Nuclear Strike - Russia's Only Way to Defend Itself?, page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times

Topic started on 30-10-2009 @ 03:46 AM by chiron613

An article in Pravda asks this question.

Patrushev said that the Russian Security Council offered President Medvedev a universal option, the toughest one. In situations “critical for national security” Russia will deliver preventive nuclear strikes. According to an explanatory dictionary, “preventive” means “serving to prevent or hinder.” This means that Russia will be able to hinder its neighbors with a small nuclear bomb. This will serve to prevent them from thinking that they can impinge upon Russian interests.

This is worrisome, because it suggests that during a time of diplomatic stress, Russia might decide to "preemptively" strike out, before another country (such as, for example, the US) can attack them.

The older policy was that each side had a "no first strike" policy. That meant that unless someone attacked a nuclear country, that country wouldn't fire its nuclear weapons first. That was a powerful incentive for countries to avoid being the first to use nukes, which meant we were all safer.

It seems to me that this proposed change in policy means it is no longer "safer" to hold back with the nukes, since Russia would be implying that it would (in some circumstances) use them first.

reply posted on 30-10-2009 @ 04:00 AM by Silver Shadow

If a US President had used those exact same words, Americans would be nodding in agreement.

reply posted on 30-10-2009 @ 04:01 AM by AgentX09

Good God.This is even worse than the cold war and the U.S.would have to adopt a similiar policy.Thus making a nucleur exchange more likely.

reply posted on 30-10-2009 @ 04:08 AM by john124

Hang on a minute, if the Russian's take into account that the west will pre-emptive first, then surely the Russian's know this! The Russian's must be mad by openly stating a pre-emptive policy, because rather than nukes being a deterrent, it's now becoming all about who fires nukes first!

reply posted on 30-10-2009 @ 04:34 AM by GORGANTHIUM

So imeagin if Russia and china thought that togeather with a all out first strike on the united states with nuclear weapons would be the best way to go.Fire all your missles at once and run for cover in some deep military complex somewhere.You had better take alot of your people with you.Of course that would start world war three and proberly give the russians about a 40% chance of winning the war and wiping most of the united states from the face of the earth.Of course the russians own country may become a nuclear wastland too if the american nuclear missles were launched in time.Even if the russians and chinese fired all there missles at once there would proberly still be plenty of american forces still left to fight especilly the us navy and airforce.

reply posted on 30-10-2009 @ 04:36 AM by Freedom ERP

I do think that Silver shadow has got a very valid point and if you take nuclear out of the article, The US has defended its self anywhere in the world.

And the article mentioned that the world has changed and is changing since the old military doctrine was developed which was based on two nuclear armed superpowers facing off, both with the knowledge of mutually Assured Destruction (better known as MAD), and I would certainly want a major power in the world to have an up to date military doctrine. No where in the article does it mention facing off against its old superpower rival, America, but seems to suggest that Russia is starting to accept it is no longer a global superpower with the capability to project power as effectively as it did during the Cold war, but that Russia wants to be seen, and for that matter, is acting as a regional superpower.

There is another article on the web site which talks about who should fear this new doctrine Who should fear Russia’s new military doctrine? and I think this sentence from this article is most telling

The wording has encouraged some people to say that Russia intends to use nuclear weapons in conflicts with its closest neighbors – former Soviet republics.

This would suggest that Russia wants to ensure that its neighbours are fully aware of the doctrine and use the treat contained to influence and project power, with out the need for conventional forces to project and influence. In some respects, Russia may have already succeeded in projecting power by saying that its military doctrine has been updated and enables Russia to consider a preemptive nuclear strike.

And just because this option is part of the doctrine, does not mean that in the future, Russia will be firing nuclear weapons at its neighbours when in dispute.

reply posted on 31-10-2009 @ 04:33 AM by Infinityobserver

Americans wouldn't be nodding their head in agreement. A lot of Americans were against both wars. Americans definitely wouldn't be for the preventive nuking of another country, as stated by the article:

"At first sight, the new doctrine doesn’t look good. Especially if we think that there is no mention of preventive strikes in a similar American document."

An authentic nuclear threat is a better deterrent than any standing Army. Let them really nuke someone and see what happens.

Pages: ^^TOP^^