PDA

View Full Version : US intelligence: Iran will be able to build first nuclear bomb



megimoo
10-21-2008, 05:33 PM
"Just In Time For The New President To Make a Decision On What To Do !"

US intelligence’s amended estimate, that Iran will be ready to build its first bomb just one month after the next US president is sworn in, is disclosed by DEBKAfile’s Washington sources as having been relayed as a guideline to the Middle East teams of both presidential candidates, Senators John McCain and Barack Obama.

The information prompted the assertion by Democratic vice presidential nominee Joseph Biden in Seattle Sunday, Oct. 19: “It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy.”

McCain retorted Tuesday, Oct. 21: “America does not need a president that needs to be tested. I’ve been tested. I was aboard the Enterprise off the coast of Cuba. I’ve been there.”)

DEBKAfile’s military sources cite the new US timeline: By late January, 2009, Iran will have accumulated enough low-grade enriched uranium (up to 5%) for its “break-out” to weapons grade (90%) material within a short time. For this, the Iranians have achieved the necessary technology. In February, they can move on to start building their first nuclear bomb.

US intelligence believes Tehran has the personnel, plans and diagrams for a bomb and has been running experiments to this end for the past two years. The UN International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna last week asked Tehran to clarify recent complex experiments they conducted in detonating nuclear materials for a weapon, but received no answer.

The same US evaluation adds that the Iranian leadership is holding off its go-ahead to start building the bomb until the last minute so as to ward off international pressure to stop at the red line.

This development together with the galloping global economic crisis will force the incoming US president to go straight into decision-making without pause on Day One in the Oval Office. He will have to determine which urgent measures can serve best for keeping a nuclear bomb out of the Islamic republic’s hands - diplomatic or military – and how to proceed if those measures fail.

His knowledge of the challenge colored Sen. Biden’s additional words in Seattle: “Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”

Israel’s political and military leaders also face a tough dilemma that can no longer be put off of whether to strike Iran’s nuclear installations militarily in the next three months between US presidencies before the last window closes, or take a chance on coordination with the next president. snip
http://www.debka.com/

LogansPapa
10-21-2008, 05:54 PM
http://www.iraqwatch.org/wmd/bomb5a.JPG

And as Lewis Black says - "They’ll put it in a missile and 500 Iranians with throw it at Israel." :rolleyes:

Sonnabend
10-22-2008, 04:41 AM
And as Lewis Black says - "They’ll put it in a missile and 500 Iranians with throw it at Israel." :rolleyes:

LP, Iran is more than capable of mounting that on an ICBM..they have that technology.And if you think that a nuclear detonation over Israel wont herald a fullscale counterstrike...you're insane.

And then, LP, you only have to really ask yourself one question.

Which way is the wind blowing?

FlaGator
10-22-2008, 08:11 AM
LP, Iran is more than capable of mounting that on an ICBM..they have that technology.And if you think that a nuclear detonation over Israel wont herald a fullscale counterstrike...you're insane.

And then, LP, you only have to really ask yourself one question.

Which way is the wind blowing?

I don't think that Iran has ICBM technology. An ICBM by definition is one that could reach another continent (ie North America or Europe). All Iran needs is a missle that will fly a few hunderd miles and I am sure that they are more than capable of that feat if the bomb could be made light enough.

Sonnabend
10-22-2008, 08:46 AM
I don't think that Iran has ICBM technology.

Yet.

If the Germans can build a V2...the Iranians can build an ICBM.

Goldwater
10-22-2008, 09:02 AM
Yet.

If the Germans can build a V2...the Iranians can build an ICBM.

Under that logic we should attack North Korea, Iran, Syria, Hugo Chavez's office and hit China first as they actually have the capability and are communist.

Lets start tomorow?

noonwitch
10-22-2008, 09:09 AM
College level physics students could design nuclear bombs in the 70s. I remember reading about a guy who wrote his thesis on the topic, and after he turned it in, his paper was classified. I'm sure the iranians could do it, if they have the materials.

I still say let the Israelis take out the nuclear sites. They'll have the best intelligence regarding where the nuclear sites are, and they are good at targeting specific sites.

Sonnabend
10-22-2008, 09:11 AM
Under that logic we should attack North Korea, Iran, Syria, Hugo Chavez's office and hit China first as they actually have the capability and are communist.So what do you suggest. Sit here and wait till a mushroom cloud appears over Tel Aviv?

Listen, you isolationist, RonPaul fellating fuckwit, get this through that thick skull of yours. The entire Middle East is a powderkeg and if that mushroom cloud appears, there is nowhere on this earth you will be able to hide from the fallout and radioactivity.

China is not a vicious, third century witchburning, woman stoning theocracy whose leader thinks he is the Messiah / Mahdi / whatever. North Koreas is too busy collapsing and neither of the nations above has stated they wish to wipe their neighbour off the map.

Goldwater
10-22-2008, 09:40 AM
Listen, you isolationist, RonPaul fellating fuckwit, get this through that thick skull of yours..

How very mature of you. I see no point in continuing the discussion like this.

LogansPapa
10-22-2008, 10:09 AM
Excellent points, Goldwater, in this and your previous posts.

There is no reason for this: "Listen, you isolationist, RonPaul fellating fuckwit, get this through that thick skull of yours." And the moderator should be made to apologise for this stupidity. Inexcusable.

megimoo
10-22-2008, 11:25 AM
I don't think that Iran has ICBM technology. An ICBM by definition is one that could reach another continent (ie North America or Europe). All Iran needs is a missle that will fly a few hunderd miles and I am sure that they are more than capable of that feat if the bomb could be made light enough.Scuds and they already have hundreds of them !

LogansPapa
10-22-2008, 11:36 AM
Scuds and they already have hundreds of them !

ICBM? Scud-D: 700 km range. ICBM? :confused:

Goldwater
10-22-2008, 11:49 AM
If Iranians get the technology to do it, it would be through arms deals with either Russia or China.

FlaGator
10-22-2008, 11:53 AM
Yet.

If the Germans can build a V2...the Iranians can build an ICBM.

Right now the technology for a ICBM is well beyond Iran's capabilities unless they were getting some help from Russia or China and I'm pretty sure that neither of them want Iran to have missle technology that could one day be used against them. If ICBM's were so easy to build then every nation would have a few.

FlaGator
10-22-2008, 11:55 AM
Scuds and they already have hundreds of them !

Iraq had to lunch SCUDS practically from their border just to get them to fly over Jordan and land in Israel. Iran would have trouble getting them to fly over the mountain ranges that separates Iran from Iraq.

Molon Labe
10-22-2008, 11:58 AM
Under that logic we should attack North Korea, Iran, Syria, Hugo Chavez's office and hit China first as they actually have the capability and are communist.

Lets start tomorow?

Yep.. but no one's suggesting we do that. We showed for 50 years that we could deter a nuclear power. There is no reason to believe we cannot if Iran becomes one.

megimoo
10-22-2008, 01:08 PM
Iraq had to lunch SCUDS practically from their border just to get them to fly over Jordan and land in Israel. Iran would have trouble getting them to fly over the mountain ranges that separates Iran from Iraq.As you can see they are well in range over the mountains of Tell Aviv for an air burst !

The distance from Tabriz Iran to Tell Aviv Israel is about 700 miles .700 mi. (1125 km)

Range of Chinese misslies
Taepodong 1.... 2,000 to 2990 KM
Taepodong 2.... 37,500 to 6000 KM

Generation, Mass Range (Kg.) Nuke Payload weights !

1st Gen. 1,158-850 * 1,158 Iran, North Korea
2nd Gen.. 900 -- 750 760 * Pakistan, North Korea
3rd. Gen. 750 -- 500 650 * North Korea, Iran
4th Gen. 500 -- 400
5th. Gen. 450 -- 240

*This is based on the 1st, 2nd. & 3rd. generation nuclear warheads of Pakistan.


Also in development in the late 1990s were derivatives of North Korea's No-Dong missile, which entered service in 2002. Called Shahab-3 (meteor or shooting star in Farsi) the missiles gave Iran a capability with twice the range of the existing SCUD-C/Shahab-2 missiles it had in service, with a range of 1,300 km. Iran was estimated of have anywhere from 25 to 100 of the missiles in service. In development were Shahab-4/5/6, successors to the Shahab-3 and also based on North Korean designs (No-Dong and Taepo-Dong designs).

Iran had been eager to acquire China's M-9 (600 km/500 kg) and M-11 (300 km/500 kg) single-stage, solid-fuel, road-mobile missiles, but US pressure on China had prevented transfers. The Tondar-68 (1,000 km/500 kg) and the Iran-700 (700 km/500kg) were other reported development programs that depended on continuing Chinese assistance, according to Jane's. China was also believed to be assisting Iran in extending the range of the operational HY-1 (85 km/400 kg) and the HY-2 (110 km/500 kg) cruise missiles, which posed a greater threat to shipping in the Persian Gulf.

megimoo
10-22-2008, 01:14 PM
Yep.. but no one's suggesting we do that. We showed for 50 years that we could deter a nuclear power. There is no reason to believe we cannot if Iran becomes one.

MAD was for rational people not willing to die , do you call the Iranian mullahs rational people ?They are waiting for the mad Imam Mohammud Al- Mahdii !

Sonnabend
10-22-2008, 03:41 PM
I have no intention of apologising. This mentality of "It doesnt affect America so why should we bother with it" along with the fact Goldwater is a Ron Paul supporter and therefore a supporter of his ostrich ,head in the sand attitude, is something I have very little patience with.

A nuclear issue in the Middle East is everyone's problem. A nuclear issue anywhere is all of our problems. A mushroom cloud over Israel is game over.


If ICBM's were so easy to build then every nation would have a few.

We can and we could, we just dont need to. Making an ICBM is not rocket science(no pun intended).

Molon Labe
10-22-2008, 04:19 PM
MAD was for rational people not willing to die , do you call the Iranian mullahs rational people ?They are waiting for the mad Imam Mohammud Al- Mahdii !

If you're suggesting that ALL the leaders of Iran are suicidal then go sell that to Hannity. There is no reason to believe that every Imam would risk the entire nation of Iran to be wiped from the map...which it would be in about 90 seconds and they are acutely aware of it. The rational actor scenario is as true for Iran as it was for the Soviets. How many also were convinced of Kim Jung Ils death wish. Let me remind you he had far more central control over NK's survival than the Imam's in Iran.
You are way off base.

I know too many soldiers that worked directly with Spiritual and tribal leaders in Iraq during the war and it is patently false that their beliefs are based on the complete destruction of their people.

And Me...I'm a Christian and I'm also waiting for Christ's return, but I've not got a death wish to help accelerate the process. Do you know how many liberal idiots are convinced like you that ALL Christians wish for Armageddon to hasten Christ's return and that because I claim to be one that I have similar designs.

Rubbish!

LogansPapa
10-22-2008, 04:40 PM
Makes me wonder what would be the worst case scenario if Israel took on all the Arab states that decided to try to attack her real estate - even all at once? I'm of the opinion Jerusalem’s opponents don't have the stomach for it - no matter how many pre-emptive strikes the Jews heap upon them.

The other Arab states that produce petroleum are just going to grouse in the U.N. They're not going to do a damn thing - pyhsically.

Sonnabend
10-23-2008, 03:42 AM
Makes me wonder what would be the worst case scenario if Israel took on all the Arab states that decided to try to attack her real estate - even all at once?

You don't want to know. That's the nightmare. If Israel is really threatened..militarily, and they have no way out...they will open fire.

They have six million reasons to remember what happened when they didn't fight back, for them the words Never Again are literal. Here they stand, and there they will remain..they will never back away and they will never allow another Holocaust.

Other nations have no understanding of this harsh, clear reality..Iran has no idea what it is pushing.

This far and no further..LP they love their homes as you do yours..and will die to protect it..even to the last woman and child.

We may disagree on many things, but I know one thing about you...you would never run were the United States attacked, and would defend her with your life if need be.


I'm of the opinion Jerusalem’s opponents don't have the stomach for it - no matter how many pre-emptive strikes the Jews heap upon them.

They will only attacked if they see no other way.All the others have to do is agree they have a right to exist..a simple "leave us alone and we leave you alone."..thats all thats needed.


The other Arab states that produce petroleum are just going to grouse in the U.N. They're not going to do a damn thing - physically.

From your lips to Gods ears, LP.

FlaGator
10-23-2008, 06:45 AM
If you're suggesting that ALL the leaders of Iran are suicidal then go sell that to Hannity. There is no reason to believe that every Imam would risk the entire nation of Iran to be wiped from the map...which it would be in about 90 seconds and they are acutely aware of it. The rational actor scenario is as true for Iran as it was for the Soviets. How many also were convinced of Kim Jung Ils death wish. Let me remind you he had far more central control over NK's survival than the Imam's in Iran.
You are way off base.

I know too many soldiers that worked directly with Spiritual and tribal leaders in Iraq during the war and it is patently false that their beliefs are based on the complete destruction of their people.

And Me...I'm a Christian and I'm also waiting for Christ's return, but I've not got a death wish to help accelerate the process. Do you know how many liberal idiots are convinced like you that ALL Christians wish for Armageddon to hasten Christ's return and that because I claim to be one that I have similar designs.

Rubbish!
You are doing the right thing.

I don't follow end times prophecy to closely because I think for the most part it is a waste of time. Things will happen when God is ready and not a moment sooner or later. For someone to feel that they can influence God and force some "signs" to happen are merely deluding themselves. The purpose of prophecy is to say "you don't know when it's going to happen so live like it's going down today." Do that and your covered. Don't worry about something you have no control over.

Constitutionally Speaking
10-23-2008, 07:46 AM
I don't think that Iran has ICBM technology. An ICBM by definition is one that could reach another continent (ie North America or Europe). All Iran needs is a missle that will fly a few hunderd miles and I am sure that they are more than capable of that feat if the bomb could be made light enough.


They don't NEED and ICBM that is absolutely correct. They HAVE missiles, capable of delivery to Israel, right now.


They could also hit us with a bomb smuggled across our borders or simply smuggled aboard a passenger jet - perhaps more difficult but not out of the realm of possibility.


Iran with a nuclear weapons capability CANNOT be allowed PERIOD.

Constitutionally Speaking
10-23-2008, 07:51 AM
If you're suggesting that ALL the leaders of Iran are suicidal then go sell that to Hannity. There is no reason to believe that every Imam would risk the entire nation of Iran to be wiped from the map...which it would be in about 90 seconds and they are acutely aware of it. The rational actor scenario is as true for Iran as it was for the Soviets. How many also were convinced of Kim Jung Ils death wish. Let me remind you he had far more central control over NK's survival than the Imam's in Iran.
You are way off base.

I know too many soldiers that worked directly with Spiritual and tribal leaders in Iraq during the war and it is patently false that their beliefs are based on the complete destruction of their people.

And Me...I'm a Christian and I'm also waiting for Christ's return, but I've not got a death wish to help accelerate the process. Do you know how many liberal idiots are convinced like you that ALL Christians wish for Armageddon to hasten Christ's return and that because I claim to be one that I have similar designs.

Rubbish!


The problem is that it doesn't take ALL of the IMAMS to launch that attack. It takes a few leaders in the right postitions.

You are, of course, correct that many Muslims are not of the radical type. But there ARE a lot of that are, and those that are, are very dangerous. Allowing Iran to develop these weapons is simply too risky.

Molon Labe
10-23-2008, 12:04 PM
The problem is that it doesn't take ALL of the IMAMS to launch that attack. It takes a few leaders in the right postitions.

You are, of course, correct that many Muslims are not of the radical type. But there ARE a lot of that , and those that are, are very dangerous. Allowing Iran to develop these weapons is simply too risky.

And I don't disagree. But let's not forget what makes it easier for a radical to garner support for a mass movement. You have to convince a mass movement that their hatred toward a threat really affects their way of life.
How much easier was it to convince radicals to join and die for Al Qaeda when Bin Laden pointed to the fact that U.S. bases were built in Saudi Arabia...one of the holiest nations in the Mid east?
Even Khomeini, with his hatred of the Wes, could not garner support for a 911 because hatred alone cannot fuel a large mass movement. You have to have a tangible grievance that can be linked. Well...that's what radicals have now.

Eyelids
10-23-2008, 12:10 PM
Yep.. but no one's suggesting we do that. We showed for 50 years that we could deter a nuclear power. There is no reason to believe we cannot if Iran becomes one.

Exactly.

How you feel about this really depends on whether you're a realist or liberal.

LogansPapa
10-23-2008, 12:17 PM
This far and no further..LP they love their homes as you do yours..and will die to protect it..even to the last woman and child.

We may disagree on many things, but I know one thing about you...you would never run were the United States attacked, and would defend her with your life if need be.


As I'm sure you would your little island, Sonnabend.:)

FlaGator
10-23-2008, 02:44 PM
They don't NEED and ICBM that is absolutely correct. They HAVE missiles, capable of delivery to Israel, right now.


They could also hit us with a bomb smuggled across our borders or simply smuggled aboard a passenger jet - perhaps more difficult but not out of the realm of possibility.


Iran with a nuclear weapons capability CANNOT be allowed PERIOD.

I didn't say that they needed an ICBM. Someone else said that they could easily build one. I merely disputed that fact.

Molon Labe
10-23-2008, 02:52 PM
I didn't say that they needed an ICBM. Someone else said that they could easily build one. I merely disputed that fact.

Now you've done it.... Since they haven't convinced you with the imminent threat scenario......Next there will be the inevitable Hitler comparison. :rolleyes:

FlaGator
10-23-2008, 05:32 PM
Now you've done it.... Since they haven't convinced you with the imminent threat scenario......Next there will be the inevitable Hitler comparison. :rolleyes:

Godwin's Law - any reference to Hitler in a thread generally means that the thread has run it's course and should be locked.