Ukraine war: Putin confirms first nuclear weapons moved to Belarus

BBC ^ | 06/16/2023 | Reuters

[usconservative]

Russia has already stationed a first batch of tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, Vladimir Putin says.

Speaking at an economic forum, he said they would only be used if Russia's territory or state was threatened.

The US government says there is no indication the Kremlin plans to use nuclear weapons to attack Ukraine.

"We don't see any indications that Russia is preparing to use a nuclear weapon," US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said after Mr Putin's comments.

Belarus is a key Russian ally and served as a launchpad for Mr Putin's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February last year.

The tactical nuclear warheads are less powerful than much of the rest of Russia's nuclear arsenal. Mr Putin said the transfer would be finished by the end of the summer.

[Right Brigade]

Why should the fate of Ukraine be a threat to me and my progeny?
like at all.
I know Christian Brotherhood amoung men would go a long way to improve the situation.
Ask yourself,
Where are we going?

[adorno]

Let’s go full Ukietard

No doubt the equivalent for your Russkie side is

lardbrain.... pr... tardbrain...

but turdbrain is more fitting.

[budj]

That does give pause for thought!

[nickfrost1]

If Biden ordered an American strike with a substantial fraction of our best forces and assets involved, it would be devastating.==

Again it is a peace time analysis. Impossible scenario. Because if Russia sees that American military are positioned for a strike on her - SHE will strike them FIRST without warning for sure to get a benefit of surprise. And if she sees forces substantial then she will go nuclear with first strike. Then she will continue striking on and on just to make sure there will NOT be any response. So it is how it is.

That is why she just asked NATO forces don’t go east because it is easy to make mistake of intentions.

She will never give a chance to prepare first strike on her. She learned a lesson of ww2.

So Putin will NOT wait for Biden. That is why your scenario is just peace-time idealistic picture which will never render in reality. It is just very obvious for me.

[rdcbn1]

With all due respect, do you have any idea of what our military, especially our strategic and tactical air, is capable of if we really wanted to deploy our best frontline capabilities without regard to costs?

[nickfrost1]

With all due respect, do you have any idea of what our military, especially our strategic and tactical air, is capable of if we really wanted to deploy our best frontline capabilities without regard to costs?==

With all due respect, if they will be seen on imminent preparation of strike they will be first stricken. If they are too many then strikes will be nuclear. Can they withstand a nuclear blast? I doubt it.

So you see my point. NATO provocations of Russia is a play with fire.

[Worldtraveler once upon a time]

--- Thanks for responding with a graphic and some few words. Ending in an exclamation point, yours was possibly meant the be a question. You write, "That does give pause for thought!"

Your response to me comes from your initial remark, "Every US nuke has always been under the direct control of US personnel, and can only be released by the President." I replied to you, "You of course are speaking in the moment of Joseph Robinette Biden."

Does Biden's "direct control" give you pause for thought?

Looking through this brief exchange between us, I find you advocating either 1) for Biden being competent to control US nukes, or 2) for Biden not being competent to control US nukes.

But the graphic with which you 'message' me, alas, offers no sense that you are pro-Biden "direct control" of nukes, or concerned that Biden has such control. Which is it?

[rxh4n1]

Is there ANYTHING in our arsenals that would qualify as a real “game-changer” in this war?

Yes, American combat troops.

[rxh4n1]

How may you know this?

The Iraqis, heavily armed and trained by the Soviet Union and then Russia. They use the Same tactics the Russians used. We crushed them in days. That’s a pretty good indicator. Yes, the Russians are likely to be tougher but we could have crushed them at any time since 1945 and they know it. That’s why they never tried anything.

[Worldtraveler once upon a time]

--- To: rfp1234 “Deterrence would work with Trump because he's deliberately unpredictable.” From: MeganC "You do realize that your comment here is nonsensical, right?"

A fine observation, MeganC, on threads like these wherein a sentence of response is not enough to clarify.

What we know is that the three largest arsenals, our US, Russia and China, have publicly published "doctrines." Under Biden-Blinken we allow ourselves some sort of first strike now which previously we did not. China retains a "no first strike" stance publicly. And after our change in doctrine, Russia publicly announced a sort of "could be" between the first strike and no first strike doctrines.

Some of us remember the MAD slogan and policy -- simply "mutually assured destruction." That alone seems to have been enough to keep the world from the insanity AND inanity of such talk as "tactical nukes."

ICAN has a nice, easy-to-grasp accounting of nuclear arsenals.

Source: https://www.icanw.org/nuclear_arsenals

Russia and our US are way ahead of the pack, but the total warheads worldwide seems to tally upwards of 12,700. Half of that would be quite enough to be madness, and so MAD applies.

Deterrence through unpredictable human nature is with us, but has not a darn thing to do with Trump, per se. It's us,. in which I include Biden, Putin and Xi.

And the "leaders" of France, the UK, Pakistan, India, Israel and North Korea. So MAD applies. Trump is not part of the equation in the moment. Who's "deliberately unpredictable?"

Well, "Putin says Russia could adopt US preemptive strike concept."

Source: https://apnews.com/article/putin-moscow-strikes-united-states-government-russia-95f1436d23b94fcbc05f1c2242472d5c

So. who to trust? Putin? Biden? Xi? Or one of the other players in this "game" which none will actually win? Sounds to me like we -- under Biden the Corrupt -- are the "champs" in the moment. Trump or no Trump. And after US in terms of "first strike" doctrine....

Best regards.

[Worldtraveler once upon a time]

--- "How may you know this? The Iraqis, heavily armed and trained by the Soviet Union and then Russia. They use the Same tactics the Russians used. We crushed them in days. That's a pretty good indicator. Yes, the Russians are likely to be tougher but we could have crushed them at any time since 1945 and they know it. That's why they never tried anything."

How many of us know that we lost the Afghanistan was which Obama said could be won?

Same tactics as Viet Nam. That's a pretty good indicator, albeit of a different sort.

[JimRed]

A Uke special forces raid to obtain a few if them might even the odds a bit.

[nickfrost1]

The Iraqis, heavily armed and trained by the Soviet Union and then Russia.==

As I said you facts are very loose. First off Russia did NEVER train Iraq. USSR did it but last time it was in 1970th.

They use the Same tactics the Russians used. ==

You talk this and I understand that you are NOT a military professional but some ignoramus who looked too much of Hollywood.

But you positioned that you know something and you exaggerated it greatly.

Yes, the Russians are likely to be tougher but we could have crushed them at any time since 1945 and they know it.==

But this one is pure funny)))...

Just reconsider this. Same people who told you this predicted that Ukraine armed with NATO weaponry and tactics will win over Russia. SO maybe you hey were NOT right after all? If not then anything they told about Russian and her military also wrong?

[rxh4n1]

We lost those because of bad strategy and tactics.

[rxh4n1]

Yes, we could have crushed the Soviet Union. We should have finished the job in 1945. WE just didn’t want to. Militarily, today’s Russia is a feeble shadow of the old Soviet Union.

[nickfrost1]

Yes, we could have crushed the Soviet Union. We should have finished the job in 1945. WE just didn’t want to. Militarily, today’s Russia is a feeble shadow of the old Soviet Union.==

Funny))). But you forgot “I swear” and damn with facts))).

But just for mind exercise if US was so strong then why Korea was not a win? Or Vietnam for same matter?

[rxh4n1]

Because we quit. We crushed the Norks and were advancing on the Yalu. We defeated the Chicoms after the initial surprise. We are a peace loving people and didn’t have the heart or will to pay the cost needed to achieve complete victory. That is also why we never destroyed the Soviet Union.

[Worldtraveler once upon a time]

--- "We lost those because of bad strategy and tactics."

Not well read on the history of US involvement in Vietnam, eh? Let us not forget the Biden-rushed evacuation from Kabul. Seems as if the "specialty of the house" for decades has been to lose "because of bad strategy and tactics." If only the military-industrial complex had been in charge.... Oh, wait.

[rxh4n1]

You sure got what I said wrong. The MIC was running both. It was their bad strategy and tactics. I’m not excusing them. The bad policy dragged the wars out so everyone wearied of it. We never used the strength needed to win.

[Worldtraveler once upon a time]

--- "You sure got what I said wrong. The MIC was running both. It was their bad strategy and tactics. I'm not excusing them. The bad policy dragged the wars out so everyone wearied of it. We never used the strength needed to win."

I guess I sure got what you said wrong. So the military -- a significant part of the government -- and the industrial -- profiting from government making war "never used the strength needed to win." Why do you think this has been so from Vietnam forward? Fifty years of never using the strenght sounds like a very fine condemnation of both parties.