• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Russia threatens Denmark with nuclear weapons if it tries to join Nato defence shield

Re: Russia Threatens Nuclear Armaggedon

You build your wall and tell the other guy to go pound sand.


Build my own wall. NATO forces are a paper tiger and a shadow of what they were 25 years ago. I'm sure Putin knows this full well.

You can't finish your wall before I finish mine. Your bricks aren't as good and you don't have as many people to help you lay them. I will finish first.

Nato forces aren't the issue here. This is nuclear war we're talking about. Conventional forces quickly become irrelevant. It doesn't matter if Russia has more tanks than we do.
 
Re: Russia Threatens Nuclear Armaggedon

You can't finish your wall before I finish mine. Your bricks aren't as good and you don't have as many people to help you lay them. I will finish first.

Nato forces aren't the issue here. This is nuclear war we're talking about. Conventional forces quickly become irrelevant. It doesn't matter if Russia has more tanks than we do.

The wall and rifle analogy was an analogy. Russia has more nukes than the US, and they are openly aggressive. Much like Reagan knew during the Cold War, its much more difficult to paint a purely defensive missile shield as an escalation.
 
Re: Russia Threatens Nuclear Armaggedon

Lots of options, all of which you will dismiss because you'd rather the money be spent on your wealth redistribution schemes.

Where theres a will, theres a way.

again, what's the plan? what's the contingency plan? what will it cost? how much more are you willing to pay in taxes to fund it?
 
Re: Russia Threatens Nuclear Armaggedon

You can't finish your wall before I finish mine. Your bricks aren't as good and you don't have as many people to help you lay them. I will finish first.

Nato forces aren't the issue here. This is nuclear war we're talking about. Conventional forces quickly become irrelevant. It doesn't matter if Russia has more tanks than we do.

The US had a monopoly on the bomb for 4 years and Truman didn't use it against Russia despite the Berlin airlift and Russia's political annexation of Eastern Europe so he had plenty of provocation. Had those roles been reversed and Stalin had it first how do you think the world would be today ? Looking at current attempts at intimidating Denmark and Russia's ongoing inability to embrace true democracy its not like they have changed all that much since then. Historically all Russia has ever respected is force or the threat of it
 
Last edited:
Re: Russia Threatens Nuclear Armaggedon

The US had a monopoly on the bomb for 4 years and Truman didn't use it against Russia despite the Berlin airlift and Russia's political annexation of Eastern Europe so he had plenty of provocation. Had those roles been reversed and Stalin had it first how do you think the world would be today ? Looking at current attempts at intimidating Denmark and Russia's ongoing inability to embrace true democracy its not like they have changed all that much since then. Historically all Russia has ever respected is force or the threat of it

Theres a narcissism and ignorance amongst many who ascribe western views to others when its not there. Historically Russia has been a very brutal place, even before communism. They respect force, more so than even the views and policies of the leader involved. This is manifest elsewhere, like in our dealings with Iran (as they yell death to America). Its hard for some of us to accept that there are people out there who think very differently than we do.

I heard an argument recently that the US should have used nukes in Korea during the Korean conflict. It was a war of communist aggression, and would have established that western nations would not stand for such things, but the US was blindsided, and its reluctance set a precedence that set the tone of much of the cold war.
 
Re: Russia Threatens Nuclear Armaggedon

The rebels were using that weapon system for defence not attack. MH17 was a case of mistaken identity

Okay lets put it this way then so you can understand....

My fists are only for defensive purposes.... until I use them to beat the crap out of someone..
 
Re: Russia Threatens Nuclear Armaggedon

Okay lets put it this way then so you can understand....

My fists are only for defensive purposes.... until I use them to beat the crap out of someone..
Your analogy is highly flawed. Anti-missile defense systems are not engineered for offensive purposes. That would be like imagining a television could mow the lawn.
 
Re: Russia Threatens Nuclear Armaggedon

Russia once again sends nuclear-capable bombers and fighter aircraft on threatening flights. Once again the aircraft had their identification transponders turned off and had not filed a flight plan with civil aviation authorities.

Russian Bombers Spark NATO Scramble

March 24, 2015

NATO jets were scrambled Tuesday to escort Russian fighters and nuclear-capable bombers flying near the Baltic states and Sweden with their transponders switched off, sparking protests over the danger they posed to civil aviation. Lithuania's defence ministry spokeswoman Asta Galdikaite said NATO air policing aircraft identified two Tu-22 type bombers and two SU-27 jets. "The flights conducted with switched-off on-board transponders are among other things a risk to civil aviation as such flights are not visible on civil air traffic control radars," she told AFP. "We are tired of having to repeatedly protest against these violations," Foreign Minister Margot Wallstroem told the Swedish TT news agency on Tuesday.
 
Re: Russia Threatens Nuclear Armaggedon

Simpleχity;1064458718 said:
Your analogy is highly flawed. Anti-missile defense systems are not engineered for offensive purposes.

Neither are my fists..

That would be like imagining a television could mow the lawn.

No, it would be imagining that a television also can kill if used in the correct way. Other than that it is just a box with electronics in.
 
Re: Russia Threatens Nuclear Armaggedon

No, it would be imagining that a television also can kill if used in the correct way. Other than that it is just a box with electronics in.
I don't think you quite get it. NATO SM-3 missile defense interceptors are engineered to destroy targets either slightly above or at the atmospheric boundary.
 
Re: Russia Threatens Nuclear Armaggedon

Neither are my fists..



No, it would be imagining that a television also can kill if used in the correct way. Other than that it is just a box with electronics in.

the missle defence shield is more aptly compared to a knights breast plate. It is really only useful to keep the knight from getting killed.
 
Re: Russia threatens Denmark with nuclear weapons if it tries to join Nato defence sh

Russia has threatened to target Denmark’s warships with nuclear weapons if the Scandinavian nation becomes a member of Nato’s missile defence shield.

Russia threatens Denmark with nuclear weapons if it tries to join Nato defence shield - Europe - World - The Independent

Putin knows damn well what a nuclear attack on a NATO member means, this is the last straw, this man Adolf Putler needs to be stopped by any means necessary, it is incumbent on any person in the world capable of doing so to assassinate this insane genocidal monster.
Might have meant something if it was anything other than an empty threat.
 
Re: Russia Threatens Nuclear Armaggedon

Simpleχity;1064458815 said:
I don't think you quite get it. NATO SM-3 missile defense interceptors are engineered to destroy targets either slightly above or at the atmospheric boundary.

And if there is nothing.. they fall to earth and do what exactly?

Sorry but it is utterly bs that a missile can be "defensive" only. That is like saying a gun is only defensive...
 
Re: Russia Threatens Nuclear Armaggedon

And if there is nothing.. they fall to earth and do what exactly?

Sorry but it is utterly bs that a missile can be "defensive" only. That is like saying a gun is only defensive...
A missle can either be offensive or defensive depending on what it was built for. You cannot expect to use a sidewinder to take out an ICBM any more than you would attempt to use a SM-3 to take out an airfield. I missle is much much more than just an exploive payload strapped to a rocket.
 
Re: Russia Threatens Nuclear Armaggedon

And if there is nothing.. they fall to earth and do what exactly?
You still don't get it. There IS a missile. Ground/sea/satellite radar has been tracking it since launch. In addition, the SM-3 is under manual command until its infrared sensor acquires the target.

Sorry but it is utterly bs that a missile can be "defensive" only. That is like saying a gun is only defensive...
You obviously don't know what you are talking about concerning the NATO anti-missile defense system.
 
Re: Russia Threatens Nuclear Armaggedon

The wall and rifle analogy was an analogy. Russia has more nukes than the US, and they are openly aggressive. Much like Reagan knew during the Cold War, its much more difficult to paint a purely defensive missile shield as an escalation.

The analogy demonstrates why building the missile shield destabilizes things. The Cold War didn't go hot, mutually assured destruction is why.
 
Re: Russia Threatens Nuclear Armaggedon

The US had a monopoly on the bomb for 4 years and Truman didn't use it against Russia despite the Berlin airlift and Russia's political annexation of Eastern Europe so he had plenty of provocation. Had those roles been reversed and Stalin had it first how do you think the world would be today ? Looking at current attempts at intimidating Denmark and Russia's ongoing inability to embrace true democracy its not like they have changed all that much since then. Historically all Russia has ever respected is force or the threat of it

You're so close. Flip it around. Look at this from Russia's perspective. Do you really think they view you any more favorably than you view them?

These people have spent their entire lives being told that Americans want to destroy them.
 
Re: Russia Threatens Nuclear Armaggedon

Except when it comes to Russia right ? Good grief ! :shock:



And as I have illustrated with multiple sources those threats are non existent. They are simply Russias excuse to indulge in a spot of empire rebuilding and thereby massage the ego of one man



Once again I put it to you. Why are Russia's security concerns of more importance and worthy of more credence than those of her neighbours ?

Please quantify this alleged greater threat Russia now faces in light of considerable NATO force reductions on its borders over the last 25 years ?

Please explain how an ABM system threatens anyone elses security ?

Russia has maintained that the system is a threat to their own nuclear deterrent. Can you explain why they would argue that, if it's not true? Russia made a compromise deal that Bush rejected, which only served to reinforce Russia's concerns.

Even the hawkish Rand Corporation suggested that any such system deployed should be shared with Russia on some level in order to resign Russian concerns. The US still is reticent to do that.

It might be useful to reassure Russia about the future evolution of U.S. missile defense systems. Giving Russia access to interceptor data, such as burnout velocity, is one prominent suggestion.
The United States could bolster the offer by emphasizing the possibility of developing a joint U.S.-Russian data exchange center focused on monitoring missile launches. It might help demonstrate to Russia the limitations of current U.S. early-warning and missile tracking systems against Russian ICBMs.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR957.html

So you may deny Russian concerns all you wish. It won't make them go away.
 
Re: Russia threatens Denmark with nuclear weapons if it tries to join Nato defence sh

May I ask why you attack virtually every single foreign policy of the U.S. but have no issues defending Ruissia when they makes threats to a country that has never attacked them and pose no real threat to them and simply want a way to protect their country from nuclear attack. Would you also defend the U.S. if it made such threats. Judging by your posting history I think we all know the answer to that.
You never once seem to miss an opportunity to attack the U.S. for looking out for its best interest and the intrest of the US economy but somehow it is perfectly acceptable to you for Russia to do the same. Why is that.

To begin with, you mischaracterize my position. Saying never and always fails. I'm very supportive of USFP with regards to Iran and Cuba for example. You suggesting that Denmark becoming a part of NATO MDS isn't a threat to Russia doesn't negate Russia's claim that it threatens their own nuclear deterrent. Also, as pointed out by several of us posters here, the Russian warning to Denmark has been mischaracterized as an immediate nuclear strike upon Denmark should they deploy. Russia, China, France and Germany have all complained of the threat to global security posed by the US unipolar power. They all wish to see it checked, not advanced. These US "interests" to which you refer are hegemony and dominance as well as military adventurism that is concerning to much of the world.

The US had an opportunity to demonstrate to Russia that NATO's missile defense system would not compromise Russian defense by accepting Russia's compromise deal. But the US declined that. The Rand Corp. is still arguing that Russia should be offered some level of participation in any system to resign any of their concerns.
 
Re: Russia Threatens Nuclear Armaggedon

Simpleχity;1064458718 said:
Your analogy is highly flawed. Anti-missile defense systems are not engineered for offensive purposes. That would be like imagining a television could mow the lawn.

But that's the strawman argument and not Russia's, which is that it compromises their own nuclear deterrent.
 
Re: Russia Threatens Nuclear Armaggedon

Russia has maintained that the system is a threat to their own nuclear deterrent.
The West could say the same of Russia's anti-missile systems. There is a S-400 battalion (8 launchers/32 missiles) located in Kaliningrad, right next door to the Baltic NATO nations.
 
Re: Russia Threatens Nuclear Armaggedon

I said it before and I'll keep saying it. Putin is the most dangerous person in the world right now. He is much more dangerous than ISIS, or any of those groups.

Romney said that too and Obama laughed, literally, laughed in the debate.

Now the world is laughing at Obama, and we are ashamed to call him our "president".
 
Back
Top Bottom