What's new

Iran Probably Already Has the Bomb. Here’s What to Do about It

Homajon

FULL MEMBER
Jun 24, 2012
714
3
735
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Germany
Iran Probably Already Has the Bomb. Here’s What to Do about It

By R. JAMES WOOLSEY, WILLIAM R. GRAHAM, HENRY F. COOPER, FRITZ ERMARTH & PETER VINCENT PRY

March 19, 2021 3:24 PM


Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei delivers a televised speech in Tehran, Iran March 11, 2021. (Official Khamenei Website/Handout via Reuters)

We can start by figuring out how to defend ourselves.

Washington’s policy-makers are being misled by the intelligence and defense communities that are grossly underestimating the nuclear threat from Iran, just as they did with North Korea.

Washington’s mainstream “worst-case” thinking assumes Iran does not yet have atomic weapons, but could “break out” to crash-develop one or a few A-bombs in a year, which the intelligence community would supposedly detect in time for warning and preventive measures. Rowan Scarborough recently reported in the Washington Times that “during a private talk in July 2017 before a Japanese-U.S. audience,” the Pentagon’s director of Net Assessment James H. Baker briefed that “Iran, if it chooses, may ‘safely’ possess a nuclear weapon in 10-15 years time.”

Another mainstream “worst-case” view is that Iran could abide by the Obama administration’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and legitimately glide toward nuclear weapons capability in ten to 15 years. The Trump administration canceled the JCPOA for legitimate reasons, but the Biden administration has pledged to revive it.

In contrast to these views, we warned in these pages in February 2016 that Iran probably already had atomic weapons deliverable by missile and satellite:

We assess, from UN International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] reports and other sources, that Iran probably already has nuclear weapons. . . . prior to 2003, Iran was manufacturing nuclear weapon components, like bridge-wire detonators and neutron initiators, performing non-fissile explosive experiments of an implosion nuclear device, and working on the design of a nuclear warhead for the Shahab-III missile.
When our World War II Manhattan Project reached this stage, the U.S. was only months away from making the first atomic bombs. This was Iran’s status 18 years ago. And the Manhattan Project employed 1940s-era technology to invent and use the first atomic weapons in only three years, beginning from a purely theoretical understanding.

So by 2003, Iran was already a threshold nuclear-missile state. But for at least the last decade, the intelligence community has annually assessed that Iran could build atomic weapons in one year or less. On the other hand, less than a month ago, independent analysts at the Institute for Science and International Security assessed that Iran had a break-out time of as short as three months for its first nuclear weapon and five months for a second.

And there is no reason to believe U.S. and IAEA intelligence capabilities are so perfect that they can assuredly detect Iran’s clandestine efforts to build atomic weapons. Indeed, the U.S. and IAEA did not even know about Iran’s clandestine nuclear-weapons program until Iranian dissidents exposed it in 2002.

The IAEA and the U.S. intelligence community have long been poor nuclear watchdogs. IAEA inspections failed to discover clandestine nuclear-weapons programs in North Korea, Pakistan, Iraq, and Libya. In 1998, the intelligence community’s “Worldwide Threat Assessment” failed to warn that, just a few months later, Pakistan and India would overtly “go nuclear” with a series of nuclear-weapons tests. U.S. intelligence often underestimated nuclear threats from Russia, China, and North Korea. It is likely now doing the same with Iran.

Contrary to mainstream thinking:

  • Iran can build sophisticated nuclear weapons by relying on component testing, without nuclear testing. The U.S., Israel, Pakistan, and India have all used the component-testing approach. The U.S. Hiroshima bomb was not tested, nor have been more sophisticated U.S. thermonuclear warheads during the past 30 years. Pakistan and India’s 1998 nuclear tests were done for political reasons, not out of technological necessity.
  • IAEA inspections are limited to civilian sites, and restricted from military bases, including several highly suspicious underground facilities where Iran’s nuclear-weapons program almost certainly continues clandestinely. Imagery of one vast underground site, heavily protected by SAMs, shows high-voltage powerlines terminating underground, potentially delivering enormous amounts of electricity, consistent with powering uranium enrichment centrifuges on an industrial scale. So IAEA reports on Iran’s enriched-uranium stockpile almost certainly are not the whole story.
  • The U.S. intelligence assessment that Iran suspended its nuclear-weapons program in 2003 is contradicted both by Iran’s nuclear archives, stolen by Israel in 2018, indicating Iran’s ongoing nuclear-weapons program (reported at several sites in 2006, 2017, and 2019) and by Iran’s rapid resumption of enriching uranium to prohibited levels. This demonstrates an existing capability to quickly produce weapons-grade uranium. Reports from the Congressional Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Commission elaborate these and important related issues.
  • Most estimates assume Iran needs five to ten kilograms of highly enriched (over 90 percent) uranium-235 or plutonium-239 to make an atomic weapon, as with the first crudely designed A-bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But a good design requires only one to two kilograms. Crude A-bombs can be designed with uranium-235 or plutonium-239 enriched to only 50 percent.
  • Iran’s nuclear and missile programs are not just indigenous, but are helped significantly by Russia, China, North Korea, and probably Pakistan.
  • While the intelligence community uses an in-country nuclear test as confirmation that a country, including Iran, has developed a nuclear weapon, this leaves it wide open to deceiving itself, our leadership, and our allies. Iran and North Korea have close working relations, North Korea will do anything for Iranian oil, and Iranians have reportedly been present at some of North Korea’s nuclear tests. North Korea could easily have exchanged information with Iran and even tested Iranian nuclear weapons as well as their own — if there is any difference — without the U.S. and its allies knowing whose weapons were being tested. North Korean scientists are known to be in Iran helping the Islamic Revolutionary Guard “space program” that provides cover for developing ICBMs.
As we warned five years ago, it is implausible and imprudent to assume that Iran refrained from making atomic weapons for more than a decade, when they could do so clandestinely:

Iran probably has nuclear warheads for the Shahab-III medium-range missile, which they tested for making EMP attacks. . . . And at a time of its choosing, Iran could launch a surprise EMP attack against the United States by satellite, as they have apparently practiced with help from North Korea.
Why has Iran not gone overtly nuclear, like North Korea? There are several explanations. For one, North Korea is protected by China and lives in a safer neighborhood, where South Korea and Japan are reluctant to support U.S. military options to disarm Pyongyang. In contrast, Iran’s neighbors, Israel and moderate Arab states, are far more likely to support air strikes to disarm Tehran. As we warned five years ago, Iran probably wants to build enough nuclear missiles to make its capabilities irreversible:

Iran could be building a nuclear-capable missile force, partly hidden in tunnels, as suggested by its revelation of a vast underground missile basing system. . . . Iran is building toward a large, deployable, survivable, war-fighting missile force—to which nuclear weapons can be swiftly added as they are manufactured.
Moreover, Iran wants to preserve the fiction of its non-nuclear status. It has derived far more economic and strategic benefits from the JCPOA and threats to “go nuclear” than has North Korea from “going nuclear” overtly. Ominously, Iran may be forgoing the deterrence benefits of an overt nuclear posture because it is building toward surprise future employment of nuclear capabilities to advance the global theological agenda of the ayatollahs and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, the world’s largest and most sophisticated terrorist organization.

So what can we do to meet this almost-certain threat? Some better options are, unfortunately, far more difficult at this juncture. Arms control non-solutions like the JCPOA will only make matters worse, just as arms control did with North Korea, by offering false hope while the nuclear threat grows. Disarming Iran of nuclear capabilities by airstrikes or invasion would be very risky since we do not know where all of its nuclear missiles are hidden. The U.S. was deterred from disarming North Korea when that nation’s nuclear-missile capabilities were merely nascent. Regime change by sponsoring a popular revolution may be a practical solution — the Iranian people would overthrow their Islamist government if they could. But the regime itself has proven adept at suppressing popular uprisings, and may use U.S. involvement, whether purported or actual, as a propaganda tool in such an effort, as it has before.

But there are things we can do right now, including:

  • Harden U.S. electric grids and other life-sustaining critical infrastructures against a nuclear EMP attack, which is described in Iran’s military doctrine and would be the regime’s most easily executed and most damaging nuclear threat.
  • The White House and STRATCOM should regard Iran as a nuclear-missile threat right now, increase scrutiny by national technical means of verification and by human intelligence to locate nuclear-weapons capabilities, and prepare preemptive options should action become necessary.
  • Strengthen National Missile Defenses and especially deploy modern space-based defenses. For example, the 1990s Brilliant Pebbles project, canceled by the Clinton administration, could begin deployment in five years, cost an estimated $20 billion in today’s dollars, and intercept essentially all ballistic missiles ranging more than a few-hundred miles, including from Russia and China. Our national survival should not depend only upon striking first or deterrence. The American people would rather be defended than avenged.
Ambassador R. James Woolsey is a former director of central intelligence; William R. Graham was President Reagan’s science adviser and acting administrator of NASA, and chaired the Congressional EMP Commission; Ambassador Henry F. Cooper was director of the Strategic Defense Initiative and chief negotiator at the Defense and Space Talks with the USSR; Fritz Ermarth was chairman of the National Intelligence Council; Peter Vincent Pry is executive director of the EMP Task Force on National and Homeland Security and served in the Congressional Strategic Posture Commission, the House Armed Services Committee, and the CIA.



I don't get along in two points:

Iran’s nuclear and missile programs are not just indigenous, but are helped significantly by Russia, China, North Korea, and probably Pakistan.
This was right in the past, but today Russia, China and Pakistan have no interest to support Irans nuclear and/or missile programms. If at all, Iran only gets assistance from North Korea.

the Iranian people would overthrow their Islamist government if they could.
On the contrary:

www.defence.pk/pdf/threads/iranian-public-opinion.542342/

The lefties are on their deathmarch will be soon wiped out once and for all.


But apart from that, it's a good article.
 

aryobarzan

FULL MEMBER
Feb 17, 2019
1,481
1
4,439
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Canada
Iran Probably Already Has the Bomb. Here’s What to Do about It

By R. JAMES WOOLSEY, WILLIAM R. GRAHAM, HENRY F. COOPER, FRITZ ERMARTH & PETER VINCENT PRY

March 19, 2021 3:24 PM


Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei delivers a televised speech in Tehran, Iran March 11, 2021. (Official Khamenei Website/Handout via Reuters)

We can start by figuring out how to defend ourselves.

Washington’s policy-makers are being misled by the intelligence and defense communities that are grossly underestimating the nuclear threat from Iran, just as they did with North Korea.

Washington’s mainstream “worst-case” thinking assumes Iran does not yet have atomic weapons, but could “break out” to crash-develop one or a few A-bombs in a year, which the intelligence community would supposedly detect in time for warning and preventive measures. Rowan Scarborough recently reported in the Washington Times that “during a private talk in July 2017 before a Japanese-U.S. audience,” the Pentagon’s director of Net Assessment James H. Baker briefed that “Iran, if it chooses, may ‘safely’ possess a nuclear weapon in 10-15 years time.”

Another mainstream “worst-case” view is that Iran could abide by the Obama administration’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and legitimately glide toward nuclear weapons capability in ten to 15 years. The Trump administration canceled the JCPOA for legitimate reasons, but the Biden administration has pledged to revive it.

In contrast to these views, we warned in these pages in February 2016 that Iran probably already had atomic weapons deliverable by missile and satellite:


When our World War II Manhattan Project reached this stage, the U.S. was only months away from making the first atomic bombs. This was Iran’s status 18 years ago. And the Manhattan Project employed 1940s-era technology to invent and use the first atomic weapons in only three years, beginning from a purely theoretical understanding.

So by 2003, Iran was already a threshold nuclear-missile state. But for at least the last decade, the intelligence community has annually assessed that Iran could build atomic weapons in one year or less. On the other hand, less than a month ago, independent analysts at the Institute for Science and International Security assessed that Iran had a break-out time of as short as three months for its first nuclear weapon and five months for a second.

And there is no reason to believe U.S. and IAEA intelligence capabilities are so perfect that they can assuredly detect Iran’s clandestine efforts to build atomic weapons. Indeed, the U.S. and IAEA did not even know about Iran’s clandestine nuclear-weapons program until Iranian dissidents exposed it in 2002.

The IAEA and the U.S. intelligence community have long been poor nuclear watchdogs. IAEA inspections failed to discover clandestine nuclear-weapons programs in North Korea, Pakistan, Iraq, and Libya. In 1998, the intelligence community’s “Worldwide Threat Assessment” failed to warn that, just a few months later, Pakistan and India would overtly “go nuclear” with a series of nuclear-weapons tests. U.S. intelligence often underestimated nuclear threats from Russia, China, and North Korea. It is likely now doing the same with Iran.

Contrary to mainstream thinking:

  • Iran can build sophisticated nuclear weapons by relying on component testing, without nuclear testing. The U.S., Israel, Pakistan, and India have all used the component-testing approach. The U.S. Hiroshima bomb was not tested, nor have been more sophisticated U.S. thermonuclear warheads during the past 30 years. Pakistan and India’s 1998 nuclear tests were done for political reasons, not out of technological necessity.
  • IAEA inspections are limited to civilian sites, and restricted from military bases, including several highly suspicious underground facilities where Iran’s nuclear-weapons program almost certainly continues clandestinely. Imagery of one vast underground site, heavily protected by SAMs, shows high-voltage powerlines terminating underground, potentially delivering enormous amounts of electricity, consistent with powering uranium enrichment centrifuges on an industrial scale. So IAEA reports on Iran’s enriched-uranium stockpile almost certainly are not the whole story.
  • The U.S. intelligence assessment that Iran suspended its nuclear-weapons program in 2003 is contradicted both by Iran’s nuclear archives, stolen by Israel in 2018, indicating Iran’s ongoing nuclear-weapons program (reported at several sites in 2006, 2017, and 2019) and by Iran’s rapid resumption of enriching uranium to prohibited levels. This demonstrates an existing capability to quickly produce weapons-grade uranium. Reports from the Congressional Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Commission elaborate these and important related issues.
  • Most estimates assume Iran needs five to ten kilograms of highly enriched (over 90 percent) uranium-235 or plutonium-239 to make an atomic weapon, as with the first crudely designed A-bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But a good design requires only one to two kilograms. Crude A-bombs can be designed with uranium-235 or plutonium-239 enriched to only 50 percent.
  • Iran’s nuclear and missile programs are not just indigenous, but are helped significantly by Russia, China, North Korea, and probably Pakistan.
  • While the intelligence community uses an in-country nuclear test as confirmation that a country, including Iran, has developed a nuclear weapon, this leaves it wide open to deceiving itself, our leadership, and our allies. Iran and North Korea have close working relations, North Korea will do anything for Iranian oil, and Iranians have reportedly been present at some of North Korea’s nuclear tests. North Korea could easily have exchanged information with Iran and even tested Iranian nuclear weapons as well as their own — if there is any difference — without the U.S. and its allies knowing whose weapons were being tested. North Korean scientists are known to be in Iran helping the Islamic Revolutionary Guard “space program” that provides cover for developing ICBMs.
As we warned five years ago, it is implausible and imprudent to assume that Iran refrained from making atomic weapons for more than a decade, when they could do so clandestinely:


Why has Iran not gone overtly nuclear, like North Korea? There are several explanations. For one, North Korea is protected by China and lives in a safer neighborhood, where South Korea and Japan are reluctant to support U.S. military options to disarm Pyongyang. In contrast, Iran’s neighbors, Israel and moderate Arab states, are far more likely to support air strikes to disarm Tehran. As we warned five years ago, Iran probably wants to build enough nuclear missiles to make its capabilities irreversible:


Moreover, Iran wants to preserve the fiction of its non-nuclear status. It has derived far more economic and strategic benefits from the JCPOA and threats to “go nuclear” than has North Korea from “going nuclear” overtly. Ominously, Iran may be forgoing the deterrence benefits of an overt nuclear posture because it is building toward surprise future employment of nuclear capabilities to advance the global theological agenda of the ayatollahs and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, the world’s largest and most sophisticated terrorist organization.

So what can we do to meet this almost-certain threat? Some better options are, unfortunately, far more difficult at this juncture. Arms control non-solutions like the JCPOA will only make matters worse, just as arms control did with North Korea, by offering false hope while the nuclear threat grows. Disarming Iran of nuclear capabilities by airstrikes or invasion would be very risky since we do not know where all of its nuclear missiles are hidden. The U.S. was deterred from disarming North Korea when that nation’s nuclear-missile capabilities were merely nascent. Regime change by sponsoring a popular revolution may be a practical solution — the Iranian people would overthrow their Islamist government if they could. But the regime itself has proven adept at suppressing popular uprisings, and may use U.S. involvement, whether purported or actual, as a propaganda tool in such an effort, as it has before.

But there are things we can do right now, including:

  • Harden U.S. electric grids and other life-sustaining critical infrastructures against a nuclear EMP attack, which is described in Iran’s military doctrine and would be the regime’s most easily executed and most damaging nuclear threat.
  • The White House and STRATCOM should regard Iran as a nuclear-missile threat right now, increase scrutiny by national technical means of verification and by human intelligence to locate nuclear-weapons capabilities, and prepare preemptive options should action become necessary.
  • Strengthen National Missile Defenses and especially deploy modern space-based defenses. For example, the 1990s Brilliant Pebbles project, canceled by the Clinton administration, could begin deployment in five years, cost an estimated $20 billion in today’s dollars, and intercept essentially all ballistic missiles ranging more than a few-hundred miles, including from Russia and China. Our national survival should not depend only upon striking first or deterrence. The American people would rather be defended than avenged.
Ambassador R. James Woolsey is a former director of central intelligence; William R. Graham was President Reagan’s science adviser and acting administrator of NASA, and chaired the Congressional EMP Commission; Ambassador Henry F. Cooper was director of the Strategic Defense Initiative and chief negotiator at the Defense and Space Talks with the USSR; Fritz Ermarth was chairman of the National Intelligence Council; Peter Vincent Pry is executive director of the EMP Task Force on National and Homeland Security and served in the Congressional Strategic Posture Commission, the House Armed Services Committee, and the CIA.



I don't get along in two points:



This was right in the past, but today Russia, China and Pakistan have no interest to support Irans nuclear and/or missile programms. If at all, Iran only gets assistance from North Korea.



On the contrary:

www.defence.pk/pdf/threads/iranian-public-opinion.542342/

The lefties are on their deathmarch will be soon wiped out once and for all.


But apart from that, it's a good article.
It makes one gigantic , convenient and deliberately mistaken assumption:

That Iran will attack US preemptively with with one or two nuclear missiles that they have built . Meaning Iranian leadership is composed of a bunch of crazy suicidal, lunatics that will attack US with one or two nuclear bombs and hope they will somehow survive US nuclear retaliation.

I believe that Iran does have nuclear devices..they have had 18 years to build them...but no...they will not attack US unless if attacked first and as a last resort.
 

Old School

SENIOR MEMBER
Apr 16, 2010
2,553
1
3,260
US intelligence community has so far actually failed in predicting the nuclear capabilities of any foreign power including Iran.
An official nuclear test isn't necessary in order to get hold of a bomb. Nuclear test is more of a political statement than being scientifically significant as component testing can achieve the scientific goals. Whatever Iran does with this bomb is another story.
 

FuturePAF

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 17, 2014
4,087
19
5,027
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Definitely, Neither Russia nor China nor Pakistan would want to help Iran nowadays in this regard. For Pakistan, a nuclear Iran could be a potential threat. North Korea would probably be the only nation willing to help the Iranians. And if it’s the North Koreans it may even be an advanced design with a high yield; 150-300 kt. This is the problem with leaving nations under sanctions for a long time without negotiating early on. Had the US negotiated with the North Koreans in the 90s and taken even a bad deal, the North Koreans probably wouldn’t have had nukes, perhaps even some way to get the Koreans to reunify when they were so desperate after the Soviet Union collapsed.

This should be a lesson to get back into the JCPOA and quick. Give Iran an exit ramp and a way back into the fold. Otherwise the world may have another North Korea in its hands.

It makes one gigantic , convenient and deliberately mistaken assumption:

That Iran will attack US preemptively with with one or two nuclear missiles that they have built . Meaning Iranian leadership is composed of a bunch of crazy suicidal, lunatics that will attack US with one or two nuclear bombs and hope they will somehow survive US nuclear retaliation.

I believe that Iran does have nuclear devices..they have had 18 years to build them...but no...they will not attack US unless if attacked first and as a last resort.
If they have it they would try to go for a North Korean strategy; build up enough until it could come out and say they have 20-30 warheads and thousands of missiles; guess which ones are armed with the real warheads.
 
Last edited:

zectech

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 12, 2018
3,297
-3
3,927
Country
Italy
Location
Netherlands
You need the delivery system first. Iran lacks the capacity because none of Iranian missiles were ever defended against the full ADS of the USA: SAT and ground and ship based.

So it is pointless to even have nukes. You can only hit the Saudis.

To hit Isreal you would need something like dumb V2 rockets. And swarms of them, a few being nuclear. And coating that would not react to high power laser weapons.

Iran would have to hit targets throughout the Middle East and in Europe and then against the US - conventional missiles to test if their missiles actually work. And if the USA uses every means of defense against them and the missiles still work & hit their target, then Iranian nukes makes sense.
 

Muhammed45

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 2, 2015
6,710
-4
10,136
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
NUKEs are useless. Better to say rumors rather than real capability. They are scarecrows to scare weak nations and to enslave them, the way USA has used its nuclear arsenal.
A good network of airdefense systems can repel American attacks. A good A2/AD capability is enough to counter USA and its regional coalition.
No need for the nuclear joke, Iran is working on EMPs. As American analyst have confessed Iran is capable of sendingn American old aged power Networks to stone age. Through an electromagnetic pulse attack which was used by Russians against Incerlik airbase in smalles possible sacle.
That's the way to go, USA is free to Stick to its nuclear joke, we are ahead of them in other field.
 

Arian

ELITE MEMBER
Oct 21, 2011
2,765
-3
5,358
Location
Germany
NUKEs are useless. Better to say rumors rather than real capability. They are scarecrows to scare weak nations and to enslave them, the way USA has used its nuclear arsenal.
A good network of airdefense systems can repel American attacks. A good A2/AD capability is enough to counter USA and its regional coalition.
No need for the nuclear joke, Iran is working on EMPs. As American analyst have confessed Iran is capable of sendingn American old aged power Networks to stone age. Through an electromagnetic pulse attack which was used by Russians against Incerlik airbase in smalles possible sacle.
That's the way to go, USA is free to Stick to its nuclear joke, we are ahead of them in other field.
Are you saying that all these countries that have invested billions of dollars in building and maintaining nuclear arms are just stupid? Even cash short Pakistan with a fragile economy that hardly meets the needs of her citizens has invested billions of dollars in them and is constantly upgrading her nuclear arsenal.

Nukes are not useless at all. They remain, and will remain for a very long time, the most destructive weapon created by the mankind. A nuclear attack on Tehran will force Iran to unconditionally surrender to the Americans like Japan in 1945. Now, of course, such apocalyptic scenarios are extremely unlikely to happen, but if they do, believe it or not, an Iran without nuclear arms will have to surrender immediately and unconditionally and the Americans will have won the war with minimal damage to them.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I am aware of the existence of non-nuclear EMPs, but even EMPs that can disable electronic devices in a large area are nuclear.
 

Dariush the Great

FULL MEMBER
Jan 28, 2020
1,616
-1
3,714
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Are you saying that all these countries that have invested billions of dollars in building and maintaining nuclear arms are just stupid? Even cash short Pakistan with a fragile economy that hardly meets the needs of her citizens has invested billions of dollars in them and is constantly upgrading her nuclear arsenal.

Nukes are not useless at all. They remain, and will remain for a very long time, the most destructive weapon created by the mankind. A nuclear attack on Tehran will force Iran to unconditionally surrender to the Americans like Japan in 1945. Now, of course, such apocalyptic scenarios are extremely unlikely to happen, but if they do, believe it or not, an Iran without nuclear arms will have to surrender immediately and unconditionally and the Americans will have won the war with minimal damage to them.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I am aware of the existence of non-nuclear EMPs, but even EMPs that can disable electronic devices in a large area are nuclear.
Enghadr be sohbatha mollah maghz pehen gush nakon dadash.
 

Arian

ELITE MEMBER
Oct 21, 2011
2,765
-3
5,358
Location
Germany
Enghadr be sohbatha mollah maghz pehen gush nakon dadash.
Mohammad adame mihandoosti hast, Dariush jan. Dastane jomhuriye eslami ba selah hasteyi mese dastane gorbeyi hast ke dastesh be goosht nemirese. Tanha keshvari too donya ke mige selah hasteyi be dard nemikhore jomhuriye eslamie :))
 

TheTallGuy

FULL MEMBER
Apr 10, 2019
1,088
1
2,339
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
There use to a hush hush report - in which it was suggested that Pakistan sold 2 x Nuclear Weapons each to Iran and Saudi Arab to achieve balance in middle-east.

that is why whatever you hear and see ..they will never ever go to war directly ...

Funny isn`t! just think if it was true! :)
 

aryobarzan

FULL MEMBER
Feb 17, 2019
1,481
1
4,439
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Canada
1- Iran went nuclear capable in 2003 (that is 18 years ago).Manhattan project from idea to first bomb took only 3 years.

2- Iran will not go public about its bomb ( why!..read the article )

3- Iran does not need to reach US mainland..Israel is close next door and more important to them (US) than any of the 51 US states.

4- Iran is now working on 2nd strike capability in case of a preemptive nuclear attack by US or Israel (Missile cities and submarine launched)

5- Nuclear devices do not require being tested... public tests are done for political shows.. Hiroshima bomb was not tested..

6- That article is written to lobby for more $$$funds for US missile defence..so they have to show Iran has the bomb (the truth) and Iran wants to attack US with that bomb ( fantasy and scare tactic part to receive the $$$ funding).
 

Muhammed45

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 2, 2015
6,710
-4
10,136
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Are you saying that all these countries that have invested billions of dollars in building and maintaining nuclear arms are just stupid? Even cash short Pakistan with a fragile economy that hardly meets the needs of her citizens has invested billions of dollars in them and is constantly upgrading her nuclear arsenal.

Nukes are not useless at all. They remain, and will remain for a very long time, the most destructive weapon created by the mankind. A nuclear attack on Tehran will force Iran to unconditionally surrender to the Americans like Japan in 1945. Now, of course, such apocalyptic scenarios are extremely unlikely to happen, but if they do, believe it or not, an Iran without nuclear arms will have to surrender immediately and unconditionally and the Americans will have won the war with minimal damage to them.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I am aware of the existence of non-nuclear EMPs, but even EMPs that can disable electronic devices in a large area are nuclear.
Not to mention that EMPs are a derivative of the same technology used in nuclear weapons.
If Americans could do it then they wouldve done that a Long time ago. Japan never posed a threat to evanglical Israel, on the other hand we do. So our animosity is deeper and Bigger compared to American Japanese one during the ww2. We are engaged with USA in a Hybrid/proxy war all over the Middle East. Its just a matter of time our fight turned into a direct war. Don't forget that our problem with USA is ideological and illusion of peace between Iran and USA is nothing but wet dreams of a bunch of Neo liberals. So USA won't show us any mercy if it could hurt us by nuclear weapons. Nuclear radiation could be dangrous but i still believe they are not what media has portrayed already. EMP is One step forward. Again NUKEs are for fooling your masses, the fat kim, Pakistani elites who told their people eat grass but let us join the club of international bullies etc. They are not our standards when trying to develop deterrence.
Enghadr be sohbatha mollah maghz pehen gush nakon dadash.
Khodamo tag kon namard bro 🐵
Mohammad adame mihandoosti hast, Dariush jan. Dastane jomhuriye eslami ba selah hasteyi mese dastane gorbeyi hast ke dastesh be goosht nemirese. Tanha keshvari too donya ke mige selah hasteyi be dard nemikhore jomhuriye eslamie :))
Thanks bro, gimme a kiss 😁
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom