It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Most definately Russia will get into a war with the US over Iran? You dont know Russia very well.
Russia will only definately do one thing for sure , and thats do whats in Russia's best interest. A direct war with the US is not Russia's best interest which has been proven time and time again during the cold war. We have proxy wars.
You could argue Russia would have a proxy war with the US over Iran thats debatable. But to think Russia's going to definately get into a war with a Super power over Iran
[edit on 19-9-2005 by ShadowXIX]
Originally posted by Souljah
American President: "we will NUKE All Other nations, that do not Agree with US..."
Originally posted by Daedalus3
I think, here freedom of expression is coming in conflict with the "truth"..
Originally posted by Amuk
Originally posted by Souljah
American President: "we will NUKE All Other nations, that do not Agree with US..."
Do you have a link for this quote?
Or is it just some more BS?
Like everyone here is racist and American soldiers lure young children with candy and then murder them. You have a habit of making OUTRAGEOUS claims and then not backing them up.
You do know knowingly posting false information is a violation of the T&Cs?
[edit on 19-9-2005 by Amuk]
Originally posted by Majic
In this case, I think Souljah is being cynical, of course, but here's a thing I would like my fellow members to consider:
Criticism of Bush and the U.S. are such staples of ATS culture at this point that I think many of my fellow members are somewhat oblivious to it.
My advice to fellow member Souljah (of whom I'm a fan, by the way, though we don't agree on many things) is this:
“Be mindful of your feelings. They betray you.”
The truth is out there, but it is available to us only if we seek it.
Play nice, be honest, have fun and the rest comes naturally.
At least, that's my opinion.
Yours may vary, of course.
Originally posted by Manincloak
That's exactly what I mean.
Of course Russia isn't going to declare an all-out direct war with US over Iran - that's beyond rediculous.
What I AM saying, is that Russia will defend Iran to it's full capability. I don't think Russia or it's allies really like US right now, and I'm sure they would like to put US in it's place, and teach Bush, that she can't just go around declaring war on anyone she feels like declaring war on.
[edit on 19-9-2005 by Manincloak]
The 69-page draft document dated March 15, 2005, "last updated 10 years ago," is being "updated to reflect the doctrine of pre-emption" declared by President George W. Bush in 2002. The Doctrine "makes clear that 'the decision to employ nuclear weapons at any level requires explicit orders from the president.
In a significant shift after half a century of nuclear deterrence based on the threat of massive retaliation, the revised doctrine would allow pre-emptive strikes against states or terror groups, and to destroy chemical and biological weapons stockpiles.
Referring repeatedly to “non-state actors” — parlance for terrorists — the doctrine is designed to arm the White House and US forces with a new range of threats and sanctions to counter the situation of threatened nuclear attack by al-Qaeda or one of its affiliates.
The document’s key phrase appears in a list of pre-emptive nuclear strike scenarios, the first of which is against an enemy using “or intending to use WMD”.
The new doctrine ignores this distinction and instead lowers the crisis intensity level needed to potentially trigger use of U.S. nuclear weapons by replacing “war” with “conflict.” The change may seem trivial, but its implication is important and deliberate. The change was proposed by STRATCOM, which explained that “[r]eplacing the word ‘war’ with ‘conflict involving the use of’ emphasizes the nature of most conflicts resulting in use of a nuclear weapon. Nuclear war implies the mutual exchange of nuclear weapons between warring parties—not fully representative of the facts.”
For example, the new nuclear doctrine states that an adversary MIGHT detonate a nuclear weapon high in the atmosphere to damage U.S. military electronic equipment with a high-altitude electromagnetic pulse. Whatever the adversary use might be, the new nuclear doctrine makes it clear that the United States will not necessarily wait for the attack but pre-empt with nuclear weapons if necessary.
The new doctrine appears to be precipitated by anticipation among military planners that deterrence will fail and U.S. nuclear weapons will be used in a conflict sooner or later.
For the nuclear planners, it seems so simple: deterrence must be credible, and the way to make it more credible is to increase the capabilities and number of strike options against any conceivable scenario. Ironically, a decade and a half after we should have escaped this nuclear deterrence logic of the Cold War, the planners cling to these old business practices. Instead of drastically reducing the role of nuclear weapons, as the Bush administration told the public it would do, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism seem to have spooked the administration into continuing and deepening a commitment to some of the most troubling aspects of the nuclear war-fighting mentality that symbolized the Cold War.
WASHINGTON, Sept. 19 (UPI) -- A rewrite of policy that would allow U.S. military commanders to call for nuclear strikes is causing the Pentagon headaches, The Washington Post reports.
The Pentagon may be having second thoughts about proposed revisions to its nuclear weapons doctrine that would allow commanders to seek presidential approval for using atomic arms against nations or terrorists who intend to use chemical, biological or nuclear weapons against the United States, its troops or allies.
Rep. David L. Hobson (R-Ohio), who called the draft "disturbing" and "representing old, Cold War thinking," said Defense Department officials told him last week that negotiations and discussions on the draft were still underway.
Hobson, who is chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee that funds the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), said: "I'm hopeful more rational minds will look at this. It is a very provocative proposal."
On Wednesday, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov, in Berlin for a meeting of NATO defense ministers, told reporters he hopes Rumsfeld would inform him if the new doctrine were adopted.
"Lowering the threshold for use of atomic weapons is in itself dangerous," Ivanov said. "Such plans do not limit, but in fact promote, efforts by others to develop" nuclear weapons, he said, according to Reuters.
Originally posted by Souljah
Bush Administration has basicly Done pretty much everything, but say it:
"We will NUKE All Other nations, that..."
Originally posted by Amuk
So if he HASN'T said this, which you admit, then the post is incorrect, right?
I still don't see how you get.... "We will nuke every country that disagrees with us"
From
"We reserve the right to attack first if we think we are going to be attacked"
But lets not let facts stand in the way of our prejudices and propaganda, right? If we dont like what was said, just make it up.
I would not call you on this type of stuff so often but I hate to see an Intelligent and educated person totally destroy any point he is trying to make by resorting to lies and propaganda.
You are better than that
Originally posted by Souljah
[Yes he did NOT say that - but still it's and I quote:
- the draft "disturbing"
- "representing old, Cold War thinking"
- It is a very provocative proposal."
- "Such plans do not limit, but in fact promote, efforts by others to develop nuclear weapons"
That is far from the "We reserve the right to attack first if we THINK we are going to be attacked".
What if "You" were Wrong?
Then "You" might end up wiping out the wrong country with Nukes.
Again something pops to my Head, what the Russian minister said:
These kind of Doctrines are doing just one thing - and that's not Preventing the Thermonuclear Exchange to take place, but infact PROMOTING it!
Which is what I Find Scary and Utterly Idiotic!
August 10th 2005
Russian President Vladimir Putin has authorized the nation's Interior Ministry, which has its own armed force, to carry out preemptive strikes against "terrorists," whether inside or outside of Russian territory. No limit was set on the degree of force to be used, and Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov had earlier declared that the war on terror allows the use of all forms of weaponry.
"If it [the war on terror] is a war, then it is a war, and "any means could be used," declared Ivanov.
There may be, however, more to Moscow's preemptive strike declaration than concern over terrorists.
The post-Soviet republic of Georgia, which shares part of Russia's extensive southern border, is particularly alarmed, and has already protested Ivanov's preemptive strike declaration, calling it an "irresponsible statement."
It is unclear how far Russia will go with its preemptive strike declaration, and who will be targeted. What is certain, however, is that the Moscow elite have given the world warning that they are ready to strike at any time, with any weapon at their command.
In reality, the nations which have the most to fear from Russian nuclear intimidation are those which are Moscow's close neighbors and have attempted to become independent of the will of the Moscow elite.
www.inatoday.com...
Originally posted by 27jd
Not that two wrongs make a right, but who is Russia's defense minister to say anything about the U.S. pre-emptive doctrine, when they maintain pretty much the same position?
Originally posted by Majic
The assumption that a "preemptive doctrine" is wrong is just that: an assumption.
Originally posted by ShadowXIXI thought you were suggesting Russia going to war with the US over Iran. My mistake if you didnt mean that.
Originally posted by ShadowXIXA proxy war cold be very plausible it this type of situation. Im sure Russia atleast would be more then happy to sell Iran as many arms as they could buy in this type of event.
Originally posted by ShadowXIXI actually dont think the US even has to go to war to reach its objectives with Iran's nuclear ablities. It could be handled much in the way Israel delt with a similar situation with Iraq. A series of cruise missile strikes could cripple Irans Nuclear facilities without the need for boot one to hit the ground.
There is really not much chance of their defenses stopping such a strike either.
Originally posted by Majic
If a murderer points a gun at you, does it make sense to wait until he pulls the trigger before shooting him? It's rather hard to return fire when you're dead, and murderers know that.
Originally posted by Murcielago
- To me it sounds like I did answer your question.
and Fox is a reliable news source.
Edit: BTW are you from & do you currently live in Iran?
[edit on 17-9-2005 by Murcielago]
Originally posted by Murcielago
The US would not have a problem with some country developing nukes...as long as there a stable country...and preferibly not communist. If a country like Japan decided they wanted nukes, the US would not be in their way to stop them. Iran is an unstable country, so the US fears not only what they themselves would do.....but that they may sell nukes to the highest bidder.
Originally posted by skippytjc
See you at boot camp...
[edit on 15-9-2005 by skippytjc]