It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The new cold war

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 13 2018 @ 02:50 AM
a reply to: RadioRobert

Generally speaking I don’t think any *limited* confrontation with Russia would result in the use of nuclear weapons. Simply because there is no need for it. Russia would hit back using conventional but extreme means, which would be more than enough to get both sides to the negotiating table eventually. Deescalating a confrontation that way is far less risky than literally go nuts and start nuking airbases. The risk of that getting out of hand is far too high and not warranted at all.

Putin doesn’t have to nuke Turkey to get Trump to call Erdogan and set him straight. Some air raids or cruise missile attacks will work just as well since you are completely right on your main argument, especially the Europeans will bend over backwards to avoid war with Russia.

I just disagree with you on the likelihood of nuclear weapons use.

IMO for nuclear weapons to be used, the stakes would need to be raised considerably, i.e. general warfare between Russia and the entirety of NATO. The only scenario in which this is remotely possible at this point is Russia successfully invading the Baltic states and NATO deciding to push them out by a general offensive move from Poland through Kaliningrad and Belarus.

As said, I don’t think this is very likely in any case, I don’t think the European leaders would be willing to go to war with Russia if the Baltics are already lost. They’d go the negotiating route for sure and no offensive would ever occur.
But if it did, it would resemble something like a WW3 scenario with a general mobilization of NATO nations, the deployment of a dozen armored brigades in Eastern Europe and general warfare against Russia around the globe. With Russia eventually facing encirclement of their invading armies in the Baltics, the loss of Kaliningrad and intensifying strategic air strikes against military infrastructure within Russia, I can see them to try to play the nuclear card to try to stop things.

I don’t think however it would work for the reasons I described.

The use of nuclear weapons leads to an immediate, time critical need to take out the other sides capability to conduct more attacks of a similar nature. In the scenario described above with NATO on a general war footing the decision on how to respond would rest solely with the US Commander in Chief.

And it would be a military decision, not a political one.

It would not be about ‘oh gosh, what does Putin want to tell us with nuking our advancing spearheads in Belarus, lets call Theresa and Angela do discuss since fascinating turn of events’ but ‘Mr. President, SACEUR asks for immediate authorization of contingency operations against Russian nuclear forces. The likelihood of further strikes is extremely high, you can decide while we evacuate your ass on board Nightwatch’.

I have a very hard time believing any US President willing to go to war with Russia over Estonia would just call it quits at that point and abandon the better part of the US Army in the field to the mercy of the Russians.

edit on 13-3-2018 by mightmight because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 13 2018 @ 08:12 AM

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: nightbringr

Starting a massive escalation in nuclear exchanges over Erdogan, probably isn't a winner on the public polls either, though there would probably be a lot of second guessing afterwards about what should have been done instead. I just don't think the West has the stomach for a "real" conflict at the public or governmental levels. We play by different rules, which is why are strength is often useless because we lack the will to use it.

If the US government think a massive strike imminent, they wouldn't give a hoot what the public think.

Do keep in mind, a leader who decided not to retaliate against even a minor niclear attack on NATO lands would be massively unpopular moving forward, seeming weak and ineffectual. Do you really think the government is going to care about what the public thinks when it comes to a massive strike? Of course they won't. If they are lucky, they will be buried deep when the bomb fly.

posted on Mar, 13 2018 @ 09:10 AM
Sigh... Although the MAD doctrine has probably saved us from some bloodshed through the decades, there is something horribly not right with the whole idea.

Behave, or the world will end.

And with regards to bloodshed averted, it doesn't really work if you fight proxy wars instead, at least not from the point of view of the countries hosting the proxy wars.

I really hoped that the Cold War was behind me, but if I have to go to sleep with the threat of nuclear holocaust hanging over me, at least I have been there before.

Still, it is a bit sad that we cannot seem to get on a little better.


posted on Mar, 13 2018 @ 10:58 AM
a reply to: beetee

I couldn't agree more. I grew up in the 80s, and the relief I felt when the wall fell was enormous. It seemed like we would no longer have to live with the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over or heads, and global peace seemed a possibility.

Oh, how naive that time was.

posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 12:57 PM
There's no new cold war. It's just EU-NATO propaganda to justify weapon spending. Also there'r no new arms race because there's no race on building arms of the same type against each other. Russia is not the Soviet Union, Putin is not Brezhnev and there aren't as many morons as there were during the cold war.

posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 03:33 PM
a reply to: Flanker86

random question, do you have a youtube with your name?

posted on Apr, 9 2018 @ 04:43 AM
a reply to: penroc3

im not sure if people remember but a few months back there was a large release on radioactive iodine. Putin said they tested their nuclear power plant for their nuclear powered cruise missile, could this be what that came from?

posted on May, 22 2018 @ 11:36 AM
In 2004 Rolandas Paksas was accused by the EU, especially by Belgium, France, Germany, The Netherlands and Luxembourg of being a Russia spy, and was removed by the secret services from the presidency of Lithuania!

Could it be that the reason has nothing to do with Russia? Rather, it had everything to do with the German, Belgian, Dutch and Luxembourgish dictated conditions under which Lithuania was to adopt the Euro without ifs or buts, while Paksas was more interested in some sort of negotiations ?

Is it possible that, after the adoption of the Euro in Lithuania, that already happened a few years ago, the country is suffering from severe financial and economic issues, in part also caused by austerity driven policies of Kubilius ?
edit on 22-5-2018 by Flanker86 because: c

posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 03:34 AM
Latvian, Lithuanian, Estonian attempts together with Poland, Romania and Hungary to re-start a Cold War for the sake of getting more support from US military in their countries is a hopeless task that will never materialize.
What they are going to get is, increased civil disorder, unrest, poverty caused by EU enforced austerity and the Euro currency.

Lithuania contrary to Venezuela, does not have food in the shelves, due to it being part of the EU and having joined the Euro

posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 03:55 AM

originally posted by: Flanker86
Lithuania contrary to Venezuela, does not have food in the shelves, due to it being part of the EU and having joined the Euro

On the contrary, since the Russian jackboot was lifted in 1990 due the collapse of the Russian-led Soviet Union, Lithuania has prospered and are (per capita) richer than Russia, just like all the other ex-Soviet and Russian controlled states. Lithuania, like many small countries that have borders with Russia, fear Russian meddling and interference.

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in