Russia threatens U.S. and Poland with Nuclear Attack.

[baalboy5]

Nuclear weapons are a last resort. I mean very last resort. Also would you please care to explain how to overthrow the largest country in the world that spans two continents?

 

We did it in WW2 we can do it agian.

 

But danm, I'm gonna die before I graduate highschool.

[hohto]

Let the U.S secretly get allied with china and North Korea and then "quietly" blow up Russia with hundreds of bombs =D

 

 

 

You already got enough fire power to destroy this planet even without North Korea or China. USA wouldn't need (if that kind of an alliance would be real on a theoretical level) or even would be able to get any proper help from them if the plan was to nuke Russia. That would be a two bladed sword tho: the retaliation would come immediately and USA would suffer just as much as Russia.

 

 

 

same things with using guns, except people actually feel more pain being shot. At least with a bomb its an instant and painless death...

 

 

 

Just google images from people who have survived from bombings and been relatively close. I bet many of those would have rather taken a bullet or few. Not to mention that when you got your gun, you can in most cases avoid civialian deaths while bombs don't choose to hurt soldiers only.

 

 

 

I just heard that Russia is going to leave NATO as well.

 

 

 

Erm? Since when was Russia even part of NATO?

 

 

 

Russia is a danger to the entire world. They need to be destroyed.

 

 

 

USA has caused more deaths than Russia after the collapse of USSR. Infact USA's civilian death toll is higher than Russia's total number. USA has also been playing the main role in a lot larger number of military interventions than Russia. USA is all the time provocating Russia, now for example with this missile shield. That doesn't mean Russia wouldn't be a danger to certain nations, but at least I'm more worried about USA than Russia when I look it from the point of view a random man would take. Of course if I take the finn's p.o.v. Russia looks more dangerous.

 

 

 

For every nuke that hits us or any other country, I hope 10 hit them.

 

 

 

So in the other words you don't believe in the possibility that USA could hit the first strike? What would be your opinion if Russia now nuked a random european country with a strategigal nuclear weapon? Should USA start a nuclear war due one destroyed military section in a random place?

 

 

 

I never said it would be easy. We need alliances, with nuclear weapons, straight up warfare won't work.

 

 

 

What would the alliances do? Clap hands with your generals while watching the counter attack coming? First of all USA got more than enough nukes to destroy this planet (note: russia < earth), second there's no other countries than USA and Russia that could match on a theoretical level: all the other nuclear armed forces don't have even close the same number of warheads, submarines, missile technology or even knowledge on nuclear warfare.

 

 

 

We did it in WW2 we can do it agian.

 

 

 

In WW2 you had no real clue on the longtime affects of using few nukes on certain areas. During WW2 you were the other country with nukes and a lot a head of others: it took USSR 4 years to get their first nukes and it happened after espionage and huge support from the goverment.

 

 

 

Now things are totally different and I'm surprised how you can compare nuking Japan in 1945 to a theoretical scene where you'd nuke Russia on 21st century.

[Lenticular_J]

I just heard that Russia is going to leave NATO as well.

 

 

 

Erm? Since when was Russia even part of NATO?

 

I thought that was strange, too.

 

 

 

We did it in WW2 we can do it agian.

 

 

 

In WW2 you had no real clue on the longtime affects of using few nukes on certain areas. During WW2 you were the other country with nukes and a lot a head of others: it took USSR 4 years to get their first nukes and it happened after espionage and huge support from the goverment.

 

 

 

Now things are totally different and I'm surprised how you can compare nuking Japan in 1945 to a theoretical scene where you'd nuke Russia on 21st century.

 

So true. A modern-day warhead have, what, ten times the effect of one of the bombs? And those weren't even technically nuclear by modern standards; they were atom bombs. Most of the U.S.'s warheads are hydrogen - most of the world's are. However, even every warhead on the planet exploding at the same time wouldn't destroy the planet. The dust and radiation would cause a severe problem, but the planet would hold out in the end.

 

 

 

EDIT: Fixed quote.

[baalboy5]

No I ment pushing thru Europe not nukes. We did that in WW2

[Dizzle229]

Let the U.S secretly get allied with china and North Korea and then "quietly" blow up Russia with hundreds of bombs =D

 

 

 

You already got enough fire power to destroy this planet even without North Korea or China. USA wouldn't need (if that kind of an alliance would be real on a theoretical level) or even would be able to get any proper help from them if the plan was to nuke Russia. That would be a two bladed sword tho: the retaliation would come immediately and USA would suffer just as much as Russia.

 

 

 

same things with using guns, except people actually feel more pain being shot. At least with a bomb its an instant and painless death...

 

 

 

Just google images from people who have survived from bombings and been relatively close. I bet many of those would have rather taken a bullet or few. Not to mention that when you got your gun, you can in most cases avoid civialian deaths while bombs don't choose to hurt soldiers only.

 

 

 

I just heard that Russia is going to leave NATO as well.

 

 

 

Erm? Since when was Russia even part of NATO?

 

 

 

Russia is a danger to the entire world. They need to be destroyed.

 

 

 

USA has caused more deaths than Russia after the collapse of USSR. Infact USA's civilian death toll is higher than Russia's total number. USA has also been playing the main role in a lot larger number of military interventions than Russia. USA is all the time provocating Russia, now for example with this missile shield. That doesn't mean Russia wouldn't be a danger to certain nations, but at least I'm more worried about USA than Russia when I look it from the point of view a random man would take. Of course if I take the finn's p.o.v. Russia looks more dangerous.

 

 

 

For every nuke that hits us or any other country, I hope 10 hit them.

 

 

 

So in the other words you don't believe in the possibility that USA could hit the first strike? What would be your opinion if Russia now nuked a random european country with a strategigal nuclear weapon? Should USA start a nuclear war due one destroyed military section in a random place?

 

 

 

I never said it would be easy. We need alliances, with nuclear weapons, straight up warfare won't work.

 

 

 

What would the alliances do? Clap hands with your generals while watching the counter attack coming? First of all USA got more than enough nukes to destroy this planet (note: russia < earth), second there's no other countries than USA and Russia that could match on a theoretical level: all the other nuclear armed forces don't have even close the same number of warheads, submarines, missile technology or even knowledge on nuclear warfare.

 

 

 

We did it in WW2 we can do it agian.

 

 

 

In WW2 you had no real clue on the longtime affects of using few nukes on certain areas. During WW2 you were the other country with nukes and a lot a head of others: it took USSR 4 years to get their first nukes and it happened after espionage and huge support from the goverment.

 

 

 

Now things are totally different and I'm surprised how you can compare nuking Japan in 1945 to a theoretical scene where you'd nuke Russia on 21st century.

 

 

 

 

 

I seriously doubt we would make the first strike. A move like that would be extremely idiotic and to be honest, if we nuke them first, then we're just begging to be nuked back.

[Cyco_Reborn]

The question on my mind is: Do the Russians have the guts to declare nuclear war on the US?

[l0l0lpur32]

The question on my mind is: Do the Russians have the guts to declare nuclear war on the US?

 

What do you mean by "having the guts"? I'm pretty sure they don't have a desire to mass-murder hundreds of millions of innocent people.

[a b c]

Let all ''accidentaly'' push nuclear buttons so russian learn that scare people like that is not good.

 

 

 

Errrm i mean...

 

 

 

I mean seriously lets not make this a WW3 becouse when it ends more deads and stuff... :cry: :( :?

 

Also more things our possible kids need to study for school

[ThurinEthir]

The question on my mind is: Do the Russians have the guts to declare nuclear war on the US?

 

As a last resort, probably. Declaring war on a country like Georgia (Which they basically already did) or Poland would be more likely. But the US would most likely have to take action if it was on a major country.

 

I'm pretty sure Russia would threaten to though.

[magekillr]

Best Article I've seen yet about the missile defense:

 

 

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... icy.russia

 

 

 

It's a novel way to take your own life. Just as Russia demonstrates what happens to former minions that annoy it, Poland agrees to host a US missile defence base. The Russians, as Poland expected, respond to this proposal by offering to turn the country into a parking lot. This proves that the missile defence system is necessary after all: it will stop the missiles Russia will now aim at Poland, the Czech Republic and the UK in response to, er, their involvement in the missile defence system.

 

 

 

The American government insists that the interceptors, which will be stationed on the Baltic coast, have nothing to do with Russia: their purpose is to defend Europe and the US against the intercontinental ballistic missiles Iran and North Korea don't possess. This is why they are being placed in Poland, which, as every geography student in Texas knows, shares a border with both rogue states.

 

 

 

They permit us to look forward to a glowing future, in which missile defence, according to the Pentagon, will "protect our homeland ... and our friends and allies from ballistic missile attack"; as long as the Russians wait until it's working before they nuke us. The good news is that, at the present rate of progress, reliable missile defence is only 50 years away. The bad news is that it has been 50 years away for the past six decades.

 

 

 

The system has been in development since 1946, and so far it has achieved a grand total of nothing. You wouldn't know it if you read the press releases published by the Pentagon's missile defence agency: the word "success" features more often than any other noun. It is true that the programme has managed to hit two out of the five missiles fired over the past five years during tests of its main component, the ground-based midcourse missile defence (GMD) system. But, sadly, these tests bear no relation to anything resembling a real nuclear strike.

 

 

 

All the trials run so far - successful or otherwise - have been rigged. The target, its type, trajectory and destination, are known before the test begins. Only one enemy missile is used, as the system doesn't have a hope in hell of knocking down two or more. If decoy missiles are deployed, they bear no resemblance to the target and they are identified as decoys in advance. In order to try to enhance the appearance of success, recent flight tests have become even less realistic: the agency has now stopped using decoys altogether when testing its GMD system.

 

 

 

This points to one of the intractable weaknesses of missile defence: it is hard to see how the interceptors could ever outwit enemy attempts to confuse them. As Philip Coyle - formerly a senior official at the Pentagon with responsibility for missile defence - points out, there are endless means by which another state could fool the system. For every real missile it launched, it could dispatch a host of dummies with the same radar and infra-red signatures. Even balloons or bits of metal foil would render anything resembling the current system inoperable. You can reduce a missile's susceptibility to laser penetration by 90% by painting it white. This sophisticated avoidance technology, available from your local hardware shop, makes another multibillion component of the programme obsolete. Or you could simply forget about ballistic missiles and attack using cruise missiles, against which the system is useless.

 

 

 

Missile defence is so expensive and the measures required to evade it so cheap that if the US government were serious about making the system work it would bankrupt the country, just as the arms race helped to bring the Soviet Union down. By spending a couple of billion dollars on decoy technologies, Russia would commit the US to trillions of dollars of countermeasures. The cost ratios are such that even Iran could outspend the US.

 

 

 

The US has spent between $120bn and $150bn on the programme since Ronald Reagan relaunched it in 1983. Under George Bush, the costs have accelerated. The Pentagon has requested $62bn for the next five-year tranche, which means that the total cost between 2003 and 2013 will be $110bn. Yet there are no clear criteria for success. As a recent paper in the journal Defense and Security Analysis shows, the Pentagon invented a new funding system in order to allow the missile defence programme to evade the government's usual accounting standards. It's called spiral development, which is quite appropriate, because it ensures that the costs spiral out of control.

 

 

 

Spiral development means, in the words of a Pentagon directive, that "the end-state requirements are not known at programme initiation". Instead, the system is allowed to develop in whatever way officials think fit. The result is that no one has the faintest idea what the programme is supposed to achieve, or whether it has achieved it. There are no fixed dates, no fixed costs for any component of the programme, no penalties for slippage or failure, no standards of any kind against which the system can be judged. And this monstrous scheme is still incapable of achieving what a few hundred dollars' worth of diplomacy could do in an afternoon.

 

 

 

So why commit endless billions to a programme that is bound to fail? I'll give you a clue: the answer is in the question. It persists because it doesn't work.

 

 

 

US politics, because of the failure by both Republicans and Democrats to deal with the problems of campaign finance, is rotten from head to toe. But under Bush, the corruption has acquired Nigerian qualities. Federal government is a vast corporate welfare programme, rewarding the industries that give millions of dollars in political donations with contracts worth billions. Missile defence is the biggest pork barrel of all, the magic pudding that won't run out, however much you eat. The funds channelled to defence, aerospace and other manufacturing and service companies will never run dry because the system will never work.

 

 

 

To keep the pudding flowing, the administration must exaggerate the threats from nations that have no means of nuking it - and ignore the likely responses of those that do. Russia is not without its own corrupting influences. You could see the grim delight of the Russian generals and defence officials last week, who have found in this new deployment an excuse to enhance their power and demand bigger budgets. Poor old Poland, like the Czech Republic and the UK, gets strongarmed into becoming America's groundbait.

 

 

 

If we seek to understand American foreign policy in terms of a rational engagement with international problems, or even as an effective means of projecting power, we are looking in the wrong place. The government's interests have always been provincial. It seeks to appease lobbyists, shift public opinion at crucial stages of the political cycle, accommodate crazy Christian fantasies and pander to television companies run by eccentric billionaires. The US does not really have a foreign policy. It has a series of domestic policies which it projects beyond its borders. That they threaten the world with 57 varieties of destruction is of no concern to the current administration. The only question of interest is who gets paid and what the political kickbacks will be.

[fgfuyfyuiuy0]

Even if Russia fired a missile, technology has made us capable of intercepting that rocket with another one.

[The_Who]

Deleted. ~meol

 

 

 

On Topic: I'm thinking this might just be a hollow threat. No one wants nuclear war, not even Russia. If they're serious, then they must have some sort of death wish. If they strike first, they'll suffer an even worse nuclear response from the NATO countries.

[anonymous1234]

Even if Russia fired a missile, technology has made us capable of intercepting that rocket with another one.

 

:wall: That's the reason Russia is threatening us. They don't want a missile shield. Besides, they could go overkill with nukes and overload the missile defence. Not to mention SLBM's which could be anywhere :|

[Lenticular_J]

Mage, why even post that article? It's biased beyond idiocy. It should hardly qualify as a new article, it's more like one of those posts you find by slightly intelligent people trying to make a point for their opinion on a politics-only forum.

[magekillr]

Mage, why even post that article? It's biased beyond idiocy. It should hardly qualify as a new article, it's more like one of those posts you find by slightly intelligent people trying to make a point for their opinion on a politics-only forum.

 

 

 

It's from the Guardian, what do you expect? Of course it's going to seem biased in the American people's eyes...but not to someone in Britain or anyone else in the world who sees a brokered American foreign policy.

[Lenticular_J]

Mage, why even post that article? It's biased beyond idiocy. It should hardly qualify as a new article, it's more like one of those posts you find by slightly intelligent people trying to make a point for their opinion on a politics-only forum.

 

 

 

It's from the Guardian, what do you expect? Of course it's going to seem biased in the American people's eyes...but not to someone in Britain or anyone else in the world who sees a brokered American foreign policy.

 

I can't say I'm familiar with the Guardian. I hate all major news groups, really. They either A) Try to be funny, B) Kiss all the American [wagon] they can, or C) Crap on the country, and call Bush an idiot.

 

 

 

But it isn't just biased in my eyes, I doubt even you think it's one of those hard-hitting, view all sides articles.

[magekillr]

Well I'm not a moderate, I'm a radical fringe socialist with some government intervention among things like free speech, and I believe in diplomacy.

 

 

 

The point is, America has no diplomacy, and it's been extremely evident with this whole debacle how ineffective American diplomacy that doesn't involve direct military intervention truly is.

[Da Pirates]

TL;DR

 

 

 

Is this going to be the next WWIII?

[fgfuyfyuiuy0]

Even if Russia fired a missile, technology has made us capable of intercepting that rocket with another one.

 

:wall: That's the reason Russia is threatening us. They don't want a missile shield. Besides, they could go overkill with nukes and overload the missile defence. Not to mention SLBM's which could be anywhere :|

 

 

 

Russia needs to put their big boy underwear on. Why would we leave ourselves vulnerable to missile-based attacks? It's idiotic. Why would we want ourselves to be hit by missiles if we could stop them and save people?

 

 

 

I doubt they could overkill as we have more SLBMs and better technology than them via missile defense.

[jackattack]

 

The point is, America has no diplomacy, and it's been extremely evident with this whole debacle how ineffective American diplomacy that doesn't involve direct military intervention truly is.

 

 

 

We did pretty well with North Korea. Obviously the prospect of being kicked out of the g8 isn't sending russia running with their tails between their legs. Not much anyone can do there.

[mrsmarty1]

Best Article I've seen yet about the missile defense:

 

 

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... icy.russia

 

 

 

It's a novel way to take your own life. Just as Russia demonstrates what happens to former minions that annoy it, Poland agrees to host a US missile defence base. The Russians, as Poland expected, respond to this proposal by offering to turn the country into a parking lot. This proves that the missile defence system is necessary after all: it will stop the missiles Russia will now aim at Poland, the Czech Republic and the UK in response to, er, their involvement in the missile defence system.

 

 

 

The American government insists that the interceptors, which will be stationed on the Baltic coast, have nothing to do with Russia: their purpose is to defend Europe and the US against the intercontinental ballistic missiles Iran and North Korea don't possess. This is why they are being placed in Poland, which, as every geography student in Texas knows, shares a border with both rogue states.

 

 

 

They permit us to look forward to a glowing future, in which missile defence, according to the Pentagon, will "protect our homeland ... and our friends and allies from ballistic missile attack"; as long as the Russians wait until it's working before they nuke us. The good news is that, at the present rate of progress, reliable missile defence is only 50 years away. The bad news is that it has been 50 years away for the past six decades.

 

 

 

The system has been in development since 1946, and so far it has achieved a grand total of nothing. You wouldn't know it if you read the press releases published by the Pentagon's missile defence agency: the word "success" features more often than any other noun. It is true that the programme has managed to hit two out of the five missiles fired over the past five years during tests of its main component, the ground-based midcourse missile defence (GMD) system. But, sadly, these tests bear no relation to anything resembling a real nuclear strike.

 

 

 

All the trials run so far - successful or otherwise - have been rigged. The target, its type, trajectory and destination, are known before the test begins. Only one enemy missile is used, as the system doesn't have a hope in hell of knocking down two or more. If decoy missiles are deployed, they bear no resemblance to the target and they are identified as decoys in advance. In order to try to enhance the appearance of success, recent flight tests have become even less realistic: the agency has now stopped using decoys altogether when testing its GMD system.

 

 

 

This points to one of the intractable weaknesses of missile defence: it is hard to see how the interceptors could ever outwit enemy attempts to confuse them. As Philip Coyle - formerly a senior official at the Pentagon with responsibility for missile defence - points out, there are endless means by which another state could fool the system. For every real missile it launched, it could dispatch a host of dummies with the same radar and infra-red signatures. Even balloons or bits of metal foil would render anything resembling the current system inoperable. You can reduce a missile's susceptibility to laser penetration by 90% by painting it white. This sophisticated avoidance technology, available from your local hardware shop, makes another multibillion component of the programme obsolete. Or you could simply forget about ballistic missiles and attack using cruise missiles, against which the system is useless.

 

 

 

Missile defence is so expensive and the measures required to evade it so cheap that if the US government were serious about making the system work it would bankrupt the country, just as the arms race helped to bring the Soviet Union down. By spending a couple of billion dollars on decoy technologies, Russia would commit the US to trillions of dollars of countermeasures. The cost ratios are such that even Iran could outspend the US.

 

 

 

The US has spent between $120bn and $150bn on the programme since Ronald Reagan relaunched it in 1983. Under George Bush, the costs have accelerated. The Pentagon has requested $62bn for the next five-year tranche, which means that the total cost between 2003 and 2013 will be $110bn. Yet there are no clear criteria for success. As a recent paper in the journal Defense and Security Analysis shows, the Pentagon invented a new funding system in order to allow the missile defence programme to evade the government's usual accounting standards. It's called spiral development, which is quite appropriate, because it ensures that the costs spiral out of control.

 

 

 

Spiral development means, in the words of a Pentagon directive, that "the end-state requirements are not known at programme initiation". Instead, the system is allowed to develop in whatever way officials think fit. The result is that no one has the faintest idea what the programme is supposed to achieve, or whether it has achieved it. There are no fixed dates, no fixed costs for any component of the programme, no penalties for slippage or failure, no standards of any kind against which the system can be judged. And this monstrous scheme is still incapable of achieving what a few hundred dollars' worth of diplomacy could do in an afternoon.

 

 

 

So why commit endless billions to a programme that is bound to fail? I'll give you a clue: the answer is in the question. It persists because it doesn't work.

 

 

 

US politics, because of the failure by both Republicans and Democrats to deal with the problems of campaign finance, is rotten from head to toe. But under Bush, the corruption has acquired Nigerian qualities. Federal government is a vast corporate welfare programme, rewarding the industries that give millions of dollars in political donations with contracts worth billions. Missile defence is the biggest pork barrel of all, the magic pudding that won't run out, however much you eat. The funds channelled to defence, aerospace and other manufacturing and service companies will never run dry because the system will never work.

 

 

 

To keep the pudding flowing, the administration must exaggerate the threats from nations that have no means of nuking it - and ignore the likely responses of those that do. Russia is not without its own corrupting influences. You could see the grim delight of the Russian generals and defence officials last week, who have found in this new deployment an excuse to enhance their power and demand bigger budgets. Poor old Poland, like the Czech Republic and the UK, gets strongarmed into becoming America's groundbait.

 

 

 

If we seek to understand American foreign policy in terms of a rational engagement with international problems, or even as an effective means of projecting power, we are looking in the wrong place. The government's interests have always been provincial. It seeks to appease lobbyists, shift public opinion at crucial stages of the political cycle, accommodate crazy Christian fantasies and pander to television companies run by eccentric billionaires. The US does not really have a foreign policy. It has a series of domestic policies which it projects beyond its borders. That they threaten the world with 57 varieties of destruction is of no concern to the current administration. The only question of interest is who gets paid and what the political kickbacks will be.

 

 

 

Typical British Propaganda, they wouldn't last very long in a war without the americans. Heck they'd be speaking German today if it wasn't for the U.S.

[Range_This11]

 

Typical British Propaganda, they wouldn't last very long in a war without the americans. Heck they'd be speaking German today if it wasn't for the U.S.

 

Ouchies. Them's fightin' words!

[Lenticular_J]

 

Typical British Propaganda, they wouldn't last very long in a war without the americans. Heck they'd be speaking German today if it wasn't for the U.S.

 

Ouchies. Them's fightin' words!

 

I believe mrsmarty is Canadian, right?

 

 

 

That's like 18 shocks in one post. However, I expect that you're going to get some trouble from Ginger for that.

[magekillr]

 

Typical British Propaganda, they wouldn't last very long in a war without the americans. Heck they'd be speaking German today if it wasn't for the U.S.

 

 

 

You know the majority of the War was fought on the East side, right?

 

 

 

Alas, one forgets that Russia had an equal hand in winning WWII with the United States, and endured far more casualties than the United States, Germany, and Japan combined.

 

 

 

Bravo with the typical "America won the war for the world" propaganda though. =D>

 

 

 

edit: I should say the USSR lost that many casualties, but I digress.

[Range_This11]

 

Typical British Propaganda, they wouldn't last very long in a war without the americans. Heck they'd be speaking German today if it wasn't for the U.S.

 

 

 

You know the majority of the War was fought on the East side, right?

 

 

 

Alas, one forgets that Russia had an equal hand in winning WWII with the United States, and endured far more casualties than the United States, Germany, and Japan combined.

 

 

 

Bravo with the typical "America won the war for the world" propaganda though. =D>

 

 

 

edit: I should say the USSR lost that many casualties, but I digress.

 

I think what a lot of people fail to realize is that if Russia had an organized army instead of just a mass amount of soldiers with no training they would have done better. All Russia did was burn a city to the ground and retreat further into Russia on the grounds that they had more people and would outlast the Germans, which they did. A lot of those casualties were their own fault.