I'm a peacenik by nature and anti nuke in general but its easy to understand why a nation would want to have a nuclear weapon or two....so what's the big fuss about? I guess they have violated the Non Proliferation Treaty but I don't know enough about it to be sure if this is correct. Also, some people say the USofA has violated it too by developing the bunker buster nukes...but again I don't know enough about it.....so what's the deal? To me it just seems like international gun control to try to keep some nations from having the bomb....having one should deter the bully on the block shouldn't it...and shouldn't it deter some other nation from ripping them off?

Well, the US will surely think twice before attacking a country with nukes. Anyway, regarding Iran, as it's not likely be settled in diplomacy, I believe it's just a matter of time until Israel takes action. Sharon has finished with his Gaza strip plan and now he needs a military operation to survive politically. What will make him more popular in Israel (and in the US?) than an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities?

I'm a peacenik by nature

What you're really saying here Stroll, is you're a Troll by nature!

Sure...let's let Kadaffi and Kim Jung Ill have a few too!

I'm a peacenik by nature

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What you're really saying here Stroll, is you're a Troll by nature!

Sure...let's let Kadaffi and Kim Jung Ill have a few too!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, you might be right but mostly I think you're wrong. I think my nature is to believe that peace time is better for living a full life than war time and that my attitude about this is way farther on the side of peace than most people I've met. Also I am against nukes in general....but....I can understand why nations want to have nukes even though I'm against them....I can understand why the ones that have them won't give them up even though I wish they would. But if you really think I'm trolling here then please tell me what is the basis for this opinion....at the risk of going off topic.

Back on topic....what I have posted is an honest assessment of myself (I think) but I really don't understand how it is that countries that have nuclear weapons can really think that others shouldn't....I really think that this is like gun control....and, by the way Boon Mee, if you have ever bothered to actually read what I have posted you will already know that I do not support gun control.

I'm a peacenik by nature

What you're really saying here Stroll, is you're a Troll by nature!

Sure...let's let Kadaffi and Kim Jung Ill have a few too!

... by the way Boon Mee, if you have ever bothered to actually read what I have posted you will already know that I do not support gun control.

No quibble there, Stroll. I just couldn't let your line about being a peacenik go by w/out a houmorous comment from myself.

I'm against nukes too, by the way. The only ones that should be permitted are for electrical generation and perhaps fueling ships as a clean alternative to oil/coal. Problem of course is where to deposit the spent rods. These days it's NIMBY (not in my backyard) thinking that gets 'in the way'.

I think not a problem in capable hands - more a fear that religious mullahs might actually use them.

If Saddam really had got nukes - the coalition wouldn't have attacked him.

....not just the warheads though, one of the hardest things are the ballistics, the delivery systems.......it is rocket science.

If Saddam really had got nukes - the coalition wouldn't have attacked him.

Forgetting Israel here?

They took out his first plant...

The problem of nuclear waste will be around when all of us and the Sun as well are gone. That's how long the concentrated waste remains dangerous. Naturally, most of it comes from the ground and refinement of the ore- but spread around liberally and underground it's relatively harmless and less radioactive (concentrations of radioisotopes are more radioactive). I think we've been rather shortsighted about the long term consequences of digging up and concentrating all this stuff on the surface, but then how surprising is that.

There are *no* legitimate nuclear nations. The nonproliferation treaty states that its signatories who are *not* nuclear will remain so and those who are nuclear will strive to eliminate their weapons.

The existence of nuclear weapons even in supposedly "stable" countries like the U.S. (haha), Russia (heeheeheehee), Pakistan, (bwahahahahaaa!), India (heh heh), Israel (they don't admit it but it's true- HAhahahahahaha!), etc., should make us pause for a moment- the thought of such weapons in countries ready to break down at any moment like North Korea or Iran should make our blood run cold.

Any thoughts about what kind of government Pakistan will have AFTER Musharraf gives up military rule? It's got such good neighbors, after all!

Forgetting Israel here?

They took out his first plant...

He didn't have them then either.

If anyone had got nukes lurking in hidden silos, nobody would attack that country.

The text of your post kind of diverged a bit from the title, so I'll address the title and let the chips fall where they may.

Contrary to popular belief, just because the recipes for fission nuclear weapons and fusion nuclear weapons can be found on the internet, does not mean one can simply go out on the open market, buy whatever is needed and make one.

Both are still forms of a highly complex weapon that takes many key precision components, and those components have to be assembled and triggered in a very precise manner. Otherwise, there isn't enough initial energy created and focused to generate and sustain the chain reaction long enough to produce the desired effect.

(Yes, since you might ask, among other things, I am knowledgeable in nuclear energy, having a degree in physics and having been trained in the US navy nuclear power program, jack of all trades, master of none, so to speak).

Now as to the politics of nuclear weapons, even though rogue nations like Iran and North Korea may covet the technology, it is still highly doubtful that they would ever use one. Any country that they would possibly want to use the weapon on, could easily bring down 10-fold or 100-fold right back at 'em. Believe me, that's one h*ll of a deterrent.

By far the scarier thought is the so-called "dirty weapon" made up of highly radioactive nuclear waste, and spread out using conventional explosives. Something like this in a subway system, or other area where blasts could be highly compressed, could really prove to be problematic.

Luckily, if one can call it that, even the hard core whack jobs are hesitant to resort to this level of warfare. Chopping off heads, flying planes into buildings, dropping 2000 pound laser guided b*mbs by the shipload, are more or less all equated with "conventional" warfare. Hence it is more or less accepted by all parties involved.

However, the use of nuclear weapons in the post cold war era would be political suicide for anyone who does it. Even the fringe element supporters of all the nut cases would turn against the likes of Bin Laden if he were to make such a decision, because it would draw the rage of the entire planet upon them. Same goes for any of the current owners of nuclear weaponry. Sure they have it and would use it in a last resort scenario. But things would need to really destabilize to get to that point.

A long time ago, I used to subscribe to a publication called the "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists." These are people whom I would trust implicitly in an open and honest evaluation of the potential for nuclear warfare.

Since 1947, the Bulletin has maintained the Doomsday Clock, which is their way of estimating how close the world is to undergoing some sort of nuclear warfare. it is a great concept that really reflects some of the major strategic changes in the world over time. Here is the link:

http://www.thebulletin.org/doomsday_clock/timeline.htm

A long time ago, I used to subscribe to a publication called the "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists." These are people whom I would trust implicitly in an open and honest evaluation of the potential for nuclear warfare.

Since 1947, the Bulletin has maintained the Doomsday Clock, which is their way of estimating how close the world is to undergoing some sort of nuclear warfare. it is a great concept that really reflects some of the major strategic changes in the world over time. Here is the link:

http://www.thebulletin.org/doomsday_clock/timeline.htm

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Some observations with respect to the Doomsday clock:

- It is interesting to note that the clock came very close to midnight during the reagan build-up, but eventually got turned way back when the Eastern Bloc communist states broke down. IMHO, this is indicative of Reagan's foreign policy being extremely effective. Yet it is never mentioned. Why?

- Conversely, it is interesting to note that the clock was handed off to the Clinton administration as far from midnight as it has ever been (17 minutes), essentially indicating that the possibility of nuclear warfare was extremely remote, virtually impossible. yet by the time Clinton had left office, the clock had been pushed forward by 8 full minutes, which is a huge change in overall world stability. IMHO, this is indicative of Clinton's foreign policy being extremely ineffective, if not damaging. Yet this too is never mentioned. Why?

7 minutes to midnight !

I preferred Iron Maiden's "2 minutes to midnight"

A long time ago, I used to subscribe to a publication called the "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists." These are people whom I would trust implicitly in an open and honest evaluation of the potential for nuclear warfare.

Since 1947, the Bulletin has maintained the Doomsday Clock, which is their way of estimating how close the world is to undergoing some sort of nuclear warfare. it is a great concept that really reflects some of the major strategic changes in the world over time. Here is the link:

http://www.thebulletin.org/doomsday_clock/timeline.htm

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Some observations with respect to the Doomsday clock:

- It is interesting to note that the clock came very close to midnight during the reagan build-up, but eventually got turned way back when the Eastern Bloc communist states broke down. IMHO, this is indicative of Reagan's foreign policy being extremely effective. Yet it is never mentioned. Why?

- Conversely, it is interesting to note that the clock was handed off to the Clinton administration as far from midnight as it has ever been (17 minutes), essentially indicating that the possibility of nuclear warfare was extremely remote, virtually impossible. yet by the time Clinton had left office, the clock had been pushed forward by 8 full minutes, which is a huge change in overall world stability. IMHO, this is indicative of Clinton's foreign policy being extremely ineffective, if not damaging. Yet this too is never mentioned. Why?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My uneducated guess as to why for both Reagan and Clinton, and all other presidents and prime ministers is that the Doomsday clock people avoid political analysis since (I believe) what they are trying to do is to focus broad attention on the problem and political analysis would alienate some and ultimately reduce the effectiveness of their statement.

Back on topic....what I have posted is an honest assessment of myself (I think) but I really don't understand how it is that countries that have nuclear weapons can really think that others shouldn't....I really think that this is like gun control....and, by the way Boon Mee, if you have ever bothered to actually read what I have posted you will already know that I do not support gun control.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The view of "since they have it, others should have it as well" is very dangerous. Why would you approve of adding even one another nuke to the international arsenal?

Once a nuke is produced, there is absolutly no guarantee whatsoever that it will be kept in responsible hands. Not that I agree at all with the "ok for democracies, wrong for dictatorships" view, since as we have seen, the country claiming to be a model for democracy was the one that actually used it, and against civilians of all targets.

My uneducated guess as to why for both Reagan and Clinton, and all other presidents and prime ministers is that the Doomsday clock people avoid political analysis since (I believe) what they are trying to do is to focus broad attention on the problem and political analysis would alienate some and ultimately reduce the effectiveness of their statement.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry, this is absolutely false. Other than outright evidence of device testing, scientific/technological advances in certain countries and such things, these folks look at political stability almost exclusively for their clock settings (e.g., treaties, treaties being broken, fall of the eastern bloc, etc.).

IMO, the reason why they don't mention the respective rudderhands for these periods is because there are more factors than just which American president happens to be in power, that influence the political climate of the world. Therefore, they would be guilty of sloppy scientific thinking and logical fallacy if they mentioned such things.

Have a look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy

My uneducated guess as to why for both Reagan and Clinton, and all other presidents and prime ministers is that the Doomsday clock people avoid political analysis since (I believe) what they are trying to do is to focus broad attention on the problem and political analysis would alienate some and ultimately reduce the effectiveness of their statement.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry, this is absolutely false. Other than outright evidence of device testing, scientific/technological advances in certain countries and such things, these folks look at political stability almost exclusively for their clock settings (e.g., treaties, treaties being broken, fall of the eastern bloc, etc.).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I figured that they probably made a valuation of political situations as part of setting their clocks but this analysis does not need to include an analysis of the causes of these situations...for instance...as you pointed out, Reagan built up the US military...even if you ignore why he did this it naturally destabilized the world a little bit so the clock was set closer to midnite...why Reagan did this is not important to them...but since he did it the world is less stable. Likewise when the Eastern block broke down this reduced tension in the world and without even analyzing why this happened you could reasonably set the clock farther away from midnite since world tensions are reduced. These adjustments to the clock can be made without even considering why they happened....to try to explain why this happened takes one into the realm of partisan politics which is what these people wish to avoid.

To illustrate further...some people think that the Reagan policy is the major reason why the Eastern bloc fell...some people think that the Reagan policy could only happen because the Eastern bloc was already so weak and ready to fall....I'm not wanting to take sides in this debate...I only want to show that your view of the why of things is not a universally accepted view and it is not necessary for the people setting the clock to get involved in these matters...I believe that the clock is set based on the way things exist in the world, not on why they are the way they are.

If you feel that they do analyse more than I'm thinking then please post a link showing some of their analysis and I'll go check it out and report back on what I find.

911 Lies Under Fire -

Truth Finally Emerging

By Greg Szymanski

9-19-5

Former 9-11 commissioner Timothy Roemer avoided answering questions, running like a scared rabbit when confronted by William Rodriguez, the WTC custodian who wanted to know why his dissenting testimony was omitted in the final report, during a rally marking the fourth anniversary of the terrorist attacks.

"The 9-11 truth will be told. Bush and Cheney will be indicted for treason and murder. And immediately . . .the killing and illegal war in Iraq [will be stopped]."

These were the strong and poignant words ringing through the streets of New York Sunday as more than 250 9-11 truth protesters marched carrying "Impeach Bush" and "9-11 Inside Job" signs. The rally started at The New York Times Building and ended at the UN.

Organized by members of the web site, ny911truth.org, the rally was called to vent anger and make the public aware of the concerted effort by the mainstream media and the government to keep the truth about what really happened on 9-11 from the American people.

Although the corporate-elite media came out earlier in the day in force to cover the Ground Zero activities in honor of the 9-11 victims on the fourth anniversary of the tragedy, the mainstream media was predictably absent from protest rally just like it has been purposely absent for four years in covering compelling stories that contradict the government's official account.

Protesters passed by FOX, CNN and NBC buildings, to emphasize their feelings that media suppression has been primarily responsible for keeping America from the truth about 9-11 and largely responsible for allowing government officials to get away with the murder of 3,000 fellow citizens at Ground Zero.

Rodriguez, the last survivor of the North Tower, told of explosions emanating from the sub-level basement of the tower, prior to the plane striking the upper floors. His account has been systematically suppressed by the government, mainstream media and the 9-11 Commission.

"They have done everything in their power to ignore my statements, which directly contradict the government story," said Rodriguez as the crowd chanted, "Let the truth be told."

"I have at least 27 other people who are ready to testify that they also heard explosions, all of whom have been completely ignored by the 9-11 Commission. Also, the last drop of water fell from the glass and I realized all hope was lost to get at the truth when the testimony I gave the commission behind closed doors last year was omitted from the final report."

This time, however, Rodriguez broke new ground, when, for the first time after four years, a major news outlet carried his story.

His story aired on a one-hour, pre-recorded special for ABC radio and its nationwide affiliates. The story aired on the East Coast with comments by author David Ray Griffin, who has written a scathing report about at least 101 lies in the final 9-11 Commission report. Griffin, who has written two books about government lies and the government cover-up of 9-11, said the 9-11 Commission report, which received a national book award, should have been declared a "national disgrace."

Former Lt. Col. (USAF) Dr. Robert Bowman called for the immediate removal of President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and their cronies on charges of treason and murder. Bowman, who flew over 100 Vietnam combat missions and worked under presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, said he took a solemn oath to protect his country from foreign and domestic enemies, including a rogue president like Bush.

"9-11 is based on a pack of lies. It wasn't misjudgment; it was treason," said Bowman as he called for removal of what he called the mob and crooks in the White House.

Bowman told the audience that while walking in the march he received a kiss on the cheek from a member of a family that lost a loved one in the 9-11 attacks. He reassured the audience that those seeking truth about 9-11 and the illegal war in Iraq w ere "doing the right thing."

Donna Marsh gave the most emotional appeal. Tears came to her eyes and the eyes of many when she recalled how her pregnant daughter perished at Ground Zero because of what she called "criminals in the White House."

"My daughter called after the first plane hit at 8:46 a.m. and said she was told not to leave the South Tower because it was safe. In fact she was told not to leave or she would be fired," said Marsh. She repeated her statements on a Monday morning radio show hosted By Joyce Riley called "The Power Hour" on Genesis Broadcasting Network.

"Where was NORAD? What really happened in those buildings? Why did they collapse so quickly like a controlled demolition? There are just so many unanswered questions the government refuses to answer. What conclusion can be made other than our own government was involved in killing my daughter and 3,000 other Americans?" asked Marsh.

"I want George W. Bush [to know], he can no longer use my daughter's name to spread war and killing throughout the world. From this day forward, I want my daughter's name removed permanently from the official 9-11 victims list."

After the two-hour rally, protesters doubled in size as they congregated at St. Mark's Church.

"As Americans we can no longer live in fear of George W. Bush and his band of criminals, who all belong behind bars in jail," said attorney Phil Berg. "I promise I will never stop searching for the truth, and one day the truth will be told."

(Issue #38-39, September 19 & 26, 2005)

Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute - as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003

Iran Says It Won't Be

Bullied Over Its

Nuclear Rights

Arabic News.com

9-19-5

IRNA reported that Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi said that referral of Iran's nuclear dossier to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has no legal basis and even if it goes to the UNSC, there is clear-cut procedure to deal with it.

The official news agency said: Speaking to the media on his weekly briefing, he added that Iran's high potential in the management of crisis has been proved in the past and that being referred to SC will not be the end of the world. In response to a question about resumption of nuclear activities at Natanz in Isfahan province, he said that the issue of uranium enrichment is not currently on the agenda. "We look forward to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Monday session and hope for promising results paving the way for negotiation," he added. Asked whether more IAEA Board of Governors member states are in favor of referring Iran's nuclear dossier to the UNSC, he replied that some countries may be subject to the pressure of the world powers and act against their will. About the extent of being optimistic that the dossier will not be referred to UNSC, he said, "If logic, wisdom, international laws and legal reasoning are taken into view, I will be one hundred percent optimistic that it will not be sent to the Security Council. "But if the matter is politicized and a single view is to be imposed upon Iran, it will be quite different. We should wait and see whether legal principles and international regulations will prevail or discrimination and bullying."

Asefi said the fuel cycle is Iran's natural right and Iran is determined to keep on its way to preserve it. "Based on the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), possessing fuel cycle is among our inalienable rights," he added.

Meantime, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Saturday offered Iran's proposal on the country's nuclear program to the international community at the 60th meeting of the UN General Assembly. President Ahmadinejad called on the UN General Assembly, as the largest organ of the world body, to set up a special committee to compile a comprehensive report and draw up practical strategies for complete disarmament.

"The special committee should report on how the material, technology and equipment needed for production of nuclear weapons has been transferred to the Zionist regime in contravention of Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and come up with practical plans to make the Middle East free from nuclear arms," he said. "Certain powerful states are attempting to lay the foundations of a nuclear apartheid system through discriminatory approach to the access of NPT member states to peaceful nuclear material, equipment and technology."

"Therefore, we are concerned that with certain powerful states imposing their full domination on nuclear energy technology and sources and preventing other states from enjoying such technologies, we will witness a wide gap between the powerful states and others and division of world countries into bright and dark nations in the future." "Unfortunately, no effective steps have been taken over the past 30 years to operationalize the recognized rights of NPT member states to gain access to civilian application of nuclear energy as per Article 4 of the Treaty. "So, it is essential for the General Assembly to require International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to file a report as per Article 2 of the Agency's Articles of Association on violations committed by certain countries in preventing the operationalization of this article and to offer practical and applicable solutions for its materialization."

"The point which deserves to be given attention is that applying nuclear energy for civilian purposes without possessing fuel cycle is an empty term. Nuclear plants in a country, if they make that country permanently dependent on bullying states which spare no efforts to advance their own goals, will be nothing but to make the country and its nation dependent on others more than ever before. No popular and responsible government does regard such work as a service to its nation." "The story of oil in oil-rich countries under foreign domination is an experience which no independent country is ready to repeat," the Iranian president said.

Speaking to CNN, Ahmadinejad noted to the high prices and profits requested by some countries and western countries for the sales of nuclear fuel and indicated that this maybe a good business for Iran to get into.

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/...2005091727.html

911 Lies Under Fire -

Truth Finally Emerging

By Greg Szymanski

9-19-5

Here you go again Gent, Spamming the board with this conspiracy crap again.

And, you're in the WRONG thread!

911 Lies Under Fire -

Truth Finally Emerging

By Greg Szymanski

9-19-5

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here you go again Gent, Spamming the board with this conspiracy crap again.

And, you're in the WRONG thread!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

no apology, you do it all the time - get used to it!

Well, the US will surely think twice before attacking a country with nukes. Anyway, regarding Iran, as it's not likely be settled in diplomacy, I believe it's just a matter of time until Israel takes action. Sharon has finished with his Gaza strip plan and now he needs a military operation to survive politically. What will make him more popular in Israel (and in the US?)  than an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think that fat terrorist Sharon is liked anywhere in the world except by his kniving flock. The only good nuke is one that goes off under Sharon's fat ass.

Be careful Larry, Booners will call you an anti semite or worse a "terrorist"

Sharon reminds me of humpty dumpty.

Here's a great post on the similarity between Iran’s nuclear posturing and Hitler’s attempts to buy time before launching the blitzkrieg, Iran & the Bomb: Visions & Lies.

"The process of consolidation in which the great states of the earth are involved at the moment is for us the last warning signal to stop and search our hearts, to lead our people out of the dream world back to hard reality, and show them the way to the future which alone will lead the old Reich to a new golden age..."

-Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf.

"We're now talking about the Iranian leader, President Mahmood Ahmadinejad. Like Hitler, he has made many entreaties to the west, using every trick in the fascist handbook in order to buy time..."

Read the whole piece.

...and I thought Bush was Hitler…

Good news for the Iranians:

Russia resists UN threat to Iran

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4266372.stm

Russia and China have openly opposed Western efforts to take Iran to the UN Security Council over Tehran's controversial nuclear activities.

The US and EU have been pressing for Iran to be referred to the Security Council, which can impose sanctions.

But Moscow and Beijing may block the plan, with Russia saying the current situation was "not irreversible".

Iran has threatened to bar snap inspections of its nuclear sites if it is referred to the Security Council.

Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani also said Tehran would also consider pulling out of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and resume uranium enrichment if the "language of force" continues.

Good news for the Iranians:

Russia resists UN threat to Iran

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4266372.stm

Russia and China have openly opposed Western efforts to take Iran to the UN Security Council over Tehran's controversial nuclear activities.

The US and EU have been pressing for Iran to be referred to the Security Council, which can impose sanctions.

But Moscow and Beijing may block the plan, with Russia saying the current situation was "not irreversible".

Iran has threatened to bar snap inspections of its nuclear sites if it is referred to the Security Council.

Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani also said Tehran would also consider pulling out of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and resume uranium enrichment if the "language of force" continues.

And just why is this good news for I-Ran?

You like nuclear proliferation there, B-Fly?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

we can only sit back and wait