Russia: We’ll Nuke ‘Aggressors’ First

www.wired.com...

Russia is weighing changes to its military doctrine that would allow for a “preventive” nuclear strike against its enemies — even those armed only with conventional weapons. The news comes just as American diplomats are trying to get Russia to cut down its nuclear stockpile, and put the squeeze on Iran’s suspect nuclear program.

In an interview published today in Izvestia, Nikolai Patrushev, the secretary of the Kremlin’s security council, said the new doctrine offers “different options to allow the use of nuclear weapons, depending on a certain situation and intentions of a would-be enemy. In critical national security situations, one should also not exclude a preventive nuclear strike against the aggressor.”

What’s more, Patrushev said, Russia is revising the rules for the employment of nukes to repel conventionally armed attackers, “not only in large-scale, but also in a regional and even a local war.”

Gulp. If I were in Georgia — or in any other country Russia considers part of its sphere of influence — that formulation would make me pretty anxious.

The Russian Federation is considering the “first strike” option as part of a larger overhaul of military doctrine. The new doctrine, which is supposed to be presented to President Dmitry Medvedev later this year, is supposed to provide “flexible and timely” responses to national security threats.

The United States and Russia may prepping to negotiate a new strategic arms reduction treaty after President Obama declared a “reset” in relations between Moscow and Russia. But Patrushev, apparently, didn’t get the memo. In the interview, he takes a swipe at the United States and NATO, saying that the alliance “continues to press for the admission of new members to NATO, the military activities of the bloc are intensifying, and U.S. strategic forces are conducting intensive exercises to improve the management of strategic nuclear weapons.”

In other words, Moscow is holding to a hard line, precisely at a time when Washington is trying to play nice. The administration wants the Kremlin’s help — to pressure Iran, to revive the arms-control process — but the bear still needs to brandish nukes.

Russia won't ever allow Ukraine to join NATO, and would take whatever steps to prevent it:

Ukraine fears for its future as Moscow muscles in on Crimea

I can't believe over in Britain a few weeks ago a few politicians were discussing about our total nuclear disarmament of the few hundred nukes we have.

This rhetoric from Russia is possibly linked to a new treaty that could become more favourable to them:

www.dailytimes.com.pk...\10\15\story_15-10-2009_pg4_5

Russian and US negotiators are now working furiously to agree on new arms cuts of their nuclear arsenal before a key Cold War-era disarmament treaty expires on December 5. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reiterated the joint drive to achieve new arms reductions by this deadline after talks in Moscow this week. Clinton stressed to Russian university students on Wednesday that their country’s prosperity was dependent on its willingness to cultivate core freedoms, including the freedom to participate in the political process.

“Citizens must be empowered to help formulate the laws under which they live,” she told about 2,000 students at Moscow State University. “They need to know that their investments of time, money and intellectual property will be safeguarded by the institutions of government.” Clinton wrapped up a five-day tour of Europe with a series of informal meetings in Moscow and the Russian republic of Tatarstan aimed at helping redefine US-Russian relations.

In and interview to a Russian radio station on Wednesday, Clinton said the United States will continue to support and train Georgia’s military despite Russian objections. “Georgia is providing troops in Afghanistan and we are training troops to be able to go to Afghanistan,” Clinton told the Echo of Moscow radio. “We will help the Georgian people to feel like they can protect themselves,” she added, without giving further details. Despite a thaw in Russian-US relations, Clinton admitted that Georgia was a policy area on which Washington and Moscow did not see eye-to-eye.

Russia Officially Declares Right to Nuke Potential Aggressor

Report: Russia to allow pre-emptive nukes

Russian's also claim this: Barack Obama inherited capability for global nuclear strike

[edit on 14-10-2009 by john124]

Originally posted by dooper
This newfound attitude is a direct result of our pansy President who in addition to his international apology tour, upon meeting every foreign leader, spoons out the KY, applies, and grabs his ankles.

In a world of wolves and jackyls, we're stuck with a damned poodle.

Precisely, the world hasn't changed as much as Obama thinks or wishes it to. It's still a world of the strongest will survive. Everyone can see Obama's weaknesses, and will push and push until the US gives in to any demand. This today, tomorrow could be China telling the US to leave Taiwan, or eventually something as dangerous as that.

reply to post by dooper


You may have just made yourself my absolute favorite poster on ATS. You were running in second before today.

Obama will probably get rid our nukes to set an example then cross his fingers and pray that the other guys follow his kind example.

We should pass an amendment banning Liberals from office, if only for the sake of our survival.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by StinkyFeet]

"Preventive” or "preemptive" strike are just different words for "attack." The US has been practicing this for quite a while now, in Iraq for ONE example. Why is it wrong for rest of the world take advantage of the same wording? Did they not think the word could be just as easily applied to nukes? You lead by example and this is the example we've given the world.

Mod Edit: Removed Off Topic Post

Mod Note: ATS Gripe/Idea – Please Use This Link.


Back on topic.

Obama is like most liberals, a talker and dreamer, not someone who actually gets his hands dirty. The more the world catches on to his weakness the harder they will push.

[edit on 10/14/2009 by semperfortis]

The US has also had this policy of nuke first and give a rat's later if the situation should call for it. I am almost surprised it was not implemented over 9/11. I am pretty sure it was discussed at one point during the day, especially during Air Force One's semi-national tour.

Although I am really not liking the full US weapon inspection of the nuclear arsenal. While unlikely, I would like to believe we still have a couple of launch/storage sites that are in a hidden/mobile location.

But in the event of a foreign invasion and the military was ordered to stand down, I wonder just how secure the security would be at various military bases that have equipment to citizens that came as a rag-tag minuteman militia?

reply to post by Ahabstar


I think it's more the timing of the Russian announcement that could be alarming, as if to stir up further tensions between themselves and Georgia & Ukraine. They may also want a more favourable new arms reduction treaty in December, and more concessions over Iran. Obama's weak foreign policies will make the Russian's more bold in their approaches. In the end, that makes the world a more dangerous place, and contradictory of his nobel peace prize.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by john124]

There will be 2 ways to look at this. 1) Is that with the decline of the Soviet Union, the security of the Russian nuclear weapons has deteriorated, and its arsenal is falling apart from a lack of maintence. The new policy would mean that they would take the steps to secure and upgrade the weapon systems. 2) It is showing a new hardlined position by the Russian Dumas, and their willingness to use such a horrid weapon. Words have to be carefully spoken to avoid any mishaps. Somehow I think that they may be dusting and reinstalling the red phone again.

Mod Note: ATS Gripe/Idea – Please Use This Link.


On topic, I feel the same way, or president is being way to soft in order to try and make everyone happy. No we shouldnt go around starting a bunch of wars. But we shouldnt give in to everyones demands at the same time.

[edit on 10/15/2009 by semperfortis]

*Snip*
Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

I'm sure you guys share an office.

Interesting development - and more interesting the rhetoric associated with it.

I think the US should have a good long think about staying in Georgia - the Russians can get the Caspian line anytime they want - and I think if theres a move on Iran - they probably will - but if they get to Georgia - they won't be stopping for sandwiches and cake.

This clarifies the one division in the globalists - Russia seems to outside the Rothschilds sphere now - that can only be to the benefit of the west.

I think time is now on the side of the rest of the world regarding US imperialism - it is unlikely the US will be able to maintain its bases and troops as they are currently - so a lot of these hotspots will become non issues as the US must negotiate while it retains some strength - if not it will likely be forced to withdraw with nothing if it waits too long.

First strike is certainly a provocative move - you dont play that card with a weak hand.

I see people throwing blame on Obama - and I think that is naive. It is the scum controllers who have managed to rape themselves with the economic collapse that has opened the door to stronger positions from Russia and China.

Obama is just a tool - and now it seems the financial power is evaporating from the west, and by extension its ability to fund its military - negotiation now is a better option than ignominious withdrawal later.

[edit on 10/15/2009 by semperfortis]

reply to post by Ahabstar


Actually here's what Clinton said:

english.pravda.ru...

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in an interview with Echo of Moscow radio station that the USA did not permit a nuclear first-strike under its own military guidelines.

I suppose publicly and privately are two different things, but for the Russian's to make this announcement is obviously trying to stir up trouble, and get some more concessions.

reply to post by Amagnon

the three merry warmonger neocon agents themselves.

In this non-perfect world there's a balance that's required between both ideals.

You may as well give up the straw-man argument, as the intelligent people here aren't going to be fooled by it.



[edit on 14-10-2009 by john124]

reply to post by Amagnon

Wow - what a surprise Dooper, Stinky and John124 - all on top of this issue and post - the three merry warmonger neocon agents themselves.

I'm sure you guys share an office.

I just want to say that I am honored to be mentioned in the same breath as Dooper and John124. Thank you!

As far as this goes, they way I see it is sometimes threatening each other with nukes keeps both sides honest, so if its peace you want this isn't all bad.

Sometimes the threat of nuclear annihilation is a good war detterent.

Originally posted by john124
reply to post by Amagnon

 

the three merry warmonger neocon agents themselves.

In this non-perfect world there's a balance that's required between both ideals.

You may as well give up the straw-man argument, as the intelligent people here aren't going to be fooled by it.



[edit on 14-10-2009 by john124]

Whats the strawman argument your referring to? That Obama is a tool?

Honestly - if you want to beat him over the head and blame him for everything be my guest - he is a useless, stuttering pile of crap as far as I'm concerned. He is just a powerless, useless stuttering pile of crap - so no point even discussing his total irrelevance.

reply to post by john124


Ok...so Obama is a pansy in your eyes.Does that negate the fact that America still has thousands of nuclear weapons and a first strike policy? Your president could be friggin winnie the pooh and any country would still be quaking in their little boots regarding America's military capabilities.

reply to post by Amagnon


Well, I am not the definition of "neocon" by far but I am a "hawk" on foreign policy.

In my opinion, the Obama administration looked "very weak" when they announced the "dumping" of the missile shield and got NOTHING from it. Now the Russians are fighting us on Iran and we have made our Eastern European allies fearful of the lack of ongoing U.S. support.

Nobody said we had to actually "deploy" the damned thing, we could have announced a "delay" in the deployment and continued to play the bluff for a concession.

Diplomacy is a 2 way street, giving something for nothing is just damned naive. Yes, naive is a good description, reminds me of Jimmy Carter back in the day.

Diplomacy with the Russians has ALWAYS been like a chess game. You have to trade away the pieces, sacrificing the pieces to secure theirs. To "give away" the bishop to his pawn and not even take the damned pawn is foolish, especially if you have weakened your position on the board by doing it. This is how the Russians think, first they will try and understand why the hell your doing something so dumb and if they can't find an "angle" they will laugh and have a drink. One concession given and none taken, best diplomacy ever. I would have at least invited MEDVEDEV to a secret meeting and then announced it (thus possibly driving a wedge between him an Putin) and make it look like Medvedev promised something.

Back to topic - The Russians are BLUFFING just as we did during the Cuban Missile Crisis and the "Reagan build-up". We bankrupted the Russians during the Reagan days by "Bluffing" on the star wars defense shield AND the Politburo was fully convinced that Reagan would perform a preemptive first strike if provoked..... They are now doing it to us.





[edit on 14-10-2009 by infolurker]

Originally posted by StinkyFeet
reply to post by Amagnon

 

Wow - what a surprise Dooper, Stinky and John124 - all on top of this issue and post - the three merry warmonger neocon agents themselves.

I'm sure you guys share an office.

I just want to say that I am honored to be mentioned in the same breath as Dooper and John124. Thank you!

As far as this goes, they way I see it is sometimes threatening each other with nukes keeps both sides honest, so if its peace you want this isn't all bad.

Sometimes the threat of nuclear annihilation is a good war detterent.

Surprisingly - we agree on something. Personally I would have nukes in every country of the world - then nobody gets a free lunch - ie. gets to run over some poor bastages who can't defend themselves.

reply to post by Amagnon


The strawman argument was the accusation of "warmongering" on the basis that I called Obama weak.