Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Iran unlikely to make bomb: Israel army chief


  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic

#1    ExpandMyMind

ExpandMyMind

    Telekinetic

  • Closed
  • 6,628 posts
  • Joined:23 Jan 2009

Posted 26 April 2012 - 04:15 PM

www.emirates247.com said:

Israel's military chief said he does not believe Iran will decide to produce an atomic bomb, describing its leadership as "very rational" in an interview published on Wednesday.

Posted Image Read more...



#2    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 14,514 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 26 April 2012 - 04:24 PM

Sounds like some seriously mixed messages going out.  I'd hate to be an Iranian general trying to figure out who was being listened to in the cabinet in Israel.  Either Israel has indeed been bluffing about a strike and they've decided to let the issue cool (unlikely) or this is just disinformation....who knows.  There were reports a few days ago that Oby had made a backdoor deal with Iran to look the other way on their program as long as they made public statements and allow some inspections.  If that story was true then I could see Netanyahu washing his hands of Oby and going ahead with his own plans.  If this is what's happening I hope he can postpone until October and possibly smack down Oby's election chances.

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...
“This is like playing poker with a guy who cheated you twice before. You know who does that, a moron.

#3    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 16,069 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 26 April 2012 - 04:32 PM

View Postand then, on 26 April 2012 - 04:24 PM, said:

Sounds like some seriously mixed messages going out.  I'd hate to be an Iranian general trying to figure out who was being listened to in the cabinet in Israel.  Either Israel has indeed been bluffing about a strike and they've decided to let the issue cool (unlikely) or this is just disinformation....who knows.  There were reports a few days ago that Oby had made a backdoor deal with Iran to look the other way on their program as long as they made public statements and allow some inspections.  If that story was true then I could see Netanyahu washing his hands of Oby and going ahead with his own plans.  If this is what's happening I hope he can postpone until October and possibly smack down Oby's election chances.

Israel's government policy and statements don't necessarily reflect the opinion of all in the country. The govt is much more likely to take a 'grandstanding stance' than the military is, to attempt to win international influence and/or sympathy.

And why would you want Netanyahu, the PM of Israel, to have ANY say or influence on a US general election?

Edited by Leonardo, 26 April 2012 - 04:32 PM.

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#4    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 14,514 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 26 April 2012 - 04:38 PM

View PostLeonardo, on 26 April 2012 - 04:32 PM, said:

Israel's government policy and statements don't necessarily reflect the opinion of all in the country. The govt is much more likely to take a 'grandstanding stance' than the military is, to attempt to win international influence and/or sympathy.

And why would you want Netanyahu, the PM of Israel, to have ANY say or influence on a US general election?
It's quite simple really.  I loathe and heartily disrespect everything Barack Obama is about.  I have a real fear that he will be easily re elected and if Netanyahu beginning a necessary attack could also throw a "spanner" into his election chances then so much the better.  Yes, it's a petty attitude and I admit it but I am sick of Oby and want him out of office asap.  Romney could not possibly be worse.  Hell, I'd even vote for RP rather than Obama.
As to your first point though, in a matter as serious as this has been touted to be for years, I would expect a unified message coming from government.  And this IDF chief is definitely among the government.

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...
“This is like playing poker with a guy who cheated you twice before. You know who does that, a moron.

#5    ExpandMyMind

ExpandMyMind

    Telekinetic

  • Closed
  • 6,628 posts
  • Joined:23 Jan 2009

Posted 26 April 2012 - 05:31 PM

View Postand then, on 26 April 2012 - 04:38 PM, said:

I would expect a unified message coming from government.  And this IDF chief is definitely among the government.

Why would you expect that? The political entity of Israel and every other country all too often have completely different motives than the intelligence and military communities of said countries (similar to what Leonardo has already stated). Even more so in Israel these days with a religious nut-job cabinet at the helm.

This chief says nothing different than the Mossad chief, the NSA, CIA, FBI and, almost uniformly, every other US intelligence agencies' chiefs (as well as their Defence Secretary), along with the chiefs of Germany, France, Britain's intelligence, and about another half dozen to a dozen chiefs from countries around the world, that I can think of.

It is what is known as 'common knowledge'. And a subject I have been, futily, it seems, trying to educate you on for some time now. The declared case against Iran is completely and utterly bogus, dude.


#6    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 14,514 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 26 April 2012 - 06:46 PM

View PostExpandMyMind, on 26 April 2012 - 05:31 PM, said:

Why would you expect that? The political entity of Israel and every other country all too often have completely different motives than the intelligence and military communities of said countries (similar to what Leonardo has already stated). Even more so in Israel these days with a religious nut-job cabinet at the helm.

This chief says nothing different than the Mossad chief, the NSA, CIA, FBI and, almost uniformly, every other US intelligence agencies' chiefs (as well as their Defence Secretary), along with the chiefs of Germany, France, Britain's intelligence, and about another half dozen to a dozen chiefs from countries around the world, that I can think of.

It is what is known as 'common knowledge'. And a subject I have been, futily, it seems, trying to educate you on for some time now. The declared case against Iran is completely and utterly bogus, dude.
I would expect a unified message from Israel's government because to do anything other is to make them seem foolish and it could also weaken them in their quest to stop Iran from acquiring the technology to build a bomb.  They are amassing 20% enriched Uranium now.  That's about 85% of the way time wise to weapons grade fuel.  Once they are in position to actually decide to build then it's effectively too late.  If there truly were no threat then it would be completely counter productive for them to have pursued sanctions so vehemently and pushed the US, their only real ally, to the wall for support in making the sanctions stick.  If I had to guess I'd say that they've made a decision to go it alone and now they're just waiting for the optimum window.  Then again, I could easily be COMPLETELY  wrong and the whole run up of bellicose rhetoric over the past year has been just a joke on their part.  I'm not even talking realities here, just perceptions.  Why on earth would they raise the specter of a regional war and then suddenly have half the cabinet say...oops...just kidding... I find it more likely that they're trying to minimize the damage Panetta did a few weeks ago in announcing the approximate dates of a strike.
I think Israel could accomplish a great deal more by staging a conflict with Iran's proxies and eradicating them from the picture.  Iran is in a position to have too much to lose and would probably leave Assad and Meshaal hanging.  
Ex you don't really believe Iran is just interested in nuclear power generation, do you?  With thousands of centrifuges, many being moved in to hardened sites?  I think the case is about as strong as the rational mind can grasp.

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...
“This is like playing poker with a guy who cheated you twice before. You know who does that, a moron.

#7    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 16,069 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 26 April 2012 - 07:06 PM

View Postand then, on 26 April 2012 - 06:46 PM, said:

Ex you don't really believe Iran is just interested in nuclear power generation, do you?  With thousands of centrifuges, many being moved in to hardened sites?  I think the case is about as strong as the rational mind can grasp.

Let's see, a lot of powerful nations have been making threatening overtures towards Iran's nuclear program, and Iran (quite reasonably) considers the possibility of these threats becoming military action. This possibility is very real, considering the recent interventionism by some of those nations in Middle Eastern countries.

So, they place their fuel production facilities in hardened buildings. Seems a reasonable precaution to me.

Do you know how many centrifuges are required to produce sufficient fuel for several energy producing reactors? I don't, but it's quite possible that thousands are required. Have you researched this to find out if the western media screaming that Iran has "thousands of centirfuges" isn't simply an attempt to whip up hysteria in the ignorant?

Iran are members of the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty). Israel are not.

There is a very rational argument to be made that Iran is moving towards nuclear power generation as a means of divorcing itself from oil or gas dependency, and not interested in the acquisition of nuclear weapons. I am not going to jump to conclusions based on what I consider to be biased media reports from western nations and Israel.

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#8    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 14,514 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 26 April 2012 - 09:57 PM

View PostLeonardo, on 26 April 2012 - 07:06 PM, said:

Let's see, a lot of powerful nations have been making threatening overtures towards Iran's nuclear program, and Iran (quite reasonably) considers the possibility of these threats becoming military action. This possibility is very real, considering the recent interventionism by some of those nations in Middle Eastern countries.

So, they place their fuel production facilities in hardened buildings. Seems a reasonable precaution to me.

Do you know how many centrifuges are required to produce sufficient fuel for several energy producing reactors? I don't, but it's quite possible that thousands are required. Have you researched this to find out if the western media screaming that Iran has "thousands of centirfuges" isn't simply an attempt to whip up hysteria in the ignorant?

Iran are members of the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty). Israel are not.

There is a very rational argument to be made that Iran is moving towards nuclear power generation as a means of divorcing itself from oil or gas dependency, and not interested in the acquisition of nuclear weapons. I am not going to jump to conclusions based on what I consider to be biased media reports from western nations and Israel.

And if that rational argument is wrong then you've lost nothing.  They have the potential to lose everything.  And not only them, but many millions more could be affected if they felt compelled to use a nuke in the region.  Ultimately the only players who matter here are the Israelis and how they feel about their security situation. They will act in their own best interests as they have done many times before.

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...
“This is like playing poker with a guy who cheated you twice before. You know who does that, a moron.

#9    RavenHawk

RavenHawk

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,260 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 26 April 2012 - 10:30 PM

View PostLeonardo, on 26 April 2012 - 07:06 PM, said:

Do you know how many centrifuges are required to produce sufficient fuel for several energy producing reactors? I don't, but it's quite possible that thousands are required. Have you researched this to find out if the western media screaming that Iran has "thousands of centirfuges" isn't simply an attempt to whip up hysteria in the ignorant?
From what I last heard, there are at least two enrichment facilities.  The one at Natanz has the capability of 50,000 centrifuges (weapons grade), but only 5,000 are functional (reactor-grade).  And she has a sister site.  The key is purity.  The higher the enrichment, the more likely it will be used for weapons.  More centrifuges means higher purity.  These 5,000 should be enough to produce U235 at the 4% to 6% range for reactors without cascading, although I’m not sure how much time is needed.  There are formulas for figuring it out.  But it would be something like for every ton of yellow cake, you might get 10 kilograms of U235 over the period of a month.  So if you know the capacity of a centrifuge, then you could figure it out.  Although, they started to enrich U235 to 20% back in 2010.  You need about 90% for weapons grade.  Who knows what it is now??

*Signature removed* Forum Rules

#10    ExpandMyMind

ExpandMyMind

    Telekinetic

  • Closed
  • 6,628 posts
  • Joined:23 Jan 2009

Posted 26 April 2012 - 11:14 PM

View PostRavenHawk, on 26 April 2012 - 10:30 PM, said:


Who knows what it is now??

Everyone. Everyone knows where it is now: 20%.

We know this because Iran have given full access on numerous occasions, most recently last month or the one previous. If you read any of the reports, or even detailed reports of reports, then you will quickly learn that it is military sites that Iran do not let the IAEA enter - because they have literally no right to enter them and Iran are under no obligation whatsoever to allow them. All, I repeat (mainly for and then, because I don't know you) ALL, nuclear material in Iran is accounted for, meaning we KNOW they aren't working towards creating a weapon.

If they did start working towards it we would know almost immediately. And after gaining such knowledge there would be a year before they reached weapons grade uranium, and another one, possibly two, before they could deploy it on a warhead. Also, I think I should add because this is a common straw-man argument: the dirty bomb argument is pretty much redundant because the material from each reactor gives off a unique signature which would be almost immediately traced back to the point of origin. This means that they would be nuked to high heaven for little, and extremely hypothetical (hypothetical because claiming such and attack would happen in the first place is a nonsensical argument to anyone with the slightest ability to employ reasoned thinking), 'gain'.

That juice definitely ain't worth the squeeze.

In other-words, these claims and this entire situation are both entirely farcical, bordering on lunacy. Though this is how most wars are sold, so nothing new there.

Edited by ExpandMyMind, 26 April 2012 - 11:16 PM.


#11    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 14,514 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 26 April 2012 - 11:54 PM

View PostExpandMyMind, on 26 April 2012 - 11:14 PM, said:

Everyone. Everyone knows where it is now: 20%.

We know this because Iran have given full access on numerous occasions, most recently last month or the one previous. If you read any of the reports, or even detailed reports of reports, then you will quickly learn that it is military sites that Iran do not let the IAEA enter - because they have literally no right to enter them and Iran are under no obligation whatsoever to allow them. All, I repeat (mainly for and then, because I don't know you) ALL, nuclear material in Iran is accounted for, meaning we KNOW they aren't working towards creating a weapon.

If they did start working towards it we would know almost immediately. And after gaining such knowledge there would be a year before they reached weapons grade uranium, and another one, possibly two, before they could deploy it on a warhead. Also, I think I should add because this is a common straw-man argument: the dirty bomb argument is pretty much redundant because the material from each reactor gives off a unique signature which would be almost immediately traced back to the point of origin. This means that they would be nuked to high heaven for little, and extremely hypothetical (hypothetical because claiming such and attack would happen in the first place is a nonsensical argument to anyone with the slightest ability to employ reasoned thinking), 'gain'.

That juice definitely ain't worth the squeeze.

In other-words, these claims and this entire situation are both entirely farcical, bordering on lunacy. Though this is how most wars are sold, so nothing new there.
Assuming everything you say is true, it still comes down to Israel's intentions.  So I'll ask again - as a rational world player who have had nukes for about 4 decades, why would Israel risk the wrath of the world community over a non issue?  The fact that Iran is not at the point of being able to assemble a bomb is a very good thing.  But once they have everything they'd need for it then it's just a matter of a few months.  A gun type fission weapon is so simple it doesn't even require testing.  Hiroshima is proof of that.  
It all comes down to Israel's ability to accept an Iranian bomb.  They have said they cannot, under any circumstances do that.  They've said that as bad as the war would be if they strike, an Iranian bomb would be worse.  I support them whatever they choose.

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...
“This is like playing poker with a guy who cheated you twice before. You know who does that, a moron.

#12    ninjadude

ninjadude

    Seeker of truths

  • Member
  • 11,064 posts
  • Joined:11 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

  • "dirt collects at the interfaces"

Posted 27 April 2012 - 01:24 AM

View Postand then, on 26 April 2012 - 11:54 PM, said:

Assuming everything you say is true, it still comes down to Israel's intentions.  So I'll ask again - as a rational world player who have had nukes for about 4 decades, why would Israel risk the wrath of the world community over a non issue?  

Because they have chosen irrational leadership.

"Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now!""
- Friedrich Nietzsche

#13    RavenHawk

RavenHawk

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,260 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 27 April 2012 - 11:00 PM

View PostExpandMyMind, on 26 April 2012 - 11:14 PM, said:

Everyone. Everyone knows where it is now: 20%.
Slow down there big fella.  If it’s still 20% then that’s all you needed to say.

Quote

We know this because Iran have given full access on numerous occasions, most recently last month or the one previous. If you read any of the reports, or even detailed reports of reports, then you will quickly learn that it is military sites that Iran do not let the IAEA enter - because they have literally no right to enter them and Iran are under no obligation whatsoever to allow them. All, I repeat (mainly for and then, because I don't know you) ALL, nuclear material in Iran is accounted for, meaning we KNOW they aren't working towards creating a weapon.
Around and around she goes, where she stops, no body knows.  How do we know that *ALL* material is accounted for and how do we know they are not working towards creating a weapon if the IAEA cannot get into those military sites?  This is a legitimate question and the honest answer is “we don’t”.  But given track record, what do you think?  Everything must follow character.

Quote

If they did start working towards it we would know almost immediately.
We would?  We have excellent detection capabilities but we are not that good.

Quote

And after gaining such knowledge there would be a year before they reached weapons grade
uranium,
Depends when that year started.

Quote

and another one, possibly two, before they could deploy it on a warhead. Also, I think I should add because this is a common straw-man argument: the dirty bomb argument is pretty much redundant because the material from each reactor gives off a unique signature which would be almost immediately traced back to the point of origin. This means that they would be nuked to high heaven for little, and extremely hypothetical (hypothetical because claiming such and attack would happen in the first place is a nonsensical argument to anyone with the slightest ability to employ reasoned thinking), 'gain'.
I don’t think finding the signature will be a major concern (we’ll know where it came from) and I really doubt that the West would nuke Tehran in retaliation.  But it would bring a world of hurt on it.  But there are plenty of opposition in Iran that using nukes would not be necessary, provided that we supply aid and support to that opposition.  But people need to understand this time that this is a multi-generational endeavor.  We’ll have to go in with boots on the ground and stay for a long time.  We’ll need to prepare for that.

Quote

In other-words, these claims and this entire situation are both entirely farcical, bordering on lunacy. Though this is how most wars are sold, so nothing new there.
Not farcical but definitely all lunacy.  But the Muslim hatred of Israel and the world and their “Right of Arrogance” would be just enough to make them think that they could get away with it.

*Signature removed* Forum Rules

#14    MichaelW

MichaelW

    Poltergeist

  • Banned
  • 2,523 posts
  • Joined:14 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nelson, New Zealand

  • Doctors are sadists who like to play God and watch lesser people scream.

Posted 29 April 2012 - 12:43 AM

View Postninjadude, on 27 April 2012 - 01:24 AM, said:

Because they have chosen irrational leadership.

According to your unbiased opinion. Everyone knows that Israel has merely been the loudest opponent to Iran's nuclear program. No one is waxing lyrical about what Saudi Arabia wants to do with Iran, for instance.

And don't sit there and think that Saudi Arabia doesn't have the means because it does.

Signature removed - please see rule 3b.

#15    ninjadude

ninjadude

    Seeker of truths

  • Member
  • 11,064 posts
  • Joined:11 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

  • "dirt collects at the interfaces"

Posted 29 April 2012 - 01:17 PM

View PostRavenHawk, on 27 April 2012 - 11:00 PM, said:

How do we know that *ALL* material is accounted for and how do we know they are not working towards creating a weapon if the IAEA cannot get into those military sites?  This is a legitimate question and the honest answer is "we don't".  But given track record, what do you think?  Everything must follow character.

The exact same holds true for Israel. And we KNOW they have the bomb and are threatening to use it. And they do NOT allow ANY international body to inspect their nukes.

"Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now!""
- Friedrich Nietzsche




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users