Russia says Nuke strikes possible

[VidKing]

Here is a quote from the article.

"We threaten the West that in any kind of serious conflict, we'll go nuclear almost immediately."

What scares me about this is that they said they would use nuclear weapons "preventitively."

 

[AFA]

This was coming because Putin was against the repositioning of warheads in Europe last Summer.

Bush and Co. have also been working to get things going that would allow them first strike capability against a perceived future threat without provocation. That has been done by the Israelis, and is part of the argument against allowing Iran to develop it's nuclear capability.

While it might even sound legitimate to some, their motives certainly would have to be called into question after the propaganda they threw around regarding Iran subsequent to their invasion.

 

[Facetious]

Yeah, "Pooty Poot" wasn't too warm about the proposed American installation of counter measure radar sites in Poland and Czech Rep.

Will the media allow Putin a free pass for his apparent communistic dogma ?

I think so.

 

[Friday on my mind]

Yeah, "Pooty Poot" wasn't too warm about the proposed American installation of counter measure radar sites in Poland and Czech Rep.

Will the media allow Putin a free pass for his apparent communistic dogma ?

I think so.

Being belligerant doesn't make you neccesarily communist.Lets call him a nationalist and even totallitarian a bit I think.And as you point out we have helped to get our relationship with russia to this point.But it was probably eniviatable that the 2 powers would start having some issues again.They are still a big powerful country and would like some of there former position back as acountry to be reckoned with I bet.But we should have been smarter then to push them when they were seen as weak by expanding nato and these deployments of weapons systems.

 

[AFA]

No one will sit back and allow the US to build up a vast missile defense system, and against what? Without thinking they are potential targets and might be taken out if Bush or his successor gets their way with first strike rights in their laws. They will obviously start another arms race, but make arms manufacturers very happy.

If anything that big budget move to rearm and make first strikes will piss off anyone even close to developing nuclear weapons. That would be Russia, China, N. Korea and Iran for starters. China of course could probably set up a very fast defense system and because everyone but the US knows what thugs and bullys the US has been, Russia and China could possibly hook up for that.

Gun boat diplomacy only works on weaker peoples.

 

[VidKing]

No one will sit back and allow the US to build up a vast missile defense system, and against what? Without thinking they are potential targets and might be taken out if Bush or his successor gets their way with first strike rights in their laws. They will obviously start another arms race, but make arms manufacturers very happy.

This reminds me of the Nicholas Cage movie "Lord of War." Have you guys seen it? I thought it was excellent and very interesting to think about.

 

[Theopolis Q. Hossenffer]

Probably Bluster on both sides. Hopefully the idea of survivable Nuclear War is no longer believable in anyones mind.

 

[Facetious]

Boy I hope that this president hasn't given all of our national security resources an indelible black eye.
If our foes, whoever they be at any given time, perceive or calculate that our defenses are bogged down in the current political climate, we're through !

What an opportune time to hit the homeland, when the people of this land are lessened by the very government that "we've" insisted, are involved in nothing but pure unadulterated corruption and malfeasance with respect to any current or foreseeable future military contract.
But ya know, I gather that whatever military contracts signed in under a democratic regime will go on unfettered, free of the accusation of potential conflict of special interest.​

Both sides enrich themseves. Oh ! You could resist such a temptation, with millions $$$ upon millions potentially staring you in the face on a daily basis ? That, my friend is American politics

Simply humbling

 

[AFA]

The situation exists as it does because all administrations did what Eisenhower warned against, and that was turning the US into a military industrial empire that produced war weapons for the sake of the arms makers profit. War makes them money. In Bush's case, all is going according to plan, he and others are convinced that the good life of the few is supported by the backs of the many. I posted a video by Greg Palast, an excerpt from his film "Bush Family Fortunes";

http://youtube.com/watch?v=022798dsU9g


Elsewhere it was said;

"War becomes perpetual when used as a rationale for peace."
http://www.bohemian.com/bohemian/04.11.07/byrne-0715.html

 

[Kingfisher]

Best thing possible, get Bush out of office as fast as possible and put someone in office who can speak like a human.

 

[roughready44]

Its not right, bush needs to quit act like America should be policing the world.

RON PAUL 08

 

[plucap]

I don't think either sides would be interested in a second Cold war.
But if a major conflict appears in the future, sure as hell I think most governments with nuclear weapons would be ready to pull them off (including the US). Otherwise there wouldn't be any nukes anymore. It's a disaster really since the major problem with nuclear weaponry is that it effects more than just one battle in one war. I read an article in Scientific American (I think it was) about today's nuclear weapons. One bomb is enough to make New York a ghost town, which I guess everyone already knew, but it's still a horrible fact.

Now I'm going to say something that might upset people though so read this with care and don't misinterpret what I'm trying to say.
I think that in a way, Hitler being a blind, stupid anti-Semite was actually a fortunate (excuse me for using this word but my vocabulary couldn't find anything more appropriate) thing. If he would've embraced the skills of the German-Jewish scientists the Third Reich would probably have been the first to develop nuclear warheads. And if that would've happened a lot more people would've died and Europe would be a disaster still.
Also, the US dropping the infamous Nagasaki/Hiroshima bombs was also, in a way, a fortunate thing in historical perspective. If the world wouldn't have realized the true ferocity of nuclear weapons (which Einstein warned about) that day, we would very likely had been victims to an H-bomb in later years. And the biggest H-bomb dropped (yet), the Tsar Bomba of the Soviet Union (detonated 1961), had a blast radius... well I won't bother explaining further, just take a look at this picture:

It's painful to say, but in some way the most horrible events of history took a bullet for possible, worse outcomes. I'm not in any way saying we should be glad that the Holocaust happened, but that from a historical perspective it might have prevented other disasters. History is just a big line of chance.

 

[georges]

Putin should be considered as Russia's modern Stalin, he uses force and repression against any party and anyone who disagrees with him. Reagan outdid Russia with diplomacy and better tactics, he made the USSR fall into pieces. Putin wants back a sort of old USSR which would be dangerous for Europe. But the Europe of 27 is just an utopy with no real army and no real ICBMS to counter attack Russia in case of war.

 

[maildude]

AFA is right. Russia feels a US attack on Iran is imminent. This is entirely possible. And it's scary. Bush leaving office at the right time? Or the wrong time?:dunno:

 

[Juiceman]

All good comments, alas, Rootin-Tootin-Putin shows his true colors !!!

 

[dick van cock]

AFA hasn't posted the Why We Fight-link, yet?

 

[BNF]

Putin should be considered as Russia's modern Stalin, he uses force and repression against any party and anyone who disagrees with him. Reagan outdid Russia with diplomacy and better tactics, he made the USSR fall into pieces. Putin wants back a sort of old USSR which would be dangerous for Europe. But the Europe of 27 is just an utopy with no real army and no real ICBMS to counter attack Russia in case of war.

That's right to my ears.

But you need to go further and say that the growing threat of Russia has grown consistently and aggressively the past 8 years because Bush and Co have perhaps the worst foreign policy in US history.

 

[niptuck]

Here is a quote from the article.

"We threaten the West that in any kind of serious conflict, we'll go nuclear almost immediately."

What scares me about this is that they said they would use nuclear weapons "preventitively."

It is actually a misquote. Although I agree that the general tone is rather aggressive. What he actually said (roughly translated of course) is that in order to protect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Russian Federation Army will be used. It might also be used preventively, as well as in conjunction with nuclear weapons, deployed in accordance with the Russian doctrinal documents.

What the hell this all means I do not know, but I wouldn't say it was necessarily directed against the West

 

[Friday on my mind]

The Russians renounced the former policy that the soviets had held in 2000.Namely that they would never use Nukes in a 1st strike,a policy that I might add the US has never subscribed too.So now they are basically saying what the US has always said that we reserve the right to use them in a 1st strike.
From the link:

"Moscow-based military analyst Alexander Golts said that when Russia broke with stated Soviet-era policy in the 2000 doctrine and declared it could use nuclear weapons first against an aggressor, it reflected the decline of Russia's conventional forces in the decade following the 1991 Soviet collapse."

 

[AFA]

This is something being pressed by Bush for that first strike authorization. As you know Cheney was devoted to move the Presidency above reproach or legal liability.