Utopia Talk / Politics / Russia's Iskander best answer ...

swordtail Member	Wed Nov 05 08:53:48 ...to U.S. missiles in Europe - analyst MOSCOW, November 5 (RIA Novosti) - The placement of short-range tactical missiles near Poland would be the best response to U.S. missile plans for Europe, a Russian military analyst said on Wednesday. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said on Wednesday in his first state of the nation address to parliament that Russia would deploy short-range Iskander missile systems in its exclave of Kaliningrad "to neutralize if necessary the anti-ballistic missile system in Europe." "The deployment of Iskander missile systems with a range of 500 km (310 miles) [in the Kaliningrad region] would allow Russia to target the entire territory of Poland and also parts of Germany and the Czech Republic," said Anatoly Tsyganok, head of the Moscow-based Military Forecast Center. The Iskander-M (SS-26 Stone) tactical system is equipped with high-precision cruise missiles reportedly capable of carrying multiple conventional and nuclear warheads. We could have deployed either strategic bombers or silo-based ballistic missiles in response to the U.S. missile shield in Europe. However, Iskander is the best solution both from an economic and a military standpoint," Tsyganyuk said. Moscow has repeatedly expressed its opposition to Washington's plans to place 10 interceptor missiles in Poland and an accompanying radar in the Czech Republic, saying they threaten Russia's national security. The United States claims the new bases are needed to counter missile attacks by "rogue states" such as Iran. The U.S. signed deals on the missile shield with Warsaw and Prague during the summer. Polish and Czech lawmakers have yet to ratify the agreements. Russian officials earlier said Moscow could deploy its Iskander tactical missiles and strategic bombers in Belarus, and warned that Russia could target its missiles at Poland. http://en.rian.ru/russia/20081105/118140039.html
EarthPig EPCHMUFTFOI Member	Wed Nov 05 09:02:30 Russia is the clear enemy of the European Union.
Goreth Member	Wed Nov 05 09:07:30 No, they're an ex-superpower with an inferiority complex. And we've humilated them a bit too often in the past years. I don't see how Russia is a threat for us. Let them put up their stupid missles if that makes them feel better...
iii Member	Wed Nov 05 10:33:04 Russia is not the problem the problem are 'mericans who seek every day for war USA needs to neutralize russian ballistic missiles ONLY to be able to attack Russia on russian soil, not with rocketts but with army like in Irak that is the ONLY reason Russia never prepared an invasion of EU they are trying to keep their ability to strke USA ONLY to discourage an invasion on Russia all 'mericans that are not stupid are knowing about the intention of USA to attack Russia but they play their card of innocence well, some of us cannot be fooled the part that is Russia's resposibility is that they MUST always be able to nuke USA they are the only force that are keeping USA's madness from fully expressing
EarthPig EPCHMUFTFOI Member	Wed Nov 05 10:56:43 "Russia never prepared an invasion of EU" lol
superdude Member	Wed Nov 05 10:58:56 We don't wanna invade Russia you retards, but Russia thinks it has a right to threaten all of europe.
swordtail Member	Wed Nov 05 11:08:27 "We don't wanna invade Russia you retards, but Russia thinks it has a right to threaten all of europe." nah just the parts of europe that are fucking with it.
Mavl Member	Wed Nov 05 11:08:45 Russia thinks it has a right to rape Poland if it pulls a Saakashvili. Good news.
Seb Member	Wed Nov 05 11:13:17 I think we have the right to rape Russia if it pulls a saakashvilli. If Iran throws a BM at us, and Russia buggers up the intercept, then you have effectively attacked us, and we will likely respond. Are you so sure that you want to give this degree of armament to someone like Ahmadinejad?
Mavl Member	Wed Nov 05 11:16:37 I'm sorry, Seb. Russia can't pull a saakashvili by definition because it is an action that can only be done by an american pet.
swordtail Member	Wed Nov 05 11:17:21 "Are you so sure that you want to give this degree of armament to someone like Ahmadinejad?" oh no, he's the next hitler! gee mr. academic alchemist what are we to do?
Seb Member	Wed Nov 05 11:17:24 Mavl: You want Iran for a pet, you are going to be held responsible if he shits on our lawn.
jergul Member	Wed Nov 05 11:18:34 Its just posturing to inform Obama that the US base should be dropped.
Seb Member	Wed Nov 05 11:18:51 spoontail: No, not another Hitler. But with nuclear weapons, you don't need to be Hitler.
swordtail Member	Wed Nov 05 11:20:34 academic alchemist: iran has no nukular weapons! iran has no delivery systems for nukular weapons.
Mavl Member	Wed Nov 05 11:21:34 Have you found the WMD's of your previous hitler yet before turning to Iran ?
Hot Rod Member	Wed Nov 05 11:21:36 ^-nuclear.
jergul Member	Wed Nov 05 11:25:06 "You want Iran for a pet, you are going to be held responsible if he shits on our lawn." That I doubt. Though I think Russia will protect its pet with all means required. An Iranian-Russian alliance makes a lot of sense. We will see how the Shanghai Organization develops.
Seb Member	Wed Nov 05 11:26:57 Spoontail: Not yet, no. Iran does have delivery systems for nuclear weapons (could currently hit parts of southern Europe with a 10kt device). Mavl and Spoontail: It takes a lot longer to build a missile defence system than it does to build a nuke once you have enrichment going. Surely this is preferable? Rather than repeating the WMD fiasco in Iraq, they are building the capability to avoid the necessity of disarming Iran. What is so terrible about that? If Iran never gets a bomb, so much the better, America will have no missiles to target from it's base, will it?
Seb Member	Wed Nov 05 11:33:50 jergul: We've talked this out already. I think it is spectacularly naive to think that Russia would not be held accountable if Iran attacked the west and Russia joined in pre-emptively. It would be as if America had decided to attack the Russian troops defending South Ossetia. My guess would be Russia has absolutely no intention of foiling a missile intercept. Provided America does not fuck around and put offensive units in the base, and the consequences of involving themselves in any action that would support a third party attack are made clear, there is no problem.
iii Member	Wed Nov 05 11:33:52 We don't wanna invade Russia you retards, but Russia thinks it has a right to threaten all of europe. but USA thinks that is their rights to threaten Europe! i told you, i have a bigger picture but if you wnat to discuss more you need to read more. and avoid propaganda!
swordtail Member	Wed Nov 05 11:34:56 academic alchemist: "Not yet, no. Iran does have delivery systems for nuclear weapons (could currently hit parts of southern Europe with a 10kt device)." highly unlikely. but you keep spinning,and keep on antagonizing iran.
swordtail Member	Wed Nov 05 11:36:36 academic alchemist: "It would be as if America had decided to attack the Russian troops defending South Ossetia." they did, thru their proxy georgia.
iii Member	Wed Nov 05 11:37:34 not only Russia but also USA and others cannot afford Germany to become a nuclear force. so, from that point of view, even USA leaders know that partialy Russia is in title to threat Europe. the WWII nostalgic Europe or even worst
iii Member	Wed Nov 05 11:39:05 with a reasonable Europe just doing bussiness
Seb Member	Wed Nov 05 11:43:41 spoontail: Shahab III has a 1000kg payload and a range to hit Cypress, Greece, Romania and Bulgaria. 1000Kg is sufficient for a 10kt HEU bomb. As for attacking South Ossetia, no they didn't.
swordtail Member	Wed Nov 05 11:48:30 academic alchemist: "Shahab III has a 1000kg payload and a range to hit Cypress, Greece, Romania and Bulgaria. 1000Kg is sufficient for a 10kt HEU bomb." yeah and saddam was gonna launch nukes in 45 min. and that's not all, iraq was also in league with al queada. keep blowing smoke. you're really good at it. if you blow hard enough you'll get a fire going someday.
iii Member	Wed Nov 05 11:49:34 ooops, i'm in the range fuck Iran! they are trying to ruin my experience or what? i don't wanna die of one of those pittyful bombs of theirs i want the real thing a thermo- of 2Mt+
Forwyn Member	Wed Nov 05 11:50:20 "Russia thinks it has a right to rape Poland if it pulls a Saakashvili. Good news." So basically, Russia can rape Poland, AGAIN, this time for the reason that Poland was trying to quell a rebellion.
iii Member	Wed Nov 05 11:51:24 if they do YES! perfectly justified as USA showed us many times
iii Member	Wed Nov 05 11:52:31 it will take some more time to undo what Bush administration did
swordtail Member	Wed Nov 05 11:52:39 "So basically, Russia can rape Poland, AGAIN, this time for the reason that Poland was trying to quell a rebellion." rebellion?
iii Member	Wed Nov 05 12:11:02 i know, i know leave him with his words anyway he expects answer for HIS words i don't think he's realy interested about those things
Seb Member	Wed Nov 05 12:15:24 Spoontail: Shahab III has been tested and is in deployment. It's payload and range are not a matter of speculation. Yes, we all know about the dodgy dossier etc. Are you going to reject every piece of factual evidence (and this isn't even military intelligence) for ever and ever and ever as a result of it? Will you be going "yeah, yeah, 2+2 = 4... like the WMD"? Incidentally, as a matter of personal record, I said the 45 minute claim was bollocks, and Saddam had nothing to do with Al-Quaeda. But don't let facts get in the way. They may be difficult to see through the bottom of your beer bottle.
Forwyn Member	Wed Nov 05 12:16:13 Mavl thinks the invasion of Georgia was justified. And praises this declaration as intelligent. Anti ballistic shield? Lets get s'more missiles. lol, that took some thinking.
swordtail Member	Wed Nov 05 12:21:39 academic alchemist: "Are you going to reject every piece of factual evidence (and this isn't even military intelligence) for ever and ever and ever as a result of it? " where is this factual evidence of iran getting the bomb and being able to place said bomb on a shahab III and actually making the whole thing work? i'll wait while you pull this factual evidence out of your ass like you do more often than not. and btw,i'm not the one that's hitting the bottle. i don't live in a dream world like you do.
swordtail Member	Wed Nov 05 12:25:47 academic alchemist: "Incidentally, as a matter of personal record, I said the 45 minute claim was bollocks, and Saddam had nothing to do with Al-Quaeda. But don't let facts get in the way." irrelevant what you said or might have said,your illustrious leaders showed the world "factual evidence",which of course was pure bullshit.
iii Member	Wed Nov 05 12:32:17 not more missiles but new methods for delivering that shit you can't even imagine wait few yrs then you'll see no rockett needed and you can bomb the Moon if you want interception=totally obsolete
Forwyn Member	Wed Nov 05 12:38:08 And this is something to champion? I don't see what people's problem is with DEFENSE. With PROTECTION. Oh wait, its the US doing it. Keep on with your baseless attacks, people.
jergul Member	Wed Nov 05 13:30:05 Aleksander the Great is called Iskander in persian btw. Seb The 1000kg payload is obsolete and found only on the older configurations.
Seb Member	Wed Nov 05 13:32:42 spoontail: "where is this factual evidence of iran getting the bomb and being able to place said bomb on a shahab III and actually making the whole thing work?" You said they did not have the delivery system. Then you said it was highly unlikely. They do. The Shahab 3 is a perfectly adequate delivery system for a nuclear weapon that can hit Europe. And it is already deployed for military use. Stop trying to spin your way out of your own error. So they have the delivery system, they just currently lack a weapon. They currently do not have a nuclear bomb, however, if they have the ability to enrich uranium, a 10kt highly enriched uranium bomb is relatively trivial. Designing A 1000Kg HEU bomb is well within the possibility of a few grad students using publicly available information. See this for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nth_Country_Experiment Unless you happen to think the Iranians are intellectually inferior, they should have no problems whatsoever building a 10kt HEU bomb and fitting it to the Shahab III. Do you think the Iranians are intellectually inferior? Nor, in the next ten years, should they find it particularly challenging to finish work on their Shahab IV, which would put all of Europe in range. AS you have so rightly pointed out, pre-emption in order to prevent a country getting WMD is highly undesirable. It is therefore far better to have countermeasures, and they would need to be in place before an Iranian weapon system (delivery system + warhead) was deployed. So, remind me, what is your problem with missile defence? What I find difficult to understand is that missile defence is the natural extension of your own arguments. This is why one should not drink and post at the same time. " illustrious leaders showed the world "factual evidence"" No, they didn't, the intelligence reports were not factual evidence, but edited analysis and in their raw form come with uncertainties attached, which were removed in publication. The specifications of the Shahab III, by contrast, are public knowledge, thanks to tests and Irans claims for them. I think it is pretty obvious that if Iran begins enriching uranium on an industrial, they could have a fully weaponised 10Kt nuclear device in under five years. Havin (I hope) pretty much established that, lets move onto the other point: So, if you are going to judge me by something my (now ex) leader said, does that mean I should ignore you because of the holocaust? That is the kind of argument you are advancing.
Seb Member	Wed Nov 05 13:34:30 jergul: I know, but minimum specs are most substantiated. Actual capabilities are in excess of this. If Iran had fissile material of the required amount, they could have a primitive weapon very rapidly indeed. In reality, I suspect they would take their time and develop something a bit more robust.
jergul Member	Wed Nov 05 13:38:11 Shahab IV? You mean a satellite launcher, right? Yah, it could be adopted to for military use, but not easily (survivability in pre-launch stages a serious concern and would require huge investments in silo systems) If Iran is going to go for ICBMs, then they will leapfrog past short range ICBMs and go right to US striking weapons.
jergul Member	Wed Nov 05 13:39:50 Yepp, they will leapfrog in terms of nuclear warheads too. If it ever comes to pass. Though they do not actually need the nuclear weapons for as long as they have a sophisticated civilian nuclear program. That is deterrent enough.
Seb Member	Wed Nov 05 14:00:32 jergul: Probably, the issue is capability. Ideally, one would want the capability to intercept before the capability to hit was available. It depends very much on the kind of deterrent Iran is looking for. A civil nuclear programme is not much of a deterrent in terms of allowing extraordinary provocative moves by Iran regionally without much scope for retaliation, though would be a deterrent against being "Iraqed".
iii Member	Wed Nov 05 14:07:17 if USA ronouces to "Iraq" Iran then nuclear cappabilities of Iran are less a problem
Seb Member	Wed Nov 05 14:15:00 I do not agree. Iran wants regional dominance, and it is perfectly prepared to destabilise other countries in the region. The degree and scope for doing that is determined by the costs of retaliation. A nuclear arsenal would allow them wide scope for behaving far worse than they already do. Also, the Arab states would get nukes too, and the idea of a chain of nuclear states with micro-arsenals, combined with shia-sunni, Islamist/non-islamist, nationalist etc. politics, stretching from the Mediterranean through to the pacific, seems a far from stable situation to me. It looks kind of like a 21st century version of early 20th century Europe, and unless every country has the potential to annihilate ALL of the others, it's not going to be stabilised by nuclear weapons in the way the cold war was.
swordtail Member	Wed Nov 05 14:16:52 academic alchemist: cut back on the pints will ya. unless i'm blind, you fail yet again cause you're talking out of your ass yet again. "The Shahab 3 is a perfectly adequate delivery system for a nuclear weapon that can hit Europe." according to you and other spreaders of words of mass distraction. show me the the evidence that is so. "So they have the delivery system, they just currently lack a weapon." sure,according to you and other tards. "See this for example:" i don't want no example,i want your factual evidence. "Unless you happen to think the Iranians are intellectually inferior, they should have no problems whatsoever building a 10kt HEU bomb and fitting it to the Shahab III." i don't think they are intellectually inferior,but you sure as hell do. "So, remind me, what is your problem with missile defence?" i have no problem with missile defence. i have a big problem with academic alchemists like you spinning the fact that the missile defence base in poland and where ever else, is there to counter imaginary iranian threats. that is not the case. "I think it is pretty obvious that if Iran begins enriching uranium on an industrial, they could have a fully weaponised 10Kt nuclear device in under five years." yeah,and if you used your brain,you'd actually make a coherent case,but alas that is not to be. and let's not forget that if pigs had wings they'd be able to fly. "So, if you are going to judge me by something my (now ex) leader said, does that mean I should ignore you because of the holocaust? That is the kind of argument you are advancing." whatever that means. i guess the sauce is getting to you.
swordtail Member	Wed Nov 05 14:25:51 "Iran wants regional dominance, and it is perfectly prepared to destabilise other countries in the region." bad iran how dare they want to control their own destiny and affairs. oops my bad,only certain "enlightned" countries are allowed that privilege. "The degree and scope for doing that is determined by the costs of retaliation." yes,put them in there place. show them who's boss. they can't be doing shit in their own hood,that would leave you fucktards out in the cold and we can't have that. "A nuclear arsenal would allow them wide scope for behaving far worse than they already do." exactly how badly are they behaving when compared to their neighboors. plz elaborate.
Seb Member	Wed Nov 05 14:26:27 Swordtail: "show me the the evidence that is so" It's on public record, you can google it. "i don't want no example,i want your factual evidence." It is factual evidence. If a couple of grad students can work out a viable design for a nuclear weapon decades ago, with a fraction of the resources that you have access to on the desk in front of you, then Iran certainly can do that now. "i don't think they are intellectually inferior,but you sure as hell do." On what basis do you say that? You are the one that maintains they lack the capability of building a nuclear weapon. Perhaps you meant to imply they lacked the intent? "is there to counter imaginary iranian threats." So, your entire argument is that there is no possibility of Iran aquiring a nuclear weapon system? Is that correct?
Seb Member	Wed Nov 05 14:30:33 Spoony: "bad iran how dare they want to control their own destiny and affairs." It's more the destiny and affairs of others that people have an issue with. Spoony, when Germany kicked of a whole shit storm in Europe, should the Americans have just left us to it? I mean, you appear to be arguing for isolationism. In principle it is wrong to oppose Iran if they seek to influence the region, because they are entitled to. Well, if they are entitled to, are we not also? Frankly, I don't like the principles that Iran's regime stands for. They hang gays for a start. How are they behaving badly towards their neighbours? Hezbollah?
swordtail Member	Wed Nov 05 14:58:52 academic alchy: "If a couple of grad students can work out a viable design for a nuclear weapon decades ago, with a fraction of the resources that you have access to on the desk in front of you, then Iran certainly can do that now." so can everyone else. what does that prove exactly? "On what basis do you say that? You are the one that maintains they lack the capability of building a nuclear weapon." on the basis that you and the other tards seem to think that they have a one track mind which is hellbent on death and destruction. "So, your entire argument is that there is no possibility of Iran aquiring a nuclear weapon system? Is that correct?" nope my entire argument is that you are grasping at straws trying to paint iran in a certain light and you are failing bigtime! "It's more the destiny and affairs of others that people have an issue with." hey,newsflash for ya,they are no better or worse than the countries they have as neighboors. if anything compared to some of your allies over there they come off smelling like roses. "Spoony, when Germany kicked of a whole shit storm in Europe, should the Americans have just left us to it? I mean, you appear to be arguing for isolationism." no i'm arguing that the seeds for WII were planted before the war kicked off. i'm arguing that stupidity leads to war,and you and the rest of the tards don't realize that. "In principle it is wrong to oppose Iran if they seek to influence the region, because they are entitled to. Well, if they are entitled to, are we not also?" it's their backyard not yours. get that thru your thick skull. the days of "enlightned" tards like yourself and your american counterparts dictating what goes on where, is over. "Frankly, I don't like the principles that Iran's regime stands for." i don't like their regime either. "They hang gays for a start." their human rights records sucks, unlike saudia arabia. "How are they behaving badly towards their neighbours? Hezbollah?" that's fucken weak,but hey when you've got nothing else, i guess anything will do.
Seb Member	Wed Nov 05 16:01:41 Swordtail: "so can everyone else. what does that prove exactly?" That they have the ability to develop these weapons very quickly, which you questioned. *IF* they get these weapons in the next five years (which they could do, and which there is a reasonable likelihood of them doing), then we should work on getting countermeasures in place now. So, my point is, asking "where are the Iranian weapons" is a pointless questions. The issue is: Can Iran build these weapons? Does it appear to be on a course to build these weapons? Your assertion appears to be that as Iran has not got these weapons *right now*, the missile base must not be for defence, and must therefore be for offence. Have I understood you correctly? If that is your argument, then I believe I have refuted it. Iran has the delivery systems, it certainly has the know how to rapidly build a bomb, and it is developing the logistical capability to make the material for a bomb. So, if we intend to build a counter measure, we should start now. "they are no better or worse than the countries they have as neighboors." I think they are considerably worse than the UAE etc. actually. Either way, they have the potential to seriously screw with the entire world there. Whether they are better or worse really isn't the issue. "it's their backyard not yours." How far is "backyard"? No part of the world is isolated from the other anymore. That's just life my friend. Geographical proximity doesn't really equate into some kind of overarching moral framework. "their human rights records sucks, unlike saudia arabia." Saudi Arabia on the other hand, isn't trying to get nuclear weapons, and largely keeps itself to itself, it's even started cracking down on it's citizens that go abroad and kill other people. "that's fucken weak" On what planet is that fucking weak? Hezbollah destabalises Lebanon and is making the Palestine situation worse. They have no interest in peace, and they are armed and backed by Iran.
swordtail Member	Wed Nov 05 16:34:29 Seb: "That they have the ability to develop these weapons very quickly, which you questioned." so does everyfuckenone,and i never questioned their ability to develop nukes. i question your assertions that that is what what they are doing. "*IF* they get these weapons in the next five years (which they could do, and which there is a reasonable likelihood of them doing), then we should work on getting countermeasures in place now. " yeah and "IF" you actually tried sitting down with them and discussing things,you know really talking with them, maybe the situation might be resolved amicably. but that goes against what you stand for. "So, my point is, asking "where are the Iranian weapons" is a pointless questions. The issue is: Can Iran build these weapons? Does it appear to be on a course to build these weapons?" gee, quite a loaded question there. can they?yes,ergo according to you they will,ergo you have to make up shit to fuck them over. k ,i get it now. "Your assertion appears to be that as Iran has not got these weapons *right now*, the missile base must not be for defence, and must therefore be for offence. Have I understood you correctly?" nice try,but no. my assertion is that the missile base in poland has nothing to do with iran. iran is a convinient scapegoat. "If that is your argument, then I believe I have refuted it. Iran has the delivery systems, it certainly has the know how to rapidly build a bomb, and it is developing the logistical capability to make the material for a bomb. So, if we intend to build a counter measure, we should start now." fuck the counter measure,invade them already. afterall you have found them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. "I think they are considerably worse than the UAE etc. actually. Either way, they have the potential to seriously screw with the entire world there. Whether they are better or worse really isn't the issue." gee i didn't realize they only had 1 neighboor. and a real nice on at that. and yeah let's not forget that THEY have the potential to screw with the entire world. yups they're bigger than hitler even! "How far is "backyard"? No part of the world is isolated from the other anymore. That's just life my friend. Geographical proximity doesn't really equate into some kind of overarching moral framework." oh i see. hypocracy at it's finest. yes,carry on then. "Saudi Arabia on the other hand, isn't trying to get nuclear weapons, and largely keeps itself to itself, it's even started cracking down on it's citizens that go abroad and kill other people." yeah that's the ticket. nice mantra,keep repeating it while you suck back on the bottle. "On what planet is that fucking weak? Hezbollah destabalises Lebanon and is making the Palestine situation worse. They have no interest in peace, and they are armed and backed by Iran." i know the sauce is affecting you. the facts are irrelevant it seems. carry on with your smoke and mirrors. don't worry,nobody doubts your intellect and sincerity. you're solid!
Seb Member	Wed Nov 05 16:48:37 Spoony: "...and being able to place said bomb on a shahab III and actually making the whole thing work?" Be consistent. "yeah and "IF" you actually tried sitting down with them and discussing things" You know very well that Germany, France and the UK have done just that. The UNSC and the IAEA have asked them to stop refining and talk and they ignore it completely. There is nothing unamicable about building interceptor missiles. If Iran does not build any missiles, then what the hell is the problem with having interceptors? "ergo according to you they will," No, ergo, according to me, we should have a defence capability to intercept them if they do. Is that unreasonable? "ergo you have to make up shit to fuck them over." What exactly, is fucking them over? How does NMD fuck over the Iranians? Can you explain that to me? I am sure this all seems so clear through the bottom of your beer bottle. "my assertion is that the missile base in poland has nothing to do with iran." Do you have any proof of that? What do you think it is? I mean, it's not like there is no evidence whatsoever of Americas NMD programme is there. "fuck the counter measure,invade them already." 1. We can't. 2. That has been shown not to be a good idea. 3. Again, how is NMD a punishment on Iran? "gee i didn't realize they only had 1 neighboor." They don't. Did I say they did? "yups they're bigger than hitler even!" Far from it. But don't let that get in the way of your illogic. Ok, as far as I can see it, you actually don't have a point any more. You seem to have gone quite, quite mad.
swordtail Member	Wed Nov 05 17:14:57 academic alchemist: you take snippets of this and snippets of that, you mix them all up and then you present them as THE TRUTH. if i didn't know better i'd swear you were george w's ex-poodle blair,a big retard if there ever was one. but i guess you figure that if blair and george w got away it for years,you can too. i wish you lots of luck. academic alchemy amd words of mass distraction for the win!
Seb Member	Wed Nov 05 17:19:07 LOL... been a critic of Bush. Innuendo and incoherence as a substitute for rational arguments and reason. That's what you are all about. Seriously, lay of the bottle.
iii Member	Wed Nov 05 20:39:48 "Iran wants regional dominance" incorrect! USA wants regional dominance
Nimatzo Member	Wed Nov 05 21:11:53 >>Seb Member Wed Nov 05 11:13:17 Are you so sure that you want to give this degree of armament to someone like Ahmadinejad?<< When the normal morons on this board keep insinuating that Ahmadinejad holds any power in Iran besides a symbolic one I can let that slide. More and more people start doing and when people I view as intelligent start doing it I feel things might have gone very bad. Hell even McCain did it even though he was corrected by that journalist, he did of course not accept the correction. I deeply wish you would though, Seb. I wish people would actually investigate and see that while Ahamdinejad has been obnoxious loud mouth, he has no power. That the man with the real power in Iran (Khamenei) has essentially told Ahmadinejad to STFU! Khamenei was also the same person the squashed the last presidents attempts for reform. He dictates, noone else and while he is clergy, he is not insane, megalomaniac nor does he wish to see Iran a burning ruin. There are many things the world should care about when it comes to Iran, but world domination and world destruction is not one of them.
Nimatzo Member	Wed Nov 05 21:14:39 So while I know it is easy for the Tom Clancy in each of us to run amok, we should all try really hard to keep thing sensible, realistic and factual.
Muslim Member	Wed Nov 05 22:36:47 It would be hilarious if Iran was the cause of an EU-Russia war. And Iran didn't even have to try. The Missile System, apparently as a defence against Iranian missiles, antagonises Russia to the point of war. Interesting.
iii Member	Wed Nov 05 23:32:42 cause is not defence against Iran it's against Russia i told you but seem yhat you are not listening
iii Member	Wed Nov 05 23:36:31 Iran is not the cause for such a war Iran would be a victim NATO needs Iran cause any viable attack against Russia must be in the Centre-South of Russia through Kazakhstan
iii Member	Wed Nov 05 23:41:56 anyway, till that, some more oil would be nice for USA to have
dark waters Member	Thu Nov 06 03:55:16 they will have nothing but dark...if USA(NATO btw)attack Russia they will have an very interesting experience...this experience can be felt on you just 1st in life...I want to mean the entire west will mobydick her orbits in the history:)and btw americans will learn in time with the force if it's necesary:they was never and never will be "nr 1" or alfa and omega for the human kind.(I mean for real:POINT!)...too much noise for such consum of energy enyway...just some shameing pages in the human history on the future for such greedy and bloody empire.
Forwyn Member	Thu Nov 06 04:11:36 The US is possibly going to depend on Russian cooperation for the entirety of 6 years after the retirement of the space shuttle. Obviously diplomacy is still active. You think nuking Russia is a possibility? Lol, Cold War revisionist tard.
dark waters Member	Thu Nov 06 04:57:21 what I was trying to say is:you can't nuke Russia and...victory!!!If theyre kids will cry youre kids will cry too.Russia can be nuked,but there will be not and party for celebrations and the powers who lead this world have no future in that case.I'm clear now for u?:)
dark waters Member	Thu Nov 06 06:06:45 and pls. take youre artificial oranges back at home,I don't need them(make me sick)...u can eat them or give it to youre kids if u want. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iUQN7QpMBI&feature=related
iii Member	Thu Nov 06 07:57:24 @dark waters : most of them realy think that a war with Russia is winnable, lol. for that to take place they must first successfuly turn all russians in faggs. other way is not possible
Seb Member	Thu Nov 06 07:57:59 Nim: "When the normal morons on this board keep insinuating that Ahmadinejad holds any power in Iran besides a symbolic one I can let that slide." Not officially, but Ahmadinejad held and has connections to the IRGC, and it would be they who, in practical terms, had a finger on the button. I was however speaking colloquially. Let me make it clear: I don't trust the entire Iranian regime with a nuclear weapon. I believe their interests are profoundly inimical to ours. I do not believe they are about to nuke Israel, however, safe under a nuclear umbrella, I believe their attempt to destabilise countries in the region would increase dramatically in frequency and in scope. Functionally, then, I don't particularly care which individual in the Iranian regime gives the orders to launch a nuclear weapon, in practice, every local commander in practice benefits from it. iii: It's not a defence against Russia, it's laughably too small for that. As for offence against Russia, there are gaping holes in your early warning radar coverage. If the US wanted to attack Russia, a static missile base in Eastern Europe is pretty fucking useless.
jergul Member	Thu Nov 06 08:18:36 Personal ties are irrelevant. He will not be president when Iran could have nuclear weapons. Though no way personal factors like that could break the chain of command leading the the supreme leader. You mean stabilize on Iranian terms I take it. The region is fundamentally unstable and you would not think Iran wishes to further unstable it. Iran merely wants regional stability on terms that benefit it. Same as everyone else wants. The missile base is supposed to be part of a larger shield where every factor contributes and none alone are sufficient to rob Russian of its nuclear triage. A static missile base in poland is a nice place to launch kinetic payloads from (ground impact kinetic payloads, in case that point remained unclear).
iii Member	Thu Nov 06 08:19:44 first one, then 5, then 20,... it's their dance
iii Member	Thu Nov 06 08:21:24 they cannot fool all Iran is just a scam the target is Russia
Seb Member	Thu Nov 06 08:23:39 jergul: "Though no way personal factors like that could break the chain of command leading the the supreme leader." You keep telling us about the initiative that local IRGC commanders have. Sure, Ahmadinejads finger is not on the button. That really isn't the point as I have made abundantly clear. The threat is not whether Iran decides to launch it's nuclear weapons, the threat is what Iran feels it is able to do knowing that it could launch nuclear weapons. "you would not think Iran wishes to further unstable it." I think Iran benefits enormously from high oil prices. I think they want a degree of instability, and they will look to undermine rival powers. Saudi, and the Israel-Lebanon-Palestine region. Particularly, I think they will do their best to prevent any kind of settlement of Israels situation vis-a-vis Palestine and Syria. It benefits them enormously. The impact of a few kinetic weapons (in such easy strike range of Russia) is minimal. In a direct military confrontation with Russia, it would be marginal.
Seb Member	Thu Nov 06 08:26:56 iii: Say Russia has 400 ish nuclear weapons ready to launch. Aside from being in a suboptimal position for intercepting polar transiting warheads (the one you have to worry about would be the missile bases in North America), you would need ~1600 ish interceptors to stand a good chance. And then there are all the submarine launched weapons. This obession with the NMD is just Russias excuse for posturing and building up a military threat to try and intimidate it's formerly occupied European countries and drive a wedge between Europe and America.
iii Member	Thu Nov 06 08:29:35 i said, you cannot fool me not worths for me to write more
Seb Member	Thu Nov 06 08:33:03 iii: Do you honestly think I work for the CIA or something? Why would I be trying to "fool" you?
iii Member	Thu Nov 06 08:37:03 not relevant if you work or not for CIA as a simple citizen of a great empire you have the mentality and feelings of one who is a part of a great empire that's why you could never feel what ppl in small countries feel
iii Member	Thu Nov 06 08:38:19 your feelings tend to be unrealistic
jergul Member	Thu Nov 06 08:42:55 "You keep telling us about the initiative that local IRGC commanders have." No, in fact I have underlined the opposite. They are part of a chain of command. What do you figure the security premium is on current prices? 5-10 dollars perhaps? Rival powers where? Egypt and Pakistan combined have the same size economy as Iran. No one else is even close. I think they oppose abject surrender by the Palestinians. Virtually any other outcome is fine for as long as it is based on some degree on equal access per capita to water and land. Which of course is completely unacceptable to Israel. The base could knock out scores of nuclear warheads in the pre-launch stage. Though the value is more a real-time force highly survivable projection tool. A target could be hit within minutes. The Alaskan base has racks for storing several hundred missiles. They do represent a significant amount of firepower. Far more than what a few brigades of Iskanders do.
iii Member	Thu Nov 06 08:48:12 nothing is decisive, all is gradual even nuclear war is to be carried gradualy on levels on which nuclear powers agreed before there are several scenaries for a nuclear war to take place USA are trying to get greater advantage in progresive developement on an nuclear-conventional conflict
swordtail Member	Thu Nov 06 08:57:43 "The threat is not whether Iran decides to launch it's nuclear weapons, the threat is what Iran feels it is able to do knowing that it could launch nuclear weapons." nah the threat is that when and if iran gets nukes,the brits become even more irrelevant,kinda like the french. all their ass kissing and phelching of american ass becomes meaniningless. they drop another few notches on the global totem pole. paybacks a bitch. you should have fucked over the iranians even more when you and your american masters installed the shah.
Seb Member	Thu Nov 06 09:31:44 jergul: "No, in fact I have underlined the opposite. They are part of a chain of command." That was not what you suggested when discussing anti ship missiles and the straights of hormuz, reactions times etc. "What do you figure the security premium is on current prices? 5-10 dollars perhaps?" Right now, I wouldn't like to guess. "Rival powers where?" Saudi in particular, also Israel. "I think they oppose abject surrender by the Palestinians" I think they like the Palestinian issue to be live. It gives them far more political clout in the Arab world. "The base could knock out scores of nuclear warheads in the pre-launch stage." If equipped with kinetic weapons. Scores would be irrelevant, particularly given that SSBN based weapons. "The Alaskan base has racks for storing several hundred missiles." Ergo, the Eastern European bases are largely irrelevant. Look, virtually everything has dual use, jergul. If we applied this kind of over speculation, why not talk about the Iskanders in Kaliningrad as being obviously used (as they could be) to launch a crippling strike on Poland as pre-emption for a Russian war on the west? The Russian idea that the world must stand still and make itself vulnerable to rising potential threats in order to assuage the gap between it's capability and it's self image is ludicrous. iii: Look, Russia is the one that has developed new warheads and delivery systems over the past decades, and has the more aggresive policy with respect to nuclear weapons use. How long can your leaders hide behind this paranoia while advancing their agenda of claiming dominion over Eastern Europe? Spoony: It's really quite sad how you are unable to look beyond nationalist sentiment. It's more indicative of the way you think. Iran with nukes is still significantly below the UK in global power terms. The reordering of the middle east affects us all. The shah was certainly a mistake, but saying that we should be happy with the Aytaollahs as a result is kind of like saying you should be happy about the situation of the Palestinians as the inevitable outcome of certain actions taken in Germany. Can we please move beyond this incredibly limited national pride/national guilt thing? Or is your drink addled mind no longer capable of processing that.
Seb Member	Thu Nov 06 09:33:43 jergul: Besides, there is a simple way to remove the entire Russian problem re kinetic weapons: permit a russian inspector on site to observe the missile payloads.
swordtail Member	Thu Nov 06 09:50:03 academic alchy: get over yourself. stop lying and misrepresenting the facts. your words of mass distraction fail at scaring the world. you are trying to cling to your former glory and status,those days are long gone. you fucked up and you're still trying to fuck up the world. the british bulldog is no more. you're a poodle now,a toy fucken poodle. oh how the mighty have fallen.
Seb Member	Thu Nov 06 09:59:58 spoony: And this is why it is impossible to take you seriously any longer. You substitute lame puns, random adhominems and ludicrous nationalism for any kind of argument. You used to have a brain, I dread to think about the shape of your liver.
iii Member	Thu Nov 06 11:24:38 @Seb: they have all the rights over eastern Europe Eastern Europe are their cradle (i'm talking about slavs)
iii Member	Thu Nov 06 11:31:37 "Look, Russia is the one that has developed new warheads and delivery systems over the past decades, and has the more aggresive policy with respect to nuclear weapons use. How long can your leaders hide behind this paranoia while advancing their agenda of claiming dominion over Eastern Europe?" wrong! USA broken any pact and developed more nuclear capabilities, FIRST i said, you cannot fool me, ever i'm awaken dreamed the dream you induced to us but nomore!
iii Member	Thu Nov 06 11:35:48 you listen only 'merican songs you should listen slavs songs then you could understand
Seb Member	Thu Nov 06 11:48:54 iii: Ah, well that is the problem. You don't have rights over Eastern Europe. Russia is Russia, the various European countries are independent and free, and you need to accept that. Quit threatening Europe. USA has developed no more nuclear capabilities. Bush talked about RNEP etc. but congress blocked it. Meanwhile, Russia has adopted a doctrine of using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear powers, developed new classes of warhead and delivery systems.
eds Member	Thu Nov 06 11:52:54 uh, didn't Russia start developing new delivery systems after the US withdrew from the ABM?
eds Member	Thu Nov 06 11:53:07 *ABM treaty
iii Member	Thu Nov 06 12:10:44 Eastern Europe IS Russia always was
iii Member	Thu Nov 06 12:13:47 no, USA developed first, not delivery systems but nuclear warheads beyond any pact i told you, you cannot fool anyone!
iii Member	Thu Nov 06 12:16:20 as neo-protestant you cannot comprehend what made Romania not to be russified you can only stick your tail there hoping you can worsten things more
iii Member	Thu Nov 06 12:17:18 just try to walk over us!
Seb Member	Thu Nov 06 12:18:05 eds: Yes, it did withdraw from the ABM. However, developing a defensive shield is somewhat different from developing a whole new set of nuclear capabilities. iii: Er, no.
iii Member	Thu Nov 06 12:18:53 not even an Star Wars program cannot save you from us!
Seb Member	Thu Nov 06 12:19:03 See, you admit, iii, that you do not have peaceful intentions. You harbour desires for Eastern Europe and then complain that America threatens you.
iii Member	Thu Nov 06 12:19:48 USA developed nuclear capabilities beyond any pact
	show deleted posts