Russia threatens nuclear war against all NATO members

[Sun Wukong]

That's not what happened in Somalia. What happened was that Somalia didn't have a functioning government and UN humanitarian operations were extremely difficult to carry out.

Nah. It was just William Jefferson Clinton deciding with his wife, Hillary, that it was time to establish US territory in Africa by illegally invading the sovereign state that used to be Somalia. Somalia had no problems until the USA tried to illegally annex them by destroying their government.

No problems? Really?

I'm going to mention this to some of my Somali friends tomorrow, I'm sure it'll get a chuckle.

[The Republic of Merrimont]

G8 clickb8 I r8 8/8 m8

[Shaka-Zulu]

Somalia had no problems until the USA tried to illegally annex them by destroying their government.

What government? Somalia didn't have a government from 1991 to 2000.

They still don't have a government. They have not had a government since the USA invaded in 92.

Because of this, an extreme Muslim group has seized a considerable amount of what used to be Somalia and declared an independent sovereign state with no one being able to stop them from doing so.

Somalia as a country does not exist anymore.

[Chernoslavia]

Am I the only one that thinks the Cold War has never truly ended?

[Condunum]

What government? Somalia didn't have a government from 1991 to 2000.

They still don't have a government. They have not had a government since the USA invaded in 92.

Because of this, an extreme Muslim group has seized a considerable amount of what used to be Somalia and declared an independent sovereign state with no one being able to stop them from doing so.

Somalia as a country does not exist anymore.

Yeah it does... Have you not taken a look at it's status since 2008 or something?

[Geilinor]

What government? Somalia didn't have a government from 1991 to 2000.

They still don't have a government.

Yeah, no. Somalia has had a government since 2000 and just adopted a new constitution in 2012. Of course there are still problems, but the situation is better.

[Banesbane]

That's not what happened in Somalia. What happened was that Somalia didn't have a functioning government and UN humanitarian operations were extremely difficult to carry out.

Nah. It was just William Jefferson Clinton deciding with his wife, Hillary, that it was time to establish US territory in Africa by illegally invading the sovereign state that used to be Somalia. Somalia had no problems until the USA tried to illegally annex them by destroying their government.

You just went full retard. The US had no intentions of annexing Somalia, if we did we would have deployed full air support like the generals begged Clinton for that would have eliminated a Blackhawk down incident turning into the clusterf#ck it did.

[Shofercia]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/11064209/Vladimir-Putin-Dont-mess-with-nuclear-armed-Russia.html

This should remind everyone why it is important that no American, British, German, French, Canadian, or other NATO soldiers ever set foot inside Ukraine.

This is the first time in recent decades that Russia has threatened to launch a nuclear holocaust upon the NATO alliance.

We might be opposed to what Russia is doing in Ukraine but are we willing to destroy the planet just to stop them from carving the country up?

Uhhh, what? You took a sensationalized title from the Telegraph and sensationalized it even further.

Putin: "we might withdraw from nuclear treaties and, in other news, we aren't going to take kindly to NATO troops in Ukraine"
Telegraph: "Vladimir-Putin-Dont-mess-with-nuclear-armed-Russia"
Zelitopia: "Russia threatens nuclear war against all NATO members"

Jackie, your response please:

[Shofercia]

Is it just me, or does Putin in the article look like he is about to rap?

And, to not drift entirely off topic, I agree that Putin has LOST HIS MIND!

Let us reflect on the History of Russia...

Russia, 20th Century:
"Me and you have weapons of mass destruction, so lets not use them to end humanity"

Russia, 21st Century,
"Me and you have weapons of mass destruction, so let's not use them to end humanity UKRAINE!

Did you actually believe OP sensationalism? Because that was far out.

[Roski]

Is it just me, or does Putin in the article look like he is about to rap?

And, to not drift entirely off topic, I agree that Putin has LOST HIS MIND!

Let us reflect on the History of Russia...

Russia, 20th Century:
"Me and you have weapons of mass destruction, so lets not use them to end humanity"

Russia, 21st Century,
"Me and you have weapons of mass destruction, so let's not use them to end humanity UKRAINE!

Did you actually believe OP sensationalism? Because that was far out.

I see it as "This just in, the very thing that Joseph Stalin promised he'd do if a war broke out between Russia and NATO is still active"

[Shofercia]

Did you actually believe OP sensationalism? Because that was far out.

I see it as "This just in, the very thing that Joseph Stalin promised he'd do if a war broke out between Russia and NATO is still active"

If a massive war broke out, which is a practical impossibility. Do you see a million NATOans invading Russia or a million Russians invading NATO? Nukes weren't considered against Georgia because their entire army was too small. In order for Russia to even consider using nukes, we're talking massive armies in the hundreds of thousands of troops invading Russia. The equivalent would be Putin saying "if the stars and moon collide, Ukraine gets nuked". It's just not possible. Also, that's been Russian Nuclear Doctrine since the fall of the USSR. It's not a new revelation for anyone who's paying attention.

[Roski]

I see it as "This just in, the very thing that Joseph Stalin promised he'd do if a war broke out between Russia and NATO is still active"

If a massive war broke out, which is a practical impossibility. Do you see a million NATOans invading Russia or a million Russians invading NATO? Nukes weren't considered against Georgia because their entire army was too small. In order for Russia to even consider using nukes, we're talking massive armies in the hundreds of thousands of troops invading Russia. The equivalent would be Putin said "if the stars and moon collide, Ukraine gets nuked". It's just not possible.

I'm aware.

Its quite silly when Putin makes a very idle threat and the civilians of the West cry for war.

Its like they're asking to all die

[Shofercia]

If a massive war broke out, which is a practical impossibility. Do you see a million NATOans invading Russia or a million Russians invading NATO? Nukes weren't considered against Georgia because their entire army was too small. In order for Russia to even consider using nukes, we're talking massive armies in the hundreds of thousands of troops invading Russia. The equivalent would be Putin said "if the stars and moon collide, Ukraine gets nuked". It's just not possible.

I'm aware.

Its quite silly when Putin makes a very idle threat and the civilians of the West cry for war.

Its like they're asking to all die

I know, which is why I want to focus on he actually said when you take away all the sensationalist fluff: "Thank God, I think no one is thinking of unleashing a large-scale conflict with Russia. I want to remind you that Russia is one of the leading nuclear powers." That's been Russia's nuclear policy since the fall of the USSR. He's simply reiterating it. I think he also said "within Russia", not "with Russia", but again, we're talking large scale conflict. Millions of troops. Something that's really easy to spot.

And what does the OP do? He sensationalizes this even more. It reminds me of a really bad NSG RP, where everyone just nukes everything

That reminds me a bit of Ralk's RPs

[Roski]

I'm aware.

Its quite silly when Putin makes a very idle threat and the civilians of the West cry for war.

Its like they're asking to all die

I know, which is why I want to focus on he actually said when you take away all the sensationalist fluff: "Thank God, I think no one is thinking of unleashing a large-scale conflict with Russia. I want to remind you that Russia is one of the leading nuclear powers." That's been Russia's nuclear policy since the fall of the USSR. He's simply reiterating it. I think he also said "within Russia", not "with Russia", but again, we're talking large scale conflict. Millions of troops. Something that's really easy to spot.

And what does the OP do? He sensationalizes this even more. It reminds me of a really bad NSG RP, where everyone just nukes everything

That reminds me a bit of Ralk's RPs

Yep.
And I don't know about Ralk.

[The Lone Alliance]

What government? Somalia didn't have a government from 1991 to 2000.

They still don't have a government. They have not had a government since the USA invaded in 92.

Because of this, an extreme Muslim group has seized a considerable amount of what used to be Somalia and declared an independent sovereign state with no one being able to stop them from doing so.

Somalia as a country does not exist anymore.

The Islamic Courts Union were driven out of the capital by a combined force of the actual government and Ethopia. Several of the other groups have allied with the government since then.

Am I the only one that thinks the Cold War has never truly ended?

It never ended, it just got quiet for awhile, there were too many people on both sides that don't want it to end.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Let's see what the Torygraph has to say about all this...Oh my God, Putin reminded the world that they have lots of nukes, com'on everybody, it's time to protect and survive! Let's duck and cover, boys!

[True American States]

Where's Reagan's Star Wars program when you need it.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Where's Reagan's Star Wars program when you need it.

Still around, still useless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative

[OMGeverynameistaken]

Where's Reagan's Star Wars program when you need it.

Still around and still fairly useless. IIRC even with modern technology they estimate that they would only be able to neutralize a third of a large scale ICBM launch with the current ground-based systems. Further, current SDI emplacements are nearly useless against SRBMs, which is where Russia has been concentrating most of its development lately.

[New Chalcedon]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/11064209/Vladimir-Putin-Dont-mess-with-nuclear-armed-Russia.html

This should remind everyone why it is important that no American, British, German, French, Canadian, or other NATO soldiers ever set foot inside Ukraine.

This is the first time in recent decades that Russia has threatened to launch a nuclear holocaust upon the NATO alliance.

We might be opposed to what Russia is doing in Ukraine but are we willing to destroy the planet just to stop them from carving the country up?

....I see that it's time for USN/NATO carrier battlegroups to conduct exercises in the Baltic Sea, the Barents Sea, the Black Sea and the Sea of Japan again. Waving a hammer at someone who has a much bigger hammer than you is generally considered a bad, bad idea.

And for those who claim that "it's best to just let Russia have its way", your way was tried - in the 1930s. When does appeasement stop being the correct option? (PS: Godwin is not the correct call here - Putin's actions in the Crimea have been justly compared to Hitler's in the Sudetenland, the Anschluss and elsewhere where German minorities were involved.)

Let us say that this blatant Russian aggression against another state goes unanswered - not even with effective sanctions (I am not in favour of military action save only as a last resort, which this isn't). What happens when Russia and Belorussia merge? When Russia claims that the Russian minorities in the Baltic states are mistreated to the extent of requiring Russian intervention?

Where does the aggression stop?

[New Chalcedon]

Where's Reagan's Star Wars program when you need it.

Still around, still useless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative

Basically, this. And the Patriot system isn't 100% effective, either - and where ICBMs are involved, you want 100% efficacy. And even if they were effective, the civilian collateral damage on the losing side in a nuclear exchange is catastrophic, to the point where it should horrify any half-sane person. Nukes are not discriminate weapons.

But if Putin wants to rattle his saber, I don't see how reminding him that he's not the only armed person in the room is a bad thing.

[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.

Just like the Cuban Missile Crises except this time it will be the Polish Missile Crises. Obama puts missiles in Poland. Russia tells them to remove the missiles or face all out nuclear war. Just like Kennedy did with Russia over the whole Cuba thing.

That, putting nuclear missiles inside Poland, would be the most likely trigger for a Russia/NATO war. I don't think Putin would hesitate if he found out that Obama was putting nuclear warheads on missiles in Poland or Latvia or any other East European country. That is probably the red line.

You know what sparked the Cuban Missile Crisis, right?
The US stationed the Jupiter IRBM in Turkey, putting Moscow in range.
Russia decided to reciprocate and put Washington in range of Russian IRBMs.

The Jupiter deployment was active for less than a year before being withdrawn.

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.

You know who would be crippled in a nuclear war? Europe.

You know who could survive or even win a nuclear war? The United States and Russia.

The guy in the middle is almost always the one who pays the price and guess who is between the United States and Russia?

The US would be completely devastated if they got caught off-guard in a counterforce action.
Russia is the country that would make the best approximation of statehood because it's the one country that bothered to prepare for the eventuality.

"Let's go to Somalia together to force western values on them at the point of gun."

If "forcing western values" involves having a country that isn't run by pirates and Islamists, I say all aboard the SS. Shock & Awe.

You mean just like the United States?

"Oh we don't like Saddam Hussein being in charge of Iraq. It's time for an illegal American led regime change in downtown Baghdad."

"Oh we don't like Gaddafi's government so we are going to arm the rebels and bombs away over Tripoli because Tripoli does not have a proper western style government."

"Let's go to Somalia together to force western values on them at the point of gun."

So poor little Russia can go do the same? Bullshit.
Putin must be sanctioned into oblivion, his crimes against Russia and her people revealed, and his fellow nutbag corrupt fucktard buddies disabused of the notion that they can seize bits of their neighbors.

This mindset condones the US' actions in other theatres during the Cold War.
You can't have it both ways. Fuck the global hegemony.

Fund terrorists who'll likely stir up a 3rd Chechen War? At least he has that much sense...maybe.

ISIS doesn't operate in Chechnya, and they would probably agree to ignore Russian territories if they get to expand into Iraq, Syria and possibly beyond into S.A. and Egypt. ISIS should be the vicious beast Russia funds and unleashes upon the west. If this was a strategy game I would own it.

How about no.

Considering that Putin is slightly unhinged and in charge of a Nuclear Superpower, which he operates like a criminal mafia - would it still be unjustified to contemplate putting Polonium-210 in his teacup at the next round of 'peace negotiations' ? After all, what goes around, comes around.

If any one action would risk all-out strategic nuclear exchange.
That would probably be it.

Well, it depends who strikes first, and where, I think they would only go for the capitals, so their governments would fall.

Time for me to invest in Bomb shelter manafacturers.

REPENT THY SINS, IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD!

The seat of power is a significant target. So are military bases, seaports, airports, naval bases, air bases, petrochemicals, power plants, tank factories, nuclear weapon storage and launch facilities, roads etc.

And for those who claim that "it's best to just let Russia have its way", your way was tried - in the 1930s. When does appeasement stop being the correct option? (PS: Godwin is not the correct call here - Putin's actions in the Crimea have been justly compared to Hitler's in the Sudetenland, the Anschluss and elsewhere where German minorities were involved.)

Unlike the Sudetenland and possibly the Anschluss, Crimea was actually Russian, well within living memory. Krsuchev, former rule of Ukraine, ceded Crimea to Ukraine as Soviet Premier, a 300-year friendship gesture between the two countries (now part of the same country, in effect, as the USSR) in 1954.
The Russians see taking this back as righting a historical wrong.

As a person who doesn't support these actions, I see the comparisons to Hitler as almost disingenuous and fairly meaningless.
It's just an excuse to say "ooh, that's what Hitler did!!one!"

Still around, still useless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative

Basically, this. And the Patriot system isn't 100% effective, either - and where ICBMs are involved, you want 100% efficacy. And even if they were effective, the civilian collateral damage on the losing side in a nuclear exchange is catastrophic, to the point where it should horrify any half-sane person. Nukes are not discriminate weapons.

But if Putin wants to rattle his saber, I don't see how reminding him that he's not the only armed person in the room is a bad thing.

There is no 100% effective defence shield. It does not and will never exist.

[New Chalcedon]

And for those who claim that "it's best to just let Russia have its way", your way was tried - in the 1930s. When does appeasement stop being the correct option? (PS: Godwin is not the correct call here - Putin's actions in the Crimea have been justly compared to Hitler's in the Sudetenland, the Anschluss and elsewhere where German minorities were involved.)

Unlike the Sudetenland and possibly the Anschluss, Crimea was actually Russian, well within living memory. Krsuchev, former rule of Ukraine, ceded Crimea to Ukraine as Soviet Premier, a 300-year friendship gesture between the two countries (now part of the same country, in effect, as the USSR) in 1954.
The Russians see taking this back as righting a historical wrong.

As a person who doesn't support these actions, I see the comparisons to Hitler as almost disingenuous and fairly meaningless.
It's just an excuse to say "ooh, that's what Hitler did!!one!"

The similarities are more than superficial. Consider the points in common:

(1) Aggressive, saber-rattling leaders looking to rebuild their nations' "past glories".
(2) Ethnic minorities of their people in others' lands, sufficiently concentrated to become majorities in some portions thereof.
(3) At least some local sentiment in favour of "rejoining the Mother/Fatherland".
(4) Perception (in Berlin/Moscow) of having been "wronged" by historical events that separated those enclaves from their homelands.
(5) Deliberate use of the (perceived) plight of those minorities to drum up domestic support and provide legitimacy to the adjustment of borders by force.
(6) Military invasion, followed by either no attempt to actually consult the locals, or a shabby and transparently-fraudulent sham election to legitimise the results. 99.73% and 96.77% as genuine results? Puh-lease.

Are the situations entirely analogous? No (For instance, I don't have any knowledge of Putin being remotely anti-Semitic - although his hardline anti-LGBT attitudes have already won him infamy) - but the similarities should alarm anyone who wishes to avoid World War III. Because if you think Putin's ambitions stop at "rejoining" the Crimea to Russia, I strongly suspect you're mistaken. Within a year, he'll push for the eastern third to half of the Ukraine, followed either by the rest or by a vigorous push against the Baltic States (who, to be honest, actually do mistreat their ethnic Russian minorities shamefully).

There is no 100% effective defence shield. It does not and will never exist.

It certainly doesn't today, and - brags aside - there aren't any serious proposals to build one, even from the hawkiest of hawks.

Which means that military confrontation between two nuclear-armed powers is something to be avoided, even moreso than war in general.

[Cartalucci]

How is it that Russia is the one being accused of aggression here? The US and EU have caused the violence by sponsoring a coup in Ukraine by fascists who are now employing neo-Nazis to attack the Russian minority in the East, all in order to continue the NATO encirclement of Russia. They have organised a NATO conference at which they have plotted to move forces right up to the Russian border and probably also to deploy troops directly in Ukraine.

At the same time in Brussels at an EU conference the leaders of that organisation have provoked Russia with threats of war for responding to the violence instigated by those same leaders. And yet when Russia responds to those provocations by announcing it will defend itself, that makes Russia the aggressor?

[Imperializt Russia]

It's just a fact. There's no 100% ABM shield. There's no 100% SEAD campaign. There's no 100% ECM. There's no 100% APS. There's no 100% counterbattery system.
Treaties existed in the Cold War limiting ABMs. Attempts to establish defence shields were seen as provocative.

You're also missing the point. Comparison isn't necessary at all. The comparison exists to push an agenda. In this case, Putin is "as bad" as Hitler and thus must be stopped. Hitler isn't the only person the "comparison" may be relevant to - he's just the goto "bad person" of history. Neatly missing Stalin, at least in the west. Maybe the Russians still consider Stalin better than Hitler, who knows.
Violations of international law and national sovereignty are occurring. That we need to try and compare to the Nazis in order to influence policy is just pandering and doesn't really establish or solve anything - besides maybe goad an administration into acting where they would not want to under public pressure.