Russian Pre-Emptive Strike: Russian bombers 'will strike terrorists abroad'

Interesting, eh?
All the liberal and anti-war fuss about the US policy of pre-emptive strike and yet, the Russian's can follow such and it's O.K? Are the Russian's and the US the only nation's to sanction the use of the Pre-emptive Strike Doctrine(s)? How wrong can it be? Is it justifiable? Bear in mind that the UN has been muddling over this.

The article mentions:

Defence minister Sergei Ivanov and other top officials have said that preventive strikes against terrorists could involve all means except nuclear, but they never went into such specifics as suggesting the use of strategic bombers.

and...

"If ordered, our missile-carrier aircraft will attack the terrorists with long-range, highly precise cruise missiles and aerial bombs. We will make use of everything we have," Mikhailov said.

and furthermore:

Russian leaders have claimed a right to pre-emptive strikes before, for example threatening neighbouring Georgia that it would pursue Chechen rebels allegedly sheltering on its territory.

Russian bombers 'will strike terrorists abroad'

In truth, I am kind of skeptical of this. With the state of the Russian Air Forces, will they actually have an effective capability to back and then deliver upon their threat to pre-empt? Personally, my attitude is wait and see on this matter, but was wondering on the your thoughts and comments.

Past related topic:
Let's Clear the Air A Bit: Origins of "Pre-emptive Strike" Policy.



seekerof

I think Pre-emptive strikes is a just policy in most situations.

To tell you the truth I am quite surprised with the Russian government and their (seems to me) lack of action with the tragedy that unfolded in Beslan. I think the terrorist attack in Beslan in some ways is far worse than what happened on 9-11.

I do not believe the Russian government will be able to effectivly "take out" threats nearly as well as the US does. And we all know that we haven't had absolute success.

Do you expect a Russian awakening to ever happen like many "Pro-Russian" posters here on ATS have been speculating about?

I don't think so. It hasn't really happened until now so I don't think any major operations will be happening.

-Reason

ever think that they could be refering to the United States as terroist sence they did not like it when we went into iraq. maybe WWIV is on the table in russia.

Originally posted by KrazyIvan
ever think that they could be refering to the United States as terroist sence they did not like it when we went into iraq. maybe WWIV is on the table in russia.

Are you Serious?

So you stating that the Russian Government is not going after the Beslan terrorists and other terrorist groups because they are to busy planning strikes on the United States?

-Reason

Any attempt by Russia to attack or undermine the U.S would be suicide.

Besides, they would lose a lot of money as the few Migs they have left would be unavailble to tourists

Originally posted by REASON
I do not believe the Russian government will be able to effectivly "take out" threats nearly as well as the US does. And we all know that we haven't had absolute success.

It will be especially difficult since some in the US are threatening Russia in the event they do launch a pre-emptive strike against countries like Georgia.

senate.gov
"Some in Moscow do not understand that unilateral and pre-emptive Russian military operations in Georgia make the situation
worse, not better. These operations threaten to turn Russia's desire to root out a small group of terrorists into an international
crisis that threatens what President Putin cherishes � a robust partnership with the West that he has defined as Russia's future....

...I hope President Putin will make the choice that befits his role as an
enlightened leader of the Russian people, and does not cast his lot with the officers and civilians around him who believe Russian
can assert imperial control over a sovereign neighbor without consequence. There will be consequences � and no friend of
Russia or Georgia should suggest otherwise."

I'm pretty sure I saw a similar threat from Powell but I can't find it right now.

I think Russia has been waiting for an opportunity for this and the Iraq war gave it to them. Russia is big enough that no-one can forcibly tell them no and no one can critisise them for it because the USA has already employed this method. DO not underestimate the Russian military capabilities.

I also think that smaller countries around the world will use pre-emptive strikes in the future, although how much international support they would get is questionable. Its OK for the big boys to do it.

Maybe the russians will "find" the terrorists in the Ukraine to bring the lost sheep back to the herd, I think it's warning to the republics not to get funny seperatist ideas.

The problem with the war against terror is that it also can be used as carte blanche to pursue other objectives.


[edit on 5-12-2004 by Countermeasures]

Originally posted by Seekerof
Interesting, eh?
All the liberal and anti-war fuss about the US policy of pre-emptive strike and yet, the Russian's can follow such and it's O.K? Are the Russian's and the US the only nation's to sanction the use of the Pre-emptive Strike Doctrine(s)? How wrong can it be? Is it justifiable? Bear in mind that the UN has been muddling over this.

Nope, it is not acceptable either.

Matter of perception maybe, masterp?
From November 2004:
Pre-emptive Strikes Justified: UN Report




seekerof

[edit on 5-12-2004 by Seekerof]

i love your logic, seekerof.
if anything has happened once before in history, that makes it 'okay'. you said the same thing about torture.
let's build some gas chambers and concentration camps!
oh, wait. 'we' already did.
the masks come off in the heat of battle, eh?
someone who argued so hard about the injustice of the concentration camps in WW2, is now saying it's 'okay' to do it to other people, because, 'they' are not 'us'. however, any enlightened person knows, there is only one us, and when we fight others, we are truly fighting ourself.

i also like the selective use of the U.N. by people to justify their actions. the same people in the next breath say, 'who cares what the U.N. says. they're ineffective, and controlled by the french' (or something).

well, the truth is, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and there has never been so much potential power on the planet EVER in history. the power is funneling up through the corporation(s) to a very tiny apex of uberpowerful dark overlords. population and technology make earth satan's playground.

happy hell, everyone!

you have my vote for Way Below Top Secret, man. , .....or is the positive thumb now: ? get's hard to see right and wrong when it's all just wrong.

Originally posted by Seekerof
Interesting, eh?
All the liberal and anti-war fuss about the US policy of pre-emptive strike and yet, the Russian's can follow such and it's O.K? Are the Russian's and the US the only nation's to sanction the use of the Pre-emptive Strike Doctrine(s)? How wrong can it be? Is it justifiable? Bear in mind that the UN has been muddling over this.

seekerof

Frankly this does not surprise me at all. I think that any country would use pre-emptive strikes if they had the means to deploy their troops and or weapons. I know I sure would not have any problem with the use of preemptive strikes. I say this assuming they could back up their actions with proof the intention was there to attack them as it was with the US. Bin Laden admitted he did it as did his followers.

Originally posted by shots
I think that any country would use pre-emptive strikes if they had the means to deploy their troops and or weapons.

...I don't agree. There are real people in the world truly committed to finding peaceful solutions... Granted, they're no longer leading the pack.

ITAR-Tass commented that Russia had initiated discussion about preventive strikes over a year ago �due to Washington�s regular employment of this method in international affairs�.

From Seekof's link to- Russian bombers 'will strike terrorists abroad'

...The UN statement is also a bit more qualified than discussion here might indicate:

The report says that force is legitimate if an endangered state, backed by the Security Council, decides that a threat is serious and imminent; every nonmilitary option has been explored; the state has assessed the means, duration and scale of the strike needed to meet the threat and has no hidden agenda; and the military moves would not create consequences that are worse than the threatened action.The charter now permits the use of force in self-defence if an attack occurs, or if authorized by the Security Council in the event of a threat to world peace.

www.indolink.com...

...What's with all this warmongering? Does no one here understand that our poor species is already stressed to the point of endangerment? Or that using nukes will contaminate the whole planet, not just one part of it?

...Can anyone spell "atmospheric prevailing winds" or "complex adaptive system"?


.

Originally posted by soficrow


...What's with all this warmongering? Does no one here understand that our poor species is already stressed to the point of endangerment? Or that using nukes will contaminate the whole planet, not just one part of it?

...Can anyone spell "atmospheric prevailing winds" or "complex adaptive system"?


.

as an analogy, the number of atoms in one lungful of breath is approximately equal to the number of lungfuls of air around earth. for every breath you take now, you are averaging one molecule of ceasar's last words, 'et tu, brute?.
now think chernobly, three mile island, nagasaki, hiroshima, multitudinous nuclear tests and industrial exhaust and spillage.
now, breathe deeply, and pray for mutation.

You know i'm very surprised that we've not seen any action from Russia, reported action anyway, after the terrorist attacks. A car bomb, two downed planes and a school hostage situation, yet not a single offensive action.