http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\10\15\story_15-10-2009_pg4_5
QuoteRussia to adopt nuclear first strike policy
MOSCOW: Russia will revise its military doctrine to allow a "preventative" nuclear strike against would-be aggressors, a top Kremlin policy-maker was quoted as saying on Wednesday.
Nikolai Patrushev, the secretary of the powerful security council, said the conditions under which Russia could resort to atomic weapons are being reworked in the main strategy document and will be reviewed by President Dmitry Medvedev by the end of the year. "The conditions have been revised for the use of nuclear weapons to rebuff an aggression with the use of conventional weapons, not only on a massive-scale but on a regional and even local level," Patrushev told the Izvestia newspaper.
"Variants are under considerations for the use of nuclear weapons depending on the situation and potential of a would-be aggressor," he said. "In a critical situation for national security, a preventative nuclear strike on an aggressor is not ruled out." Under its current military doctrine, Russia says it would only carry out a nuclear strike if it were attacked with weapons of mass destruction or if it were the victim of "large-scale aggression" using conventional arms.
Russian and US negotiators are now working furiously to agree on new arms cuts of their nuclear arsenal before a key Cold War-era disarmament treaty expires on December 5. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reiterated the joint drive to achieve new arms reductions by this deadline after talks in Moscow this week. Clinton stressed to Russian university students on Wednesday that their country's prosperity was dependent on its willingness to cultivate core freedoms, including the freedom to participate in the political process.
"Citizens must be empowered to help formulate the laws under which they live," she told about 2,000 students at Moscow State University. "They need to know that their investments of time, money and intellectual property will be safeguarded by the institutions of government." Clinton wrapped up a five-day tour of Europe with a series of informal meetings in Moscow and the Russian republic of Tatarstan aimed at helping redefine US-Russian relations.
In an interview to a Russian radio station on Wednesday, Clinton said the United States will continue to support and train Georgia's military despite Russian objections. "Georgia is providing troops in Afghanistan and we are training troops to be able to go to Afghanistan," Clinton told the Echo of Moscow radio. "We will help the Georgian people to feel like they can protect themselves," she added, without giving further details. Despite a thaw in Russian-US relations, Clinton admitted that Georgia was a policy area on which Washington and Moscow did not see eye-to-eye. agencies
is russia trying for national extinction?
Good to see Obama's strategy already bearing fruit.
Quote from: Martinus on October 17, 2009, 08:53:17 AM
Good to see Obama's strategy already bearing fruit.
:D
Funny, because it is true. There are savage barbarian hordes in this world, like the Russians, who only understand strength and intimidation because they have not encountered anything else. You can't give them ground because they interpret that as a sign of weakness to exploit while it lasts.
Quote from: Tamas on October 17, 2009, 09:01:45 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 17, 2009, 08:53:17 AM
Good to see Obama's strategy already bearing fruit.
:D
Funny, because it is true. There are savage barbarian hordes in this world, like the Russians, who only understand strength and intimidation because they have not encountered anything else. You can't give them ground because they interpret that as a sign of weakness to exploit while it lasts.
Descendants of Magyar steppe nomads should know. :P
Didn't the US decide a few years back we'd consider using nukes for some hard tagetS?
Quote from: Faeelin on October 17, 2009, 09:18:01 AM
Didn't the US decide a few years back we'd consider using nukes for some hard tagetS?
We decided prior to Gulf War 1 that any use of non-conventional weapons (chemical, biological) of mass destruction would warrant a nuclear response.
But yes, there was talk that, in the event it was required, tactical nuclear weapons could be used on hard targets if the yield would be more effective than conventional warheads.
Quote from: Faeelin on October 17, 2009, 09:18:01 AM
Didn't the US decide a few years back we'd consider using nukes for some hard tagetS?
Like the Kremlin?
I'm just curious: did Russia miss the memo that they lost the Cold War, or did they consider it a vacation and are trying to get started on CW2?
Quote from: Faeelin on October 17, 2009, 09:18:01 AM
Didn't the US decide a few years back we'd consider using nukes for some hard tagetS?
I remember that I think...wasn't it around the time of the Afghanistan invasion? Which of course led the internet into putting two and two together and assuming they wanted to nuke Bin Laden....
I am amused by the Languish response to this bit of Russian political talk.
This is all about the government appearing tough and strong, and not at all about nuclear weapons.
Quote from: grumbler on October 17, 2009, 10:39:02 AM
I am amused by the Languish response to this bit of Russian political talk.
This is all about the government appearing tough and strong, and not at all about nuclear weapons.
Mainly because they're good at the former, and the latter...well, they probably couldn't hit the broad side of derspiess' forehead.
Quote from: Martinus on October 17, 2009, 08:53:17 AM
Good to see Obama's strategy already bearing fruit.
If only we could reset the reset button. :(
Quote from: Kleves on October 17, 2009, 11:36:08 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 17, 2009, 08:53:17 AM
Good to see Obama's strategy already bearing fruit.
If only we could reset the reset button. :(
The Curious Case of Reset Button?
What's the point of adopting rules that have zero chance of being acted upon, except to erode your credibility?
Bye Marcin, szia Tamas :(
WE WILL BURY YOU
Quote from: DGuller on October 17, 2009, 11:46:06 AM
What's the point of adopting rules that have zero chance of being acted upon, except to erode your credibility?
:yes:
Russia would never dare use its nuclear weapons, lest it provoke an overwhelming apology from Obama.
:huh: Obama is keeping a finger on the Button night and day.
Quote from: DGuller on October 17, 2009, 11:46:06 AM
What's the point of adopting rules that have zero chance of being acted upon, except to erode your credibility?
They have nuclear credibility to erode? :blink:
They could probably still fuck up China, probably not to the point that a countervalue response would not be devastating, however.
At any rate, tactical use of nuclear weapons is nothing to get too worked up about, even if they were serious, which they're not.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 17, 2009, 03:39:58 PM
At any rate, tactical use of nuclear weapons is nothing to get too worked up about
Exactly. But while we possess FAEs of greater yield, they don't have the political stigma attached to them.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 17, 2009, 06:39:18 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 17, 2009, 03:39:58 PM
At any rate, tactical use of nuclear weapons is nothing to get too worked up about
Exactly. But while we possess FAEs of greater yield, they don't have the political stigma attached to them.
And if I recall correctly, have not the Russians stated that they can and have made a larger and more destructive bomb of this type than the USA? I don't see why they would need to risk the opprobrium attached to the use of nuclear weapons given they have this capability.
Maybe I'm naive, but my reading between the lines of this led to me believing that the Russians would be more likely to point these things South rather than West...
Quote from: C.C.R. on October 17, 2009, 06:55:20 PM
Maybe I'm naive, but my reading between the lines of this led to me believing that the Russians would be more likely to point these things South rather than West...
:yes: I asked if they were trying to start another cold war; I didn't say
with whom. NK and Iran are developing nukes (I don't care how innocent they say they're being with it- I believe the temptation to build that powerful a weapon as a symbolic gesture is just too great for a government to pass up), and as long as Pakistan can't keep Al Qaeda and the Taliban under control, there's a possibility those nukes could end up in play as well.
Concerned? Hell yes, but not for the immediate strategic threat to the US; concerned we'll have another "chain reaction" ala World War 2, where those countries all start bringing their buddies in to do the fighting.
Quote from: DGuller on October 17, 2009, 11:46:06 AM
What's the point of adopting rules that have zero chance of being acted upon, except to erode your credibility?
Their secret mineshaft auto-pilot nuke doomsday device was leaked to the public, so they had to do something.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 17, 2009, 09:22:55 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on October 17, 2009, 09:18:01 AM
Didn't the US decide a few years back we'd consider using nukes for some hard tagetS?
We decided prior to Gulf War 1 that any use of non-conventional weapons (chemical, biological) of mass destruction would warrant a nuclear response.
But yes, there was talk that, in the event it was required, tactical nuclear weapons could be used on hard targets if the yield would be more effective than conventional warheads.
Yes. That was being talked about only a few years ago during stuff like Anaconder or Saddam hunting. Cracking open those caves was thought to be easier with some tactical nukes.
Quote from: Kleves on October 17, 2009, 01:55:20 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 17, 2009, 11:46:06 AM
What's the point of adopting rules that have zero chance of being acted upon, except to erode your credibility?
:yes:
Russia would never dare use its nuclear weapons, lest it provoke an overwhelming apology from Obama.
Funny how you guys kept making fun about Europe being all pussies sending strongly worded letters etc., and then elected a President to do just the same. :P
Quote from: Martinus on October 19, 2009, 02:43:42 PM
Quote from: Kleves on October 17, 2009, 01:55:20 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 17, 2009, 11:46:06 AM
What's the point of adopting rules that have zero chance of being acted upon, except to erode your credibility?
:yes:
Russia would never dare use its nuclear weapons, lest it provoke an overwhelming apology from Obama.
Funny how you guys kept making fun about Europe being all pussies sending strongly worded letters etc., and then elected a President to do just the same. :P
NOT FUNNY AT ALL. :ultra:
Quote from: Martinus on October 19, 2009, 02:43:42 PM
Funny how you guys kept making fun about Europe being all pussies sending strongly worded letters etc., and then elected a President to do just the same. :P
It looked like a good way to go. The actual doing something while everybody else sat on their hands and insulted us from the sidelines was getting tiresome. This is more fun.
Quote from: Martinus on October 19, 2009, 02:43:42 PM
Funny how you guys kept making fun about Europe being all pussies sending strongly worded letters etc., and then elected a President to do just the same. :P
Don't look at me, I voted McKinney :yeah:
Quote from: Martinus on October 19, 2009, 02:43:42 PM
Quote from: Kleves on October 17, 2009, 01:55:20 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 17, 2009, 11:46:06 AM
What's the point of adopting rules that have zero chance of being acted upon, except to erode your credibility?
:yes:
Russia would never dare use its nuclear weapons, lest it provoke an overwhelming apology from Obama.
Funny how you guys kept making fun about Europe being all pussies sending strongly worded letters etc., and then elected a President to do just the same. :P
I never made fun of that. Cite. :mad:
:unsure:
QuoteBiden's task in eastern Europe: Reassurance
By F. Stephen Larrabee and Christopher Chivvis
Washington – Vice President Joseph Biden's trip to eastern Europe this week provides an important opportunity to reassure Poland, the Czech Republic, and Romania that the US is committed to their security.
This reassurance is needed, especially in the wake of the Obama administration's controversial decision to cancel the deployment of missile defense installations in Poland and the Czech Republic – Although President Obama's decision to scrap the Bush missile plan was the right one from a military and strategic point of view, the public rollout was less than ideal.
Polish and Czech leaders were informed of the decision only at the last second, making them feel like dispensable pawns in a broader US strategic game rather than the valued allies they have long been. This contributed to the misperception that the move was designed to placate Russia, and that eastern European interests would suffer as Washington attempted to reset relations with Moscow.
This perception is false. The decision was prompted by a shift in the nature of the Iranian threat. But it nevertheless damaged the US relationship with the region – a key relationship already in difficulty. Mr. Biden will therefore need to do more than just repair the damage done by the missile defense decision. He will also need to articulate a clear and coherent policy that explains where eastern Europe fits into broader US strategy toward Europe and Eurasia, and how the US commitment to security in central and eastern Europe will benefit, rather than suffer from, the resetting of US-Russian relations.
Public support in eastern Europe for the United States has plunged recently. According to a poll last month by the German Marshall Fund, the populations of Bulgaria, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia are much less enthusiastic about Mr. Obama and the US than are their western European counterparts. In the past, support for the US was much stronger in eastern Europe than in western Europe.
This unease has its roots in three closely related factors:
Russia's political and military resurgence. Having lived for long periods under Russian and Soviet domination, the central and eastern European countries are acutely sensitive to shifts in Russian power. They worry that Moscow's intimidation tactics and use of energy as a tool of foreign policy could result over time in a gradual erosion of their political independence.
Concerns about NATO's political will. Many eastern European members increasingly question whether NATO really would defend their security in a crisis. These fears have been reinforced by western Europe's reaction to the Russian invasion of Georgia in August 2008, which many regional observers interpreted as part of a broader tendency among European NATO members to accommodate Russia's bullying of its neighbors.
General uncertainty about the future directions of US policy toward Europe. The eastern Europeans' unease is driven not so much by fear of a "new Yalta" as by a sense of benign neglect. They know the Obama administration is not about to sell them down the river for a few winks and nods from Russian leaders Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev. But they worry that with the enlargement of NATO and the European Union accomplished, Washington has checked the eastern European "box" and moved on, assuming that the region will remain politically stable, economically prosperous, and pro-American in the future. To many eastern Europeans, this judgment seems at best premature.
In short, the vice president should go beyond mere damage control after the missile defense decision, and articulate a clear policy toward the region as a whole. This policy could be based on three basic tenets:
First, the US commitment to the security of Poland, Latvia, and Romania is and will remain as strong as the commitment to England, France, or Germany.
Second, an improvement of US-Russian relations will benefit all of Europe and will not be pursued at eastern European expense.
Third, the US firmly rejects the idea of spheres of influence, which remains a major goal of current Russian policy.
Announcing such a policy would not alleviate all the current unease in both central and eastern Europe. But it would significantly reduce it and give the current US policy toward the region renewed clarity and a sense of strategic purpose.
Rejects the idea of spheres of influnce?
Why not reject the idea that humans need air to breath while they're at it. After all, we're just balls of light. :rolleyes:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 21, 2009, 02:01:54 AM
Rejects the idea of spheres of influnce?
Why not reject the idea that humans need air to breath while they're at it. After all, we're just balls of light. :rolleyes:
So, you think the Russians should be able to do whatever the hell they feel like in the Caucasus?
Quote from: Valmy on October 19, 2009, 03:07:43 PM
It looked like a good way to go. The actual doing something while everybody else sat on their hands and insulted us from the sidelines was getting tiresome. This is more fun.
Define "good way to go" and "fun."
Also, I most certainly had nothing to do with electing Obama unlike some characters *cough*Berkut*cough* <_<
Quote from: citizen k on October 21, 2009, 02:08:17 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 21, 2009, 02:01:54 AM
Rejects the idea of spheres of influnce?
Why not reject the idea that humans need air to breath while they're at it. After all, we're just balls of light. :rolleyes:
So, you think the Russians should be able to do whatever the hell they feel like in the Caucasus?
Yes. A lot of those people are Muslims, and most of them aren't Westernized.
I don't care much about the Baltics or Ukraine either. The civilization worth defending sort of begins in Poland. You know, just west of wherever Martinus lives.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 21, 2009, 11:20:17 AM
Yes. A lot of those people are Muslims, and most of them aren't Westernized.
Agreed, and they're far too narrow-minded to get Westernized any time soon.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 21, 2009, 11:20:17 AM
Yes. A lot of those people are Muslims, and most of them aren't Westernized.
Why should they be slaves to the Russians, rather than slaves of civilized people?
Quote from: Neil on October 21, 2009, 01:54:34 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 21, 2009, 11:20:17 AM
Yes. A lot of those people are Muslims, and most of them aren't Westernized.
Why should they be slaves to the Russians, rather than slaves of civilized people?
Because US can't invade every single Muslim country, not when the Democrats are in power.
Why not? They have the Peace Prize already.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 21, 2009, 02:01:54 AM
Rejects the idea of spheres of influnce?
Why not reject the idea that humans need air to breath while they're at it. After all, we're just balls of light. :rolleyes:
I think, perhaps, this is the most cynical thing Timmay has ever posted.
Hobbes would be proud.
Languish should move to a Nuke First, Blame Jaron later policy.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 21, 2009, 02:01:54 AM
Rejects the idea of spheres of influnce?
Why not reject the idea that humans need air to breath while they're at it. After all, we're just balls of light. :rolleyes:
So you think we should just surrender to the Russians and give them everything they want...because to not do so would be foolishly idealistic?
No, we should just work on making our sphere as massive as possible and work to make sure Russia's is a tiny as possible.
Sounds like the US needs a penis pump.
Quote from: Martinus on October 17, 2009, 08:53:17 AM
Good to see Obama's strategy already bearing fruit.
having a border with russia these days really increases your confidence.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 21, 2009, 06:38:03 PM
No, we should just work on making our sphere as massive as possible and work to make sure Russia's is a tiny as possible.
America doesn't have the balls for that. They only pick on the weak.
Quote from: Viking on October 21, 2009, 09:21:24 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 17, 2009, 08:53:17 AM
Good to see Obama's strategy already bearing fruit.
having a border with russia these days really increases your confidence.
Palin is keeping watch, so I'm not worried.
Newsweek interviews some Russian university students about Stalin, Americans, etc. Hilarious.
http://video.newsweek.com/#?t=47872955001&l=372181063
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 07, 2009, 02:40:49 AM
Newsweek interviews some Russian university students about Stalin, Americans, etc. Hilarious.
http://video.newsweek.com/#?t=47872955001&l=372181063
Not hilarious, scary. The old people are certifiably retarded, conditioned to be good serfs for their whole lifetimes, so the young people are the Russia's only hope. So much for that.
Should there be subtitles for the responses? I don't see any. :unsure:
Quote from: Syt on November 07, 2009, 03:13:03 AM
Should there be subtitles for the responses? I don't see any. :unsure:
I didn't see any either, I assumed they were cut off at the bottom. Obviously I myself didn't need any.
Quote from: DGuller on November 07, 2009, 03:15:42 AM
Quote from: Syt on November 07, 2009, 03:13:03 AM
Should there be subtitles for the responses? I don't see any. :unsure:
I didn't see any either, I assumed they were cut off at the bottom. Obviously I myself didn't need any.
The showed up in IE. I guess it has to do with the adblocker I use in Mozilla, because in Mozilla I didnt get the advert before the interviews, either.
In IE I had to change the window from full screen to windowed, then the video resized and showed the subtitles properly.
Quote from: DGuller on November 07, 2009, 02:53:48 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 07, 2009, 02:40:49 AM
Newsweek interviews some Russian university students about Stalin, Americans, etc. Hilarious.
http://video.newsweek.com/#?t=47872955001&l=372181063
Not hilarious, scary. The old people are certifiably retarded, conditioned to be good serfs for their whole lifetimes, so the young people are the Russia's only hope. So much for that.
I watched some Polish show where they interviewed British, American and Russian History/PolSci students about WW2. Russians turned to be the best informed, and in most cases quite aware of stalinist purges and the like.
To be fair, young people everywhere tend to have foolish ideas that aren't thought through properly. I imagine if you interviewed people 17-21 anywhere you'd get a lot of half-baked nonsense.
But, on the other hand, :bleeding:
BtW: does anyone know to what degree (if at all) Mongolians and other Asians face discrimination in Russia?
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on November 07, 2009, 04:28:47 AM
BtW: does anyone know to what degree (if at all) Mongolians and other Asians face discrimination in Russia?
Isn't having to live in Russia not enough?
Quote from: Sahib on November 07, 2009, 04:24:14 AM
I watched some Polish show where they interviewed British, American and Russian History/PolSci students about WW2. Russians turned to be the best informed, and in most cases quite aware of stalinist purges and the like.
What makes Russians scary is that they have abhorrent ideas while generally not being ignorant.
I think education systems with heavy emphases on facts and light emphases on critical thinking skills will tend to produce such people - people who can recite famous poems word-for-word and have a good knowledge of historical events, and yet gobble up the most ridiculous propaganda.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on November 07, 2009, 09:58:30 AM
I think education systems with heavy emphases on facts and light emphases on critical thinking skills will tend to produce such people - people who can recite famous poems word-for-word and have a good knowledge of historical events, and yet gobble up the most ridiculous propaganda.
That's an excellent description of a typical Russian.
Quote from: Syt on November 07, 2009, 03:19:41 AM
Quote from: DGuller on November 07, 2009, 03:15:42 AM
Quote from: Syt on November 07, 2009, 03:13:03 AM
Should there be subtitles for the responses? I don't see any. :unsure:
I didn't see any either, I assumed they were cut off at the bottom. Obviously I myself didn't need any.
The showed up in IE. I guess it has to do with the adblocker I use in Mozilla, because in Mozilla I didnt get the advert before the interviews, either.
In IE I had to change the window from full screen to windowed, then the video resized and showed the subtitles properly.
I use firefox and the subtitles showed up fine.