• 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

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".

I'm not ashamed. As been pointed out before when it comes to Russia we don't have many options. Bush didn't have many options when Putin took Georgia, and we don't have many options now concerning the Ukraine.

Besides, no matter how Obama handles it the people with ODS would criticize him anyway.
 
Re: Russia Threatens Nuclear Armaggedon

I'm not ashamed. As been pointed out before when it comes to Russia we don't have many options. Bush didn't have many options when Putin took Georgia, and we don't have many options now concerning the Ukraine.

Besides, no matter how Obama handles it the people with ODS would criticize him anyway.

Remember, Obama LIFTED the sanctions that were already on Russia when he became President. So obviously Obama didn't listen to his predecessors.
 
Re: Russia Threatens Nuclear Armaggedon

Remember, Obama LIFTED the sanctions that were already on Russia when he became President. So obviously Obama didn't listen to his predecessors.

Don't go with the 'he didn't listen' nonsense. Bush didn't listen to Clinton either. Clinton didn't listen to Bush 1. They all want to start over, to flex their own foreign policy muscles.

When Putin acted like an ass again Obama then put sanctions back on Russia. Because like I said, like it or not, no matter who's in the wh we don't have many options when it comes to Russia. Putin's not an idiot, he knows there's little we can do.
 
Re: Russia Threatens Nuclear Armaggedon

I'm not ashamed. As been pointed out before when it comes to Russia we don't have many options. Bush didn't have many options when Putin took Georgia, and we don't have many options now concerning the Ukraine.

Besides, no matter how Obama handles it the people with ODS would criticize him anyway.

How can you not be ashamed? Obama didn't see the Russian threat and mocked those that did. He likely found out about it on television.

He was equally blindsided by ISIS (the JV team), calling Iraq a success-and then losing the peace there.

He's a foreign policy disaster-the worst Ive ever seen, and he's consistently outmatched by other world leaders.
 
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 clear distinction between offensive and defensive does not actually exist. In the world of nuclear deterrence these terms are attached to weapons systems and seem implicitly to be an indication of the political intentions of the actor using them: aggressor or defender. But American strategists see the missile shield as part of the complete US strike force, the strategic triad. This consists of conventional and nuclear attack systems, passive and active defence (which includes the missile shield) and the supporting structure, such as the industrial base and the information system.[vi]

For these reasons it makes no sense to describe the missile shield as purely defensive, as it forms part of a whole that can be used both offensively and defensively. It can be compared to the shield and sword of a Greek hoplite or, on an operational level, the equipment of a Greek phalanx, a formation which used shields against an attack, then counter-attacked with sword and spear.

The missile shield is also regarded as part of a future strategy for space warfare. An envisaged arms race in space would then involve, in defiance of existing agreements, the permanent stationing of weapons systems in orbit.[vii] To date the United States have resisted treaty proposals aimed at preventing this.[viii]

http://www.spectrezine.org/missile-shield-made-measure-new-cold-war
 
Re: Russia Threatens Nuclear Armaggedon

Putin has no justification to get upset about NATO countries with ABMs as long as he has them as well.
Russian/Soviet Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems

This is just the typical Putin tactic of trying to bully others around him nothing more.
The world will be a much better place once the Russians remove him from power.
 
Re: Russia Threatens Nuclear Armaggedon

Simpleχity;1064459220 said:
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.

The US indeed could say that.
 
Re: Russia threatens Denmark with nuclear weapons if it tries to join Nato defence sh

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.
Despite all your attempts at avoiding the main point of my post you still don't seem to want to answer the question of why you condem the U.S. for looking out for our best intrest but defend Russia for doing the same. It is in the US best intrest to attempt to increase our dominance both economically and militarily.
In what reality or what country in the world do you think would not try and be the dominate country in the world if they could. Do you think if Russia or Germany had the opertunity to become the worlds sole super power do you not think they would not only take it but seek to increase their dominance. Do you honestly think that no matter what country was the superpower was every other country would wish to see that country's lead checked.

For some reason you seem to only be against the U.S. acting in our own best intrest. You even condem us for not wanting to weaken our position by agreeing to the Russians compromise which was a great deal for them not so much for us.
 
Re: Russia threatens Denmark with nuclear weapons if it tries to join Nato defence sh

Despite all your attempts at avoiding the main point of my post you still don't seem to want to answer the question of why you condem the U.S. for looking out for our best intrest but defend Russia for doing the same. It is in the US best intrest to attempt to increase our dominance both economically and militarily.
In what reality or what country in the world do you think would not try and be the dominate country in the world if they could. Do you think if Russia or Germany had the opertunity to become the worlds sole super power do you not think they would not only take it but seek to increase their dominance. Do you honestly think that no matter what country was the superpower was every other country would wish to see that country's lead checked.

For some reason you seem to only be against the U.S. acting in our own best intrest. You even condem us for not wanting to weaken our position by agreeing to the Russians compromise which was a great deal for them not so much for us.

Because I disagree with you and anybody else that thinks what takes place on Russia's borders are a greater interest to US security than to Russia's. I also disagree with you that the US needs to be exerting more influence, military might and hegemony. How would it be a better deal for Russia than the US to have them involved in the monitoring of any NATO shields that would protect from supposed Iranian, Pakistani, North Korean, etc., missile strikes?
 
Re: Russia threatens Denmark with nuclear weapons if it tries to join Nato defence sh

Because I disagree with you and anybody else that thinks what takes place on Russia's borders are a greater interest to US security than to Russia's. I also disagree with you that the US needs to be exerting more influence, military might and hegemony. How would it be a better deal for Russia than the US to have them involved in the monitoring of any NATO shields that would protect from supposed Iranian, Pakistani, North Korean, etc., missile strikes?
Why should the US care what is in Russia's security interests . The US should be looking out for our and our allied countries security not what is best for Russia. Do you really think Russia cares about our security our makes foreign policy decisions on if it's in our interests or theirs.

Please show me one country in the history of the world that has not looked to expand its influence or power. Give me a break.
If I remember right you have in the past justified Russia invading a foreign country and annexing part of it because it is for their security but now you are against the US and its allies having a defensive weapon system. Why is that. Why is Russia's security concerns more justified than ours.
 
Last edited:
Re: Russia threatens Denmark with nuclear weapons if it tries to join Nato defence sh

Why should the US care what is in Russia's security interests . The US should be looking out for our and our allied countries security not what is best for Russia. Do you really think Russia cares about our security our makes foreign policy deacons on if it's in our interests or theirs.

Please show me one country in the history of the world that has not looked to expand its influence or power. Give me a break.
Why is it you are fine with Russia invading a foreign country and annexing part of it because it is for their security but against the US and its allies having a defensive weapon system.

I didn't say that Russia's security should be necessarily a US interest. But Russia is a nuclear power, and they've never used them. I doubt they're a concern. And your way wrong that every single country has sought to advance its influence and power, if your referring to hegemony, exploitation, imperialism, nation building and all the other USFP pass times.
 
Re: Russia threatens Denmark with nuclear weapons if it tries to join Nato defence sh

I didn't say that Russia's security should be necessarily a US interest. But Russia is a nuclear power, and they've never used them. I doubt they're a concern. And your way wrong that every single country has sought to advance its influence and power, if your referring to hegemony, exploitation, imperialism, nation building and all the other USFP pass times.

What difference does Russia using or not using nuclear weapons make at all. And no every country tries to expand its power either thru trying for favorable trade deals, military operations or creating alliances. Some countries are simply more able to than others.
 
Re: Russia threatens Denmark with nuclear weapons if it tries to join Nato defence sh

What difference does Russia using or not using nuclear weapons make at all. And no every country tries to expand its power either thru trying for favorable trade deals, military operations or creating alliances. Some countries are simply more able to than others.

Trade deals and alliances, sure, all peaceful endeavors.
 
Re: Russia Threatens Nuclear Armaggedon

The US indeed could say that.
Indeed. It is quite dishonest and disingenuous of Russia to complain of NATO systems that Russia itself employs.
 
Re: Russia Threatens Nuclear Armaggedon

Simpleχity;1064459220 said:
There is a S-400 battalion (8 launchers/32 missiles) located in Kaliningrad, right next door to the Baltic NATO nations.

Russia is also moving Iskander missiles to Kaliningrad. These can be nuclear-tipped and have the range to strike Denmark.

Russia to send new missiles to Baltic enclave on maneuvers
 
Re: Russia Threatens Nuclear Armaggedon

Simpleχity;1064462713 said:
Indeed. It is quite dishonest and disingenuous of Russia to complain of NATO systems that Russia itself employs.

About as dishonest as the US engaging in proxy wars, abusing UNR's to conduct regime change, supporting and using terrorist organizations, interfering in foreign elections, and all the other various methods of intrigue that the US engages in to destabilize or influence events to pursue its interests. There is none righteous, no not one.
 
Re: Russia Threatens Nuclear Armaggedon

→ Russia threatens → Denmark...

What the US does, or does not do ... is not the topic of this thread.
 
Re: Russia Threatens Nuclear Armaggedon

Apparently many posters in this thread think it very much is part of it. In fact the op's very argument is that we must stop Russia.
 
Re: Russia Threatens Nuclear Armaggedon

Simpleχity;1064463298 said:
→ Russia threatens → Denmark...

What the US does, or does not do ... is not the topic of this thread.

So Denmark advances at its own risk. How many red lines has the US drawn on nations who were doing or preparing to do things deemed not in our interests?
 
Re: Russia Threatens Nuclear Armaggedon

Apparently many posters in this thread think it very much is part of it. In fact the op's very argument is that we must stop Russia.

Unquestionably the genocidal war criminal Putin must be stopped.
 
Re: Russia Threatens Nuclear Armaggedon

So Denmark advances at its own risk. How many red lines has the US drawn on nations who were doing or preparing to do things deemed not in our interests?

Threatening to nuke a peaceful liberal democracy for attempting to join a defensive alliance is not the same as demanding that genocidal dictators don't use chemical weapons on civilians.
 
Re: Russia Threatens Nuclear Armaggedon

Threatening to nuke a peaceful liberal democracy for attempting to join a defensive alliance is not the same as demanding that genocidal dictators don't use chemical weapons on civilians.

Except they didn't threaten to nuke them. They pointed out that they expose themselves as a target in the event that Russia's own nuclear deterrent has been compromised. Your framing this as though the moment the Danes commission the NATO shield that Russia conducts a nuclear attack. More of your hyperbole.
 
Re: Russia Threatens Nuclear Armaggedon

Except they didn't threaten to nuke them.

They threatened to target them with nuclear weapons.

They pointed out that they expose themselves as a target in the event that Russia's own nuclear deterrent has been compromised. Your framing this as though the moment the Danes commission the NATO shield that Russia conducts a nuclear attack. More of your hyperbole.

No they threatened to target them with nuclear weapons, not that they might target them with nuclear weapons, or that they will be targeted in the event of war, they threatened to target them, any assertion to the contrary is an overt lie, end of.
 
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..

The major difference being that you cannot use SAMs offensively. They are a purely defensive weapon
 
Re: Russia Threatens Nuclear Armaggedon

Apparently many posters in this thread think it very much is part of it. In fact the op's very argument is that we must stop Russia.

Well you and 'many' (?) other posters are simply wrong
 
Back
Top Bottom