Posted on 03/16/2014 3:09:27 PM PDT by markomalley
A leading anchor on Russian state television on Sunday described Russia as the only country capable of turning the United States into "radioactive ash", in an incendiary comment at the height of tensions over the Crimea referendum.
"Russia is the only country in the world realistically capable of turning the United States into radioactive ash," anchor Dmitry Kiselyov said on his weekly news show on state-controlled Rossiya 1 television.
Kiselyov made the comment to support his argument that the United States and President Barack Obama were living in fear of Russia led by President Vladimir Putin amid the Ukraine crisis. His programme was broadcast as the first exit polls were being published showing an overwhelming majority of Crimeans voting to leave Ukraine and join Russia.
He stood in his studio in front of a gigantic image of a mushroom cloud produced after a nuclear attack, with the words "into radioactive ash".
"Americans themselves consider Putin to be a stronger leader than Obama," he added, pointing to opinion polls which then popped up on the screen.
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
It works both ways Dmitry. MAD policy I assume is still in effect regardless of the politicians. One well loaded US nuke sub could do an awful lot of ash heaping by itself.
(besides he is so sexy when riding a pony, shirtless)
There is nowhere near enough nukes in Russia’s arsenal to turn one state into ash. They have enough to cripple our federal government and that is it. They would suffer the same. The survivors (and there would be many) are who will rise and re-build. The U.S. stands a far better chance of coming back as a nation than Russia does.
I’ll give Mr. Peace Prize Winner credit, he’s got this world relations situation all straightened out and cooled down as we were promised he would. Fine job.
United States into radioactive ash,” anchor Bagdad Bob said on his weekly news show
Putin is simply making all of his moves now, while he can.
He is not stupid, he knows that come 2016 there will be a new sheriff.
Pretty smart, really.
I don’t know what France’s capacity is but I very much doubt it is anything near Russia’s. If I am not mistaken Britain’s nuclear deterrent is under dual key control of the United States, Israel does not have the capacity to hit the US and I simply don’t know about China but again I would doubt it matches Russia.
He’s got a point, only Russia comes close.
That date may give you a look at the timetable nations like Russia, China, and Iran have for whatever plans they’re hatching, i.e.:Eurasian expansion, South China Sea dominance, nuclear weapons.
A lot more than "some", look who they voted for the last two elections.
The “voting dead” and the “invisible voting man” don’t count :p
The “dual key” was with NATO tactical nukes, not strategic.
Great Britain has about 160 on its ballistic missile boats, France has a couple dozen more with some air delivered ones as well. Israel, no clear public numbers, but thought to be in the dozens or low hundreds, and shorter ranged.
Both the US and Russia have around 1500-2000 strategic weapons ready to launch, with the US having maybe slightly more, but Russia has a strong advantage in tactical nuclear weapons numbers.
In any case, in the US or Russia, try to name 100 main cities, ports and major airbases. Add some redundancy and just a few hundred weapons can eliminate either nation as a major military power. The remaining overkill is to address the unknown and make it as difficult as possible to accomplish a first strike.
We shouldn’t eliminate any more of our deterrent, but what we do have is substantial.
Heh, IIRC, Krushchev was a Ukrainian.
That’s just goddang scary.
Every single name on the list is an America-hating whaleturd.
That is one ugly list of names.
Putin KNOWS that a real leader will come into office by then.
I fear the Chinese more. They seem to have a level of quality control, unlike the Russians. The Russians are liable to blow themselves up.
There may have been several that said it but I know I definitelyu stated it long ago. I think dems have a permanent lock on the presidency. Liberals have long had a lock on schools and media and entire generations have been brainwashed. Then add government entitlements. Hard to fight such a machine.
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.