Russia Issues Pre-Emptive Nuclear Threat

Russia's military chief of staff says Moscow would use nuclear weapons in pre-emptive strike if it felt threatened.

General Yuri Baluyevsky said there were no plans "to attack anyone" but reasserted Russia's right to defend itself.

"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," Gen Baluyevsky said.

Russia is embroiled in persistent disputes over US plans for missile defence facilities in former Soviet satellite states that have joined Nato.

A row has also broken out between the UK and Russia after the director of the British Council in St Petersburg was briefly arrested.

Putin is crazy with megalomania — his newly acquired power from rigged elections is gone to his head.

You need to take a look at Siberia, Russian demographic projections for the next 20 years and where Russia's real threats come from.

The most dangerous threats to Russia come from the East. This warning may have been for other ears. Who were the only people to ever successfully conquer Russia again? (Hint: not Europeans)

To do a Stephen Ambrose on a movie quote, us being involved in Chechnya, is like another man sleeping with your wife, and afterward all three living under the same roof, but what really happens, is the betrayed husband buys a gun.

Whatever issue we may have with Pooty, the Russkies have been fighting the war on terror for hundreds of years, they have lived under the thumb of mongol tyranny for centuries in some parts of their country, they were massacred at Beslan, they were decimated in Afghanistan.

As far as I’m concerned, they could nuke Chechnya for all I care.. I don’t want to see us going to war with them to defend the birthplace of Stalin...

Despite doing and extensive, exhaustive search for information regarding what was referred to as the Clinton Doctrine [sic]on the web, invisible web,databases, I have been unsuccessful in uncovering any information, reference, or inkling of a Clinton Doctrine as described by Rightwhale/Don Joe in our correspondence.

If you have anything that makes reference to a Clinton Doctrine as either of you have described I would be most grateful to have it forwarded to my inbox.

Not sure what you were searching for, but I just entered ONE search query -- clinton "first strike" retaliate -- and found a bunch of hits; here's one which looks like it should answer your question:

Thanks to Bill Clinton our new policy is to absorb a nuclear first strike missile attack against the U.S before we retaliate.

Snip:

Welcome to Pearl Harbor! Laxity and lowering one's alert status always invites attack. Thanks to Bill Clinton our new policy is to absorb a nuclear first strike missile attack against the U.S before we retaliate. Before Clinton came into office the U.S. defense policy had always been to immediately launch a retaliatory missile strike in the event that U.S. surveillance satellites detected the infrared signature of a Russian or Chinese ICBM against the U.S. This new policy would almost guarantee that an enemy nuclear first strike would destroy our ability to retaliate against hardened enemy targets such as missile silos and command and control bunkers.

There's more to the article, but the above ought to convince you I didn't just make it up out of whole cloth.

I'm sure you could refine that query (first step would probably be to add the word "absorb" to it) to come up with a more focused list of matches, but in any case, there ya go!

The Russians are trying so very hard to be recognized as a world super power again...

Just a few weeks ago they said they will land a man on Mars in 2025

They will!

I have it on the highest authority that they are, as we speak, preparing the corpse for packaging in the rocket, and they have a guidance system that is guaranteed to be sufficiently accurate to strike somewhere on Mars... by the year 2025 (presuming they're able to launch some time within the next six months).

[rimshot!]

*snicker*

PS:

I think the problem may be one of basic communication — you seem to have somehow come up with the term “the Clinton Doctrine”, and then used that as the basis for your searches.

The thing is, I never USED that term. I merely spoke of “Clinton’s doctrine” (i.e., a description, rather than a “title” so to speak). And, it was indeed “Clinton’s doctrine” — a fact that you can easily verify by searching using relevant search terms (of which “the Clinton Doctrine” is not included!)

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.