Should Russia Send Nukes to Iran?

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   
One of the reasons that Turkey intercepted that Syrian airliner from Moscow could have been that they suspected it of possibly carrying nuclear cargo. Small nuclear warheads or artillary shells might be very useful to the Syrians in the coming weeks. Everyone, particularly the Turks would be aware and wary of such additions to the Syrian arsenal.

In fact it is very possible that Iran already has nuclear tipped anti-ship missiles. Some of the statements made by their military would lead one to believe that they are much stronger than they appear.
edit on 12-10-2012 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 01:12 AM
link   
I've been wondering why they haven't done this yet for a while now. Id love to see Iran announce that they have nuclear weapons. The war drums would end.



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 01:29 AM
link   
I believe that China and Russia would not get any further involved with Iran. Iran's leaders are religious zealots and China and Russia cannot trust them. This still has the U.S. in a position of waiting for Iran to 'make the first move", just like now. On the other hand, if the U.S. waits for Iran to attack Israel with a Nuclear Weapon, the U.S. could bring all of it's weaponry to bear, take out the leadership and their military and hand the country over to the moderate Iranians. CHECKMATE!!!!



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by MNnativeamer
 


























Ok, so the same mercenaries that were paid by the usa are now in syria after being tested in libya. We are hearing some of the same stuff, humanitarian issues and a country without a roschild bank, any one see a similarity? Next..A russian passenger plane forced down over turkish airspace due to inside information..mossad..our news mentioned it twice, then shut up..Our priminister is spending our money in africa, whitehouse flunky that he is.. Anyway, considering that the usa and nato are suppliying the rebels in syria with weapons, why is iit wrong or illegal for russia to supply back up to syria. The usa has and is interefering in so many countries thoughout the world as I speak, what they are doing is illegal under the geneva convention, yet they continue to assasssinate leaders of countries,,Kaddafi, bullet through the head from a us sniper and so on..finally china and russia have said enough is enough and it stops here..Iran is not making bomb technology, just wanting to get into the supply rod business at a cheap rate, Isreal has ovder 600 nukes already, tyhey are the problem, they are the ones who took out the towers in new york and hold the usa to ransom and now somehow canada too..G'nite












Ok



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by pistolerooo
I believe that China and Russia would not get any further involved with Iran. Iran's leaders are religious zealots and China and Russia cannot trust them.


At this point in world history trust is an archaic nostalgia item.


This still has the U.S. in a position of waiting for Iran to 'make the first move", just like now.


I don't think that is what the US is doing. The US is remodeling the entire Middle East in accordance with current thinking related to resource aquisition. At the moment there is a very troublesome regime of sanctions in force against Iran, also. A measure very much favored and endorsed by the US. If it wasn't favored and endorsed by the US it wouldn't be in place right now.


On the other hand, if the U.S. waits for Iran to attack Israel with a Nuclear Weapon, the U.S. could bring all of it's weaponry to bear, take out the leadership and their military and hand the country over to the moderate Iranians. CHECKMATE!!!!


In theory that sounds good, but I don't think it would be quite that simple. Ahmedinejad won re-election a couple of years ago in an election that was observed far and wide and judged to be fair by reasonable standards of fairness. I think the Iranians have the government that they want. The government that the US wants them to have is a government which will comply with the wishes of the large European and American oil companies, as the Shah once did.

The Iranian people don't want that. Iranians, by and large, would seem to want a government that will operate in their interests. I'm far from an expert on Iran, but those interests would seem to be a fair price for oil and a cultural life closer to the Shiite ideal, than one finds among "moderate, educated and living in the US, wealthy and even related to the former Shah, Iranians".
edit on 13-10-2012 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-10-2012 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 





It is a very, very tough decision. In an emergency would you give a machine gun to a hyper six year old?


Why are you comparing Iran to a hyper six year old. Have you got any idea how old the Iranian culture is...



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 02:43 AM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 

It would not matter if Russia or China sent Nuclear Missiles to Iran. The U.S. has more than enough ABM's in the form of SM-3's aboard Aegis Cruisers as well as a working FEL aboard several unconventional Ships in the area. These have been pre-positioned more so in the event that Iran launches Conventional Missiles toward Israel but the SM-3 ABM is beyond capable of shooting down anything launched from Iran.

The REALITY is that the U.S. has already made DEALS with Russia and China in the event of a U.S./Iranian Conflict which would not last very long. China wanted to make sure OIL continues to flow to China and Russia wants it's Natural Gas Pipeline Protected. Both of these Countries know that if Iran were to do something STUPID such as attempt to CLOSE THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ...the U.S. Navy would sink every single Iranian Ship and Sub in the Iranian Navy. The Iranian Navy want's NO PART of a WAR with the U.S. Military.
Split Infinity



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
Why are you comparing Iran to a hyper six year old. Have you got any idea how old the Iranian culture is...


Iranians have an old culture but no older than any other culture on the planet. We all have old cultures, but like the Iranians, we mostly ignore those old cultures and only bring them out when we want to impress people with things our ancestors did but that we are incapable of doing.

Unfortunately Iran's old culture is not in control of Iran any more.

Iran is part of the Islamic world, which is old but much younger than Iranian culture as a whole. The Islamic world of fatwas on artists, mobs on the streets, intolerance, attacks on other churches, attacks on Islamic clerics by other Islamic clerics, stonings, hangings of homosexuals, legitimized wife beating, disregard for the rules of international diplomacy, intolerance and ideologically induced violence.

That's the world of the, if not six year old, then the adolescent. Impulsive, violent, heedless of consequences, intensely loyal and intensly disloyal to authority, contemptuous of older cultures, intolerant of disagreement, averse to compromise.

Too hot tempered to carry great and grave responsibilities, like nuclear weapons. The same could be said for Pakistan. Do we want another country like Pakistan or North Korea with nuclear weapons?
edit on 13-10-2012 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by ipsedixit
 

It would not matter if Russia or China sent Nuclear Missiles to Iran. The U.S. has more than enough ABM's in the form of SM-3's aboard Aegis Cruisers as well as a working FEL aboard several unconventional Ships in the area. These have been pre-positioned more so in the event that Iran launches Conventional Missiles toward Israel but the SM-3 ABM is beyond capable of shooting down anything launched from Iran.


That's theory. I'm not a weapons expert, but if even one nuclear artillery shell landed in Tel Aviv, it would be rightly considered a catastrophe.


The REALITY is that the U.S. has already made DEALS with Russia and China in the event of a U.S./Iranian Conflict which would not last very long.


Russia for one is re-examining its deals with the US. They have just recently let it be known that they will not renew one of the nuclear disarmament treaties.


China wanted to make sure OIL continues to flow to China and Russia wants it's Natural Gas Pipeline Protected.


Yes, but American geopolitical strategy is not an open book. The other Great Powers are looking askance at America these days.


Both of these Countries know that if Iran were to do something STUPID such as attempt to CLOSE THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ...the U.S. Navy would sink every single Iranian Ship and Sub in the Iranian Navy.


So you are saying that if Iran wants to close the Strait of Hormuz, that Iran should sail all of it's Navy into the strait, where the US will then oblige Iran by sinking its Navy in the place where the Mullahs want it sunk, thus closing the strait?

Are you a West Pointer? Just kidding.

One of Napoleon's generals was asked by Napoleon what he thought would be the outcome of an engagement. He said, "In war, nothing is certain."


The Iranian Navy want's NO PART of a WAR with the U.S. Military.
Split Infinity


I don't think they are going to get one. I see things developing in the Syrian mold, on Iran's western border in a future Kurdistan.
edit on 13-10-2012 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 





Iranians have an old culture but no older than any other culture on the planet. We all have old cultures, but like the Iranians, we mostly ignore those old cultures and only bring them out when we want to impress people with things our ancestors did but that we are incapable of doing.


Sorry I stand by my claim Iran has one of the oldest cultures in the world...


Iran is home to one of the world's oldest continuous major civilizations, with historical and urban settlements dating back to 4000 BC.[3] The Medes unified Iran as a nation and empire in 625 BC.[4][4] The Achaemenid Empire (550–330 BC) was the first of the Iranian empires to rule from the Balkans to North Africa and also Central Asia. They were succeeded by the Seleucid Empire, Parthians and Sassanids which governed Iran for almost 1,000 years


en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 13-10-2012 by purplemer because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Why would Russian federation be interested in Iran with nukes? Look at all the wars between Persia and Russian empire for control over the region - and now Russians would artificially rebuild their potential regional adversary?
Russia is interested to decrease US influence in the region (and probably beyond) and increase its own.
So I think Russian strategy is to make Iran a possible threat to US (and Israeli and Saudi and ctr) strategical interests in the region. Chance of the war that would somehow overthrow current Iranian leadership is very low, in worse case war scenario Iran will be military and economically weakened enough to completely rely on Russia that together with China will press to stop the war via UN.
In the meanwhile oil price will skyrocket.
So Russia will imp[rove its economy,gain huge influence in resource-rich Iran while US will spend enormous resources in the war vs Iran and in the attempts to stabilize the crumbling world economy.



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 

Iran is old, Egypt is old. They are acting much more "youthful". This is the post "Arab Spring" harmony in Egypt, now that the "people" of a very old culture are finally allowed to work things out for themselves.



edit on 13-10-2012 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   
The Iranians will have nukes soon enough. Giving them nukes will not stop hostilities and it may even accelerate them.
Why hasn't Russia given nukes to Iran? Maybe Russia doesn't actually trust Iran.

As far as control of mideast oil, seems like it is an ultimately untenable position for the west in general and the US in particular. My feeling is that it won't be long before China decides to take the fields for themselves. The rate they are developing at will soon be beyond the ability or willingness of the rest of the world to supply oil economically.

With development of oil in the western hemisphere it will soon be economically advantageous to leave the oil fields to the eastern powers. Mainly the Chinese.

I think the US will work towards energy independence over the next decade and cede any sources they have in the middle east as the situation develops.

Between now and then it is likely that the Islamic states will form an Islamic coalition that will use other currencies besides the dollar to sell oil. My feeling is that this is what the west wants to prevent for as long as possible.

By using the dollar for a reserve currency, the banking elites have made a huge profit and control system since world war two. In my opinion, it was never intended for the dollar to survive being a reserve currency. Ultimately, printing trillions makes it impossible for the currency to remain viable. It has simply been a tool to gain profit and control. When it is all said and done the dollar will be useless and mid east oil reserves depleted.

By keeping control of the mideast the US holds onto viability of the dollar.

It's not really about the oil any more. It's about what currency is used to sell oil.

Granted this is all conjecture but I think is is close to what is going on.



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by badgerprints
 


Interesting post. A lot of the economic stuff is over my head. That situation is complicated by so much chicanery and speculation. When currency loses value, as the American dollar has, then resources become king. America itself appears to be shedding the dollar like a snake skin to put on the mantle of controller of the lion's share of the world's oil.

In the immediate future I think Russia will stand pat. Syria will fall into chaos and America will attempt to create a new client state in the Middle East, Kurdistan, which will be oil rich, dependant militarily on America for survival and situated at the fulcrum of all power in the region, to the detriment of Iran. Then they will pump the region dry, doling out to China as much as they can, as long as China behaves itself.

I don't think America wants to ruin anybody, but if ruination comes to anyone, it won't be to American/European interests and not likely to Russian interests. Who's left over when the music stops? China.

Maybe China will be saved by world science. Maybe they will start fracking in Newfoundland.



edit on 13-10-2012 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
In theory that sounds good, but I don't think it would be quite that simple. Ahmedinejad won re-election a couple of years ago in an election that was observed far and wide and judged to be fair by reasonable standards of fairness. I think the Iranians have the government that they want. The government that the US wants them to have is a government which will comply with the wishes of the large European and American oil companies, as the Shah once did.
The Iranian people don't want that. Iranians, by and large, would seem to want a government that will operate in their interests. I'm far from an expert on Iran, but those interests would seem to be a fair price for oil and a cultural life closer to the Shiite ideal, than one finds among "moderate, educated and living in the US, wealthy and even related to the former Shah, Iranians".
edit on 13-10-2012 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-10-2012 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

wow you are far more expert than your leaders, on Iran !

Iran is part of the Islamic world, which is old but much younger than Iranian culture as a whole. The Islamic world of fatwas on artists, mobs on the streets, intolerance, attacks on other churches, attacks on Islamic clerics by other Islamic clerics, stonings, hangings of homosexuals, legitimized wife beating, disregard for the rules of international diplomacy, intolerance and ideologically induced violence.

yes. middle east is a big victim of radicalism. and surprisingly radicalism has had a great growth after the sep 11 !
this goes well with the atmosphere in the middle east ! I know that most of people living in west have a view of Medieval from religion or religious government. but for many middle easterns their religion is something far better that capitalism or communism. so they think that their backwardness is because they have dismissed the true face of their religion. so why is radicalism spreaded thusly in the middle east, in this era. there are vivid footprints of some government supported terrorism in the middle east !
any war or lack of safety is a threat to Iran itself ! Turkey has a large trade with Iran and not to mention Syria ! moreover improvement is a priority for them this is what they are struggling for it. so any war or tension can hurt them. they always try to lessen the tensions in the neighbourhood. even they have declared that they are ready to cooperate on Syria issue with Egypt and even Saudi. so this can help them to see a controlled process in Syria. so in summery tensions and wars are not beneficial to Iran.
yes of course it's stance on the Israel issue is itself stressful because it does not recognize Israel a country but occupied lands. so Iran is the main part of an unwritten treaty called Resistance. as many middle easterns have bad attitudes towards Israel so this unwritten treaty has a big public opinion support in the middle east. nevertheless it does not want that this leads to a big war, this is why it shows it's teeth sometimes because it believes that this is preventive. for example the last is the downed drone in Israel.
but is a nuclear weapon preventive or persuasive a war !?
Iran is a NPT signatory and the chief of NAM(118 members) which always supports Iran for peaceful purposes, so making a Nuke is a suicide for Iran. Iran has not much hard power so it needs it's soft power.
so pressures on Iran is not solely for it's nuclear capability, it is because Iran is near Israel (north Korea has nukes and is near USA but nothing happens !) and in the middle of middle east (it is really annoying when USA has to always circle Iran for transporting from Iraq to Afghanistan !) and of course still denying Israel as a country !



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by badgerprints
 



I don't think America wants to ruin anybody, but if ruination comes to anyone, it won't be to American/European interests and not likely to Russian interests. Who's left over when the music stops? China.

Maybe China will be saved by world science. Maybe they will start fracking in Newfoundland.



edit on 13-10-2012 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)


I agree. America as a nation (not government) was thrown under the bus by the banks when the dollar was taken off of the gold standard. I believe this was a pre-planned act by big banking interests, not just a foolish idea by Nixon.

China won't be saved by world science. They won't wait that long. Look at a world map and think about population versus oil reserves. Who stands geographically between China and the mid-east reserves? Think about that in the context of politics regarding Iran and Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I'm not saying it's a lock, but taking a long view at the big picture says that a country with 1/5th of the worlds population and is the largest growing consumer of oil will definitely focus on controlling the nearest reserves. Once the US no longer needs the mid-east reserves it will not have any problem leaving the (conjectured) mid east Islamic coalition to defend its own oil.



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by badgerprints
 

No fracking in Newfoundland?


China owns a big chunk of Husky Oil in Alberta, I believe, and 23,000,000,000 barrels of shale oil are thought to have been discovered in Newfoundland. That's just a shade over the US reserves.

China has one ace that the world loves. It is the Saudi Arabia of cheap labor.

Anyway. Here's to "doing business". It's more fun than making war.
edit on 13-10-2012 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by ipsedixit
 





Iranians have an old culture but no older than any other culture on the planet. We all have old cultures, but like the Iranians, we mostly ignore those old cultures and only bring them out when we want to impress people with things our ancestors did but that we are incapable of doing.


Sorry I stand by my claim Iran has one of the oldest cultures in the world...


Iran is home to one of the world's oldest continuous major civilizations, with historical and urban settlements dating back to 4000 BC.[3] The Medes unified Iran as a nation and empire in 625 BC.[4][4] The Achaemenid Empire (550–330 BC) was the first of the Iranian empires to rule from the Balkans to North Africa and also Central Asia. They were succeeded by the Seleucid Empire, Parthians and Sassanids which governed Iran for almost 1,000 years


en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 13-10-2012 by purplemer because: (no reason given)


The Islamic Fundamentalists have been very effective in eliminating all pre-Islamic parts of Iranian culture.

In practice, the government and associated fanatics believes their culture is some form of 'Pure Islam', but in reality it is a construct from 1979.

At least the Bolsheviks knew they were doing something historically unprecedented and radical.



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by badgerprints


Between now and then it is likely that the Islamic states will form an Islamic coalition that will use other currencies besides the dollar to sell oil. My feeling is that this is what the west wants to prevent for as long as possible.


Actually this doesn't make sense. The West doesn't care---they want the oil. It is the recipients who have consistently preferred dollars to anything else. As long as there are liquid FX markets in major currencies (and there are) then for the buyers of oil it doesn't matter. For the sellers, it does. They have to park their money somewhere, and they want dollars because there is a large global bond market denominated in dollars to put their money. This is not a government conspiracy but a consequence of economics.

Any oil-producing government can say, "wanh, I will only accept payment for oil in quatloos because of Evil Federal Reserve whanh wanh waaanh.". Buyers will oblige and buy quatloos for euros or dollars or whatever. (And presumably if the oil-producing nations want to get money for their oil they have to make this trade feasible). And now such government gets quatloos. If they want to buy things with the money, they will end up trading the quatloos for euros or dollars or yen or yuan. In any case, they will have to go through global banks because they can't force say BMW to give them luxury cars without payment on BMW's terms. And those same banks will say "No we won't give you any interest or deposit insurance on quatloos, but if you trade in to dollars or euros we can put your money in any number of money market funds." And because in the end people are greedy, that's what will happen. Eventually they will decide that paying banks 2% conversion fees each time from dollars to quatloos to dollars back is a waste of money and they will go back to accepting payments in dollars and euros.

Reserve currencies come about because of deep investment opportunities and cash management in such currencies, i.e. a bond market. And that happens on account of fundamental economics. Eventually the yuan will be a reserve currency along with dollars and euros, but only when China opens its capital account and has non-manipulated exchange rates.
edit on 13-10-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 

Several Years back...a failing U.S. Satellite was in a failing orbit. It had aboard it a FULL TANK OF HYDRAZINE...a very Toxic Booster Fuel. When I heard about the Satellites failing orbit...I said to My Girl...YOU WATCH! THEY ARE GOING TO USE THIS AS AN EXCUSE TO TEST THE NEW SM-3 ABM!

They did! The SM-3 Missile was originally designed to be used as an Anti-Aircraft Missile to protect U.S. Carriers. They there was a BREAKTHROUGH in SOLID FUEL for use in Missiles. The New Solid Fuel was a LONG BURN, HIGH POWER, LIGHT WEIGHT version of the old solid fuel used for missiles. It was placed in a Standard SM-3 Missile used in all Aegis Cruisers which are part of every U.S. Carrier Group.

A New SM-3 was launched at this failing satellite which was traveling at ORBITAL DISTANCE at a speed between 17,500 MPH to 18,200 MPH...the SM-3 Launch was made public and multiple Telescopes followed the SM-3 to it's target...and the target was specifically the HYDRAZINE BOOSTER TANK aboard the failing satellite. Filmed Telescopic Imaging which anyone here can watch on YOUTUBE...followed the SM-3 speeding toward the satellite and the imaging confirmed as the Hydrazine Tank can be clearly seen exploding.

Now this was done in 2008. The U.S. has equipped all Carrier Groups Cruisers with SM-3's as well as there being two Land Versions of the FEL and a few unknown in number Nuclear Powered FEL's at sea aboard unconventional ships. The FIRST PUBLIC CONFIRMED NUCLEAR POWERED FREE ELECTRON LASER EQUIPPED SHIPS will be the New Stealth Carrier USS. CVN-78 GERALD R. FORD which will be launched to sea in 2015...it's Aegis Cruiser will also carry a NUCLEAR POWERED FEL.

The point is that the U.S. ALREADY HAS A VERY GOOD OPERATIONAL AMB AND LASER MISSILE SHIELD positioned around the GLOBE and to think that the U.S. Military has not already placed this system in a position to easily Destroy any Iranian Missile Launch...is RIDICULOUS!

Some people may not believe this next statement but it is true...the UNITED STATES fully intends to gain IRAN AS AN ALLY! This is why Israel has been FORBIDDEN TO BOMB IRANIAN NUCLEAR SITES. THIS IS WHY WE ARE HAVING SECRET U.S. MILITARY TO IRANIAN MILITARY TALKS...this is why the CIA is in contact with Iranian Pro-Democracy Movement Leadership Cells. It is because the IRANIAN PEOPLE WANT VERY MUCH THE SAME THAT THE U.S. PEOPLE WANT...PEACE AND STABILITY! Watch and see!
Split Infinity





new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join