Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 04/24/2025 3:25:08 AM PDT by marcusmaximus
Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in the event it faces aggression by Western countries, Moscow's top security official, Sergei Shoigu, was quoted as saying in an interview with the TASS state news agency on Thursday.
-snip-
Shoigu, who served for over a decade as Russia's defence minister until he moved to head its powerful security council in a government reshuffle last year, cited amendments to Moscow's nuclear doctrine approved by President Vladimir Putin last November.
Under the new terms, Russia could consider a nuclear strike in response to a conventional attack on Russia or its ally Belarus that "created a critical threat to their sovereignty and (or) their territorial integrity."
"...in the event of foreign states committing unfriendly actions that pose a threat to the sovereignty and territory integrity of the Russian Federation, our country considers it legitimate to take symmetric and asymmetric measures necessary to suppress such actions and prevent their recurrence," Shoigu said.
(Excerpt) Read more at ca.news.yahoo.com ...
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
That is the only way that Russia can win, so this is not surprising.
How does this make a headline.
Trump says our army will defend us if attacked! Democrats triggered, demanding impeachment of literally hitler resurrected from the dead though they still do not believe Jesus did.
Long headline, but journalism is dead.
While the West doesn’t not believe it can survive a nuclear holocaust, Russia thinks it is ‘survivable’. It may throw the world back 10,000 years, but society can rebuild.
That is the Russian position.
Old news.
Just a reminder to the Unstable Zelinski who is already COKED UP AND Unhinged. They are driving Zelinski insaine.
This is too funny. Had it appeared Trump would win in 2024 the Russians may have already popped a few off on US Command Centers in Ukraine - or are those the NATO, or are they the CIA command centers.
At any rate I read of a 1,100 tactical nuke package to hammer everything in connection with Ukrainian government.
If Russia declares war on Ukraine, it will be to eliminate the political leadership under the rules of war, and NOT TO NUKE Ukraine.
“I’ll huff and I’ll puff and I’ll blow your house down!!”. Ok, sure, I’m a shaking mess. I remember the fear of the Russian Mig 25 fighter jet. At the time we really didn’t have anything to compete against it, or that’s what we were made to believe. Although it’s turbos could take the jet to Mach 3 or better, the engines would go into overdrive and would have to be scrapped. When one was finally obtained by U.S. forces, it was described as a “flying tin can” due to the design and poor craftmanship. They have improved it since, but it still cannot compete with what we have. The Russians don’t want a nuclear war anymore than we do. Their threats are as empty as Kruschev banging his shoe on the table and ranting “We will bury you!!”.
I believe the Trump back channel with Russia before the election is the only thing that prevented Russian returning missiles into France and Britian and on US depots transferring equipment to Ukraine in Poland and the under construction missile base in Romania.
It isn’t a secret, really. It is their position. They aren’t saying that surviving a nuclear war means civilization goes on, just that there will be some very miserable people who would survive and they would eventually rebuild civilization.
From Grok.
Russian leadership and military doctrine suggest a belief that nuclear war, while catastrophic, is survivable to some extent. Their strategic posture emphasizes deterrence but also includes plans for continuity of government and societal survival post-conflict. The 2020 nuclear doctrine prioritizes deterrence and retaliation, implying a structured response to nuclear scenarios. Russia’s extensive network of bunkers, like those beneath Moscow, and historical civil defense programs indicate preparations for post-nuclear survival, rooted in Soviet-era strategies. Public statements from figures like Putin frame nuclear use as a last resort, but the rhetoric also conveys confidence in Russia’s resilience.
On the flip side, some analysts argue this stance is more about projecting strength than genuine optimism about surviving a full-scale nuclear exchange. Modern nuclear arsenals, including Russia’s, could cause unprecedented global devastation, and no nation could fully “survive” in a meaningful sense. Russian military writings acknowledge the catastrophic humanitarian and economic toll, suggesting a more nuanced view internally.
There was a brief time when the need for speed was the goal. Once Missiles were introduced and found completely effective, the speed of the military aircraft diminished. Missiles killed the race for the fasted fighter jet.
The faster the plane in those pre-missile dominance times could intercept enemy aircraft. The German Jet is a case in point and shows the tradeoffs.
TASS. Telegraph Agency of the Soviet Union.
Answer: The short answer is no—there's no real “winning” in a nuclear conflict between powers. A first strike might aim to cripple an opponent's ability to retaliate, but the reality is that most nuclear-armed nations maintain a “second-strike capability.” This means they have enough hidden or mobile nuclear weapons (like submarines or stealth bombers) to launch a devastating counterattack even after being hit.
Historically, the Cold War highlighted the dangers of this strategy. Both the U.S. and the Soviet Union feared a first strike from the other, leading to an arms race and the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). The idea was simple but terrifying: if one side launched, both would be annihilated.
Even today, experts argue that the risks of escalation, global fallout, and catastrophic humanitarian consequences make any potential “benefit” of a first strike meaningless. It's a grim reminder of why diplomacy and disarmament are so crucial.
Meaningless to who?
From Russia’s POV, during the cold War, the West losing everything counts as a win.
Query, would the rattly old thangs even work?
Stupid people believe Russian propaganda. Don’t be one of them.
I don’t think it is propaganda. They are fatalistic in their Viewpoint. If just a few thousand survive, that is good enough for them.
Do you really want to take that chance? One working nuke could ruin your whole day. And then some.
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.