Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He is following hittler's footsteps, at least that's how it's going to be interpreted.
It's a matter of time of when they invade one of their neighbors, and the west freaks out and they say "the russian are trying to take over the whole world" and history repeats itself.
A "little further along"? Russians have been on top of this game since the beginning. Have people forgotten the cold war?
Not I. I spent most of my elementary school years doing "bomb drills" at school. That's one of the reasons I take Russia seriously.
But it's been a while since we had the Russian leader ramp up the cold war rhetoric again, and brag about the development of new "invincible" weapons of mass destruction.
My question is: how should the West respond to this?
Also, another thought as I read about his speech is this: was the line about taking immediate action if one of their allies was attacked about North Korea? Is it a message to the U.S. to not take military action against North Korea?
He is following hittler's footsteps, at least that's how it's going to be interpreted.
It's a matter of time of when they invade one of their neighbors, and the west freaks out and they say "the russian are trying to take over the whole world" and history repeats itself.
Well, Russia already did invade one of their neighbors. Remember Ukraine and Crimea? History didn't "repeat itself" then, did it?
I think however, that his comments may have been more intended as a message to the West, and specifically the U.S., not to take military action against North Korea.
Given that the lead U.S. diplomatic negotiator with North Korea, who was against military action, suddenly quit his job this week, and our President's tweets about North Korea, there's a good possibility that has been seriously discussed.
IIRC, what we learned at the end of the Cold War was that the USSR's capabilities were very much overestimated by US intelligence agencies.
And I sure as hell wouldn't take Putin's words at face value.
Truth. I remember reports when the curtain fell that expressed amazement at how dilapidated the USSRs nuclear arsenal was. Subs with hulls rusting through, land silos mostly filled with water from seepage, pretty bad.
Nuclear weapons are seriously maintenance intensive. And that's just the warhead. Missile delivery systems are just as bad. Takes a LOT of money and manpower to keep up a nuclear arsenal. From the looks of things at the end of the Cold War the Russians needed to go back to square one.
Truth. I remember reports when the curtain fell that expressed amazement at how dilapidated the USSRs nuclear arsenal was. Subs with hulls rusting through, land silos mostly filled with water from seepage, pretty bad.
Nuclear weapons are seriously maintenance intensive. And that's just the warhead. Missile delivery systems are just as bad. Takes a LOT of money and manpower to keep up a nuclear arsenal. From the looks of things at the end of the Cold War the Russians needed to go back to square one.
Truth. I remember reports when the curtain fell that expressed amazement at how dilapidated the USSRs nuclear arsenal was. Subs with hulls rusting through, land silos mostly filled with water from seepage, pretty bad.
Nuclear weapons are seriously maintenance intensive. And that's just the warhead. Missile delivery systems are just as bad. Takes a LOT of money and manpower to keep up a nuclear arsenal. From the looks of things at the end of the Cold War the Russians needed to go back to square one.
That should be our national security strategy? Surely Putin is exaggerating, so let's play dumb and happy? Russia is an extremely dangerous nuclear powered adversary no matter how you cut it. It is the job of the Pentagon to take those threats at face value and assume that they are true, and to be prepared for the worst case scenario.
Well, Russia already did invade one of their neighbors. Remember Ukraine and Crimea? History didn't "repeat itself" then, did it?
I think however, that his comments may have been more intended as a message to the West, and specifically the U.S., not to take military action against North Korea.
Given that the lead U.S. diplomatic negotiator with North Korea, who was against military action, suddenly quit his job this week, and our President's tweets about North Korea, there's a good possibility that has been seriously discussed.
I still think ww3 will start with something to do with turkey, not north korea. So far the conflict with ukraine has been relatively minor and the west has dealt with it 'diplomatically', it can escalate and take a direct direction, seeing that sanctions don't make a difference in geopolitics, it just make the poor poorer. As for history repeating itself, it always do, just in a different way. Hitler annexed czechoslovakia in 1938, not quite time for war.
That should be our national security strategy? Surely Putin is exaggerating, so let's play dumb and happy? Russia is an extremely dangerous nuclear powered adversary no matter how you cut it. It is the job of the Pentagon to take those threats at face value and assume that they are true, and to be prepared for the worst case scenario.
Sheesh! I didn't say we shouldn't take the Russians seriously for Pete's sake. I was just responding to another post about what kind of shape the Russian nukes were in after the Cold War. I didn't make a peep about national security strategy.
But along those lines, if we're taking NK seriously it stands to reason we'd take the Russians more seriously. There...all better now?
Welcome to the world. Growing up during the cold war, and being in the military at the height of it I remember wondering if the naval vessels ramming each other while I was in boot camp would escalate, and listening to the people in charge talking about accelerating our training if we needed to deploy in case of war. And trying to figure out what it would look like if it went nuclear.
In the end, a full on nuclear exchange will end most of us. Nuclear winter will starve the majority of those who survive the initial exchange. Russia knows this too. The only thing Putin is pointing out is that MAD is still around. Its why Trumps idea of making smaller nukes that can be used tactically is so foolhardy. He doesn't consider the consequences.
As for Russias "invincible" nuclear weapon systems. Yeah not so much. Yes they may be able to outmaneuver a SM3 missiles, but how many of them does he have? Not nearly enough. And by the time he does our laser systems should be deployed with the navy. I bet he couldn't kill more then 20% of the US population directly, with far more dying from the nuclear winter. And using nukes is a go big or go home thing. Because once you use them on us, our response will obliterate you. So showing off new nukes is just a nice way of reminding us that we can't use nukes on them either.
Last edited by greywar; 03-01-2018 at 12:00 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's one of the reasons I take Russia seriously. 
I was just responding to another post about what kind of shape the Russian nukes were in after the Cold War. I didn't make a peep about national security strategy. 
