Russia delivers nuclear threat to Denmark, NATO concerned
116 replies, posted
[url]http://www.thelocal.dk/20150321/russia-threatens-denmark-with-nuclear-attack[/url]
[IMG]http://rt.com/files/news/victory-parade-photos-moscow-822/topol-m-ground-missile-complex.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE]Tensions between Denmark and Russia were ratcheted up a notch on Saturday.
Russia’s ambassador to Denmark, Mikhail Vanin, wrote in an opinion piece published by Jyllands-Posten that Denmark has made itself a target of a potential nuclear attack by joining Nato’s missile defence system.
“I don’t think the Danes fully understand the consequences of what will happen if Denmark joins the American-controlled missile defence. If it happens, Danish war ships will become targets for Russian atomic missiles,” Vanin wrote.
Denmark announced in August that it will will contribute at least one frigate to Nato’s defence system. At the time, Defence Minister Nicolai Wammen said that joining the missile defence system was not a move aimed at Russia.
“That Denmark will join the missile defence system with radar capacity on one or more of our frigates is not an action that is targeted against Russia, but rather to protect us against rogues states, terrorist organisations and others that have the capacity to fire missiles at Europe and the US,” Wammen told Jyllands-Posten in August.
Vanin’s op-ed made it clear that Russia doesn’t share that interpretation.
“Denmark will become a part of the threat against Russia. It will be less peaceful and the relationship with Russia will be harmed. It is of course your decision – I want to simply remind you that it will cost you both money and security,” Vanin wrote.
“At the same time, Russia has missiles that are guaranteed to break through future global missile defence systems,” he continued.
Danish Foreign Minister Martin Lidegaard called Vanin’s statements “unacceptable”.
“Russia knows fully well that Nato’s missile defence is not aimed at them. We are in disagreement with Russia on a number of important things but it is important that the tone between us does not escalate,” Lidegaard told Jyllands-Posten.
[/QUOTE]
russia stop
for the love of humanity
for the love of everybody who has suffered because of war
don't incite war
more dick waving ensues
[QUOTE] "At the same time, Russia has missiles that are guaranteed to break through future global missile defence systems" [/QUOTE]
they really do have some scary shit like the RS-24 that can carry up to 10 independent nuclear warheads per missile, and they have hundreds of them
Wait, did Russia literally just send a "our words are backed with NUCLEAR WEAPONS" diplomacy message to Denmark?
Civilization was right!
Did Putin step on a Lego brick?
Rip Bornholm 1946 - 2015.
lets hope they mistake skåne for denmark
aw cmon, freekin denmark now?
what next declare switzerland a primary target?
I do find it moderately hilarious that they see a purely defensive weapons-system as a threat to them. A missile defense system does not have any offensive use whatsoever.
Implying that NATO members aren't already a target for Russia's nukes.
[QUOTE=Showgun;47369872]they really do have some scary shit like the RS-24 that can carry up to 10 independent nuclear warheads per missile, and they have hundreds of them[/QUOTE]
eh, its kinda the go-to standard of ICBMs at the moment, US ICBMs have the exact same capacity, really though the scary part is that they'll start ignoring or already have ignored the treaty limitations and fully stocked the ICBMs instead of limiting to their treaty mandated 5-6 warheads
Is this threat disproportionate or fully justified?
Remind me again how missile [I]defense[/I] makes you a threat? Surely without offensive missile weapons, all a defense system does is keep you from exploding.
[QUOTE=Riller;47370037]I do find it moderately hilarious that they see a purely defensive weapons-system as a threat to them. A missile defense system does not have any offensive use whatsoever.[/QUOTE]
And supposedly they have plenty missiles that can break through the defense, makes you wonder why they care at all!
[QUOTE=Riller;47370037]I do find it moderately hilarious that they see a purely defensive weapons-system as a threat to them. A missile defense system does not have any offensive use whatsoever.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but it hampers their ability to use nuclear missiles offensively. Which means them waving their atomic cock around becomes less effective. They view that as a threat to them.
[QUOTE=Trekintosh;47370060]Remind me again how missile [I]defense[/I] makes you a threat? Surely without offensive missile weapons, all a defense system does is keep you from exploding.[/QUOTE]
if i remember correctly the fact that there is a strong defense means that the US (or other countries) can put a lot of offensive missiles in europe if they want to, which can be a threat to russia
welcome to the global kindergarten.
"if you play with those kids, I'll trample down your sand castle!"
[QUOTE=Trekintosh;47370060]Remind me again how missile [I]defense[/I] makes you a threat? Surely without offensive missile weapons, all a defense system does is keep you from exploding.[/QUOTE]
Having a missile defense system would ideally limit another nation's strike capabilities. In nuclear war, you want to throw as much shit as possible.
Though in reality, missile defense systems are pretty unreliable.
[quote]Russia’s ambassador to Denmark, Mikhail Vanin, wrote in an opinion piece published by Jyllands-Posten that Denmark has made itself a target of a potential nuclear attack by joining Nato’s missile defence system.[/quote]
So I'm reading this bit and it just sounds like this is something the Russian ambassador is pulling out his ass with no official backing on it?
Either way, why Denmark of all countries?
"B-But Kim gets to wave his dick around....Why can't I?"
Come on Russia, it's time to call it all a rest.
[QUOTE=Coyoteze;47370090]So I'm reading this bit and it just sounds like this is something the Russian ambassador is pulling out his ass with no official backing on it?
Either way, why Denmark of all countries?[/QUOTE]
Maybe he went rogue?
I refuse to believe that most of the politicians in Russia actually thought saying this was a good idea. Like do they have any idea what using a nuke would do to them? Like how the hell can someone believe nuclear Armageddon is acceptable?
someone needs to smack the guy who said this in the face
[QUOTE=Riller;47370037]I do find it moderately hilarious that they see a purely defensive weapons-system as a threat to them. A missile defense system does not have any offensive use whatsoever.[/QUOTE]
russia, and the soviet union before them saw ABM systems as a major offensive weapon, destabalizing MAD has always been seen as an aggressive action. thats kinda why we never built such a system, we had one for like 5 months durring the nixon years and it was enough to bring them to the table and lead to the SALT treaties
If WW III ever started, I think Russias dickwaving would be one of the factors that started it.
What kind of shitty ambassador does something counter-intuitive to diplomacy
[QUOTE=Hugg;47370071]if i remember correctly the fact that there is a strong defense means that the US (or other countries) can put a lot of offensive missiles in europe if they want to, which can be a threat to russia[/QUOTE]
The US and Europe can exchange nukes all they want to already, a shield isn't going to change that.
Russia just fears losing it's own nuclear abilities.
[QUOTE=Coyoteze;47370090]So I'm reading this bit and it just sounds like this is something the Russian ambassador is pulling out his ass with no official backing on it?
Either way, why Denmark of all countries?[/QUOTE]
Honestly if there's ever a nuclear war, Russia will just nuke every NATO member it can, so what he's saying is pointless(fear mongering at most) because Denmark is already a target just for being a NATO member.
[QUOTE=Trekintosh;47370060]Remind me again how missile [I]defense[/I] makes you a threat? Surely without offensive missile weapons, all a defense system does is keep you from exploding.[/QUOTE]
A nuclear-armed country getting missile defense destabilizes mutually-assured destruction.
Under MAD, neither side will attack because the other side will be able to launch their missiles before they're destroyed, and both sides lose massively. However, if one side can stop the missiles, it makes sense for them to attack, before the other side also gets missile defense. Therefore the idea of developing sufficiently-good missile defense is seen as threatening.
However, Denmark is not a nuclear-armed country, not even under NATO nuclear sharing, and so the above argument does not apply.
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;47370146]Honestly if there's ever a nuclear war, Russia will just nuke every NATO member it can, so what he's saying is pointless(fear mongering at most) because Denmark is already a target just for being a NATO member.[/QUOTE]
Thank fuck for M.A.D. then.
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;47370146]The US and Europe can exchange nukes all they want to already, a shield isn't going to change that.
Russia just fears losing it's own nuclear abilities.
Honestly if there's ever a nuclear war, Russia will just nuke every NATO member it can, so what he's saying is pointless(fear mongering at most) because Denmark is already a target just for being a NATO member.[/QUOTE]
Russia is already slowly losing it's nuclear capabilities.
There was a report put out by the Pentagon about Russian missile silos being in a serious state of dismay with extremely bad security.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.