The number of people who post recommendations about nuclear attacks fail to realize the consequences are Global. The radioactive nuclear dust from an explosion encircles the globe and invariably causes cancer in every country. During nuclear tests in the '50's milk in the US was affected and picked up strontium-90, which has a half-life of about 29 years. Strontium-90, seeks out bone and bone marrow and can result in bone cancer so people were advised not to give milk to their babies or young children. I'm sure the more powerful bombs of today will spread more exotic stuff throughout the World. Be careful what you wish for.

^^^^

it wouldn't be global annihilation.. Some people would live on, but it would send humans back into caves for a good long time. Maybe the World needs a break from us.

Since 2000, Russia military doctrine stated that Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons "in response to a large-scale conventional aggression.

any invasion of the country would result into a huge catastrophe for the aggressor

Missy89: Since 2000, Russia military doctrine stated that Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons "in response to a large-scale conventional aggression.

any invasion of the country would result into a huge catastrophe for the aggressor

The logic here assumes that a "large scale conventional aggression" against Russia will leave Russia with enough capabilities to strike the aggressor with a huge catastrophe -

But surely it makes sense that an aggressor will aim to strike as hard as possible with every nuclear options at its disposal to ensure that even if Russia chooses to retaliate the damages to it will be minimal?

E.g - why will an aggressor strike Moscow with conventional bombs when he or she has the capabilities to destroy the whole of Russia in a single strike? -

Shock:
The statement shows more of weakness than strength. It is the sort of things you would have expected from North Korean Leaders.

No reasonable countries "boast" publicly of their nuclear deterrent except when they are really desperate to show their relevance.

Are you serious ? What of the US that organizes military exercises with Japan, South korea and her other allies ?

Crimea and East ukraine are buffer zones so Russia cannot just sit and let what she suffered during world wars to befall her again.

Mind you the Warsaw Pact is still technically alive.

Ur agrument bothers on ignorance sorry to say...I used to believe everything i read and watch via cnn and sky news till i started doing my own personal research and watchning alternate news sources..all the time and through reading so much espoinage novels, i have been conditioned to think by default that rUSSIA IS AN INSANE and ruthless country and all. It would surprise u to know that Putin may be the good guy in this crisis. Have u heard of the BRICS and the conspiracy to nip the plan of the BRICS In the bud? THe BRICS countries r made up of Brazil, russia, china, india and southa africa....this r emerging world powers and they kind of wanna change the currency of exchange from the american dollar to most probably gold..This will effectively make America a broke economy and cripple it. The only thing america can do is to cripple this nations or provoke a war..After russia brought out evidence that suggested that they werent involved with the MH17 incident, american and all suddenly became quiet and the matter has died down in the media...Have u ever asked who created ISIS in the first place?
What i dont understand is the USA drive for provoking wars all in a bid to save the citizens' of this nations?libya,iraq? coincidentally oil producing nations?r the ctizenrty better or worse?
while the russian ruling government aint clean, we should however be careful...its always better to have two equally strong balancing acts in world reckoning else what we have may be a new world order where 1 country calls all the shots..Russia and may be the chinese may be the last nations standing....

I will copy paste the link for youtube video's on America's defence
I will also copy paste Several clips of putin which i m sure u havent ever seen in the western media


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhPwX8p9i5w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8xSZ9Fr4c0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6d5zw2tnTA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGwWD-VVBEc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hniR-KVtUCo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bF2ay8S-HaA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Al_m15uyMMc

btw,

matify:

PUTIN and ISIS combination have drawn the world to the brinks of her ANNIHILATION !!

first time we agree on nairaland.
there's hope for this country yet

Bluetooth2:

Are you serious ? What of the US that organizes military exercises with Japan, South korea and her other allies ?

Crimea and East ukraine are buffer zones so Russia cannot just sit and let what she suffered during world wars to befall her again.

Mind you the Warsaw Pact is still technically alive.

Bluetooth2:

Are you serious ? What of the US that organizes military exercises with Japan, South korea and her other allies ?

Crimea and East ukraine are buffer zones so Russia cannot just sit and let what she suffered during world wars to befall her again.

Mind you the Warsaw Pact is still technically alive.

I am not sure what organizing military exercises has to do with bellicose statements by the leader of a nuclear state. It is irresponsible at worst, desperation at best. Those statements are quite as similar to - the Ayotollah's "Wiping Israel out" : Nikita's "We will bury you" : and several variants that you often hear from North Korea.

The idea that Crimea and East Ukraine are acceptable buffer zones simply because Ukraine sits next to Russia is plain ridiculous. Russia is the largest country in the world by land mass spanning 9 time zones. Crimea and Eastern Ukraine are of little use to providing guarantees for Russia's security. As a matter of fact, the US/NATO or any potential adversary does not need to be in Ukraine to launch an attack on Russia - So why is Russia tearing Ukraine apart?

The Warsaw pact? Are you F**k*** kidding?

Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Lativa, Lithuania, Estonia, Albania, Slovakia, Slovenia....

all of these countries that were once members of the Warsaw pact are now the staunchest NATO members. Guess why? Because they all felt threatened by Russia. Why is Georgia & Ukraine after steadfastly pursing NATO membership? Because they both feel threatened by Russia. Why is Finland and Sweden, countries which have maintained a position of neutrality for more than 200 years inching towards NATO? Because they feel threatened by Russia!!

Shock:


I am not sure what organizing military exercises has to do with bellicose statements by the leader of a nuclear state. It is irresponsible at worst, desperation at best. Those statements are quite as similar to - the Ayotollah's "Wiping Israel out" : Nikita's "We will bury you" : and several variants that you often hear from North Korea.

The idea that Crimea and East Ukraine are acceptable buffer zones simply because Ukraine sits next to Russia is plain ridiculous. Russia is the largest country in the world by land mass spanning 9 time zones. Crimea and Eastern Ukraine are of little use to providing guarantees for Russia's security. As a matter of fact, the US/NATO or any potential adversary does not need to be in Ukraine to launch an attack on Russia - So why is Russia tearing Ukraine apart?

The Warsaw pact? Are you F**k*** kidding?

Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Lativa, Lithuania, Estonia, Albania, Slovakia, Slovenia....

all of these countries that were once members of the Warsaw pact are now the staunchest NATO members. Guess why? Because they all felt threatened by Russia. Why is Georgia & Ukraine after steadfastly pursing NATO membership? Because they both feel threatened by Russia. Why is Finland and Sweden, countries which have maintained a position of neutrality for more than 200 years inching towards NATO? Because they feel threatened by Russia!!

True talk.

Putin's behaviour here smacks of a man at war with himself, he is throwing the tantrum of a spoilt brat by the way he is meddling in other nations interest.

Like you rightly said, he does not need to annex crimea or Luhansk to prove his safety.

Besides, who doesn't know he is nuclear capable. He was just brutish in making that statement and does not dignify him in any sane way.

Shock:


The logic here assumes that a "large scale conventional aggression" against Russia will leave Russia with enough capabilities to strike the aggressor with a huge catastrophe -

But surely it makes sense that an aggressor will aim to strike as hard as possible with every nuclear options at its disposal to ensure that even if Russia chooses to retaliate the damages to it will be minimal?

E.g -why will an aggressor strike Moscow with conventional bombs when he or she has the capabilities to destroy the whole of Russia in a single strike? -

NATO doesn't have a first use policy. They have a strong conventional force and Russia does not. During the cold war when the conventional forces were pretty much the same, Brezhnev changed the soviet doctrine to a no first use policy as well but it was reversed by Yeltsin since NATO expanded to their border.

Using WMD is an act of weakness not strength because you will have to kill a lot of civilians in the process. by 2020 if Russia finish modernizing its military, maybe they will change their doctrine back to the soviet times. And all sides will cut their nukes to a few thousands.

Missy89:

NATO doesn't have a first use policy. They have a strong conventional force and Russia does not. During the cold war when the conventional forces were pretty much the same, Brezhnev changed the soviet doctrine to a no first use policy as well but it was reversed by Yeltsin since NATO expanded to their border.

Using WMD is an act of weakness not strength because you will have to kill a lot of civilians in the process. by 2020 if Russia finish modernizing its military, maybe they will change their doctrine back to the soviet times. And all sides will cut their nukes to a few thousands.

My point is pretty straightforward - If an aggressor chooses to attack Russia, it wouldn't do so with conventional forces, knowing fully well that Russia will respond with nuclear strike. A potential aggressor is much likely to resort to a devastating first nuclear strike that will only leave its adversary with limited second strike. - National policies of a first or second strike doctrine are pretty useless in my opinion. No country ever truly aim to use their nuclear weapons in a second strike capacity. China has a second strike doctrine, but if China has strong indications that the US may likely launch an attack against it, it is not likely that China will adhere to its policy of second strike doctrine.

It's become a common thing to say now that "NATO expanded to Russia's border", but in reality it is the other way round. That is, Russia expanded Nato to their own borders. NATO only promises its members one thing - "An attack on one is an attack on all". Surely if Russia was at peace with its neighbours, then they have absolutely no reason to join NATO. Recent events in Ukraine shows what happens when you trust the Bear a little too much. It is why countries like Lithuania and Estonia remain glad that they made the decision to join NATO when the chance came on.

On Friday, Putin said on TV that Kazakhstan is not a really a state!!!! it appears that the Bear has his sights somewhere else once he is done wrecking Ukraine. And people wonder why NATO keeps enlarging? LOL.

I disagree that using a WMD is necessarily an act of weakness. America used nuclear strikes against Japan during WW2 - a lot of civillians died in the process, but it brought the war to an end.

if America and his Europe friends have sought for peace in Ukraine,things could have get better but because the want to sell arms all they talk about is war,hope the one they start in Libya,Syria,Iraq and so on is not enough.

dammytosh: That is why i prefer Nuclear Weapon in the WEST alone.

I am sure any American President or British Prime Minister that utter that kind of useless statement would have been preparing his resignation papers by now.

Putin should understand that he is not the only one that has Nuclear weapon. Even Isreal can boast of plenty Nuclear War Heads.

He should not underestimate the power of technological anti nuclear weapons. Isreal has one in advance stage of testing.

Why wouldn't you prefer Western Armed with Nuclear weapon alone since they colonised your forefathers and through propaganda and brainwash , neo-colonialism has affected you too !!


What about all Nuclear warheads be destroyed and their Arsenals !!

Shock:

My point is pretty straightforward - If an aggressor chooses to attack Russia, it wouldn't do so with conventional forces, knowing fully well that Russia will respond with nuclear strike. A potential aggressor is much likely to resort to a devastating first nuclear strike that will only leave its adversary with limited second strike. - National policies of a first or second strike doctrine are pretty useless in my opinion. No country ever truly aim to use their nuclear weapons in a second strike capacity. China has a second strike doctrine, but if China has strong indications that the US may likely launch an attack against it, it is not likely that China will adhere to its policy of second strike doctrine.

It's become a common thing to say now that "NATO expanded to Russia's border", but in reality it is the other way round. That is, Russia expanded Nato to their own borders. NATO only promises its members one thing - "An attack on one is an attack on all". Surely if Russia was at peace with its neighbours, then they have absolutely no reason to join NATO. Recent events in Ukraine shows what happens when you trust the Bear a little too much. It is why countries like Lithuania and Estonia remain glad that they made the decision to join NATO when the chance came on.

On Friday, Putin said on TV that Kazakhstan is not a really a state!!!! it appears that the Bear has his sights somewhere else once he is done wrecking Ukraine. And people wonder why NATO keeps enlarging? LOL.

I disagree that using a WMD is necessarily an act of weakness. America used nuclear strikes against Japan during WW2 - a lot of civillians died in the process, but it brought the war to an end.

You are making my point for me.

No one wants to use their weapons because it is only the US and Russia that have troops and technology that can deploy nukes on air land and sea. (and win) China's nuclear capability isn't sophisticated enough for a full sea/air delivery. In fact in a recent war game, China will loose to the US within few hours in an all out nuclear attack.
But the reason US would not use it first like i said before is because they have a strong conventional force (over 10 carrier groups) that can take care of business.

The agreement in 1991 when the Warsaw pact was dissolved was that NATO WOULD NOT MOVE BEYOND GERMANY. so if that is not expanding to someone's border , i don't know what is.

Baltic states like Lithuania etc that you mention are at a greater risk in the event of a full scale war because deployment would happen on their soil. The wise countries are Neutral countries. No one should be in any military alliance.

Nuclear weapons in Hiroshima is different because no one had it back then and it did not end the war. even without it, Japan would have surrendered within few months because they are fighting on 2 fronts. it was also an act of weakness from the US military who calculated that should they invade mainland Japan, Many troops will be dead (that was their official excuse )

If you have troops that can win in the front-line easily, you wont use nukes. the weakness of the Russian military is the reason why they changed their doctrine to first strike and like i said, when it is at par or close with NATO's capabilities, that would change.

why do you think he has his eyes on Kazakhstan?

The only 2 relevant nuclear powers is the US and Russia. the rest are armed for Regional reasons and can't maintain huge stockpiles. China is still every behind as well

Missy89:


why do you think he has his eyes on Kazakhstan?

Why does he?

publicenemy:

Why does he?

doesnt need to.

They have bases there and most of their ruling class are Russians anyway

Missy89:

doesnt need to.

They have bases there and most of their ruling class are Russians anyway

Whats the geo political significance of kaz to russia?

publicenemy:

Whats the geo political significance of kaz to russia?

Still heavily involved in their space and nuclear program. They have a nuclear test site there(Sary Shagan testing range) and that is where the Soyuz craft takes off and land (Baikonur Cosmodrome).
It is also the home of the Dnepr radar (Part of the Russian early warning network)
They are building a new space port (Vostochny Cosmodrome) in Svobodny that will start working around 2019 probably to cut dependence.

Central Asia has been in the Soviet control for a long time and they have a lot of Bases there (Mostly early warning radars/airbase/testing ranges and transport). After 911 US had to negotiate with Russia in other to lease air bases from Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan (Russia had to agree before those countries could lease) because US planes needed a refueling/transit station in the region in other to deploy to Afghanistan and they have since been returned. It is a resource rich region they don't want the west to "bring democracy" there.

Shock:
The statement shows more of weakness than strength. It is the sort of things you would have expected from North Korean Leaders.

No reasonable countries "boast" publicly of their nuclear deterrent except when they are really desperate to show their relevance.

Putin is doing YOU a favour by sensitizing the world to the potential consequences of a military face-off with the west, and by so doing, hopefully stalling off such a confrontation.

There is no need to enagage in a pointless debate. A bunch of pictorials should do the trick.

Yes, indeed Russia wants war and Putin is a mad man!!:

NairaMinted: There is no need to enagage in a pointless debate. A bunch of pictorials should do the trick.

Yes, indeed Russia wants war!!:

Go back to the 18th century and tell us about the borders. Pleas, prove it if those lands where not occupied by Russia as a dictatorial nation. Yet, people blame Israel. Bwahaha...

all4naija: Go back to the 18th century and tell us about the borders. Pleas , prove it if those lands where not occupied by Russia as a dictatorial nation. Yet, people blame Israel. Bwahaha...

So NATO isn't occupying these nations as well at the moment right?

all4naija: @ NairaMinted

You are a petty propagandist!

Thank you. Much appreciated....

One last one before I sign off though:

pls tell them

ROSSIKE:

Putin is doing YOU a favour by sensitizing the world to the potential consequences of a military face-off with the west, and by so doing, hopefully stalling off such a confrontation.

where do u get r news sources from? cnn or fox?
how in the world would u suggest that russia expanded to NATO's borders? what does that even mean?
and we making double talk here..its all ohk for the USA to enter and invade irag, libya and all for very stupid and fake reasons... IMO, putin is the last man standing between the usa/west and the creation of a sick new world order. u v nt found it surprising that the media has gone silent on the MH17 flight whiich was orchestrated to make russia look bad but which luckily enough for russia they had their own evidence?
see the american defence by marie harf on why she thinks its russia?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhPwX8p9i5w

Shock:

My point is pretty straightforward - If an aggressor chooses to attack Russia, it wouldn't do so with conventional forces, knowing fully well that Russia will respond with nuclear strike. A potential aggressor is much likely to resort to a devastating first nuclear strike that will only leave its adversary with limited second strike. - National policies of a first or second strike doctrine are pretty useless in my opinion. No country ever truly aim to use their nuclear weapons in a second strike capacity. China has a second strike doctrine, but if China has strong indications that the US may likely launch an attack against it, it is not likely that China will adhere to its policy of second strike doctrine.

It's become a common thing to say now that "NATO expanded to Russia's border", but in reality it is the other way round. That is, Russia expanded Nato to their own borders. NATO only promises its members one thing - "An attack on one is an attack on all". Surely if Russia was at peace with its neighbours, then they have absolutely no reason to join NATO. Recent events in Ukraine shows what happens when you trust the Bear a little too much. It is why countries like Lithuania and Estonia remain glad that they made the decision to join NATO when the chance came on.

On Friday, Putin said on TV that Kazakhstan is not a really a state!!!! it appears that the Bear has his sights somewhere else once he is done wrecking Ukraine. And people wonder why NATO keeps enlarging? LOL.

I disagree that using a WMD is necessarily an act of weakness. America used nuclear strikes against Japan during WW2 - a lot of civillians died in the process, but it brought the war to an end.