Don't mess with nuclear Russia, Putin says


#1

news.yahoo.com/putin-says-russia-ready-respond-aggression-123956691.html

I’m not sure but it seems to me Putin is asking for war. Hitler began this way, attempting to take one country after another which lead to WW2. Let us pray that it doesn’t lead to another Great War.


#2

Russia has gotten attention but “American” interests are involved in the Ukraine as well. Putin’s remarks, if true, amount to nothing more than saber-rattling. The Ukrainian people, along with the Poles and Lithuanians, will not stand idly by. A look at likely Russian missile launch sites in the technical literature, along with their mobile capability, means all Russian movements of military equipment will be the focus of increasing surveillance.

The primary reason even so-called “tactical” nuclear weapons have not been used since 1945 is because there is no such thing. Moscow is much more vulnerable now than in 1945. The use of any type of nuclear weapon by the Russians would cause worldwide concern. However, based on current information, nuclear weapons are no longer useful, except by “rogue” states, which are usually small and which would face a response from which they could not recover from militarily or economically.

Peace,
Ed


#3

Putin gives me the creeps.


#4

Russia talks but one day it’s going to get hit in the mouth. They do have a extreme opponent to their south in china.


#5

Yes, this is saber-rattling. I am not adverse to the West reminding Putin that we are nuclear powers too. It’s a game of chicken. I realize that Putin is ex-KGB and likely a little mad. I am even frankly a little scared of him; but I also think he is just messing with our heads. And if/when Putin goes down, what’s left of Russia? This man is not just a threat to the rest of us; he is potentially causing great harm to Russia too.


#6

Russia has been developing a new generation of ICBM’s. So has China. Meanwhile, the U.S.'s alert force of aging Minuteman III ICBM’s has been shrinking. (We have gone from a high of around 1150 land based ICBM’s to a current force of 450 on alert.)

A shrinking deterrent is often no deterrent at all. In fact, it makes war more, not less, likely.


#7

Putin is all in and will get SE Ukraine or a much larger war. There is no other alternative.

Sanctions aren’t going to do anything.


#8

Yes there is, the most powerful weapon on earth is the Rosary !


#9

I bet we get less of those posts praising Putin as more Christian than the West.


#10

No world power has any use for such a large number of nuclear weapons even in war. Russia has almost always had a larger stockpile anyway.


#11

The point of nuclear weapons in modern terms is the threat of retaliation making a first strike suicidal. When one side (say, Russia) has significantly more deliverable warheads than the other (say, the US), a counterforce first strike becomes a viable option. The chance of their use increases dramatically when one side starts thinking they can “win” in an exchange.

Before anyone brings up Star Wars/SDI/BMDO/whatever the name is this week, I’d like to point out that no defense is perfect, and technology to beat a defense is a lot simpler to develop than new defenses. That’s something that’s been true throughout history: Phalanx? Ballista. Mounted knight? Longbow. Castle? Gunpowder. When one is talking about a full release of ICBMs, neither side can afford to let even one through. Ballistic missile defense was a bad idea in the 60s, a bad idea when Reagan started the modern program, and a bad idea today.

We’ve spent the better part of 70 years working out how to deal with Russian forces advancing westward. The key part of the strategy? Nuclear weapons used against the spearheads. The problem is that if we follow that strategy - which is the only way to counter the vastly superior numbers which Russia can field - with an inadequate strategic stockpile, it’s almost guaranteed that the response would be a full-on strike with ICBMs in an effort to knock out US strategic forces before they are used.

When it comes to countries with ICBM capability, the only safe and stable situation is a Mexican Standoff. That’s the only time all sides can be reasonably certain that nobody will be insane enough to use nuclear weapons first.

Like it or not, the US is the only country that can present a reasonable threat to Russia in nuclear terms. To keep the peace, we should have been keeping up with them in terms of both numbers and capabilities. In the '50s and '60s, the perceived “missile gap” turned out to be false. Today, we know that it’s real. And that thought should scare everyone on both sides.


#12

This is funny. The people on this board suddenly realizing that all their war talk could end up getting them and their family members killed.

Poland, Ukraine and surrounding satellite countries have been mouthing off for some time now. And Russia has been getting the blame for things it never done. Like the blame for shooting down flight mh-17. For the Crimea. For invading the ukraine. Even though there is not one shred of evidence in support. Nato has suddenly been holding war maneuvers in the area. So i see nothing wrong with Russia saying. “Hey. Cool it you guys. Take a chill pill. We can hurt you just as much as you can hurt us.”
Seems like the old saying is true. Bullies don’t like to be bullied


#13

Europe doesn’t need the russians exporting their genocide as they have done in the past and they have already shown what murderers they are shooting that plane down. Ukraine has already dealt with the likes of putin and communists.


#14

Was not Ukraine urged to divest of their nuclear weapons? Now we see how some like russia are taking advantage of the situation but obviously, if they eventually go for other countries, they won’t be so fortunate.

Whatever russia does, it’s shown native Russians are not reproducing fast enough to keep up their ethnicity there. Russia is already a country in its last throes.


#15

Our Lady of Fatima we know said Russia would spread her errors, per their birthrate, in the long run, Russia almost has to seek other lands and risk becoming a minority in their own country, this is well-known.


#16

I have to agree. During the 1960 presidential campaign, JFK made an issue of the perceived missile gap between the U.S. and the USSR. As president, he speeded up the deployment of the first Minuteman wing in order to get a leap ahead of Russia. During the Cuban missile crisis, he summoned Andrei Gromyko, the Soviet ambassador to the White House for a heart to heart talk with Robert Kennedy, during which RFK directly threatened the ambassador with nuclear war. Ultimately, the missiles in Cuba were pulled out unceremoniously without even notifying the Cuban government, making Fidel furious. Could such an outcome occur in our current weakened state? Hardly.


#17

Russia in “state of war” with Ukraine & effectively at war with Europe, Lithuania’s president says bbc.in/1psedVe


#18

This all could have been prevented over 20 years ago when the Warsaw Pact was disbanded. It was time then to dissolve NATO, but instead it kept growing larger and larger.


#19

Yea, then there would be no one to stop Putin from taking Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe :rolleyes:


#20

You’re assuming that history would be unaltered by disbanding NATO. If that had occured, relations between Russia and the West might have been very positive.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.