Russia Declares Latitude on Pre-emptive Nuclear Strikes

On the grounds that they have the right to defend themselves from any perceived threat, Russia is developing and will issue a defense policy which authorizes themselves to pre-emptive nuclear strikes.

Oddly, while citing examples such as perceived intent by a third party to intervene in what Russia considers to be a local matter, Russian defense ministers left the wording of what constitutes a threat sufficiently vague that apparently a trade dispute could trigger a volley of ICBM's.

I understand that this is probably Putin:

1) hinting that downgrading the terms of the missile shield is not enough, it must be scrapped completely

2) not so subtly telling the world to let him seize Tblisi and reintegrate Georgia or else... (hence the language on local conflicts)...

but in light of his recent statements indicating that he would in no way support sanctions against Iran and hinted strongly that he wouldn't mind a nuclear armed Iran, is anybody else getting pretty nervous about what our friends in Moscow are up to these days? :skull:

Just one more reason why Iran can't have nukes. I was origanlly happy about scraping the missle defense sheild as I felt that there was no reason to be so provactive in Russias backyard so to speak.

Maybe this is Putins way of trying to make us bluff so he can scoop up all those little ethnic Russian enclaves. Maybe it's something more.

You can take the Russian out of the Soviet but not the Soviet out of the Russian.

just Russia try to enforce their rule on obama, whom they perceive as weak and accommodating. Appeasement never works look at ww2. You have to draw a line somewhere

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

On the grounds that they have the right to defend themselves from any perceived threat, Russia is developing and will issue a defense policy which authorizes themselves to pre-emptive nuclear strikes.

Oddly, while citing examples such as perceived intent by a third party to intervene in what Russia considers to be a local matter, Russian defense ministers left the wording of what constitutes a threat sufficiently vague that apparently a trade dispute could trigger a volley of ICBM's.

I understand that this is probably Putin:

1) hinting that downgrading the terms of the missile shield is not enough, it must be scrapped completely

2) not so subtly telling the world to let him seize Tblisi and reintegrate Georgia or else... (hence the language on local conflicts)...

but in light of his recent statements indicating that he would in no way support sanctions against Iran and hinted strongly that he wouldn't mind a nuclear armed Iran, is anybody else getting pretty nervous about what our friends in Moscow are up to these days? :skull:

---

There are situations wherein any international actor will pre-empt another. One would hope that such situations would be restricted to in extremis, but we shall see. Humanity doesn't have a great track record of NOT using weapons it has. While the language used was vague, I think you're correct that this is mostly sabre-rattling/posturing during the negotiations. The Obama administration is far less likely to "go cowboy" or walk out based on such statements, so it makes sense for Russian officials to play that card a time or two to see if it can engender a few concessions.

Quote:

---

On the grounds that they have the right to defend themselves from any perceived threat, America is developing and will issue a defense policy which authorizes themselves to pre-emptive strikes.

Oddly, while citing examples such as perceived intent by a third party to intervene in what America considers to be a local matter, American defense ministers left the wording of what constitutes a threat sufficiently vague that apparently a trade dispute could trigger a war.

I understand that this is probably Bush:

1) not so subtly telling the world to let him seize Baghdad and reintegrate Afghanistan or else... (hence the language on local conflicts)...

but in light of his recent statements indicating that he would in no way support sanctions against Israel and hinted strongly that he wouldn't mind a nuclear armed Israel, is anybody else getting pretty nervous about what our friends in Washington are up to these days? :skull:

---

Right or wrong, the above is how Russia sees the world. And it doesn't even include yet NATO's encroachment on Russia's traditional spheres of influence.
Hence, Moscow feels completely entitled to what it sees as a reaction against American aggression.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

just Russia try to enforce their rule on obama, whom they perceive as weak and accommodating.

---

Hehe, how true. Putin is taking advantage of Obama's willingness to actually conduct something called "diplomacy" - a word unknown to President Bush, who always thought it meant "Us telling them what to do"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

Appeasement never works look at ww2. You have to draw a line somewhere

---

Hehe, no. For the second time you sound like someone who is parroting some other source... You cannot make such a mind-boggling comparison. You can generalise characteristics of groups of people, with mixed success, but to generalise historical lessons, and apply them to other events is an abomination. Your statement inflames me with its acute absolutism and short-sightedness.

Now, I realise that you merely wrote a forum post, just as anyone else would, and all of our posts contain inaccuracies and most likely, overtly rapid jumps to conclusions - especially true of me. That is the problem with all forum posts quite a bit of times.

But seriously, what do you view as "appeasement"? You did not seem to fully grasp its meaning there. Appeasement is merely another term for "giving ground in an argument". Appeasement is meant to indicate an extreme of conceding to demands, but in practicality, no one definitely, precisely knows where the extremes lie. Diplomacy is all about giving and taking. For example, Cuban Missile Crisis: Russia gives US the assurance that the Soviet missiles will be removed from Cuba and in return takes the assurance that the American missiles will be removed from Turkey. There is diplomacy for you. I know this may be annoying, but I had the impression you missed the essence of appeasement.

"Appeasement" is the opinion that too much is given with too little return. Go figure how to apply that to the current situation... Your categorical post assertion that 'appeasement simply never works' can be incensing. The reader may perceive the post as a mark of an history-undereducated child, which is most certainly not you. in general, I try to avoid categorical statements, especially ones with such dubious parallels :sweatdrop:.

Nuclear weapons in this day in age would almost always equate to the end of the world and the destruction of most of humanity. Pure sabre rattling and the Russians know it.

Sabre-rattling, sure, but with regards to what? What is Putin telling the rest of the world to backoff on?

I seriously think he's going to invade and re-annex Georgia this winter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

Pure sabre rattling and the Russians know it.

---

Indeed, none of us deny it. So what? I would rather have sabre-rattling than the US style sabre-slashes, in the form of their military invasions. Granted, that is on a different level, but vague, seemingly undirected threats are preferable to outright armed attacks.

yes i did not mean all appeasement is a failure merely that in some cases you have to call your opponents bluff.

I wouldn't consider cuba really appeasement though as the Russians got the removal of missile bases from turkey. Really a convenient diplomatic solution. The two powers both received promises of equal value to the other.

one of the reasons Putin thinks obama is weak is because he is most likely going to scrap his plans to build missile shields in poland. He may have been more diplomatically accomadating but we wont ever know that because obama merely gave into him without receiving anything. good will gestures won't really mean anything to putin. He merely sees it as having his way

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

Indeed, none of us deny it. So what? I would rather have sabre-rattling than the US style sabre-slashes, in the form of their military invasions. Granted, that is on a different level, but vague, seemingly undirected threats are preferable to outright armed attacks.

---

What do you mean "So what?" I wasn't implying that military invasions were better than sabre rattling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don C

Sabre-rattling, sure, but with regards to what? What is Putin telling the rest of the world to backoff on?

I seriously think he's going to invade and re-annex Georgia this winter.

---

This wouldn't bother me in the least. Honestly, go ahead and have Georgia.

The more Russia can do to keep the worlds no. 1 enemy at bay, the better.

And yes, I am talking about the country that has the most WMD, who tries to assassinate democraticly elected leaders of other nations, who is waging an almost constant aggressive warfare...

The list can go on.

I dare say sir you are wrong.

RUSSIA OWNS ALMOST TWICE AS MANY NUCLEAR WEAPONS AS THE US.

you are obviously a stringent supporter of anything anti-US. Such as kim jong il, ahmandenijad, or osama bin laden, by reading your latest post.


Oh and i happen to think there are other nations out there who are severly worse for the world than america. many of which are in your beloved Europe.

PS unlike many nations on earth we have NOT waged a Total war since WW2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

The more Russia can do to keep the worlds no. 1 enemy at bay, the better.

And yes, I am talking about the country that has the most WMD, who tries to assassinate democraticly elected leaders of other nations, who is waging an almost constant aggressive warfare...

The list can go on.

---

The USA? Stop kidding yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

The USA? Stop kidding yourself.

---

Yeah, honestly guys, the world would be better with US global dominance than with Russian. Confucius say. You would think that is a no-brainer... Hey, I am a nationalist Putin minion, but that does nto stop me from spotting the faults.

That said, Kadgar is right in the sense that there must be checks and balances in this world as whole, and not just in each individual governments. If I had to create a new world and a choice in picking countries to go in it, if I ever picked US, I would be sure to pick Russia and China along with it. US may be better than Russia, but not by a mile. US undisputed, unchecked world dominance will cause Americans to go far out of bounds - it is inevitable.

Seriously guys, just imagine. Obama is so-so. But imagine a Republican President... They would force the whole world to submit if the could. There is no limit to the bounds of stupidity-infused jingoism. Not to mention, far from all Democrats are amicable in their foreign diplomacy. In fact, most are not, and have history of interventions just as long as the Republican Presidents.


To sum it up, if forced to choose one from US and Russia, I would choose US, but if I had full freedom of choice, I would choose both, so that one balances out the other.

hey i am a republican and i dont feel like crushing the world under my heel, maybe flicking the world the finger if it doesn't like me but no not crushing it.....

and now you have fallen into the trap of making a categorical assumption about a group of people :laugh4:

Not to mention the fairly decently sized isolationist wing in the Republican party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Not to mention the fairly decently sized isolationist wing in the Republican party.

---

Oh yeah? I have not heard anything from them since 1930s... And the Dems were in power back then.


Hehe, jk, but you get the point. I do not care what Republicans have and have not. I care about the result. And the result is that they are one helluva militaristic-jingoistic group. Not that I particularly disapprove of either quality though...

Ap you are making a very broad assumption that borders on liberal elitism. i understand that you are making a joke but it is very stereotypical. You assume that because republicans supported the war we are war mongers. Not necessarily so.

Do you think that woodrow wilson is a jingoistic war monger, because he didn't HAVE to enter WW1 and cause all that death. Is Harry truman a war monger he didn't have to enter korea?

You are making a blanket statement and while i understand the joke you should not make statements like that, especially if you want to appear fair and not an obvious democrat. And i thought you identified with no particular party?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

Do you think that woodrow wilson is a jingoistic war monger, because he didn't HAVE to enter WW1 and cause all that death.

---

Yes, he is, we almost had them... :furious3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

Hehe, jk, but you get the point. I do not care what Republicans have and have not. I care about the result. And the result is that they are one helluva militaristic-jingoistic group. Not that I particularly disapprove of either quality though...

---

Interventionalism, even hawkishness, and jingoism aren't the same thing. They are protecting the interests of themselves and their allies abroad, and while that occasionally involves war, it is remarkably peaceful all things considered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

Ap you are making a very broad assumption that borders on liberal elitism. i understand that you are making a joke but it is very stereotypical. You assume that because republicans supported the war we are war mongers. Not necessarily so.

---

For one, I am closer to Republicans than to Democrats. I simply dislike the Republican's social stances and their ties to religion. If not for that, I would be a Republican. Secondly, I am not at all assuming, in fact, pointed out that I am not generalising anyone because I am not evaluating the make up of the party. All I look at is the result. And the result is that the Republicans have been the warmongers, along with some of the Democrats as well.

There is absolutely no generalising in the overview of the results. Bush went to Iraq and Afghanistan. The vast majority, if not all Republicans, and even Democrats supported him. So the result was that the Republicans decided to go with war, regardless of their make-up.

Rather tellingly, what started as a discussion of Russian policy has immediately devolved into an argument about the United States. :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Rather tellingly, what started as a discussion of Russian policy has immediately devolved into an argument about the United States. :beam:

---

What can you say, I am rather skilled at directing the outrage aimed at my motherland and re-channelling it into Yankee-bashing :P Dear Russia escaped almost unscathed form this thread so far :beam:

:clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

Seriously guys, just imagine. Obama is so-so. But imagine a Republican President... They would force the whole world to submit if the could. There is no limit to the bounds of stupidity-infused jingoism. Not to mention, far from all Democrats are amicable in their foreign diplomacy. In fact, most are not, and have history of interventions just as long as the Republican Presidents.

---

you underestimate the realpolitic of the american political establishment in general, and overestimate the evilness of the republican party.

america has aims, america parties in government achieve those aims, little changes.

True no american president can make all the changes they want in four-8 years. The largest changes ever made by a president was FDR and he had nigh on 16 years. American party politics move the country in small increments and it has been mainly left in the last 200 odd years....

So Russia had local elections yesterday.

Needless to say, dictator-for-life Putin won with overwhelming margins. The opposition complained bitterly about 'irregularites'.

Mind, that this isn't even the real opposition. These are bogus opposition parties, paid for by Putin to keep up some semblance of democracy. The real opposition is in jail, or dead.


Edit: but let that not deter us from discussing the world's greatest danger to world peace and democracy: the United Sates.
Or the show trials Russia's buddy Iran is currently giving those who protested against Iran's rigged elections.
Nor the death penalties China gave yesterday to the 'insurgents' from Uigur.

That's strange, I haven't commented yet. :thinking:

But yea. It's an interesting Russian twist on 43's preemptive strike grandstanding. It's not that I disagree but the presentation and forethought were lacking.

Quote:

---

because republicans supported the war we are war mongers.

---

Heh.

Quote:

---

Do you think that woodrow wilson is a jingoistic war monger, because he didn't HAVE to enter WW1 and cause all that death. Is Harry truman a war monger he didn't have to enter korea?

---

If we'd look at Iraq and WWI in the same way, we'd be shooting little girls for stealing candy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

...Do you think that woodrow wilson is a jingoistic war monger, because he didn't HAVE to enter WW1 and cause all that death?...

---

After the publication of the Zimmerman telegram (Kudos to the British for making it happen!), war with Germany was inevitable. Wilson could have refused to ask for a DoW and Congress would have passed one anyway. Wilson could have vetoed it, only to have the veto over-ridden and see himself impeached (and quite probably convicted). The only way Wilson could have NOT led us into WW1 was by resigning from or removed from office. In which case, Thomas Marshall would have become CinC and he would have signed off on the DoW. Effectively, pacifist or not, Wilson did HAVE to enter WW1.