U.S. Intel: Plutonium sent by N. Korea this year makes Iran direct threat


U.S. intelligence officials have told President Bush news that has left him stunned: Iran has completed all of the elements required for an atomic bomb. The intelligence information asserted that North Korea this year transferred components to Iran to assemble a plutonium-based nuclear warhead. The components were believed to have originated in Pakistan.

http://www.geostrategy-direct.com/geostrategy-direct/

Dear World

Trust America this time when we claim that Iran really Does have an A-Bomb we have the irrefutable evidence this time .

I know America LIED about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction . That America LIED about Iraq being weeks away from building an A-Bomb . That America LIED through its teeth that Iraq was aiding Al Qaeda . And that America also LIED about Iraq having a connection with 9/11 . And murdering 1.5 million Iraqis in cold blood over 13 years was worth the deceit because we installed a puppet govetment .

Please believe America THIS time, America has got the evidence that Iran has an Atomic device ! And trust America when our Leaders say that Iran will detonate it on Israel unless we invade them first . America would not DECEIVE the world on such a serious matter !!!! Please Trust America this time .

Yours sincerly

President George W . Bush

You don't like the USA, do you, Brian? :)

Baron Max

America has a butt load of atomic bombs and nukes and other shit. Why doesn't somebody disarm America. * sigh * I feel horrible being a citizen of the US.

I for one have no problem with Iran having nukes...

In fact, I think more countries should have nukes.

Maybe even some private companies...


seems like a good way of assuring no one actually USES nuclear weapons, knowing if they do they'll get some right back...

I'm also way mroe comfortable with Iran having nukes, and possibly nuking Israel, which we all know is evil anyway, than the US having nukes and holding them everyone's head, aiming at pretty much anyone they feel like, on a whim...

You don't like the USA, do you, Brian? :)

Baron Max

Why does this not come as a surprise to me ! ;)

America has a butt load of atomic bombs and nukes and other shit. Why doesn't somebody disarm America. * sigh * I feel horrible being a citizen of the US.
Its not so much the fact that nations such as America , Russia and France possess such weapons its the minds of socipathic inviduals who are willing to use them that is the worry .

I for one have no problem with Iran having nukes...

It is just a smokescreen , as long as Israel possess's a formidable nuclear arsenal this line on Iran is bogus . Even if Iran developed such weapons it would be incapable of developin delivery technology that could evade advanced ABM defence systems .

I don't think that the USA would invade Iran for many reasons:

1- Its viewed by Shiites to be their protector.
2- Some important number of other muslims in the region and a good number mideastern christians beleive that Iran isn't all that bad.... at least not as bad as Israel is!
3- The Russians and Chinese consider it to be a "red line" (not to be crossed).
4- At least five times as large as Iraq and is of a very rugged terrain which makes it a military venture beyond what Americans might call a "walk in the park".
5- A largely ethnically diverse country........ for Heaven's sake, americans barely know how to communicate with some Arabs, how about another dozen cultures on their necks!!
6- Both Iranian military and inteligence have prooved to be a major player in the MiddleEast........ teasing them wouldn't be a prudent act.

Frankly if the "stupid white men", as Michael Moore would put it, venture into Iran stupidity will be a trade mark of US policy for decades to come........ if they survive the trip!!

America has a butt load of atomic bombs and nukes and other shit. Why doesn't somebody disarm America. * sigh * I feel horrible being a citizen of the US.

because they are comfortably on the self made allow list with a few other countries.

I don't think that the USA would invade Iran for many reasons:

1- Its viewed by Shiites to be their protector.
2- Some important number of other muslims in the region and a good number mideastern christians beleive that Iran isn't all that bad.... at least not as bad as Israel is!
3- The Russians and Chinese consider it to be a "red line" (not to be crossed).
4- At least five times as large as Iraq and is of a very rugged terrain which makes it a military venture beyond what Americans might call a "walk in the park".
5- A largely ethnically diverse country........ for Heaven's sake, americans barely know how to communicate with some Arabs, how about another dozen cultures on their necks!!
6- Both Iranian military and inteligence have prooved to be a major player in the MiddleEast........ teasing them wouldn't be a prudent act.

Frankly if the "stupid white men", as Michael Moore would put it, venture into Iran stupidity will be a trade mark of US policy for decades to come........ if they survive the trip!!

Frankly I think they will invade iran, why? because:

1. as if bush cares
2. as if bush cares
3. as if bush cares
4. not that hard if you fire bomb it all.
5. well actually most iranians speak farsii.
6. I really doubt the iranian military is up to snuf to top a full american invasion, by which I meen bombing aspirin factories and self destructive helicopters. Intel though, american troops and intel are on foreign land, where they would obviously know alot less than the natives... im sure if the iranian government dosnt panic and goes tactical, they can atleast put up a good fight.

The stupid white men will win the war if they go in there is no question about it, but I hope either the public cuts it short or bush grows a brain cell or two and stops it himself, before more idiotic american youths run off to kill some sand niggers in the name of democracy.

If America is to set the standard America must also set the example and disarm itself .


US, Israel real nuclear threats: Iran's chief envoy

LONDON, May 29 - United States and Israel represent the real nuclear threat to the world, not Iran, Tehran’s chief envoy to the United Nations said after an abortive conference on controlling nuclear weapons.

According to Iran Daily, Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s ambassador to the UN, said the United States never intended to scrap its nuclear arsenal, despite promising to eventually disarm when it signed the 1970 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the landmark arms control pact.

http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=11409

Its not so much the fact that nations such as America , Russia and France possess such weapons its the minds of socipathic inviduals who are willing to use them that is the worry .That is true, it all comes down to who has the power to sit back and fire them or declare use of them.

Dear World

Trust America this time when we claim that Iran really Does have an A-Bomb we have the irrefutable evidence this time .
You should try reading the article before mashing the Post button. I hear it's the cool thing to do.

Also, unless this story is corroborated via another reputable mainstream media outlet I'm going to have to give it a :rolleyes:

You should try reading the article before mashing the Post button. I hear it's the cool thing to do.
Ahhhh.... I take it the sarcarsm of my thread went over your head ..........Jesus Christ dont tell me you really think George Bush wrote that letter

Also, unless this story is corroborated via another reputable mainstream media outlet I'm going to have to give it a :rolleyes:
Yeah like its going to worry me what you think !

That is true, it all comes down to who has the power to sit back and fire them or declare use of them.
Thats true , and only those affluent nations with the wealth to mantain such weapon systems can make these weapons viable . It doesnt make sense why poor nations like Iran would attempt to manufacture them .

Ahhhh.... I take it the sarcarsm of my thread went over your head ..........Jesus Christ dont tell me you really think George Bush wrote that letter
Don't flatter yourself; you're not that witty.

What you failed to glean from the article is quite simple, really: Iran may have acquired some Pu-239 fuel that originated in North Korea. This in no way shape or form constitutes "US intel claims that Iran already has a nuclear weapon". As usual your thread title is heinously inaccurate alarmist bullshit.

Also, it would behoove you to corroborate your stories yourself before swallowing them chapter and verse. This news would be extremely important, and if it were actually true, it would be blasting around every form of media available. That it is not is a good indication that it isn't true. Sorry if this doesn't gel with your worldview, but that's how it is.

Iran Has Working Missiles (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4596295.stm)

Iran can adapt missiles to carry nuclear warheads (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4021411.stm)

Iran can mass produce the missiles (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3997151.stm)

Iranian Enrichment of Uranium (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4583793.stm)

Can we derive that Iran has A compleated Nuclear missile if iran has enriched Uranium, Plutonium , A carrier missile and the needed electronics?

If so Brian isnt saying anything in the area of "alarmist bullshit"

Can we derive that Iran has A compleated Nuclear missile if iran has enriched Uranium, Plutonium , A carrier missile and the needed electronics?

If so Brian isnt saying anything in the area of "alarmist bullshit"
Stoke cant back his rhetoric up , so he sticks with the tried and proven your all anti-American garbage . America cannot prove Iran is working on a nuclear bomb every inspection by the IAEA has come up clean . The EU and Russia all agree that Iran is clean and whats more say Iran has every right to pursue a nuclear energy programme .

Stoke cant back his rhetoric up , so he sticks with the tried and proven your all anti-American garbage . America cannot prove Iran is working on a nuclear bomb every inspection by the IAEA has come up clean . The EU and Russia all agree that Iran is clean and whats more say Iran has every right to pursue a nuclear energy programme .


Plus if you were that close to crazy nuke capable israel, wouldn't YOU want to be able to defend yourself?

Plus if you were that close to crazy nuke capable israel, wouldn't YOU want to be able to defend yourself?

But if you were that close to a crazy, fanatical nation whose national philosophy is "Death to the Infidels", wouldn't you want to keep them from having the weapons to carry out that threat?

Baron Max

Try reading the article. Iran Has Working Missiles (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4596295.stm) Read your article. Iran tested an engine which could give the Shahab III a 2,000km range.


Iran can adapt missiles to carry nuclear warheads (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4021411.stm) Read your article. Iran is seeking to adapt its missiles to carry nuclear warheads.


Iran can mass produce the missiles (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3997151.stm) Read your article. This is a claim made by the Iranian defense minister. Countries like Iran and North Korea have not been known for making honest claims about their own military power in the past. Even taken as a given, this statement does not help your case with respect to the proof.


Iranian Enrichment of Uranium (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4583793.stm)Read your article. This is nothing but a suspicion which, if even were true, would not be diagnostic of a functional weapons program.


Can we derive that Iran has A compleated Nuclear missile if iran has enriched Uranium, Plutonium , A carrier missile and the needed electronics?No we cannot. Read your articles.

Stoke cant back his rhetoric up , so he sticks with the tried and proven your all anti-American garbage . America cannot prove Iran is working on a nuclear bomb every inspection by the IAEA has come up clean . The EU and Russia all agree that Iran is clean and whats more say Iran has every right to pursue a nuclear energy programme .It's funny that you so quickly subscribe to Odin'Izm's argument when it completely disagrees with yours. He is saying Iran has a nuclear TBM capability. You are arguing the exact opposite. He needs to read his articles. You need to read the thread.

I'm also way mroe comfortable with Iran having nukes, and possibly nuking Israel

Israel has nukes, and no Arab country does, but Israel has no law or precedent against first strikes.

Iran deserves to have nukes, much as Iraq did (Iraq no longer exists as a governmental entity, now being the Puerto Rico of the middle east).

It's funny that you so quickly subscribe to Odin'Izm's argument when it completely disagrees with yours. He is saying Iran has a nuclear TBM capability. You are arguing the exact opposite. He needs to read his articles. You need to read the thread.
No , you cant follow a simple line of argument , now you said first up in answer to me ...............

As usual your thread title is heinously inaccurate alarmist bullshit.
Then Odin in my defence wrote..............

Iran Has Working Missiles (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4596295.stm)

Iran can adapt missiles to carry nuclear warheads (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4021411.stm)

Iran can mass produce the missiles (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3997151.stm)

Iranian Enrichment of Uranium (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4583793.stm)

Can we derive that Iran has A compleated Nuclear missile if iran has enriched Uranium, Plutonium , A carrier missile and the needed electronics?

If so Brian isnt saying anything in the area of "alarmist bullshit"
Got it ! Odin is saying the US is full of alarmist fever contradicting your claim tthat it isnt . Now get with the play .............

i hope they have enough nukes to prevent any kind of world overpopulation.

wee sarcasm is fun.

1. I dont think iran has nuclear weapons.

2.The links were in brians defence.

3.Im tired gonna go have so alcohol and fall asleep on the couch.

I posted the links to show you that there is no concrete evidence of any nuclear missiles in Iran, and that "alarmist bullshit" is the sad reality, and the fact that the 21st century is just blatant media warfare, exactly what I think brian was trying to get across with the thread title.

Got it ! Odin is saying the US is full of alarmist fever contradicting your claim tthat it isnt . Now get with the play .............
First of all, I never said the US isn't full of alarmists and their bullshit. We have more than our fair share, and I dislike it probably more than you do.

Secondly, the alarmism was in your thread title. It simply is not reflected in the article you posted, nor is the data in your article corroborated anywhere else in any other media channel I've been able to find, meaning that it is of dubious veracity.

You posted this thread to demonstrate how the US government is fabricating evidence to implicate Iran, when this is clearly not the case, or at least has yet to be demonstrated by anything you've posted.


I posted the links to show you that there is no concrete evidence of any nuclear missiles in Iran, and that "alarmist bullshit" is the sad reality, and the fact that the 21st century is just blatant media warfare, exactly what I think brian was trying to get across with the thread title.
Well shit. Looks like we agree then. Sorry for misreading you dude.

You posted this thread to demonstrate how the US government is fabricating evidence to implicate Iran, when this is clearly not the case, or at least has yet to be demonstrated by anything you've posted.
I said deceived , America has no evidence that Iran is developing an atomic weapons programme yet it claims Iran is . The IAEA , The EU and Russia have all agreed that Iran is pursuing a peaceful nuclear energy programme .

Well, ya gotta start building a case to attack Iran now. Before the end of 2005, we will be in a war with them - I have no doubt.

The draft should be in effect by Thanksgiving. By March of 2006, the headlines will read, "Sorry, we made another mistake, they didn't have any nukes but we still feel we were right in killing 100,000 innocent people and 2500 American troops." :eek:

Also by then you'll start hearing how Syria has nukes and are ready to use them on innocent Americans.

Yep

The U.S. is not going to launch an ICBM at Iran or any other country. Good Lord people wake up.

The U.S. is not going to launch an ICBM at Iran or any other country. Good Lord people wake up.
No America will just lovingly starve 1.5 million innocent women and children to death instead and then invade the nation as an act of benevolent humanitarinism . If you dont believe me ask any Iraqi ! :)

I said deceived , America has no evidence that Iran is developing an atomic weapons programme yet it claims Iran is . The IAEA , The EU and Russia have all agreed that Iran is pursuing a peaceful nuclear energy programme .Let me put this myth to bed right now. I made a post in another thread about this recently. Since you evidently missed it, I'll just copy it here to save time:

Iran does not want this reactor for power generation. Rather, they want to use it to construct a complete nuclear fuel cycle, whose only purpose would be to supply a weapons program. As proof of this I offer the simple fact that the reactor currently being built at the Bushehr facility is a Russian VVER-1000. This is a descendant of the RBMK model, which is the type of reactor that caused the Chernobyl fire in 1986.

These reactors are very different from western designs. You hear the words "light water reactor" a lot, often described as being "proliferation-safe", such as the one we were supposed to help North Korea build under the 1994 Agreed Framework for this reason. This is because the types of reactors in use in the United States and Western Europe all use distilled water as coolant. This water is impregnated with boron to help it moderate the neutron activity in the core during operation, but the base ingredient is regular distilled water like you can buy in the supermarket. LWR's are proliferation-safe because their spent fuel rods contain only trace amounts of Plutonium, which as I'm sure you know is the element best suited for crude fission weapons of the sort that nascent nuclear states strive for. Without getting into the science of it, just take it as fact that there is no way to produce useful amounts of Plutonium with a light water reactor. The other advantage of light water reactors is that they are fail-safe. Water is both the reflector and the moderator - which means that water must be present to allow neutrons to bang about the core and continue splitting atoms. With a loss of core coolant, the water begins to boil, and the reaction stops. Steam bubbles are known as "voids" and LWR's have what is called a "negative void coefficient", which means that a void will cause a negative trend in core power. It is physically impossible for a LWR to function without core coolant.

The VVER-1000, as I said, is a descendant of the RBMK design, and is therefore very poorly suited to utility power production. These reactors use a fixed moderator comprised of blocks of solid graphite, in which channels are drilled for the fuel rods and for cooling water to pass. Water is used for cooling and reflecting, but not for moderating. If voids form in the core of a VVER, the reaction will rapidly accelerate uncontrollably as there is no longer any water to act as a reflector for free neutrons, but the fixed graphite moderator is still there to slow them down enough so they can be captured by the fuel and continue the chain reaction. The coolant will boil off, but the moderator will not. The core will rapidly spike to dangerous power levels in the presence of steam voids - thus the VVER has a "positive void coefficient". These reactor designs are just stupid, and there really isn't a nicer way to put it without being dishonest. From the instant the RBMK design became known, western engineers counted each day as a blessing when there wasn't some kind of catastrophe related to one (until Chernobyl of course). Even worse, the Soviets knew how poor a design it was, yet they continued to use it (and there are in fact 13 RBMK's still in operation in Russia and FSU tributaries). The reason the Soviets preferred this design was simple: the RBMK is a fast-breeder design that breeds a significant amount of Plutonium in its fuel rods. When the fuel in the core is depleted, it can be removed and easily reprocessed into Plutonium for weapons as North Korea has recently demonstrated. Essentially, any utility plant using an RBMK (or VVER, like Iran is building) is a weapon fuels factory that produces electricity on the side. These designs are only tacitly stable, have a rather poor fuel efficiency, and are maintenance-intensive as opposed to light water reactors. There is no plausible reason to build one unless you intend to build yourself a complete fuel cycle to supply a weapons program. LWR's are stable, produce more power in a smaller size and with less fuel, and don't automatically put you on the shit list with groups like the IAEA and countries like the United States.

Let it be known that I am a huge fan of nuclear energy, and I am all in favor of spreading the love wherever it is welcome - including Iran - especially in the less-developed world where clean, abundant energy could really help people. But it has been intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that Iran has been pursuing a complete fuel cycle for a weapons program since the late 1970s. Not only do they insist upon the VVER reactor, but they also refuse to engage the EU in a fuel/waste trade deal that would ensure the spent fuel would go to France for reprocessing, rather than staying in Iran where they could fashion it into weapon cores. Your hands don't get much redder than that.




No America will just lovingly starve 1.5 million innocent women and children to death instead and then invade the nation as an act of benevolent humanitarinism . If you dont believe me ask any Iraqi ! :)
Oh I get it. America starved the Iraqis. It had NOTHING to do with the UN sanctions, Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, or his subsequent squandering of what the sanctions allowed (which were decidedly enough to keep his people healthy and productive).


UN Resolution 687, Paragraph 20.

20. Decides, effective immediately, that the prohibitions against the sale or supply to Iraq of commodities or products, other than medicine and health supplies, and prohibitions against financial transactions related thereto contained in resolution 661 (1990) shall not apply to foodstuffs notified to the Security Council Committee established by resolution 661 (1990) concerning the situation between Iraq and Kuwait or, with the approval of that Committee, under the simplified and accelerated "no-objection" procedure, to materials and supplies for essential civilian needs as identified in the report of the Secretary-General dated 20 March 19919, and in any further findings of humanitarian need by the Committee;
Food and medicine were always allowed into Iraq, regardless of what Saddam's useful idiots will try to tell you.

No America will just lovingly starve 1.5 million innocent women and children to death instead and then invade the nation as an act of benevolent humanitarinism . If you dont believe me ask any Iraqi ! :)
Oh, but there was pleanty of money to build palaces of marble miles long, bunkers and fortifications, weapons, and lots and lots of toilet seats made from solid gold. Oh, and lets not forget the money they put aside for bribery. They couldn't have been doing too badly.

Iran does not want this reactor for power generation.
Everyone else accepts that Iran is pursuing a peaceful programme , in fact 2 hours ago the IAEA closed the file .
Elbaradei: Iran's dossier to be closed (http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=32505&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs)
Now what ?

Oh I get it. America starved the Iraqis. It had NOTHING to do with the UN sanctions, Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, or his subsequent squandering of what the sanctions allowed (which were decidedly enough to keep his people healthy and productive).
America could of removed saddam in 1991 or anytime after it , and the Un sanctions were of Americas behest .

Oh, but there was pleanty of money to build palaces of marble miles long, bunkers and fortifications, weapons, and lots and lots of toilet seats made from solid gold. Oh, and lets not forget the money they put aside for bribery. They couldn't have been doing too badly.
More old wives tales , inventions of the US propaganda service , like the supposed mass graves which now turn out to contain the innocent Iraqi victims of Americas aerial bombing campaign .

Sometimes I don't know when you are trying for irony or when you are seriously on one of the hallucination-filled acid trips that have become commonplace around here. Its scary.

If Iran had a nuke, Israel would've bombed everything in its general area by now. They can't/won't allow anyone in that area to have nukes but them. It's one of the reasons the US gives them so much aid and looks the other way when it comes to the atrocities they visit upon the Palestinian people

It's also the reason the so-called WMD's in Iraq should've been known as a lie the second it left President Bushies lips. If Israel didn't bomb them, it doesn't exist.

So Israel is led by directly by god? You are describing something that knows all and sees all. Israel's spy network is good... but not that good.

No actually i believe that Israel is led directly by SATAN but that's neither here nor there. Nukes are kinda hard to keep secret. If they even thought that Iran had one...

Israel's spy network is good... but not that good.

Mossad is considered the world's best secret service... so I think that qualifies as having 5 stars out of 5 for being "that good"...

I admit that they are about as good as you can get. But what is being described here requires omniscience. Even they are are susceptable to the fog of war.

locked

I have no idea what that has to do with anything... but I am pretty sure it wouldn't be worth having your country converted into volcanic glass.

locked

Everyone else accepts that Iran is pursuing a peaceful programme , in fact 2 hours ago the IAEA closed the file .
Elbaradei: Iran's dossier to be closed (http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=32505&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs)
Now what ?
And your habit of posting articles without reading them continues. The dossier will be closed once all questions are answered and not a moment before.

Anyway, I don't care what the IAEA says. They, like the UN, are a corrupt, morally bankrupt organization pushing an agenda. I described my rationale in detail in my previous post using a few fundamental scientific principles. If Iran shitcans the VVER and builds themselves a superior light water reactor (which we would happily provide them with) then there would be no question. It simply makes no sense for them to continue down this road if they are only interested in a power program.


America could of removed saddam in 1991 or anytime after it , and the Un sanctions were of Americas behest .
Saddam could have been deposed much earlier than he was, yes, but that point is irrelevant. The sanctions were enacted by the UN Security Council. You seem to forget all the other nations that voted in their favor. How convenient.

By the way, it's "could have", not "could of".