Both Russia & the U.S.A. are discussing preemptively using nuclear

[obsidian]

Go to Google News

Russia: Could Use Nuclear Weapons

By STEVE GUTTERMAN – 4 days ago

MOSCOW (AP) — Russia's military chief of staff said Saturday that Moscow could use nuclear weapons in preventive strikes to protect itself and its allies, the latest aggressive remarks from increasingly assertive Russian authorities.

Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky's comment did not mark a policy shift, military analysts said. Amid disputes with the West over security issues, it may have been meant as a warning that Russia is prepared to use its nuclear might.

"We do not intend to attack anyone, but we consider it necessary for all our partners in the world community to clearly understand ... that to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia and its allies, military forces will be used, including preventively, including with the use of nuclear weapons," Baluyevsky said at a military conference in a remark broadcast on state-run cable channel Vesti-24.

According to the state-run news agency RIA-Novosti, Baluyevsky added that Russia would use nuclear weapons and carry out preventive strikes only in accordance with Russia's military doctrine.

The military doctrine adopted in 2000 says Russia may use nuclear weapons to counter a nuclear attack on Russia or an ally, or a large-scale conventional attack that poses a critical risk to Russia's security.

Retired Gen. Vladimir Dvorkin, formerly a top arms control expert with the Russian Defense Ministry, said he saw "nothing new" in Baluyevsky's statement. "He was restating the doctrine in his own words," Dvorkin said.

Moscow-based military analyst Alexander Golts said that when Russia broke with stated Soviet-era policy in the 2000 doctrine and declared it could use nuclear weapons first against an aggressor, it reflected the decline of Russia's conventional forces in the decade following the 1991 Soviet collapse.

"Baluyevsky's statement means that, as before, we cannot count on our conventional forces to counter aggression," Golts told Ekho Moskvy radio. "It means that as before, the main factor in containing aggression against Russia is nuclear weapons."

Putin and other Russian officials have stressed the need to maintain a powerful nuclear deterrent and reserved the right to carry out preventive strikes. But in most of their public remarks on preventive strikes, Russian officials have not specifically mentioned nuclear weapons.

Baluyevsky spoke amid persistent disputes between Moscow and the West over issues including U.S. plans for missile defense facilities in former Soviet satellites, NATO members' refusal to ratify an updated European conventional arms treaty, and Kosovo's bid for independence from Serbia.

Like Golts, Moscow-based military analyst Pavel Felgenhauer said Russia plays up its nuclear deterrent because of its weakness in terms of conventional arms. "We threaten the West that in any kind of serious conflict, we'll go nuclear almost immediately," he said.

But in the absence of a real threat from the West, he said, "It's just talk."

Hosted by

Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

The Telegraph (U.K.)

Nato 'must prepare to launch nuclear attack'

Last Updated: 3:14pm GMT 23/01/2008

Nato must prepare to launch pre-emptive nuclear attacks to ward off the use of weapons of mass destruction by its enemies, a group of former senior military officials has warned.

The document may be discussed at a Nato summit in April

Calling for a major change to Nato's approach to defending its members and their interests, the authors of the report, which has been handed to Nato and Pentagon chiefs, said the first-strike use of nuclear weapons was a "indispensable instrument".

The authors of the blueprint for reforming Nato are understood to include Lord Peter Inge, the former British chief of the defence staff and US General John Shalikashvili, the former Nato commander in Europe and chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff.

"The risk of further proliferation is imminent and, with it, the danger that nuclear war fighting, albeit limited in scope, might become possible," the report said.

"The first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction."

The document reportedly includes Lord Inge's comments on the controversy surrounding nuclear weapons policy: "To tie our hands on first use or no first use removes a huge plank of deterrence."

advertisement

The report called for a wholesale reform of Nato and a new pact between Nato, the US and the European union in order to tackle modern military and terrorist threats to the West.

It warned the spread of nuclear technology meant there was "simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world".

Terrorism, political fanaticism and religious fundamentalism were major threats to the West, and organised crime, climate change and migration on a mass scale posed dangers to the way of life of Nato members.

The report's authors also cited the weakening of global alliances, including the United Nations.

The authors have proposed major changes to the way Nato operates, including abandoning consensus decision making so fast action can be taken without the threat of vetoes and caveats imposed by some nations.

They also called for military action without ratification by the UN in cases where "immediate action is needed to protect large numbers of human beings".

The report was compiled after authors were briefed by senior serving military officials who are unable to speak publicly about their concerns with Nato's military strategy.

The document may be discussed at a Nato summit in Bucharest in April.

The other three authors are Klaus Naumann, a German former military commander, Henk van den Breemen, a former Dutch military official, and Jacques Lanxade, the former French admiral and chief of defence.

[Lazarus]

Tick Tock, Tick Tock......and the clock advances......Tick Tock, Tick Tock........

[obsidian]

Russia has also just doubled its conscription while Bush has passed legislation that allows the US to supply allies with weapons in half the time.

tick.tock.

Edited January 25, 2008 by obsidian

[bush_cheney2004]

Russia has also just doubled its conscription while Bush has passed legislation that allows the US to supply allies with weapons in half the time.

tick.tock.

Yawn.....not so scary. Go back 50 years...tock.tick. Now that's more like it!

[Wilber]

Yawn.....not so scary. Go back 50 years...tock.tick. Now that's more like it!

You would have to be over forty at least to remember when the Cold War was serious. I doubt this policy ever changed, although it has been some time since anyone has come out and said so.

[bush_cheney2004]

You would have to be over forty at least to remember when the Cold War was serious. I doubt this policy ever changed, although it has been some time since anyone has come out and said so.

OK....I think I qualify on age....that and service on Polaris, Poseidon, and Trident ballistic missile submarines. The old "policy" was to waste Soviet population centers and suppress defenses so that the B-52's could lumber in and do it all over again with a megaton cherry on top.

It's probably a good thing that today's 'youngins would wet their pants at the thought of far less.

Edited January 25, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[DogOnPorch]

OK....I think I qualify on age....that and service on Polaris, Poseidon, and Trident ballistic missile submarines. The old "policy" was to waste Soviet population centers and suppress defenses so that the B-52's could lumber in and do it all over again with a megaton cherry on top.

It's probably a good thing that today's 'youngins would wet their pants at the thought of far less.

Aye...kids these days...lol. Never had a 10 megatonne warhead aimed at 'em...

--------------------------------------------

We'll meet again...don't know where...don't know when...

---Vera Lynn

Edited January 25, 2008 by DogOnPorch

[moderateamericain]

Aye...kids these days...lol. Never had a 10 megatonne warhead aimed at 'em...

--------------------------------------------

We'll meet again...don't know where...don't know when...

---Vera Lynn

You would be surprised at the courage some of these young guys have. Between 18 and 24 you think your invincible i think. Unfortunetly, the ones who live through military action have that illusion dispelled real quick. But yes, I am not particurally worried about a nuclear haulocaust between the US and Russia. I would be more worried about a dirty bomb going off in a football stadium or something of that nature.

[Wilber]

You would be surprised at the courage some of these young guys have. Between 18 and 24 you think your invincible i think. Unfortunetly, the ones who live through military action have that illusion dispelled real quick. But yes, I am not particurally worried about a nuclear haulocaust between the US and Russia. I would be more worried about a dirty bomb going off in a football stadium or something of that nature.

I don't think people change all that much but to someone who's memory of international affairs is largely post Gorbachev, the possibility of a nuclear exchange between major powers is much less of a reality it was for someone who goes back to the late fifties or early sixties. It doesn't mean they would be any less courageous when the chips are down.

[obsidian]

What makes the odds any less likely now? Just because it's on a smaller scale doesn't make it acceptable as the term "tactical nukes" alludes to. I'm not freaking out over this, its nothing like M.A.D., but it would trigger world war 3. Moderate American I can see you watch corporate news alot, you have the programmed fear of terrorists with nukes at football stadiums, lulz. "Aye...kids these days...lol. Never had a 10 megatonne warhead aimed at 'em..."-- Any of the soviet missles could be retargetted within a half hour, if they ever even changed (you should know that being ex-military Bush-Cheney). So the threat is still there; but we trust them to not attack. Russia's version of the SPP calls for the reestablishment of a bi/multipolar world. I've been following this soon to be conflict and it is escalating at an increasing speed. Anything the United States is doing Russia is trying to counter without starting a conflict first, they're installing their own missle sheild now to counter the Americans in Europe.

Bush-Cheney knowing your ex military explains alot (military supporting military industrial complex, nice) atleast you didnt serve in the 1st Gulf War and get gulf war syndrome.

Edited January 28, 2008 by obsidian

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I will wade into the discussion and suggest that Russia and the US of A are actually allies, they just know it yet. The real threat is China. There is 1/3 of the worlds population looking for resources for their industrial development in that nation. When they create sufficient productive capacity they will dominate the economic situation in the world. As their net worth increases they will be consuming more and more goods. Most people can see where this will lead............

[obsidian]

And most people can see that Russia and China are already allies in the Shanghai Cooperation Agreement (security, military, economic, etc.[pretty much an equivelant of NATO]) unless they only watch mainstream news...Where do you think China gets nearly all of its military technology: Russia. Guess where China gets most of its oil: Iran. How will China react when America cannot pay off its debts to them? It's more than a trillion dollars.

Edited January 28, 2008 by obsidian

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Your point is what? Germany and Russia were allies right until Hitler invaded them. Like I said the US and Russia just don't know they are allies, YET.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Bush-Cheney knowing your ex military explains alot (military supporting military industrial complex, nice) atleast you didnt serve in the 1st Gulf War and get gulf war syndrome.

I would support such policies even if I were not "ex-military", the same as many other fellow citizens. Russia is merely responding as it always has to real and perceived threats, but make no mistake, it was a far deadlier and costlier game in the bad old days, from proxy wars in the jungle to Tsar Bomba.

Your concerns are neither remarkable or unprecedented, as we saw the exact same behavior when President Reagan deployed Pershing II missiles and GLCMs to Europe (1980's). European peaceniks whined like stuck pigs. For sure the world was going to end. Then something marvelous happened....

Edited January 28, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Yes it did, the USA won the first war ever fought with dollar bills. It bankrupted the USSR and ended the Cold War. If you have enough money you can do darned near anything. Just ask O.J.

Edited January 28, 2008 by Jerry J. Fortin

[marcinmoka]

not so scary. Go back 50 years...tock.tick

I double that yawn. We survived the reign of Curtis "Madman" LeMay, so I doubt this tough talk by generals planning for the worst is bound to change anything. Although it does provide a source of sensationalism for the historically challenged.

And most people can see that Russia and China are already allies in the Shanghai Cooperation Agreement (security, military, economic, etc.[pretty much an equivelant of NATO]) unless they only watch mainstream news...Where do you think China gets nearly all of its military technology: Russia.

And guess who refuses to give their most advanced weaponry to China ; Russia. And despite all the anti rhetoric, guess who is building up their southern and eastern defensive capabilities; Russia.

The reality is that the Russian defense establishment needs exports to survive and to innovate, and China is obviously their biggest sole client. But they are not dumb enough to tie their own noose by out-arming their resource hungry potentially expansionist neighbor to the south.

To echo Mr. Fortin's sentiments, the U.S and Russia are allies, they just realize that fact yet due to a little cold-war hangover of sorts.

[obsidian]

We'll see where the lines in the sand are drawn when/if it happens, anything else is just speculation.

"And guess who refuses to give their most advanced weaponry to China ; Russia. And despite all the anti rhetoric, guess who is building up their southern and eastern defensive capabilities; Russia. "

Who would give away their trade secrets when they're in it for profit? The US doesn't share all of its technology. Ofcourse they don't give them their most advanced hardware so they still have a customer. And could they not be building up its southern and eastern defensive capabilites to counter the increasing presence in the middle east? Russia has started sending its Navy into the Persian Gulf to counter the American Navy, why would they not do the same on land? They also restarted their long range bomber patrol for the first time since the collapse of the USSR.

If a multi-theater conflict ever came about you think it will be NATO, EU, Israel, and Russia on one side verse who evers left? If they're all such good friends with that dream team I doubt anything could stand in its way.

Russia has vocally spoken out against sanctions on Iran, the missle shield, and the American occupation of Iraq. Russia has started abdoning its USD reserves, same as China, and Iran. China has become increasingly frigid in US relations and no longer allows US navy vessels safe harbour in their ports.

If NATO and Israel attacked Iran what do you think would happen? Nothing?

Just curious, why would Russia prefer and alliance with America rather than China?

Logically it appears to me China would be a stronger ally, especially in the future.

Edited January 30, 2008 by obsidian

[Sulaco]

We'll see where the lines in the sand are drawn when/if it happens, anything else is just speculation.

"And guess who refuses to give their most advanced weaponry to China ; Russia. And despite all the anti rhetoric, guess who is building up their southern and eastern defensive capabilities; Russia. "

Who would give away their trade secrets when they're in it for profit? The US doesn't share all of its technology. Ofcourse they don't give them their most advanced hardware so they still have a customer. And could they not be building up its southern and eastern defensive capabilites to counter the increasing presence in the middle east? Russia has started sending its Navy into the Persian Gulf to counter the American Navy, why would they not do the same on land? They also restarted their long range bomber patrol for the first time since the collapse of the USSR.

If a multi-theater conflict ever came about you think it will be NATO, EU, Israel, and Russia on one side verse who evers left? If they're all such good friends with that dream team I doubt anything could stand in its way.

Russia has vocally spoken out against sanctions on Iran, the missle shield, and the American occupation of Iraq. Russia has started abdoning its USD reserves, same as China, and Iran. China has become increasingly frigid in US relations and no longer allows US navy vessels safe harbour in their ports.

If NATO and Israel attacked Iran what do you think would happen? Nothing?

Just curious, why would Russia prefer and alliance with America rather than China?

Logically it appears to me China would be a stronger ally, especially in the future.

A class in Realpolitik. Unless one's plan is to become a vassal state it is best to band with the weaker against the strongest. The stronger China is the more threatening it is to Russia - especially since China is far more likely to covet Russian lands than is the US. - if for no other reason than that logistics of invasion would be lless burdensome on China. Who is m ore likely to colonize the far east of the Federation.

Is the logic that difficult here?

All this of course can be attacked through various analytical means - but one has to attack the assumptions - argue for different paradigms. You are making realpolitik arguments but are completely misapplying the theory.

[Wilber]

Just curious, why would Russia prefer and alliance with America rather than China?

Logically it appears to me China would be a stronger ally, especially in the future.

Also the greater threat. There have been border disputes between the two for decades with quite heavy concentrations of troops on both sides. For all their differences, the US doesn't covet Russian territory. China does.

Russia sees the present situation as an opportunity to undermine US influence in the world. That is a far cry from going to war.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Let me state very clearly something that may surprise and shock folks. China is developing far faster than most people think. The growth in GDP is only a hint of the reality. Their science and technology is what should concern us. Look at their space program, look at the new fighter jets they are producing. Look at their military capability as it stands today, then multiply that by ten. I say ten because that is the right number to use when you want to find out how many armed men can be called up at a moments notice when you crack into their trained reservists.

The point is that we are looking at a window of opportunity. Within a few short years, they cannot be stopped.