Russia threatens nuclear war with Denmark

originally posted by: Echtelion

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Echtelion
Overly misleading title. Russia did NOT threaten nuclear war with Denmark.

It's just the Russian ambassador who said that IF Denmark opens a base for NATO anti-missile defense systems, the Dane Navy ships would be in the crosshairs of Russia for nuclear bombings. This doesn't even mean a direct retaliation, only that if they'd use those missiles against Russian ships in the Baltic sea, then the Dane ships would be nuked. That's all he said.

Defensive missiles are not able to be used OFFENSIVELY against Russian ships.

PROVE IT.

No need. the missiles used by that system are surface to air.

a reply to: Echtelion

Maybe I'm a little drunk...

But in one post you said prove these missiles couldn't be used against ships...

Then in the next post you called them anti-ballistic missiles...seems you already proved it.

originally posted by: Echtelion

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Echtelion
Overly misleading title. Russia did NOT threaten nuclear war with Denmark.

It's just the Russian ambassador who said that IF Denmark opens a base for NATO anti-missile defense systems, the Dane Navy ships would be in the crosshairs of Russia for nuclear bombings. This doesn't even mean a direct retaliation, only that if they'd use those missiles against Russian ships in the Baltic sea, then the Dane ships would be nuked. That's all he said.

Defensive missiles are not able to be used OFFENSIVELY against Russian ships.

PROVE IT.

They are surface to air missiles guess military tech isn't your thing huh?

originally posted by: Spacespider

originally posted by: Echtelion

originally posted by: noeltrotsky

originally posted by: Nikola014
Poor attempts by some posters see to yet again twist things around and present Russia as a threat.

Did you read what the Russian Ambassador said? It isn't ATS posters twisting anything, it is the Russian Ambassador saying it.

Sometimes reading the OP before commenting helps.

And what the Russian ambassador said was that those NAVY SHIPS would be targeted for strikes if they become armed with those "anti-ballistic missiles". Nowhere did the ambassador say that Russia threatened Denmark with nuclear war!

Ahmm.. he said ""I do not think that the Danes fully understand the consequences of what happens if Denmark joins the US-led missile defense. If this happens, the Danish warships targets for Russian nuclear missiles, "said Mikhail Vanin and continues: "

I would consider that a direct threat, and so does the danish government, I would think that shooting nukes at our ships is a war act and therefore nuclear war.

Russian threaten and intimidate their neighbors and wonder why they look to NATO. It truly amazes me Russia makes claims like NATO is doing this or doing that than shoot themselves in the foot. They have handled almost every situation wrong making it far worse for themselves. In this the right move would have been to open up dialog showing they aren't a threat. And than they wouldn't feel the need to protect themselves. But Putin doesn't appear to understand anything but threats and intimidation.

Funny part is this is like a woman deciding she needs to carry mace for protection and a guy telling her if you do I'll rape you. Somehow there is a logic disconnect here.

a reply to: Irishhaf

You are right It started in Europe which has quietly been fighting somewhere to another before the borders went down and we could then waltz all over the place. Best export - criminals in the main.

But going back to the missile placements. It is so unlikely with having atomics in their pocket (for so many years now) many countries, even those that hate each other e.g. India and Pakistan are likely to ever release them.

That's why I just think this whole style of atomic sabre rattling is past its sell by date and would prefer to see diplomatic solutions when dealing with Russia.

originally posted by: MrSpad
Since the Crimea mess and the resulting Russian global isolation and economic collapse Russia is beging to sound more and more like North Korea everyday. What is also interesting is they seem to always be threatening small or nuetral states. I suppose the goal is to make them feel like NATO or the EU can not protect them so they should side with Russia. That is never going to work when nations like Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova and now Belarus are willing to risk Russian military action to get away from Russia and to the West. You are not going to EU or NATO members fleeing to join Russia's sphere of influence. Not even Cuba wants to be a part of that anymore.

At some point Russia is going to have to just accept what it is. A large nation with a bad economy and bloated corupt military. Some real reforms could fix that place up but, that would mean somebody not corrupt taking over. And in Russia I do not know if that exists anymore.

The ruling elite in Russia is the real problem . Not the Russian people, then why does every move that N.A.T.O. does just, create a stronger Putin? The more ordinance they place around the borders, is to say the least inflammatory . They know which way this man will jump if pushed hard enough, yet they still keep pushing . In fact every move they make is causing more repression in Russia, and making the ruling elite feel less secure. Putin is even having lunch with little Kim.

Its starting to look like, they want him to start something.

a reply to: Spacespider

It's not a threat as much as is a warning of what could happen if you guys join this anti-rocket missile pointed against Russia. I'd say it's Denmark that's choosing sides instead of staying neutral. By choosing sides, you are choosing to become a target of a possible war that might happen. Not just a target, but an active participant as well. And that represents a direct threat to Russia.

a reply to: MysterX

a reply to: MysterX

as far as i know the only people that have a functioning and tested in combat missile defense (land based at least) are the Israelis and every thing i could find on iron dome talks about its defensive missiles and speaks not of offensive ones based as part of iron dome(look i know the jews got nukes and icbms but i dobut they park them or have them as a componet of iron dome its self) so if the isrelis dont stage offensive missiles in the Iron dome batteries i dont see us feeling the need to.



but in all honesty its not relevant as nuclear missiles are not allowed to be staged in Denmark unless during wartime ,NATO vessels carrying nuclear weapons may enter danish waters with out declaring such weapons but land based platforms (bombs,missiles of a nuclear nature are not allowed in Denmark as per their laws UNLESS a war is already going on
nwp.ilpi.org...

c) NATIONAL RESERVATIONS AND DECLARATORY POLICIES Although a NATO policy on nuclear weapons exists at the inter-governmental level, NATO member states have – since the early days of the Alliance – reserved the right to adopt independent national policies on nuclear weapons, and to restrict their participation in nuclear weapons activities. Member states like Denmark, Norway, and Spain do not allow the deployment of nuclear weapons on their territory in peacetime. Iceland and Lithuania have taken this one step further, by not allowing nuclear weapons to be deployed on their soil, without any distinction between war- and peacetime.[18]

from my understanding what Russia is worried about as far as the missile shield goes is not that we will base OFFENSIVE missiles within the missile defense, but that our missile defense could or will NEGATE their ability to strike usa with either a first strike or retaliatory strike should we attempt a first strike. Rt covers this issue from a russian point of view
rt.com...

Answer: When offensive missiles are no longer capable of penetrating the defensive, anti-missile system. Although that is the very purpose of a missile shield – to protect one’s territory from an adversary’s missile strike – defense can turn to offense in a split second, as any football fan can readily understand.

so again its not that nato will station offensive missiles at the missile defense sites in Europe but Russia fears that it will negate its nuclear arsenal thus giving us defacto dominance so to speak.

and just as a question im curious about how do missile defense systems defend against SLBMS vs ICBM ,i mean i know usa has plans to base missile defense in several countries as well as our own, but how good would any of this be if a missile was launched 5 miles off the coast at Florida for example?

TLDR denmark does not allow nuclear weapons in its nation other then a time of war ,so the missile defense sites will not have offensive missiles as they will not need them (us and russa got nukes to spare its not like we risk running out all of a sudden)

Russia has every right to defend its security interests whenever or where ever they are threatened.

Why is US/NATO putting up BMDs all over to try to negate the Russian ICBMs. Such acts in process create all sorts of global tensions. This is equivalent to Russians putting up missiles in Cuba.

The point that I don't get it is weather the Russian ambassador threatening with pre-emptive nuclear strike on Dane ships or striking them in the event of hostility with NATO.

Around 2011 or so, Medvedev had threatened that BMD system in Poland will be attacked with Iskander missiles. This meant that as soon as this system goes in place it will be attacked and destroyed.

It makes lots of sense. Putting up BMD systems will surely be an act of war. Seems western leaders like to jolt the pot and create tensions all around. This is their trick to deviate attention of others from other more productive causes.

originally posted by: Nikola014
I'd say it's Denmark that's choosing sides instead of staying neutral.

I'd say that happened many years ago when Denmark became a Founding Member of NATO in 1949.

Keep reading...you'll catch up!

a reply to: noeltrotsky

Did you and NATO as well get the memo that there's no more of USSR? Why's there a need for anti-rocket system pointed against Russia? Damn, the west must be not telling us something! No more communism! Your democracy won! That's why the world has never been better!

originally posted by: victor7
Russia has every right to defend its security interests whenever or where ever they are threatened.

Why is US/NATO putting up BMDs all over to try to negate the Russian ICBMs. Such acts in process create all sorts of global tensions. This is equivalent to Russians putting up missiles in Cuba/

Were the Cuban missiles defensive interceptors against the US?

No.

originally posted by: Nikola014
a reply to: noeltrotsky

Did you and NATO as well get the memo that there's no more of USSR? Why's there a need for anti-rocket system pointed against Russia? Damn, the west must be not telling us something! No more communism! Your democracy won! That's why the world has never been better!

Until Putin came along and decided to be an ass, it was.

From 1991 to 2001, USA and NATO unilaterally reduced forces a very large amount, without any treaty.

originally posted by: anticitizen
missile shield?
but they have been very busy telling us the missile shild is to intercept iranian missile.

so is this now confirmation that the nato missile shild is and always has been directed against russia?

wonder what nato would do if russia sets up anti missile batteries around their homelands...

Not to mention Russia going on and on about how the missile shield is not adequate enough to intercept Russian missiles.

This is a prime example of how Russia's mentality is their own worst enemy.

and Russia wonders why nations are running away from as fast as they can.

Putin needs to go...

a reply to: MysterX

I was abashed at your mention of an outdated form of weapon system and your age. DUH is shorthand for :It is information, I believe,that is concealed deep in the cavernous ,void of publc knowledge. But HARDLY as verbose.

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

It would also be a threat to aircraft ,and I be THAT is wrinkilng feathers.

a reply to: Nikola014

IT'S real simple...YOU got your port now go home...or else,I think you understand it pretty well.

a reply to: Spacespider

Russia complains about this so they can lob one or two nukes at Euro as blackmail if they want. This takes their only other option off the table. Other than a full strike, or crying constantly about something like they normally do lol.

Russia is the LAST one who should be talking as they have been in a breakneck rush to build new medium and long range nuclear missiles, and every other system capability to make war in the 21st century, before our missile defense system was even tested. The short and medium range missiles they are building violates every treaty they had with the U.S.. Mainly the one that caused us to ditch the Pershing and MX missile systems. If we do not make a MX mobile system soon Russia will have the capability to knock us out on a first strike, then only having the problem of our subs to deal with. The second they can locate and target our Boomers anytime, the U.S. is up craps creek with no paddle since a sneak attack from their subs off our coast would only give us 8 minutes to launch our ICBMs and bombers, so our Bombers and ICBMs would more than likely be destroyed before they ever got off the ground.

Just as soon as our ICBM hardened silos doors open, they would more than likely take a hit. Especially with the asshat we have in the white house now.

Apparently Putin did not learn from the Cold war. Now that Congress is not so keen on saving penny's we will see some exciting new toys brought out by the U.S. at least. Ones that have probably been collecting dust, do to no great Russian threat, till today.

originally posted by: Nikola014
a reply to: noeltrotsky

Did you and NATO as well get the memo that there's no more of USSR? Why's there a need for anti-rocket system pointed against Russia? Damn, the west must be not telling us something! No more communism! Your democracy won! That's why the world has never been better!

Simple answer they are invading neighbors and threatening them. And now that communism 8 dying countries are moving on to socialism. And socialism can be even scarier because the feelings of Nationalism it provokes can be dangerous. It causes countries like Russia to be militarily agresive while capitalism causes economic agression. Russia cant play in the global market so they have gone to trying to force people to play with them. This is that whole sphere of influence you hear that from socialists Hitler coined the phrase. So I guess if history repeats itself once again socialism is going to cause a world war. Only hope this time is Russians deciding to remove heir putin. I'm very afraid how far Putin will push this any sane person would have quit By now to salvage their economy.Yet he continues to turn Russia into a third world country so now the world has 2 north Korea s just what we needed.

originally posted by: Nikola014
a reply to: noeltrotsky

Did you and NATO as well get the memo that there's no more of USSR? Why's there a need for anti-rocket system pointed against Russia? Damn, the west must be not telling us something! No more communism! Your democracy won! That's why the world has never been better!

I really hope you understand that they are there to knock out missiles coming from Russia to Europe at worst and were put there to intercept missiles from the mid-east to the U.S.

They can not fly into Russian territory. They intercept warheads on the way down!!!!!!! NO missile defense system based on ground in Europe can chase down missiles launched from inside Russia to strike the U.S. lol.

That would take another massive ICBM sized missile faster and with a lot more fuel capacity than the Russian ICBM launched, to chase it and blow it up. That will never happen. The new Airborne Laser is the only U.S. option to fly around Europe and target Russian ICBMs as they are launched, AND THE TRAITOR OBAMA cancelled that project as well.