It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NATO, West Is The Biggest Threat Of Our Existence, Says Russia; Ready to Use Precision Weapons Versu

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 03:28 PM
link   

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


The threat comes not from a single detonation here or there, but from combined dust and debris thrown into the atmosphere by hundreds, if not thousands of nuclear weapons all detonating within a short time frame. Even a limited exchange between Say Israel and Pakistan would cause a noticeable drop in global temperature.




posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kuroodo
I always see people referring to Nukes when it comes to World War 3. But they way I see it, it's stupid. Fire 1 nuke and you'll have a tsunami of nukes flying back at you. Then it causes a tidal wave of nukes all over the world. In the end you don't win. So why would any nation Threaten or warn of Nuclear weapons? In the end nobody wins. Also it's a stupid threat because the other nation is prepared with their own nukes... Shoot me and I shoot back.


Nuclear exchanges are carefully played out using highly complex game theory analysis. It is WAY MORE COMPLEX than I shoot you and you shoot me and we both die. Each side has hidden nukes or hardened facilities for a second wave to get important targets that survived but how many? Each side has calculations of how much infrastructure and population would survive, how much territory would be useful afterwards. Further issues, such as increasing capability of missile defense, complicate this issue tremendously. Basically it becomes a 'use nukes now or lose them' situation. Very dangerous.

Bottom line is there ARE calculations of a winner in a full on nuclear exchange, even if that winner is left with 20% capability afterwards. It isn't likely for a third country to join a two country nuke exchange by the way...as they become the dominant remaining power simply be sitting back and watching.

If you think a nuclear exchange isn't possible you're simply incorrect. So many billions of dollars have been spent to prepare and plan for it the possibility is very real.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Spacespider

Wow they were weak compared to today's bombs, that's actually scary. This is a good read, I will read the rest. thank you!



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: noeltrotsky

That's terrifying!



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

I don't think Russia's military posture update is really surprising given the past year of events. Clearly Russia intends to maintain a sphere of influence and NATO along with the EU are reducing that area slowly but steadily. This is obviously Russia's biggest challenge currently.

A few interesting points in the announcement came out however. The use of precision weapons is a 'pointed' reference. Russia has been upgrading it's global positioning network and is likely capable of producing high precision weapons now. They are expensive, but they really change the nature of conventional warfare when you hit 99% of your targets and can wipe out key military installations such as radar bases. The precision weapons reference might also be referring to tactical nukes which Russia has a huge current advantage over the West. The current advantage is so large and Russia has said it will use them in conventional war if needed that the West literally has little chance to invading Russia and getting very far. Think scorched earth X 100.

The other interesting tidbit was the retaliation capability to a surprise first strike. Given the development of the missile defense system by the US Russia has a serious long range problem if it wants to retain it's MAD capabilities. There aren't many weapons platforms that offer a powerful retaliation to a nuclear first strike. Sub's offer that but detection systems are getting better and better. Russia might be considering positioning nukes in orbiting platforms. That could result in difficulties for missile defense systems. Who knows what Russia is planning, but they surely have to find a way to counter missile defense or lose their standing in the world.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

This will break a lot of soft hearts for Russia that seem to always come to the surface, but honestly the truth is,
they will do nothing, except bark that's it, they know what's really good for them, their ability to be precise with weapons is about on par with their ability to perfect solid rocket fuel like the U.S. did many years before them, or as when I was in the military, they outnumbered the U.S. many times with tanks, but what these numbers did not reveal to the layperson, most of their tanks were antiquated and not in running condition.

I put money on U.S. technology and super secret weapons that we will never brag about, that's what I put my money on, just another case of the loudest voice in the room being the weakest as usual.

I do not see any greater advances where they can really back up what they boast about, they would not want war with the U.S. or it's allies, not happening, Putin's judgment and his wreckless rhetoric has been showing that Chernobyl did manage to rot quite a few minds in Russia, could this really be the people the zombie apocalypse is all about that we will need to deal with ?



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dabrazzo
a reply to: intrptr

No, not many did, seeing right wing ultra nationalists sacking your government and turning on the people, well, Im not entirely surprised.

Me neither.

a reply to: ufoorbhunter


From a Russian pair of shoes NATO really is pushing it too far regarding Ukraine.

From one Americans viewpoint, for what its worth, sorry about all this mess.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 05:02 PM
link   
The US plan is to take Russia's head out via pre-emptive strike on its C4 centres which control its missiles and other weapons. A Minuteman strike from Europe will take 5-8 minutes to hit its targets inside Russia.

Another plan is to attack the launchers of Russian missiles via BMDs placed around the Russian near border nations like Poland, Turkey, Romania etc.

Once Russian nuclear deterrence is taken out then try to do the Desert Storm on them if possible.

By mentioning High Precision Weapons, Putin has NOT cancelled out the pre-emptive threats from NATO.

Not only does Russia have to cancel the massive pre-emptive strikes out, it also needs to prepare for a scenario post this pre-empt strike where it can deny the USAF planes and cruise missiles playing the "shock and awe" inside Russia.

Does Russia have a confident counter against Stealth technology?
Does Russia have MANPADs that can fly upto 50K feet to take out the planes? Current tech is only 15K feet.

I mention MANPADs as advanced and costly systems like Buk/Tor etc. would be easily targeted and are limited in number. MANPADs do come in 1000s and can be easily moved around and concealed.

Unless it has some really advanced secret projects churning out game changing techs, Russia is quite vulnerable to NATO's numbers and technologies. It won't be easy and take time but Russia standing alone will find high odds against such an attack.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: victor7

No disrespect, but this is a fantasy post. Have you any evidence for this, or are you just making it up?

For a start... There are no Minuteman missiles in Europe. Siting them in Europe would assume compliance from a host European nation and this is not going to happen.

You need to prefix your posts with "speculative fantasy" just in case some people take it seriously.

Regards



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: paraphi

All the treaties, agreements go to trash bins few weeks before the war and that too on the lines of WW3 kind.

Do not cry "foul" if both US and Russia covertly move assets in areas which were off limits before.

Regarding the fantasy post, here is a link
english.pravda.ru...

"The West has declared a cold war on Russia. The ultimate goal of the United States of America is to destroy Russia. The Americans already consider plans about the neutralization of the nuclear potential of Russia. Plan A is to strike a blow that would behead Russia. Plan B is to destroy the launcher. President of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, Konstantin Sivkov, shared his views about the developing standoff between Russia and the West in an interview with Pravda.Ru.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: phinubian
I do not see any greater advances where they can really back up what they boast about, they would not want war with the U.S. or it's allies, not happening, ...


Russia has well over 2,000 tactical nukes, US has 500. Russian tacticals have bigger top end yields as well. Given the massive size of Russia and the long roads to get to Moscow you would have to avoid a lot of small nukes to take over the place. Believe me they would nuke their own land to take out your brigade.

www.armscontrol.org...



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: noeltrotsky

None of my responses were about conquering or taking Russia, it is about the consequences if they tried using these fictional weapons they keep speaking about and in the OP, not unless aliens have suddenly landed there, gifting them this great knowledge all of a sudden and actual smarts of how to implement such tools in real war other than showing them off at military show or videos...Crimea is one thing, everything else is fantasy and now they regret making that move.

I was proud to be in Pershing serving as a U.S. Soldier, go read up on that get some schooling on the real history , see how far ahead we were then, doubtful any advantage to the U.S. has been lost and like I said we have so many tricks up our sleeves that luckily we don't have clowns boasting about them, but lets get real about this nonsense, Russia would be more apt to have a revolution or other internal conflict to deal with at this point than to think about biting off way more than they could ever fit into their mouths to think about chewing when it comes to the USA !

Actually the biggest threat to Russia's existence is Putin, all of the reasons they are in this situation right now point right to him, not the West, it's sad for anyone to even believe this propaganda.

edit on 29-12-2014 by phinubian because: addding info



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 10:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: noeltrotsky

originally posted by: phinubian
I do not see any greater advances where they can really back up what they boast about, they would not want war with the U.S. or it's allies, not happening, ...


Russia has well over 2,000 tactical nukes, US has 500. Russian tacticals have bigger top end yields as well. Given the massive size of Russia and the long roads to get to Moscow you would have to avoid a lot of small nukes to take over the place. Believe me they would nuke their own land to take out your brigade.

www.armscontrol.org...


Numbers do not mean a squat when you cannot use them to hurt the enemy. Holds true for both US and Russia.

The biggest defense for Russia is the fact that US will not attack i.e. start the war, till the time it is 100% assured that not even a single nuke laden ICBM will be able to land inside the US or on its major assets like overseas base or an aircraft carrier etc.

However, there are situations where US leadership will accept the possible losses and go ahead with the attack. Ex: Iraq 2003, somewhere (either newsweek or time magazine) I read that US Army's "projected maximum" number for KIA was 5000 and was given to Bush to decide further. This means that Bush, Cheney and others went to war knowing that they can lose around several thousand soldiers in the median of the projection.

That shows, sometimes the leadership accepts the losses and possible outcomes and still takes a decision for this or that cause. In Bush case ofcourse it was personal foolishness and prodding of the NeoCons around him. But then what goes on behind the closed doors in the board rooms and high levels of government is any body's guess.

If some nutcase President in WH decides that going to war against Russia is in for the good of the US, then we common civilians folks will have to head for the woods with whatever preps we could make to sustain and come out unscathed when it is all over.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 01:01 AM
link   
a reply to: victor7

If the US / west wanted war with Russia it would have occurred already.

The fantasy that the US is going to attack Russia is just that - a fantasy.

Putin on the other hand seems hell bent on provoking an armed conflict.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 01:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


The fantasy that the US is going to attack Russia is just that - a fantasy.


USA navy recently threatened Russia by violating Montreaux Convention. And this is not a fantasy.




April 3, 2014

Deployment Extension of US Warships in Black Sea Exceeds International Terms – Lavrov

MOSCOW: Moscow has taken note that the extension of US warships deployed in the Black Sea has exceeded the set terms laid out in the international convention, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said during a joint press conference with Kazakhstan’s foreign minister on Thursday in Moscow.

“There exists the Montreux Convention, which gives extremely clear criteria limiting the deployment of warships not belonging to the Black Sea governments in regard to tonnage and length of stay,” Lavrov said.

“We have noticed that US warships have extended their deployment beyond the set terms a couple of times lately, and at times they did not always comply with the regulations that are set within the Montreux Convention.”





The USS Truxton, which is conducting prolonged military exercises in the Black Sea with the navies of Bulgaria and Romania, has overstayed its maximum 21 day period allowed for non-Black Sea State’s naval vessels under the Montreux Convention.

The Donald Cook is reported to be joining the Truxton, rather than substituting it. Should the Truxton not leave, latest at the arrival of the Donald Cook, the US will not only continue violating the Montreux Convention, but also increase its naval footprint in the Black Sea amidst the crisis.

nsnbc.me...

edit on 30-12-2014 by kitzik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 02:19 AM
link   
a reply to: phinubian




Actually the biggest threat to Russia's existence is Putin, all of the reasons they are in this situation right now point right to him, not the West, it's sad for anyone to even believe this propaganda.


Better look into your own house, your so called free democratic elections degraded into bogus competition of two corpocratic dynasties Bush against Clinton. The question is just will it be Bush Third or Clinton Second. Another two or three rounds of such bogus elections and you you will firmly slide into One Imperial Rule. Sure, the deep state is running USA for at least since JFK, but it is coming closer and closer to end this masquerading.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 04:29 AM
link   
a reply to: kitzik

I completely agree that Russia violated -
* - Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances
* - The United Nations Charter - Violating the territorial integrity of sovereign nations
UN Charter - Chapter VII - Breech of peace - by invading Ukraine and illegally occupying Crimea

The US / NATO have alliance obligations in the Black Sea and naval presence is allowed under the UN Charter. What you and others fail to realize is Turkey retains sole control over the Bosporus / Dardanelles, which includes determining a course of action when the convention is violated. The treaty is on file with the UN after the League of Nations dissolved. The treaty does not comply with UNCLOS and Turkey is not a signatory to the UNCLOS treaties.

Finally the treaty also places restriction on Black Sea nations when it comes to their navies.

USS Truxtun / USS Donald Cook deployment

* - The USS Taylor, which was also deployed to the Black Sea, suffered engine failure and had to be towed to a port for repairs, extending its stay 11 days over the 21. Contrary to Russian lies they and all other BS nations were informed of the trouble and where the vessel was being towed to. Again, any naval vessel invited by Turkey to visit one of its ports are exempt from the Montreux Doctrine time constraints.

They naval vessels were monitoring Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Ironically Russia should treat its neighbors better if they want to be taken seriously. In 2008 Russia threatened Turkey via energy supplies over Turkey's reaction to Russia invading Georgia. Buzzing naval vessels and probing Turkish airspace probably doesn't help the Russians argument either.

When Turkey finishes their new bypass the Montreaux Doctrine will become a moot point anyways. Until then the last change to the Montreux Doctrine allows Turkey to unilaterally block a nation from transiting the straights regardless if its war time or peace time. Turkey also has a clause that allows extended action when Turkeys national security is threatened.

The Irony -I love how Russia ignores treaties while demanding they be applied and followed by others. Russia doesn't get to claim the moral high ground by engaging in an action that they disdain others for doing. Don't bitch about the US and its violations if your going to do the very same and I certainly would not expect compliance.

A thought -
Could you imagine, after everything Russia has gone through in order to obtain Crimea and its naval base, including upgrades, how useless it would become if Russia is blocked from transiting the straights?

Since that option is a very real possibility, what do you think Russia's response would be? If the Russian response violates the treaty then they never intended to abide by it from the start.

This goes back to Russia trying to play the "cafeteria treaty" cards.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 04:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra




Don't bitch about the US and its violations if your going to do the very same and I certainly would not expect compliance.

Don't bitch the facts when USA violating still existing international agreement even if it is outdated. The fact is the fact, USA navy was sniffing in the foreign pond, it is not Black Sea bordering country. Montreux Convention is still in force and USA excuse is simply that "their strategic interests" are above this.

Russia didn't invaded Ukraine, but only prevented said american military vessels from entering into Crimean ports at time when Crimean parliament decided to held a referendum about the future of Crimean Republic.

Before Cook under fabricated "terrorist threats" another American vessel entered into Black sea during Sochi Olympics.
In fact it wasn't a big secret why "Tailor" entered his intentions and course were under control

www.nydailynews.com...

edit on 30-12-2014 by kitzik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 05:06 AM
link   
a reply to: kitzik

Russia did in fact invade Ukraine and is illegally occupying Crimea. No amount of Putin lies will ever change that fact.
The Montreux agreement is not an international treaty. It establishes protocols and standards that Black Sea countries agreed on.

The fact remains Turkey is the one responsible for what happens if the treaty is violated and like I said I don't see Russia getting a sympathetic ear from Turkey with all the provocations Russia has made, including against Turkey.

The US navy was exercising freedom of navigation in international waters / Ukrainian territorial waters. They were also holding exercises with NATO members who also are Black Sea nations.

There was no Crimean government being their elected leaders were seized by the military. Even under international law the election was not in compliance and not recognized.

Putin is biting off more than he can chew and you guys are completely blind to that fact.

Care to answer the question I posed?


edit on 30-12-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-12-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 05:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra




The fact remains Turkey is the one responsible for what happens if the treaty is violated


Not correct. Turkey authorizes who can pass through Bosporus Dardanelles, but about staying in Black Sea there are other explicit articles.

I don't know if with all your ramblings you realize how close we are to nuclear ww3. World was never that close. Your country aggressive legislations and continuing trade wars, embargos doesn't relieve the situation. Don't be so sure that your precious continent will be spared in the nuclear war.
edit on 30-12-2014 by kitzik because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join