Moscow - the only world power able to turn the United States into "radioactive dust"
by scotoma 21 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
DJS
Consider the source and ratchet down the rhetoric. Russia has been in an inferiority funk since the break up of the old Soviet empire. Their economy isn't much to brag about, alcoholism is rife and the average age for men is 50 something. The old guard pines for the old days. The Olympics gave them all a boost and Vlad's timing to take the Crimea gave the national psyche another boost. They are feeling, albeit for the moment, some renewed vigor. The old guy talking about their nukes is kind of like a fan of a sports team which has been on hard times for a few dacades bragging about the national championship they won in 1985. He doesn't rationally stop to think that there are a helluva lot more of those nukes, likely much more accurate and much better, aimed at them. From more than the U.S.
Let him have his brag and boast. It's rhetoric and predictable. Plus, all his buds died of liver failure, and he's depressed.
-
TD
Shouldn't any nation be able to build whatever weapons they need for self defense?
Nuclear weapons are strategic with relatively few exceptions.
If a country has voluntarily become a signator of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, then I'm not sure why they should be allowed to build whatever they want, especially if signing opened the door to economic aid, trading concessions and other inducements.
-
scotoma
TD,
Good point. If someone agrees to special arrangements if they don't build nuclear weapons then they ought to keep that committment.
That would be an exceptional case.
-
scotoma
DJS,
It's obvious that Kielyov is far from the big nuclear button.
What should be of concern is the sober formulation of policy that makes a first strike a rational strategy.
Both Russia and the USA have a first strike policy. It is generally believed that the side that initiates the first strike has the best opportunity for their missiles to do the job - whether the missiles will be accurate or not - no one knows for sure until they shoot. One thing is sure if your strategy is reactive rather than preemptive you are guaranteed a result that is not optimum.
So, who is more desperate? Russia or the USA. Desperate situations call for desperate actions. The FSB and possibly Putin himself were implicated in the bombing of the apartment complex in Moscow and other cities in Russia at the end of 1999 to destract Russians from Yeltsin's corruption and pave the way for Putin to become Prime Minister and then President. The bombs were blamed on the Chechens and Putin won the hearts of the Russian Nationalists by invading Grozny and bombing that city of a half million people into a pile of rubble. Litvenenko was poisoned with polonium because he knew too much about those bombings. Also look up Ryazan & bombing on the internet.
Does the west want to make Russia more desperate?
I don't expect missiles to fly but I wouldn't be surprised if a wealthy oligarch or even the FSB passed a suitcase nuke over to some terrorists to blow up the financial district in New York. There would be no return address. Putin would act real concerned and friendly sending his condolences. Even if the isotopes indicate a Russian device his plea would be that unfortunately such instruments can fall into the wrong hands.
The USA would be preoccupied with digging out of that mess. The countries of the former soviet union - including Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia would understand that the west is no longer in a position to help them.
We are in an extremely dangerous time. Anything could happen.
-
TD
That would be an exceptional case.
How so?
The non-signatory states are: India, Israel, Pakistan and South Sudan.
Amost every other country on earth has agreed to it with these exceptions:
China abides by it even though they're not technically bound by it.
North Korea withdrew from it in 1993.
-
problemaddict
I don't see the new proliferation of nuclear arms currently. This is all political bluster.
Ukraine transferred all of its nuclear arms back to Russia with a treatment signed by Russia, the US, and a European country that i cannot recall (maybe the UK), that said they areed as long as they were supported if they were ever attacked. I'll bet they are probably apealing to that perticular treaty currently but with no results, since one that signed it is the country that took their land.
I honestly think this will blow over. It was shady, but overall fairly harmless.
-
-
wasblind
Hey Sam
The same thing happened back in 1914
100 years later we're still here
.
.
The best thing we can do is stop waitin' on the end
and begin to start livin'
.
.
-
DJS
Scotoma,
There are "DNA" fingerprints on all nuclear devices. The U.S. would know where the device originated, likely which factories the various part were made in, what year it was manufactured, etc. This serves as a very strong deterrent for the scenario you mentioned. Oligarchs want to stay rich and most if not all will focus on making money and strong arm tactics similar to those used in the latter part of the 19th and early part of the 20th centuries in the U.S. Many of the Russian oligarchs very quickly established residences and financial and business linkages in the U.S., for stability and opportunity and to avoid any Russian take backs to Communism. They aren't stupid men; can one or more be rogue? Of course, but a suitcase nuke, which BTW has many reasons as to why it lacks as a valid scenario (google it), likely isn't one of our problems.
Vlad is an opportunist who needs cash. I would make the Ukraine/Crimean issue a stickg sight (remember those from the early days of the 'Net?). Easy to get in; hard as hell to get out. And a very strong deterrent for taking his posturing elsewhere. The U.S. and its allies should be thinking of everything they can to make Putin's move as uncomfortable and problematic as possible, short of military moves.