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 threatens NATO with nukes

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   
www.presstv.com...



The Russian president has called on NATO to clarify Moscow's role in a European missile system, warning if no agreement is reached, Russia will be forced to deploy “offensive” nuclear weapons.


"So this is not a joking matter. We expect from our NATO partners a direct and unambiguous answer," Dmitry Medvedev said during a meeting with Russia's NATO envoy Dmitry Rogozin.

"In either case, we are either together with NATO, or we separately find an adequate response to the existing problem," he said.

Under former US President George W. Bush the United States proposed a plan to deploy a missile system in Poland and the Czech Republic -- a plan which was fiercely opposed to by Russia. Moscow said it would deem such a deployment a threat to its sovereignty and would properly respond to it.

US President Barack Obama later scrapped the plan proposing Russia to join the missile system.

Russia and NATO agreed to cooperate on a joint missile system plan in Europe during a NATO-Russia Council meeting in Lisbon in November last year.

The parties agreed to formulate terms for cooperation on the missile system by June 2011.

"Either we agree to certain principles with NATO, or we fail to agree, and then in the future we are forced to adopt an entire series of unpleasant decisions concerning the deployment of an offensive nuclear missile group," Medvedev was quoted by AFP as saying.

MD/AKM/MMN


Smoke and mirrors? Or something big? I posted this for you all to decide.



Deebo
edit on 25-1-2011 by Deebo because: Edited to add




posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Deebo
 


Your link likes the missleading headlines...
They are threating to deploy nukes, not use them..

I can't blame the Russians..
The US is attempting to surround them with bases and misile shields..
The Russians are not going to just sit still and watch it happen..



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
They only want to place nukes in place incase the contracts fail and they have to defend themselves.
edit on 1/25/11 by Ophiuchus 13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Though it is suggested that our missile system would be of defensive measures only, kinda sounds familiar when the Russians put " defensive " missiles in Cuba back in the 60's. The plot thickens!



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Deebo
 


Your link likes the missleading headlines...
They are threating to deploy nukes, not use them..

I can't blame the Russians..
The US is attempting to surround them with bases and misile shields..
The Russians are not going to just sit still and watch it happen..


I am not trying to mislead anyone, I posted this as is, and asked for you all to decide and share your opinion.



Deebo



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Deebo
 


The interesting thing is that the technology and craftsmanship the Russians posses (including finances) have brought into question whether or not a missile system they developed would actually work. Some experts say as little as 30% of their offensive systems in the past would prove to be effective. Others range it from 50-65%
Regardless, I dont think they are a threat.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Deebo
 



I am not trying to mislead anyone, I posted this as is, and asked for you all to decide and share your opinion.

No, I said your link...They always sensationalise things...



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by shoeshine
 


Agreed, considering that over 60% of Russia military complex has either sank to the bottom of the ocean, killing all occupants, or simply blown up. Case in point, their submarine program turned out to be an utter failure. They have only a few subs in operation currently. They cant afford the upkeep much less, the operational requirements.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
I think they are using big words. If they do deploy nukes we return said favor and then it becomes real. When infact neither they nor usa wants a nuclear war. No one would win. so we go to the drawing board like to north korea, and try to appease them. Not saying it will work but I can say there will be alot of threats happening.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Would America or any other NATO country let the Russians put missiles that close to them? I don't think so!

Russia is completely rite about there response



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by simples
Would America or any other NATO country let the Russians put missiles that close to them? I don't think so!

Russia is completely rite about there response


Exactly..Its like Israel whining about Iran maybe having nukes when we all know Israel has them..



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by simples
Would America or any other NATO country let the Russians put missiles that close to them? I don't think so!

Russia is completely rite about there response

I agree on this one, what gives them right to deploy anti-missile defense system that are pointed to Russian border? I think russians are simply being defensive on this one, just like the case with Georgia



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   
The only difference between Israel and Iran however, is that Israel actually could wipe the Iranians off the face of the map. Case in point, remember when Syria went on and on about their nuke sites, threatening Israel? That very night, Israel's airforce went over and destroyed the sites. Syria paid the media outlets to keep it quiet, because of the embarrassment.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
The only difference between Israel and Iran however, is that Israel actually could wipe the Iranians off the face of the map. Case in point, remember when Syria went on and on about their nuke sites, threatening Israel? That very night, Israel's airforce went over and destroyed the sites. Syria paid the media outlets to keep it quiet, because of the embarrassment.

Whats Israel? Oh right the newborn dictator of middle east my bad



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
A nukelyer holocaust is coming weather we like it or not it's time to start building shelters and stocking supplies cos the end draws near.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 



The only difference between Israel and Iran however, is that Israel actually could wipe the Iranians off the face of the map.


True but they would think twice if Iran had nukes..
That's why Iran should be allowed to build nukes, as a deterent..
Isn't that why everyone else has them??



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Yeah, but the another thing you have to contemplate, is that Iran vocally stated that if they acquire nukes, they wish to " wipe " Israel off the face of the map. With that said, as soon as the intel shows that Iran has nukes ready, there will be a massive offensive, perpetrated by organizations that will ensure those nukes lay to waste.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by backinblack
 


Yeah, but the another thing you have to contemplate, is that Iran vocally stated that if they acquire nukes, they wish to " wipe " Israel off the face of the map. With that said, as soon as the intel shows that Iran has nukes ready, there will be a massive offensive, perpetrated by organizations that will ensure those nukes lay to waste.


lol, care to show me the proof he said that??
I've seen that line twisted many times..

I think Israel has proven time after time that they are the aggressors...



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Here ya go:


Iran's new president has repeated a remark from a former ayatollah that Israel should be "wiped out from the map," insisting that a new series of attacks will destroy the Jewish state, and lashing out at Muslim countries and leaders that acknowledge Israel. The remarks by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- reported by Islamic Republic News Agency -- coincide with a month-long protest against Israel called "World without Zionism" and with the approach of Jerusalem Day.


source: articles.cnn.com...:WORLD

and here, form the Iranian paper itself :


Iranian paper: Great war to wipe out Israel coming Editorials in Iranian newspapers claim '50 percent of Israel already destroyed,' say 'Israel must collapse' Yaakov Lappin Published: 11.15.06, 16:13 / Israel News share Iranian newspapers Kehyan and and Resalat have urged Muslims around the world to prepare for a 'great war' to destroy the State of Israel. The newspapers published the editorials, translated from Persian by MEMRI, the Middle East translation service, to mark 'Quds' day on October 20, an Iranian 'holiday' calling for the "liberation" of Jerusalem and war against Israel.


source: www.ynetnews.com...



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


Yes, the usual twisted tripe..
It has been well proven that he did not say that..
He spoke of zionism, not Israel...

And many many Jews agree with him...



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join