Putin urges Russian nuclear weapons boost

a reply to: seagull

The US used Hitler as an excuse to occupy Europe--again--when was the first time????

WWI, US came in at the end so they could share in the spoils.

Stalin stayed in Eastern Europe because the US didn't leave Western Europe, either. Said so.

Stated that Eastern Europe would remain a buffer from now on to prevent what Hitler did ever happening again.

Well they left and look what happened. Who occupies eastern Europe now? NATO.

a reply to: seagull

You know, seagull, I thought about a discussion of what a "boosting/expansion" of nuclear capabilities meant for Putin and for Trump. I was going to wonder if Putin's was more about defensive nukes and Trump's tactical nukes. Then I thought, what the hell, we won't survive any nuclear use!!! It's insane to discuss nuclear weapons use, back in the 1950s as well as the year 2016!!! Either man lets one bomb go off, I put my head between my legs, kiss my a## goodbye and wait for the retaliation.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: whismermill
a reply to: intrptr

oh please. The resentment with many Eastern Europeans towards Russia is huge. A result of 50 years of SU-occupation. The baltic, Poland, all urge NATO to do more to protect them against the Russian Bear.

Mmm Hmm yes, all countries just love to be occupied by foreign armies. Painting their cities with a big target for the next war.

Save it for the warmongers, they'll be along...

And the only foreign armies to occupy European countries were Soviet and it was deeply resented.

You can spout all the "I love Putin" nonsense you like here and some people are clearly too dumb to read a goddam history BOOK (yes BOOK not Google) to know the truth. But most of us are not that stupid.

a reply to: intrptr

Sharing in the spoils? What spoils were these, again. ...and that's not occupy, just to be picky. As I recall, the US got a few battleships, none of which were ever used as anything other than target practice, not much spoil there...

Total German reparations were, as agreed upon by both the US and German govts, 26.35 billion US dollars, per the Young Plan. Final reparations occurred in 2010, I think.

In point of fact, the US was against both France and Great Britain's plans to totally ruin Germany, not that it did much good as France, in particular, and Great Britain were bound and determined to punish Germany...thus setting the table for the second world war...and the second, according to you, occupation by the US.

a reply to: desert

It all depends on the extent of use, but it's really up to how Trump wants to use nukes.

PD-59 In Full Effect.

Designed to Give President More Choices in Nuclear Conflict than "All-Out Spasm War" White House Officials Envisioned Prolonged Nuclear Conflict Where High-Tech Intelligence Systems Provided a "Look-Shoot-Look" Capability Leak of PD-59 Exposed White House Exclusion of State Department in National Security Decisions

nsarchive.gwu.edu...

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: seagull

The US used Hitler as an excuse to occupy Europe--again--when was the first time????

WWI, US came in at the end so they could share in the spoils.

Stalin stayed in Eastern Europe because the US didn't leave Western Europe, either. Said so.

Stated that Eastern Europe would remain a buffer from now on to prevent what Hitler did ever happening again.

Well they left and look what happened. Who occupies eastern Europe now? NATO.

Jesus H you actually believe that! You need help. Tell you what post here the list of people put in internment camps without trial by NATO.......it's OK no need to wait the number is BAG FAT F..ING ZERO. Now how about the number interned by the soviets......Oh dear the list is massive....and that's just the ones that died!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are deluded fool. But a dangerous one because you hide behind ATS "terms of discussion" to validate your views.

a reply to: intrptr

I've got to agree that you have a really strange version of history in your head. Perhaps some more reading?

It would be nice if people talked about WWI, in a thread about WWI.

Thanks.

a reply to: desert

A return to, if we ever really left, MAD. That's all, and I don't mean to sound factious when I say that, either. Mutually Assured Destruction worked--sort of. Yes, proxy wars raged around the world, and that sucks...but nuclear war did not, and that's something to celebrate.

I grew up during the Cold War. I was around when it looked as though it might go hot, not that I remember much, but I knew as a kid what was on the bombers on the bases I lived on. B52's, at SAC bases. You can be pretty sure about their cargo, and on the missiles in the silos my Dad worked in.

a reply to: Hidinout

“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”
Albert Einstein

a reply to: GodEmperor

it's really up to how Trump wants to use nukes.

“The issue is escalation.....We’ve gotten very used to bombing countries, going downtown and working our will” from Baghdad to Belgrade, Wilson said. When the target has nuclear weapons, however, even using America’s fading conventional superiority starts looking a lot more dangerous.

No Longer Unthinkable: Should US Ready For ‘Limited’ Nuclear War?

As for a Pres Trump....he's said it might "not be such a bad thing" if South Korea and Japan were to develop their own nuclear weapons for self-defense. Trump is clueless.

a reply to: seagull

I think everyone who grew up around that time was affected in some way or another. The bomb shelter plans for backyards. Watching one's parents nervously watching the nightly news. The school drills. .... we prepared for the worst, but as we would find out later, nothing we did could really have prepared us for the worst, as the worst was worse than we would have thought. The worst is unthinkable.

a reply to: intrptr

WWI, US came in at the end so they could share in the spoils. Stalin stayed in Eastern Europe because the US didn't leave Western Europe, either. Said so. Stated that Eastern Europe would remain a buffer from now on to prevent what Hitler did ever happening again. Well they left and look what happened. Who occupies eastern Europe now? NATO.

Most Eastern European Countries are Free or as Free as can be, Not Russians though or other gobbled up countries under the influence of despot power. Russia is one of the few countries where the population is going down except for maybe the 10%
who cream all the spoils, 136th most corrupt country in the world I read somewhere today along with unbelievable # about testing numerous new weapon systems against the civilians of Syria..
You stay in your Russia maybe you are one of those 10% .. The Donald is talking about building up their nuclear arsenal as well ho ho ho and a merry Christmas to you to.. Just get on with your lives and try to do some good for a change. FFS

a reply to: MissingRUnext

Um ...NOT really WE don't NEED Russia,OR it's problems.
RUSSIA needs the UNITED STATES for our technology and to figure out how to effectively harvest METHANE out of the permafrost,in order to synthesize Rocket fuel.
The Siberian area would be least effected but a heavy lift space port.

a reply to: intrptr

For some strange reason it seems, every hundred years or so the west goes crazy and has to attack Russia.

Are we building a weapon that can take out satellites and U.S. equipment in space?
Who is doing that? Let me think. Oh. Putin.

a reply to: desert

Thousands upon thousands of nuclear weapons have been detonated since the end of WWII.

The most noticeable affects has been the rise in thyroid cancers, and up until the end of nuclear testing a rising UV index.

If the US has the capabilities to counter a nuclear attack, the use of nuclear weapons would be a very strategic advantage.

It's not as bad as you would think, most rural areas would be left untouched in a nuclear strike was targeted against the US. Basically mostly blue areas on the 2016 presidential political map would be under threat.

After WWII, the threat of Communist Russia and nuclear war, was used as a means of maintaining high production levels among workers. I believe Trump and Putin calling for an increase in nuclear arsenals, is focused more on increasing productivity, rather than any actual nuclear armed conflict.

With that said, a global nuclear war would be good for humanity in the long-term. Global wars are the best times for technological advancement, and consolidation of territory into forming a global state. We will finally have the ability to colonize space shortly after the next world war(which has technically already started). It is inevitable, the US would have conquered the Soviet Union right after WWII but was not logistically plausible. It's been the waiting game with the nuclear deterrent, and if nuclear weapons do become employed, it's because we now have the capability to counter nuclear attacks.

Here's something to ponder:



Judging by the visuals, nuclear war would be preferable over another 50 years of democrat rule.

a reply to: GodEmperor

To understand where we are today, and where we'll be tomorrow, one must understand where we were yesterday and how we got to that point. To ignore the mistakes, and learn from them, is to be doomed to repeat them.

WWI and the events of the century preceding are directly related to where we are today vis a vis Russia. Russia has a burning need to be a world power. Catherine, and Peter, Stalin and his follow ons, right through to Vlad "I wanna be the Great" Putin of today all burned for the same thing. Russia's place at the top of the food chain.

You can not ignore the past, if you want to understand the present or the future. Just can't.

a reply to: KnightFire

I found this article interesting because Putin is ramping up his Nuclear Arsenal, yet he has shown his support for new president elect Donald Trump.

It doesn't matter if Putin and Trump are willing to negotiate if global markets continue to plunge and the US petrol dollar is threatened as remaining the accepted world currency.

A) Russia is most likely increasing its nuclear arsenal as an extra layer of protective buffer to deter the USA and NATO from insanely engaging in actual aggressive hand to hand combat warfare.

B) Preparing for the west to actually go full metal jacket.

Geopolitics is akin to a chess game and Putin made a very strong move last month (Nov.2016) and so did China this past April which might cause the USA and NATO to *aggressively* counter that move in the future.

What move did China make?

The Chinese established the Shanghai Gold Exchange early 2016, which immediately began manipulating the global gold, silver and other precious metals market. The opening of 'the Shanghai Gold Exchange' caused huge price increases for both metals (gold and silver) early to mid 2016 which in turn caused ETF investors to dump (sell) gold. Also, the high prices helped create "paper shorts" which drove the price back down in the fall.

What move did Russia make?

ETF investors have been dumping gold the entire month of November. Meanwhile Russia bought 28 tons in November.

'What’s with gold, with the Dow?

To most investors, gold this month was just as surprising as the Trump win. After making a near perfect cycle low at roughly the $1,242 level on October 7 — that I forecast right on cue in accordance with my AI models … gold rallied sharply, also per my AI model forecast.

But then, last week, gold collapsed, taking out its early October cycle low, falling as low as $1,211 as I pen this column. Silver also tanked, as did the share prices of virtually all mining companies. November 16, 2016

edelsonwave.com...

So what makes me curious is, why the sudden public pose to show Russian military might? Reminds me of the old Soviet Days.

The USA control all the major seaways for trade on the planet — this is why the US military industrial complex and China have been engaged in decades long geopolitical disputes over who controls the South China Sea. China controls most of the gold but, the US controls global physical trade. The US dollar is backed by petrol—not gold—and this is why the world reserve currency is the US dollar — the USA controls the Oceans of the world and therefore the flow of petrol throughout the world.

So the question becomes: Are Russia and China attempting and succeeding in changing the petrol-dollar back into gold, as the international monetary standard through their recent actions? Or are they securing funding for a global conflict without being stifled and limited by the petrol dollar?

If WWIII starts—the major seaways for trade will also be disturbed—including the flow of petrol.

Russia and China's gold dealings are demonstrating that they are preparing for a potential western backlash — an attack on them.

"We need to strengthen the military potential of strategic nuclear forces, especially with missile complexes that can reliably penetrate any existing and prospective missile defence systems," the Kremlin strongman said. ......

The scary thing is: Russia, China, Iran will bring this war right to North American and European soil if it ever does kick off.

U.S imperialism needs to chill out for once before they force hell upon us all.

a reply to: intrptr


Yesterday I read some where that Obama has started to use the old cold war storage facilities in the Netherlands, to fill them up with tanks again.

a reply to: seagull

Russia has a burning need to be a world power. Catherine, and Peter, Stalin and his follow ons, right through to Vlad "I wanna be the Great" Putin of today all burned for the same thing. Russia's place at the top of the food chain.

If it weren't for the Russians the Nazi's would of won the war. The Russian were the key to winning WWII for the west.

I believe the Russians want what Fidel's Cuba; African nations; South and East Asia; Central and South America; and the Middle Eastern nations want: imperialism and oppression to just end. It has nothing to do with being on top of the global food chain and more to do with respecting self-determination without imperialist agendas that destroy the true currency of life for ordinary people across the globe.

If any nation has a burning need to be a world power—it's clearly America. A closer look at the past 60 years of American imperialism — its military industrial complex endless wars, and how its foriegn policy has negatively affected humanity — clearly shows that is true.

I don't have a problem with America being on top the food chain if they possessed the devotion to work for the common good of all of humanity, but they don't.