International Day Against Nuclear Tests 2024 is on Thursday, August 29, 2024: Iran's nuclear threat? serious question!?

Thursday, August 29, 2024 is International Day Against Nuclear Tests 2024.

Sponsored Deals

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Yes Iran's uranium enrichment is a serious threat. You must be joking, no Arab country will sanction Iran. Muslims want power in the world and although Sunni Muslims have basic disagreements with Shiite Muslims and the leaders in Iran, they support the "right" of Iran to have nuclear energy and nuclear weapons.

Muslims take great pride in fighting in the cause of Allah (jihad fee sybil Allah) and becoming a martyr (shahid) for that cause. It is a great honor.

It seems that the prophecies of Islam reflect a holocaust where Israel is destroyed and the Mahdi (guided one) appears to lead Muslims. The entire cascade of events leads to Qiyahmah (Judgment Day).

President Ahmadinejad is not the real power in Iran. The reason that Iran is so bold to stand up against world condemnation regarding its enrichment of uranium is because the real power in Iran, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameinei truly believes that he is Allah's representative on Earth to rid the world of fitnah (disbelief in Allah).

On August 21, Ayatollah Khameinei said on Iranian TV that Iran had "made its own decision" and would "continue its path".

Furthermore, Mohammad Saeedi, the deputy head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation, Mohammad Saeedi, said that suspension of uranium enrichment was "no longer possible". He also said a heavy water production plant at Arak would become operational "in the near future".

On August 22 Ali Larijani, hand delivered Iran's 21-page response to UNSC 1696 the package of incentives to dissuage Iran from uranium enrichment with uranium hexafluoride gas in its Russian-built 1,000-megawatt reactor at Bushehrand Natanz. Iran's top nuclear negotiator said that Tehran was ready to enter "serious negotiations" over its disputed nuclear program but did not say whether it was willing to suspend uranium enrichment — the West's key demand. This was because the West had offered many economic incentives.

Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, though it has not ratified two additional protocols to the International Atomic Energy Agency's Program 93 + 2, which is designed to prevent states from developing nuclear weapons covertly.

On August 31 the UNSC will set economic and diplomatic sanctions against Iran if it continues to enrich uranium. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameini avers that Iran has a right to have nuclear weapons. Leaders of the Iranian hard-line regime, believe they have a direct line to God, and they'll do whatever 'divine inspiration' requires them to do. Talking to them is pointless.

On August 19, Iran launched a large-scale area, sea and ground exercise he maneuver, the Blow of Zolfaghar (the sword used by Imam Ali), which involved 12 divisions, army Chinook helicopters, unmanned planes, parachutists, electronic war units and special forces. Iran's state-run television reported that the new anti-aircraft system was tested "to make Iranian air space unsafe for our enemies."

On Sunday, August 20, in the Kashan desert about 250 kilometers southeast of the capital of Tehran, Iran tested the Saegheh missile which has a range of between 80 to 250 kilometers. Saegheh means lightning in Farsi. (The language of Iran is not Arabic and Iranians are not Arabs.)

Iran's arsenal also contains the Shahab-3 missile, which means "shooting star" in Farsi, and is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. It has a range of more than 2,000 kilometers and can reach Israel and US forces in the Middle East.

Iran's military test-fired a series of missiles during large-scale war games in the Persian Gulf in March and April, including a missile it claimed was not detectable by radar that can use multiple warheads to hit several targets simultaneously.

The Iranian news service Al-Borz, predicted that on the first anniversary of Iranian President Ahmadinejad's government, in late August 2006, Ahmadinejad is expected to announce what the news service called Iran's "nuclear birth."

In addition, an August 23, 2006 article about Iran's reply to the incentives proposal, that was posted on the Iranian Foreign Ministry-affiliated website , implied that Iran's nuclear technology had already reached the point of no return: "...

The following are excerpts from the Al-Borz report:

"It is expected that the first anniversary of the forming of the ninth government will be the date of the Ahmadinejad government's 'nuclear birth.'

"... Together with [the celebration of] the anniversary of the forming of the ninth cabinet, the president of the country [Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] will hold his third press conference... where he will answer questions from journalists from Iran and from abroad.

"In addition to detailing the activities of the government at the end of [its first] year, the head of the government [i.e. Ahmadinejad] will officially present Iran's positions on: economic and cultural matters, the nuclear dossier, the activities of nuclear research centers, and developments in the region."

It seems within the realm of possibility to me that the special forces of some nation might fly an unmanned aircraft with a bomb over the nuclear research facilities in Iran and explode the bomb at about 5,000 ft. so that the EMP would knock out all the electronics of the nuclear facility as well all the civilian electrical matrix.

For example, Bandar Abbas military complex

Coordinates: 27°12′N 56°15′E

Or more easily reached from Iraq is Kermanshah

Coordinates: 34°18′N 47°4′E,

Atomic testing in India and Pakistan against a general and ongoing condemnation from the rest of the world?

Nuclear arms race between India and Pakistan accelerates

Amanda Hodge, South Asia correspondent

From:The Australian June 08, 20118:24AM

THE nuclear arms race between India and Pakistan has accelerated sharply in the past year, with both countries increasing their weapons stockpile, a new report warns. .

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimates both countries have increased their nuclear arsenals by up to a third, and that the tense neighbours were "expanding their capacity to produce fissile material for military purposes", the report issued by the institute yesterday reveals.

SIPRI director Daniel Nord said south Asia was the only region of the world "where you still have a nuclear weapons arms race".

He identified Pakistan losing control of part of its nuclear arsenal to a terrorist group as a particular concern.

The institute estimates India's nuclear warheads armoury has increased from between 60 to 80 last year up to 110 now, while Pakistan may have lifted its stockpile from between 70-90 warheads to as many 110.

While both countries keep their nuclear inventories secret, the institute said its numbers were based on calculations of their stocks of weapons-grade plutonium, as well as the number of operational nuclear-capable delivery systems.

"India and Pakistan continue to develop new ballistic and cruise missile systems capable of delivering nuclear weapons," it says in its 2011 year book, released yesterday.

"Currently, neither country is believed to keep its nuclear weapons mounted on missiles and ready for launch. However, recurring crises and the growing familiarity of the military in both countries with nuclear weapons is likely to generate pressures for deployment of nuclear weapons with a launch-on-warning posture - with the attendant grave risk of accidental nuclear war."

------------------ In 1998 India, under Atal Bihari Vajpayee government, test detonated 5 more nuclear weapons. While the international response to the detonation was muted, domestic pressure within Pakistan began to build steam and Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif ordered the test, detonated 6 nuclear war weapons in a tit-for-tat fashion and to act as a deterrent.

What are some reasons for/against dropping the atom bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

Against -

1. With no navy, no air force, their armies losing in China, their people at home starving to death, American bombers ruling their skies, an effective American sea blockade in place, the Soviet Union having just declared war on them, and with martial law imposed, Japan was essentially defeated by August 1945. America had air superiority over Japanese skies and sea superiority in Japanese waters. Japan didn't even have the ability to shoot down the lone unguarded bombers that carried the atomic bombs. A US invasion was not necessary to end WW2 and how the atomic bombs "saved lives" is beyond me. In fact, many see the reasoning of "saving lives" as American propaganda to try and justify what was an atrocious war crime committed.

2. With the USSR entering the Pacific War, atomic bombs were not needed to end WW2. Because of the close proximity between the atomic bombings and the Soviet intervention, it is not known which one of these events had a greater impact to Japan's surrender. Many historians, including many using Japanese sources, state that the USSR's entry into the Pacific War was what caused Japan's surrender, not the atomic bombings. They point to evidence that Japan surrendered on August 15 and not August 9 (the date the second bombing occured). They point out that if the atomic bombings were the key reason to Japan's surrender, the surrender would've arrived on August 9 and not 1 whole week later. By contrast, the USSR had occupied Manchuria on August 15, which makes the Soviet intervention a much more likely event to have caused Japan's surrender. Essentially, Truman could've refrained from using atomic bombs and Japan's surrender would've still arrived on August 15, 1945.

3. The Americans knew the extent of what the atomic bombings could do. The damage that atomic bombs did was assessed and analyzed at the Trinity test. To therefore use such weapons on civilians is both immoral and illegal. The US signed the Hague Convention in 1907 regarding the rules of war and the bombing of civilians. The use of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki resulted in the murder of 250,000 innocent non-combatant civilians. The US therefore violated the Hague Convention and broke an international treaty. I cannot support a decision that violates international law. To murder 250,000 innocent civilians and call it a necessary act of war to save lives is both disgusting and sad. It wasn't as if the murder of those 250,000 was the difference between winning or losing WW2. It defies logic to use 2 weapons of mass destruction in the space of 3 days on a defeated country in a war that was already won and over. The US had already committed a war crime in the firebombing of Tokyo, why commit another one in the nuclear attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?