Iran nuclear arms work ended in 2003

Iran nuclear arms work ended in 2003 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Level -> Iran nuclear arms work ended in 2003 (12/3/2007 4:08:42 PM)
WASHINGTON - Iran halted its nuclear weapons development program in the fall of 2003 under international pressure but is continuing to enrich uranium, which means it may still be able to develop a weapon between 2010 and 2015, senior U.S. intelligence officials said Monday. That finding, in a new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, is a change from two years ago, when U.S. intelligence agencies believed Tehran was determined to develop a nuclear capability and was continuing its weapons development program. It suggests that Iran is susceptible to diplomatic pressure, the official said. "Tehran's decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005," states the unclassified summary of the secret report, released Monday. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22083384

Stephann -> RE: Iran nuclear arms work ended in 2003 (12/3/2007 4:17:27 PM)
I suppose I'll beat the dove "I told you so"s by pointing out they haven't stopped developing the materials they need to make bombs; they've only stopped making the delievery mechanisms to make bombs. A sufficiantly motivated third party willing to exchange enriched uranium for bomb housing would be a quick solution. Iran is not an enemy of the West, but neither is it an ally. The nuclear club jealously guards the membership of technology that is now 70+ years old. The Microwave oven, transistor, cake mix, and credit card were all invented after the atomic bomb. The fear is not 'if' Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela will eventually have nuclear weapons, but rather 'when' and 'what will they do with them.' Stephan

Real0ne -> RE: Iran nuclear arms work ended in 2003 (12/4/2007 1:45:00 AM)
lithium makes wonderful nukes, uranium is old technology.

beeble -> RE: Iran nuclear arms work ended in 2003 (12/4/2007 2:17:18 AM)
quote: Real0ne wrote: lithium makes wonderful nukes, uranium is old technology. You're most likely thinking of lithium deuteride, which is the hydrogen compound that is (believed to be) used in modern H-bombs, rather than gaseous heavy hydrogen, which is a pain to handle. But H-bombs are triggered by a fission device so you still need either uranium or plutonium.

joanus -> RE: Iran nuclear arms work ended in 2003 (12/4/2007 4:58:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne lithium makes wonderful nukes. Lithium is only used to gernerate the heat needed to cause a nuclear reaction, not in the nuclear material it's self. (watched the Military Channel last night) Kinda hard to imagine why we give this stuff to crazy people to ingest. Any who this still sounds to me like another plot to invoke a completely unneeded War with Iran. Will the US ever learn?

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Iran nuclear arms work ended in 2003 (12/4/2007 5:08:01 AM)
Fast Reply: Iran's position on the US: "Our position toward the United States remains unchanged, however - the U.S. is conducting a vengeful and hostile policy against the interests of the Iranian people," he said. " " During his meeting Sunday with Ahmadinejad, Mekdad gave the Iranian president a written message from Syrian President Bashar Assad and underlined the strategic relationship between the two countries, Iran's official news agency, IRNA, reported. Both Ahmadinejad and Mekdad said Iran-Syrian ties remained strong. "Enemies cannot damage real and firm Tehran-Damascus relations," state-run TV quoted Ahmadinejad as saying. " While Iran has never directly called the US an enemy, they have eluded to it many, many times, because of the US connection with Israel. There is also sufficient, non-US intelligence that indicates Iranian groups supporting Iraqi insurgents. They meet all the criteria of a hostile entity, and short of direct attacks on the US, they are acting as an enemy.

charmdpetKeira -> RE: Iran nuclear arms work ended in 2003 (12/4/2007 6:02:28 AM)
I am having a hard time believing any intelligence reports coming from a group of people who, inconveniently, have a bad habit of becoming extremely unintelligent at the most inopportune moments. Of course, I guess that depends on which side of the see-saw you’re sitting on. I think I have over spent my limit on buying what others “know” and their opinion on said knowledge. k

farglebargle -> RE: Iran nuclear arms work ended in 2003 (12/4/2007 8:34:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf Fast Reply: Iran's position on the US: "Our position toward the United States remains unchanged, however - the U.S. is conducting a vengeful and hostile policy against the interests of the Iranian people," he said. " " During his meeting Sunday with Ahmadinejad, Mekdad gave the Iranian president a written message from Syrian President Bashar Assad and underlined the strategic relationship between the two countries, Iran's official news agency, IRNA, reported. Both Ahmadinejad and Mekdad said Iran-Syrian ties remained strong. "Enemies cannot damage real and firm Tehran-Damascus relations," state-run TV quoted Ahmadinejad as saying. " While Iran has never directly called the US an enemy, they have eluded to it many, many times, because of the US connection with Israel. There is also sufficient, non-US intelligence that indicates Iranian groups supporting Iraqi insurgents. They meet all the criteria of a hostile entity, and short of direct attacks on the US, they are acting as an enemy. Get back to me when T-72 battle tanks are rolling down I5. THAT'S an "Act of War", and without it, there's no reason to worry. Remember what Lincoln said about mobilizing the Republic at Gettysburg. And ask yourself if ANY of this meets that essential criteria.

cyberdude611 -> RE: Iran nuclear arms work ended in 2003 (12/4/2007 9:26:32 AM)
You have to wonder who was the person who was hyping this Iran threat up. Now I know everyone wants to say Bush but remember that this guy has a low IQ (around 90) and it is the people around him that inform him of such things. Keep in mind though that Iran is no ally by any stretch. Ahmadinejad is still a problem. And our relations with Iran has been bad for nearly 30 years now.

Stephann -> RE: Iran nuclear arms work ended in 2003 (12/4/2007 1:07:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf Fast Reply: Iran's position on the US: "Our position toward the United States remains unchanged, however - the U.S. is conducting a vengeful and hostile policy against the interests of the Iranian people," he said. " " During his meeting Sunday with Ahmadinejad, Mekdad gave the Iranian president a written message from Syrian President Bashar Assad and underlined the strategic relationship between the two countries, Iran's official news agency, IRNA, reported. Both Ahmadinejad and Mekdad said Iran-Syrian ties remained strong. "Enemies cannot damage real and firm Tehran-Damascus relations," state-run TV quoted Ahmadinejad as saying. " While Iran has never directly called the US an enemy, they have eluded to it many, many times, because of the US connection with Israel. There is also sufficient, non-US intelligence that indicates Iranian groups supporting Iraqi insurgents. They meet all the criteria of a hostile entity, and short of direct attacks on the US, they are acting as an enemy. Considering the expectations of the US for me to shell out half of everything I own in taxes yearly, or face imprisonment, I'd say my own government qualifies under that criteria [;)]. Seriously, to say that a country is highly suspicious and lends support to our enemies, doesn't necessarily make them our enemy. The old saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is equally foolish. By that logic, when Saddam was in power, Iran and the US could have been close enough to apply for civil union benefits in California. Iran's interests are to dominate the middle east; this is in direct opposition to Isreal's interests to also dominate the middle east (as a means of protecting themselves from future arab aggression.) The US has been in bed with Isreal for so long, we simply automatically assume that Isreals enemies are, in fact, US enemies. Obviously, any sort of war in the Gulf threatens our oil supply. Ask yourself: if our cars ran on seawater, would we really care if every country in the middle east blew each other up? If not, then is Iran really our enemy, or simply an enemy to the stability that ensures we're able to drive to work? Stephan

awmslave -> RE: Iran nuclear arms work ended in 2003 (12/4/2007 2:38:04 PM)
Iranians obviously need A-bomb and I am sure they are secretly working on the project. They are sitting on huge oil and gas reserves and they need defence very soon as oil production has peaked and there is no alternative in sight. They would be fools (what they are not) if they do not arm themselves. I would not give much significance to the report.

Stephann -> RE: Iran nuclear arms work ended in 2003 (12/4/2007 3:02:40 PM)
Nah, it's an international game of chicken that goes something like this. Year 2015 US: IWe want oil to remain under $100 a barrel. Iran: well, cost of production has increased to $120 a barrel. US: Lower it, or we'll lower it for you. Iran is in a no win situation. Either they a) build nukes, as a defensive measure, or they b) concede they'll be forced to fight a war in Iran against the US they can't win. The trouble, is that if Iran comes close to finishing nukes, the US will likely pre-emptively strike Iran (with conventional weapons.) The crux is Iran is in the impossible situation where if they have nukes, they will be destroyed, and if they don't have nukes, they can't win a conventional war. Throw in the fact that Iran is about as fractious as the US in terms of policy (with both left and right wingers) and you have a recipe for disaster. Stephan

Level -> RE: Iran nuclear arms work ended in 2003 (12/4/2007 3:13:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: charmdpetKeira I am having a hard time believing any intelligence reports coming from a group of people who, inconveniently, have a bad habit of becoming extremely unintelligent at the most inopportune moments. Of course, I guess that depends on which side of the see-saw you’re sitting on. I think I have over spent my limit on buying what others “know” and their opinion on said knowledge. k Well said, k [8\|] I'm leery of most everything I hear or read nowadays....

Estring -> RE: Iran nuclear arms work ended in 2003 (12/4/2007 3:20:02 PM)
Hmm. Iran quit their nuclear arms program in 2003? Gee, what else happened in 2003? Oh right, we invaded Iraq. Coincidence? I doubt it.

charmdpetKeira -> RE: Iran nuclear arms work ended in 2003 (12/4/2007 3:39:32 PM)
Thank you, Level, It would appear, “the tail’s growin’ taller on down the line”. Makes me wonder what effect this knowledge would have had on the 2004 elections. k

Level -> RE: Iran nuclear arms work ended in 2003 (12/4/2007 3:53:24 PM)
The Israelis aren't happy: JERUSALEM — Israeli officials, who've been warning that Iran would soon pose a nuclear threat to the world, reacted angrily Tuesday to a new U.S. intelligence finding that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons development program in 2003 and to date hasn't resumed trying to produce nuclear weapons. Defense Minister Ehud Barak directly challenged the new assessment in an interview with Israel's Army Radio, and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said the new finding wouldn't deter Israel or the United States from pressing its campaign to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability. "It seems Iran in 2003 halted for a certain period of time its military nuclear program, but as far as we know, it has probably since revived it," Barak said. http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20071204/wl_mcclatchy/2773393

Stephann -> RE: Iran nuclear arms work ended in 2003 (12/4/2007 4:17:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level The Israelis aren't happy: JERUSALEM — Israeli officials, who've been warning that Iran would soon pose a nuclear threat to the world, reacted angrily Tuesday to a new U.S. intelligence finding that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons development program in 2003 and to date hasn't resumed trying to produce nuclear weapons. Defense Minister Ehud Barak directly challenged the new assessment in an interview with Israel's Army Radio, and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said the new finding wouldn't deter Israel or the United States from pressing its campaign to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability. "It seems Iran in 2003 halted for a certain period of time its military nuclear program, but as far as we know, it has probably since revived it," Barak said. http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20071204/wl_mcclatchy/2773393 Without an Iranian threat, it would seem the billions we pump into the Israeli treasury would no longer be needed. This isn't to say they wouldn't still threatened by their neighbors; the question is why the US feels so driven to play their big brother? Oh yeah... the lobbyists.... Stephan

UtopianRanger -> RE: Iran nuclear arms work ended in 2003 (12/4/2007 4:35:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 You have to wonder who was the person who was hyping this Iran threat up. Now I know everyone wants to say Bush but remember that this guy has a low IQ (around 90) and it is the people around him that inform him of such things. Keep in mind though that Iran is no ally by any stretch. Ahmadinejad is still a problem. And our relations with Iran has been bad for nearly 30 years now. What’s clear to me when I read an article like this, is that there is a disloyal, competing faction from within the administration who vehemently opposes an attack on Iran because ultimately, they know/understand of its disastrous implications. - R

Level -> RE: Iran nuclear arms work ended in 2003 (12/4/2007 5:09:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 You have to wonder who was the person who was hyping this Iran threat up. Now I know everyone wants to say Bush but remember that this guy has a low IQ (around 90) and it is the people around him that inform him of such things. Keep in mind though that Iran is no ally by any stretch. Ahmadinejad is still a problem. And our relations with Iran has been bad for nearly 30 years now. What’s clear to me when I read an article like this, is that there is a disloyal, competing faction from within the administration who vehemently opposes an attack on Iran because ultimately, they know/understand of its disastrous implications. - R I believe that there are some that believe just that, and will do what they can to steer us away from war with Iran; I also would believe that Cheney has done his best to run all of those disloyal to his ideas off.

Muttling -> RE: Iran nuclear arms work ended in 2003 (12/4/2007 5:24:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Estring Hmm. Iran quit their nuclear arms program in 2003? Gee, what else happened in 2003? Oh right, we invaded Iraq. Coincidence? I doubt it. ACTUALLY.....It also coincides with a rather heavy handed diplomatic involvement from the European Union. A series of negotiations that the Bush Administration was invited to partake in but refused saying that Iran would not respond to such diplomacy. Our invasion of Iraq has NOT weakened Iran, it has actually strengthened them by removing their most feared opponent (Saddam Hussein.) I find it interesting how soon we forget the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980's and the events of the 1970s. This conflict has been 35 years in the making and I point to the fact that Iran is the ONLY country other than the U.S. to possess F-14 Tomcats as an example of how complicated this mess really is. In 2003, the Bush administration had a with us or against us attitude on ALL foreign policy and it was insanely stupid. I point to North Korea's successful test of a nuclear weapon as a prime example of this stupidity. In the 2004-2005 time frame, they began changing that attitude and have since made some really good foreign policy decisions. This is an example of their early mistakes and I anticipate them making further mistakes in the name of saving face. They could admit their early errors and engage in aggressive diplomacy (the right move for our country) or they can stand by the word of "We were right" which is their current path. On a FINAL note.......They are justifying sabre rattling with the concept of "we can't let Iran have this knowledge." Please explain to me how you remove the KNOWLEDGE from Iran? Do we instist they execute all their scientists? This was the explaination they have given for the Iraqi invasion since they figured out there was no active chemical weapons program. They still had the scientist who knew how to build it so they were obviously a threat. What do you expect, to kill all the scientists and so you can destroy the ability to do it???? This is insanity. It is finding justification for a pre-determined conclusion and it really bothers me (despite the fact that I'm scared of Iran's intent.) P.S. - I spent the last 15 years doing environmental clean up for the U.S. military. I was involved in the discovery of WMDs during Gulf War I, the hunt for WMDs in Gulf War II, the effort to destroy Saddam's massive conventional weapons stockpile, and counter IED efforts. I know a great deal about Iran and Iraq's WMD programs.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875