Russia threatens nuclear war against all NATO members

[Imperializt Russia]

Except America, we're the only country with the balls to use one.

The only reason we had the "balls" to use a nuclear weapon is because we knew no one else had one.

This wasn't actually known until after the war.

[Conserative Morality]

Really? NATO expansion in Eastern Europe and forward missile deployments aren't meant to contain and intimidate Russia? I think both sides need to evaluate what year it is, cuz it's not 1960.

Forward missile deployments - Jesus, you act like ABMs situated along the predicted flight path of Iranian missiles are nuclear warheads pointed at Russian military bases.

Not that I'm really all that hot on the idea of a West-Iranian Cold War, but know who the fuck this shit is targeting.

And NATO expansion? Countries wanting to join a defensive pact is threatening to Russia? Why is this? Is Russia planning on invading someo-

Oh, right. Odd. Almost like these countries lining up to join NATO don't trust one of their neighbors.

[Memell]

Anyways, it's pretty entertaining to see the utter failure of the Obama administration. Lybia,Iraq,Syria, Ukraine. He is messing everything up! He messes up everything so accurately and systematically that it's like he is doing that on purpose.

[Alcase]

Quite the misleading title, but I like how you analyze Putin's quote and redefine its content to benefit your thread.

Anyways, it's pretty entertaining to see the utter failure of the Obama administration. Lybia,Iraq,Syria, Ukraine. He is messing everything up! He messes up everything so accurately and systematically that it's like he is doing that on purpose.

Sigh...

*Put's another quarter in the "It's Obama's fault" bucket*

[Imperializt Russia]

Really? NATO expansion in Eastern Europe and forward missile deployments aren't meant to contain and intimidate Russia? I think both sides need to evaluate what year it is, cuz it's not 1960.

Forward missile deployments - Jesus, you act like ABMs situated along the predicted flight path of Iranian missiles are nuclear warheads pointed at Russian military bases.

Not that I'm really all that hot on the idea of a West-Iranian Cold War, but know who the fuck this shit is targeting.

And NATO expansion? Countries wanting to join a defensive pact is threatening to Russia? Why is this? Is Russia planning on invading someo-

Oh, right. Odd. Almost like these countries lining up to join NATO don't trust one of their neighbors.

I would bet my own money that the forward missile deployments were never to counter Iranian weapons. They'd have sat them in Turkey. Turkey's been perfectly happy accepting American heavy weapons for decades.

Poland was a very particular choice, to antagonise Russia. It was sold as "defending against Iran" (against missiles they didn't and don't have) because that was the talking point of the time. Russia had been out of the "ebul thweat" pool for some time given the "axis of evil" rhetoric Bush spent almost a decade spoon-feeding the west.
There's a long list of reasons why Russia opposed the move so violently.

[Conserative Morality]

American F-15s of the 555th fighter wing, a nuclear-capable unit responsible for the Italian stockpile of B-61 nuclear bombs, were deployed to Polish bases in March of this year in response to the Crimea tensions.

F-16s were deployed to a pre-existing Polish base at the request of Poland, under a pre-existing initiative meant to strengthen cooperation between the Polish and American militaries. That's hardly expansion or an attempt at 'containment'.

[Communal Ecotopia]

Obama and the West keep ratcheting up the sanctions (after creating the Kiev situation in the first place).

It's fair that they be reminded of the available plays in this game.

A nuclear exchange over Ukraine?

That's not an available play. It's suicide.

It's rhetorically available and it pleases Putin's base of nationalists...it's also not gonna happen. Putin may be a posturing, macho, overly-aggressive guy who honed all of this at the KGB, but, ultimately, unlike, say, Kim Jong-Eun, he's also a more-or-less rational statesman. This is entirely for domestic consumption.

[Imperializt Russia]

American F-15s of the 555th fighter wing, a nuclear-capable unit responsible for the Italian stockpile of B-61 nuclear bombs, were deployed to Polish bases in March of this year in response to the Crimea tensions.

F-16s were deployed to a pre-existing Polish base at the request of Poland, under a pre-existing initiative meant to strengthen cooperation between the Polish and American militaries. That's hardly expansion or an attempt at 'containment'.

The movement of a nuclear fighter-bomber unit is a pretty significant political move.

[Communal Ecotopia]

Putin isn't stupid enough to kill millions for a fucking piece of land not even the size of Rhode Island.

Stop sensationalizing this bullcrap.

Rhode Island thanks you for being mentioned in the same sentence as things actually important to the world. But seriously, this seems more like posturing than anything else. If Russia doesn't flash an ICBM in the West's face every so often, they start getting afraid we might forget Russia has nukes.

Yep...pure Russian paranoia about having lost the "good ol' days".

[Dumb Ideologies]

Russia isn't going to use nuclear weapons given NATO's ability to strike back - that just cripples both and is nothing even resembling a trump card.

Meanwhile, lukewarm sanctions continue to be a mild but tolerable inconvenience for Russia. Russian support continues to ensure that a decisive victory for the Ukrainian government is not possible, and overturns some of the advances made recently by the government forces. US and EU won't increase sanctions dramatically for fear of damaging economic reprisals, and won't step up assistance out of fear of the expense of being dragged into a proxy war. Ukraine will end up de facto and probably de jure split - Russia will be an overall loser in terms of the costs of sanctions and armaments versus the worth of the territory, but will be a "power-politics" winner.

It's not really a mushroom cloud sort of conflict.

[Great Kleomentia]

Putin is bluffing. He is smart enough to know that no one would benefit from this. He is just making a media scene.

[Conserative Morality]

I would bet my own money that the forward missile deployments were never to counter Iranian weapons. They'd have sat them in Turkey. Turkey's been perfectly happy accepting American heavy weapons for decades.

Poland was a very particular choice, to antagonise Russia. It was sold as "defending against Iran" (against missiles they didn't and don't have) because that was the talking point of the time. Russia had been out of the "ebul thweat" pool for some time given the "axis of evil" rhetoric Bush spent almost a decade spoon-feeding the west.
There's a long list of reasons why Russia opposed the move so violently.

If we sat them in Turkey, we'd be proper fucked - deployments in Poland were never a risk to Russia, even assuming US hostility.

"Missiles they don't have" is a falsehood - better to correctly claim "Missiles lacking the capabilities claimed" - the Shaheeb-3 exists and has the appropriate range; it's Iran's nuclear capabilities that are in question. This question, as full of old enmity and political convenience as it is, doesn't relate to Russia.

Russia acts like a jilted ex trying to find hints of his lover's misery and obsession over him in the smallest of things when in reality, they've gotten over him.

[Great Kleomentia]

Russia isn't going to use nuclear weapons given NATO's ability to strike back - that just cripples both and is nothing even resembling a trump card.

Meanwhile, lukewarm sanctions continue to be a mild but tolerable inconvenience for Russia. Russian support continues to ensure that a decisive victory for the Ukrainian government is not possible, and overturns some of the advances made recently by the government forces. US and EU won't increase sanctions dramatically for fear of damaging economic reprisals, and won't step up assistance out of fear of the expense of being dragged into a proxy war. Ukraine will end up de facto and probably de jure split - Russia will be an overall loser in terms of the costs of sanctions and armaments versus the worth of the territory, but will be a "power-politics" winner.

It's not really a mushroom cloud sort of conflict.

Seeing how Russia won't be paying any sanctions, i doubt it would be a loser in that field.

[Burleson]

Countries are also subject to law, such as "don't violate another country's territorial sovereignty".

Putin does not have the right to protect it's "interests" if those interests violate international law and involve oppressing the Ukrainian people.

Tell me about the NSA-gate, Gladio and other stay-behinds, Pinochet and all his friends in Latin-America. Treaties and "International laws" are just chimeras, pieces of papers meant to to shut the hypocritical and bigoted public eye.

And why should he not protect Russia's interests? All the major powers of the world do it, blatantly violating any kinf of international law all the time.

Invading Ukraine has nothing to do with their interests unless their interests are oppression and imperialism.

[Napkiraly]

He's bluffing.

[Imperializt Russia]

I would bet my own money that the forward missile deployments were never to counter Iranian weapons. They'd have sat them in Turkey. Turkey's been perfectly happy accepting American heavy weapons for decades.

Poland was a very particular choice, to antagonise Russia. It was sold as "defending against Iran" (against missiles they didn't and don't have) because that was the talking point of the time. Russia had been out of the "ebul thweat" pool for some time given the "axis of evil" rhetoric Bush spent almost a decade spoon-feeding the west.
There's a long list of reasons why Russia opposed the move so violently.

If we sat them in Turkey, we'd be proper fucked - deployments in Poland were never a risk to Russia, even assuming US hostility.

"Missiles they don't have" is a falsehood - better to correctly claim "Missiles lacking the capabilities claimed" - the Shaheeb-3 exists and has the appropriate range; it's Iran's nuclear capabilities that are in question. This question, as full of old enmity and political convenience as it is, doesn't relate to Russia.

Russia acts like a jilted ex trying to find hints of his lover's misery and obsession over him in the smallest of things when in reality, they've gotten over him.

Then you've completely missed the point of politicking.

I also never said they were ever intended to actually engage Russian missiles. Besides, European states would be under threat in a Russian ICBM exchange.
I said the siting was to antagonise Russia.
"Poland is ours now".

I assume you meant the Shahab-3, which is an MRBM (now considered a theatre ballistic missile, probably), with a range of just 1300km.
Tomahawks have greater range.

[New Comfederate States of America]

As a non-interventionist who's hope include the US leaving NATO and the UN, I can say that I do not support intervention/war with Russia in Ukraine. Nor do I support entering conflicts in the Middle East either. Let them handle their own issues, but they do not pertain to me as an American.

[Great Kleomentia]

As a non-interventionist who's hope include the US leaving NATO and the UN, I can say that I do not support intervention/war with Russia in Ukraine. Nor do I support entering conflicts in the Middle East either. Let them handle their own issues, but they do not pertain to me as an American.

Basically you would prefer if the US went Swiss style?

[Conserative Morality]

The movement of a nuclear fighter-bomber unit is a pretty significant political move.

This is the first time I've ever heard someone refer to the F-16 as a "nuclear fighter-bomber".

Like calling an M16 a supersonic long-range man-operated murder machine, it manages to be bother technically correct and completely stupid.

[Alexandreon]

Then you've completely missed the point of politicking.

I also never said they were ever intended to actually engage Russian missiles. Besides, European states would be under threat in a Russian ICBM exchange.
I said the siting was to antagonise Russia.
"Poland is ours now".

That, besides as a Polish myself I can assure that the government that was negotiating the sitting of the ABMs in Poland was also aiming, of course unoficially, at irking Russia. A good deal of our right-winged radicals would love to see Russia at the verge of disaster, whatever the cost.

And Russia indeed has problem with not thinking about former Warsaw Pact states as its satellites.

[Imperializt Russia]

The movement of a nuclear fighter-bomber unit is a pretty significant political move.

This is the first time I've ever heard someone refer to the F-16 as a "nuclear fighter-bomber".

Like calling an M16 a supersonic long-range man-operated murder machine, it manages to be bother technically correct and completely stupid.

The B-61 is to be carried by the F-15.
Or the F-16. And soon, the F-35.

These are all nuclear-capable fighter aircraft.
The 555th fighter wing is a nuclear unit (which is actually what I said), which operates the B-61. Unless I forget which unit it is, they operate out of one of two Italian B-61 bases.

[The Serbian Empire]

If this title says anything, I think it's time to nuke Russia into smithereens. In reality, it's far too premature to do such.

[Conserative Morality]

[
Then you've completely missed the point of politicking.

I also never said they were ever intended to actually engage Russian missiles. Besides, European states would be under threat in a Russian ICBM exchange.
I said the siting was to antagonise Russia.
"Poland is ours now".

Fair enough claim. I can't really argue against it, although I still hold that the primary purpose of the movement was domestic dickwaving.

I assume you meant the Shahab-3, which is an MRBM (now considered a theatre ballistic missile, probably), with a range of just 1300km.
Tomahawks have greater range.

The Iranian Shahab-3 is a single-stage, liquid-fueled, road-mobile, medium-range ballistic missile with a range of approximately 800 miles (1,280 km). A MRBM variant, sometimes called Shahab-4, has a range of more than 1,200 miles (1,930 km).

That puts a fair bit of Eastern Europe in range, at which point interceptors from Turkey would be too far behind to make any serious attempt.

[Great Kleomentia]

If this title says anything, I think it's time to nuke Russia into smithereens. In reality, it's far too premature to do such.

I know that my country will somehow get into all this. So can we at least wait for me to turn 60?

[The Orson Empire]

This is what happens when you have nuclear proliferation. It is inevitable that nukes will be used again in the future, as it is unreasonable to trust Humans, who are already very flawed creatures, to handle weapons capable of glassing the entire planet.