• Russia delivers nuclear threat to Denmark, NATO concerned
    116 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Swineflu;47371176]And what the fuck do you want NATO to do? Invade Russia?[/QUOTE] Yes. Russia is trying to reassemble their empire of evil. They need to be neutered.
[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] Pretty obvious Russia wants to keep up a dynamic that allows them to bully people with nuclear threats. Countries adding missile defenses is effectively taking Russia's missiles away from them.
[QUOTE=Swineflu;47371176]And what the fuck do you want NATO to do? Invade Russia?[/QUOTE] Yes, then we can have our sweet horrific fiery nuclear death apocalypse now instead of being blue balled for decades and decades like in the cold war.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;47371225]Pretty obvious Russia wants to keep up a dynamic that allows them to bully people with nuclear threats. Countries adding missile defenses is effectively taking Russia's missiles away from them.[/QUOTE] Even so, i think above all Russia is just trying to appear relevant and scary. Not only the country was hit hard economically but it's also losing a grip on Asia itself, seeing as how China is gaining relevance fast.
What would even happen to someone who ordered a successful nuclear attack on a country, killing thousands, if not millions? Like, hey sure, you'd probably fuck up a part of a country and render it unable to strike back, but everyone in the world would probably despise your guts and look at you as if you were a monster, if not just marking you for death.
[QUOTE][B]“Russia knows fully well that Nato’s missile defence is not aimed at them."[/B][/QUOTE] :v: of course :rolleyes:
See folks, this is the irony between Russia and North Korea. When Kim makes a threat, everyone laughs. When a drunken Russian ambassador makes a threat, everyone shits themselves. Then again, Russia actually has the firepower to back it up, so I guess that's a slightly valid reason...
[QUOTE=PrusseLusken;47371667]north korea brainwashes its people into thinking they're doing good shit russia doesn't have to see the difference?[/QUOTE] Seen, and noticed it quite well actually.
Best weapon against nuclearweapons is to develope weapon/tech to use it's own nukes against themselves. Developing ways to hijack nukes and missiles. The verge to press the red button will be very high if they know that theres moderate risk that the same missile will explode in own city/silo.
[QUOTE=oskutin;47371702]Best weapon against nuclearweapons is to develope weapon/tech to use it's own nukes against themselves. Developing ways to hijack nukes and missiles. The verge to press the red button will be very high if they know that theres moderate risk that the same missile will explode in own city/silo.[/QUOTE] Not really possible, due to how ICBMs work. The target locations aren't loaded on-the-fly, they are stored in analogue memory in the warhead, that is quite resilient to both electromagnetic interference and physical impacts. Modern ICBMs are designed to withstand aerial nuclear explosions(so you can't shoot down nukes with nukes), and still hit their target. Your best bet would be attempting to exploit emergency disarm system that is supposed to thwart rogue launch, but these are guaranteed to be a tough nut to crack. Plus, you have to do all that during the missile flight time(for reference, it is ~20-30 mins from Russia to USA), so no bruteforcing. And that's assuming missile EVEN HAS that system in the first place. Continuing that, detonating a warhead is not an easy task in itself. Forget what you saw in movies or games, you cannot detonate a nuclear charge by whacking it with a wrench, shooting it, or exploding it(well, last could do the trick in several specific cases(sparking up thermonuclear chain reaction, or triggering implosion-based detonation), but that cannot be realistically expected), at most you'll cause a breach in the hull and irradiate yourself. Real ICBM warheads have a ton of failsafes and systems designed to specifically tell that yes, this warhead did, in fact, reach the target and can be exploded, before the actual detonation is triggered. To make whole deal even worse for your approach, different missiles use different systems, and no-one outside specific facilities really knows what's inside one for obvious reasons. tl;dr: You can't hijack/detonate nukes. Don't ask me about politics side of this question, I try to distance myself from politics. It's the place where sane men lose their minds.
Alright. my paranoia about nuclear war ended a year ago. Guess it is time to start hoarding nonperishables again. This is just like my recurring nightmares.
Russia is as much of a potential threat as DAESH if they wanted to start any shit, and now they're threatening nuclear weapon usage. This needs to fucking end now. I don't know where it started, maybe it was crimea, but this is probably not going to stop. They need to be stripped of their nuclear ability. They're pushing the line further and further to see how much it will take for us to react, eventually, maybe not today, they're going to actually do something fucking drastic that will be grounds for war. Might not be with the US, but they just seem suicidal or something
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47370514]Wait...what? That seems to make sense to me. Denmark is a member of NATO, and it's not irrational to believe that Denmark's missile-defense systems would be used in conjunction with other member states to guard against a hypothetical Russian attack. Therefore, that would put those systems on the target list for a hypothetical Russian attack. Besides, it's just a dumb op-ed. Nobody should care what the Russian ambassador to Denmark has to say on matters of nuclear policy. He's not in the loop. If he was important, he wouldn't be the ambassador to freakin Denmark.[/QUOTE] pretty big difference between something that is unsaid but understood and someone coming out and straight up saying "you're a target"
[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] This is totally wrong. Having a credible missile defense system puts a premium on striking first. Luckily a missile defense system never came to fruition during the Cold War because it would have very likely caused a war. [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] This isn't true. There would be little reason for Russia to attack NATO states without nuclear capabilities. It would also be unlikely for Russia to attack Britain or France if they had not already attacked Russia, because that would just activate their arsenals.
[QUOTE=Nebukadnezzer;47372347]Russia is as much of a potential threat as DAESH if they wanted to start any shit, and now they're threatening nuclear weapon usage. This needs to fucking end now. I don't know where it started, maybe it was crimea, but this is probably not going to stop. They need to be stripped of their nuclear ability. They're pushing the line further and further to see how much it will take for us to react, eventually, maybe not today, they're going to actually do something fucking drastic that will be grounds for war. Might not be with the US, but they just seem suicidal or something[/QUOTE] try take a breath people like you make situations a lot worse by making other people panic
Yea im thinking after he said this someone above him was like "what the fuck are you doing idiot"
Why in the fuck Denmark of all place's.
If I had to choose between Russia and the US, i'd side with the US, seeing as how Russia has basically tricked Ukraine.
Hahahaha, oh my god, what are you doing you fucking retards. Saying it in such blatant wording is over-the-top moronic. [quote]“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. “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. “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] This right here is bullshit, however. Everyone well knows that NATO expands influence in Europe exactly for the purpose of posing threat to Russia. [editline]22nd March 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=proch;47372832]If I had to choose between Russia and the US, i'd side with the US, seeing as how Russia has basically tricked Ukraine.[/QUOTE] I won't blame you at all. [editline]22nd March 2015[/editline] I'd pick US as well.
Picture of the frigate in question: [img]http://i.imgur.com/AcMjmwZ.jpg[/img]
If it comes to war, I'm going to side with the Russians. Better to spend the rest of your life at an internment camp in Florida rather than in Siberia. EDIT: I wasn't serious.
[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] Nuclear diplomacy is risky business. In particular, Russia is afraid that a defense system would neuter them and cut out their bargaining chip while giving the west total reign. It skews the balance of power, which is very dangerous and what we're seeing now in Ukraine is a symptom of that. In international politics, there's actually more peace when symmetrical and balanced nations are at odds with each other than when one has more control than the others. This defense system drastically cut Russia's status as a "I can nuke the world too" power, just leaving the US and Western Europe in that role.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];47373884']Nuclear diplomacy is risky business. In particular, Russia is afraid that a defense system would neuter them and cut out their bargaining chip while giving the west total reign. It skews the balance of power, which is very dangerous and what we're seeing now in Ukraine is a symptom of that. In international politics, there's actually more peace when symmetrical and balanced nations are at odds with each other than when one has more control than the others. This defense system drastically cut Russia's status as a "I can nuke the world too" power, just leaving the US and Western Europe in that role.[/QUOTE] Russia has systematically brought this upon themselves though. Through their own actions they necessitated the creation of NATO to ensure the sovereignty of European nations. After the second world war, "the west" made friends and rebuilt its former adversaries, while Russia occupied a number of nations and carried on a cold war for 40ish years. More recently, there has been the events in Ukraine which have reminded the world of a nation that does not wish to have peace. Backing Russia into a perceived corner is both dangerous and desirable, as they have shown they have no interest in peace.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;47374124]Russia has systematically brought this upon themselves though. Through their own actions they necessitated the creation of NATO to ensure the sovereignty of European nations. [b]After the second world war, "the west" made friends and rebuilt its former adversaries,[/b] while Russia occupied a number of nations and carried on a cold war for 40ish years. More recently, there has been the events in Ukraine which have reminded the world of a nation that does not wish to have peace. Backing Russia into a perceived corner is both dangerous and desirable, as they have shown they have no interest in peace.[/QUOTE] That's a pretty whitewashed view of things.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;47374124]Russia has systematically brought this upon themselves though. Through their own actions they necessitated the creation of NATO to ensure the sovereignty of European nations. After the second world war, "the west" made friends and rebuilt its former adversaries, while [B]Russia occupied a number of nations and carried on a cold war for 40ish years[/B]. More recently, there has been the events in Ukraine which have reminded the world of a nation that does not wish to have peace. Backing Russia into a perceived corner is both dangerous and desirable, as they have shown they have no interest in peace.[/QUOTE] Also, I'm pretty sure that there needs to be at least two sides to even a Cold War.
[QUOTE=Bonde;47374203]Also, I'm pretty sure that there needs to be at least two sides to even a Cold War.[/QUOTE] There's (at least) two sides to every war, but only one side need want a war. But fair enough; there were a deal of proxy wars that "the west" didn't need to participated in. [editline]22nd March 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Explosions;47374146]That's a pretty whitewashed view of things.[/QUOTE] How so? It's my understanding that the west rebuilt the nations it had been fighting and generally worked to get those nations "back on their feet", rather than punishing the people of those nations for the actions of their government and soldiers. That isn't to say the west did this simply out of kindness; they wanted allies against Russia, but my point still stands that the west's goal was to make friends with its former enemies, and one of the main ways it went about doing that was by rebuilding those nations. [editline]22nd March 2015[/editline] Also, within the context of comparison (which is really what my main point was about), Russia treated the nations it occupied after the war (including nations who were on the "allies" side, like Poland) far worse than the west. This point can be seen most clearly by the disparity between East and West Germany, and the fact the west didn't need to build a wall to stop a mass exodus to the Eastern Bloc. That said, I'm still interested in how "after the second world war, 'the west' made friends and rebuilt its former adversaries" is whitewashed, without the additional context.
[QUOTE=Explosions;47374146]That's a pretty whitewashed view of things.[/QUOTE] Somewhat, but not very. After WW2, Europe basically got divided in half. UK/US got one half, USSR got the other. America rebuilt France and its part of Germany. Ironically, this led to America's later decline in heavy industry - before the war, everyone was running outdated processes, because the newer ones just weren't better enough to justify tearing down the old ones and building new ones. But since everything in Germany was bombed into oblivion, there was no reason not to build stuff to the latest process, which gave them a competitive edge later on. Meanwhile, Britain was having a bit of downtime because they got bombed pretty hard too, and didn't rebuild quite as effectively. Meanwhile, Russia basically pillaged their half. Heavy industry was packed up and moved into Russia, skilled workers were relocated. Oh, and they literally deported everyone from Koenigsberg to give it to Russians - they renamed it Kaliningrad, and it remains that little exclave of Russia between Poland and Lithuania. For the clearest example, compare East and West Germany - both started from the same position, but West Germany became a champion of industry while East Germany languished in relative poverty. Both sides did their share of empire-building, but NATO was built more democratically. There were never active threats from the US to keep countries in it, which meant that even though America was clearly the dominant member, they couldn't force the rest to follow everything they said. Russia kept the Warsaw Pact alive through military power - usually threatened, sometimes actual, as with Hungary. It also helped that there were several large NATO members that could keep the US in check - France and Britain, mainly, later Germany as well. Outside Europe, they both behaved pretty similarly, sponsoring revolutions and fighting proxy wars. Both sides were pretty clearly in the wrong there, not gonna argue. Now let's look at modern actions. America did drag NATO into Afghanistan, but that was probably more to make it look less retaliatory than for the actual military assistance (think about it - did the US really need help with the actual fighting?). But NATO wasn't dragged into the war in Iraq, and the Libya war was spearheaded by Italy and France, not the US. And NATO's expansion into former Warsaw Pact countries was initiated by them, not by NATO. Russia's new attempt at an alliance, CIS/CSTO (CIS is their EU equivalent, CSTO is their NATO equivalent), seems to be collapsing because it doesn't offer the members any benefits, and Russia is no longer seen as able to back up their threats (interestingly, Ukraine formed an alliance with several former CSTO members). Oh, and there's the whole Ukraine thing. Even if you buy into the "America funded the revolution" propaganda (I've heard no actual evidence, only "it benefits them, they have a history of doing such things, so it was obviously them"), Russia is literally trying to steal a country by military force. America never tried to annex any country. Russia conquered Crimea, rigged some elections to make it look official, then straight-up annexed it. That's a big line to cross.
Kinda overkill to use a nuke on a ship though right?
[QUOTE=assassin_Raptor;47374737]Kinda overkill to use a nuke on a ship though right?[/QUOTE] Not according to our comrades in Russia
Kinda failing as an ambassador there, now lets see how the rest of the Kremlin responds.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.