What's new

Iran will never seek nuclear weapons: Leader

I don't see why civil nuclear energy should be denied in this case when they are not making nuke weapons. Energy access is everybody's right and so also it is Iran's. There were articles that I read where IAEA inspectors said that there are no nuke materials there.

This is simply not good to deny them something they are not even claiming!
 
.
i think china is too dangerous ... with or without BOMB :coffee:

Of course, we are dangerous as hell, we let USA & Russia deduct their own stockpile with full of outdated dirty bombs, while we never say a word about our own stockpile.

So we also do encourage Iran to become as dangerous as us, because this is the only way you can manage to become a superpower. :victory:

How can a superpower not being dangerous and dirty player? :taz:
 
.
I don't believe it, which country doesn't like to have nuclear weapons to strengthen their military power? :D

Actually there are a lot of nations who have sufficient technical know how and could become a nuke power with in a short nperiod if given the go ahead (eg: Japan, S.Korea, Brazil etc).Nukes requires a lot of resources and invite unwanted attention, but some nations are forced to acquire it bcs of their neighbours or threats that they face.
 
.
If Iran becomes a Nuclear power, then there'll be another 2-3 nuclear power in your neighborhood. Count SA and Turkey, and Iran's policy makers aren't that wise enough to be a responsible nuclear power. Will probably end up proliferating its technology like Pakistan.

Its funny that Israel has nukes since the late 1960s but nobody seems to have much problem , but no sooner Iran decided to become a nuke power KSA, Egypt etc all have decided to become nuclear power themselves.
 
.
every other country will ask the same question.
if iran has nuclear weapon. it is possible that Iran to become a muslim superpower.
that is too dangerous.

and for religion, we are generally not on the muslim side.pakistan is a particular case.

You are getting wrong my friend, why China always sides with Muslim nations over Israel in the issue of Palestine?

Even Israel wanted to pledge their friendship to us.
 
.
I don't see why civil nuclear energy should be denied in this case...
It is not. If you are a member of the NPT, you will receive plenty of assistance for civilian nuclear technology.

...when they are not making nuke weapons.
The problem was demonstrated by both India and Pakistan when each became a nuclear WEAPONS state in secret. There is a difference between a nuclear explosive device and a nuclear 'weapon'.

For a nuclear explosive device, you can have all the components in all of their material excesses and integrated inefficiency laid out on the floor of a warehouse. As long as the device works -- KABOOM -- you have a nuclear explosive device.

For a nuclear weapon, that is when you trim away all the material excesses that take up space and add weight. You improve subsystem integration efficiency by installing better quality electronics, lighter materials, or incorporate new technology. Then you fit all into a mobile container, be it a gravity driven 'dumb' bomb, or as the warhead in much more sophisticated ICBM.

Energy access is everybody's right and so also it is Iran's. There were articles that I read where IAEA inspectors said that there are no nuke materials there.

This is simply not good to deny them something they are not even claiming!
The analogy is this: If you have gasoline, how do we know you are not making petrol bombs in your garage? Are you going to advertise to the neighborhood that you are making petrol bombs?

To date, the best method of confirming if one's indigenous nuclear weapons program is a success is to have a test detonation of a nuclear explosive DEVICE, not a nuclear weapon. That is what both India and Pakistan did -- DEVICE. But it is never too late, even after such a test, to deny someone the status of being a nuclear weapons state.

To 'weaponize' a device into a mobile container is not an easy task. Every step must be closely monitored so that no deviations are allowed in the process. The reason is that after the test detonation, it will be more difficult for you to conduct more test detonations, in resources, as in if you have enough fissile materials leftover, in scrutiny, as in now much of the world's eyes are upon you, and finally in technical competency/proficiency, as in since it is now more difficult for you to conduct test detonations, there is no way for you to be certain that your second device will work, strict adherence to procedures must be followed, lest you will end up building nothing but duds and not knowing it.
 
.
:guns:...be a man...and tell the world..We will make bombs....Fu(k u....
And after all this drama of denying and all...if u end up developing a bomb..my respect for u guys will be gone..

LOL, you're funny. be a man, do the right thing.
 
. .
U.S. does not believe Iran actively trying to build nuclear bomb

WASHINGTON - As U.S. and Israeli officials talk publicly about the prospect of a military strike against Iran's nuclear program, one fact is often overlooked: U.S. intelligence agencies don't believe Iran is actively trying to build an atomic bomb.

A highly classified U.S. intelligence assessment circulated to policymakers early last year largely affirms that view, originally made in 2007. Both reports, known as national intelligence estimates, conclude that Iran halted efforts to develop and build a nuclear warhead in 2003.

The most recent report, which represents the consensus of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, indicates that Iran is pursuing research that could put it in a position to build a weapon, but that it has not sought to do so.

Although Iran continues to enrich uranium at low levels, U.S. officials say they have not seen evidence that has caused them to significantly revise that judgment. Senior U.S. officials say Israel does not dispute the basic intelligence or analysis.

But Israel appears to have a lower threshold for action than Washington. It regards Iran as a threat to its existence and says it will not allow Iran to become capable of building and delivering a nuclear weapon. Some Israeli officials have raised the prospect of a military strike to stop Iran before it's too late.

It's unclear how much access U.S. intelligence has inside Iran, a problem that bedeviled efforts to determine whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.

The assessment that Saddam Hussein had secretly amassed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and was seeking to build a nuclear weapon, cited by the George W. Bush administration to justify the invasion, turned out to be wrong.

Iran barred inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog group, from visiting Parchin, a military site, this week to determine whether explosives tests were aimed at developing nuclear technology.

An IAEA report in November cited "serious concerns" about "possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program," but did not reach hard conclusions. Another IAEA report is imminent.

Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, insisted Wednesday that Iran had no intention of producing nuclear weapons. In remarks broadcast on state television, he said that "owning a nuclear weapon is a big sin."

But he added that "pressure, sanctions and assassinations" would not stop Iran from producing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. The U.S. and European Union have imposed strict sanctions on Iran's oil and banking sectors, and unidentified assassins on motorcycles have killed several nuclear scientists in Iran, attacks that Iran has blamed on Israel.

For now, U.S. military and intelligence officials say they don't believe Iran's leadership has made the decision to build a bomb.

"I think they are keeping themselves in a position to make that decision," James R. Clapper Jr., director of National Intelligence, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Feb. 16. "But there are certain things they have not yet done and have not done for some time."

Clapper and CIA Director David H. Petraeus told a separate Senate hearing that Iran was enriching uranium below 20 percent purity. Uranium is considered weapons grade when it is enriched to about 90 percent purity, although it is still potentially usable at lower enrichment levels.

U.S. spy agencies also have not seen evidence of a decision-making structure on nuclear weapons around Khamenei, said David Albright, who heads the nonprofit Institute for Science and International Security and is an expert on Iran's nuclear program.

Albright's group estimates that with the centrifuges Iran already has, it could enrich uranium to sufficient purity to make a bomb in as little as six months, should it decide to do so.

It is not known precisely what other technical hurdles Iran would have to overcome, but Albright and many other experts believe that if it decides to proceed, the country has the scientific knowledge to design and build a crude working bomb in as little as a year. It would take as long as three years, Albright estimated, for Iran to build a warhead small enough to fit on a ballistic missile.

Albright said a push by Iran to build a nuclear weapon would probably be detected. Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta, the former CIA director, told a House committee that such a decision would be a "red line" prompting an international response.


Stephen Hadley, who was President Bush's national security adviser, said it would be too late to respond then.

"When they're assembling a bomb, that's going to be the hardest thing to see," said Hadley, now a senior adviser at the U.S. Institute of Peace, a government-funded think tank.


Some developments have bolstered the view that Iran is secretly pursuing a weapon.

In 2009, Western intelligence agencies discovered a clandestine underground facility called Fordow, near the city of Qom, that is said to be capable of housing 3,000 centrifuges needed to enrich uranium.

Israel worries that such facilities may be invulnerable to conventional bombing if Iran begins building a weapon. Israeli officials have warned that Iran could create what they call a "zone of immunity" by year's end.

And some U.S. officials have come to different conclusions about the intelligence. Among them is Rep. Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican who is chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. "We know that (Iran is) aggressively pursuing a nuclear weapons program," Rogers said this month.

U.S. intelligence on Iran's nuclear ambitions has vacillated over the years. After Iranian dissidents exposed a long-hidden program in 2002, U.S. intelligence warned that Tehran was "determined to build nuclear weapons."

In 2006, Bush asked aides to present him with options for a U.S. attack. But newly recruited informants, intercepted conversations and notes from deliberations of Iranian officials led U.S. intelligence to reconsider its warning.

In December 2007, the National Intelligence Estimate judged with "high confidence" that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003. It judged with "moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons."

In his 2010 memoir, "Decision Points," Bush questioned whether analysts had reversed course to atone for their errors on Iraq.


Michael Hayden, who was CIA director in 2007, said the analysts who wrote the report had no political motivation. "It was intelligence professionals calling balls and strikes the way they saw them," he said in an interview.

He said the 2007 estimate was poorly worded and "quickly got translated into 'Iran stopped its nuclear program,'" which he does not believe is accurate.

The more important finding, Hadley said, was that Iran was continuing its efforts to develop fissile material and to build ballistic missiles capable of delivering warheads.

"They are doing everything they can to put themselves in a position so that they have a clear and fairly quick route to a nuclear weapon," he said.

bellinghamherald.com
 
.
U.S. does not believe Iran actively trying to build nuclear bomb

WASHINGTON - As U.S. and Israeli officials talk publicly about the prospect of a military strike against Iran's nuclear program, one fact is often overlooked: U.S. intelligence agencies don't believe Iran is actively trying to build an atomic bomb.

A highly classified U.S. intelligence assessment circulated to policymakers early last year largely affirms that view, originally made in 2007. Both reports, known as national intelligence estimates, conclude that Iran halted efforts to develop and build a nuclear warhead in 2003.

The most recent report, which represents the consensus of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, indicates that Iran is pursuing research that could put it in a position to build a weapon, but that it has not sought to do so.

Although Iran continues to enrich uranium at low levels, U.S. officials say they have not seen evidence that has caused them to significantly revise that judgment. Senior U.S. officials say Israel does not dispute the basic intelligence or analysis.

But Israel appears to have a lower threshold for action than Washington. It regards Iran as a threat to its existence and says it will not allow Iran to become capable of building and delivering a nuclear weapon. Some Israeli officials have raised the prospect of a military strike to stop Iran before it's too late.

It's unclear how much access U.S. intelligence has inside Iran, a problem that bedeviled efforts to determine whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.

The assessment that Saddam Hussein had secretly amassed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and was seeking to build a nuclear weapon, cited by the George W. Bush administration to justify the invasion, turned out to be wrong.

Iran barred inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog group, from visiting Parchin, a military site, this week to determine whether explosives tests were aimed at developing nuclear technology.

An IAEA report in November cited "serious concerns" about "possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program," but did not reach hard conclusions. Another IAEA report is imminent.

Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, insisted Wednesday that Iran had no intention of producing nuclear weapons. In remarks broadcast on state television, he said that "owning a nuclear weapon is a big sin."

But he added that "pressure, sanctions and assassinations" would not stop Iran from producing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. The U.S. and European Union have imposed strict sanctions on Iran's oil and banking sectors, and unidentified assassins on motorcycles have killed several nuclear scientists in Iran, attacks that Iran has blamed on Israel.

For now, U.S. military and intelligence officials say they don't believe Iran's leadership has made the decision to build a bomb.

"I think they are keeping themselves in a position to make that decision," James R. Clapper Jr., director of National Intelligence, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Feb. 16. "But there are certain things they have not yet done and have not done for some time."

Clapper and CIA Director David H. Petraeus told a separate Senate hearing that Iran was enriching uranium below 20 percent purity. Uranium is considered weapons grade when it is enriched to about 90 percent purity, although it is still potentially usable at lower enrichment levels.

U.S. spy agencies also have not seen evidence of a decision-making structure on nuclear weapons around Khamenei, said David Albright, who heads the nonprofit Institute for Science and International Security and is an expert on Iran's nuclear program.

Albright's group estimates that with the centrifuges Iran already has, it could enrich uranium to sufficient purity to make a bomb in as little as six months, should it decide to do so.

It is not known precisely what other technical hurdles Iran would have to overcome, but Albright and many other experts believe that if it decides to proceed, the country has the scientific knowledge to design and build a crude working bomb in as little as a year. It would take as long as three years, Albright estimated, for Iran to build a warhead small enough to fit on a ballistic missile.

Albright said a push by Iran to build a nuclear weapon would probably be detected. Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta, the former CIA director, told a House committee that such a decision would be a "red line" prompting an international response.


Stephen Hadley, who was President Bush's national security adviser, said it would be too late to respond then.

"When they're assembling a bomb, that's going to be the hardest thing to see," said Hadley, now a senior adviser at the U.S. Institute of Peace, a government-funded think tank.


Some developments have bolstered the view that Iran is secretly pursuing a weapon.

In 2009, Western intelligence agencies discovered a clandestine underground facility called Fordow, near the city of Qom, that is said to be capable of housing 3,000 centrifuges needed to enrich uranium.

Israel worries that such facilities may be invulnerable to conventional bombing if Iran begins building a weapon. Israeli officials have warned that Iran could create what they call a "zone of immunity" by year's end.

And some U.S. officials have come to different conclusions about the intelligence. Among them is Rep. Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican who is chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. "We know that (Iran is) aggressively pursuing a nuclear weapons program," Rogers said this month.

U.S. intelligence on Iran's nuclear ambitions has vacillated over the years. After Iranian dissidents exposed a long-hidden program in 2002, U.S. intelligence warned that Tehran was "determined to build nuclear weapons."

In 2006, Bush asked aides to present him with options for a U.S. attack. But newly recruited informants, intercepted conversations and notes from deliberations of Iranian officials led U.S. intelligence to reconsider its warning.

In December 2007, the National Intelligence Estimate judged with "high confidence" that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003. It judged with "moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons."

In his 2010 memoir, "Decision Points," Bush questioned whether analysts had reversed course to atone for their errors on Iraq.


Michael Hayden, who was CIA director in 2007, said the analysts who wrote the report had no political motivation. "It was intelligence professionals calling balls and strikes the way they saw them," he said in an interview.

He said the 2007 estimate was poorly worded and "quickly got translated into 'Iran stopped its nuclear program,'" which he does not believe is accurate.

The more important finding, Hadley said, was that Iran was continuing its efforts to develop fissile material and to build ballistic missiles capable of delivering warheads.

"They are doing everything they can to put themselves in a position so that they have a clear and fairly quick route to a nuclear weapon," he said.

bellinghamherald.com

The ostrich policy of USA, now Iran can build the real nuclear weapon, they will try to not catch the fire. Otherwise, it will be difficult for them to handle the situation.

Now USA cannot afford to attack Iran, only Israel wants to do so.
 
.
dont misunderstand. I am on your side and I do respect Iran.
but if iran make nuclear weapon. china will not on your side.
even nuclear-armed indian is better then nuclear armed iran.
we dont want and niether like you siding keep it for yourself .your comment is a complete insult so :
nuclear weapon belongs to bullys who want to force others to their stupid creed well our logic is little bit diffrent we wont spend money on things we dont use you all gonna use it a way or another and deep down you all are the same till dicede to destroy your nukes and the thing is its not the nuke that keep a country safe nuke belongs to people who lost their logic to this stupid era and believe me the coming era does not belong to those who dont have logic and want everything with force.

if we seek to destroy our enemies we will do it from within there is no need to nuke or weapon ,thats why we dont need nuke or such things we are not killer.
 
.
we dont want and niether like you siding keep it for yourself .your comment is a complete insult so :
nuclear weapon belongs to bullys who want to force others to their stupid creed well our logic is little bit diffrent we wont spend money on things we dont use you all gonna use it a way or another and deep down you all are the same till dicede to destroy your nukes and the thing is its not the nuke that keep a country safe nuke belongs to people who lost their logic to this stupid era and believe me the coming era does not belong to those who dont have logic and want everything with force.

if we seek to destroy our enemies we will do it from within there is no need to nuke or weapon ,thats why we dont need nuke or such things we are not killer.

Considering Iran's ambition to restore its former status and glory, i don't think she will not develop the nuke. :coffee:

No one will give up the nuke until the more advanced powerful weapon has replaced it.

The so-called nuclear arm treaty from both US/Russia is fake, and they only want to get rid of those old decayed nukes left from the Cold War. Meanwhile those functional nukes would still be kept for deterrence.

Iran will go to the same path, only the nuke will keep you safe.
 
.
Considering Iran's ambition to restore its former status and glory, i don't think she will not develop the nuke. :coffee:

No one will give up the nuke until the more advanced powerful weapon has replaced it.

The so-called nuclear arm treaty from both US/Russia is fake, and they only want to get rid of those old decayed nukes left from the Cold War. Meanwhile those functional nukes would still be kept for deterrence.

Iran will go to the same path, only the nuke will keep you safe.
unlike some people we believe so its not the nuke that keeping us safe
 
. .
if pakistan does, why not iran? actually it's good for india if iran gets nuclear weapons, muslim world's funding for pakistan nuclear weapons will dwindle, pakistan has been riding on the muslim world's sympathies for a long time now, it's about time it's replaced by iran. at least the sub continent will be lot more safe. any way i think every country in this world should have at least 1 nuclear weapon, in case of a meteor disaster or alien attack.
 
.

Latest posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom