07-02-2015, 08:35 PM
(07-02-2015, 08:05 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Don't the Russians already have nuclear weapons? I think that the bigger threat is what St. Lucie touched upon, and that is the possibility of Russia selling the Uranium to Iran.
Of course, my statement was a very tongue in cheek and sarcastic remark about the implied importance of Russia acquiring uranium.
As to Russia selling uranium to Iran, this deal doesn't make that any more or less of a possibility. Russia is already sixth in the world in uranium production, the US is eight. More importantly Kazakhstan is number one by a huge margin and Russia would have no problems either acquiring uranium from them or encouraging them to sell directly to Iran. If there is a real story here, and no one is proving that there is thus far, it in no way shape or form has any real national security impact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_production
(07-02-2015, 08:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course everybody understands the reasons for further investigation and the possible implication. Some will just try to gloss over it because of the name and the letter that follows it. Do nothing more to this story that change the name from Clinton to Bush and you have totally different reaction.
A message board can be about as bipartisan as a Congress.
Political corruption should be investigated and, if it exists, prosecuted. Attempting to put a lame national security spin on possible investigations is just that, lame. Of course this is coming from the same people who can't let go of the idea that we let our people die in Benghazi "because". So, your point is a salient one, just maybe not for the reasons you thought.
