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.
Wen Jiabao, the Chinese premier, has made it clear he does not agree with Western demands for sanctions over Tehran's disputed nuclear programme, insisting he will maintain "close co-operation" with Iran.
Oil exports account for nearly half of Iran's revenues - being cut off from the West means most is exported to Asian countries – and a big percentage of that to China.
In return China is investing billions in Iran's gas and oil fields.
And as Al Jazeera's Nazanine Moshiri reports from Tehran, the Iranian capital, their trade links are becoming stronger.
Originally posted by cindymars
This is total hyprocisy.
Who has ever used a nuclear weapon against another country? The USA.
The US has a huge nuclear arsinal and yet we have the audacity to tell other countries that they cannot.
If I were the leaders of one of those other countries, I would tell the US where to stick it.
Mind you on a personal note, I am gald that Iran and North Korea does not have nuclear weapons, or do they?
Originally posted by john124
Originally posted by cindymars
This is total hyprocisy.
Who has ever used a nuclear weapon against another country? The USA.
The US has a huge nuclear arsinal and yet we have the audacity to tell other countries that they cannot.
If I were the leaders of one of those other countries, I would tell the US where to stick it.
Mind you on a personal note, I am gald that Iran and North Korea does not have nuclear weapons, or do they?
Yep, N.Korea has nukes, and Iran probably are very close to making a nuke.
The Japanese were the aggressors, and that was a long time ago. Do we really want 20th century policies in the 21st century?
Shall we just say yeah it's russia's turn to nuke someone because the US did over 60 years ago. Nobody's saying Russia should get rid of their nukes whilst the west has theirs, but it's stupendously aggressive to publicy announce a first-strike policy, especially since Ukraine and Georgia are in a difficult position. It's ludicrous, and shows a great fear that Russia would lose conventionally to even a moderate sized force.
[edit on 15-10-2009 by john124]
How is Iran close to having nukes, is close like 20 years for you or what?
You know this just as well as i do
But you choose to keep repeating this lie, that makes you a war-mongerer.
Originally posted by Nicademus
If i were the leader of Russia i would just give Iran about 100 or so nukes, of all sizes and all the associated paraphernalia that goes with them. And tell the west , what are you going to do about it? Nothing. Thats right. Not a damn thing you can do about it except for whine and grovel. I'd send about 50-100k troops along with them as "observers".
Wolves always take the weakest member of the herd. Thanks to our pansy in chief the wolves are now circling the U.S.
[edit on 15-10-2009 by Nicademus]
KIEV (Reuters) - Ukraine has begun talks with the United States on the possibility of Washington using information gathered by its radars, Interfax Ukraine cited Kiev's envoy as saying on Thursday.
The news is likely to irk Russia, which is highly sensitive to any hint of U.S. military partnership with former Soviet republics.
Washington last week denied it wanted to station U.S. radar systems in Ukraine, after President Barack Obama scrapped a planned missile shield based in central Europe.
But the U.S. State Department said countries such as Ukraine could contribute early warning information.
"This issue is in the process of working discussions. It is still at a beginning stage," Interfax cited the Ukrainian ambassador to the United States, Oleh Shamshur, as saying. He added previous Ukrainian leaders had backed this idea.
Ukraine's foreign ministry said it had no comment.
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said on Thursday he was concerned at the prospect of U.S. talks on missile defense with countries that are not part of the NATO military alliance.
Shamshur suggested Russia had missed its chance to use information from Ukrainian radars. Russia canceled a post-Soviet radar data sharing deal last year, complaining the installations in Ukraine were outdated.
"We are also talking about the question of using our defense radars across Ukraine's territory, which, as you all know, Russia has declined to use," Shamshur was cited as saying.
MOSCOW — A top Russian diplomat suggested Thursday that the U.S. should not talk with non-NATO nations about a prospective missile shield, Russian news agencies reported.
Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov's remarks appeared to reflect alarm over the idea that Western-leaning neighbors such as Ukraine or Georgia, Russia's foe in a war last year, could potentially host U.S. missile defense facilities.
Ryabkov said Russia is concerned about what he said were contacts between the U.S. and nations outside NATO on missile defense, state-run ITAR-Tass and RIA Novosti reported.
President Barack Obama removed a major irritant in relations with Russia last month by scrapping U.S. plans to place interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic — deployments Russia treated as a threat.
The Kremlin has praised Obama for the decision, but Russian officials have also said they want to know details about what system the U.S. will put in place instead.
Ryabkov's comments served as a warning that the United States should avoid taking steps that would threaten Russia or turning to its neighbors as potential partners in missile defense without consulting with Moscow.
"We are experiencing the concerns that emerge when major questions of strategic stability should be considered in a partner-like manner," he was quoted as saying.
Russia and the U.S. have discussed cooperating on missile defense, and Ryabkov represented Russia in talks on the issue in Moscow on Monday ahead of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's visit.
Ryabkov did not name any specific nations as being in contact with the U.S. about missile defense, but he spoke in response to a question about Russian media reports suggesting the U.S. was in talks with Ukraine on the possibility of using its radar stations as part of a missile shield.
The U.S. has not held negotiations with Ukraine regarding the use of Ukrainian radar stations, a U.S. Defense Department spokesman, Maj. Shawn Turner, said Thursday.
Tensions over Georgia and uncertainty over the future of Ukraine, whose pro-Western president wants the country to join NATO, are hurdles in efforts by Russia and the U.S. to mend strained ties.
Sunday, September 11, 2005
The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to use them to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.
...
The draft, dated March 15, would provide authoritative guidance for commanders to request presidential approval for using nuclear weapons, and represents the Pentagon's first attempt to revise procedures to reflect the Bush preemption doctrine. A previous version, completed in 1995 during the Clinton administration, contains no mention of using nuclear weapons preemptively or specifically against threats from weapons of mass destruction.
What’s more, Patrushev said, Russia is revising the rules for the employment of nukes to repel conventionally armed attackers, “not only in large-scale, but also in a regional and even a local war.”
The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.
, all this talk about Russia's strategy being a threat to Georgia or Ukraine is rediculous. As was plainly demonstrated during the South Ossetia War, Russia can easily defeat Georgia by limited conventional means
US' aggressive rhetoric towards Iran on the other hand, could mean that Iran is potentially threatened by US nuclear strikes.
Originally posted by john124
If you gladly pay attention to the Russian policy:
What’s more, Patrushev said, Russia is revising the rules for the employment of nukes to repel conventionally armed attackers, “not only in large-scale, but also in a regional and even a local war.”
This doesn't restrict a nuclear first-strike to targets with WMDs.
On the other hand, the American policy states:
The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.
That's quite a big difference isn't it!
Originally posted by john124
Exactly, and Russia is a threat to Georgia and Ukraine because they want to join NATO, and Russia have openly stated they won't allow this.
Originally posted by john124
But what if anyone decides to fight back against the Russian's and defeat them conventionally.
Originally posted by john124
Putin now has his policy to order the generals to destroy the world rather than surrender.
Originally posted by john124
If Russia cannot be defeated conventionally, then why the necessity of the first-strike policy?
Originally posted by john124
If any more aggression against Georgia or even Ukraine now is what the Kremlin wants, then Russian interference will be ordered to ensure troops can be used again under the guise of peacekeeping duties.
Originally posted by john124
If anyone fights back, then Russia knows that we know they'll go nuclear, or at least have that option openly available. So, it's another preventative measure against countries being able to defend themselves from Russian aggression.
Originally posted by john124
How many illegal bases are Russia building in S.Ossetia and Abkhazia now?!
Originally posted by john124
I think it's a little late for the Russian's to complain about a coup d'etat regime that killed peaceful protesters, that they've backed and supported for so long.
Originally posted by john124
Oh and do I need to mention the silly Kremlin's accusations that georgia supports Al-Qaeda? Haha!!
Originally posted by john124
Undercover reporters from Britain inside Ingushetia showed the levels of corruption, murder of innocent civilians all under the guise of anti-terrorism.
Originally posted by john124
Accidental killings of civilians are another matter, such as what happens in Afghanistan occassionally.
Originally posted by john124
But in the N. Caucasus regions inside the Russian Federation, indiscriminant killings along with corruption are a major source of the problems.
Originally posted by john124
Ukranian elections are in Jan 2010, and the Russian's will eye a new man in charge who is pro-Russian. If a pro-western leader who wants to join NATO wins the election
Originally posted by john124
The Kremlin never stop moaning. Even when a radar system that may be implemented in Ukraine that won't even be pointing towards Russia, then the Kremlin whinges over it like a stupid child.