• 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!

President Putin Reveals Two Cases When Russia Can Use Nuclear Weapons

JacksinPA

JacksinPA

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
26,290
Reaction score
16,771
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
https://sputniknews.com/russia/2018...9497&utm_campaign=adfox_campaign_626012&ues=1

Russia may potentially use nuclear weapons only in the event of an impending nuclear attack, or if there is a threat to the country's existence, Russian President Vladimir Putin said in an interview with the NBC broadcaster.

"There can be two reasons that can make us use nuclear weapons: an attack against us with nuclear weapons or an attack on Russia with conventional weapons. But the second case is only if it threatens the existence of the Russian state," Vladimir Putin said.

Putin said he had offered to collaborate on the joint improvement of missile defenses with the United States but had been rebuffed, so he had to act in Russia's best interests.
 
Nuclear weapons are a waste of money. There is no scenario where using them makes sense.

Think about it. In any city there are thousands of children. What rational reason can you have for setting thousands of children on fire? I would rather live under occupation than murder children for my freedom.
 
JacksinPA said:
https://sputniknews.com/russia/2018...9497&utm_campaign=adfox_campaign_626012&ues=1

Russia may potentially use nuclear weapons only in the event of an impending nuclear attack, or if there is a threat to the country's existence, Russian President Vladimir Putin said in an interview with the NBC broadcaster.

"There can be two reasons that can make us use nuclear weapons: an attack against us with nuclear weapons or an attack on Russia with conventional weapons. But the second case is only if it threatens the existence of the Russian state," Vladimir Putin said.

Putin said he had offered to collaborate on the joint improvement of missile defenses with the United States but had been rebuffed, so he had to act in Russia's best interests.
Click to expand...

I think Putin is scarier than Kim Jung Un. He probably wants the US to get into a war with NK, which would greatly weaken and distract the US. He also most likely wants to expand his land war from Ukraine into further former USSR, and now that he was issued this statement, he seems to be saying that he'll do what he wants and if the world tries to much intervention as far as war strategy, he will detonate?
 
This isn't news.

The Russians made it clear when and how they were willing to use nuclear weapons back in 2009.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
Nuclear weapons are a waste of money. There is no scenario where using them makes sense.

Think about it. In any city there are thousands of children. What rational reason can you have for setting thousands of children on fire? I would rather live under occupation than murder children for my freedom.
Click to expand...

Here’s a case, a 1st word country is threatening to end your existence and you don’t have nukes. So having them prevents that from happening.

And you say you would rather live under occupation, well you say that as being a nobody (figuratively in the world). However if you are leader of a country that is about to be taken over, your chances of survival are nil. Hence why if the US were truly endangered of being toppled, the US leaders wouldn’t hesitate supporting a nuclear strike even if it meant others in the US would die with them safe in their bunkers.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
This isn't news.

The Russians made it clear when and how they were willing to use nuclear weapons back in 2009.
Click to expand...

This particular forum is labeled General Political Discussion & the item I posted was published today.
 
Praxas said:
Here’s a case, a 1st word country is threatening to end your existence and you don’t have nukes. So having them prevents that from happening.

And you say you would rather live under occupation, well you say that as being a nobody (figuratively in the world). However if you are leader of a country that is about to be taken over, your chances of survival are nil. Hence why if the US were truly endangered of being toppled, the US leaders wouldn’t hesitate supporting a nuclear strike even if it meant others in the US would die with them safe in their bunkers.
Click to expand...

But think about it. Let's say you see the Russia has launched all its nukes. What's the point of retaliating if it means the end of human civilization? Over what? Political disagreements?

But more importantly, retaliating would mean burning thousands of Russian children alive. Does anything justify that?

You can't be good if you live in fear. If some evil country chooses to threaten to use nuclear weapons then so be it.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
Nuclear weapons are a waste of money. There is no scenario where using them makes sense.

Think about it. In any city there are thousands of children. What rational reason can you have for setting thousands of children on fire? I would rather live under occupation than murder children for my freedom.
Click to expand...

You're kidding, right? The strongest countries on the planet all have nuclear weapons. Just having them, whether you are going to use them or not, gives you immense power. That's why Putin stated just the other day that he had nukes which could evade our defenses. We ended the war with Japan by showing them that we could obliterate their island in no time. We brought them to their knees.
 
JacksinPA said:
This particular forum is labeled General Political Discussion & the item I posted was published today.
Click to expand...

I wasn't referring to your post itself, rather the information itself wasn't new. Russia has established it's standards for nuclear deterrence since 2009.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
But think about it. Let's say you see the Russia has launched all its nukes. What's the point of retaliating if it means the end of human civilization? Over what? Political disagreements?

But more importantly, retaliating would mean burning thousands of Russian children alive. Does anything justify that?

You can't be good if you live in fear. If some evil country chooses to threaten to use nuclear weapons then so be it.
Click to expand...

So let me ask you this, if a shooter goes in your home and kills your whole family and you’re fatally shot. Do you just die and say “wow guess he got me” or do you shoot him back? After all you are going to die anyway so why shoot him right? That’s the point, you shoot him dead even if you are going to die.
 
JacksinPA said:
Russia may potentially use nuclear weapons only in the event of an impending nuclear attack, or if there is a threat to the country's existence
Click to expand...

He omitted the third one: If there is a threat to his regime's existence. Or maybe he sees that as the same thing.

1135
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom