It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Saudi Arabia to buy off the shelf nukes from Pakistan

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on May, 19 2015 @ 07:39 PM

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: khnum

So it's fine for a terrorist sponsoring, warmongering, non-democratic Saudi getting hold of nuclear missiles, but whisper anything at all about Iran developing nuclear energy and TSHTF...I couldn't imagine a more staggeringly obvious hypocritical situation.

Your under the false assumption they want the Saudis to have nukes they dont. So nit hypocritical at all. Just funny other nations think they have the power to stop nuclear proliferation to be honest I'm surprised it's worked as well as it had.

One reason it's worked so well is because a lot of nations simply don't want them in the first place. They're usually depicted as atrocious weapons of mass destruction, instead of as vital tools to guarantee that nation's sovereignty. It's kind of like the backlash against chemical weapons & biological weapons.

posted on May, 20 2015 @ 08:22 PM
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Doesn't sound like the rhetoric of someone willing to forego a weapons program.

Iran's supreme leader vowed Wednesday he will not allow international inspection of Iran's military sites or access to Iranian scientists under any nuclear agreement with world powers.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told military commanders Wednesday that Iran will resist "coercion and excessive demands" from America and other world powers.


"The impudent and brazen enemy expects that we allow them talk to our scientists and researchers about a fundamental local achievement but no such permission will be allowed," Khamenei told military commanders in Tehran Wednesday, in remarks broadcast on state TV. "No inspection of any military site or interview with nuclear scientists will be allowed."

Iran's leader rejects foreign access to military sites, scientists

posted on May, 21 2015 @ 11:21 AM
a reply to: cavtrooper7

You're right, I think I worded that quite brash. But to say that all of the Presidents before Obama would have kept NATO at bay and warned Russia really hard isn't entirely accurate either. Georgia comes to mind (in terms of pressuring Russia), and wasn't the missile defense shield in Eastern Europe first proposed in 2002? The rhetoric on both sides (US, NATO, RUSSIA) went on for years, back and forth.

I guess it's just not that easy to say (for example) "Romney wouldn't have let this happen", or (this causes me shivers) "if Al Gore was president around 9/11". But you're right about one thing, this certainly isn't turning out how anybody would have wanted it. I just don't think Russia really gives 2 shats about any threat coming from any president when they know we wont get involved. No matter the president now (assuming Obama loses in 08 or 12) I don't see us doing much of anything different, like sending troops to Ukraine to let Russia know we're serious.

posted on May, 21 2015 @ 11:48 AM
a reply to: DuckforcoveR

It will take AT LEAST a decade to clean up this mess.But they will Keep that port.

top topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in