Russia threatens nuclear war with Denmark

originally posted by: Spacespider
Where does it say subs? Translasion is just fine, im Danish... And yes they threaten with nukes. Its all over the news, I dont care what part of the Danish State they nuke, Its still nuclear war if they do.

You're clearly not use to the Mother Russian posters here at ATS! Translations are butchered, fabrications are posted as real, links to 'FortRuss' are the Gospel Truth.

Thanks for pointing out yet another outright fabrication.

originally posted by: Anubis259
This isn't exactly an official statement by the Kremlin. Not exactly Russia threatening anyone. Just someone's opinion.

Are you for real? It was the Russian Ambassador!

You pro-russians really make me laugh!

Well if Russia is going to act like a spoiled brat then its time to re-target Russia with nuclear weapons.

a reply to: Spacespider

I am well aware of what it says now,what I am saying is the original post about it said it was nuclear SUBS. Then within the space of a couple of hours it turned into nuclear weapons. So I am saying that I believe there is a mistranslation somewhere here. The Russians either threatened with nuclear weapons from the get go,or they are now twisting it to say that it is nuclear weapons when Russia was saying it was nuclear subs that would fire conventional weapons.

a reply to: Dimithae

Air launched, land launched, sea launched nuclear weapons are in the end, nuclear weapons.

who cars how they are delivered when the end result is essentially the same? Why would an idiot ass Russian Ambassador make these comments in the first place? All it does is reinforce just how out of touch on reality Putin is and how that psychological instability is spreading throughout the Russian government.

originally posted by: DimithaeThe Russians either threatened with nuclear weapons from the get go,or they are now twisting it to say that it is nuclear weapons when Russia was saying it was nuclear subs that would fire conventional weapons.

Why would they threaten with conventional weapons ONLY from nuclear powered subs? Why not use their diesel/electric ballistic missile submarines? The only logical conclusion is the reference was to nuclear weapons, not how the sub is powered.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I guess that is what they had in the area. Doesn't mean its a nuclear war.
second line

originally posted by: Dimithae
a reply to: Spacespider

wow thats uh stupid a nuclear powered sub isnt a threat they would find it and kill it. Because if it isnt a ballistic missile sub they have 8 hunter subs great at hunting subs but doesnt do much against aircraft. and i can guarantee subs would get spotted on their patrols. They regularly fly aircraft up and down the corridor and have sonar buoys placed to protect their fleet. It would be suicide for an attack sub.

originally posted by: Dimithae
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I guess that is what they had in the area. Doesn't mean its a nuclear war.
second line

Maybe they had a baby poodle in the area too, why not threaten them with that if their intention is making a useless threat. Once you have to create ridiculous and moronic explanations to justify how a comment can mean something else you should immediately jump back to the obvious and logical meaning that requires no illogical explanation.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Instead of trying to insult people and lose your credibility,why don't you stick to the issue? There is a big difference in a nuclear weapon and a conventional one. The sub may be nuclear,but that doesn't mean its firing NUCLEAR WEAPONS. If your at ground zero,I guess it wouldn't matter to you which it was,but if you aren't there,then it can matter a whole lot. I said before and I will say this again THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE I SAW WAS THAT IT WAS A NUCLEAR SUBMARINE. Now it has turned into something else. I can not help what people are now seeing on the news,I have seen it too,but it went from a nuclear sub,to nuclear weapons. That is the point I'm making.There is nothing "ridiculous and moronic" about it. A mistranslation or whatever I have no idea,but I know what I first saw.

a reply to: dragonridr

I have no idea, I was shocked that the threat should be made at all. I understand that Russia is itchy at the moment with all that is going on,but to issue a threat like that is something else.

originally posted by: Dimithae
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Instead of trying to insult people and lose your credibility,why don't you stick to the issue?

Except I did not. Look again, I did not attribute any insults towards you or anyone else. I said the explanation for how they could mean something other than the obvious was ridiculous. It was, it is. If you took it personally it was not meant to be, I was strictly targeting the message, not the messenger.

ETA: I just hope you realize wherever you read that was wrong.

"If that happens, Danish warships will be targets for Russian nuclear missiles," Vanin told the newspaper.