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.

 

Putin up's the ante!

page: 2
37
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: Mister_Bit

Russia was invited to join NATO. Then we would've been all one big happy family, they must of had other ideas. And apparently we are beginning to see what their other ideas were.

Russia invited to join NATO RT

It's a nice idea of course but in reality, for Russia or for any other country it would be nothing more than admitting surrender wouldn't it?

Might have been a better idea to form a new pact altogether.




posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: Greathouse

In terms of military strategy, I don't see the relationship between the conventional troops and the nukes.
Specifically, I don't see the tactical advantage in deploying ICBM launchers in Crimea.

The nukes are not a legitimate tactical weapon for capturing and holding territory. They are only for the M.A.D stalemate.

Maybe I'm missing something?


Very good point, maybe the nuke's are a bluff. I hope he is just using them to make a point that he is there to stay. I've read this thread and seen some of the comments from posters. Anyone that could cheer someone using the threat of nuclear weapons must have a severe mental disability.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Phatdamage

I hate to say it because of the ridicule. But I like to hear all sides of the story, and I've seen mention of everything you said on CNN and Fox. But I will agree with you that Neither of them have connected the dots that are plan to see.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Mister_Bit

It would not have been admitting surrender, it would've been projecting world peace and a great move for Europe and Asia.

Hell Russia could have sit back with the rest of the members and let the US foot the bill like we're doing now.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 05:05 PM
link   
There is nothing more dangerous than a creature of any kind backed into a corner. All it knows is that it has to come out one way or another .The world community , instead of continuing to attempt some form of peaceful deal is actually backing Putin and Russia further back in that corner . Troop movements , naval exercises , etc. . The situation is not getting better that is for sure.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 05:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: Mister_Bit

It would not have been admitting surrender, it would've been projecting world peace and a great move for Europe and Asia.

Hell Russia could have sit back with the rest of the members and let the US foot the bill like we're doing now.

Stronger minds see that it would not be admitting surrender yes, stronger minds see it would be protecting world peace..

However... National pride.. would never happen.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Mister_Bit

I can agree with that. Egos are one of the great causes of conflict.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: Greathouse
In terms of military strategy, I don't see the relationship between the conventional troops and the nukes.
Specifically, I don't see the tactical advantage in deploying ICBM launchers in Crimea.
The nukes are not a legitimate tactical weapon for capturing and holding territory. They are only for the M.A.D stalemate.
Maybe I'm missing something?


Sorry, but you're missing something.

The placement of nukes in Crimea is important. Not because it's a strategic location. Russia can launch nukes 300m from New York's Manhattan Island. It is important because once the nukes are in place Crimea becomes a top priority to defend. Any attack to reclaim Crimea by Ukraine or NATO would trigger a full military response by Russia, likely including the use of those nukes in Crimea before they were captured.

news.vice.com...

That's a good article about the militarization of Crimea. There have actually been nukes there for many years, simply undeclared. The reason Russia moved into Crimea so fast was to ensure those nukes stay there. Crimea is actually a very poor place with a small potential for oil.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

Living in Finland here
There are troops in 50 km from the Finnish border. Military drill is being active in Russian site, and drill is heard too in close border areas. This is not the first time the Russians have military drill, the base where they are, has been a military base during Soviet times. When Soviet fell that particular base have been less active, but last year taken back in business.
I knew this was going on ( how could i avoid knowing.. ) But ATM I don´t see this drill being a terrible threat to Finland as there is only one road to border from the base and if it is used we surely would see that in time.



edit on 17-3-2015 by dollukka because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Tactical nukes? I read some time ago Russia have made advancements in that area. Just some random link i looked up:
www.forbes.com...



A new round of Russian nuclear weapons development, their new aggressive posture and their new spurning of joint nuclear programs with the United States, all point to a disconcerting trend in Russian thinking amid a growing confidence in the nation’s military capabilities.

Americans have short memories. Russians don’t. It’s only been 25 years since the Wall came down, but in Russia’s mind the Cold War didn’t end. If Russia’s invasion of Ukraine isn’t enough of a heads-up, then maybe their new generation of tactical nuclear weapons is.

On September 10, Putin said Russia will develop a new guaranteed nuclear deterrent to counter the United States and NATO.

Actually, they already have. Russia reportedly thinks its tactical nukes are now better than both ours and NATO’s. NATO member countries have only 260 older tactical weapons. Sited in Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Turkey, the U.S. has 200 nuclear bombs with an overall capacity of 18 megatons. France has 60 atomic bombs.

As discussed in a report outlined in PRAVDA, Russia has 5,000 nuclear weapons of different tactical classes including Iskander warheads and torpedo, aerial and artillery warheads, all right next to Europe.

The US has 300 tactical B-61 bombs on its own territory, but this does not touch the imbalance. The United States cannot improve this situation as we have destroyed many of our Cold War tactical nuclear missiles, land-based missiles and sea-based Tomahawk cruise missiles. And we pinned ourselves with our own treaties. The recent START 3 treaty was overwhelmingly favorable to Russia.

Russia has developed long-range cruise missiles of a new generation that will soon be deployed on submarines of the Black Sea Fleet and missile ships of the Caspian Flotilla.

The U.S. State Department admitted as much in a report published at the beginning of September, stating that Russia has passed us in nuclear weapons capability for the first time in 40 years.

Letting our nuclear arsenal fall into disrepair is one thing (Washington Post), but allowing Russia to build a new strategic nuclear weapons force more advanced than ours is another thing altogether. And they even have a new generation of missiles.

So Russia does think it has the upper hand. And they might, if Putin and the hard-liners are willing to use force as much as they seem lately.

Maybe it’s just coincidental that Russia plans to send long-range bombers to the Gulf of Mexico “just for practice”. Russia has decided not to participate in scheduled joint nuclear security efforts with the United States. Russia is boycotting a U.S.-hosted international security summit meeting in 2016.

When the heads-of-state gave Putin too much grief about the Ukraine at the G-20 meeting last week, he just got up and left.

The decline in U.S.-Russian relations is symptomatic of many things and can be dangerous as isolation can breed misinterpretations (NYTimes). Russia views our Congress as weak and ineffective, hamstringing our Commander-in-Chief. Russia is paranoid that they themselves will be seen as weak. And Kremlin hard-liners are reticent about letting U.S. experts into their nuclear sites.

Which would be bad enough if our weapons actually worked well and were ready if we ever needed them.

But they need some work.

Everyone was shocked and outraged when failures started to surface a few years ago at the sites of America’s nuclear strike forces.

- Six nuclear-tipped cruise missiles were flown across the country by mistake aboard a B-52 bomber. The crew was unaware they had them and no one knew they were missing.

- Nineteen launch officers were taken off duty for bad attitudes and weak performances in an inspection.

- The AP published a series of additional stories documenting signs of weak morale, training gaps, exam cheating, security violations and leadership lapses, including the firing in October 2013 of Maj. Gen. Michael Carey, commander of the entire ICBM force.

This is insane. We can do better than this. We do better in every other facet of nuclear.Why can’t we take care of our nuclear weapons?

Because we don’t respect our own people who handle these weapons, who are responsible for their maintenance, their preparedness, who keep the missiles armed, secured and ready for a launch order from the President.

No one wants to work at these nuclear weapon sites anymore. What were once highly sought-after, honored positions that garnered great respect and opportunities for promotion, are now shunned by soldiers as dead-end positions with no possibility of promotion, plagued by insufficient funding and poor logistical support.

Requests for help and supplies go unanswered by upper command.

And no wonder. Inspectors are obsessed over checklists, records and bureaucracy, but ignore aging blast doors that don’t seal shut and crews that have only a single special wrench to maintain 450 intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Some Commanders have tried to improve professionalism, discipline and morale within the missile force, but got little support from higher-ups.

Whether it’s the ICBM and Minuteman forces, or the Air Force’s nuclear bomber force, our nuclear strike forces are in disarray. The B-52 bombers are so expensive to replace that the plan is to let them get to be a hundred years old.

But things should change. On Friday, Defense Secretary Hagel told reporters at the Pentagon, “The internal and external reviews I ordered show that a consistent lack of investment and support for our nuclear forces over far too many years has left us with too little margin to cope with mounting stresses.”

“Routine neglect of our nuclear weapons programs over the years has compromised our ability to respond to an actual threat.”

To address this, Hagel announced a boost in funding for the Pentagon’s nuclear projects of 10% per year over the next five years, or an addition of almost $8 billion between 2016 and 2020 to the present $15 billion annual maintenance for our nuclear arsenal (RT.com).

And the Pentagon management may have gotten the message, announcing last week that it could change the way it funds our nuclear forces. It would shift money for ICBMs, nuclear bombers and nuclear submarines outside of the Defense Department’s budget and into a new account. Such a change would elevate the military’s nuclear mission among senior leadership to a status that would have some actual power.

“We will need to know what’s working and what’s not,” Hagel said. “We must restore the prestige that attracted the brightest minds of the Cold War era.”

The situation is very different for those who serve in the Nuclear Navy. There, morale is high. The ships are actually nuclear powered, so the nuclear is “active” and performing, not just something sitting there unused and decaying, never moving and unlikely ever to be used.

In the end, however, our nuclear force crews, and the American public, see the threat of full-scale nuclear war as “simply nonexistent.”

Not so in Russia. They’re ready. And what would we do if they used these tactical nukes against one of its neighbors?

This same question never seems to go away.






edit on 17-3-2015 by Plugin because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 05:18 PM
link   
the U.S. has 200 nuclear bombs with an overall capacity of 18 megatons

hahahaha oops, almost choked laughing then.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: dollukka

Thank you for your on the spot report. It took me a while but I finally found a Norwegian paper that might explain it. NATO is also having a small military exercise, but the Russian response and the size of it without notifying Norway in advance makes me wonder? I hope it's just a show Of force but military exercises are perfect cover for an attack.


The drill, which involves 38,000 military, 3,360 units of equipment, 41 warships, 15 submarines, and 110 planes and helicopters, will help to evaluate the capabilities of the Northern Fleet to ensure Russia's military security in the Arctic, Shoigu said. On March 9, Norway, a member of the Western military alliance NATO, launched a massive military exercise dubbed "Joint Viking" in the northern region of Finnmark, which borders Russia's Murmansk Oblast.


source



edit on 17-3-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: Cygnis

I'm beginning to see a pattern to his use of force. He is going after non NATO Countries that are on the verge of Joining NATO.

Although if he moves on Finland I doubt NATO will hold back any longer.


let us hope (in one hand) that things simmer down, and in the worse case (the other hand) prepare.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse


Very good point, maybe the nuke's are a bluff. I hope he is just using them to make a point that he is there to stay. I've read this thread and seen some of the comments from posters. Anyone that could cheer someone using the threat of nuclear weapons must have a severe mental disability.


Maybe the nukes are to keep NATO off his back while he carries out hus plans.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

We also have a major military drill in May ( hubby is called too to service then ). So i look forward what kind of news we get then. Maybe this time we see how Russia shivers when Finns are having a big drill ( well bigger than usually .. lol )



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Now's a better time than any for Putin to make a move, Europe and the West will only get stronger and create a European military that will be ever more threatening on the US' say so.

Putin should make the move while Europe is just a bunch of broken shards and save as much of Europe as he can. I would suggest starting with the UK, Scotland especially is ripe for the picking. Then create a bridge via Finland across to Norway as these are relatively weak military forces. This would give Russia naval dominance over Europe and would allow the rest of Europe to be surrounded on all sides.

Hopefully China can keep the US occupied so that there won't be too much of a threat from the Atlantic.

This could be achieved with or without the use of nuclear weapons.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Mister_Bit

I don't know where you got that source I'd sure like to see it. Here read mine.

1922 strategic nuclear missile deployment.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Make no mistake Vladimir is a 50's kind of guy. Without the US to keep him in check he would stroll across Europe like a modern Alexander or Hitler. In my opinion, the only thing stoping him is the NATO fleet of boomer's at sea with a belly full of SLBM's and the resolve that we will blow his ass to Mars.
I don't thing this is about the great Communist Ideology, this is a land grab, pure and simple. Putin is just a bully, and an uncommonly good thief.
Last weekend I was praying that someone had taken him out, and he turns up like a bad penny. As long as Putin is in power the atomic clock needs to be moved to about two seconds until midnight. Just my thoughts my friends, I hope I am wrong, but I have nightmares about it.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: DAZ21

I guess you didn´t know that in Finland military service is mandatory for finnish males? That would make our reserve about 230 000.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Let's hope that's the plan. But if something happens on the 20th or 21st I'm going to be following your predictions closely.




top topics



 
37
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join