Russia Threatens Nuclear attack

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/15/russia.poland.nuclear.missiles.threat

"By deploying, Poland is exposing itself to a strike - 100%," warned Colonel General Anatoly Nogovitsyn. He added that Russia's security doctrine allowed it to use nuclear weapons against an active ally of a nuclear power such as America.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

well at least they have the balls to come out and say it as opposed to 'all options are on the table' like we hear from our westward friends.

síofra

Maybe I'm naive but that kind of talk scares me which is probably its intention.

mike65

No doubt Colonel General Anatoly Nogovitsyn was given licence to issue threats by the Kremlin and then it'll be played down by same. The threat will be left to hang in the air over Poland who will then get cold feet.

Mike.

Gurgle

"By deploying, Poland is exposing itself to a strike - 100%,"

Could be interpreted several ways.

The weapons are being deployed in Poland to counter any ballistic missiles coming from the direction of Iran, so of course Poland is under an increased threat of attack - from Iran.

meathstevie

Don't read too much in it. They're just dusting of the old USSR cold war doctrine. It's all part of the ressurection plan. The only difference is that instead of the obligational picture of Lenin or Stalin every classroom in Russia will have to display a picture of Vladimir Poetin.

marcsignal

better get a move on

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IaeeSKpwSQ

bk

Yawn, this sort of talk is going to push Poland and other ex-soviets nations closer to the west, EU, US and Nato. People from these countries remember the bad old days under Soviet rule and if it looks like Russia is attempting to reassert their influence, these countries will run into the arms of the West.

The US military most be delighted with the growth in their old enemy Russia, that is lots of funding for lots of new shiny Stealth Fighters, Aircraft Carriers and ICBM subs.

Poland and the US are laughing at this threat, everyone knows that any nuck strike by Russia against Poland, a Nato country would result in an overwhelming retaliation by the US and other Nato countries, so it is very much an empty threat.

Kama

If it weren't for the human horror of it all, this would all feel quite pleasantly retro, comfortingly familiar like a TV rerun, good old wholesome enemies like the Russians instead of that whole messy Islamo-facist threat.

Back to Nukular Basics with a growling Russian Bear...

marcsignal

Kama wrote: »

Back to Nukular Basics with a growling Russian Bear...

I agree

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-2023790698427111488

bk

bk wrote: »

Poland and the US are laughing at this threat, everyone knows that any nuck strike by Russia against Poland, a Nato country would result in an overwhelming retaliation by the US and other Nato countries, so it is very much an empty threat.

well hang on and think about it for a second. Lets say they rocket the missile shield without nuclear weapons a conventional attack.

What will the west do? Start a nuclear war and destroy us all?
No I dont think so, What of Putin now? Is he really bad enough to gamble on this? He has already exposed Europes division and US weakness. People would argue "oh Poland was stupid to put the missile shield there, got what they deserved" blah blah blah same crap as Georgia.
Nobody will stand up to a nation with nuclear weapons. If Hitler had nuclear weapons and took the Sudentenland and then Poland the allies would have probably not fought until they hit France.

dresden8

This should be in the retro forum. This is soooooooooooooooo 1980's. Next thing the A-Team and Knightrider will be back.

Relax. 20 years of not being threaten with nuclear war was an aberration when compared to the previous 40 years of cold war.

There's no need to dig a bunker. (Yet)

MouthPiece

So what if they nuke Poland? Nobody will die, they are all in ireland. Maybe do the world a favour, and nuke this ****hole of a country instead.

sink

marcsignal wrote: »

I agree

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-2023790698427111488

Wholly crap that film scared the **** outta me when I was young and that was after the cold war. Islamic terrorism eat your heart out.

gino85

dresden8 wrote: »

This should be in the retro forum. This is soooooooooooooooo 1980's. Next thing the A-Team and Knightrider will be back.

Relax. 20 years of not being threaten with nuclear war was an aberration when compared to the previous 40 years of cold war.

There's no need to dig a bunker. (Yet)

im pretty sure knight rider is comming back lol

and i dont think russia has the balls to use nuclear weapons on anyone, they only exist nowadays as a deterant to hostile nations to not use them

sink

I feel that Russia's new assertiveness will result in an arms build up in Europe. The EU might finally get the military it's always wanted.

Dirk Gently

gino85 wrote: »

and i dont think russia has the balls to use nuclear weapons on anyone, they only exist nowadays as a deterant to hostile nations to not use them

Nukes don't necessarily mean huge yield warheads. Smaller low yield nukes could be used. AFAIK some in the US have been pushing for these low yield weapons to be used in conventional war. I can't see Russia hitting the big button but the little button option is something the West is already pushing for. I'm not up to date with the latest Russian military technology but after mastering big yield I assume that low yield weapons aren't too hard to follow once a decent guidance system could deliver it. That said, I don't think Poland is in any danger of getting nuked, big button or little button. Don't be surprised to see low yield weapons used in future conflicts in this century though.

Overheal

clown bag wrote: »

Nukes don't necessarily mean huge yield warheads. Smaller low yield nukes could be used. AFAIK some in the US have been pushing for these low yield weapons to be used in conventional war. I can't see Russia hitting the big button but the little button option is something the West is already pushing for. I'm not up to date with the latest Russian military technology but after mastering big yield I assume that low yield weapons aren't too hard to follow once a decent guidance system could deliver it. That said, I don't think Poland is in any danger of getting nuked, big button or little button. Don't be surprised to see low yield weapons used in future conflicts in this century though.

what youre talking about already happened in the 1970s if i recall correctly. Most famously, the Davy Crockett shoulder launched variant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W54

The Kremlin also developed truck-launched nuclear weapons - you then had both the tactical warhead (the Crockett) and the Theater-Wide Warhead did not require the use of a fixed silo. However before such weapons were used in live-action, both sides signed agreements to disband the entire class of nuclear arsenal: keeping to ICMBs, Bombers, and Submarines.

This all seems like sword rattling to me. Whether or not it works on the Polish government though, that I am curious about.

Suitcase nukes ... arent some of those missing?

Overheal

Deleted User wrote: »

Suitcase nukes ... arent some of those missing?

Davy Crockett was small enough to fit into a backpack, albeit a big, round backpack. And thats the smallest model I can find information on. Whether one has since been designed in secret by either Russia or the USA - we simply don't know.

“If a US strategic anti-missile shield is deployed near our borders, we will be forced to react not in a diplomatic fashion but with military resources,” the statement read

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=64730&sectionid=3510303


From July 08

I suppose a threat like that is kinda serious

Don't be silly.
Some generals saying Russian nukes will include poland in their pointings.

They may as well point them at the moon,it means nothing and won't make a half worth of difference.

There will be no nuclear war.
They can point them where they like.
The days of Rooskie dominated poland are long gone and won't be back.
Sorry Vladimir..

Mr.Micro

IMO its all just posturing by Russia, just as the invasion of Assetia/Georgia was showing who is boss. Whats the point of having an army and weapons if you ca'nt threaten your neighbour or other countries? The US threatened Iraq and invaded,and is still there and subsequently Afghanistan. I am sure the Russians do not want to miss out on the fun. I am sure that China in the future will want to do the same. Has civilization advanced at all I ask myself, history repeats itself but we never learn from it do we?

sink

Mr.Micro wrote: »

IMO its all just posturing by Russia, just as the invasion of Assetia/Georgia was showing who is boss. Whats the point of having an army and weapons if you ca'nt threaten your neighbour or other countries? The US threatened Iraq and invaded,and is still there and subsequently Afghanistan. I am sure the Russians do not want to miss out on the fun. I am sure that China in the future will want to do the same. Has civilization advanced at all I ask myself, history repeats itself but we never learn from it do we?

Em the US invaded Afghanistan in 2001 shortly after 911 the Iraq war didn't start till march 2003. Afghanistan was a necessary war and NATO had no choice but to retaliate as the west had been attacked. Iraq was unnecessary and was started purely by choice mainly due to the naivety of the neo-con administration of George Bush and their lust for profits from oil from arms manufacturing amongst many other factors. Don't get the two mixed up.

faceman

What a crock. Two world wars, a holocaust, a cold war, genocide.. Have we learnt nothing?

nyarlothothep

Mr.Micro wrote: »

IMO its all just posturing by Russia, just as the invasion of Assetia/Georgia was showing who is boss. Whats the point of having an army and weapons if you ca'nt threaten your neighbour or other countries? The US threatened Iraq and invaded,and is still there and subsequently Afghanistan. I am sure the Russians do not want to miss out on the fun. I am sure that China in the future will want to do the same. Has civilization advanced at all I ask myself, history repeats itself but we never learn from it do we?

Its the narcissistic power obsessed who think they have an entitlement to play god with people, they are mostly responsible. Most people don't want any of this, except those who are duped by the pr machine.

jonny72

The Russians are extremely suspicious of the West. They believe their own propaganda. Everyone seems to be lightheartedly joking about going back to the Cold War era, but I don't really see the situation improving. The Bush model and to a lesser extent the Israeli model shows, that if you can back it up, you can ignore the rest of the world and do what you want.

Some people have talked about this "missile shield". I've yet to hear any military expert say it is anything but useless.

marcsignal

jonny72 wrote: »

The Russians are extremely suspicious of the West. They believe their own propaganda.

and the west are extremely suspicious of Russia, and we believe our own propaganda too

Personally I like the idea of Ivan sticking it to the yanks, I mean Bush has a neck like a jockeys bollix lecturing the Ruskies, or anyone else, about territorial integrity, considering........

Overheal

faceman wrote: »

What a crock. Two world wars, a holocaust, a cold war, genocide.. Have we learnt nothing?

and the crusades, dont forget the crusades.

...Im going to go watch The Abyss again.

marcsignal

faceman wrote: »

What a crock. Two world wars, a holocaust, a cold war, genocide.. Have we learnt nothing?

Ehhhh, quite right, we have learnt nothing

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com

Hobbes

marcsignal wrote: »

better get a move on

Don't know why but that reminded me of this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHP3Jih_rfA

marcsignal

marcsignal wrote: »

and the west are extremely suspicious of Russia, and we believe our own propaganda too

Personally I like the idea of Ivan sticking it to the yanks, I mean Bush has a neck like a jockeys bollix lecturing the Ruskies, or anyone else, about territorial integrity, considering........

Yup thats what the russians will say and it will be a fair point.
But the rest of what they say can be found on the Russia Today channel on sky and lets put it this way...If that sort of biased one sided coverage was ever put out on RTE,there would be a furore over at the BCI and heads would roll at RTE.

faceman

It will come to this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWP_rEWG2xk

Moscow announced the start of nuclear fuel deliveries to Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant, which Russian contractor Atomstroyexport is building in southern Iran

http://www.netnewspublisher.com/iran-to-continue-uranium-enrichment-despite-russian-fuel-supplies/

One plan on the table in Moscow, DEBKAfile's sources report, is the establishment of big Russian military, naval and air bases in Syria and the release of advanced weapons systems withheld until now to Iran (the S-300 air-missile defense system) and Syria (the nuclear-capable 200 km-range Iskandar surface missile).

http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=5513

sink

marcsignal wrote: »

Ehhhh, quite right, we have learnt nothing

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com

Another sucker of the youtube generation.

Overheal

Deleted User wrote: »

http://www.netnewspublisher.com/iran-to-continue-uranium-enrichment-despite-russian-fuel-supplies/





http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=5513

ok. and whats Your opinion on that :cool:

marcsignal

sink wrote: »

Another sucker of the youtube generation.

I think you misunderstood my point there sink, I was actually agreeing with you. It would indeed seem that we've actually learn't nothing.

sink

marcsignal wrote: »

I think you misunderstood my point there sink, I was actually agreeing with you. It would indeed seem that we've actually learn't nothing.

Oh yeah I get it now.

Playboy

jonny72 wrote: »

The Russians are extremely suspicious of the West. They believe their own propaganda. Everyone seems to be lightheartedly joking about going back to the Cold War era, but I don't really see the situation improving. The Bush model and to a lesser extent the Israeli model shows, that if you can back it up, you can ignore the rest of the world and do what you want.

Some people have talked about this "missile shield". I've yet to hear any military expert say it is anything but useless.

This missile shield is a direct threat to Russia by the US and nothing else. The US might as well come out and tell Russia that they are going to nuke them if they dont behave. Tbh I think Russias threat against Poland is entirely understandable if you know what the missile shield is for. This missile shield only works in a situation where a nuclear attack is expected. If you join the dots you can see that this missile shield in fact gives the US first strike capability against Russia while negating Russia's ability to retaliate effectively. Can you imagine the Reaction from the US if Russia put a similar missile shield in Canada or Mexico. This is a repeat of the Cuban Missile Crisis and we all know who was the real cause of that and it wasnt the USSR.

Stupid aggressive neo-con US administration are not going to be happy until the world is burning

Kama

Hmm Neocons weren't actually that aggressive; they're looking even more chickenhawk than usual over Georgia. Course, you can look at it a little like wedge issues with the cultural-conservative Right in the States...its not an issue to be won, but one to stir people up in self-righteous indignation. Whining about the Russian Bear is cheap, sells well, and requires no real commitment to any kind of action. Fail foreign policy tho...

Jerome a Paris has a nice take on the Neocons and Georgia on eurotrib...

Even granting that Russia has conducted an aggessive, outward bound foreign policy towards the former Soviet Republics and beyond, this whole episode should disqualify the neocons from ever speaking about foreign policy again - they claimed the need for strength, the need to call Russia on its imperialism, the need to beef up the military of the threatened countries and to support them with the full force of the alliance of democracies - and they dumped Georgia at the first opportunity, after Russia showed it was actually serious about fighting when it got under way?


We get the worst of both worlds: military build up, diplomatic tensions and deep mistrust within (former?) allies in the West, and defeat when the inevitable confrontation happens.


Either Russia is a real danger, and we need consistent policies to address that or it is not, and we need to start talking with them and listening to them - and maybe avoid things like bringing our soldiers to their borders, cancelling unilaterally treaties signed with them, and endlessly calling them an enemy.


Either we actually do realpolitik, or we don't. Realpolitik is meant to be distateful, but effective. What we have now is certainly distateful, but effective is the last word that can be used to describe it.

Hotblack Desiato

Playboy wrote: »

If you join the dots you can see that this missile shield in fact gives the US first strike capability against Russia while negating Russia's ability to retaliate effectively.

Nonsense. Russia can overwhelm it many times over (assuming it works as advertised, few are convinced) and the Russians damn well know that, too.

,8,1

Em the US invaded Afghanistan in 2001 shortly after 911 the Iraq war didn't start till march 2003. Afghanistan was a necessary war and NATO had no choice but to retaliate as the west had been attacked. Iraq was unnecessary and was started purely by choice mainly due to the naivety of the neo-con administration of George Bush and their lust for profits from oil from arms manufacturing amongst many other factors. Don't get the two mixed up.

Actually do mix them up because they are both fundamentally connected. They are connected to the same US/Israeli geopolitical planning which lefties like to call "neo-conservatism", "rich white guys like George Bush" and "war for oil". Referring to the Middle Eastern restructuring project in these terms is a cop-out.

sink

,8,1 wrote: »

Actually do mix them up because they are both fundamentally connected. They are connected to the same US/Israeli geopolitical planning which lefties like to call "neo-conservatism", "rich white guys like George Bush" and "war for oil". Referring to the Middle Eastern restructuring project in these terms is a cop-out.

There is no oil in Afghanistan or any other economic or strategic advantages for a western state. It's situated on the outskirts of the middle east and southern Asia. If the west wasn't attacked by people who were trained in Afghanistan we wouldn't give a crap what happened there. The neo-cons tried to connect a completely unrelated country to the war in Afghanistan. Iraq was not involved in terrorism nor did it have any first strike capability, it was not a danger to anyone but itself but it has feck loads of oil and is in a geopolitically significant location right in the centre of the middle east. Separating Iran and Syria and close to the US's allies on the Arabian peninsula.

The only reason Iraq and Afghanistan are connected is because the neo-cons wanted them to be and no other. Afghanistan is a war of self defence and stabilisation, Iraq is purely an imperial war. So by painting the two separate conflicts with the one brush you are playing right into their hands.

ejmaztec

I see that the Polish deal has been signed - but has yet to go before the Polish parliament.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4571821.ece

Condoleezza Rice today signed an historic and highly controversial deal to build a US missile base in Poland.

The US Secretary of State signed the agreement to a build a missile defence shield in the former Soviet satellite state in exchange for greater American military support for Poland.

“The negotiations were very tough but friendly,” Donald Tusk, the Polish Prime Minister, told Dr Rice at the signature ceremony. “We have achieved our main goals, which means that our country and the United States will be more secure,” he said.

Moscow is furious that US missiles will be stationed within easy striking distance of Russia and that, as part of the deal, Poland will get 96 Patriot missiles, a permanent garrison of American troops and an agreement that the US will offer greater protection to the Poles in case of any conflict.

President Kaczynski of Poland told a sceptical public last night that the deal would not make the nation a potential target for Russian aggression. During a television broadcast he declared today to be “an important day in our history”, which “strengthens Poland’s position in the world”.

For the Polish Government, the deal is welcome at a time when Russia’s actions in Georgia have generated alarm throughout Eastern Europe. They see it as offering a form of protection beyond that of Nato.

The President insisted that the missile shield was purely a defensive system and not a threat to its neighbours. “For that reason, no one who has good intentions toward us and toward the Western world should be afraid of it,” he said.

President Medvedev of Russia sees it differently, however, claiming that the deployment "has the Russian Federation as its target”.

American officials say the 10 interceptor missiles will be installed at a base 115 miles from Russia’s westernmost frontier as a safeguard against rogue states such as Iran and North Korea.

On Friday, General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, the Russian armed forces' deputy chief of staff, described it as an act of aggression against Russia and warned Poland that it was leaving itself open to retaliation - and possibly even a nuclear attack.

“Poland, by deploying [the system] is exposing itself to a strike - 100 per cent,” he said.

Nato held an emergency meeting in Brussels yesterday in which officials discussed the threat. Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Nato's secretary-general, used unusually strong language to denounce the Russian bellicosity. “It is pathetic rhetoric,” he told reporters. “It is unhelpful and it leads nowhere.”

The missile shield agreement was signed today by Ms Rice and Radoslaw Sikorsk, the Polish Foreign Minister, after 18 months of negotiations.

Washington has already has reached an agreement with Prague to place the second component of the missile defense shield, a radar tracking system, in the Czech Republic, Poland’s southwestern neighbour and another former signatory of the Warsaw Pact.

The deal with the Czech government still needs approval from the parliaments of both the Czech Republic and Poland.

No date has been set for the Polish parliament to consider the agreements, but they should be passed comfortably in Warsaw where the largest opposition party as well as the government is in favour of the missile shield.

Kama

Nato had 'no choice' but to invade Afghanistan? When did Afghanistan invade America? Defence clauses for invasion and invasion in response to a terrorist attack = not same. Or to put it another way:

Should the UK have invaded Ireland after Canary Wharf?

Plz to say why different...


How Afghanistan, and placing bases in the surrounding areas, has 'no strategic advantages' is slightly beyond me. The Shanghai Co-Operation Organization wasn't exactly pleased...

SeanW

Plz to say why different...

Because the Taliban were (in addition to brutalising their own people) giving sanctuary to Al Quaeda, openly allowing them to run bases, plan attacks from Afghan territory.

Kama wrote: »

Should the UK have invaded Ireland after Canary Wharf?

I forget ... was Sinn Fein in government at that time? Did the IRA operate with the full approval of our government? I guess not.

But yet again, another thread is derailed with "America is teh evilzorz" type of comments.
Remember this thread is about Russia threatening to nuke Poland, or did you forget?

Kama

Hardly 'derailed' or 'teh evilzorz'; I queried some assumptions on the invasion or Afghanistan, as a military response to a terrorist act, and whether that's A: appropriate or B: justifies self-defence under Nato articles. Which is offtopic, but response to tangent in thread re invading countries.

The IRA example is to draw attention to the conveniently-forgotten fact that, until relatively recently, this country 'harboured terrorists' to a significant extent. There is a differentiation between terrorist support and invasion; support for terrorism as a cassus belli is a dangerous move, and an internationally destabilising one.

There was always going to be a limit to how much encirclement/containment and integration of ex-Pact states into Nato would be acceptable to Russia; putting missile bases on their border seems clearly antagonistic in intent, and looks like nuclear escalation.

Which I think we can all agree, is the last thing anyone needs...

sink

Kama wrote: »

Hardly 'derailed' or 'teh evilzorz'; I queried some assumptions on the invasion or Afghanistan, as a military response to a terrorist act, and whether that's A: appropriate or B: justifies self-defence under Nato articles. Which is offtopic, but response to tangent in thread re invading countries.

The IRA example is to draw attention to the conveniently-forgotten fact that, until relatively recently, this country 'harboured terrorists' to a significant extent. There is a differentiation between terrorist support and invasion; support for terrorism as a cassus belli is a dangerous move, and an internationally destabilising one.

There was always going to be a limit to how much encirclement/containment and integration of ex-Pact states into Nato would be acceptable to Russia; putting missile bases on their border seems clearly antagonistic in intent, and looks like nuclear escalation.

Which I think we can all agree, is the last thing anyone needs...

How would you propose to deal with a terrorist attack originating from a country with a barbaric government who condones the terrorist actions and allows them to work freely within the confines of their state. Do you just put up your hands and say 'Oh dear, there's nothing we can do them being a sovereign country and all, might as well just sit hear and wait for them to attack is again. Hopefully someone will be kind enough to tip us off so we can catch em when the enter our country.'.

While I agree with you to a certain extent about Russia, I completely disagree with you about Afghanistan. In my view the west completely missed the opportunity to draw in Russia as a friend and equal partner. All they could see was the opportunity to give Russia a slap on the face, talk about bad conflict resolution skills.

dresden8

sink wrote: »

There is no oil in Afghanistan or any other economic or strategic advantages for a western state. It's situated on the outskirts of the middle east and southern Asia.

Not entirely true.

http://www.turkishweekly.net/comments.php?id=2903

sink

dresden8 wrote: »

Not entirely true.

http://www.turkishweekly.net/comments.php?id=2903

Thanks I was not aware of that. It is worth keeping in mind that it is only recently that this pipeline has been revived due to the rise in natural gas prices. In 2001 when the war started natural gas was about $4 per btu. At the end of may it reached almost $14 it has since fallen down closer to $8. There seemed to be no plan to build the pipeline in the years 2001-2007. It seems if building the pipeline was a strategic goal for the US when they invaded they would have done so already. Also the cost the war far outstrips any money the US could make out of the pipeline. Whereas in Iraq the neo-cons believed the opposite was true since then cost have spiralled.

RedPlanet

Not so.
World players (ie USA) had previously courted the Taliban to mine oil in Afghanistan, and used them for their own ends in leui of pipelines.
http://www.amazon.com/Taliban-Militant-Islam-Fundamentalism-Central/dp/0300089023/ref=sr_1_32?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219247932&sr=8-32

Problem is it's very difficult to keep the pipelines secure, there's always some variety of banditry out to sabotage whoever is the current regime.