Russia to broaden nuclear strike options

Russia to broaden nuclear strike options

www.russiatoday.com

Russia’s new military doctrine will put more emphasis on nuclear capabilities. Moscow will be able to use nukes in small-scale conflicts and launch pre-emptive nuclear strikes.

The news comes from Nikolay Patrushev, the secretary of the Russian Security Council. In an interview with the Russian newspaper Izvestia, he said that the new document, which is now prepared to be signed into law, will have several revisions from the current version adopted in 2000.

(visit the link for the full news article)

This latest announcement from Russia really laughs in the face of any talk about a world free of Nukes... Not only is Russia not prepared to give up her nuclear weaponry, she is infact wanting to broaden the instances in which Nukes can be used, including 'small-scale conflicts' !

Of course Russia and China wont give up their Nukes if the US has them, and the US wont give them up because China and Russia have them...

In conclusion, I would say that Georgia has the most to fear from this latest announcement. Because another invasion of Georgia would be considered a small scale conflict in Russia's books, and now she knows that Russia is prepared to use nukes in such a case.

www.russiatoday.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Que music: Its the end of the world as we know it.

Guess we shoulda put that missle defense system in Poland, wonder how happy the locals are now. btw a significant portion of Polish people opposed the system, I forget how many.

Well at least they're honest about it.

I wonder if the American military/defense organizations are a bit jealous of how casually the Russians can get away with this kind of thing.

This is not as bad as it may seem , by bad I mean that this doesn't really change things between " us and them " . This is a matter of Russia changing there " military doctrine " .

Nothing more then we saw the US do shortly after 911 . Actually its kinds of strange as to why it has taken Russia this long to make changes to there doctrine .

[edit on 15-10-2009 by Max_TO]

They laugh in the face of a world free of nukes because the idea of a world free of nukes is a joke. You can't put the genie back in the bottle.

(star and flag) Thanks OP
This ranks up there with the lamest thing I have heard in a long time

What the hell are they thinking, not just Russia, all of those nuke-freaks?
I guess we should all be ready for the "permanent orange afro". (thanks DanA) I mean, I live only 50 miles from Russia and this is frightening, especially since we hold an estimated 98% of the US's nuclear arsenal in this state. and that doesn't even count what they call usable nukes. I don't want that junk! Get that crap out here.

Shame, shame on you all, you nuke toting losers, all of you. No racial distinctions, no religious distinctions, I don't care who you are, you push it, YOU ROT! And I don't care if I have to reincarnate 1000 times to cross it, I will carry your warhead back across your nuclear wasteland and make you eat it for dinner.

At least Gorbachev had a little sense after Chernobyl, he knew that each one of his nukes were (if I remember correctly) 16 times worse then that accident so he de-tooled them. Nuclear nonproliferation came about because of that realization, not Reagan, he just wanted to look good, and he didn't. I remember seeing Gorbachev as he faced the audience glumly and said something to the effect of "it will be ?0,000 years before we can live in the section of land, in that time Jesus will have come back and it will all be over."
I don't care if you don't believe in G-d, when you hear something like that, the reality of screwing up the end game just hits you. It's like having to live after blowing your face off.
My humblest apologies to any suicide survivors present or otherwise.

Where did you get your information from? No state holds 98% of the U.S. stockpile. A considerable portion of our nuclear weapons are on submarines, the rest are located all around the country.

Chernobyl was a radioactive disaster, but it had little in common with nuclear weapons. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are already being lived in. They are not uninhabitable for "?0,000" years, and while today's nuclear weapons are far more powerful they do not produce radioactive particles with "?0,000" times the half life of the original nuclear weapons. Nuclear meltdowns and nuclear bombs are two entirely different monsters.

As for sense, the Soviet Union tried its hardest to cover up Chernobyl. Pripyat wasn't evacuated until more than a day later, when foreign countries started detecting the radiation. There was little sense involved in any of the Soviet Union's reaction to the disaster.

Well it's not like the U.S. has not been broadening our nuclear capabilities for the past several decades. Do you really think we stopped development?

The answer is no. In fact, a few years ago(8 or 9 actually) I was one of those guys that tried to get people to take tours of a resort. I was working outside a local popular tourist restaurant in Destin, FL when I met a group of about 10 Engineers waiting for a big table. It was a large group at a popular restaurant with a bar and at first they were very tight lipped about what they did. The only information I got at first was that they were a group of engineers from Alabama(Ironic I know) down for some golf. As the night progressed they got drunker and drunker and more and more talkative. I soon learned they were Engineers that worked on underground nuclear bomb testing in an underground bunker in Alabama. They also told me that there were several of these across the nation in places we would never expect them.(Alabama seems pretty unexpected)

Anyway, my point is, this is not new news, it is just news that we should have expected.

Originally posted by mattifikation
Where did you get your information from? No state holds 98% of the U.S. stockpile. A considerable portion of our nuclear weapons are on submarines, the rest are located all around the country.

Chernobyl was a radioactive disaster, but it had little in common with nuclear weapons. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are already being lived in. They are not uninhabitable for "?0,000" years, and while today's nuclear weapons are far more powerful they do not produce radioactive particles with "?0,000" times the half life of the original nuclear weapons. Nuclear meltdowns and nuclear bombs are two entirely different monsters.

As for sense, the Soviet Union tried its hardest to cover up Chernobyl. Pripyat wasn't evacuated until more than a day later, when foreign countries started detecting the radiation. There was little sense involved in any of the Soviet Union's reaction to the disaster.

I heard a statistic from the Navy about 10 years ago, a nuclear submarine, if it were compared to a country, would be something like 4th or 5th strongest when measuring destructive power. lol. Thats pretty funny I thought.

As far as nuclear weapons not producing the same amount of radiation, well thats simply incorrect. Our nuclear weapons are still built with 60 year old technology, the only real differences are the destructive strength and as you can expect, with more power comes more radiation.

Your point about Chernobyl and Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, well, yes people are living in some of those places, but you will also see many many more times the number of birth defects, cancers, tumors, and other health issues that go along with radiation exposure.

I wouldn't want to live there for several thousand years. The half lives of these particles are far to long to think we should move right in after the explosions. 60 years is far to soon to live in Nagasaki or Hiroshima or Chernobyl.

[edit on 15-10-2009 by memarf1]

I wouldn't want to move into those areas just yet either, but I don't think it'll be thousands of years before it's possible. Maybe hundreds of years, if we're unlucky. Maybe later on within my own lifetime, depending on what medical science comes up with.

The key thing to remember is that all fallout isn't the same. Different particles have different half-lives. Consider the information here:

en.wikipedia.org...

So while there might be a larger number of radioactive particles, they still won't be deadly for as long of a time period. If that were the case, we'd all be dead by now from the nuclear testing of the cold war.

Chernobyl is different completely to the 2 bombs used in WW2 - the power station burned for days and days , releasing thousands of tons of poison , where as the 2 japanese cities it was over in an instant the fallout fell downwind and clean up could begin relatively quickly


also at Chernobyl were istopes found that would only exist within a live nuclear fire not just a flash/bang and its over - and far greater quantities of , for example , strontium 90 were releasesd than any nuke test ever.

reply to post by memarf1


I don't want to go to far from the thread but, thanks for the info about underground nuke testing in 'bama. It may explain punch hole cloud formations that are being discussed on a different thread. It might have got my attention enhough for me to do my own research. Wait, what was that? SQUIRREL what we we talking about? Sorry, If Russia's leaders do actually subscribe to the idea that you can't put the genie back in the bottle and S.A.L.T, S.A.L.T.II and the NNPT are just lip service, then deciding not to pay lip service to treaties is a huge shift in international relationship's. I guess giving Pres. Obama the Nobel peace Prize didn't mean diddly to the Russian's

reply to post by memarf1


Actually the quote is," a U.S. nuclear "boomer" is the third most powerful country in the world." And I know which tourist place in Destin you are talking about Back on topic. The U.S.'s military doctrine has always allowed for the used of theater tactical nuclear weapons. So bout time Russia revised thiers. Tactical nuclear weapons are far different than the MIRV warheads used in ballistic "country killers". The blast and damage is focused generally on an area that is roughly the size of a small U.S. city and generally targeted at miliatry bases and tactically important miliatry assets "i.e. fleets and carriers." Also the overall damage and fall-out differs greatly depending on whether the weapon is air-bursted or ground detonated. The latter being more focused in destruction with less spreadable fallout but also less blast efficiency. Depending on the weather patterns however is where you run into the problem of fallout spread.

reply to post by memarf1


Didn't you take a few joy rides as "valet" at that resort???

People will hand their keys to anyone!!

On topic, I have often thought that a few of these random unexplained earthquakes in N. Al, AR, TN, OK, and other spots may be related to Nuclear development.

And, it doesn't concern me in the slightest bit what Russia or any other country is saying publicly!! That is all for show and posturing, and negotiation advantage. It doesn't even concern me when they move battle groups or assets near a region for show.

What keeps me up at night, is everything that I don't know!! Everything that they don't leak to the press, and the areas that are receiving no attention, but rightfully should be!

They can posture, and bluster, and flex all they want, but when they get quiet, then I will pay attention!!!