuclear energy for peaceful commercial purposes :roll:
 
Well if this is true, then we have something that no-one had before PROOF AND EVIDENCE, something that all the "lets bomb Iran" people have lacked the past few. So now we can probably get Russia and China to put pressure on Iran as well.

However I think its important after the Iraq War intelligence fiasco to get more proof.
 
GarzaUK said:
However I think its important after the Iraq War intelligence fiasco to get more proof.
Click to expand...
The IAEA has already determined that this intelligence is valid.
 
Tashah said:
The IAEA has already determined that this intelligence is valid.
Click to expand...

Ok, but unless you can get Russia and China on board with the US and Europe, it won't really matter to be honest.

Your gonna have to get their support to even bomb them. And as many US generals have said, striking Iran is very very "undesirible" at the moment. A bombing would not guarantee all nuclear facilities are hit at all.

I could just imagine all those new "volunteers" pouring into Iraq as soon as the first bomb sounded.

First we have to figure out when they have the capabilities to have a nuke, 1 year, 5 years 10 years?
Second, we have to get Russia and China on board.
Third, we have to make sure that Iran couldn't launch a ground offensive against Western troops, we have to be long gone in Iraq and Afghanistan before we even consider war with Iran.
 
So what do we do, the sanctions arent doing squat and our generals are saying a third war isnt possible without a draft, in addition Comrade Putin's statement awhile back "If you attack Iran, you attack Russia"
 
Iran has dismissed the warhead blueprint as a fabrication.
Click to expand...

I believe that the story is probably true.
But after what we have done in Iraq and all the lies and forgeries we presented to the world...

"The IAEA says" simply won't cut it.
It won't even cut it for our own people. It's sure as hell not going to cut it for the world.
We'd need to know the specifics of exactly how they "know the documents are legit".
As well as a better understanding of the Agency itself and how much influence we have over the agency.

I believe that Iran is pursuing Nuclear Weapons.
Even if this report is a forgery, I believe it might still represent the truth.
But with that being said, we must also look at why Iran might need nuclear weapons and what their motivation might be.

Israel which is more of an enemy to Iran than the Soviet Union ever was to the Unites States, has nuclear missiles pointed down Iran's throat.
It is not at all unreasonable for the Iranians to sincerely believe that acquiring Nuclear Weapons to point back is a necessity for Iran's future survival.

Additionally, the Bush administration efforts to stir up hatred and support for an Iran war were transparent. We've been hearing the "Iran is the enemy" rhetoric for many years now. And Iran has been listening.
This comes after we have toppled Iran's first democracy, labeled them "An Axis of Evil", and assisted Iraq in a war of aggression vs Iran. Possibly giving Iraq chemical weapons to use vs Iran.

If we attack Iran, it will only serve to prove that they do indeed need nuclear weapons, and as fast as they can get them.
We have never once attacked a Nuclear Power and they know that once they have nukes ready, they will be safe from future attack.

Our current Administration is impotent to perform any type of negotiations.
Once we replace it, a peaceful solution is very possible if we remove Iran's reasons for needing nukes.
Even McCain would potentially be able to do this. I just don't see it happening though because peace goes against everything we have seen him speak of to date.

Carrot and stick diplomacy might work. But its kind of hard to get someone to take the carrot if its covered in crap and your still flailing the stick over their head.
And even Clinton has made a crucial error in telling Iran directly that she would nuke them.
It is proper to have these type things understood, but it is not the type of thing you just come out and say directly if you are planning to have negotiations.
In all the years of the cold war we never once put it so bluntly to the Russians. We'd use terms such as, "full response" and etc.
There is a reason you do not say such things directly.
All it does is re-enforce fear and the desire for one to get a proper MAD deterrence.

Having a fruitcake running around singing songs about bombing them... this also does not help.

Bush is doing one thing right in that he is at least trying to utilize the UN.
But there is only so much he can do with a group that views him as a lying war monger.
Whether these documents are real or fake might not matter in that it will be a positive if the UN applies more pressure.
It will give Obama more to negotiate with without having to actually give anything.

One thing is for certain.
The way that this situation is handled over the next 4 years will likely define the future of war and suffering over the next 20 years.
 
chevydriver1123 said:
So what do we do, the sanctions arent doing squat and our generals are saying a third war isnt possible without a draft, in addition Comrade Putin's statement awhile back "If you attack Iran, you attack Russia"
Click to expand...

Bush and Putin should have been talking almost daily all this time.
Working on nuclear arms reduction and making agreements in regard to ABM technology.

Its a shame that Bush has practically driven us back into a Cold War.
 
So using your logic, the only thing the US can do is help Iran get rid of Israel or at least disarm them. Of course that will take military action as Israel is not crazy enough to voluntarily disarm. They are surrounded by sworn enemies that have stated their goal is to push Israel into the sea.

Do you think the US should actually join Iran in attacking Israel or would it be sufficient to just give Iran the weapons needed and intel about the systems the US previously furnished to Israel?
 
So now we can probably get Russia and China to put pressure on Iran as well.
Click to expand...

No way whatsoever. Iran is so deep in Russia's pockets that Putin could charge them rent.

Having said that, if we were lax on Iraq, we could handle Russia. Their economy is not as strong as they want to brag that it is. It was smart for Putin to nationalize Gazprom though. That helps his cause.

Can we just do a Hiroshima on downtown Tehran and call it a day? What's it gonna do...piss off Muslims? Been there, done that.
 
What?! How can this be?!

All the liberals on this board kept telling us that Iran just wanted peaceful happy-go-lucky wonderful pink-rainbow nuclear energy for their people thanks to their benevolent and peace loving leadership. How....how is it that they have a blueprint for a nuclear warhead. That doesn't make sense...it really must be a blueprint for a nuclear My Little Pony. That makes more sense, Iran would never be looking to make a actual WEAPON. The left said so!
 

That is some pretty nutty stuff to say.
Israel has the conventional military power to take on all Muslim nations at once.
Not to mention the full backing of the United States of America.
And Israel has already proven this to be fact.

We will not get Iran to stop pursuing a Nuclear Deterrence by telling them that its just them that can not have one and its fine for their enemy to.
If you try to look at it without bias, you'd realize just how insane that is.

Singling Iran out will not get them to cooperate.

However, if we include them in an International Effort to stop nuclear weapon production and reduce current stockpiles, they would have to comply or face being viewed as the aggressor by the world. (Something that is in direct conflict with their current agenda.)

Lead by example first.
Nuclear weapons are like a disease. Once it gets a hold of your nation, you can never get rid of them all. Never.
We cannot allow Iran to be added to this club of idiots.
 
GarzaUK said:
However I think its important after the Iraq War intelligence fiasco to get more proof.
Click to expand...

Iraq war complainer: You didn't let the IAEA Finish their search!

Iraq war complainer: You didn't let the IAEA Finish their search!

Iraq war complainer: You didn't let the IAEA Finish their search!

few years later

IAEA Official: We have proof Iran was working on nuclear arms.

Iraq War complainer: ........IAEA Is untrustworthy! They lie! More proof! Can't trust them!
 

We should only go to war when it is absolutely necessary. This doesn't qualify. Iran getting nukes is inevitable. MAD will still be in effect when they do aquire them.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
We should only go to war when it is absolutely necessary. This doesn't qualify. Iran getting nukes is inevitable. MAD will still be in effect when they do aquire them.
Click to expand...

I can not accept that.
I also think that those on the left who feel this way only work to discredit the left.

Iran is a serious threat.
The difference in the election is whether we want to bully and bomb them into submission and hope that it works or get reasonable with them and see if we can find common ground before starting another war.
There are a very large number of things we are capable of bringing to the table.
But if in the end we are unable to negotiate with a sensible President Obama at the helm, we would have no choice but to take action.
I will not accept a nuclear Iran.
I simply disagree with the Right on how to achieve a nuclear free Iran.


(I think this is one of the first times i actually disagree with you lol)
 
John1234 said:
It won't even cut it for our own people. It's sure as hell not going to cut it for the world.


We have never once attacked a Nuclear Power and they know that once they have nukes ready, they will be safe from future attack.
Click to expand...

It is true that we have never attacked a Nuclear Power directly, but it is untrue that an Islamic State Sponsor of Terrorism should consider themselves safe from future attack should a terrorist of any Islamic stripe nuke a Western city we care about.

Since the "proof" that Al Quacka attacked us on 911 did not come immediately, therefore, it is reasonable to assume we would go MAD before proof the world would swallow. And it would not be the first time:

See no evil?

"Yes, vanity needs to be confronted, and the oppressor needs to be confronted, just as those who find it easy to commit evil deeds and throw embers at people, need to be confronted. On the basis of what we said about Iraq while confronting aggressions, the world now needs to abort the US aggressive schemes, including its aggression on the Afghan people, which must stop.
Again we say that when someone feels that he is unjustly treated, and no one is repulsing or stopping the injustice inflicted on him, he personally seeks ways and means for lifting that justice. Of course, not everyone is capable of finding the best way for lifting the injustice inflicted on him. People resort to what they think is the best way according to their own ideas, and they are not all capable of reaching out for what is beyond what is available to arrive to the best idea or means.
To find the best way, after having found their way to God and His rights, those who are inflicted by injustice need not to be isolated from their natural milieu, or be ignored deliberately, or as a result of mis-appreciation, by the officials in this milieu. They should, rather, be reassured and helped to save themselves, and their surroundings. It is only normal to say that punishment is a necessity in our world, because what is a necessity in the other world must also be necessary in our world on Earth. But, the punishment in the other world is faire and just, and the prophets and messengers of God (peace be upon them all) conducted punishment and called for it in justice, and not on the basis of suspicions and whims. Hence, any punishment conducted by man must be just and convincing. I think, that you, often criticize those whom you criticize in order to weaken them, by saying that they use emergency laws, and what emergency laws, by western standards, cannot be a general rule. But now, unlike what you used to say about those whom you accuse of being dictators and despots, we see dozens of emergency laws and measures adopted by the governments of the West, with the US in the forefront, after facing one painful event." (Saddam Hussein Shabban 13, 1422 H. October 29, 2001.)

December 1997: "'If the United Nations fails to respond to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (meeting in Tehran) then the Muslim world must act and defy these sanctions,' Farrakhan told an audience of union representatives in the Iraqi capital." (Louis Farrakhan) South News Dec 12 1997

September, 16th, 2001: "Whenever a nation becomes great and powerful by God’s Permission, as America has; whenever a nation becomes the undisputed ruler of the world, as America has, by Allah’s Permission; when a nation becomes the only remaining superpower, having the power to destroy other nations and people by the tens of thousands and millions, as Allah has permitted America the power to do, and that nation then has a spiritual lapse and begins to sink into moral decline, [/b]the Qur’an teaches that Allah (God) raises a messenger[/b], but he raises that messenger from among the poor and the abject to guide and to warn the great and the powerful.

Allah (God) knows that the powerful will not heed a warning coming from their ex-slave or from the weak or from the abject, so the Qur’an teaches that Allah (God) then seizes that nation with distress and affliction, that it might humble itself. For only in humility can the proud and the powerful heed the Guidance of God, which is mercy and grace from Himself. Allah (God) used this tragedy, hopefully, to bring a great nation to Himself." (Louis Farrakhan)
Response to 9/11 Attacks

You said: "It's sure as hell not going to cut it for the world." The state sponsor of terrorism uses terrorism, so they can get away with it, not so justice will be seen as "just and convincing."

Mutual is the fear of any terror,
Assured we contest the allied should partake,
Destructions to apply till equal
portion share,
fear
I
Say to sponsors of terror!​

Iran having nukes makes them and every state sponsor of terrorism a bigger target, in the eventuality a terrorist uses a nuke, if a people are not willing to accept the loss of a city with the closure of knowing the suicide bomber died in the attack.

"One of the most important qualities of any leader is saving other from death not by marking the dark ditches on the road, but also by preventing those who do not see the marks from falling into the abyss. Then comes the quality of exaltation, or ascendancy of the people he is in charge of, along with their potential thought and action. The danger that may threaten any people or nation, does not call upon the people in charge to lead the way against this danger only, but also to analyze its reasons in view of abating them, or treating those reasons radically, to eliminate them so that they would never surge again." (Saddam Hussein Shabban 13, 1422 H. October 29, 2001.)

"As explosions are not always organized, it is to be expected that they may harm those who make them and others. The events of September 11, should be seen on this basis, and on the basis of imbalanced reactions, on the part of governments accused of being democratic, if the Americans are sure that these were carried out by people from abroad.
To concentrate not on what is important, but rather on what is the most important, we say again that after having seen that the flames of any fire can expand to cover all the world, it first and foremost, needs justice based on fairness. The best and most sublime expression of this is in what we have learned from what God the Al Mighty ordered to be, or not to be." (Saddam Hussein Shabban 13, 1422 H. October 29, 2001.)

"Anyhow, this and other things show that weapons of mass destruction become a burden on their owners and on humanity, if they were not absolutely necessary for self-defense and defending their countries" (Saddam Hussein Shabban 13, 1422 H. October 29, 2001.)

"And because the Zionist entity usurps and occupies Arab territories, and holy places, oppresses the Arabs and injures their human feelings, and as blunders are expected from it, and the reaction of the oppressed people is to be expected, it becomes necessary to disarm the Zionist entity of these weapons." (Saddam Hussein Shabban 13, 1422 H. October 29, 2001.)

Iran having nukes makes Iran (philosophical ally of Islamic terrorism) a bigger target for Mutual Assured Destruction. But, that is just my opposing attitude and analysis.
 

I understand what you are saying. Please don't think that I am encouraging a nuclear Iran. I do think that we should work to keep them from aquiring nukes. But I think eventually they will, regardless of our actions. We can't afford to invade and occupy them. To just bomb them plays into their case for wanting them, to enforce their sovereignty. They are no threat to us. I truly don't believe that they will nuke Israel. They talk tough, they fund black ops like we do, but they would be suicidal to use the nukes. People want to call them crazy. I don't buy it. Bin Laden may send out pawns to blow themselves up, but would never do so himself. The same applies here.

(We disagree about gay marriage. )
 

I am curious as to whether you can point to any specific posts which claimed this? I didn't ever see any, though I can't say I read every thread on this topic.

As for me, I am torn. I have always believed Iran wants and is seeking nuclear capabilities. I am of two minds because I can't decide which would be the greater disaster, attacking Iran or not attacking Iran. I mean, really, when Iraq has run the ragged edge of disaster thus far, I can't imagine what winning the peace in Iran would look like.

What I would like to understand is Russia and China.
 
This is really old news. Why the IAEA is acting like this is 'alarming' is beyond me. They've known for years that Iran was one of the clients of the A.Q.Khan network(who our friends the Pakistanis did nothing about). Iran even admitted to having received knowledge for nuclear warheads and cooperated with the IAEA.

I'm guessing none of you know that Iran bought nuclear information from the A.Q. Khan network years ago. This is old news.

The Hindu : International : Iran: it's A.Q. Khan network, says IAEA


A Q Khan's network helping Iran's N-plan: report


Iran Nuclear - Profile - Abdul Qadeer Khan

 
Gipper said:
Can we just do a Hiroshima on downtown Tehran and call it a day? What's it gonna do...piss off Muslims? Been there, done that.
Click to expand...

Well in that case if do drop the bomb, we should use the same approach as we did Japan. "Give up, or face the most powerful bomb in the world" At least with a warning we can say that we tried to play nice.
 
chevydriver1123 said:
Well in that case if do drop the bomb, we should use the same approach as we did Japan. "Give up, or face the most powerful bomb in the world" At least with a warning we can say that we tried to play nice.
Click to expand...

Well, that would be one way to unite the world against us. The reaction would be almost immediate and without thinking: Everyone would boycott our economy, except Israel. This would result in the immediate decimation of the U.S. economy, and the World's would follow. A seemingly favorite Repbublican consequence would follow that... Misery on a Grand Scale.
 
Hatuey said:
This is really old news.

I'm guessing none of you know that Iran bought nuclear information from the A.Q. Khan network years ago. This is old news.
Click to expand...

Uh, if I look I can prove Tashah knows the gadget is not the problem, because it came up in a topic of hers some time ago.


"With his hands, Heisenberg shaped an imaginary object in the air--'about as big as a pineapple,..." (Heisenberg's War, by Thomas Powers, p, 450)
 
I have studied the A.Q. Khan nuclear proliferation network for many years.

Khan did indeed supply Iran with blueprints and parts for a uranium-hexaflouride centrifuge-cascade. He possibly also supplied Iran with a crude blueprint for a nuclear weapon. However, Khan made sure that this weapon blueprint was partial...some critical components were missing and the manufacturing specs on other components were purposefully not included. The Khan network was outed before Khan could squeeze additional money from the Iranians for supplying the missing info and specs.

The weapon blueprint now in IAEA custody is of Iranian origin. Iran has also designed two new centrifuges (IR-Series) to replace the outdated European (P-Series) centrifuge designs provided by Khan. No doubt the Iranians received a tremendous initial technology boost from the Khan network. But in the interrum Iranian scientists have arrived at a technological point where the quest for nuclear weaponry is now a fully domestic and self-sustaining endeavor. In essence, Iranian nuclear weapons capability has advanced at least one generation (probably more) from the original Khan supplied technology.
 
Letting out a flawed "blueprint" could be like Alfred Hitchcock's "Torn Curtain."
 

If you want to screw up the Middle East more than in already is and if you want to turn the most pro-western people in the ME outside Israel into enemies over a SINGLE piece of evidence that is your thing. Me? I need a few more bits of data to back it up...i t is not unheard of you know to back up evidence with more evidence. IAEA is NOT infalliable.

Imagine if we had went to war with Iraq over a single piece of evidence like the yellow-cake from Niger?

BTW I'm not brushing this evidence aside or making light of it. I just want to back it up to make sure. After the Iraq fiasco I think the people deserve that!!

War or bombing is not an option...yet anyway. Sanctions do **** all. If Russia and China can persuade to let the UN full 24/7 access to nuclear facilities, that'd be the way forward.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…