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.

 

U.S.-Russia Joint THReat Assessment Talks Iran and North Korea

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   
So like everyone else, Ive been going through the Wikileaks cables, and found one interesting.

Its a threat Assessment by the US and Russia, here are some key points.


IRAN Not Capable of Producing Longer-Range Missiles RUSSIA said its bottom line is that IRAN lacks appropriate structural materials for long-range systems, such as high quality aluminum. IRAN can build prototypes, but in order to be a threat to the U.S. or RUSSIA IRAN needs to produce missiles in mass quantities, and it lacks materials sufficient for the type of mass production needed to be a security threat.


SO Iran poses no threat to the US or Russia directly.



--A missile threat would only develop if IRAN seceded from
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and successfully
developed an MRBM with a 3,000 km range and a warhead of one
ton.

--IRAN does not have the military-industrial capability to
develop such a program. If IRAN could gain access to foreign
technology, it might develop such a program but this is
unlikely due to export controls.

--In any case, even with the assistance of foreign
technology, RUSSIA assesses it will take IRAN 6-8 years to
gain the ability to launch an MRBM with a nuclear warhead.

--With regard to an ICBM, RUSSIA considers this purely
hypothetical and does not see the possibility of IRAN having
this capability for the next 10 years.


So no balistic missile capability in the near future.

Another words, the whole report states both North Korea and Iran can only hurt their neighbors.

So why the focus on Iran in the US? its not a threat, it maybe a threat to some allies but even that is questionable...

Original Cable




edit on 11/9/11 by masqua because: Replaced 'All Caps' in title




posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Why the focus on Iran? Because 6 years goes by alot quicker than you think
IN OTHER WORDS, they will have long range missle capabilities in the next 6-10 years. You dont wait until your attacked to react usually. Or do you?



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by AllUrChips
 


6 years before they can make a missile, if you read the report it pretty much says to hurt the US or Russia you need to missile spam, fire as many as you can and cross your fingers our defenses dont take them all out.

So 6-10 to develop one missile, it goes on to say they dont even have the resources to develop the one, let alone enough to be a direct threat to the US.

this was a secret document, so in secret they know Iran is not a threat while beating the drum to say they are a threat.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Well since Russia and China both have a pathological hatred of the Western world and they are facilitating both NK and Iran as proxies - then you would expect any report to be full of misdirection.

The real threat from either of these countries is not a nuclear missile per se - it is from an EMP strike! - for which the US and Europe is totaly unprepared.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by JohhnyBGood
 


Actually US doctrine is for with the launch of an EMP strike (in order to do it right it needs to be in the upper atmosphere which requires a missile launch) is to immediate retaliate before the missiles blow.

As I read more of the Wikicables it seems to be the confidence the US and others have in its own missile defenses is rather high.

The only way this would work would be from cargo container ships with out immediate retaliation is to say launch either from the docks are on the ocean. Even than or retaliation would come from subs.

Much of the military has emp proofed equipment.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   
I wouldn't expect them launch an ICBM from across the ocean - rather an annonymous coastal freighter, perhaps many at once from both sidesof the continent, in the confusion who exactly are the US or Europe going to retaliate against!? - neither NK nor Iran would really care anyway!

The real target of these strikes will be the civilian infrastructure in order to effect a total societal collapse, the US will readily collapse into inter ethnic civil war, famine etc



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 


Iran poses no threat to the US or Russia directly.

That is an invalid conclusion!

To say that Iran, or North Korea, may not be capable of launching MISSILES with sufficient range to reach Russia or the United States is one thing. To say that they pose "no threat to the US or Russia directly" is totally different matter!

Have you fogotten?:
1) Pearl Harbor
2) The World Trade Center
3) The Pentagon

I'm not saying Iran, or North Korea, were involved in those. My point is: Missiles weren't used in any of the above attacks.


So no balistic missile capability in the near future.

Wrong again!
The "JSA" indicates that Iran and North Korea are quite capable with their Short Range Ballistic Missiles (SRBMs), Mid Range Ballistic Missiles (MRBMs), and somewhat capable with their Long Range Ballistic Missiles (LRBMs).


the whole report states both North Korea and Iran can only hurt their neighbors.

No...:
The report indicates that only neighboring countries are within their current, reliable MISSILE RANGE.


So why the focus on Iran in the US?

That "focus" likely has to do with their KNOWN intent to develop longer range MISSILES!

You're the one that linked to the "JSA", why didn't you read it BEFORE you made your comments? If you did, why did you intentionally misconstrue it's contents?

See ya,
Milt



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   
The source is a long and moderately technical cable. It is not a "report" in the ususal sense of the word as in "study," it's closer to a reporters notes of a discussion.

You'll notice that the US and Russia took different positions on many issues, with the Russians seeing less of a threat. It's also a year and a half old. It's very interesting, but I don't think it comes to the same conclusions you think it does.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join