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.

 

Russia: We’ll Nuke ‘Aggressors’ First

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solomons
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.


Actually read a few posts back - the US doesn't openly have a first strike policy.

The perception of weakness emboldens hardliners to push for more concessions than they might otherwise have.

That doesn't necessarily mean nuclear war, or that Russia is fearless.

infolurker made an excellent point a couple posts back about diplomacy being like a chess game.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by john124]




posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by john124
reply to post by Amagnon
 


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


I was referring to your general approach to the deployment of the US military - not necessarily on this particular thread - and how you perceive it has the right to do whatever it likes regardless of other nations peaceful intent or national sovereignty.

Its an observation - not an argument.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Amagnon
 



I was referring to your general approach to the deployment of the US military - not necessarily on this particular thread - and how you perceive it has the right to do whatever it likes regardless of other nations peaceful intent or national sovereignty.

Its an observation - not an argument.


Hmm, I haven't said anything of the sort, so yeah it's all strawman again.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Anybody here in the military before the Berlin Wall fell?

Anybody remember the Russian Bear? Mutually assured destruction? Regular probes of our airspace by Russian bombers? Nukes targeted at every major city in both countries and their allies? A Europe that still realized that they needed the US to keep the USSR on the other side of the Iron Curtain?

This isn't a fairy tale told by old men and movies. This was all real and not too long ago. The world hasn't evolved and changed for the better in these intervening 20 years. It's just gotten more selfish, myopic and a lot better at aiming long range missiles.

The Russians aren't any more civilized than they ever were and we aren't either, contrary to what the media would have you believe.

The main difference is that the Russians still know that the enemy is outside of their own borders and see defence as a necessary evil. They will do what it takes to protect their own up to and including nuclear war.

The US, on the other hand, has learned to trust everybody that has a vested interest in the dismantling of America and has turned on the very citizens and taxpayers that once were the core of US military might and power.

The Russians see an opportunity and know that the US is bloodied weakened and sabotaged from within. They know that the US will soon be rendered ineffective by the present powers that be, to achieve or accomplish anything concrete or substantial when it comes to international policy.

They are waiting with smiles on their faces as the citizens of what was once the greatest country in the world are betrayed by their own government.

So, who cares if they rattle their sabers a bit?

It isn't a sign of anything new. It just means they feel more confident now that they are facing a weakened US with an administration that hates us as much as they do.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Wow! I'm failing to see the violation in Dooper's post mods. I thought that was a colorful expression of opinion that was within the rules.


We need to stand strong and be very weary of letting other powers run the show that do not have our best interest at heart. If you live in the wild west where everyone carries a gun it would behoove you to not carry a gun also.

Russia clearly is not considering disarmament, they are going the other way in fact.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   
I think my hope that there is a nuke aimed at the Big House on the east coast is just a dream. Alas. I still dream.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by badgerprints
 


I remember those days quite well as I was assigned to CENTAG in West Germany. It was a "better time" as we were the "Defenders" of Western Freedom and not the "aggressors of the great money pits" in the worthless sand. (Don't get me wrong, frag and LEAVE is my motto, playing blue helmet nation building duty USED to be one of the biggest deployment fears in my day).

We should remember who the "big" enemies are and be vigilant. We used to train to fight a head on war with a major power, now we have been distracted with house to house "policing" raids to seize weapons or find individual insurgents. We perform air strikes without ADA defenses firing back. I sure hope our new military trains to fight a real enemy in the field with it's own air-power and navy. I fear were getting soft when it comes to this type of training.




[edit on 14-10-2009 by infolurker]



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Central Asia is certainly a chess game - with Iran on the edge of the field and the US moving deeper into the area - but suddenly it appears that the money spigot might be getting turned off at a critical time.

The western controllers should be thinking about an exit strategy from Afghanistan - not reinforcing it - it should also be thinking how to get out of Georgia without losing the Caspian line.

I think - at this moment, the controllers would have to concede that there is nothing further they can do about Iran - and should look at diplomatic alternatives - or they will potentially lose the entire middle east. However - I just don't see that in the play book - so it will be interesting to see what they can pull out of the hat to make it so.

If it is a military strike - then I think it will be dumbest move ever made - but it might be the last gasp of desperate men. I pray for Iran that it is not the move they make.

I think if Israel keeps up the rhetoric against Iran - they will just alienate themselves from the west entirely, making it impossible for the controllers to help them even if they wanted to.

The game is turning at a rapid rate - and the US should be shoring up its bastions of strength and striking deals before the money spigot runs completely dry.

They have one last ace in the hand - which is crashing the financial system completely - and they appear to be going to play it. But I think everything they intended to achieve by it has slipped through their fingers - the silver in Barclays bank will be some consolation though - and I don't know if Germany has got its gold back either.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Amagnon
 


Americans have always been "the human defense shields" of our allies in which we have bases thus making it almost impossible to invade without killing us first (which would cause an outcry with the American population and lead to war with the U.S.) This is what we did in Europe and Asia during the cold war. The North Koreans could not invade South Korea without killing thousands of American defenders. Of course the North Koreans could have broken through our small defense force but at what cost? Yeah.. .their destruction. Same in Germany (Fulda Gap anyone).

The problem is we "payed" our allies rent to be "human shields". We cannot afford that anymore but the concept does work. I think it is time to get paid to be human shields and to provide that US umbrella for them if they want it. We cannot afford to pull almost all of the weight any longer. If they don't want us there we have plenty of places to redeploy our troops on the US southern border.



[edit on 14-10-2009 by infolurker]



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by john124





posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 10:07 PM
link   
The removed post was a clear violation of the T&C. It was vulgar and insulting without offering useful information. It's not the opinion that got it removed, but the obscene manner in which the opinion was presented.

As for Obama's "weakness". It is a mistake to confuse patience and mildness with weakness. Obama is out mending fences, trying to undo the damage Bush caused. He's not giving away the store. We've all still got plenty of nukes to eradicate the human race if we want to, so don't worry.

The proposed nuclear first strike policy of Russia is worrisome, however. The logic behind a policy of *not* using it is simple. An aggressor is much less likely to attack if it knows you won't nuke them without the attack. If you're having an argument, you know that as long as you don't throw a punch, they won't - at least, not with nukes.

Without that, if you're getting steamed, you have no assurance that Russia won't just up and decide to sucker punch you before you see it coming. Knowing that, you're much more likely to ty to sucker punch them first.

One of the most important things in the world that we can do as a planet, is not use our nuclear weapons. Anything that makes it more likely they'll be used, is a bad thing.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   
The words "First Strike" is just begging for negativity among people. I don't think Putin cares anyway. But still, using words like "Liberate the (insert aggressor's name here)", or "Bringing [eternal] Peace to (insert aggressor's name here", or other forms of veiled threats will make it less nefarious.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by chiron613
Obama is out mending fences, trying to undo the damage Bush caused. He's not giving away the store. We've all still got plenty of nukes to eradicate the human race if we want to, so don't worry.


Obama is Bush on steroids. He's making all of the same mistakes bigger and badder but he's added a lot of new ones and now he's shown our enemies (yes, enemies) that he will give up power in order to gain popularity abroad.


Originally posted by chiron613
Without that, if you're getting steamed, you have no assurance that Russia won't just up and decide to sucker punch you before you see it coming. Knowing that, you're much more likely to ty to sucker punch them first.


So, by your reasoning, we already know that Russia is prepared to attack with nukes so the smart thing to do is disarm ourselves so they won't?

Really?



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by infolurker
reply to post by Amagnon
 


Americans have always been "the human defense shields" of our allies in which we have bases thus making it almost impossible to invade without killing us first (which would cause an outcry with the American population and lead to war with the U.S.) This is what we did in Europe and Asia during the cold war. The North Koreans could not invade South Korea without killing thousands of American defenders. Of course the North Koreans could have broken through our small defense force but at what cost? Yeah.. .their destruction. Same in Germany (Fulda Gap anyone).

The problem is we "payed" our allies rent to be "human shields". We cannot afford that anymore but the concept does work. I think it is time to get paid to be human shields and to provide that US umbrella for them if they want it. We cannot afford to pull almost all of the weight any longer. If they don't want us there we have plenty of places to redeploy our troops on the US southern border.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by infolurker]


Allies - nice way of putting it. You might be surprised to find out how few nations want to be occupied by the US - and how many will cheer when your troops leave their lands.

I suggest your southern border would become well guarded if you gave nations a choice about being occupied or not.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Amagnon
 


Well, what nation / government over the last 20 years has "asked / requested" Americans to leave?

France? We left. (Well, long over 20 years ago)

The Philipines did and we left.
www.highbeam.com...


U.S. Military Ends Role in Philippines; After 94 Years, Navy Leaves With Parade, Tears, Questions

The United States today formally handed over to the Philippines its last military base in Southeast Asia, lowering the American flag over an airfield attached to Subic Bay Naval Station.

The emotional ceremony, ending 94 years of American military presence in the Philippines, closed a base that U.S. Ambassador Richard Solomon hailed as "a vital link in the defense of freedom" in the world over the decades.

President Fidel Ramos, after witnessing the raising of a huge Philippine flag at the site, called for a review of the two countries' Mutual Defense Treaty "in the context of the post-Cold War era." He said U.S. ship visits and joint military exercises would continue under a 1951 treaty.


Now Subic Bay was a HUGE strategic US base.

Seriously, what U.S. Ally has requested the U.S. to leave and the U.S. has not? Serious question.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by infolurker]



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by john124
 


I saw that...

www.youtube.com...

I was curious at first, who was Russia referencing, but then I realized Russia was just saying that they would nuke first if they had too, like "We, Russia, will nuke someone first if we have to, just sayin'...." Kind of funny, nuclear war.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by pluckynoonez]



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by chiron613
 


Obama is a beta male who exudes weakness, uncertainty, and vanity.

The Soviets thought Kennedy was weak and uncertain, and we came within hours of a nuclear exchange.

Chamberlain was considered weak and foolish, wanting to avoid war at all costs and . . . whoops! He got a war anyway.

Carter was a fairy, and what an international embarassment he was. Oh yeah - that was Iran I believe.

That's precisely how wars start. A chiken**** and someone makes a mistake in judgment, and wants to try him.

And you see, I didn't think calling Obama a poodle was a violation of the T&C. Some folks are more sensitive than others.

But it looks kinda cool - that warning.

Color coordinates with my Avatar colors.

Does anyone know of any way to keep that one on there?



[edit on 15-10-2009 by dooper]



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


Stop being proud of the ignorant things you do.

But I am sure you will find a way to get more of them when that one wears off.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by infolurker
reply to post by Amagnon
 


Well, what nation / government over the last 20 years has "asked / requested" Americans to leave?

France? We left. (Well, long over 20 years ago)

The Philipines did and we left.
www.highbeam.com...


U.S. Military Ends Role in Philippines; After 94 Years, Navy Leaves With Parade, Tears, Questions

The United States today formally handed over to the Philippines its last military base in Southeast Asia, lowering the American flag over an airfield attached to Subic Bay Naval Station.

The emotional ceremony, ending 94 years of American military presence in the Philippines, closed a base that U.S. Ambassador Richard Solomon hailed as "a vital link in the defense of freedom" in the world over the decades.

President Fidel Ramos, after witnessing the raising of a huge Philippine flag at the site, called for a review of the two countries' Mutual Defense Treaty "in the context of the post-Cold War era." He said U.S. ship visits and joint military exercises would continue under a 1951 treaty.


Now Subic Bay was a HUGE strategic US base.

Seriously, what U.S. Ally has requested the U.S. to leave and the U.S. has not? Serious question.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by infolurker]


What about Germany?
I am very surprised no one has mentioned Israel's aggressive posture concerning 'first strike" against Iran.
Maybe they are poor shots and might hit Russia. Maybe it is a warning to them. Since America has embraced Zionism all it's allies have said Bye Bye.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join