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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Is the US pushing Russia to the brink of a nuclear war?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: CJCrawley

Sanctions would have never been placed if Russia had not invaded / occupied parts of Ukraine.

The sanctions are a direct result of Russian action and not a catalyst of Russian action.




posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Spacespider

One has to wonder as to why both nations require more land considering they both have more than enough to sustain the populations they all ready have or will have in the near future?

End of the day its probobly more about acquiring the resources than anything else and also lets not forget if we are all engrossed and concerned with nuclear conflict they TPTB can divert our attentions away from the financial crisis that has never really gone away since the last recession.

Nuclear war limited or otherwise could possibly enable the people responsible for the current geopolitical woes and financial meltdown to quietly slip in to there DUMBS.

Don't know what they hope to come out to all the same.

edit on 18-10-2016 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I never said appeasement did I ?

I said im for imposing more draconian sanctions.

If the UK and USA frooze all the Russian oligarchs asets, putin would very quickly eat a bullet.


Plus unlike WW2 we have nukes these days. Everyone loses if those are used, therefore its best to avoid military confrontation and apply pressure elsewhere.

And its syria. ...... a irrelevant dust bowel. Its of no importance to US or even UK national interests. What's the point riskiny WW3 and destruction of all for such a pathetic thing.

If it was a NATO member sure. But military action should only be used if rewards and benfits to the nation outweigh the risks.

If military action has to be used, Russia needs to fire the first shoot at us. We should not fire the first shoot at them.
edit on 18-10-2016 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Don't they plan to run a new oil pipeline through Syria somewhat bypassing other oil producing nations? I thought thats what all the nonsense was really about over there.

Tend to agree that nuclear war is a very stupid way to respond and will achieve nothing other than devastation all round. Which is why i hope cooler heads prevail and the idiots stop damn posturing.

Its like playing catch with a live hand grenade, don't matter who's holding it when it goes off your both screwed and so is everyone else in the immediate vicinity aka planet Earth.



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

You suggested the US not push back over Syria because its not worth it. The same mindset was used by Chamberlain in reference to the annexation of the Sudetenland.

This exchange between Thatcher and Haig regarding the Falklands war reminds me of your Syria comment and its "worth".


Alexander Haig: We are trying to de-escalise a war.

Margaret Thatcher: So am I. But you do not do it by appeasement. You increase its chances. You see this table? This was where Neville Chamberlain sat in 1938 when he spoke on the wireless about the Czechs as "far away people about whom we know nothing and with whom we have so little in common". Munich! Appeasement! A world war followed because of that irresponsible, woolly-minded, indecisive, slip-shod attitude and the deaths of 45 million people.



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

No... The oil pipeline is one of those talking points that ranks up there with the US or NATO trying to surround iran and now Russia with bases.



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 09:11 AM
link   
Yes, we are. Yes, we will continue to do so. Yes, we want to.

And yes, Syria is "worth it" to those in power. Syria , under Assad, is Iran's biggest ally in the region. If Israel were to attack Iran, Syria would attack Israel. We want Israel to attack Iran, because Iran sells oil to Russia for rubles, not dollars. That weakens our financial control of the oil market, and by extension our International Reserve Currency status. If we lose that status, we're bankrupt as a country and the dollar becomes worthless overnight. If that collapse happens, there will be a revolt that will probably dethrone the powers who have pulling our strings for so long.

We destroyed Iraq and allowed the rise of ISIS over Iraq covertly selling oil to Russia (for rubles) to circumvent sanctions we placed because Sadam Hussein attacked our interests in Kuwait to try and protect Iraq's interests.

We instigated the Arab Springs by arming rebels when leaders threatened to accept Euros for their oil.

We destabilized a democratic Iranian government by assisting the Shahs in overthrowing it, because Iran's parliament wanted to break from US controlled oil export regulations. Then when the puppet government failed, we hid the Shah and allowed Iran to take our people hostage.

This is all about money. All about the dollar. All about power. If it takes a nuclear war to maintain the financial status quo, so be it. TPTB care not for lives of peasants and commoners. They'll just let us breed more to serve them. They care about power and money.

Yes. The answer is yes.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Well they seem to have gotten there feathers all ruffled up over something or another, hence the posturing on both sides.

Personally i think its about misdirection because lets face it nobody wins in a modern nuclear conflict.

Im in the UK, Glasgow, near enough to Faslane so if it does go breasts up me and my family are pretty much screwed, same with the rest of the UK which by comparison to the rest of the the nuclear capable nations is nothing more than a tiny small island. 1 ICBM with around six warheads and we are toast!

Hopefully really and in all probability nuclear conflict will never take place in our lifetime. Had enough of the coldwar bull crap when i was in school, certainly don't wish it for my children.
edit on 18-10-2016 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Its ok the city I live in is where the bulk of US rail traffic is routed west so we are a first strike target as well. I think we stand a chance of N. korea popping off a nuke before Russia - US doing it.

However giving into russia demands while they constantly threaten the use of nukes is a dangerous precedent to set.



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Suppose we could always ignore them and dismiss there outrageous notions of using such weaponry as stupid and arcane.

Thing with that through is at some point, some silly little man(or woman
) in charge with small penis syndrome/envy may take the huff and possibly press the button just to make a point, don't know who would be around to appreciate the madness all the same.



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra
1) Argentina and Germany did not have 5000 odd nukes that could wipe us from the map.

2) The Falkland was UK SORVRIGN territory. Syria does not belong to the USA or UK.

3) Syria literally has NOTHING to do with us!

4) It all well and good to criticize Chamberlain in hind sight. But he was working with what knowledge and resources he had at the time. In fact I would say he did the right thing in trying diplomatic channels first. Remember it was the UK who did declare war on Germany once it was clear appeasement was not working. Using Chamberlain as an excuse to jump into war at any opportunity over any reason is PATHETIC!

5) Sanctions have a very high likely hood of toppling Putin without any military action.


6) I do not want to die over a pathtic civil war and superpower dick waving.



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Spacespider
a reply to: AnkhMorpork

If only Putin could settle with the land Russia have now.. and leave everyone alone
And if only US could settle with the land US have now.. and leave everyone alone
Everyone should just mind there own business, and stop dragging civilians into darkness.


But Ukraine used to belong to Russia right? www.npr.org...



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: gunshooter

Think it was the neanderthals there first.


en.wikipedia.org... History of Ukraine



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Imagine Russia was the US and joined the EU, supporting a thrown over of the government in mexico (Ukraine example) sanctions the US, building a missile shield next to their border.. with their whole media circus behind them (like they do now against Trump, making sure Hillary will win)... Where the US only spends like 50 billion /year on defense while Russia spends over 700 billion / year... where they support terrorists/rebels, have started many wars in that same region, where they are responsible for the chaos which since 2002 (war against Iraq) is out of control.. a war much longer then wwII already....

Of course I could go on but it's no miracle Russia is getting nervous...., so with Hillary in charge soon.. Iran is probably next and then a change of some nuke war, at least.. with Putin and Hillary there is some change with that.
edit on 18-10-2016 by Pluginn because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 11:40 AM
link   
nope, russia's invasion of the ukraine and basic annexing of crimea started, what really isn't much of a mess.
many homosexuals on this site and elsewhere act scared, due to a lack of education.
we aren't even close to a nuclear war.



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: CJCrawley

Sanctions would have never been placed if Russia had not invaded / occupied parts of Ukraine.

The sanctions are a direct result of Russian action and not a catalyst of Russian action.


I'm not disagreeing with that. Russia is a bad country. It has a bad record. During WW2 all we hear about is Germany invading Russia and killing a lot of Russians, but the fact is that Russia was an aggressive nation and invaded no fewer than SIX countries during those years without provocation (Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Romania). It also, cravenly, declared war on a beaten Japan, right after Japan had surrendered to the US. And let's not forget the non-aggression treaty it had with Nazi Germany before the latter turned against it. In terms of numbers killed, Stalin was a far worse dictator than Hitler.

If ever there was a reason to go to war with Russia, it was THEN.

But Britain and France had too much on their plate with Germany, and the USA was asleep. We missed the boat.

It's a different world now, and Russia just happens to be sitting on top of the biggest nuclear arsenal, some 8000 missiles. Enough to kill every man, woman, and child on the planet. It doesn't even need to launch them, just detonating them would poison the planet with fallout and kill everyone.

We have no choice; we have to negotiate with this pariah state, or we all die.



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok


If the UK and USA frooze all the Russian oligarchs asets, putin would very quickly eat a bullet.


Either that or start a war.

Big gamble.



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: stinkelbaum

What does homosexuality have to do with the situation and why should they act scared?

Gay people bust into flames in nuclear fire and die just like the rest of us, you see we are made of the same stuff.

We should all be scared that we even have the capacity to annihilate one another in such a fashion.



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


However giving into russia demands while they constantly threaten the use of nukes is a dangerous precedent to set.


What are Russia demanding? I don't see them demanding anything.

It's no surprise that they threaten with nukes. The US would win in any other type of confrontation.



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: midicon

Russia still has a an effective tank and APC force that could quite possibly sweep through NATO defenses. We might have a hard time stopping them without resorting to the use of tactical nukes ourselves. Just a thought.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join