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.

 

Russia considers nuclear missiles for Syria, Mediterranean, Baltic

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 03:53 PM
link   

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)




posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 03:53 PM
link   
"Sunday newspapers in Europe".

Well, I've been looking, but so far nothing on confirmation of this from other sources.

If Russian nukes going are to Syria, then probably going to Iran too- Syria-Iran have a mutual defense pact. In Syria, they would pose such a no warning threat to Israel, I can't see this happening without some serious contention.

I am still curious at the seeming lack of news on China's position on all this.

debka.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 03:58 PM
link   
The current state of world affairs at this time is highly disappointing


[edit on 17-8-2008 by Max_TO]



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Got any other source on this than DEBKAfile?

If not, I wouldn't put too much credibility into that report.

It would be interesting, especially if other good sources are carrying this report.

[edit on 17-8-2008 by The_Alarmist2012]



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   
It wouldn't surprise me considering that Israel is taking x-band radar that is tied to our ABM system. The Russian's are confronting the ABM system at every place and on every level.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   
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.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Russia and Iran may be planning to combine forces,maby US should take out both asap!



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Despite the lack of other news sources, this is a reasonable assumption. Russia isn't going to simply lay down and take it up the ummm, west coast. Not if they don't have to.

And Dorothy, it looks like they don't have to anymore.

Although I see a possible situation for another Cuban missle crisis type situation unfolding, it would be tough to blockade this from happening. Just look at a world map to see what I am talking about. Blocking something by water is easy. By land, not so easy.

Can somebody please call Russia and let them know we are getting close to a election here in the US? I don't know if the other two can fix any of this but it at least puts everything off for another 5 months.

Honestly, I think if Obama, McCain, or even Hillary Clinton got pressured the wrong way by the wrong people, it would not go good for allot of innocent people.

Things are NOT going good now and I don't see any signifigant reversal in the next four years. But I have been wrong before so there is always hope.

See my sig below? I haven't edited it in years. The way it's going, it's hard for me to imagine a situation where Iran does NOT get bombed before Bush leaves the White House.

But I am drifting so back to the thread.....



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bama camper
Russia and Iran may be planning to combine forces,maby US should take out both asap!


That is on my list of most outlandish one line posts in ATS. Only a non combat veteran could ever say something so simpleton.

As far as the OP's post, I hope this doesn't get any worse but, I find myself very optimistic about the entire situation.

Thanks,
Vance



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 05:06 PM
link   
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.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 05:16 PM
link   
War with Russia would guarantee at least two nuclear attacks will occur - both sides will use at least one weapon. None of them would use a blitz attack of nuclear strikes because no one wants to destroy the planet in the process.

Does not matter who wins the war when there is no Earth


I have to say, the member demanding war is dissolute and insensate for issuing a desire for a conflict. I'm with WyrdeOne: I value my life. And, I do not think Americans wish to see a Russian invasion either.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 07:08 PM
link   
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 ?



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bama camper
Russia and Iran may be planning to combine forces,maby US should take out both asap!


that quote made my day, sorry to inform you mate but the USA is not capable of taking out russia and Iran, its not as simple as that. dont underestimate the russian war machine and on that note dont underestimate Iran either , they are no pushovers, for once I would be on russias side sick of the western hypocritical culture of do gooders and pompous idiots.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Well as long as US soldiers are manning missile bases in Eastern Europe and setting up an ABM Shield in NATO-pact Allies, Russia has every right to establish it's old Soviet sphere of influence and play "Proxy Wars" with the US.

What I don't get about this entire series of unfortunate, recent events is why America is so hellbent on reigniting Cold War tensions?

I mean has Bush finally realised no one is buying the War on Terror bull# so he's got to resort to Plan B?
Sad indeed.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bama camper
Russia and Iran may be planning to combine forces,maby US should take out both asap!


In War their are no winners.

Only degrees of losing .. why would u wish such a thing?



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 11:54 AM
link   
please do'nt underastimate the resighn of pakistan's president... musharraf.... mister B lost another friend and an allied....
pakistan has nukes.. and how will inda respond on it.......

I agree .... the mess is spreading...in to short time.....

the hot-spots are countless and explosive now in the middle east.. wat willl be the fuse to igniting it........

[edit on 18-8-2008 by ressiv]



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
I value my life. And, I do not think Americans wish to see a Russian invasion either.




The only way the russians could invade the U.S. would be by kayaks across the Bering Straights. There is still only one country in the world - U.S. - that has the ability to project its power anywhere in the globe.

Apparently, the rest of the world just needs to give russia a little pat on the head and tell them that they still matter, so they will go back to playing nice.



[edit on 8/18/2008 by centurion1211]



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by infinite
I value my life. And, I do not think Americans wish to see a Russian invasion either.




The only way the russians could invade the U.S. would be by kayaks across the Bering Straights. There is still only one country in the world - U.S. - that has the ability to project its power anywhere in the globe.

Apparently, the rest of the world just needs to give russia a little pat on the head and tell them that they still matter, so they will go back to playing nice.



[edit on 8/18/2008 by centurion1211]


I really think that you are sadly mistaken. Hopefully the rest of the world is not as delusional as you. If Russia was not a threat, then why are so many countries worried about it?

You have seriously underestimated the Russians, I would hope that you don't get proven wrong, because if push came to shove, you would be.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 12:25 PM
link   
I think EVERY country on earth should be allowed 12 and only 12 nukes. I don't think there is a country on earth with over 12 bordermates.

It's like this:

Ever notice what happens when a "gangsta rapper" or a troubled individual gets really rich? They suddenly become somewhat moral, seemingly cultured and a little human too. Such is the same with fringe political groups, terrorist groups.

Look how the IRA, PLF, Hamas (getting there!) and others have completely enjoyed their peace of mind and dropped the anger charade once given a real voice.

If every country (including the crazies!) had a dozen nukes, none would step out of line and those that do would save a LOT of time by being nuked into submission. Yes there would be casualties here and there like any war! But results would be as fast coming as our modern minds need. War at the speed of thought. No dragged out conflicts, no 100,000 soldiers mobilizing for a month only to be tore a new butthole. Etc.

Mutually assured destruction IS the only peacemaker/keeper left! If the whole world went M.A.D. then we all would have to LISTEN and NEGOTIATE!!!

[edit on 18-8-2008 by Atlantican]



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   
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.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join