Russia considers nuclear missiles for Syria, Mediterranean, Baltic, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times
Topic started on 17-8-2008 @ 03:53 PM by TrueAmerican

Russia considers nuclear missiles for Syria, Mediterranean, Baltic


debka.com
DEBKAfile's military sources report Moscow's planned retaliation for America's missile interceptors in Poland and US-Israeli military aid to Georgia may come in the form of installing Iskandar surface missiles in Syria and its Baltic enclave of Kaliningrad.

Russian Baltic and Middle East warships, submarines and long-range bombers may be armed with nuclear warheads, according to Sunday newspapers in Europe.
(visit the link for the full news article)


reply posted on 17-8-2008 @ 04:43 PM by TrueAmerican
Well from globalsecurity.org:

www.globalsecurity.org...

Syria is a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Syria has a standard safeguards agreement with the IAEA but, like Iran, has not yet signed or even begun negotiations on the IAEA Additional Protocol. The Additional Protocol is an important tool that, if fully implemented, could strengthen the IAEA's investigative powers to verify compliance with NPT safeguards obligations and provides the IAEA with the ability to act quickly on any indicators of undeclared nuclear materials, facilities and activities. Syria has called for an area free of all weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East.

Although Syria has long been cited as posing a nuclear proliferation risk, prior to 2007 the country seems to have been too strapped for cash to get far. Syria allegedly began a military nuclear program in 1979 and had not provided the IAEA with full information on all its nuclear activities. Syria had claimed that it was interested in nuclear research for medical rather than military purposes, but Israel and the United States have opposed sales of a reactor to Syria on the grounds that it would serve as an important step toward the building of a nuclear weapon.


And recently Syria refuses IAEA inspections:

www.breitbart.com...

VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Syria has told fellow Arab countries that it will not permit an International Atomic Energy Agency probe to extend beyond a site bombed by Israel, despite agency interest in three other suspect locations, diplomats told The Associated Press on Tuesday.

The agency's main focus during its planned June 22-24 visit to Syria is a building in the country's remote eastern desert that was destroyed by Israeli jets in September.

IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei announced Monday that Damascus has agreed to an agency check of U.S. assertions that target was a plutonium- producing reactor that was near completion, and thus at the stage where it could generate the fissile material for nuclear arms.

The U.N. agency is also interested in following up on information that Syria may have three other undeclared atomic facilities. Diplomats and a nuclear expert told the AP on Monday that at least one of the sites is believed to be meant to reprocess nuclear material into the fissile core of warheads.


So it may be Syria already has something. But still no confirmation directly on this consideration by Moscow.


reply posted on 17-8-2008 @ 05:06 PM by WyrdeOne
reply to post by Bama camper



The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


LOL - and how do you propose they do that?

Don't you think that if it was that easy, there would have been no Cold War?

I don't think my country has the first clue about what to do against a capable adversary. It's one thing to grind the regular militaries of small, largely defenseless countries into the dust, it's quite another to take on a superpower. We can't even win a protracted guerilla war against an under-equipped, under-capitalized enemy. How are we going to win a full-scale war against Russia?

Russia is the only country, if I'm not mistaken, that still flies strategic nuclear bomber flights. It's the only country with large numbers of MIRV nukes on standby.

Why would any American citizen want a war with Russia? Don't you like your life?

I can understand why TPTB would want a war - it makes them money, reduces the population, and cements their position of power. What does it do for you?

It must just be hubris talking, because there's no sensible reason to pick a fight with Russia unless you have a very nice fallout shelter at your disposal.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



reply posted on 17-8-2008 @ 07:08 PM by Lostinthedarkness
I grew up with the schools teaching duck and cover relatives building bomb shelters . While the government was recommending storing away food and water in case of a nuclear war .

The hopes for the future with out this threat looked great after the Iron Curtain fell . The possibility of living with out the fear of a nuclear war seemed so promising then . Our family was finally able to see relatives that had been cut off since the rise of Hitler .

There was a chance to gain Russia as a friend and maybe an ally in the world . The world situation is leaning to a return to the cold war and possibly back to the arms race again .

Who do we blame for the missed chances Russia the USA the war on terror . The diplomacy that seems prevalent in the world today is basically THIS is what I want this is what I am going to get or else ! There is no looking at the others point of view there is only one point of view .

I am sure Russia feels about the defense shield just like the USA did when they tried to bring missiles into Cuba . They must feel pushing the missile defense shield in bordering areas is antagonistic to them . Looking it at from their point of view if they put up a defense shield up we need to find a way around it more missiles .

Are the worlds politicians pushing whats best for the peace of the world or their own agenda ?

It seems that the nuclear war threat is back again. Do we start digging bomb shelters again and stocking up on food and water ?


reply posted on 18-8-2008 @ 12:27 PM by Tentickles
reply to post by centurion1211



The US is alot easier to attack than you think. We currently do not have a National Defensive Measure to protect 100% of the USA.

The only thing Russia has to do to attack us is place Submarines off our coast (east or west) and fire missles at major cities. Just look at the USA on a map: Disable our ocean ports and you disable the US ability to import goods and supply the country with oil. Mass panic would insue and the US would be spread even more thinly trying to control it's own country.

That's what I see.
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^



Russian scientists reach buried Antarctic Lake Vostok
  Posted 6 days ago with 83 member flags
Monsanto quits as GM results announced (EUROPE)
  Posted 7 days ago with 72 member flags
Strange noises reported around North Battleford
  Posted 18 days ago with 67 member flags
Ayatollah: Kill all Jews, annihilate Israel
  Posted 6 days ago with 49 member flags