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.

 

Report: Obama Offers to Scrap Missile Shield If Russia Cooperates on Iran

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Report: Obama Offers to Scrap Missile Shield If Russia Cooperates on Iran


www.foxnews.com

President Obama offered to consider scrapping plans for a missile defense shield in Europe if Russia helps rein in Iran's nuclear program, the Russian newspaper Kommersant reported.

The article said Obama wrote to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to tell him Russia's aid in resolving the threat from Iran would make the missile shield plans unnecessary, according to an account from Russian news agency RIA Novosti.

A senior administration official told FOX News that Obama sent a letter to Medvedev but "we won't comment on the specifics."

Obama inherited plans to build the system in Poland and the Czech Republic from the Bush administration, but the new administration has equivocated over the project. Though the plans were put in place to deter nations like Iran and North Korea from launching attacks and developing nuclear weapons, Russia has interpreted the planned installation as a threat.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Is Obama trying to knock out two birds with one stone?

On one hand he is trying to improve relations with Russia and with the other he is trying to get Russia to help stop Iran's nuclear program.

How do you think the Iranian's will respond to this effort?

Do you think it is a wise move on Obama' behalf?

I really don't think Iran will like this latest news.

www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link   
I hate to admit it...

That is a realistic, smart, doable proposition.

It, as the OP said, gets two birds with one stone.

I am not used to intelligence coming from Washington, I am not sure how to feel.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by jam321


Is Obama trying to knock out two birds with one stone?

On one hand he is trying to improve relations with Russia and with the other he is trying to get Russia to help stop Iran's nuclear program.

How do you think the Iranian's will respond to this effort?

Do you think it is a wise move on Obama' behalf?

I really don't think Iran will like this latest news.

www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I don't think Iran cares, they know they do not pose any threat therefore they have nothing to worry about.

This is what the future will hold, America will scrap its missile shield program without having Russia's cooperation on Iran.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Ownification
 



This is what the future will hold, America will scrap its missile shield program without having Russia's cooperation on Iran.


I have had this same feeling.

Do you think we should scrap the program?



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by Ownification
 



This is what the future will hold, America will scrap its missile shield program without having Russia's cooperation on Iran.


I have had this same feeling.

Do you think we should scrap the program?

We all know there is no imminent threat coming from Iran or Russia. Having shields in Europe is gonna irritate Russia which will start another arms race and potentially another cold war where the helpless population listening to BBC while shivers run down their spines, waiting for the nuclear weapons to hit them. Really what is the point? Iran?

Iran can never produce a nuclear weapon using its current facilities, just ask any expert they will tell you. Iran has allowed full inspections, you can't ask them anything more than that, full inspections of every site.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   
I don't agree with you and I will tell you why.

Remember that US satellite that was going to crash into Earth and was shoot down?

It was done from a ship.

It is my belief that the missile shield is based on land/sea/air/(space???).

But, honestly, Iran is the "missile shields main concern, if that threat were "neutralized"...

That said, what about India and Pakistan???

What I mean is would a missile shield (in Europe) be able to shoot down nuclear exchange by either or both countries????



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   

After decades of development, at a cost exceeding $100 billion, the missile defense system now in place in America—mainly at bases in Alaska and California—is unproven and unpopular in Congress.


osmoothie.com...

Pretty hefty price tag so far. No telling how much it would cost to maintain.

Conflicting reports on how effective the program is.


However, the Administration is making a number of miscalculations if it intends to abandon the third site deal in a rapprochement with Moscow. Firstly, the third site deployment is a win-win for national and global security, as it will defend against ballistic missile attack from rogue nations such as Iran and North Korea. Secondly, it is a win-win for American diplomacy, having been backed by the 26-nation NATO Alliance on two separate occasions. To abandon the deployment now makes no sense politically or strategically.

It is wrong to claim that ground-based missile defenses are unproven or unworkable. On December 5 2008, the Missile Defense Agency performed a successful intercept of an incoming ballistic missile. On September 28, 2007, the U.S. missile defense system also destroyed the mock war. of a long-range missile. As General Trey Obering, former director of the Missile Defense Agency, states in Heritage’s “33 Minutes” documentary, we are not only now able to hit a bullet with a bullet, but can also hit a spot on a bullet with a bullet.


blog.heritage.org...



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   



Do you think we should scrap the program?




We should scrap Washington.





We all know there is no imminent threat coming from Iran or Russia. Having shields in Europe is gonna irritate Russia which will start another arms race and potentially another cold war where the helpless population listening to BBC while shivers run down their spines, waiting for the nuclear weapons to hit them. Really what is the point? Iran?




The imminent threat is from Washington. And Israel. And those morons in NATO.

Enough people are seeing thru the bogus Israeli propaganda that eventually Israel is gonna get hit. But I do *not* think that the hit will come from Iran. I'd bet the NBC attack will come from stateless groups with no visible presence. You can bet that Iran will get blamed tho.......



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Ownification
 


I beg to differ with you.

Even if (and I personally don't believe this) were not trying to make nuclear weapons, wether the US/NATO/EU thinks they are or not does have great meaning.

Not to fall to the tired,"Glass parking lot" statement...
But, seriously, if the US/NATO/EU thinks they are, they may attack to distroy it.

Since Iran has placed it nuclear facilities under heavily populated cities ( yes, it was a calculated risk to protect the nuclear equipment, not the people above it).

I seriously doubt that all the radiation of their refining and the nuclear tipped weapons needed to get them that far underground. (special ground penetrating weapons,"Bunker Busters")


Development continued, with weapons such as the nuclear B61, and conventional thermobaric weapons and GBU-28. One of the more effective housings, the GBU-28 used its large mass (2,130 kg / 4,700 lb) and casing (constructed from barrels of surplus 203 mm howitzers) to penetrate 6 meters (20 ft) of concrete, and more than 30 meters (100 ft) of earth.[6] The B61 Mod 11, which first entered military service in January 1997, was specifically developed to allow for bunker penetration, and is speculated to have the ability to destroy hardened targets a few hundred feet beneath the earth.[7]
While penetrations of 20–100 feet (30 m) were sufficient for some shallow targets, both the Soviet Union and the United States were creating bunkers buried under huge volumes of soil or reinforced concrete in order to withstand the multi-megaton thermonuclear weapons developed in the 1950s and 1960s. Bunker penetration weapons were initially designed out of this Cold War context.

Wikipedia

The reason I reference Nuclear tipped bunker busters is that the only way enough explosive power ( to penetrate all the Earth and steel reinforced concrete to get to the refining equipment) in a small enough package to fit in a bunker bunker, is a small nuclear explosion.



[edit on 3/2/2009 by mrmonsoon]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   
first of all, Russia would loose much more (last country they do have a good relations with in the oil arab world, gas union they created with Iran, ...) so it is not going to happen.

second, Iran has no possibilities to threat the world with nuke. Israel won't let this talks to happen cause it is their game anyway.

and third, if US won't finalize the deal with Poland they will loose the one of the strongest allies. Poles are on all wars started by US in last 10 years and nothing git in return for that.

so, I think that by making such a proposals he is not going to achive anything but he risks a lot.

I am not a supporter of the wars the US has started in last years, especially that I belive that 911 was a inside job, and we all know what evidence thay used to attack Iraq. but the program to install the shield in central europe was to protect against attacks. and I found it as a possibly the intrument against the wars for a change.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   
I think, if Russia were prepared to assist Iran instead of the US before this deal, then this deal is worthless.

I mean, why would Russia trade off a middle eastern, oil rich COUNTRY, for a missile sheild on its borders witch are all but worthless.

This missile sheild, will be destroyed through cruise missiles or sabotage long before they had a chance to shoot down Russia missiles.

And, this sheild could only destroy, what a dozen at the MOST ?

So russia shoots off 12 dummy missiles first.

If Russia accepts the deal, its nothing but a double play.

'' we'll convince the Americans we are backing them, but secretly we are assisting you ''



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   


We all know there is no imminent threat coming from Iran or Russia.

Iran can never produce a nuclear weapon using its current facilities, just ask any expert they will tell you. Iran has allowed full inspections, you can't ask them anything more than that, full inspections of every site.


No imminent threat coming from Iran or Russia?!? It's insane to let two countries who abhor, detest, hate, and want to destroy the US buddy up to each other with a NUCLEAR facility! You don't see any imminently devastating consequences from allowing that???

And about Iran never being able to produce nuclear weapon and those so called "experts"- remember, these are some of the same people who underestimated how much Uranium Iran had in the first place!

[edit on 2-3-2009 by Eisley]

[edit on 2-3-2009 by Eisley]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
I hate to admit it...

That is a realistic, smart, doable proposition.

It, as the OP said, gets two birds with one stone.

I am not used to intelligence coming from Washington, I am not sure how to feel.


"Smart" Proposition? Are you out of your mind? This would be the single greatest mistake which the United States could ever make, along with President Obama's plan to scrap the F-22, and other Future Systems, seeing as they do not provide advantages "Against Terrorists" as he so dumbly stated. Yes, lets us completely do away with our Defense Systems, and see how fast we end up being raped in the rear by an enemy.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen

"Smart" Proposition? Are you out of your mind? This would be the single greatest mistake which the United States could ever make, along with President Obama's plan to scrap the F-22, and other Future Systems, seeing as they do not provide advantages "Against Terrorists" as he so dumbly stated. Yes, lets us completely do away with our Defense Systems, and see how fast we end up being raped in the rear by an enemy.

G. W. Bush owns your brain it seems

doing the same of they've always being doing, meaning ticking off and aggravating the rest of the planet, is what got them this global hate to begin with. You want more of that?

Which enemy would rape you in the rear?
russia or the defenseless and blockaded Iran?


Let's get a quick reminder of the Iran Situation if you will


[edit on 2-3-2009 by ModernAcademia]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Hmm - I was just reading another article on this that brought up a good point.

Bloomberg - "New Europe"

Basically, some of the missle shield countries are now worried given the Russian muscle flexing that they will find themselves out in the cold without the US and next to bear that may hold a grudge.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Frogs
 


I don't believe that's true
even if if it is true, it's not for the reasons stated

I mean obviously........



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 08:03 PM
link   
This is not Diplomacy

Here is what happened November 4, 2008.

We got what 53% of the American voters wished.

Karl Marx smiled.

Huey Long smiled

With no shield

Good Bye America



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   
This missile shield program is one prime example of the overblown, out of control, way over budget and ineffective weapon programs that the DOD have. They should have scrap it a long time ago and I think Russia would call the US bluff on this one and do nothing.

They already know that our current financial situation calls from programs like this to be terminated.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Excuse me if I'm being ignorant, but why is it America's job to secure Europe? Isn't meddling in foreign affairs what got us into the state we're in now? We should secure our own borders and proactively go after terrorist threats as we become aware of them, but let other nations worry about their own defense.




top topics



 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join