- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Russia, Syria, and Iran teaming up in Baghdad...
Posted on 9/25/15 at 1:14 pm to Darth_Vader
Posted on 9/25/15 at 1:14 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Russia can't just give Iran some of it's own bombs. If something happens and that bomb were used, even worse, given to terrorist and then used, and it's traced back to having been a Russian made bomb, then the political ramifications against Russia will be huge. It's best, and more profitable, for Russia to sell Iran the tools and know-how to build it's own bomb.
Well said, sir. Well said.
0
Posted on 9/25/15 at 1:14 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
It's best, and more profitable, for Russia to sell Iran the tools and know-how to build it's own bomb.
Why do Iranians have to go to Russia to get tools and know-how?
Posted on 9/25/15 at 1:15 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Why do Iranians have to go to Russia to get tools and know-how?
Did you miss the part where I discussed the greater secrecy and security available in Russia for this sort of work compared to Iran?
Posted on 9/25/15 at 1:20 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Russia can't just give Iran some of it's own bombs. If something happens and that bomb were used, even worse, given to terrorist and then used, and it's traced back to having been a Russian made bomb, then the political ramifications against Russia will be huge. It's best, and more profitable, for Russia to sell Iran the tools and know-how to build it's own bomb.
Just playing devil's advocate here, but wasn't there a big concern in the nineties up until about five years ago about accountability for the Russian nuclear stockpiles? That was actually a major concern after nine eleven that an arms dealer could pretty easily get a hold of an old USSR warhead and sell it to a terrorist organization, if I remember correctly.
It seems it would be pretty easy for Putin to hand over a thirty year old bomb to an Iranian organization and blame it on ineffectual bureaucracy that predated his regime.
It would be a lot less risky than relocating an Iranian nuclear facility to Russian soil.
Posted on 9/25/15 at 1:29 pm to LucasP
quote:
Just playing devil's advocate here, but wasn't there a big concern in the nineties up until about five years ago about accountability for the Russian nuclear stockpiles? That was actually a major concern after nine eleven that an arms dealer could pretty easily get a hold of an old USSR warhead and sell it to a terrorist organization, if I remember correctly.
Apparently, it's incredibly easy to get one. I watched a video (Vice, I know, Liberal) where the reporter went over somewhere in Eastern Europe where you could get a black market warhead that was Russian. Pretty scary, if it's true, that it's that easy.
Posted on 9/25/15 at 1:34 pm to LucasP
quote:
Just playing devil's advocate here, but wasn't there a big concern in the nineties up until about five years ago about accountability for the Russian nuclear stockpiles? That was actually a major concern after nine eleven that an arms dealer could pretty easily get a hold of an old USSR warhead and sell it to a terrorist organization, if I remember correctly.
It seems it would be pretty easy for Putin to hand over a thirty year old bomb to an Iranian organization and blame it on ineffectual bureaucracy that predated his regime.
It would be a lot less risky than relocating an Iranian nuclear facility to Russian soil.
Supposedly all of the old Soviet nukes have been accounted for. There's rumors of missing "suitcase" nukes but that's never been proven and the Russians themselves have asserted they have gained full control of all nuclear warheads.
So if an old soviet nuke were to turn up in Iran, it would be a black eye to Russia.
This post was edited on 9/25/15 at 1:35 pm
Posted on 9/25/15 at 1:37 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Russia can't just give Iran some of it's own bombs. If something happens and that bomb were used, even worse, given to terrorist and then used, and it's traced back to having been a Russian made bomb,
Someone gets it......this is the very reason China never sleeps....because they gave it to NK.
Posted on 9/25/15 at 1:38 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
There's rumors of missing "suitcase" nukes but that's never been proven and the Russians themselves have asserted they have gained full control of all nuclear warheads.
They or us? I'll say us.
Posted on 9/25/15 at 1:40 pm to Darth_Vader
I think we can all agree that that is optimistic at best.
But regardless of whether or not they gave them the bomb or helped them develop it on Russian soil, the end result is still the same though. Iran got nuclear capabilities obviously through Russia's help, because in both scenarios the nuclear facilities that Iran has on the books would be incapable. So your reasoning for Russia not giving them the bomb would be the same reasoning for Russia to not let them develop the bomb in clandestine Russian facilities.
I'm just not clear what you think Russia stands to gain from a nuclear Iran.
Like I said, devils advocate, I'm genuinely curious and this is a good discussion.
But regardless of whether or not they gave them the bomb or helped them develop it on Russian soil, the end result is still the same though. Iran got nuclear capabilities obviously through Russia's help, because in both scenarios the nuclear facilities that Iran has on the books would be incapable. So your reasoning for Russia not giving them the bomb would be the same reasoning for Russia to not let them develop the bomb in clandestine Russian facilities.
I'm just not clear what you think Russia stands to gain from a nuclear Iran.
Like I said, devils advocate, I'm genuinely curious and this is a good discussion.
Posted on 9/25/15 at 1:42 pm to LucasP
quote:
I'm just not clear what you think Russia stands to gain from a nuclear Iran.
A warm water port in the ME
Posted on 9/25/15 at 1:54 pm to Darth_Vader
Darth, your link to the president asking Israel to quit killing scientist included info from the book: Melman and Raviv co-wrote Spies Against Armageddon: Inside Israel’s Secret Wars.
Anyone read it? Recommendation?
Anyone read it? Recommendation?
Posted on 9/25/15 at 1:54 pm to LucasP
quote:
I think we can all agree that that is optimistic at best.
But regardless of whether or not they gave them the bomb or helped them develop it on Russian soil, the end result is still the same though. Iran got nuclear capabilities obviously through Russia's help, because in both scenarios the nuclear facilities that Iran has on the books would be incapable. So your reasoning for Russia not giving them the bomb would be the same reasoning for Russia to not let them develop the bomb in clandestine Russian facilities.
I'm just not clear what you think Russia stands to gain from a nuclear Iran.
Like I said, devils advocate, I'm genuinely curious and this is a good discussion.
What they gain are three things.
1. Lots of money from helping Iran develop their own nuclear program.
2. A strong, nuclear equipped ally in the very important Middle East that is beholden to Russia.
3. Greater influence over the Middle East as as whole.
Posted on 9/25/15 at 1:56 pm to Wtodd
quote:
I'm just not clear what you think Russia stands to gain from a nuclear Iran.
A warm water port in the ME
This has been a Russian goal since the days of Peter the Great.
Posted on 9/25/15 at 2:01 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
1. Lots of money from helping Iran develop their own nuclear program.
Seems like a pretty big risk considering the sanctions or all out embargoes that could result from it if caught.
quote:
2. A strong, nuclear equipped ally in the very important Middle East that is beholden to Russia.
How is a nuclear ally in the region better than a non nuclear stable one? It seems that Russia would have more control over a non nuclear puppet than one who doesn't feel the need for Russia's nuclear protection.
Russia already had enough nukes to destroy the surface of the Earth, why give anyone else the bomb when they would need you as an ally without it?
quote:
3. Greater influence over the Middle East as as whole
Again, I think they would have less leverage over a nuclear powered puppet than a non nuclear powered one. The US didn't gain control over Israel when they got the bomb, if anything we lost it.
Posted on 9/25/15 at 2:05 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Well, in my opinion, the sad truth is that due to the culture that's prevalent in the Middle East, Assad being in control of Syria is probably for the best. History shows that democracy just does not work in that part of the world. I know we in the U.S. want everyone around the world to live in open democracies, but that does not work everywhere. Look at the chaos that's come from the Arab Spring or the chaos that followed the fall of Saddam in Iraq. The only way to keep the Middle East stable is for strong leaders with dictatorial powers to be in charge.
That is true, but it is kinda hard to pull for a guy that is gassing his own ppl, but Assad staying is probably the best of the bad outcomes. Thanks Obama.
Hey atleast we have fracking so that we get most of oil and all our natural gas from North America, but I would hate to opening a gas bill in Europe in a few years. If Putin secures puppets in Iraq & Syria, and strengthens ties with Iran that defeats the purpose of the EU's plans for building pipelines through Turkey to get to Arabian natural gas in the Arabian pipelines and Iran and Russia can stop any progress on building the Trans-Caspian pipeline. So Kazackstan & Turkmenistan can't get around Russia's price fixing policies.
Might be good for south La, we can sell some of out natural gas to Europe.
Posted on 9/25/15 at 2:24 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
WE don't even have a single US base left in Afghanistan and haven't for almost a year now.
quote:
Bagram Airfield,[2] also known as Bagram Air Base, (IATA: OAI, ICAO: OAIX) is the largest U.S. military base in Afghanistan.
quote:
Bagram Airfield is currently maintained by the Combined Joint Task Force 10th Mountain Division
This post was edited on 9/25/15 at 2:26 pm
Posted on 9/25/15 at 2:28 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
WE don't even have a single US base left in Afghanistan and haven't for almost a year now.
quote:
Bagram Airfield,[2] also known as Bagram Air Base, (IATA: OAI, ICAO: OAIX) is the largest U.S. military base in Afghanistan.
quote:
Bagram Airfield is currently maintained by the Combined Joint Task Force 10th Mountain Division
US army hands over Bagram air base to Afghan control
It's their base. We gave it to them. They're just nice enough to let us hang around. Give it up. You're in over your head kid.
This post was edited on 9/25/15 at 2:31 pm
Posted on 9/25/15 at 2:35 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Bro, he's in the Air Force. They get hazardous duty pay if they have to go in the same building as Marines.
Nice gab but ive been working with some marines out here. We don't get hazard duty pay here.
Posted on 9/25/15 at 2:37 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
It's their base. We gave it to them. They're just nice enough to let us hang around. Give it up. You're in over your head kid.
You do realize the host nation owns these bases all over the ME bc we are considered guest. But its still a US operation base with a majority US troops.
Maybe you are in over your head.
Posted on 9/25/15 at 2:39 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
Where is this combat you speak of? What country are you in? Are you even in the military?
Undisclosed location in SW Asia
There is no combat here but my friends in Afghanistan are still getting shot at.
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News