Trump and Putin call for stronger nuclear forces

[webfact]

Trump and Putin call for stronger nuclear forces

 

 

WASHINGTON: -- Donald Trump has called for the US to greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear weapons capability.

 

Despite long-term efforts by Washington to reduce its atomic arsenal, the president-elect tweeted such action was needed until the world comes to its senses regarding nukes.

 

It’s not clear what prompted the comment but it came only hours after Vladimir Putin had also called for Russia to strengthen its nuclear forces.

 

Insisting his country was capable of repelling any possible armed threat the Russian President told military advisers at the Defence Ministry in Moscow.

 

“We are stronger now than any potential aggressor – anyone. I want to draw your attention to the fact that if we allowed ourselves to relax, the situation could change very quickly.”

 

There are estimated to be about 15,000 nuclear weapons in the world – most them are in the hands of the US and Russia. Since the end of the Cold War, both countries have attempted to cut their stockpiles.

 

 

-- © Copyright Euronews 2016-12-23

[jaidam]

At the end of the day this "deterrent " has worked a charm, and there has been no need to nuke any rogue country since ww2. Of course, thanks to the past few years of a super weak America the world has become considerably more dangerous in particular with the nuclear Iran but also thanks to being soft on NK so it makes sense to reinforce the nuclear arsenal. 

 When sending Dennis Rodman doesn't work anymore, at least we have a plan B, and what a spectacular that would be.

 

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, jaidam said:

At the end of the day this "deterrent " has worked a charm, and there has been no need to nuke any rogue country since ww2. Of course, thanks to the past few years of a super weak America the world has become considerably more dangerous in particular with the nuclear Iran but also thanks to being soft on NK so it makes sense to reinforce the nuclear arsenal. 

 When sending Dennis Rodman doesn't work anymore, at least we have a plan B, and what a spectacular that would be.

 

Because the USA needs to be able to destroy the world 10 times over instead of 5 times over. Exactly how many nuclear weapons do you think it takes to intimidate a nation?  

[ddavidovsky]

America and Russia should keep on the same side - it's in both their interests - then the rest of the world will have to behave.

 

Russia has been vilified recently after Crimea (which they were perfectly justified in taking back. The west's position on that has been inflammatory and reckless. Time to be nice to Russia. They are no threat.

[ilostmypassword]

19 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

America and Russia should keep on the same side - it's in both their interests - then the rest of the world will have to behave.

 

Russia has been vilified recently after Crimea (which they were perfectly justified in taking back. The west's position on that has been inflammatory and reckless. Time to be nice to Russia. They are no threat.

Do you think the Baltic States would agree with that?

[Krataiboy]

2 hours ago, jaidam said:

At the end of the day this "deterrent " has worked a charm, and there has been no need to nuke any rogue country since ww2. Of course, thanks to the past few years of a super weak America the world has become considerably more dangerous in particular with the nuclear Iran but also thanks to being soft on NK so it makes sense to reinforce the nuclear arsenal. 

 When sending Dennis Rodman doesn't work anymore, at least we have a plan B, and what a spectacular that would be.

 

 

Your complacency is breathtakingly misplaced. The Doomsday Clock is now nearer midnight than it was even at the height of the Cold War and that there have already been a number of incidents of computer malfunction and misunderstanding which have come close to triggering a nuclear strike by one of the two superpowers.

 

The world is lucky not already to have been incinerated by a Dr Strangelove-style cock-up.

 

We already have overkill in terms of the supposed MAD deterrent. Further squandering of resource will simply ramp up the new Cold War which the US is fomenting in order to prop up the military/industrial complex so crucial for the waning superpower's economic survival.

 

 

[ddavidovsky]

14 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Do you think the Baltic States would agree with that?

 

The Baltic States need to drag themselves into the modern era if they seriously think they are going to be annexed again.

[IAMHERE]

How many Americans should die to protect the Baltic States? I'm thinking between none and zero. Europe can protect the Baltic States.

[AlQaholic]

Ohh!! my what utter stupidity. The world together already ave enough nukes to obliterate life as we know it on earth for many million years, and now we need more of that??

[ddavidovsky]

2 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

 

Your complacency is breathtakingly misplaced. The Doomsday Clock is now nearer midnight than it was even at the height of the Cold War and that there have already been a number of incidents of computer malfunction and misunderstanding which have come close to triggering a nuclear strike by one of the two superpowers.

 

The world is lucky not already to have been incinerated by a Dr Strangelove-style cock-up.

 

We already have overkill in terms of the supposed MAD deterrent. Further squandering of resource will simply ramp up the new Cold War which the US is fomenting in order to prop up the military/industrial complex so crucial for the waning superpower's economic survival.

 

 

 

I wouldn't rule out mass deployment of nukes at some point in the future as a result of global competitive hysteria arising from sudden depletion of resources due to overpopulation and climate change (in which case, sudden population reduction would be necessary). But (correct me if I'm wrong) setting them all off at once would still only result in pockets of destruction here and there, not wholesale, irreversible incineration of the planet beyond redemption, which people commonly suppose. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were thriving cities again within a few years.

 

[Enoon]

2 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

 

The Baltic States need to drag themselves into the modern era if they seriously think they are going to be annexed again.

 

The people of the Crimea probably thought that they had made it into the modern era, post collapse of the Soviet Union, when it became The Autonomous Republic of Crimea in 1991.

 

But no, Putin decided to take them back(wards) to the "good old days":

 

In 1783, Crimea was annexed by the Russian Empire.

 

 

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

14 minutes ago, Enoon said:

 

The people of the Crimea probably thought that they had made it into the modern era, post collapse of the Soviet Union, when it became The Autonomous Republic of Crimea in 1991.

 

But no, Putin decided to take them back(wards) to the "good old days":

 

In 1783, Crimea was annexed by the Russian Empire.

 

 

 

 

In the real world, Russia is escalating its crackdown on the Crimean Tatars, who now make up 12 percent of Crimea’s population after the Soviet Union allowed the deportation survivors and their descendants to return in 1989.

Continue reading the main story

RELATED COVERAGE

Ukraine’s Eurovision Win Rouses a Chorus of Anger and Suspicion in Russia MAY 16, 2016

On April 26, Russia banned the Crimean Tatars’ legislature, the Mejlis, calling it an extremist organization. On May 12, the authorities arrested several Tatars, including Ilmi Umerov, deputy chairman of the Mejlis. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/20/opinion/russia-is-trying-to-wipe-out-crimeas-tatars.html

[craigt3365]

3 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

America and Russia should keep on the same side - it's in both their interests - then the rest of the world will have to behave.

 

Russia has been vilified recently after Crimea (which they were perfectly justified in taking back. The west's position on that has been inflammatory and reckless. Time to be nice to Russia. They are no threat.

It's against international law (and moral ethics) to take territory from another sovereign nation.  No way to justify it.  And thus, the reaction from the international community and their sanctions against Russia.  Inflammatory comments don't justify an invasion! LOL

[craigt3365]

3 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

 

The Baltic States need to drag themselves into the modern era if they seriously think they are going to be annexed again.

Or some need to read the news.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/28/europe/lithuania-war-manual/

Quote

Lithuania issues manual on what to do if Russia invades

 

Memories are long there.  And they aren't good ones from their previous experience with Russia.  Terrible to put it mildly.

 

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/putins-dangerous-games-in-the-baltic/

Quote

Russian tanks rolling into the Baltic states — Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania — once again? It seems a mad idea, but Lithuania thinks it real enough to have reinstated conscription. This is more than just Baltic alarm: Sweden signed a defence pact with the United States in June, and Finland is-trying to do the same. A recent Norwegian television drama imagined the country under Russian occupation. Meanwhile, in real life, Russia has formed three new motorised rifle divisions, with more than 30,000 troops, many of them to be sent close to the Baltics. And short-range missiles that can carry nuclear bombs have been delivered to Kaliningrad, the neighbouring Russian enclave.

 

[craigt3365]

36 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

In the real world, Russia is escalating its crackdown on the Crimean Tatars, who now make up 12 percent of Crimea’s population after the Soviet Union allowed the deportation survivors and their descendants to return in 1989.

Continue reading the main story

RELATED COVERAGE

Ukraine’s Eurovision Win Rouses a Chorus of Anger and Suspicion in Russia MAY 16, 2016

On April 26, Russia banned the Crimean Tatars’ legislature, the Mejlis, calling it an extremist organization. On May 12, the authorities arrested several Tatars, including Ilmi Umerov, deputy chairman of the Mejlis. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/20/opinion/russia-is-trying-to-wipe-out-crimeas-tatars.html

I was in Moldova recently.  Hired a guide for 4 days to drive us around, including a day/night in Transnistria.   The guide has relatives in Crimea.  Been living there for a long time.  They had their property taken and given to ethnic Russians.  Same thing they are doing in Transnistria.  Ethnic Moldovans are being treated poorly.

 

No wonder many don't want to live under Russian rule. 

[Briggsy]

Russia argues that Pandora's box was opened by the US and Kosovo in terms of chipping off bits of the other side's sphere of influence.

It is a difficult argument to refute.

[Nilats]

26 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

I was in Moldova recently.  Hired a guide for 4 days to drive us around, including a day/night in Transnistria.   The guide has relatives in Crimea.  Been living there for a long time.  They had their property taken and given to ethnic Russians.  Same thing they are doing in Transnistria.  Ethnic Moldovans are being treated poorly.

 

No wonder many don't want to live under Russian rule. 

 

This story sounds like a pretty laughable account I've ever heard. Moldova is even more corrupt than Russia, and people are far more poor and destitute. Of course you couldn't find a guy on the street who would just make stuff up because of his personal ethnic hatred against ethnic Russians and with full knowledge that some foreigners would be more than happy to buy into these crap stories.

 

They had their property "Taken"? That sounds like nonsense.

 

"Taken and given to Ethnic Russians" - that sounds like nonsense multiplied by 100... lol

[Thailand]

Putin continues to play Trump like a fish on a line.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, ddavidovsky said:

 

I wouldn't rule out mass deployment of nukes at some point in the future as a result of global competitive hysteria arising from sudden depletion of resources due to overpopulation and climate change (in which case, sudden population reduction would be necessary). But (correct me if I'm wrong) setting them all off at once would still only result in pockets of destruction here and there, not wholesale, irreversible incineration of the planet beyond redemption, which people commonly suppose. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were thriving cities again within a few years.

 

Wrong.

 

It's not the explosions that kill us all, but the fires started by nuclear weapons heat at the city centres. 

 

The fires will cause small particles to rise to upper atmosphere, where the rains can't clear it out. This causes nuclear winter.

Nuclear winter then drops the temperatures globally. This causes our plants to die, which then collapses the whole food chain.

 

We die of hunger.

 

It's estimated that only 200 or so moderate sized nuclear explosions in the city centres can cause nuclear winter. Most definitely if there would be thousands nuclear explosions and fires, the launching party would be wiped out of life, even if the other party would not fire one single nuclear weapon.

 

Let it sink. 

[ddavidovsky]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

It's against international law (and moral ethics) to take territory from another sovereign nation.  No way to justify it.  And thus, the reaction from the international community and their sanctions against Russia.  Inflammatory comments don't justify an invasion! LOL

 

As I understand it, the majority of the population of Crimea are ethnically Russian and want to be part of Russia and only some historical anomaly landed them in Ukraine.

 

No good citing international law and saying the world cannot change. People are responsible for international law, not the other way round.

 

[craigt3365]

22 minutes ago, Nilats said:

 

This story sounds like a pretty laughable account I've ever heard. Moldova is even more corrupt than Russia, and people are far more poor and destitute. Of course you couldn't find a guy on the street who would just make stuff up because of his personal ethnic hatred against ethnic Russians and with full knowledge that some foreigners would be more than happy to buy into these crap stories.

 

They had their property "Taken"? That sounds like nonsense.

 

"Taken and given to Ethnic Russians" - that sounds like nonsense multiplied by 100... lol

What has corruption got to do with what I said?  For sure, it's massively corrupt.  I actually had 4 different tour guides.  2 for my time in Moldova, a different 2 for the trip to Transnistria.  None had any good comments about Russia.  Perhaps you read this:

 

https://www.ft.com/content/66a08912-aeba-11e3-a088-00144feab7de

 

Quote

 

After annexing Crimea, Russians move to carve up the spoils

“It’s clear there’s going to be a new carve-up of property here now that the Russians are here,” said Arzy Selimova, an editor at state TV station Krym. Local businessmen have noted that the dealership targeted in Tuesday’s raid was owned by a partner of Petro Poroshenko, the Ukrainian oligarch, who backs the new government in Kiev.

 

Whatever ends up happening to the Bogdan Avto-Salon, one thing is clear: Crimea’s choicest state assets have already been taken over by pro-Russian forces in the peninsula, and will ultimately be controlled by Moscow.

 

 

 

[Mansell]

2 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

 

I wouldn't rule out mass deployment of nukes at some point in the future as a result of global competitive hysteria arising from sudden depletion of resources due to overpopulation and climate change (in which case, sudden population reduction would be necessary). But (correct me if I'm wrong) setting them all off at once would still only result in pockets of destruction here and there, not wholesale, irreversible incineration of the planet beyond redemption, which people commonly suppose. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were thriving cities again within a few years.

 

They were relatively small yield atomic bombs. The warheads now are nuclear and high yield. It is not the damage done by the explosions, but the catastrophic damage world wide from radiation. If you seriously consider that as a viable way to reduce population you need to educate yourself, and quickly. Nuclear devastation is not an option any intelligent person would offer to the world. Putin and Trump are megalomaniacs playing chess with people's lives. These two would not be immune to radiation sickness.....of course they could live underground for decades hoping the radiation would dissipate.....but that isn't a life.

[craigt3365]

4 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

 

As I understand it, the majority of the population of Crimea are ethnically Russian and want to be part of Russia and only some historical anomaly landed them in Ukraine.

 

No good citing international law and saying the world cannot change. People are responsible for international law, not the other way round.

 

True, a majority are ethnic Russians, moved there after the Ukraine was annexed by Russia previously.  Same thing happened in all the other former Soviet satellite states.  It was done to control the population.

 

If they wanted to be part of Russia, it should have been put to a vote by everybody in Ukraine.  That's the only legal way to do this.  Just like Scotland did recently.  And yes, people are responsible for international, though Putin seems to be ignoring this. 

 

As you can see, most in Crimea identify with Ukraine, not with Russia. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Crimea

Quote

The number of Crimean residents who consider Ukraine their motherland increased sharply from 32% to 71.3% from 2008 through 2011; according to a poll by Razumkov Center in March 2011,^[20] although this is the lowest number in all Ukraine (93% on average across the country).^[20] Surveys of regional identities in Ukraine have shown that around 30% of Crimean residents claim to have retained a self-identified "Soviet identity".^[21]

 

[Nilats]

4 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

What has corruption got to do with what I said?  For sure, it's massively corrupt.  I actually had 4 different tour guides.  2 for my time in Moldova, a different 2 for the trip to Transnistria.  None had any good comments about Russia.  Perhaps you read this:

 

https://www.ft.com/content/66a08912-aeba-11e3-a088-00144feab7de

 

 

 

 

 

Perhaps you should apologize for that misinformation to promote ethnic hatred you are dissiminating here - it's beyond trolling imo. Criminal offense in some countries actually.

 

Can't read the article - the heading speaks about "State" property nothing to do with ethnicities or individual property.

[craigt3365]

2 minutes ago, Nilats said:

 

 

Perhaps you should apologize for that misinformation to promote ethnic hatred you are dissiminating here - it's beyond trolling imo. Criminal offense in some countries actually.

 

Can't read the article - the heading speaks about "State" property nothing to do with ethnicities or individual property.

It's my personal experience and I'll PM anybody with the contact info for my guide.  Research the history of Moldova, and Transnistria.  Not hard to figure out why ethnic Moldovans are not happy with Russia.  No trolling.  Just the facts.

 

Sorry you can't read the article.  Plenty of others like it on the internet.

[ddavidovsky]

8 minutes ago, oilinki said:

Wrong.

 

It's not the explosions that kill us all, but the fires started by nuclear weapons heat at the city centres. 

 

The fires will cause small particles to rise to upper atmosphere, where the rains can't clear it out. This causes nuclear winter.

Nuclear winter then drops the temperatures globally. This causes our plants to die, which then collapses the whole food chain.

 

We die of hunger.

 

It's estimated that only 200 or so moderate sized nuclear explosions in the city centres can cause nuclear winter. Most definitely if there would be thousands nuclear explosions and fires, the launching party would be wiped out of life, even if the other party would not fire one single nuclear weapon.

 

Let it sink. 

 

Interesting hypothesis. So it's not the explosions that do the damage but the climate change effects thereafter.That would certainly reduce the world's population, though somehow I suspect nuclear winter is not what people are worried about.

 

Well, all the more reason for the US and Russia to get on the same side. Two joint global powers as the world's policemen, whose combined power is unassailable but who don't compete directly with each other, I would suggest is the best way to safeguard the future.

 

[ddavidovsky]

11 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

True, a majority are ethnic Russians, moved there after the Ukraine was annexed by Russia previously.  Same thing happened in all the other former Soviet satellite states.  It was done to control the population.

 

If they wanted to be part of Russia, it should have been put to a vote by everybody in Ukraine.  That's the only legal way to do this.  Just like Scotland did recently.  And yes, people are responsible for international, though Putin seems to be ignoring this. 

 

As you can see, most in Crimea identify with Ukraine, not with Russia. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Crimea

 

 

Why should Ukrainians get to vote concerning a territory that historically was not theirs and contains a majority of Russians?

That's like saying the English should vote whether Scotland should stay in the Union. Scotland had their own vote to determine their own status. Crimea were so sure, they didn't need one.

[elgordo38]

7 hours ago, webfact said:

“We are stronger now than any potential aggressor 

I think Putin had a sugar relapse here thinking that he was talking to the Russian citizenry. 

[craigt3365]

4 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

 

Why should Ukrainians get to vote concerning a territory that historically was not theirs and contains a majority of Russians?

That's like saying the English should vote whether Scotland should stay in the Union. Scotland had their own vote to determine their own status. Crimea were so sure, they didn't need one.

Because that territory belongs to Ukraine.  If you apply that logic, all of Europe would be contested right now!  Scotland has a long history with the UK.  A bit different from Crimea which is actually part of the sovereign country of Ukraine.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

 

Interesting hypothesis. So it's not the explosions that do the damage but the climate change effects thereafter.That would certainly reduce the world's population, though somehow I suspect nuclear winter is not what people are worried about.

Nuclear winter is the only thing people should be worried about. It's much more devastating that the death of few hundred million people who die on nuclear blasts and radiation sickness. 

 

Nuclear winter was the reason, why USA and Russia, in the middle of the cold war started to negotiate reducing nuclear weapons. Scientists from both countries made the leaders of both sides to listen and understand the huge threat to all life in the Earth. 

 

Here is a old, but rather good documentary about the process. It's the knowledge which must be remembered today when USA and Russia has ceased almost all communication together. Do share it.

 

On top of this, nuclear war destroys virtually all infrastructure. EMP's destroy electronics. There is no gasoline / diesel deliveries, which stops machinery to working. No electricity etc. etc.

 

 

In case of nuclear war, the best place to be is underneath an explosion.