It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
"It may mean the development of weapons systems, which would make it impossible for NATO to plan a surprise first strike, because it would draw a powerful retaliation," he told AP. "It would allow (Russia) to enforce its will on the enemy without using nuclear warheads."
Mr Putin also maintained in the document that Russia's interests in the Arctic must be strongly protected. Competition for the region's massive natural resources have also been escalating as the Arctic ice continues to melt due to global warming. The region is bounded by Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the U.S. It holds 30 percent of the world's undiscovered natural gas, 20 percent its liquefied natural gas, along with 15 percent of oil, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.
Will Crimea joining NATO be the straw? What says ATS?
originally posted by: Klassified
More sabre rattling from the Kremlin. What a surprise.
originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: lostbook
Asymmetric economic warfare has already started. The Arctic is irrelevant @ $50 crude. Smaller proxy wars opening up on multiple fronts. The West has to use proxies because it has too much to lose.
Russia therefore, tries to act like it can engage directly in an offensive manner. It can't. The only viable direct threat is MAD.
Unless they have some game changing weapons, they will get owned in a conventional conflict.
originally posted by: Shepard64
a reply to: Kuroodo
Oh and I am curious about the whole "world would be uninhabitable if nukes went off" Hiroshima is very habitable and it has been for years. Is it just because it was only one? Is the nuclear winter scenario talked up? I genuinely want to know, I am not being a douche lol