Putin says Russia beefing up nuclear arsenal

[barbos]

Nevertheless, it was a Russian policy that was reversed, and was reversed because the US didn't want Russian missiles in Cuba.

I know that the Jupiters in Turkey were part of the deal (and that their presence was part of the reason for the Soviet policy in the first place); but the USSR remained in-range of US intermediate range missiles in other NATO countries (notably West Germany) even after the Turkish Jupiters were decommissioned, while the US successfully dictated that the Russians should not base IRBMs within striking distance of the USA.

All these years you've been thinking Kennedy is the hero who won that match? LOL -your government's propaganda worked real well, it appears!

I have never thought that; and I am not aware of any propaganda from my government to that effect - although I have seen plenty from the US government.

No man is an island. People and groups of people affect each other. There is no control. There is influence, pressure and negotiation. The US does not control Russia and never has. It's all bilateral. Your example is in no way the story of direct control, but instead of the typical push and pull of major rival powers between each other. If the US controlled Russia, Putin would be out of power and Ukraine would be complete and without covert Russian troops.

Placing nukes in Turkey was fucking crazy and so is putting NATO to Ukraine.
Krushev was right, Kennedy was wrong.
Funny thing is, after Cold War ended it was revealed that Soviet Union has never had any plans for attacking or invading Europe/US, none whatsoever. But US/NATO did have a plan for first nuclear strike.

Placing nukes in Turkey was a provocation towards a sworn enemy.

I can assure you that Americans thought it was a great and right idea and not provocative at all.

Russia officially is a friend. If you look at the European map, you will see NATO countries sharing borders with non-members, which creates no problem whatsoever.

Keyword here is "officially"

In the 1990s, Rus and US were friends and partners. What went wrong?

Good question, and I have a good answer. In 1990s Russia was in dip shit and about to be further split, that's why we were "friends".

What suddenly made NATO a horrible thing for Russia?

That's a wrong question. The right question is "What suddenly made Russia horrible thing for NATO?"
and the answer is "Russia stopped decaying economically and militarily"

Evidently, the one factor begins with a P ends with an N and rhymes with UTI.

No, you are giving too much credit to Putin. the factor starts with 'O' and ends with "il"

He decided it was a great idea to ruffle feathers over everything.

No, he did not decide that. He merely decided that russian strategic bomber pilots need to start practice flying these things like they supposed to. Then Europians talking heads said "How dare you to fuel these things and take them into the air in order to train yourself?! Russians are coming!"

And he was right, it's a brilliant idea to make his fantasies of virtual dictatorship reality, and it's worked like a gem, up to the last minute as of now. He wants a new USSR.

Yes, I believe TV convinced you of that.

He has come to Latin America to strengthen ties with Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua, as if... wanting to revive Soviet alliances? Could that be? His steps sure coincide with it.

Did you mean Obama to strengthen ties with Cuba?

 

[tupac chopra]

That's a wrong question. The right question is "What suddenly made Russia horrible thing for NATO?"
and the answer is "Russia stopped decaying economically and militarily"

Touché
Neconservatism

In foreign policy, the neoconservatives' main concern is to prevent the development of a new rival. Defense Planning Guidance, a document prepared during 1992 by Under Secretary for Defense for Policy Paul Wolfowitz, is regarded by Distinguished Professor of the Humanities John McGowan at the University of North Carolina as the "quintessential statement of neoconservative thought". The report says:[76]

"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power."

 

[Perspicuo]

Touché means touched. Nothing farther from the case. It's more like irrelevance.

THe US does not dictate and has never dictated Russian internal or foreign policy. Citing the existence of Neoconservatism is like citing the existence of Illuminati therefore our Governments are controlled!.

Also I cannot wrap my head around the idea that stopping an international aggressor who is determined to destroy any last semblance of democracy in his own country is somehow the poor victim of some invisible control from D.C., a control no one here has been able to show actually takes place or has ever taken place, before or after 1991 in that powerful and independent country. Russia is simply acting, ah, let's say, Russian, typically Russian.

 

[barbos]

I believe the question was answered. Putin was on the conference with military and what else he was going to talk about if not military?

 

[arkirk]

I believe the question was answered. Putin was on the conference with military and what else he was going to talk about if not military?

Putin has all the earmarks of a nightmare politician. You need to understand that he has roughly the same mentality as our most "conservative" politicians in our country. He appears to believe very strongly that might makes right...and has not yet figured out that might just makes dead. The very last thing that should be happening in the world these days is an expansion of nuclear arsenals in the hands of a very narcissistic political class in Russia, in Britain, in the U.S. and France...and what the fuck...North Korea. Francis, a man of the silly Roman Catholic cloth, even he, recognizes the importance of climate change and poverty....but Putin or even Obama or Hilary....no so much. They are still playing Monopoly. Still too childish to be able to envision cooperation in elimination of common threats..making more bombs, fielding more spies, and shaking their fists at each other.

 

[Togo]

Funny thing is, after Cold War ended it was revealed that Soviet Union has never had any plans for attacking or invading Europe/US, none whatsoever. But US/NATO did have a plan for first nuclear strike.

???
The plans for a Soviet invasion of Eastern Europe in the event of war were found shortly after the Berlin Wall went down have been discussed extensively for years.

These were not plans for actual expansion. it was contingency plans for retaliatory strikes,

It was a plan to attack and occupy western Europe. It's reasonable to suggest they would have used the plan if sufficiently threatened, but then the same can be said of plans on the other side. We know that neither side would unilaterally start a war because neither side in fact unilaterally started a war.

I'm struggling to see what possible point you could be making here that isn't just being disingenuous. Can you clarify please?

it would be stupid to have shitload of tanks and no plans for for using them. Whereas US had actual plan(s) for first nuclear strike to take out the whole SU.

You're saying Russia didn't? That it was stupid enough to have a load of nuclear missile and no plans for using them?

the fact is, US generals were the one thinking about it, not russian generals.

How is this telepathy documented?

 

[barbos]

I believe the question was answered. Putin was on the conference with military and what else he was going to talk about if not military?

Putin has all the earmarks of a nightmare politician.

That's debatable, but I can see why west may think that.

You need to understand that he has roughly the same mentality as our most "conservative" politicians in our country.

You are projecting. Since I am familiar with both kinds (and you are not, you can only see US ones) I can assure you he does not have similar mentality to yours.

He appears to believe very strongly that might makes right...and has not yet figured out that might just makes dead. The very last thing that should be happening in the world these days is an expansion of nuclear arsenals in the hands of a very narcissistic political class in Russia, in Britain, in the U.S. and France...and what the fuck...North Korea. Francis, a man of the silly Roman Catholic cloth, even he, recognizes the importance of climate change and poverty....but Putin or even Obama or Hilary....no so much. They are still playing Monopoly. Still too childish to be able to envision cooperation in elimination of common threats..making more bombs, fielding more spies, and shaking their fists at each other.

US media created cartoonish version of outside world, especially when it comes to enemies
North Korea is probably most cartoonish of them all.

 

[barbos]

Funny thing is, after Cold War ended it was revealed that Soviet Union has never had any plans for attacking or invading Europe/US, none whatsoever. But US/NATO did have a plan for first nuclear strike.

???
The plans for a Soviet invasion of Eastern Europe in the event of war were found shortly after the Berlin Wall went down have been discussed extensively for years.

These were not plans for actual expansion. it was contingency plans for retaliatory strikes,

It was a plan to attack and occupy western Europe.

Not so much occupy but attack in case US nukes SU

It's reasonable to suggest they would have used the plan if sufficiently threatened, but then the same can be said of plans on the other side. We know that neither side would unilaterally start a war because neither side in fact unilaterally started a war.

My point was that US had plan to start nuclear war, and the only reason they have not was that they were not sure they could win it.
Soviets have never had such a plan.

 

[dystopian]

My point was that US had plan to start nuclear war, and the only reason they have not was that they were not sure they could win it.
Soviets have never had such a plan.

Except that they *did* have such a plan. *Of course* they had such a plan. Contrary to propaganda claims, they did in fact have preemptive first-strike plans, and had them since the 60's; this has been documented.

https://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB154/

The idea that a nuclear power would not develop plans for a first-strike scenario is absurd. Any half-way competent military plans for hypothetical scenarios using whatever means it has available to them. It doesn't matter whether or not the US or the Soviet Union had the actual *intent* to use their first strike plans.

 

[barbos]

That's a bullshit conclusion from the NSA, the very people who should not be trusted.
Soviets may have had some desire for such a plan early on but they never had actual plans.
Wheres US had detailed plan and ICBMs specifically designed for taking out russian ICBM and command structure. Russian ICBMs were "pointed" at large cities instead
Irony here, russians were right when they thought that US wanted to strike first, but in the end they settled for MAD.

And in general soviets (even at the top) were deluded into thinking that their system is better and will conquer the world peacefully, that's why they were supporting revolution all over the world.
And militarily they were always reacting to what US was throwing at them. US got nukes, we need them too, US got nukes on subs, we need to have it too, US got F22, we need something like that too.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Wheres US had detailed plan and ICBMs specifically designed for taking out russian ICBM and command structure.

Well, yeah.
What kind of a moron decides in advance that if the balloon goes up, we'll leave the other guy's nuclear capability intact?

The 'plans' were four scripts.
1) they shoot first, surprise. Targets selected on the 'no point in shooting empty silos' theory.
2) they shoot first, after increasing tensions. Targets selected on the 'empty silos' theory plus we've had time to prepare more nukes (spin up silos, put more subs to sea and in range, sober up more of the pilots)
3) we shoot first, surprise. Targets selected to cripple their ability to retaliate.
4) we shoot first, after increasing tensions. Targets to cripple their ability to retaliate, plus we've got more nukes to play with.

So...you're saying the ONLY Russian plans for targeting were to wait until the nukes were already in the air, then shoot back? No plans for what to do if they got intel that the madman in the White House was intending to shoot first and loading more planes with more nukes?

You're saying the Russian military was insane or stupid?

 

[dystopian]

That's a bullshit conclusion from the NSA, the very people who should not be trusted.

Pot, kettle, black.

 

[dystopian]

You're saying the Russian military was insane or stupid?

It's the usual attempt to blame everything on the US while painting Russia as the harmless good guys victimized by the Americans whilst simultaneously also being the mighty stronk glorious Russian motherland bear.

Trouble is, you can't actually paint Russia in both those colors, and any attempt to do so is doomed to produce a very different picture than intended.

 

[Togo]

You're saying the Russian military was insane or stupid?

It's the usual attempt to blame everything on the US while painting Russia as the harmless good guys victimized by the Americans whilst simultaneously also being the mighty stronk glorious Russian motherland bear.

But it's transparently fake. No one is going to seriously believe that Russia would have so many nuclear weapons and not develop plans on how to use them, not least because plans for various first strike scenarios have been discussed in various public and semi-public forums for decades. Who would believe such nonsense?

 

[barbos]

Wheres US had detailed plan and ICBMs specifically designed for taking out russian ICBM and command structure.

Well, yeah.
What kind of a moron decides in advance that if the balloon goes up, we'll leave the other guy's nuclear capability intact?

Apparently soviet kind of moron Soviets had no plans for taking out US ICBMs.

The 'plans' were four scripts.
1) they shoot first, surprise. Targets selected on the 'no point in shooting empty silos' theory.
2) they shoot first, after increasing tensions. Targets selected on the 'empty silos' theory plus we've had time to prepare more nukes (spin up silos, put more subs to sea and in range, sober up more of the pilots)
3) we shoot first, surprise. Targets selected to cripple their ability to retaliate.
4) we shoot first, after increasing tensions. Targets to cripple their ability to retaliate, plus we've got more nukes to play with.

So...you're saying the ONLY Russian plans for targeting were to wait until the nukes were already in the air, then shoot back? No plans for what to do if they got intel that the madman in the White House was intending to shoot first and loading more planes with more nukes?

Yes, that was russian plan. Well, US planned to use subs based Tridents to take out russian land based ICBMs, so I am pretty sure russians had standing orders to detect suspicious movement of US subs near border and get worried to the point of trying to destroy them.

You're saying the Russian military was insane or stupid?

No, they just did not have capability to do that and concentrated on MAD.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Apparently soviet kind of moron Soviets had no plans for taking out US ICBMs.

Uh huh....But then you say:

Well, US planned to use subs based Tridents to take out russian land based ICBMs, so I am pretty sure russians had standing order to detect suspicious movement of US subs near border and get worried to the point of trying to destroy them.

So, you ARE trying to have it both ways. No plan to take out nukes except for the plan to take out the nukes...

And that's kind of silly, too. The Tridents have no need to move near the border. 'Suspicious movement' of a Trident sub is that they cast off lines.

 

[barbos]

Uh huh....But then you say:

Well, US planned to use subs based Tridents to take out russian land based ICBMs, so I am pretty sure russians had standing order to detect suspicious movement of US subs near border and get worried to the point of trying to destroy them.

So, you ARE trying to have it both ways. No plan to take out nukes except for the plan to take out the nukes...

And that's kind of silly, too. The Tridents have no need to move near the border. 'Suspicious movement' of a Trident sub is that they cast off lines.

Border is relative term in this case, but the fact is, Tridents primary targets were russian land based ICBMs.
"First strike" means "unprovoked nuclear first strike". Taking out subs which are ready to strike and doing so using torpedos is neither. But then this was merely my educated speculation.
Soviets had all the reason to be afraid, and I really think that had the odds of pulling it off been better US would have done it.
On the other hand US had all the reasons to be afraid too, especially considering their usual paranoia.

 

[dystopian]

It's the usual attempt to blame everything on the US while painting Russia as the harmless good guys victimized by the Americans whilst simultaneously also being the mighty stronk glorious Russian motherland bear.

But it's transparently fake. No one is going to seriously believe that Russia would have so many nuclear weapons and not develop plans on how to use them, not least because plans for various first strike scenarios have been discussed in various public and semi-public forums for decades. Who would believe such nonsense?

Those with an ideological/political position to push have not always been particularly noteworthy for their ability to push that position in a particularly believable manner.

 

[arkirk]

Wheres US had detailed plan and ICBMs specifically designed for taking out russian ICBM and command structure.

Well, yeah.
What kind of a moron decides in advance that if the balloon goes up, we'll leave the other guy's nuclear capability intact?

The 'plans' were four scripts.
1) they shoot first, surprise. Targets selected on the 'no point in shooting empty silos' theory.
2) they shoot first, after increasing tensions. Targets selected on the 'empty silos' theory plus we've had time to prepare more nukes (spin up silos, put more subs to sea and in range, sober up more of the pilots)
3) we shoot first, surprise. Targets selected to cripple their ability to retaliate.
4) we shoot first, after increasing tensions. Targets to cripple their ability to retaliate, plus we've got more nukes to play with.

So...you're saying the ONLY Russian plans for targeting were to wait until the nukes were already in the air, then shoot back? No plans for what to do if they got intel that the madman in the White House was intending to shoot first and loading more planes with more nukes?

You're saying the Russian military was insane or stupid?

5) Either side shoot first and completely eliminate the other side, then wait for a few days for Nuclear Winter to set in. There is no sense to any of this nuclear threat shit. It only spells death to our civilization. We need a mature diplomatic regimen and some effective nuke reduction, no more Putinism or Bushism or Hillaryism. They are all retarded in their rhetorical approach to the real problems the human race faces.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Well, yeah.
What kind of a moron decides in advance that if the balloon goes up, we'll leave the other guy's nuclear capability intact?

The 'plans' were four scripts.
1) they shoot first, surprise. Targets selected on the 'no point in shooting empty silos' theory.
2) they shoot first, after increasing tensions. Targets selected on the 'empty silos' theory plus we've had time to prepare more nukes (spin up silos, put more subs to sea and in range, sober up more of the pilots)
3) we shoot first, surprise. Targets selected to cripple their ability to retaliate.
4) we shoot first, after increasing tensions. Targets to cripple their ability to retaliate, plus we've got more nukes to play with.

So...you're saying the ONLY Russian plans for targeting were to wait until the nukes were already in the air, then shoot back? No plans for what to do if they got intel that the madman in the White House was intending to shoot first and loading more planes with more nukes?

You're saying the Russian military was insane or stupid?

5) Either side shoot first and completely eliminate the other side,

Actually, #5 was more of an Island Of Dr. No option, just didn't make any sense in the discussion.

then wait for a few days for Nuclear Winter to set in. There is no sense to any of this nuclear threat shit. It only spells death to our civilization.

Well, yeah, that was the whole point.

We need a mature diplomatic regimen

I looked but the store was fresh out of that. The shelves were completely empty.
They did offer to back order it, though.