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.

 

Would Syria allow Russia to use tactical nuclear weapons on their soil?

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 12:26 PM
link   
I'd bet there's more medical data on lead poisoning than depleted uranium exposure.




posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlyingFox
I'd bet there's more medical data on lead poisoning than depleted uranium exposure.

Absolutely; the database goes back centuries.



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Anyway, back on topic: Assad has had no control over Syria for the past five years, so no-one is going to ask his permission about anything.



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 02:46 AM
link   
First time to reply on ats,my thought is that Putin used that speech to signal countries collaborating with ISIS like Turkey and since they're Nato they might be feeling untouchable.



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 04:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Umvericomb92
First time to reply on ats,my thought is that Putin used that speech to signal countries collaborating with ISIS like Turkey and since they're Nato they might be feeling untouchable.


No, Putin mentioned nukes because he knows Russia could not win a conventional war with Turkey. It has nothing to do with NATO. In fact, Russia using nuclear weapons would be the only thing that could drag the rest of NATO into the situation.



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

C'mon now.do you really think russia would lose a conventional 1 on 1 war with turkey...think again.its just not worth it in putins book that's why he mentioned nuclear weapons.putin is a smart dude they've been provoking russia for a long time now but he just keeps coming back at them nasty,as soon as he mentions nukes everybody bendsover.its not the first time



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 05:38 PM
link   
On a related note,

Here are a couple of excerpts from a Russia Today report about the possible use of nukes:


The existing US missile shield is incapable of withstanding a massive strike of Russian nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), the commander of Russia’s Strategic Missile Troops told a press conference.

The analysis of Russian military experts has found that “neither the firepower potential, nor the data computing capacity of the currently deployed US missile defense” installations could deal with a swarm attack of the Russian nuclear triad, Strategic Missile Troops Commander, Colonel General Sergey Karakaev, told journalists Wednesday.


and....from the same article:


Karakaev said he sees no need to deploy strategic missiles with conventional warheads against the terrorists of Islamic State, saying it would be irrational since “every target deserves its own effective and suitable killing agent.”

At the same time, Karakaev pointed out that the use of ballistic missiles would be carried out with authorization of the supreme commander, the president of Russia.

“In case there is a political decision, the Strategic Missile Troops are ready to execute any assigned mission,” Karakaev said.


Russia Today

The way our POTUS has been acting, we are getting closer to WW3, complete with nukes. Imo it is only a matter of time. Only a stupid person would keep poking at Putin.



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Umvericomb92


C'mon now.do you really think russia would lose a conventional 1 on 1 war with turkey.


Absolutely, and Putin knows it. as I explained here:

Turkey has 410,000 service men. Russia has 766,000. Russia's problem is that it has 22,000 kilometers of shared borders to defend, whereas Turkey only has 2,800. Not quite twice the troops to defend 10 times the potential battle front. If you were the Russian Ministry of Defense, would you pull troops off the Polish border to fight in Turkey? Russia has 3,400 aircraft compared to Turkey's 1,000. Setting aside the question of which side has better planes, the Russians have three times the aircraft to defend twenty two times the airspace. Again if you were the MoD, would you pull planes out of the Baltic in the hopes that NATO wasn't setting a trap for you?

Full stats here.

Should a state of war be declared, Turkey would close the Bosporus, cutting Crimea off from the Mediterranean. The Russian Black Sea Fleet is comprised of 45 ships and submarines. Turkey's fleet numbers 115, and they would be operating with full air cover, whereas Russia would not.

I would add at this point that operating at the limits of its range is one reason Germany lost the Battle of Britain. If Russia places an aircraft carrier in position to extend its air forces operational time, Turkey has submarines capable of sinking it. Russia cannot fight a conventional war with Turkey without making itself vulnerable to invasion from the Baltic, Poland, Central and Eastern Europe... and Siberia, where China has strong motivation to send in peacekeepers to protect ethnic Chinese, who are being threatened by Russian nationalists.



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 06:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Umvericomb92
a reply to: DJW001

C'mon now.do you really think russia would lose a conventional 1 on 1 war with turkey...think again.its just not worth it in putins book that's why he mentioned nuclear weapons.putin is a smart dude they've been provoking russia for a long time now but he just keeps coming back at them nasty,as soon as he mentions nukes everybody bendsover.its not the first time


Yes.
Turkey has a better defensive position, a vastly superior logistical position (including controlling Russian sea routes for resupply), and although a smaller land-force, one that is much better situated and with many more rich and well-armed allies nearby for help and rearmament.

Russia has very few allies, most of them fair-weather. Syria is with them out of desperation and probably a few Baltic areas would kow-tow to them out of fear, but other than that they're not doing so hot.



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 03:22 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

I still believe russia would win but at what cost.i don't know.i see you have all the stats and everything to backup what you're saying but put in mind russia can easily declare a nofly zone over turkey or down any jet that attempts to take off using s400s in Syria because what the media isn't saying is that the s400s putin ordered in Syria can cover half of turkey...and all fighter jets that are grounded could be destroyed before they even leave the hangar using cruise missiles even icbms if needed and same goes with all known military bases and military factories in turkey Russia and US are on a whole other level of warfare.with satellites u can't really hide anything and with icbms and cruise missiles you can hit anywhere with precision.
Concerning Poland or any other bordering country,they have nothing to do with The situation Erdogan put himself in.if Nato decides to defend Erdogan than it would go nuclear no doubt.
edit on 17-12-2015 by Umvericomb92 because: Forgot sumthn



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 05:55 AM
link   
we do have news Assad gave order to open and refresh/get ready the nuclear underground bunkers.

If they ever use nukes, it will be smaller scale, not like what americans did. But again its really bad if that happens and only if Turks or others decide to invade syria, because isis failed. I dont give any credit for nukes.

We do not wish any use of nukes, because the material is transferred by air and my country is near turkey. In the long term, we are going to breathe nukes.
edit on 17-12-2015 by Ploutonas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Hello, I am new to the boards but keep up with happenings internationally. Recently there has been a barrage of statements, posts, Youtube Videos etc.. claiming that the Saudi's used Tactical nukes in Sanaa Yemen in 2015. Obviously they did not and what appeared a nuclear explosion was simply a Scud missile factory hidden in the surrounding mountain getting cooked off and blowing up with a massive explosion.

But to read comments and suggestions from people that really should know better you would think that they used one to take this factory out. If suggestions, rumors, videos that are misinterpreted can be believed by many as fact, then how hard is it for a head of state, probably no more intelligent than we are, to surmise one has been used and responds in kind??

Above VietNam, above Desert Storm, above the invasion of Iraq, these wars in the middle east are by far the most dangerous of this century and of the later part of the last century. One other thing I draw from episodes like the Sanaa factory explosion is that when a nuke does go off, much of the population of those areas will be toast as they seem to relish in anything that goes bang.

To view those videos of that terrorizing explosion you see folks videoing it, staring at it, yelling Allahu Akbar and shooting off their Ak's. They are not prepared in anyway for the worst and have no idea what the worst actually can do and look like. That part of the world if not contained and corraled soon can be the end of the world as we know it, by accident...



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 05:01 PM
link   
I do see it happening, sooner rather than later.
If ISIS stages a real huge massacre of civies, comes close to Damascus or where the Russian bases are located, or explodes a dirty bomb in some urban area, then yes Russia would use nukes.

There are huge ones, and small yield nukes. I dont see the Russians launching 5MT ICBMs, but tactical battle-field nukes might be used. The 50kt Hiroshima A-Bomb is 100x less powerful than what exists now. However, Russia might use chemical or bio-weapons instead



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Comparing army size, stats, quantity, does not tell the whole story.
As was said many times, the US has less battle ships now than in WWI or in WWII, however, the fire power, tech-comm, and so forth is far greater than ever.
In fact, the US could destroy the entire NAZI WWII Navy with a single modern air-craft carrier.

Thus, using your logic China should be able to defeat any nation on Earth due to their 5m men army. But, I dont see Chinese troops in Paris nor Moscow.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Tiamat384

Not to mention an escalation of Brobdingnagian proportions. Geeze, ISIS and their fanatics would absolutely love that...

Whatever I may think of Putin, I don't think he's that stupid. God forbid, he's that stupid.

The ME would come apart at the seams.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 05:44 PM
link   
prediction: If Russia decides to use (tactical) nukes they will make some sort of logistical mistake and accidentally use a high megaton yield cobalt laced warhead or warheads and thus fulfill the biblical prophesy about Syria being rendered uninhabited and uninhabitable.



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 06:39 AM
link   
Russia will not do that. Putin is not that crazy to step into nuclear war.



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 07:48 AM
link   
a reply to: MonaMonina


Correct Russia dont need to use a tacktical nukes to do the job. They have cluster tiped MLRS, cruise Missilies, bombs and rockets that have the same capability to whipe out a entier city.




The Russian military is based om artillary. They dont need to use nukes to send a Message.


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gomar
I do see it happening, sooner rather than later.


Why? What do you think the implications of doing something so utterly stupid would be to a country, Russia, with a restive Muslim population?


If ISIS stages a real huge massacre of civies, comes close to Damascus or where the Russian bases are located, or explodes a dirty bomb in some urban area, then yes Russia would use nukes.


You make it sound so very easy to just whip out the nuclear weapons. There are long term consequences of using nuclear weapons that need to be considered. Nukes aren't just some little pop-gun that no one is going to remember past next Thursday.


There are huge ones, and small yield nukes.


"small". There's no such thing as small, when discussing nuclear weapons. One kiloton is roughly equivalent to 1000 tons of TNT. We're not talkin' a few 1000 lbs guided munitions here, we're talking about weapons capable of destroying small cities in a single instant. Not just ISIS fighters, but their families. Not just ISIS fighters, but their victims. Innocents, as well as villains.


I dont see the Russians launching 5MT ICBMs, but tactical battle-field nukes might be used.


Oh, good, at least they won't be using the "big" bombs...measured in millions of tons of TNT. Just thousands. That's so much better.


The 50kt Hiroshima A-Bomb is 100x less powerful than what exists now.


Oh, it was, and is, far less powerful. Save in what it represents. Think about it. What is accomplished by using such a horrific weapon? One that kills without regard to whether its victims are guilty or innocent. A little boy is just as guilty as the bastard cutting of heads. The little girl being held as a child bride is as guilty as the bastard cutting off heads. Russia is many, many things...I really hope they aren't this.


However, Russia might use chemical or bio-weapons instead


Bio weapons? Why in God's name would they use those things? Why? If there is something worse than nukes, those are it. A bug that can turn just as easily on its user as its victim. Utter and complete madness.

Chemical? Well, I suppose if nukes and bioweapons are going to be used, why not go for the trifecta.

If defeating ISIS requires the use of such horrific weapons, I submit we've already lost. Because that would make the Russians every bit as bad as what they're fighting, and would only inflame an already bad situation.

It would be utter and complete madness to use these sorts of weapons.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 04:09 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

this scenario although logical, sidelines the fact that China, Russia and a couple of other major powers are now allies, although it might be a convenient marriage and might not survive long after a common future victory.

Russia could probably win conventional war against Turkey, having in mind the sophistication of the Russian conventional forces, including robotic units and powerful precise conventional missiles, that Turkey does not have, no matter how much muscle it pumps now. But that will take the nearly full Russian potential for local war, in elaborated operation stretched from Armenia to Bosporus to Greece. Russian Baltic and Northern fleets should go to East Mediterranean to neutralize the Turkish fleet and assure air supremacy. That in case NATO stays back and restricts its involvement to declarations and may be some kind of supplies. In fact NATO would have interest of Russia getting all its forces in a major regional war.

But the real case scenario would more likely escalate after the first strikes exchange (most likely airfields). As with a NATO-Russia war in Europe, ultimately the nuclear scenario come into play.

In Georgia war the tactical Tochka were deployed. Crimea had by now Iskanders and Tu-22.

If NATO gets involved, Russia battles no more "non nuclear state" as Turkey officially is. A Russian think tank said so, I posted it in another thread about Bosporus.

If Russia gets nuked in the process (we don't know if Erdogan wouldn't take hold of the US bombs in Incirlic), then prepare for the worst. Because the Russian response would be massive and far not concentrated on Turkey alone.

We know of Cold War era strategies of preemptive, preventive, surprise, disabling, etc nuclear strikes. I wouldn't stay in Washington or New York, although the populated areas are unlikely to be among the first list of hundreds of targets. Hundreds, if the war stops with surrender. Thousands, if we are talking of retaliation and mutual destruction of populated areas.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join