Posted on 10/19/2022 1:41:15 PM PDT by dennisw
Vladimir Putin has been accused of using 'deeply irresponsible' nuclear rhetoric Though Chief of the Defence Staff Tony Radakin said 'it is a sign of weakness'
Russian president Vladimir Putin has been criticised for 'deeply irresponsible' nuclear rhetoric, as fears grow that he may make a show of force using a nuke over the Black Sea.
Last month Putin said he was ready to use nuclear weapons if necessary to defend Russia's 'territorial integrity' and yesterday Russia said seized Ukrainian lands are under its nuclear protection.
The threatening statements are believed to have increased in frequency due to Putin having 'few options left' after weeks of humiliating losses to Ukraine on the battlefield.
Today, Chief of the Defence Staff Tony Radakin urged the international community to remain united against what he called Russian President Vladimir Putin's 'deeply irresponsible' nuclear rhetoric.
'He (Putin) has few options left. Hence, the nuclear rhetoric,' he said during a speech.
'And while this is worrying and deeply irresponsible, it is a sign of weakness, which is precisely why the international community needs to remain strong and united.'
Defence Secretary Ben Wallace flew to Washington on Tuesday for emergency talks with the Pentagon.
A third of Ukraine was left without power as the new head of Russia's armed forces Sergei Suvorikin, nicknamed 'General Armageddon', launched a series of missile and drone strikes.
Following the attack, Mr Wallace cancelled a meeting with MPs and travelled Washington DC to discuss 'security concerns'.
A security source told The Sun that 'the threat has increased recently'.
Junior defence minister James Heappey told Sky News that Mr Wallace was in Washington 'having the sort of conversations that - beyond belief, really - the fact that we're at a time when these sort of conversations are necessary'.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
The Americans did the same in Korea. What nation with nukes has never threatened to use them, even if they say so indirectly. Get real
June 2020, Putin signed a decree—the Basic Principles of the Russian Federation’s State Policy in the Domain of Nuclear Deterrence: “ The Russian Federation retains the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear weapons and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies and also in the case of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons, when the very existence of the state is put under threat”
Putin is the one who first started talking about using nukes ... not NATO
Bullshit
From the article:
Vladimir Putin has repeatedly threatened to use Russia's nuclear arsenal as his war in Ukraine falls apart...
Bullshit. The clown in the White House talked about "nuclear armageddon" and the clown in Ukraine talked about preepmptive nuclear strikes on Russia. Those were the first specific references to nuclear weapons from officials involved in the war.
You are gravely mistaken with this assumption.
“No, it isn’t effective. Nobody believes it .”
Everybody believes it, except for you. It being Putin’s possible nuke demo over the Black Sea.
You are NOT quoting his actual words. You are quoting “what you think that he meant to say, according to what we believe he meant to say.”
QUOTE HIS EXACT WORDS.
“Don’t forget the crazy Zelensky, who actually kept DEMANDING (not even merely asking) that Amerca launch nuclear missiles at Russia for Putin even THINKING about nuclear weapons use.”
I know you are pro-Russia, and anti-Ukraine. But, please; try to be honest with your comments: Zelensky said there should be a pre-emptive attack to prevent Russia from launching a nuclear attack. Zelensky said nothing about the US or anyone else using nuclear weapons to effect that result. Maybe he wished it; maybe he didn’t. But he never SAID it. One of his aides said that there should be nuclear RETALIATORY strikes, but not nuclear PRE-EMPTIVE strikes.
Try sticking to the facts. We’ll all be better off.
So produce the evidence.
Then, produce the evidence. And, while you’re at it, answer the questions we had about your fictional DD-214.
A strike on nuclear capability is effectively a ‘nuclear strike’ even if conventional weapons are used. It puts the adversary in a “use your nukes or lose them” situation, practically guaranteeing for-real nuclear war.
“If the territorial integrity of our country is threatened, we will without doubt use all available means to protect Russia and our people - this is not a bluff,” Putin said in a televised address to the nation.
####### Annexation vote was 3 weeks later. Putin has declared these territories part of Russia.
UK Daily Propaganda
travis mcgee:This is a lie. Please show the exact quote.
I too would like to see that quote, with a date and link for context.
“I believe there’s a saying about a cornered animal.”
Considering Russia still controls about 1/9 of the landmass on planet earth, that’s an awfully large “corner”.
What percentage is populated though?
“A strike on nuclear capability is effectively a ‘nuclear strike’ even if conventional weapons are used.”
No, it’s not. The STRIKE is not nuclear. Using conventional weapons to take out the launcher, or the transport vehicles, or command-and-control, is not a nuclear strike.
It’s like sinking a boomer with a depth charge or a conventional torpedo. Sinking that boomer would not be a nuclear strike. It would be the use of a conventional weapon to take out the delivery system.
Ditto for using a SAM to shoot down a bomber that is carrying nuclear-armed cruise missiles. The launch of that SAM is not a nuclear strike.
“USSR/Russia has every tank they ever made.”
No, they donated quite a few to Ukraine recently :)
Then, produce the evidence. And, while you’re at it, answer the questions we had about your fictional DD-214.
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.