• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Russia lifts ban on missile deliveries to Iran, start oil-for-goods swap

Ironfist said:
No sovereign country would allow the IAEA to have the capability to roam freely. To think such is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
If IAEA monitors cannot inspect facilities where they believe enrichment may be occurring, then it makes no sense whatsoever to conclude a nuclear-deal with Iran.
 
Ironfist said:
The issue is not letting inspectors in. The issue is giving inspectors access to EVERYTHING.
Click to expand...
They don't ask for access to any facility on a whim. Documents/data will sometimes lead them to a facility. So can chain-of-custody records and the tracking of nuclear-related components from industry. IAEA inspectors also have a wide range of high-tech tools at their disposal. Things like multi-channel-analyzers which can detect "nuclear fingerprints" in soil and swab samples.

You really don't know much about this field do you?
 
Simpleχity;1064538328 said:
If IAEA monitors cannot inspect facilities where they believe enrichment may be occurring, then it makes no sense whatsoever to conclude a nuclear-deal with Iran.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. Why isn't there the same pressure to inspect the Israeli enrichment facility at Dimona I wonder ? Theres a glaring double standard here thats at the root of US problems in the region
 
flogger said:
Hmmm. Why isn't there the same pressure to inspect the Israeli enrichment facility at Dimona I wonder ? Theres a glaring double standard here thats at the root of US problems in the region
Click to expand...
Because Israel and Pakistan and India are not parties to the NPT.

Iran signed the NPT in 1968. North Korea is the only nation that signed the NPT and then withdrew (2003).
 
Simpleχity;1064538449 said:
Because Israel and Pakistan and India are not parties to the NPT.

Iran signed the NPT in 1968. North Korea is the only nation that signed the NPT and then withdrew (2003).
Click to expand...

Dont get me wrong. I'm not advocating Iran should have such weapons, but while this regional strategic imbalance remains she will keep trying to get them
 
flogger said:
Dont get me wrong. I'm not advocating Iran should have such weapons, but while this regional strategic imbalance remains she will keep trying to get them
Click to expand...
If Iran obtains nuclear weapons, then every Sunni nation in the ME will strive to obtain them also. This perhaps our last opportunity to prevent a thoroughly nuclearized Middle East.
 
Simpleχity;1064538563 said:
If Iran obtains nuclear weapons, then every Sunni nation in the ME will strive to obtain them also. This perhaps our last opportunity to prevent a thoroughly nuclearized Middle East.
Click to expand...

Take away their excuse for trying to aquire them in the first place. If the US is that desperately worried about Israeli security (why ?) then guarantee it with its own nuclear umbrella. It worked for Germany for 40 years
 
radioman said:
Yes, they do.
Russia has lots of oil, I think.
Aside from tweaking the USA, what's in this for the Russkies?
Click to expand...

Missile sales.
 
flogger said:
Take away their excuse for trying to aquire them in the first place. If the US is that desperately worried about Israeli security (why ?) then guarantee it with its own nuclear umbrella. It worked for Germany for 40 years
Click to expand...
Do you think the US would dismember its nuclear triad if Cuba complained?
 
Simpleχity;1064540784 said:
Do you think the US would dismember its nuclear triad if Cuba complained?
Click to expand...

Whilst Israel has nukes her neighbours will want to acquire them. Only the US has the influence on Israel to remedy this imbalance. This issue is not going to go away otherwise
 
flogger said:
Whilst Israel has nukes her neighbours will want to acquire them. Only the US has the influence on Israel to remedy this imbalance. This issue is not going to go away otherwise
Click to expand...
Israel has had them for 50 years. You seem to conveniently forget that Pakistan, a Sunni nuclear-weapons nation, shares a direct border with Iran.
 
Simpleχity;1064540806 said:
Israel has had them for 50 years. You seem to conveniently forget that Pakistan, a Sunni nuclear-weapons nation, shares a direct border with Iran.
Click to expand...

The problem isn't going to go away by pretending it doesn't exist. I've already suggested a compromise
 
Fine. You convince the American nation to use her nuclear weapons if necessary to protect Israel. I don't see that happening.
 
Simpleχity;1064522854 said:
Russia lifts ban on missile deliveries to Iran, start oil-for-goods swap



Russia says an arms embargo of Iran will cease when when a deal is reached with the P5+1. In the event Iran cheats on a deal, the S-300 system would make air and cruise missile strikes much more difficult.
Click to expand...

Russia is an immoral and evil nation who will do whatever it needs to break the effects of the European measures and those of other countries after the Ukrainian disaster and the MH17 downing.

I hope that if they sell them these weapons that some time in the future Iran will become Russia's biggest enemy and that these weapons will be turned on Russia instead of the US and the rest of the civilized world (which of course Russia does not belong to).
 
Simpleχity;1064541090 said:
Fine. You convince the American nation to use her nuclear weapons if necessary to protect Israel. I don't see that happening.
Click to expand...

If by protect you mean that we would retaliate after a preemptive nuclear strike on Israel, I think that is almost a given already without any formal treaty. What else would Israel do with her own bombs? We have sworn to protect Israels right to exist since it's inception and we practically handed them the a-bomb. I assume that it was at Israels request in the poorly thought out hope that a nuclear weapon would change their neighbors minds about attacking them. The problem is that Israel can't use their bombs and everybody knows it.
Iran would have the same problem but in their case they only want a nuclear weapon to protect them from an invasion by the U.S. and the rhetoric here has not helped that notion. The question is would we still attack them if they had a few bombs? That has not been answered.
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
If by protect you mean that we would retaliate after a preemptive nuclear strike on Israel, I think that is almost a given already without any formal treaty.
Click to expand...
An US implicit threat (for deterrence purposes) and actually following through on that implicit threat are two vastly different things. I don't see any US president authorizing US nuclear strikes unless the US itself (or NATO nations) are directly attacked with such weapons.

iguanaman said:
We have sworn to protect Israels right to exist since it's inception and we practically handed them the a-bomb.
Click to expand...
This is patently untrue. The US had nothing to do with Israel's atomic program. The Eisenhower administration only learned of Dimona 5 years after construction had already began. This was a huge CIA intelligence failure under director Allen Dulles. Had the US discovered the hidden purpose of Dimona two years or perhaps even a year earlier, Israel possibly could not have withstood intense US and international pressures to cease and desist.

It was France that assisted Israel with Dimona until Paris realized what the Israelis were up to. French president De Gaulle was incensed and he eventually ended all cooperation with Israel at the onset of the Six Day War in 1967. By then however, Israel on its own had already enriched enough uranium for an atomic weapon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom