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: 3
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by BaronVonGodzilla
 

Thank you Prince of Ignorance for your suggestions, but I haven't seen any of your advice worth taking.

The reason the rhetoric has been increased on part of so many foreign powers is the perceived weakness, uncertainty, and outright lack of courage by this current pretender in the White House.

Russia didn't have much to say for many years, but when you get a candiass like Obama in the White House, yes, even France will start talking trash.

This was a specifically designed statement for Obama's big ears.

You wouldn't have heard that comment while GW was if office. He certainly fell short as a President, but when it came to dealing with foreigners, they knew he wouldn't mess around.

The one we have now will fall onto his back and bare his throat.




posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


I agree entirely. And look, the mods removed your previous comment as well. I think there's a witch-hunt going on against you now!


Because of all the Nazi talk against Obama, ATS has become all political correct against almost any kind of criticism.

Were any comments removed that severely attacked Bush's policies?

[edit on 15-10-2009 by john124]



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Video: China forges links with Iran


Wen Jiabao, the Chinese premier, has made it clear he does not agree with Western demands for sanctions over Tehran's disputed nuclear programme, insisting he will maintain "close co-operation" with Iran.

Oil exports account for nearly half of Iran's revenues - being cut off from the West means most is exported to Asian countries – and a big percentage of that to China.

In return China is investing billions in Iran's gas and oil fields.

And as Al Jazeera's Nazanine Moshiri reports from Tehran, the Iranian capital, their trade links are becoming stronger.


Add this to the fuel, and that's some fire to burn in a few weeks!



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   
This is total hyprocisy.

Who has ever used a nuclear weapon against another country? The USA.
The US has a huge nuclear arsinal and yet we have the audacity to tell other countries that they cannot.

If I were the leaders of one of those other countries, I would tell the US where to stick it.

Mind you on a personal note, I am gald that Iran and North Korea does not have nuclear weapons, or do they?



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by cindymars
This is total hyprocisy.

Who has ever used a nuclear weapon against another country? The USA.
The US has a huge nuclear arsinal and yet we have the audacity to tell other countries that they cannot.

If I were the leaders of one of those other countries, I would tell the US where to stick it.

Mind you on a personal note, I am gald that Iran and North Korea does not have nuclear weapons, or do they?


Yep, N.Korea has nukes, and Iran probably are very close to making a nuke.

The Japanese were the aggressors, and that was a long time ago. Do we really want 20th century policies in the 21st century?

Shall we just say yeah it's russia's turn to nuke someone because the US did over 60 years ago. Nobody's saying Russia should get rid of their nukes whilst the west has theirs, but it's stupendously aggressive to publicy announce a first-strike policy, especially since Ukraine and Georgia are in a difficult position. It's ludicrous, and shows a great fear that Russia would lose conventionally to even a moderate sized force.

[edit on 15-10-2009 by john124]



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by john124

Originally posted by cindymars
This is total hyprocisy.

Who has ever used a nuclear weapon against another country? The USA.
The US has a huge nuclear arsinal and yet we have the audacity to tell other countries that they cannot.

If I were the leaders of one of those other countries, I would tell the US where to stick it.

Mind you on a personal note, I am gald that Iran and North Korea does not have nuclear weapons, or do they?


Yep, N.Korea has nukes, and Iran probably are very close to making a nuke.

The Japanese were the aggressors, and that was a long time ago. Do we really want 20th century policies in the 21st century?

Shall we just say yeah it's russia's turn to nuke someone because the US did over 60 years ago. Nobody's saying Russia should get rid of their nukes whilst the west has theirs, but it's stupendously aggressive to publicy announce a first-strike policy, especially since Ukraine and Georgia are in a difficult position. It's ludicrous, and shows a great fear that Russia would lose conventionally to even a moderate sized force.

[edit on 15-10-2009 by john124]


How is Iran close to having nukes, is close like 20 years for you or what?
You know this just as well as i do

But you choose to keep repeating this lie, that makes you a war-mongerer.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by SkurkNilsen
 



How is Iran close to having nukes, is close like 20 years for you or what?
You know this just as well as i do

But you choose to keep repeating this lie, that makes you a war-mongerer.


The UN's own report states that Iran has the components to build a nuke.

Definition of a warmongerer: a person who advocates war or warlike policies.

Recognising a problem is not the same as advocating war. You might eventually understand that.

Is the line between pacifist and warmongerer so narrow for certain ATS members?

It's much better to stick to the issues, rather than attack other members because you simply disagree.

[edit on 15-10-2009 by john124]



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by SkurkNilsen
 


A heads up, an awareness, a focus on fanatic governments is not war-mongering.

I know in France, that appeasement is a national pasttime, but elsewhere, we don't have any problem with enemy identification.

Conflict avoidance is not a solution, though practiced in some European countries, countries without a sense of accomplishment and pride in past conflicts.

Britain didn't have to sink the US navy to keep it from falling into Hitler's hands.

Only one country during that one big conflict was overnight full of collaborators.

Russia fought. Russians are tough.

But after the fall of the Soviet Union, they were mighty quiet for years. And years.

Now that the US has a pansy President, Russia is feeling their oats again.

Since this matter only concerns those nations who not only CAN, but WILL, I don't pay much attention to the observers sitting in the cheap seats.

They haven't bought in.

They have no chips.

Therefore, they can just sit quiet and watch.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by john124
 


Are you refering to the 2003 repport that they have plutonium or do you have something more recent?
A link would be useful.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   
If i were the leader of Russia i would just give Iran about 100 or so nukes, of all sizes and all the associated paraphernalia that goes with them. And tell the west , what are you going to do about it? Nothing. Thats right. Not a damn thing you can do about it except for whine and grovel. I'd send about 50-100k troops along with them as "observers".

Wolves always take the weakest member of the herd. Thanks to our pansy in chief the wolves are now circling the U.S.

[edit on 15-10-2009 by Nicademus]



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nicademus
If i were the leader of Russia i would just give Iran about 100 or so nukes, of all sizes and all the associated paraphernalia that goes with them. And tell the west , what are you going to do about it? Nothing. Thats right. Not a damn thing you can do about it except for whine and grovel. I'd send about 50-100k troops along with them as "observers".

Wolves always take the weakest member of the herd. Thanks to our pansy in chief the wolves are now circling the U.S.

[edit on 15-10-2009 by Nicademus]


Talk like this should light DOPER and crew up like a menorah.
Their unless banter can not divert First Strike fame away from one truly arrogant country. One that if the s$$it hits the fan will be toast. If it takes just a hit or two close to their nuke plant the entire country will evaporate. The worst part is that they are suffocating the only people/ nation that has saved there butt before
and COULD save it again.
Talk about panty waists. BA



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 06:49 AM
link   
Ukraine talking to U.S. on sharing radar data: report


KIEV (Reuters) - Ukraine has begun talks with the United States on the possibility of Washington using information gathered by its radars, Interfax Ukraine cited Kiev's envoy as saying on Thursday.

The news is likely to irk Russia, which is highly sensitive to any hint of U.S. military partnership with former Soviet republics.

Washington last week denied it wanted to station U.S. radar systems in Ukraine, after President Barack Obama scrapped a planned missile shield based in central Europe.

But the U.S. State Department said countries such as Ukraine could contribute early warning information.

"This issue is in the process of working discussions. It is still at a beginning stage," Interfax cited the Ukrainian ambassador to the United States, Oleh Shamshur, as saying. He added previous Ukrainian leaders had backed this idea.

Ukraine's foreign ministry said it had no comment.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said on Thursday he was concerned at the prospect of U.S. talks on missile defense with countries that are not part of the NATO military alliance.

Shamshur suggested Russia had missed its chance to use information from Ukrainian radars. Russia canceled a post-Soviet radar data sharing deal last year, complaining the installations in Ukraine were outdated.

"We are also talking about the question of using our defense radars across Ukraine's territory, which, as you all know, Russia has declined to use," Shamshur was cited as saying.


Well of course they are, Russia threatened to nuke anyone who were unfortunate enough to be involved in a war against them. Ukraine appear next on the Kremlin's wishlist of Russian-constructed wars.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 06:53 AM
link   
Then 6 hours later this is reported:

Reports: Russia warns US on missile defense


MOSCOW — A top Russian diplomat suggested Thursday that the U.S. should not talk with non-NATO nations about a prospective missile shield, Russian news agencies reported.

Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov's remarks appeared to reflect alarm over the idea that Western-leaning neighbors such as Ukraine or Georgia, Russia's foe in a war last year, could potentially host U.S. missile defense facilities.

Ryabkov said Russia is concerned about what he said were contacts between the U.S. and nations outside NATO on missile defense, state-run ITAR-Tass and RIA Novosti reported.

President Barack Obama removed a major irritant in relations with Russia last month by scrapping U.S. plans to place interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic — deployments Russia treated as a threat.

The Kremlin has praised Obama for the decision, but Russian officials have also said they want to know details about what system the U.S. will put in place instead.

Ryabkov's comments served as a warning that the United States should avoid taking steps that would threaten Russia or turning to its neighbors as potential partners in missile defense without consulting with Moscow.

"We are experiencing the concerns that emerge when major questions of strategic stability should be considered in a partner-like manner," he was quoted as saying.

Russia and the U.S. have discussed cooperating on missile defense, and Ryabkov represented Russia in talks on the issue in Moscow on Monday ahead of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's visit.

Ryabkov did not name any specific nations as being in contact with the U.S. about missile defense, but he spoke in response to a question about Russian media reports suggesting the U.S. was in talks with Ukraine on the possibility of using its radar stations as part of a missile shield.

The U.S. has not held negotiations with Ukraine regarding the use of Ukrainian radar stations, a U.S. Defense Department spokesman, Maj. Shawn Turner, said Thursday.

Tensions over Georgia and uncertainty over the future of Ukraine, whose pro-Western president wants the country to join NATO, are hurdles in efforts by Russia and the U.S. to mend strained ties.




[edit on 16-10-2009 by john124]



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 07:13 AM
link   
The world is tired of the atrocities the so-called "land of the free" has committed. Millions dead in Korea, Vietnam, Iran...all for what? The zionist regime.

Only fools in the US are crying for a tighter hand and more killing. As if killing millions of Iraqis over the course of 15 years isn't enough. Where has that gotten the US? No where, except more debt in return for nothing, while the US's own infrastructure falls apart, education system rots, health care system becomes more corrupt. You war hawks are a joke! A joke! Despite the impending economic collapse because the world has turned against you, resulting in a global war, not just military but financial, you buffoon war hawks want more war. Yet, it strikes me as funny that you're so hypocritical as to want more war while safely tucked away behind your computer.

Of course, that's natural coming from a bunch of hypocrites who use freedom for propaganda to continue their war machine. That's why the entire world is turning away from the US. You war hawks are so completely ignorant, thinking you can just bomb everyone into submission. You're basically barbarians, no better than butchers, but you don't even want to do the dirty work.

And that's why everything will be taken from you dumb war hawks. Your money, your land, who you are, and what you are...until you're nothing but a bunch of empty vessels of flesh and blood for the corporate entities to feed upon.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   
This fearmongering by people, especially Americans, about Russia's new nuclear policy is pathetic. Guess what - the US nuclear policy already allows for preemtive strikes. Russia's actions were pretty much to put it's own nuclear operations doctrine on par with the US. If you are so terrified of what the preemptive nuclear strike option entail - then start with petitioning the US government to scrap the current doctrine.

And guess what the US revised its own nuclear policy only a few years ago. You say that Russia's current declaration is to be seen as a threat by Georgia. But how did US's revision make numerous countries labeled under the "Axis of Evil" feel? Given the wars started and threats of wars made by the US in the past decade, and those by Russia, it is very safe to say that the US nuclear strategy threatens far more people around the world than Russia's.



Lets turn the spotlight away from Russia's nuclear doctrine and on the US's shall we:


Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan





Sunday, September 11, 2005

The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to use them to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

...

The draft, dated March 15, would provide authoritative guidance for commanders to request presidential approval for using nuclear weapons, and represents the Pentagon's first attempt to revise procedures to reflect the Bush preemption doctrine. A previous version, completed in 1995 during the Clinton administration, contains no mention of using nuclear weapons preemptively or specifically against threats from weapons of mass destruction.


www.washingtonpost.com...

And here is the document in question itself:

www.globalsecurity.org...



There you have it. Whether this policy is "openly declared" by the US government or not is irrelevant - the fact is that it leaked to the public and that the US government instituted it. So US can launch first strikes, and other nations are aware of it.

Why may I ask the US is free to change its nuclear doctrine to allow for preemptive strikes, yet somehow people expect Russia to sit still and not make the appropriate changes to its strategy to stay on par? The US was the one that started this reevaluation of nuclear strategy during Bush's presidency - first the US ended participation in the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, then it allowed for preemptive nuclear strikes. Russia's actions have been reactionary.


And while we are at this why not look at other nuclear powers that currently do not have a "No First Use" policy:

United Kingdom
Pakistan
Israel (since it doesn't officially admit having nuclear weapons, it has no official policy on their use)

All US allies, all have exhibited signs of aggression, and all have willingly been involved on the US aggressive War on Terror.

www.guardian.co.uk...



On top of that, all this talk about Russia's strategy being a threat to Georgia or Ukraine is rediculous. As was plainly demonstrated during the South Ossetia War, Russia can easily defeat Georgia by limited conventional means. And Ukraine is not an enemy of Russia and has never even been remotely considered as a target for Russia nuclear strategy. US' aggressive rhetoric towards Iran on the other hand, could mean that Iran is potentially threatened by US nuclear strikes.



So while discussing and pretending to tremble with fear over Russia's new doctrine, don't forget to step into Russia's shoes and see why Russia is doing this without being clouded by hypocrisy.


[edit on 17-10-2009 by maloy]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by maloy
 


If you gladly pay attention to the Russian policy:


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.”


This doesn't restrict a nuclear first-strike to targets with WMDs.

On the other hand, the American policy states:


The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.


That's quite a big difference isn't it!


, all this talk about Russia's strategy being a threat to Georgia or Ukraine is rediculous. As was plainly demonstrated during the South Ossetia War, Russia can easily defeat Georgia by limited conventional means


Exactly, and Russia is a threat to Georgia and Ukraine because they want to join NATO, and Russia have openly stated they won't allow this.

But what if anyone decides to fight back against the Russian's and defeat them conventionally. Putin now has his policy to order the generals to destroy the world rather than surrender. If Russia cannot be defeated conventionally, then why the necessity of the first-strike policy?

If any more aggression against Georgia or even Ukraine now is what the Kremlin wants, then Russian interference will be ordered to ensure troops can be used again under the guise of peacekeeping duties. Already the Kremlin has made new policies for more wars against Georgia prior to the first-strike policies. If anyone fights back, then Russia knows that we know they'll go nuclear, or at least have that option openly available. So, it's another preventative measure against countries being able to defend themselves from Russian aggression. This is likely part of a larger plan to retake ex-soviet countries.

How many illegal bases are Russia building in S.Ossetia and Abkhazia now?!


US' aggressive rhetoric towards Iran on the other hand, could mean that Iran is potentially threatened by US nuclear strikes.


I think it's a little late for the Russian's to complain about a coup d'etat regime that killed peaceful protesters, that they've backed and supported for so long. Russia played a big part in the current situation in Iran. Don't you remember the "death to Russia" chants in the 2 million + crowd in Tehran recently?!


Oh and do I need to mention the silly Kremlin's accusations that georgia supports Al-Qaeda? Haha!!

Undercover reporters from Britain inside Ingushetia showed the levels of corruption, murder of innocent civilians all under the guise of anti-terrorism.

Whilst Russia Today reports anti-terrorism operations, the murdering of innocent civilians actually takes place, and when the people fight back, they get named terrorists. Russia manages to create problems when they need them, as they did in S.Ossetia where Saakashvili fell into the trap, and he may do again by continuing to blockade Abkhazia.

Accidental killings of civilians are another matter, such as what happens in Afghanistan occassionally. But in the N. Caucasus regions inside the Russian Federation, indiscriminant killings along with corruption are a major source of the problems. This is a self-made problem that Russia blames external forces for, similarly to how the Iranian regime continued to blame external forces and somewhat randomly - different countries each day, and without any subsequent evidence for the accusations!

Ukranian elections are in Jan 2010, and the Russian's will eye a new man in charge who is pro-Russian. If a pro-western leader who wants to join NATO wins the election, then the Russian's will interfere and interfere until they get what they want. Whether that leads to another regional war depends how far Kremlin interference spreads.

The Kremlin never stop moaning. Even when a radar system that may be implemented in Ukraine that won't even be pointing towards Russia, then the Kremlin whinges over it like a stupid child.

Whoever thought the new cold-war was an exagerration will probably be surprised over the coming months!

[edit on 17-10-2009 by john124]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by john124
If you gladly pay attention to the Russian policy:


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.”


This doesn't restrict a nuclear first-strike to targets with WMDs.

On the other hand, the American policy states:


The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.


That's quite a big difference isn't it!


Both are ambiguous enough to allow a wide range of interpretations. For example - what does "known enemy stockpiles mean"? The US seemed assured that Iraq had WMD's before the war, so theoretically it could launch a preemptive nuclear strike on Iraq, despite it having no WMD in reality. Very same thing could happen if the future. The "known stockpiles" can very easily be invented just like they were before the Iraq War.

Also you very conveniently didn't post the other allowable application of nuclear weapons in the US doctrine: to prevent terrorist attacks. Well if that isn't ambiguous I don't know what it.

So stop kidding yourself. Fact is that both US and Russia have doctrines that allow preemptive strikes, and leave the reasons for flexible interpretation.




Originally posted by john124
Exactly, and Russia is a threat to Georgia and Ukraine because they want to join NATO, and Russia have openly stated they won't allow this.


For one thing, nobody in the right mind will let Georgia join NATO. The US vote in favor of them joining is not enough, and no NATO member in Europe will agree to this.

And you still haven't demonstrated how Russia is a military threat to Ukraine. Do explain why Ukraine should feel threatened militarily by Russia. All that bullcrap about raising gas prices is an invalid arguement - thats called capitalism and weening Ukraine off Soviet-era subsidies gas prices.



Originally posted by john124
But what if anyone decides to fight back against the Russian's and defeat them conventionally.


Good one. I'll leave the question of why they would be fighting back against Russia alone, or why Russia would be fighting them (but do answer it if you wish). But please do explain how Georgia could defeat Russia conventionally?



Originally posted by john124
Putin now has his policy to order the generals to destroy the world rather than surrender.


Who would they be surrendering to? Georgia?




Originally posted by john124
If Russia cannot be defeated conventionally, then why the necessity of the first-strike policy?


Why does US have the necessity of the first-strike policy? Russia's reasons are likely pretty much the same. Or do you think that US is the only nation in the world "threated" by terrorists and "evil" despotic regimes?



Originally posted by john124
If any more aggression against Georgia or even Ukraine now is what the Kremlin wants, then Russian interference will be ordered to ensure troops can be used again under the guise of peacekeeping duties.


Are you so naive as to think that US has any moral right to even comment on Russia's military actions against other nations. The US didn't even need the guise of peacekeepers to invade Iraq and Afghanistan and start military campaigns which would result in hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths.

Really? You want to go into this arguement?



Originally posted by john124
If anyone fights back, then Russia knows that we know they'll go nuclear, or at least have that option openly available. So, it's another preventative measure against countries being able to defend themselves from Russian aggression.


Substitute "US" for "Russia". Pot calling keetle black? Enough said.



Originally posted by john124
How many illegal bases are Russia building in S.Ossetia and Abkhazia now?!


Far less than the number of illegal bases US has in Iraq and Afghanistan.



Originally posted by john124
I think it's a little late for the Russian's to complain about a coup d'etat regime that killed peaceful protesters, that they've backed and supported for so long.


Really? Because no US-backed regime came to power through a coup and killed protestors and opposition? Are you serious?

If you honestly want to criticize Russia for the things you mentioned, then throw in the US there as well. Russia's moves are reactionary, while US initiates much of this momentum.



Originally posted by john124
Oh and do I need to mention the silly Kremlin's accusations that georgia supports Al-Qaeda? Haha!!


Do I need to mention the WMDs in.... oh never mind you catch my drift.



Originally posted by john124
Undercover reporters from Britain inside Ingushetia showed the levels of corruption, murder of innocent civilians all under the guise of anti-terrorism.


Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, CIA prisons abroad, waterboarding.... Oh this can be a fun moral debate.



My point in this thread was to show that Russia's changes to the nuclear doctrine was a reaction by similar moves by the US. What the hell does this have to with amoral political actions and other irrelevant foreign policy sins?




Originally posted by john124
Accidental killings of civilians are another matter, such as what happens in Afghanistan occassionally.


Accidental? When you drop 5,000 bombs and fire missiles on civilian villages because a few Taliban happen to be holding a meeting there, its hardly accidental - incidental maybe. You want to talk numbers? Look at civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan.



Originally posted by john124
But in the N. Caucasus regions inside the Russian Federation, indiscriminant killings along with corruption are a major source of the problems.


When US does it its "accidental"; when Russia or someone else does it its "idiscriminant".



Originally posted by john124
Ukranian elections are in Jan 2010, and the Russian's will eye a new man in charge who is pro-Russian. If a pro-western leader who wants to join NATO wins the election


Do you know anything about Ukrainian politics? Who among candidates is this NATO-inclined person? Yuschenko is done - that is a fact, just look at his support numbers in recent statistics (below 6% - and thats by Western European source).



Originally posted by john124
The Kremlin never stop moaning. Even when a radar system that may be implemented in Ukraine that won't even be pointing towards Russia, then the Kremlin whinges over it like a stupid child.


And US never moans or whines like a child. It moans and whines like a grown up. Right?



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 09:17 PM
link   
double post

[edit on 17-10-2009 by maloy]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by john124
 


Iran has apparently nearly had nukes since the mid to late 90's....look where we are now.Course that was Israel crying wolf,you know...the country that actually has illegal nuclear weapons.They are special though and can have them illegally, i understand that now....



new topics




 
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join