• 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!

Obama 'ready to drop shield plans for Russian help on Iran'

Triad

Triad

Banned
Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
1,041
Reaction score
233
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
capt.76a5a5cc07824369878e0085afcfd186.aptopix_russia_eu_mosb123.jpg

MOSCOW, March 2 (RIA Novosti) - Washington has told Moscow that Russian help in resolving Iran's nuclear program would make its missile shield plans for Europe unnecessary, a Russian daily said on Monday, citing White House sources
Click to expand...

:doh
 
I don't like the idea of empowering the Russians to mitigate the Iran problem at the expense of a potentially power defensive advantage for the U.S. and our allies.

I don't like this at all. It's eerily reminiscent of the bargaining that took place during the Cuban missile crisis only we don't have the incredible sense of urgency that we had then. Giving up obsolete missiles in Turkey is one thing, abandoning a counter to nuclear blackmail is something else.

Unless someone has a more compelling argument.
 
Lerxst said:
I don't like the idea of empowering the Russians to mitigate the Iran problem at the expense of a potentially power defensive advantage for the U.S. and our allies.

I don't like this at all. It's eerily reminiscent of the bargaining that took place during the Cuban missile crisis only we don't have the incredible sense of urgency that we had then. Giving up obsolete missiles in Turkey is one thing, abandoning a counter to nuclear blackmail is something else.

Unless someone has a more compelling argument.
Click to expand...
It is an extremely good idea. Russia is still a great power and the attempts to muscle in on its backyard by Bush and co were idiotic. If you don't respect other great powers and their respective spheres of influence then you will quickly destablise the world, ideological rhetoric not withstanding.

The American gov't would not be too happy if Russia or China started messing around in Central America(again).
 
Wessexman said:
It is an extremely good idea. Russia is still a great power and the attempts to muscle in on its backyard by Bush and co were idiotic. If you don't respect other great powers and their respective spheres of influence then you will quickly destablise the world, ideological rhetoric not withstanding.

The American gov't would not be too happy if Russia or China started messing around in Central America(again).
Click to expand...

I will agree that it's risky in that it tips the balance of power in our favor, but I'll disagree that it's in Russia's sphere of influence. It's in the west's sphere of influence now. Is it destabilizing? Yes, but only in that it makes it more difficult for Russia to reassert it's former threat of nuclear annihilation as a bargaining chip.
 
Wessexman posted.
Quote (
The American gov't would not be too happy if Russia or China started messing around in Central America(again).)

You forget Russian armament sales to Cuba, Venezuela.
China buying up essential base commodities throughout South America.

However I also think that this is for the best.
At some time sooner or later, the US is going to have to do deals with Russia to reduce nuclear stocks.
Russia has a great influence with Iran, although I doubt they will ever be able to deter the Iranians from producing nuclear weapons if indeed that is what Iran is doing or intent on doing.
Bush's rhetoric was just so much hot air sabre rattling.
We have to engage Iran and indeed all other Terrorist nations in dialogue to solve problems.
The alternative is MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction).
 
The reason given for the nuclear missile shield was the threat of Iran nuking Europe. So if Russia helps us stop Iran from getting a bomb (something that may be necessary if we don't want to go to war) then the nuclear missile shield will no longer be necessary, at least concerning the reason we gave.

The shield wouldn't have a chance in hell of stopping Russia from nuking Europe if they wanted to, and pretending it could, and basing policy around that, is potentially dangerous.

The OP needs a link by the way.
 
Lerxst said:
I don't like the idea of empowering the Russians to mitigate the Iran problem at the expense of a potentially power defensive advantage for the U.S. and our allies.

I don't like this at all. It's eerily reminiscent of the bargaining that took place during the Cuban missile crisis only we don't have the incredible sense of urgency that we had then. Giving up obsolete missiles in Turkey is one thing, abandoning a counter to nuclear blackmail is something else.

Unless someone has a more compelling argument.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. I was thinking the exact same thing.
 
jujuman13 said:
Wessexman posted.
Quote (
The American gov't would not be too happy if Russia or China started messing around in Central America(again).)

You forget Russian armament sales to Cuba, Venezuela.
China buying up essential base commodities throughout South America.

However I also think that this is for the best.
At some time sooner or later, the US is going to have to do deals with Russia to reduce nuclear stocks.
Russia has a great influence with Iran, although I doubt they will ever be able to deter the Iranians from producing nuclear weapons if indeed that is what Iran is doing or intent on doing.
Bush's rhetoric was just so much hot air sabre rattling.
We have to engage Iran and indeed all other Terrorist nations in dialogue to solve problems.
The alternative is MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction).
Click to expand...

Indeed. And we can all thank Russia for providing a nuclear delivery system to a country run by a terrorist theocracy.
 
Joby said:
The reason given for the nuclear missile shield was the threat of Iran nuking Europe. So if Russia helps us stop Iran from getting a bomb (something that may be necessary if we don't want to go to war) then the nuclear missile shield will no longer be necessary, at least concerning the reason we gave.

The shield wouldn't have a chance in hell of stopping Russia from nuking Europe if they wanted to, and pretending it could, and basing policy around that, is potentially dangerous.

The OP needs a link by the way.
Click to expand...

Joby, I believe the real threat from Iran is going to be a suitcase type bomb delivered by a covert operative...not a nuclear tipped missile. That has been a very real concern for some time among defense and intelligence experts. I don't believe for a second that the European missile shield was intended to protect Europe from just Iran. The reemergence of Russia as a strategic military power broker was an influencing factor.

If Obama trades this away I'll have no choice but to question his judgment. Negotiating with Russia and co-existing with them peacefully is a great goal, but giving them our back on this is simply not good juju.
 
Lerxst said:
Joby, I believe the real threat from Iran is going to be a suitcase type bomb delivered by a covert operative...not a nuclear tipped missile. That has been a very real concern for some time among defense and intelligence experts. I don't believe for a second that the European missile shield was intended to protect Europe from just Iran. The reemergence of Russia as a strategic military power broker was an influencing factor.

If Obama trades this away I'll have no choice but to question his judgment. Negotiating with Russia and co-existing with them peacefully is a great goal, but giving them our back on this is simply not good juju.
Click to expand...

If Russia decides to nuke us (or someone else), which do you think is more likely: They'll fire one nuclear weapon, or they'll fire 400 nuclear weapons?

Unless the shield can stop a barrage of nukes (and some decoys too), what's the purpose of it?
 
Kandahar said:
If Russia decides to nuke us (or someone else), which do you think is more likely: They'll fire one nuclear weapon, or they'll fire 400 nuclear weapons?

Unless the shield can stop a barrage of nukes (and some decoys too), what's the purpose of it?
Click to expand...

I don't think they'll fire 400, that would basically end the world. They are smart enough to realize what would happen if they try that, even if they "won" the world would be surely uninhabitable not to mention we would retaliate in kind. I think if they tried it they might fire several though. And depending upon the deployment of the technology, the missile shield could feasibly knock several out.

There are other military uses for a system that can shoot down ICBM's and MRV's.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
If Russia decides to nuke us (or someone else), which do you think is more likely: They'll fire one nuclear weapon, or they'll fire 400 nuclear weapons?

Unless the shield can stop a barrage of nukes (and some decoys too), what's the purpose of it?
Click to expand...

It's purpose is to annoy Vladimir Putin into a corinary.
 
Kandahar said:
I agree.

Where we part ways is that I don't think that's a good enough reason to have it.
Click to expand...

I see it as a barganing chip that Obama can use to get Russian cooperation in preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons.
 
I suppose my question would be this. Why would Russian want a nuclear armed Iran? Do we need a bargaining chip at all? And if Russia doesn't care that Iran has nukes then we need to be a hell of lot more worried about Russia than we are.
 
Lerxst said:
I suppose my question would be this. Why would Russian want a nuclear armed Iran? Do we need a bargaining chip at all? And if Russia doesn't care that Iran has nukes then we need to be a hell of lot more worried about Russia than we are.
Click to expand...

If they had any brains at all --- they wouldn't.

Of course, Russia is so broke they can't even pay attention. As such, thet will sell anything to anybody who can pay for it.
 
Vader said:
I see it as a barganing chip that Obama can use to get Russian cooperation in preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like that's exactly what he's using it for.
 
Vader said:
--snip-- Russia is so broke --snip--
Click to expand...

Fraid not, Russia supplies much of Europe with gas. They have us by the "short and curlies" every winter when they threaten to cut off supplies. They also have huge oil reserves and have just claimed a large part of the Arctic.

Go on holiday around any parts of Europe and you'll see and hear more Russians than Germans / French / Italians etc.

We're lucky Russia discovered its oil reserves after the Cold war was over. Anyhow - is there a link for the story?
 
Lerxst said:
Joby, I believe the real threat from Iran is going to be a suitcase type bomb delivered by a covert operative...not a nuclear tipped missile. That has been a very real concern for some time among defense and intelligence experts.
Click to expand...

I agree, and Iran needs to know that we can identify exactly where the uranium from any nuke came from within hours, and that giving someone who would use the bomb is equivalent to using the bomb themselves. Either way, they'll be glass.

But that is a reason for increased security of another sort than a missile shield.

I don't believe for a second that the European missile shield was intended to protect Europe from just Iran. The reemergence of Russia as a strategic military power broker was an influencing factor.

If Obama trades this away I'll have no choice but to question his judgment. Negotiating with Russia and co-existing with them peacefully is a great goal, but giving them our back on this is simply not good juju.
Click to expand...

Well, apparently the Russians also saw through the charade about how the missile shield was to protect against Iran. But the thing is, the missile shield is set for 10 interceptor missiles in Poland. As Vader pointed out, the only good it can do in regards to Russia is as a bargaining chip. If we can get cooperation from the Russians regarding Iran as well as easier supply lines into Afghanistan then it'll be worth the trade-off (not to mention, Euro's would certainly be happy with better relations between the West and Russia. Especially the thousands who froze during the recent gas dispute).

While Russia is emerging from the post-Cold War slump they are nowhere near the capabilities they had before the fall, especially in regards to their Navy, nuclear submarines in particular. I was wary of hearing Cheney introduce the idea of a 'new cold war' a few years back (likely in part to justify defense contracts for obsolete, ultra-expensive cold war weapons), and am optimistic that can be avoided.
 
Last edited:
Lerxst said:
I suppose my question would be this. Why would Russian want a nuclear armed Iran? Do we need a bargaining chip at all? And if Russia doesn't care that Iran has nukes then we need to be a hell of lot more worried about Russia than we are.
Click to expand...

Well, Russia has denied that they want a nuclear armed Iran.

However, Russia is helping to oversee the dry-runs of Iran's newly built nuclear power plant. Russia has taken upon itself the duty, with Iranian consent, to maintain and replace the fuel rods in order to keep them from being used for weaponry.

Whether they could stop a regime determined to get the bomb is hard to tell, but what can be said is that Russian cooperation is needed if the US wants to achieve that peacefully.
 
Lerxst said:
I will agree that it's risky in that it tips the balance of power in our favor, but I'll disagree that it's in Russia's sphere of influence. It's in the west's sphere of influence now. Is it destabilizing? Yes, but only in that it makes it more difficult for Russia to reassert it's former threat of nuclear annihilation as a bargaining chip.
Click to expand...

What about yours? I'm not an American, if there is going to be such a bargaining chip I'd at least like to see it balanced and not residing in one power alone.


Russia is still a great power. Eastern Europe is definitely its sphere of influence. The West is not a nation.

It is destabalising because it is trying to reshift power bases and change balances of power, which is inherently destablising, where it really doesn't need to happen.
 
Wessexman said:
It is an extremely good idea. Russia is still a great power and the attempts to muscle in on its backyard by Bush and co were idiotic. If you don't respect other great powers and their respective spheres of influence then you will quickly destablise the world, ideological rhetoric not withstanding.

The American gov't would not be too happy if Russia or China started messing around in Central America(again).
Click to expand...
Hey, we let him drive those naval rustbuckets to Venezuela didn't we?
 
Kandahar said:
If Russia decides to nuke us (or someone else), which do you think is more likely: They'll fire one nuclear weapon, or they'll fire 400 nuclear weapons?

Unless the shield can stop a barrage of nukes (and some decoys too), what's the purpose of it?
Click to expand...

If Russia fires only one then we will be back on the streets in million years. If they fire 400 it will take a billion years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom