Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack Iranian nuclear sites

[Cheetah786]

There is no such thing as nuclear energy for 'offensive or defensive use'. There is either nuclear weapons or no nuclear weapons. Once Iran VOLUNTARILY signed the NPT, Iran has no right to develop nuclear weapons.

Core of the treaty is a pledge by states without nuclear weapons to forego them, in return for a promise by states with nuclear weapons to work for their elimination. By this logic, any threat of nuclear proliferation is the fault mainly of the United States and Russia, because they have not met their disarmament commitments.

During the 2005 Review Conference, the United States held the central bargain of the Treaty instead to be: “if non-nuclear weapons states renounce the pursuit of nuclear weapons, they may gain assistance in developing civilian nuclear power.


India a non signatory of the treaty gets a deal signed with USA for civilian nuclear tech is you saying that Americans are giving Indians nuclear weapons oh wait a minute that would mean Americans are involved in nuclear proliferation.

 

[gambit]

Core of the treaty is a pledge by states without nuclear weapons to forego them, in return for a promise by states with nuclear weapons to work for their elimination. By this logic, any threat of nuclear proliferation is the fault mainly of the United States and Russia, because they have not met their disarmament commitments.

Source for this assertion, please. I do not want opinions. I want hard numbers. I want to see that both the US and Russia have actually increased their DEPLOYED weapons inventory.

During the 2005 Review Conference, the United States held the central bargain of the Treaty instead to be: “if non-nuclear weapons states renounce the pursuit of nuclear weapons, they may gain assistance in developing civilian nuclear power.


India a non signatory of the treaty gets a deal signed with USA for civilian nuclear tech is you saying that Americans are giving Indians nuclear weapons oh wait a minute that would mean Americans are involved in nuclear proliferation.

We did? Care to give a credible source that says the US gave India nuclear weapons?

 

[Markus]

Israel is a just a pawn in this game, and so are Saudi Arabia, Turkey Jordon and others. America is firing from Israel's shoulders.

It would be incorrect to assume that by allowing Israel access to its skies, Saudi Arabia supports an Israeli attack on Iran. Saudi Arabia has no options. The Saudis can go against Israel but cannot go against America. This situation can be compared to what Pakistan faced after 9/11. Either you are "with the Americans" or "against them".

Nobody can do anything. Americans will have their way.

POWER SPEAKS.

 

[Thomas]

@Pasban

Either the article is true or it isn't. If it is true then you can be sure that Israel and Saudi Arabia believe it is possible for the attack to happen. As far as Russia letting Iran know ahead of time, you mean the Russia that has voted for sanctions? at one time Iran would have never believed that Russia would do that.

In regards to Iran's missile defenses. Iran signed the purchase agreement for the S300's how many years ago? and yet all we hear is Russia will still honor the agreement. I bet in another 3 years we still hear the same thing. That Russia will honor the agreement.......... Wake up! there is a reason Russia has not delivered them already.

The only Missiles Iran has currently that can actually have a 1/2 way decent chance of hitting an Israeli jet is the Tor M-1. And Iran has only a limited number of those. The rest are 70's vintage missiles that are so vulnerable to modern ECM as to be a joke.

 

[Pasban]

@Pasban

Either the article is true or it isn't. If it is true then you can be sure that Israel and Saudi Arabia believe it is possible for the attack to happen. As far as Russia letting Iran know ahead of time, you mean the Russia that has voted for sanctions? at one time Iran would have never believed that Russia would do that.

In regards to Iran's missile defenses. Iran signed the purchase agreement for the S300's how many years ago? and yet all we hear is Russia will still honor the agreement. I bet in another 3 years we still hear the same thing. That Russia will honor the agreement.......... Wake up! there is a reason Russia has not delivered them already.

The only Missiles Iran has currently that can actually have a 1/2 way decent chance of hitting an Israeli jet is the Tor M-1. And Iran has only a limited number of those. The rest are 70's vintage missiles that are so vulnerable to modern ECM as to be a joke.

My own post does not make any mention of the S-300. The other post which I pasted is not made by me as I clearly mentioned. Also, the post itself says..

This quick analysis reinforces my belief that there will be no attack on Iran any time soon...

PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN IN 2006 AND IS BEING USED IN 2010

As to the remainder of what you have said, I shall certainly answer that in more detail soon when I have more time.

 

[faisaljaffery]

Iran is not like Iraq, whose nuclear facilities were attached by Israel. Iran has a strong airforce and army and it will definately retalite by targeting Israel through its missiles.

 

[Thomas]

Iran is not like Iraq, whose nuclear facilities were attached by Israel. Iran has a strong airforce and army and it will definately retalite by targeting Israel through its missiles.

You mean this air force?

 

[Jigs]

Iran is not like Iraq, whose nuclear facilities were attached by Israel. Iran has a strong airforce and army and it will definately retalite by targeting Israel through its missiles.

Iran does not have a strong Air Force. They have some MiG-29s and some Tomcats (kept alive by spare black market parts) along with a few other older aircraft. Anti-Air platforms will be their main defense. Even if they get fighters up the F-16s(Which i believe will be carrying the payloads) will most likely be escorted by F-15s. Your right though Iran isn't like Iraq they overall are better but still have some big weaknesses.

 

[Cheetah786]

gambit;925855]Source for this assertion, please. I do not want opinions. I want hard numbers. I want to see that both the US and Russia have actually increased their DEPLOYED weapons inventory.

You want me to give you the source of NPT Really.


The NPT is a landmark international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote co-operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament. The Treaty represents the only binding commitment in a multilateral treaty to the goal of disarmament by the nuclear-weapon States. Opened for signature in 1968, the Treaty entered into force in 1970. A total of 187 parties have joined the Treaty, including the five nuclear-weapon States. More countries have ratified the NPT than any other arms limitation and disarmament agreement, a testament to the Treaty's significance.

To further the goal of non-proliferation and as a confidence-building measure between States parties, the Treaty establishes a safeguards system under the responsibility of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Safeguards are used to verify compliance with the Treaty through inspections conducted by the IAEA. The Treaty promotes co-operation in the field of peaceful nuclear technology and equal access to this technology for all States parties, while safeguards prevent the diversion of fissile material for weapons use.

The provisions of the Treaty, particularly article VIII, paragraph 3, envisage a review of the operation of the Treaty every five years, a provision which was reaffirmed by the States parties at the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference.


ENTRY INTO FORCE: 5 March 1970*

DEPOSITARY GOVERNMENTS: Russian Federation, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America

TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTIES AS OF March 2002: 187 Parties

Above is part of the treaty if u like i can post the whole treaty there and if thats not enough you can use Google i am sure you are aware of that.

Then you go on to say

Originally Posted by gambit
There is no such thing as nuclear energy for 'offensive or defensive use'. There is either nuclear weapons or no nuclear weapons. Once Iran VOLUNTARILY signed the NPT, Iran has no right to develop nuclear weapons.

I answered

India a non signatory of the treaty gets a deal signed with USA for civilian nuclear tech is you saying that Americans are giving Indians nuclear weapons oh wait a minute that would mean Americans are involved in nuclear proliferation.

and now you are asking me

We did? Care to give a credible source that says the US gave India nuclear weapons?

According to you your self there is no such thing as nuclear energy for defensive or offensive use care to explain what are you guys giving india (The Treaty promotes co-operation in the field of peaceful nuclear technology and equal access to this technology for all States parties, while safeguards prevent the diversion of fissile material for weapons use).Indians diverted enough material from American supplied reactors to produce a weapon so indirect USA helped india with nuclear weapons as no action was taken against india till the weapons were produced and now signed on with a Non signatory of NPT for nuclear tech which part of this do u have a problem understanding.

 

[Nima]

Iran does not have a strong Air Force. They have some MiG-29s and some Tomcats (kept alive by spare black market parts) along with a few other older aircraft. Anti-Air platforms will be their main defense. Even if they get fighters up the F-16s(Which i believe will be carrying the payloads) will most likely be escorted by F-15s. Your right though Iran isn't like Iraq they overall are better but still have some big weaknesses.

you guys need to understand the difference between attack and defense. Yes, our air force is nothing if we wanted to attack another country, but for defense it's EXCELLENT. When you combine air defenses, radars etc... with the F-14's you will get amazing results. It's all about who sees who first. If we catch their F-16's before they catch us then we have a shot.
Israel will have to divide its air force into diff divisions as well b/c you have 54 diff nuke targets alone which are scattered in a huge area.

 

[hahahaha]

Iran is not like Iraq, whose nuclear facilities were attached by Israel. Iran has a strong airforce and army and it will definately retalite by targeting Israel through its missiles.

Lol!! Why are you so emotional??

 

[Jigs]

you guys need to understand the difference between attack and defense. Yes, our air force is nothing if we wanted to attack another country, but for defense it's EXCELLENT. When you combine air defenses, radars etc... with the F-14's you will get amazing results. It's all about who sees who first. If we catch their F-16's before they catch us then we have a shot.
Israel will have to divide its air force into diff divisions as well b/c you have 54 diff nuke targets alone which are scattered in a huge area.

It all depends on how many fighters Israel can send into Iran. Israel has 33 F-15s, 25 F-15E Strike Eagles, and over 300 F-16s.

 

[Nahraf]

Pakistan government has to warn Saudi Arabia since any attack on Iran will create riots in Pakistan. The US, Saudi, Egyptian and western embassies may be attacked. US and Nato forces in Afghanistan will the face another Vietnam as many militants will cross the border into Afghanistan.

 

[Rocketsingh]

Pakistan government has to warn Saudi Arabia since any attack on Iran will create riots in Pakistan. The US, Saudi, Egyptian and western embassies may be attacked. US and Nato forces in Afghanistan will the face another Vietnam as many militants will cross the border into Afghanistan.

half part is very much true,but pak cant do anything

 

[Admiral]

Let me ask a few things,
what if iran gives order to move its army westwards?
what if they already organised hizbullah in lebonan?
what if they fire their missiles to afghanistan and try to hit coalition forces?
what if they use a nuclear warhead with the missile fired to afghanistan?

This is a very messy subject...