Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Russia may answer conventional attack with nukes

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Russia may answer conventional attack with nukes

    Russia's 'no fucks given' attitude now gives even less fucks...

    MOSCOW (AP) — Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to a conventional strike and sees them as a "great equalizer" reducing the likelihood of aggression, a senior Russian official said Wednesday.

    While Russia amended its military doctrine years ago to allow for the possibility of using nuclear weapons first in retaliation to a non-nuclear attack, the statement by Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin reflected Moscow's concern about prospective U.S. conventional weapons.

    Weapons that have been developed in the United States under the so-called "prompt global strike" program would be capable of striking targets anywhere in the world in as little as an hour with deadly precision. Russia, which has lagged far behind in developing such weapons, has described them as destabilizing.

    Without naming the U.S., Rogozin told lawmakers in comments carried by Russian news agencies said that those who "experiment with non-nuclear strategic weapons" should remember that "if we come under attack, we will undoubtedly use nuclear weapons in certain situations to defend our territory and state interests."

    He said that it should discourage any potential aggressor.

    "We have never underestimated the role of nuclear weapons ... as a 'great equalizer,'" Rogozin said.

    Asked for reaction, an official at North Atlantic Treaty Organization headquarters in Brussels said, "NATO has stated repeatedly that it does not view Russia as an adversary. Last year at the Chicago Summit, NATO leaders reiterated their desire to see a true strategic partnership between NATO and Russia. NATO is committed to the principles laid out in the Founding Act of the NATO-Russia Council, and works productively with Russia across a range of issues of common concern."

    The Russian doctrine mirrors the American strategy during the Cold War, when the U.S. would not rule out using nuclear weapons first, because it feared it might have to do so in response to overwhelming conventional attack on western Europe by Soviet forces.

    Rogozin said that Russia is working on developing its own version of the "prompt global strike" weapons, but wouldn't give any details.

    The U.S. plans included modifying some of the existing nuclear-armed missiles to carry conventional warheads as well as designing new vehicles capable of traveling at least five times the speed of sound.

    Russian officials said that such U.S. weapons wouldn't fall under any restrictions but would have combat efficiency comparable to nuclear weapons, and thus should be included in any prospective nuclear arms reduction talks.

    Russian suspicions about the U.S. intentions have aggravated tensions caused by a dispute over the U.S.-led NATO missile defense program, which Moscow sees as a threat to its nuclear deterrent.

    Russia has increasingly relied on nuclear weapons in its military strategy to compensate for a post-Soviet decline in its conventional forces. The nation's military doctrine says it may use nuclear weapons to counter a nuclear attack on Russia or an ally, or a large-scale conventional attack that threatens Russia's existence.

    Rogozin's comment comes a day after President Vladimir Putin pledged to continue an ambitious weapons modernization program and to expand Russia's military presence in the Arctic region. Putin has pointed at the U.S. navy presence in the Arctic Ocean as one of the reasons behind the buildup, saying that Russia is concerned because it takes U.S. missiles just 15 to 16 minutes to reach Moscow from a submarine in the Barents Sea region.

    The statements reflected the current strain in Russian-U.S. relations, which have been hurt by disputes over the U.S.-led missile shield, Russia's human rights record and, most recently, differences over Ukraine.
    Stevo
    Originally posted by SSMAN
    ...Welcome to the land of "Fuck it". No body cares, and if they do, no body cares.

  • #2
    I actually checked when i moved to VA, but i'm fairly confident if DC is hit we're out of the immediate blast area and the prevailing winds should keep it away from us.

    I do have enough space to put a bunker out back in the woods.... maybe i need to rent a backhoe.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by lo3oz View Post
      I actually checked when i moved to VA, but i'm fairly confident if DC is hit we're out of the immediate blast area and the prevailing winds should keep it away from us.

      I do have enough space to put a bunker out back in the woods.... maybe i need to rent a backhoe.
      Nuclear strike in DC? Don't tease me...

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Vertnut View Post
        Nuclear strike in DC? Don't tease me...
        Yeah, the problem is im sure they have all sorts of anti ballistic munitions buried along the eastern seaboard. if that were the case and something is detonated in the air, the fallout will be much more severe. It's kind of a far out concern, but still something we have to contend with in this day and age... i think? am i turning into a cold war person?

        Comment


        • #5
          Reminds me of Reagan's "F.You" attitude toward Russia.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by lo3oz View Post
            am i turning into a cold war person?
            Ya THINK?

            Originally posted by lo3oz View Post
            I actually checked when i moved to VA, but i'm fairly confident if DC is hit we're out of the immediate blast area and the prevailing winds should keep it away from us.

            I do have enough space to put a bunker out back in the woods.... maybe i need to rent a backhoe.
            When the government pays, the government controls.

            Comment


            • #7
              How many here actually went through nuclear drills in school? I remember practiced the whole 'turtle' desk drill, and even the fallout shelter drills. They were tapering off in the late 70's, but were still done.

              Stevo
              Originally posted by SSMAN
              ...Welcome to the land of "Fuck it". No body cares, and if they do, no body cares.

              Comment


              • #8
                My junior high in utah was directly across the street from the DOD railyard.. the entire bottom of the school was a fallout shelter.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by 46Tbird View Post
                  Ya THINK?
                  I do.. but i would also love to have a bitchin' man cave where i could lock myself in and chill.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by stevo View Post
                    How many here actually went through nuclear drills in school? I remember practiced the whole 'turtle' desk drill, and even the fallout shelter drills. They were tapering off in the late 70's, but were still done.

                    Stevo
                    I started school in the '60's, and it was a pretty common drill. I know it was an every day thing in the '50's.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by lo3oz View Post
                      Yeah, the problem is im sure they have all sorts of anti ballistic munitions buried along the eastern seaboard. if that were the case and something is detonated in the air, the fallout will be much more severe. It's kind of a far out concern, but still something we have to contend with in this day and age... i think? am i turning into a cold war person?
                      Of course it would be catastrophic, but on the other hand, it would solve a shit-load of this country's problems in a nanosecond. LOL!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Shit if it happens, take me out.
                        Can you imagine life post blast? Would it be worth with fall out, saved food and water will run out then the real party starts.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by sig239 View Post
                          Shit if it happens, take me out.
                          Can you imagine life post blast? Would it be worth with fall out, saved food and water will run out then the real party starts.
                          In a limited exchange, the actual effects might not be felt by anyone outside of the actual blast zone/downwind area, but the economic disaster would be devastating for everyone.

                          Stevo
                          Originally posted by SSMAN
                          ...Welcome to the land of "Fuck it". No body cares, and if they do, no body cares.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Duck and cover drills, atmospheric nuclear tests, mutually assured destruction (MAD)...ahh the good old days.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by The King View Post
                              Duck and cover drills, atmospheric nuclear tests, mutually assured destruction (MAD)...ahh the good old days.
                              Yeah we did that shit in Duncanville occasionally into junior high school but I don't remember ever doing it in high school (late 80's).

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X