Posted on 09/26/2024 5:53:35 AM PDT by Red Badger
WORLD WAR III UPDATE: The globalist left moved the world closer to nuclear war on Wednesday.
Russian President Vladimir Putin met with officials on Wednesday and announced changes to Russia’s nuclear doctrine.
Putin lowered the threshold regarding Russian strategic forces’ use of nukes.
In a televised address to Russia’s Security Council, Putin said nuclear doctrine has been effectively revised in light of recent developments.
Putin warned NATO in his message to top Russian leaders after meetings on Wednesday.
Vladimir Putin: “The updated version of the document proposes that aggression against Russia by any non-nuclear weapons state but with the participation or support of a nuclear weapon state should be regarded as a joint attack on the Russian federation.
The conditions for Russia’s transition to the use of nuclear weapons are also clearly defined. We will consider such a possibility as soon as we receive reliable information about a massive launch of aerospace attack NEDS and their crossing of our state border. Meaning strategic or tactical aircraft, cruise missiles, drones, hypersonic missiles and other aircraft…
…We reserve the right to use nuclear weapons in the event of aggression against Russia and Belarus as a member of the union state. All of these agreements have been agreed upon with the Belarussian side and with the president of Belarus.
The Gateway Pundit reported last week that Vladimir Putin warned that the NATO approval would change the essence of the conflict. Putin also warned that Kiev would be destroyed.
Vladimir Putin: The key is that only NATO servicemen can enter flight assignments into these missile systems. Ukrainian servicemen cannot do this.
And so this is not about allowing the Ukrainian regime to strike Russia with these weapons or not. It’s about deciding whether NATO countries are directly involved in the military conflict or not.
If this decision is made it will mean nothing other than the direct participation of NATO countries, the United States, European countries, in the war in Ukraine. This is their direct participation and this already significantly changes the very essence and the very nature of the conflict…
This would mean that NATO countries, the United States are at war with Russia.
“We were serious about our red line during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the closest we have come to an actual nuclear war. Both sides blinked at the last minute.”
If we hadn’t put missiles in Turkey , Russia never would have planned to put missiles in Cuba . Direct talks between Kennedy and Nikita saved the day . When was the last time Biden talked with Putin ?
bttt
I have plenty of ordinary pleasant discussions with ordinary FReepers, I don't need to give special consideration or even debate Zeepers rather than tell it like it is.
Zeepers deserve nothing, even when they pretend to "debate".
"Debating" a Zeeper is as productive as Debating Beria, and gets the same results as Debating Beria.
I'll just continue to tell it like it is.
You can continue to spring to Zeepers' defense.
Got it.
Well, I’m dancing with that childish nonsense as much as you’re putins butt boy.
Like I said you leap to wrong assumptions from something I did not say, but rather than converse, you just want to embarrass yourself.
You can have the last word. I’m done with you.
When you say the objective of the proxy war is regime change in Russia and label Putin as a war criminal, it is difficult to have a dialogue with them.
And let’s face it, Biden is incapable of having a meaningful dialogue with anyone. He is shot mentally.
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early
Washington D.C., December 12, 2017 – U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).
pure BS
You are wrong Kazan:
“Such an agreement was never made. NATO’s door has been open to new members since it was founded in 1949. This has never changed. No treaty signed by NATO Allies and Russia included provisions on NATO membership. Decisions on NATO membership are taken by consensus among all Allies. Russia does not have a veto.
The idea of NATO enlargement beyond a united Germany was not on the agenda in 1989, particularly as the Warsaw Pact still existed until 1991. Mikhail Gorbachev said in an interview in 2014: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a single Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up either.”
Individual Allies cannot make agreements on NATO’s behalf. President Clinton consistently refused Boris Yeltsin’s offer to commit that no former Soviet Republics would join NATO: “I can’t make commitments on behalf of NATO, and I’m not going to be in the position myself of vetoing NATO expansion with respect to any country, much less letting you or anyone else do so… NATO operates by consensus,” he said.
The wording “NATO expansion” is already part of the myth. NATO did not hunt for new members or want to “expand eastward.” NATO respects every nation’s right to choose its own path. NATO membership is a decision for NATO Allies and those countries who wish to join alone.”
wiseprince: "It’s not Suicidal for Russia to use nuclear weapons."I would defer to Ronald Reagan's judgment on this one:
So, maybe you can explain how the destruction of Russia's largest cities is a "victory" and not suicide?
wiseprince: "It’s sad if they do but there is definitely a scenario where theyvuse it, the US uses it, they use it again and both nation survive. "
Sure, depending on your definition of "survive".
But how is it not suicide if a nation (Russia) starts a war which results in themselves being bombed back to the stone ages?
wiseprince: "If I were in his situation I would definitely use it first and harshly.
I would even use it twice before the response comes.
One would be on US main land.
You dont survive by not using the weapons you have in this scenario. "
"Harshly"? You sound like a child addicted to video games.
Let me remind you that real wars cost real lives, millions:
wiseprince: "If I were China and Russia let it off I would also strongly consider using one as well."
Again, you sound quite young or, perhaps, not overly familiar with the English language.
Are you old enough to remember the old Lays Potato Chip commercials, "bet you can't eat just one"?
Yeah, nukes are like that, you can never throw just one.
rdcbn1: "Would it work?desertsolitaire: "Thank you for this and most unsettling is that I don’t believe the people running empty suit Biden much care what you or I think or are worried about in Ukraine."
So, first of all, you know there are no NATO troops concentrations in Ukraine, and NATO is not hitting targets inside Russia, right?
Second, there seems little doubt that the US today is self-driving on automatic cruise control, temporarily without elected leadership in charge of national defense and international relations.
Whether this makes nuclear war more or less likely is anybody's guess right now.
But the key point about A-bombs is that this "nuclear genie" has been kept in its bottle for nearly 80 years -- since 1945, and once released the results are unpredictable.
However, we can be certain nukes will not be used "just once", and the nation which starts throwing nukes around will suffer disproportionately for it.
In effect, the first use of nukes will initiate a national "suicide by cop", and historically Russians have never been suicidal.
So, are we now, finally, after 80 years grown weak enough to tempt Russians into suicide by cop?
I hope not.
SaxxonWoods: "What should we do if we were struck deep in our territory?" What are you talking about? -- we are being struck deep in our territory every day!
Every day we are struck, and our people die from drugs washing across our borders, from criminals and lunatics invading every state, from perverse foreign influences on our leaders who now refuse to enforce our laws, much less defend our sacred values.
And yet... despite hundreds of thousands of deaths and injuries each year from such causes, the necessary response is not to start throwing nukes at other countries.
What's necessary instead is that we vote out leaders who are responsible for this death and destruction, replace them with sane patriots, deport illegals while strengthening our borders and national defenses.
No nukes required.
Exact same applies to Russia.
Yes, I recognize it would be bad for everyone. I’m of the mind that sending long range weapons into Moscow is a dumb idea but the US and NATO seem intent on doing just that. I’m telling you how I would react were I the leader of Russia. I think what I laid out would give Russia and China for that matter the best chance and pushing back. You are laying reasons not to use nuclear weapons but you aren’t laying out what happens if you don’t. They’ll habe NATO troops in Russia in a few years. If you don’t want that you need to act decisively the moment Moscow is hit from US and NATO. And you give them millions of dead on their homeland. It’s not a close call.
rdcbn1: "People seem to have no idea of what dangers we are getting ourselves into with Russia in Ukraine" For over 40 years of Cold War, the world lived under the threat of MAD -- Mutual Assured Destruction -- and a nuclear Armageddon.
In 1947 the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists created a "Doomsday Clock", purporting to measure how close the world was to self-destruction.
Originally set at 7-minutes before "midnight", it was moved closer or further away over the decades:
rdcbn1: "I'm an unreconstructed cold warrior who has never met a weapon system I didn't like."
From your tone here, I seriously doubt that, unless you mean a Russian Cold Warrior.
rdcbn1: "I'm really stunned and dismayed at how those weapons are being used to wage a senseless and futile proxy war that has killed or severely injured over a million men, women and children who should be living otherwise peaceful lives completing the reconstruction of their countries after the communist tragedy."
That is total Russian propaganda garbage-talk.
Russia invaded its neighbor, Ukraine, and so is 100% responsible for any deaths it caused and fully deserves any deaths it suffers as a consequence.
If you were truly a "cold warrior", then you fully understand that there is nothing ever "senseless and futile" about defending your country against foreign invaders.
You'd also know that any words coming from Russian officials are necessarily lies intended to confuse and disorient Russia's enemies.
So, do not accept Russia's lies, and do not repeat them as if serious.
You would also full well understand that rewarding Russia's bad behavior can only encourage more of it, by Russia and the world's other two-bit tin-horn Hitler-wannabe dictators.
rdcbn1: "Instead we are destroying all that has been built at great cost and suffering out of the ashes of the old Soviet Union for no reason other than to fight an intentionally destructive proxy war on Ukrainian soil to further the agendas of foreign war mongers desires for power and profit"
And still more fact-free nonsense, straight out of the information sewer pipes of the Kremlin's Ministry for Agitation and Propaganda.
Thank You!
Russia has MANY ways to use nukes without having to resort to 20 Megaton airbursts, as you guys are implying.
But yes, if the Neocons insist on taking their nuclear war to the point of using the city-busters, they’re more than capable of doing just that too.
pierrem15 #122: "There's zero chance of a nuclear WWIII.
You're bluffing, just as you did in the 80s.
I remember Gromyko with the usual Russian finesse and tact yelling at the Italians that the Soviet Union would turn Italy into Pompeii if they allowed US missiles into Italy.
They did anyway.
No Pompeii."
smogger #133: "There’s zero chance of a nuclear WWIII”— Signed,
You could add to Smogger's list:
One who never forgot was US Pres. Ronald Reagan.
That's because: Russians can "punch above their weight" and earn unparalleled thuggish "street creds", international cachet, respect and fear -- by making serious sounding threats of nuclear war.
But they would earn only suicidal self-destruction if they actually began throwing such weapons around.
So, will they ever really pull a nuclear "Crazy Ivan" and become nationally suicidal?
No, I don't think so, and if someone in Russia ever tried, I'd hope others there were still sane enough to prevent it.
I do love it whenever I can agree with you, like now, general.
Sadly, there's always a risk to calling your opponent's bluff, even if his Russian Roulette pistol has a hundred cylinders and only one is loaded.
The probabilities may be small, but the risk is still huge.
And, as you can easily see, a lot of our fellow FReepers are taking Russia's nuclear threats very seriously.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.