Russian Threatens to a Drop Atomic Bomb on Ukraine... Say what?

originally posted by: kitzik
a reply to: Xeven

You are wrong about Russian people behavior if what you suggest will indeed happen. On the contrary they will say that all this war was staged for placing Nukes near Russia and big war will be inevitable in such case.

Also, I don't quite understand why you all forget that ICBM are capable to hit the targets from 10000-12000 km, and they are reality from 1960-ties, antimissile shields technologies didn't develop much since 1980-ties. We just have about half of nuclear arsenal of what was present in 1985. All other aspects are more or less the same.

That's BS. No sane Russian will want all out war if they will be annihilated. It is called mutual assured destruction (MAD) and it has kept the peace for 50 years or so now. If Ukraine can utterly destroy Russian cities Putin will shut up.

If your insinuation ICBM's can reach US well duh. I do not think Putin will want to end the world over Ukraine but I guess he could be that mentally ill I just don't think so. Need to Arm Poland as well with Nukes and end his petty aggression once and for all.

Putin is just proving that further reduction of nuclear weapons would be a big mistake. In fact we should have more and much faster more modern ones.

a reply to: Xeven

Hmm, I don't know how old you are, but I vividly remember as a child that USSR had the capacity to launch missiles from Ural mountains into USA, this is not insinuation. Cuban crisis was more psychological rather than drastically changing facts on the ground. Instead of 10-15 warning of coming missiles it was reduced to like 2-3 minutes.
But, still have no doubt the long range missiles are alive today. Basically all treaties about demilitarization were about medium-close range missiles. Also there is a large arsenal packed into nuclear submarines which move constantly, and it is hard to know where they are at any given moment.
MAD is topping to work when you start real large scale war against Russia, they don't have a choice. Either be conquered or suicide. I know Russians and they will prefer suicide.

originally posted by: Xeven
If Ukraine had not given up its nukes, Russia would be quiet now. If there is any truth to this there is only one response from the West. Covertly send a C-5 full of nukes capable of reaching Moscow. Covertly spread them out across Ukraine to prevent targeting by Russia then have Ukraine announce itself as a Nuclear power and let Putin Know Moscow is target number one. This will shut down any Russian people support of any aggression by Russia.

Putin should know that Ukraine is one plane ride away from being a Nuclear equipped state.

Ukraine has Chernobyl, that nuclear reactor with a crumbling sarcophagus. And animals are still too radioactive to eat.

Mr Helety (whatever) has a very vivid imagination. Unfortunately USA has handpicked such nuts to run its puppet government. At least Poroshenko looks and sound legit.

Ukrainian army runs at the first sight of organized resistance. It does not need atom bomb. It needs sympathy.

a reply to: stormcell

It is right that Chernobyl had devastating effect on nature and it is not safe to eat animals from there.
But humans themselves are the most dangerous thing in postnuclear world. And based on the movies about postnuclear world made in USSR and USA I suspect that situation will be worse in USA. Look at Katrina, magnify this 1000- times.
Although Russia become more westernized in spirit compared to 1980-ties, it is still less selfish deep within. Sure brutality will be everywhere and poisoned food with radioactivity is not the most important immediate danger.
Btw the word Chernobyl have some prophetic meaning too, roughly it can be translated as "black reality", but the word reality is not exactly translatable like this.

I believe it all comes down to Putin's true intentions in Ukraine. Russia may have considerable nuclear strength, but the U.S. Has likely developed missile defense far more effective than Israel's Iron dome system.

Its certainly a bad situation either way, and I'd say if it were simply a matter of Russia vs USA I'd say wed be in for a long war. But the combined forces of USA-NATO, Isreal could most likely not be defeated by any single power.

Besides, from some of the reading I've done here on ATS, the US military industrial complex has enveiled some pretty cool weapon platforms. The Navy laws system is a good start.

Anyhow, I believe this NATO qrf is directly the result of NATOs need for absolute member cooperation to pass any resolution and its need to demonstrate its physical ability to quickly defend all member states.

And in the worst case of nuclear exchange, hope missile defense its all its cracked up to be.

Putin is a hoot. Really! He sure can make folks dance. The big Russian threat. Dont awaken the Bear! Run for the hills, Russia made a threat!

Whats funny is everyone so frightened of it and he has no intention of nuking anything. #1... if your enemy has fear, you have already won the battle. He is laughing at how easy we all are .

a reply to: JBurns

but the U.S. Has likely developed missile defense far more effective than Israel's Iron dome system

Iron dome have nothing to do with long ballistic trajectories, on the contrary it is trying to counter very short missile range. No one was developing such systems because
1. It is very expensive.
2. It was technically hard to achieve before the advent of modern high speed computational power, since the time from launch is very short.

a reply to: kitzik

Really? Thank you for enlightening me and allowing me to shed my ignorance on the subject!

Do we currently have any type of system capable of shooting down, say, 15-20 year old warhead? Perhaps if we could engage the ICBM during phase one, is there any possibility of this?

Thank you for your replies,

Jack

a reply to: Advantage

My friend, I agree with you inasmuch that we shouldn't expect thermonuclear war anytime soon...however, being prepared for that 1 percent never hurts.

Putin, for all intents and purposes, has backed himself into a corner...facing worldwide destruction at one end and political exile at the other (in my opinion).

originally posted by: khnum
a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

O my God the head of Ukranian intelligence is Sorcha Faal

oops

a reply to: JBurns

I don't quite get intonation of your question.

Short answer is - no.
If the missile is already launched the chances to neutralize i'd say maximum 15%.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Advantage

My friend, I agree with you inasmuch that we shouldn't expect thermonuclear war anytime soon...however, being prepared for that 1 percent never hurts.

Putin, for all intents and purposes, has backed himself into a corner...facing worldwide destruction at one end and political exile at the other (in my opinion).

Putin is NOT backed into a corner. You are wrong. Putin has taken a principled stand in Ukraine conflict.

It is NATO and USA who have backed themselves into a corner.

It is unfortunate you cannot see that.

The West now talks of pumping another 17B into Ukraine after already giving 19B. This is war financing on a massive level. Where is this money coming from? What is IMF - a money printing machine?

Please learn something before posting.

Here is a good article discussing how Russia will use nukes as a de-escalation technique in war...

Why Russia calls a limited nuclear strike "de-escalation"

By the next year, Russia had issued a new military doctrine whose main innovation was the concept of “de-escalation”—the idea that, if Russia were faced with a large-scale conventional attack that exceeded its capacity for defense, it might respond with a limited nuclear strike.

thebulletin.org/why-russia-calls-limited-nuclear-strike-de-escalation

Then we have this...

When asked about these comments at a press conference on Wednesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov responded, “If it comes to aggression against Russian territory, which Crimea and Sevastopol are parts of, I would not advise anyone to do this.” He then added, “We have the doctrine of national security, and it very clearly regulates the actions, which will be taken in this case.”

This is a not-so-subtle threat to use nuclear weapons to retain Crimea. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia’s conventional military capabilities have deteriorated significantly. As a result, it has come to be increasingly reliant on nuclear weapons to protect its national security. This has been reflected in its post-Cold War military doctrines, particularly the ones since 2000. These military doctrines have greatly reduced the threshold that would needed to be crossed before Russia would resort to the use of nuclear weapons.

thediplomat.com...

It isn't something new for Russia, but it is all talk as Putin knows if he were to use even limited nukes Russia would become a very isolated country, even more than they ever have been in history.

a reply to: rickymouse

Why do the heads of governments bomb citizens instead of the people running things.

for all we know that could be part of the playbook

a reply to: rickymouse

Why do the heads of governments bomb citizens instead of the people running things.

Well to quote the band Black Sabbath...

Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor

That pretty much sums it up.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

I found Russian pop music which is the essence of modern Rashism

translation is about like this :

"Dance Russia and cry Europe
I have the most beautiful *opa (ass)"

youtu.be...

a reply to: Xeven

Hard to believe that this video is just from autumn 2012 , and now they speaking about atomic bomb.
This video from festival which was held in Artek (Crimea)

youtu.be...


Artek, August 2014 Crimea youtu.be...

Still didn't banned English, but sign Crimea -Russia is proudly displayed.

originally posted by: kitzik
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

I found Russian pop music which is the essence of modern Rashism

translation is about like this :

"Dance Russia and cry Europe
I have the most beautiful *opa (ass)"

youtu.be...

"Rashism"?

Ya lost me.

a reply to: Psynic
Yes, Rashism seems to me appropriate word for this kind of "national pride"
It is both reminiscent to Fashism and yet sounding somewhat gentle in Russian language
You may not understand the rest of the text, but it is an apology to the current Oligarchy-mafia regime from the
point of view of "simple girl"