Comments on: Going Nuclear: Will Russia Stop Iran?

By: flickervertigo

flickervertigo — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:23:37 +0000

gordon chang says…

“Sub-launched missiles can overwhelm any missile defense system, either the one in place now or any system in the foreseeable future.”

what’s the US navy for? arent they shadowing russian/chinese subs? …or are all those billions we spend on the navy a waste?

dont you want nuke first strikes on russia and china? …how else are you gonna get them to knuckle under to the PNAC project?

how you gonna achieve “benevolent global hegemony” if you dont get russia and china to knuckle under?

i mean, we’ve demonstrated our benevolence by causing the deaths of maybe a million people so far, and the project’s just getting started… who’s gonna quibble about a few hundred million more dead?

By: Gordon Chang

Gordon Chang — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:09:54 +0000

flickervertigo, the Council on Foreign Relations take on missile defense is not well thought out. Missile defense is much more suitable for dealing with the Irans and North Koreas of the world, not the Chinas and Russias, which can hide many warheads on submarines. Sub-launched missiles can overwhelm any missile defense system, either the one in place now or any system in the foreseeable future.

By: Gordon Chang

Gordon Chang — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:04:35 +0000

dan, thanks for the explanation. There is a possiblity that both Russia and China are working according to a master plan, but, given their histories, I would be surprised if that were the case. They may work with each other, but only on limited issues and for limited times. China is cooperating behind the scenes on a long-term basis, but it is with North Korea and Pakistan.

Nonetheless, I will have to think more about the interesting possibilities of a Moscow-Beijing partnership. I very much appreciate your raising this matter.

By: Gordon Chang

Gordon Chang — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:59:38 +0000

typos_R_us, just one detonation of a nuclear weapon in or over the United States could end America as a world power for generations. America without its capital or New York would not be able to exercise power for long. The same is true if we did not have electricity or vital networks for six months to a year.

Without the NPT, what is your justification for disarming Iran?

By: dan

dan — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:37:47 +0000

Mr. Chang – I meant to raise the possibility that Russian and Chinese governments are actually pursuing a coordinated strategy, one of the most important features of which is that they appear to Not be cooperating. I think the possibility is actually more like a probability, if not a certainty, given the suddenly strategic importance of the role of Iran just now – which is not, in my opinion, the result of the US intervention in the region. Since the strategic transformation of Persia began as early as 1998 when Russia agreed to produce Bushehr, or even 1996 when Russia and China founded the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, I’m persuaded that Iran’s strategic role was something Russia and China intended it to play, which Required US intervention in the region. Probable? I’m not sure, but it is possible, and these are not normal times, nor is this a normal role for an absolute quasi-barbaric state like Iran to play in the present geopolitical environment. I smell a trap.

By: flickervertigo

flickervertigo — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 23:15:47 +0000

typos_R_us says…

“Israel nuking New York to trick the USA into Nuking Iran would be a good plan.”

think you could get away with it again?

and the jury’s still out on 9/11… it may take a few more years, but the logic cant be refuted and evidence is growing every time one of you people mouths off like you just did.

By: flickervertigo

flickervertigo — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 23:00:53 +0000

how do we justify a nuke first strike on russia, i wonder? boris berezovsky is a mathematician and game theory guy, or more specifically, a "decision theorist", with lots of heavy duty computer expertise. So he's a psychohistorian…. the tricky part is figuring out whose side he's on. He's definitely against putin, he's an israeli citizen, although he's a little too classy to hang out in israel. But his citizenship gives us a hint of his leanings. Other than that, he may be just another run-of-the-mill psychopath who has only one side: his own. we know berezovsky helped install the drunk yeltsin so he could help himself to russia's assets as the soviet union collapsed. Some russians believe berezovsky was a major cause of that collapse. We know he's a crook who faces russian charges of tax evasion, fraud and grand theft. we know he's been mixed up in murder cases --being boris' buddy is one of the most hazardous occupations on earth-- and we know he was displeased with paul klebnikov, the american editor of forbes' russian edition who wrote a book about berezovsky's criminal behavior, including the murder of one of russia's most famous television personalities... so we got listyev, klebnikov followed by politkovskaya and litvenenko... all murdered, all connectied with mr. berzovsky. berezovsky supported putin in the 2000 elections in russia, but started calling for violent overthrow of putin once putin cracked down on israeli russian oligarchs... israeli americans and the zionist media are also gunning for putin, because he threw a monkeywrench into neocon plans to use russian oil while they remodeled the middle east oil patch. we know berezovsky is associated with bunnypants' brother, neil bunnypants, in business, and lord knows how those boys define "business". So that's another indication of berezovsky's leanings. we know boris is involved with chechens, and he paid chechen terrorist leader shamil basayev millions of dollars... basayev was the great white hope for driving russians from the north caucasus and chopping off that chunk of russia that hangs down to the caspian and black seas...which would clear the way the PNAC pipelines, and would further isolate russia by blocking russian access to its southern european export port. map 3309 x 3408 we know boris backed yulia, yushchenko and the "orange revolution" in ukraine, which supposedly would be more favorable to the PNAC european pipelines. yulia's had her ups and downs, but is currently back in power, up to her eyeballs in the continuing shootouts between russia and ukraine over gas supplies... but that's what the "orange revolution" was about: installing PNAC puppets to block russian access to european energy markets. we know boris has made secret trips to kyrgyzstan, site of the "tulip revolution" that was supposed to give israeli america another foothold in central asia, block russian access to markets and block chinese access to energy. and you got to wonder how berezovsky's "decision theories" dovetail with good ol' doc aumann's "game theories", dont you? and we got to wonder why there was such an uproar about aumann getting the nobel prize.... there must be lots of people who are beginning to understand the role of psychohistorians like berezovsky and aumann in planning wars, and incidents that trigger wars, and tiny applications of force that cause massive changes in the course of history. but the most worrisome thing about berezovsky is his statement that chechens acquired nukes as the soviets union collapsed... he's planting a legend that can be used in a nuke false flag operation.

By: flickervertigo

flickervertigo — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 22:44:37 +0000

a nuke first strike on russia and china is the ticket! yessir, and nevermind those russian and chinese missiles are underground, and our first strike missiles would put megatons of radioactive dirt into the air... just nevermind that, because the nuke fimbulwinter will shade the planet for at least four or five years, and that will be the end of all the exxon/AEI bullshit denying global warming. from the council on foreign relations foreign affairs March/April 2006…

“the sort of missile defenses that the United States might plausibly deploy would be valuable primarily in an offensive context, not a defensive one — as an adjunct to a U.S. first-strike capability, not as a standalone shield. If the United States launched a nuclear attack against Russia (or China), the targeted country would be left with a tiny surviving arsenal — if any at all. At that point, even a relatively modest or inefficient missile-defense system might well be enough to protect against any retaliatory strikes, because the devastated enemy would have so few warheads and decoys left.” The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy

By: typos_R_us

typos_R_us — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 21:42:55 +0000

“Why? We would be relatively stronger in a world without nukes. In fact, we would be essentially invulnerable to harm. With nukes, any ten-cent nation can cripple America and kill Americans by the millions.”

Factually inaccurate on several accounts.
First, the NPT doesn’t get rid of nukes. It is delusional to think that ANYTHING, much less a piece of paper will put the nuclear genie back in his bottle.
As far as a nickle dime nation crippling America, it can’t happen, withor without nukes. The Rand study I was part of back in the 70′s determined that it would take over 800 megatons to cripple America. That is approximately 5,000 Hiroshima sized weapons.
Are you one of those “On the Beach” guys? Good Sci-Fi, but not based on reality. The Mazda plant in Nagasaki is built on Ground zero of a dirty bomb. No FLK’s ( funny looking kids. A term used by nuclear weapons guys) coming out of there. No Mazda employees dying of cancer in job lots. No, most of the victims of a nuclear weapon are killed by the after fires, which are no worse then those of a normal firestorm like what happened in Hamberg, Dresden or Toyoko.

Both Bush and Clinton screwed the pooch on Iran. They raised a fuss about Iran building their bomb. All that does is confuse the issue. That issue should be Iran violating the NPT, which requires unlimited access to nuclear sites. The Russians don’t want that since they violated the NPT by providing the Mad Dog Mullahs with the technology to build nukes in the first place.
I’m certain the Russians have a safeguard in place to prevent the MDM from waking up one day with an order fromAllah to nuke moscow. I’m just as certain the MDM’s have found a way around it. MOIS is about the best in the business. Plus they use techniques that would make a liberal pass out just to hear about.
No, to many nations have nukes now for any sort of MAD scheme to work. When a 30Kt device ignites in New York Harbor, it won’t destroy New York. It will leave a mark. It will also leave the Usurper with a problem. Who did the deed? Iran? the Norks? Pakistan? Israel? Yes Israel. If the nitty gets gritty, Israel nuking New York to trick the USA into Nuking Iran would be a good plan. One Mossad would be able to pull off.
The NPT was supposed to stop that sort of stuff, only the NPT isn’t working. It isn’t working because it was intended as a stop gap measure. Time has ran out.
Eventually, nukes will be used again. No way to stop that. We can limit the damage. We do that with SDI. Keep the delivery of a nuke the area of bad spy novels and they can only be sent one or two at a time. SPy vs spy is better then hundreds of ICBM’s crossing in space. Way better. As long as the USA has SDI, we have the advantage in any exchange of ICBM’s. Russia knows that and since they cannot match the techgnology, not even if they steal it, the Russians are trying to get the USA to give up our advantage.
The Usurper won’t be in the oval office in two years, so the Russians have a limited windo here. Any deal they make with this administration will be null and void after the Usurper is removed from office.
Any harm to America would come in the form of harming the Constitution, since they are one and the same. That attack has already been successful.

By: flickervertigo

flickervertigo — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 21:12:58 +0000

we gots to herd oil and gas towards israel and away from china, which explains the commotion in pakistan and afghanistan. operation enduring turmoil and you must remember pepeters' neocon map, dont you?