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.

 

RT -Russia ready to repel any nuke strike, retaliate – missile forces command chief

page: 5
18
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 12:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wookiep
a reply to: Xcathdra

If Putin can manage to carry Russia without western sanctions affecting it, then I can see Eastern Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia as a possibility as well. With that said, I honestly don't think Putin cares about sanctions.

This is a tough situation, especially with the threats/rhetoric of nukes. NATO most likely wouldn't intervene in Moldova/Georgia militarily just due to that threat alone.

I hope you're wrong about the Baltics as well, because that WOULD mean nukes flying. I don't see NATO sitting back in that case, otherwise NATO would completely dissolve.


The west learned this pattern very well in WW2, they will have to react.




posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 12:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: johnwick

originally posted by: Wookiep
a reply to: Xcathdra

If Putin can manage to carry Russia without western sanctions affecting it, then I can see Eastern Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia as a possibility as well. With that said, I honestly don't think Putin cares about sanctions.

This is a tough situation, especially with the threats/rhetoric of nukes. NATO most likely wouldn't intervene in Moldova/Georgia militarily just due to that threat alone.

I hope you're wrong about the Baltics as well, because that WOULD mean nukes flying. I don't see NATO sitting back in that case, otherwise NATO would completely dissolve.


The west learned this pattern very well in WW2, they will have to react.


Ummm ... Back in the Cold War, Putin's strategy would have been referred to as Low Intensity Conflict. Him being a Cold War vet himself, he's probably altogether familiar with the strategy (as he's artfully demonstrating). Too bad we never got to the point of practicing a response. Maybe somebody's dusting off the old manuals somewhere.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 12:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Interestingly, the next logical move for Putin would be Belarus. Yes, one KGB dictator against another.

Nobody would stand up for Belarus. And Putin would come out with some BS how it's traditionally Russian territory, history, blah blah blah.

Think about it this way. How much credit does the supposedly "legitimate" President of Ukraine, Yanukovych, have in Moscow these days? Even though he was friendly to Russia.

If, as supposedly the case according to Putin's words, he is the rightful leader of Ukraine, why doesn't he get any say about the rebellion in the east? Why isn't he at the head of the negotiating table? Somehow he's a nobody in Moscow now.

Even the dictator of Belarus is getting nervous.


edit on 2-3-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-3-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 12:29 AM
link   
I'm sure that if you talked to the head of our nuclear program they would say the same thing, immediate response is important to these kind of things. If Russia launched nukes at the US, ours would be in the air before the first one ever hit the USA. Would you have it any other way?



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 12:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: johnwick

originally posted by: Wookiep
a reply to: Xcathdra

If Putin can manage to carry Russia without western sanctions affecting it, then I can see Eastern Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia as a possibility as well. With that said, I honestly don't think Putin cares about sanctions.

This is a tough situation, especially with the threats/rhetoric of nukes. NATO most likely wouldn't intervene in Moldova/Georgia militarily just due to that threat alone.

I hope you're wrong about the Baltics as well, because that WOULD mean nukes flying. I don't see NATO sitting back in that case, otherwise NATO would completely dissolve.


The west learned this pattern very well in WW2, they will have to react.


Ummm ... Back in the Cold War, Putin's strategy would have been referred to as Low Intensity Conflict. Him being a Cold War vet himself, he's probably altogether familiar with the strategy (as he's artfully demonstrating). Too bad we never got to the point of practicing a response. Maybe somebody's dusting off the old manuals somewhere.


We can only hope...

Because this is absolutely the "appeasement doctrine" redux 2014/2015.

If they let him take an inch, he will try for a mile.

IMHO, this is insanity.

Draw a line, and not like Obama, but like Kennedy or Reagan.

Have forces ready and waiting, dare him to force your hand.

And if he does, respond with intentional force, specific to the line.

For example, "all Russian equipment in Ukraine territory will withdraw or be destroyed".

If it doesn't, the US carrier battle group (pre positioned) in the black sea will end them.

First cruise missiles on AAA targets, then stealths, then bombers and fighter bombers until it is either withdrawn or destroyed.

End Putin's schemes for making a new Russian empire.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 12:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
I'm sure that if you talked to the head of our nuclear program they would say the same thing, immediate response is important to these kind of things. If Russia launched nukes at the US, ours would be in the air before the first one ever hit the USA. Would you have it any other way?


Well, sure.. I think the point is that Russia makes it a point to announce such things publicly as to flex it's nuclear muscle as a threat. Yes, we're back to the cold war, and this is just another sign of it.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 12:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
I'm sure that if you talked to the head of our nuclear program they would say the same thing, immediate response is important to these kind of things. If Russia launched nukes at the US, ours would be in the air before the first one ever hit the USA. Would you have it any other way?


Do you really think there are no nukes in orbit? I'm not suggesting anything, but an EMP would suck ... Big Time.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 12:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wookiep

originally posted by: rickymouse
I'm sure that if you talked to the head of our nuclear program they would say the same thing, immediate response is important to these kind of things. If Russia launched nukes at the US, ours would be in the air before the first one ever hit the USA. Would you have it any other way?


Well, sure.. I think the point is that Russia makes it a point to announce such things publicly as to flex it's nuclear muscle as a threat. Yes, we're back to the cold war, and this is just another sign of it.


I disagree, there can't be a cold war vs Russia and the west today.

In the cold war, Russia was a military threat, today they will get smashed quite badly.

Nukes are their only card to play.

Playing it so early only shows their weakness.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 12:39 AM
link   
a reply to: johnwick

I agree, but nukes are still the biggest cards in play. (that we know of, at least) They are still capable of using them, unlike NK, who doesn't have the capability to hit even Japan with a nuke yet.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 12:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: rickymouse
I'm sure that if you talked to the head of our nuclear program they would say the same thing, immediate response is important to these kind of things. If Russia launched nukes at the US, ours would be in the air before the first one ever hit the USA. Would you have it any other way?


Do you really think there are no nukes in orbit? I'm not suggesting anything, but an EMP would suck ... Big Time.


By the "test ban treaty" space weapons of any kind are out of question.

Nukes in space violates this.

If they did it, the US would do many times more than they could.

It is not a winning scenario for them.

They are fully outmatched by the monies the west controls.

If they can make one, the west can make 10.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 12:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wookiep
a reply to: johnwick

I agree, but nukes are still the biggest cards in play. (that we know of, at least) They are still capable of using them, unlike NK, who doesn't have the capability to hit even Japan with a nuke yet.


When a nation, on a policy level has to use the threat of nukes....it is absolutely pathetic...we are talking NK pathetic.

What putin gets to take over whatever he wants or he will launch nukes?

So we let him?

Next it will be Poland, than the Baltic's, then Germany, then France, then england and Spain, then the Mideast, until he is demanding Delaware.

Screw that!!!

I say we stop it all right here right now.

Because ruling a smoking cinder, is his only option.

Either he is happy with the largest most resource rich country on earth already or let's get it on.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 12:47 AM
link   
a reply to: johnwick

The U.S. no longer produces rocket engines (at least that I'm aware of).

I don't think anyone's up there ensuring compliance. Can you imagine the cost?

He who sets off the first EMP is probably gonna come out ahead. (Might be why Putin made a public statement regarding Russia's Dead Hand toy.)

Too many things to consider for an old guy.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 12:49 AM
link   
a reply to: johnwick

All good points, but it's a BIG gamble to go to all out conventional war on Russia while assuming nukes won't fly.
edit on 2-3-2015 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 12:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: johnwick

originally posted by: victor7
a reply to: johnwick




Just the US with nothing but F-15 and F-16s would destroy his airforce.


Completely disagree. Include the F-22s then you statement gains lots of weight.




The new T-90 is supposed to be good, but that is yet to be seen, and they are in very short supply.


T-90 is good but not as good as M1 Abrams. However, for price of 1 Abrams, 2 T-90s can be bought. 2 T-90s will sure win against single Abram or in a similar 2 for 1 ratio.




Putin is going to do the old "land grab in country B and if the west gets involved then nukes are a possibility" game.


Putin is not interested in Land grab. But he does not want Russia's "near abroad" in NATO or hostile alliance. I will end the comment here as answers from the other side are well known and waste of time to discuss any further.


You are right on the price of Abrams vs T-90, but, the US can make 6 Abrams for evey T-90 russia can, even at that price.

Russia's economy is all but nonexistent compared to America's.

So yes they are cheaper, but we have mountains of cash compared to Russia's mole hills.


Also T90 has a major flaw hit right behind the crew quarters and the whole tank goes up. Its the auto reloader hit that and there munitions go off. They improved the safety of the crew by adding blast doors however not sure what a tank does without ammo. And that's one reason why I'm sure every weapons manufacturer on the planet wants a shot at the T90s in Ukraine. They want to know if the blast doors did anything but save the crew. Even that is debatable I think the Russian claims here are just wrong. Also realize the abrams has the best armor in the world known to take direct hit's and keep rolling probably the rumor of depleted Uranium under its armor. So even a hit by a T90 doesn't gurantee destruction.

add tusk to an abrams and it's survivability factor goes way up. Meaning they would rack up major kills against T90. Bottom line Russia conventional military is no match which is why all these threats of nuclear keep coming out if Russia. Russians aren't stupid and know fighting NATO they will lose so to them they see nuclear as the ultimate trump card.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 12:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: johnwick

Either he is happy with the largest most resource rich country on earth already or let's get it on.


One thing he is extremely short on is population. That's what I was referring to by ROI in my third contribution to this thread. Every land gain gets him more people who weren't willing to fight or flee.
edit on 232015 by Snarl because: Formatting



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 12:57 AM
link   
While Russia is inciting fear about a nuclear war in Russia, America is actually doing the opposite because our leaders want us to think that everything is just fine, and that ISIS is the biggest threat, which I disagree with. But sometimes, you have to incite a little fear in a nation, if it is in fact a real possibility that may come true and if it's for the right reasons. During the cold war, I was young, but I was prepared. They didn't tell us nuclear war was going to happen, but they said it could. We were very well informed on the effects of radiation, and what we should do for our survival, in school was had "Flash Drills" on a regular basis. Now, only those from the cold war remember this stuff, or even consider this a real threat. I don't think kids today know just how damaging a nuclear exchange would be, nor do they think it can ever happen. I'm not saying that we should scare Americans, but we should at least update our 1970 manuals and start getting people prepared, just in case. As a nation, we've gotten too comfortable with the way things are. That's fine, but people need to be prepared too, otherwise if this event does ever take place, the anarchy will be 100 times worst. Chance favors the prepared mind.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 12:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: johnwick

The U.S. no longer produces rocket engines (at least that I'm aware of).

I don't think anyone's up there ensuring compliance. Can you imagine the cost?

He who sets off the first EMP is probably gonna come out ahead. (Might be why Putin made a public statement regarding Russia's Dead Hand toy.)

Too many things to consider for an old guy.


Lol, Russia's "dead hand" switch is crap, america has and has had the best one in history for decades.

Our sub's.

If they don't get a coded message every time via sonophone or satellite in exact increments....

It is Triton missiles for the lot.

We will end the world, not putin.

Their sorry rockets use large nukes because their accuracy sucks, just to make sure they get the target.

Ours are very accurate, so ours are smaller but guarantee they hit the target.

He doesn't want to play this game.

We do have solid state lasers that can kill ICBM missiles during their early and mid stages.

They do not.

We do have a missile shield, it isn't perfect, some will get through.

They have nothing to stop ours.

His russia will end...completely, our America just might make it out the other side.

Who has more to lose here?



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 01:00 AM
link   
a reply to: JonStone

Good post! I agree 100%



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 01:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: johnwick

originally posted by: victor7
a reply to: johnwick




Just the US with nothing but F-15 and F-16s would destroy his airforce.


Completely disagree. Include the F-22s then you statement gains lots of weight.




The new T-90 is supposed to be good, but that is yet to be seen, and they are in very short supply.


T-90 is good but not as good as M1 Abrams. However, for price of 1 Abrams, 2 T-90s can be bought. 2 T-90s will sure win against single Abram or in a similar 2 for 1 ratio.




Putin is going to do the old "land grab in country B and if the west gets involved then nukes are a possibility" game.


Putin is not interested in Land grab. But he does not want Russia's "near abroad" in NATO or hostile alliance. I will end the comment here as answers from the other side are well known and waste of time to discuss any further.


You are right on the price of Abrams vs T-90, but, the US can make 6 Abrams for evey T-90 russia can, even at that price.

Russia's economy is all but nonexistent compared to America's.

So yes they are cheaper, but we have mountains of cash compared to Russia's mole hills.


Also T90 has a major flaw hit right behind the crew quarters and the whole tank goes up. Its the auto reloader hit that and there munitions go off. They improved the safety of the crew by adding blast doors however not sure what a tank does without ammo. And that's one reason why I'm sure every weapons manufacturer on the planet wants a shot at the T90s in Ukraine. They want to know if the blast doors did anything but save the crew. Even that is debatable I think the Russian claims here are just wrong. Also realize the abrams has the best armor in the world known to take direct hit's and keep rolling probably the rumor of depleted Uranium under its armor. So even a hit by a T90 doesn't gurantee destruction.

add tusk to an abrams and it's survivability factor goes way up. Meaning they would rack up major kills against T90. Bottom line Russia conventional military is no match which is why all these threats of nuclear keep coming out if Russia. Russians aren't stupid and know fighting NATO they will lose so to them they see nuclear as the ultimate trump card.


Agreed!!!

Besides, reactive armor doesn't win vs a kenetic kill munition.

It only works vs shaped charge munitions. They are designed to deflect and absorb the molten copper.

Not withstand a sonic tungsten dart.

Russia went with s bigger gun to try to make up for this, but it still isn't enough.

We don't need a bigger gun, just a better kill package.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 01:03 AM
link   
a reply to: johnwick

As memory serves, five solid detonations would wipe out Russia. That happens and their pain ends. America would suffer. No telling whether or not we'd look like a feast for the vultures.

Who's ahead at the end of a nuclear exchange is relative. Maybe that's why Putin is running his mouth.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join