Trump and Putin call for stronger nuclear forces

[Get Real]

Isn´t it great when two people with big power get together and do thier best for make the world a really unsafe place to stay. Can they please get going with the population of Mars.

Edited December 23, 2016 by Get Real

[ddavidovsky]

7 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

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.

 

The circumstances of the transfer of Crimea to Ukraine were dubious at best - and surely not in accordance with the will of the Crimean people at the time. No doubt there's been an influx of Ukrainians in the meantime to skew the population (cf Chinese in Tibet) but that shouldn't be allowed to change the picture.

 

On that score, here's another world-changing idea:

One-man-one-vote should be scrapped and voting weighted for 'indigenous rights'. Ethnic inhabitants could get, say, an extra vote for every century that their ancestors have occupied the place. It's hardly justified that Johnny-come-lately immigrants get equal say in the running of the country.

 

 

[Nilats]

34 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

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.

 

It's your job to verify any of that information. Since you haven't actually done so, I don't understand why you are posting it here and forming your entire logic based on some gossip and rumours, false information from the streets of some foreign country as if it was some given fact.

[Redline]

7 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.

 

 

5 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.

Then surely you are for China taking it's old territories back as well.  Or, will you be 2 faced?

[Redline]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

Or some need to read the news.

 

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

 

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/

 

Yup, but some nimrods are clueless.  Thanks for the info for the less and misinformed

[Nilats]

37 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

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.

 

If everybody is against Crimea being with Russia. Then why was everybody in Europe and Western world was supporting the reunification of East and West Germany? Wasn't the ethnic cultural and so on criteria used in that case? So why is everybody against the re-unification of Crimea with Russia when it's the same ethnic criteria and the territories were split for less period than that of GDR and FRG( the two Germany's). This logic sounds very Un-European and hypocritical to me. Somebody should advise Merkel and Washnigton about it. It's actually Gorbachev and the Russians who chiefly supported and enabled the reunification of Germany - so the current western stance and attitude on the Crimean issue is actually a huge slap in the face of Russia and the Russian people. The West keeps demonstrating that it likes to use double standards towards different countries and has no principles at all. And the transfer of Crimea to Ukraine was illegal in every aspect of international law just as was the division of FRG with GDR.

[SunsetT]

1 hour 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. 

And all sides know this and that it would be suicide to nuke anyone similarly armed as you immediately get nuked back. Thats why it is so effective as a deterrent. The only worry is a lunatic on the button, or someone suicidal, or, even better, a suicidal lunatic!

[craigt3365]

20 minutes ago, Nilats said:

 

If everybody is against Crimea being with Russia. Then why was everybody in Europe and Western world was supporting the reunification of East and West Germany? Wasn't the ethnic cultural and so on criteria used in that case? So why is everybody against the re-unification of Crimea with Russia when it's the same ethnic criteria and the territories were split for less period than that of GDR and FRG( the two Germany's). This logic sounds very Un-European and hypocritical to me. Somebody should advise Merkel and Washnigton about it. It's actually Gorbachev and the Russians who chiefly supported and enabled the reunification of Germany - so the current western stance and attitude on the Crimean issue is actually a huge slap in the face of Russia and the Russian people. The West keeps demonstrating that it likes to use double standards towards different countries and has no principles at all. And the transfer of Crimea to Ukraine was illegal in every aspect of international law just as was the division of FRG with GDR.

That's not the point.  Russia annexed Crimea illegally.  I'm not sure why many don't understand this.  Sure, there are some there who'd like to be part of Russia, and some who'd like to stay with Ukraine.  That decision is not up to Russia.  It's up the population of Ukraine.  A nationwide vote should have been held.  But it wasn't.

 

Only those in support of the annexation use ethnicity as a reason.  But it doesn't fly.  I'm not sure what you are ranting on about.  Sorry, but doesn't make sense to me.

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, SunsetT said:

And all sides know this and that it would be suicide to nuke anyone similarly armed as you immediately get nuked back. Thats why it is so effective as a deterrent. The only worry is a lunatic on the button, or someone suicidal, or, even better, a suicidal lunatic!

 

They should know so. That's why it's really bad news to hear nuclear weapon powers to bring the use of the weapons in to discussion. 

 

Then there is even more. Russia is rumoured to have a dead hand switch, which launches full strike, in case it thinks that the command posts are lost. http://rbth.com/defence/2014/04/03/ultimate_deterrent_how_the_russian_perimeter_system_works_35633.html

Now, if someone would allocate for example 200 Million USD to 'hack' the system and to launch the attack? This could include increase tension levels between USA and Russia (already happening). Perhaps include some radiation sources located close by the system detectors. Trumplers / shakers, which are used to cause small earthquakes for finding oil depositories etc. Interrupting signals between the dead hand switch and the command posts.. 

 

Yeah, nukes are really bad thing to have on this planet. 

[tropo]

6 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

 

 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 doomsday clock is now exactly where it was from 1984 - 8, at 3 minutes to midnight. From 1953 - 1960 it was at 2 minutes.

[Nilats]

15 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

That's not the point.  Russia annexed Crimea illegally.  I'm not sure why many don't understand this.  Sure, there are some there who'd like to be part of Russia, and some who'd like to stay with Ukraine.  That decision is not up to Russia.  It's up the population of Ukraine.  A nationwide vote should have been held.  But it wasn't.

 

Only those in support of the annexation use ethnicity as a reason.  But it doesn't fly.  I'm not sure what you are ranting on about.  Sorry, but doesn't make sense to me.

 

I'm not ranting and everybody except you I guess can tell that. I'm laying out clear thoughts and facts so you can finally understand what happened there and in Europe as a whole before - you need to see in the whole context of events before and after USSR break up. The fact that Europe and US are using double standards is obvious, and the Russians understand it very clearly. People did vote in Crimea and something like 85-90% wanted to split from Ukraine since a very long time ago, since they had no business being in Ukraine to begin with - this Union with Ukraine was FORCED upon them against their will. The fact that nobody in the west is willing to recognize that is a clear demonstration that nobody in the West has any principles at all. If you say Crimean reunification with Russia was illegal then Reunification of FRG with GDR was also illegal and Merkel should give East Germany up and let it be a separate sovereign state, as it was such recognized by every country in the world.

 

Also Crimea declared independence just before they voted to join Russia, so technically we are looking at exactly the same case here legally. And a few days before that there was a coup in Ukraine where the government was seized by a group of people who declared the Ukrainian Constitution void, so Crimea was under no obligation to follow any regulations of the Ukrainian constitution - the new government in Kiev had nullified it themselves. There was nothing illegal about the Crimean declaration of independence.

[Morch]

7 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.

 

Should...could...What does it have to do with increasing the number of nuclear weapons?

 

Russia does a good job of making itself a villain, and if you haven't watched some state sponsored Russian news, may want to do so, a bit of an eye opener when it comes to vilification of the West in general and US specifically. Perhaps time for Russia to play nice. And it will take more than your unsupported opinion to prove that Russia is not a threat.

 

 

 

[dunroaming]

Meanwhile back in the sandpit.....  I guess when you have a pen*s the size of Trumps you need to have more nukes then anyone else.  Clearly Trump and Putin seeing who can piss higher up the toilet wall.  Actually both sides have more than enough nukes to take out any country many times over.  Maybe they both think they need enough to take out the whole world just in case the whole world turns against them.  Paranoia doesn't really cover it!

 

Still in the real world it doesn't actually mean anything to add more nukes, if that is what these children want to spend their peoples money on.  It's just posturing in the playground. 

[elgordo38]

I just hope they do not sit at a table and settle the issue with an arm wrestling contest. 

[Baerboxer]

4 hours 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

 

 

A little of topic - sorry for that. No Scotland had a independence referendum where the majority who voted wanted to stay. The remaining 92% of the UK's population didn't get a vote. The SNP are contriving another referendum which they again expect to restrict to less than 10% of the population.

 

Crimea was only part of Ukraine after Ukranian born Kruschev gave to to them when he was President of the USSR in the 50's.

 

I saw today that the US and Russia have around 7k nuclear warheads each with the US currently deploying circa 1.8k and Russia slightly less. Don't know what all the other nuclear capable countries have but for comparison the UK has 215!

 

Worrying where this will end up - is Trump looking to carve things up with Putin at the expense of Eastern Europe and China? Or is he just positioning ready for the negotiations once he's in office? Dangerous times could be just around the corner.

[Acharn]

Well, Hillary will be pleased. Obama looked like he would succeed in reducing nuclear stockpiles until the Deep State (probably John Brennan) whispered in his ear, "Remember Dallas, 1963."

[ilostmypassword]

5 hours 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.

Why should Russians get to vote on a region that was not theirs but belonged to Crimean Tatars? ANd the Russians are still persecuting them.

[Scott]

Please re-read the OP and stay on topic.

 

 

[optad]

The real problem with erant, or even semi serious comments like those in the OP from Trump is that it only takes one nuclear player to start testing again and they all want to test again with new technology systems et al. 

 

Indicative video which is dated now, but tracks all testing month by month from 1945 -1998 and the location. Over 2300 tests conducted. Frightening stuff which i thought was a memory. Early sixties is chaos.

 

 

 

Edited December 23, 2016 by optad

[Nilats]

It could be just one of those Trump things. He toyed around with Romney nomination and only to ditch him at the last moment and nominate somebody completely different. Let's wait till he gets into office and then we can see what he's actually going to do. I hope they can work it out and improve relations as each side declared they wanted to.

 

He might be just playing to be a tough guy against Putin at the moment to make sure the Opposition - establishment, etc don't try to do something stupid and provoke a confrontation with Russia before Trump gets into office. Statements like this actually defuse the tensions in the last month before Trump gets into office. He keeps ball to himself to make sure the Establishment and Obama don't get to play it themselves.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, optad said:

The real problem with erant, or even semi serious comments like those in the OP from Trump is that it only takes one nuclear player to start testing again and they all want to test again with new technology systems et al. 

 

Indicative video which is dated now, but tracks all testing month by month from 1945 -1998 and the location. Over 2300 tests conducted. Frightening stuff which i thought was a memory. Early sixties is chaos.

 

This video, compared to the earlier 1984 video, should raise the obvious question: "But where there  would be a Nuclear winter, if the 2300 nuclear detonations didn't cause one?"

The answer is in both timespan of the detonations, but much more importantly, where the detonations did happen. Nuclear test sites are generally located in deserts with very little material that can ignite and burn. Cities have a lot of burnable material, this starts from building's interiours and comes all the way to asphalt pavements of the roads. During a nuclear war, there is nobody to stop the fires, which will burn until the fires end naturally. 

 

 

[rabas]

30 minutes ago, Nilats said:

 

Explain why shouldn't they - they are an absolute majority and the area was defacto Russia for more than 300 years. Better ask why Americans should get to vote on a land that's not theirs and who belonged to some other peoples but the Americans exterminated them all... Also imo the accounts of persecution at the moment are exaggerated. Crimean Tatars are citizens just like any other citizens - and have all the rights as any other ethnicities, they can also vote.

 

I think because  the Russian government (i.e., Putin, not the Russian people) is being judged in the West for it's military adventurism and proxy war into the Ukraine, which contradicts and confutes the official state dogma which you provide here.

 

It's my view that Russia and America, and even Europe are, should be, natural allies. In the long term we will need to be. But we will not get there this way. The Russian and American people have never for one minute been enemies.

[optad]

48 minutes ago, oilinki said:

 

This video, compared to the earlier 1984 video, should raise the obvious question: "But where there  would be a Nuclear winter, if the 2300 nuclear detonations didn't cause one?"

The answer is in both timespan of the detonations, but much more importantly, where the detonations did happen. Nuclear test sites are generally located in deserts with very little material that can ignite and burn. Cities have a lot of burnable material, this starts from building's interiours and comes all the way to asphalt pavements of the roads. During a nuclear war, there is nobody to stop the fires, which will burn until the fires end naturally. 

 

 

I think the video suggests that testing is a competitive arena for nation states. Coupled with the gross advancement of technology possibly takes us back to place where things might not be able to be contained. Nuclear destructive capacity is phenomenally beyond the tests of the 1990s now.

 

Cannot allow testing to recommence. Opening permissibly new nuclear discussions beggars, down the track, some kind of testing regime. 

Edited December 23, 2016 by optad
sp

[Thakkar]

6 hours ago, tropo said:

The doomsday clock is now exactly where it was from 1984 - 8, at 3 minutes to midnight. From 1953 - 1960 it was at 2 minutes.

 

Phew.

*wipes sweat off brow*

That's a relief. I've got time for a cigarette.

 

Thanks!

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, optad said:

I think the video suggests that testing is a competitive arena for nation states. Coupled with the gross advancement of technology possibly takes us back to place where things might be able to be contained. Nuclear destructive capacity is phenomenally beyond the tests of the 1990s now.

 

Cannot allow testing to recommence. Opening permissibly new nuclear discussions beggars, down the track, some kind of testing regime. 

In this fast moving world we are living, we have to say things as those are. None of us, nor none of our loved ones would survive a nuclear confrontation. It doesn't even matter how small the confrontation really is as in case of nuclear war, it's going to escalate to full scale blowout. 

I think it's purely idiotic that we possess weapons, which can literally wipe the life off this planet. It's even more idiotic that we have few designated people in power to have this power against us all.

 

We have seen the rise of the powerhungry, narcissistic folks to lead the nations which have nuclear weapons. If those people don't understand the devastation these weapons cause, we have a real and big problem. 

 

This applies to USA, Russia and Israel. Each should have smarter than the leader advisers surrounded these presidents. These countries need far more smarter advisors, than the current and tobe presidents are.

I do wish our world and humanity to survive. I'm not anymore too sure we actually will.

 

This is an issue of global politics, not just US or any other country politics anymore. 
 

[rabas]

37 minutes ago, optad said:

I think the video suggests that testing is a competitive arena for nation states. Coupled with the gross advancement of technology possibly takes us back to place where things might be able to be contained. Nuclear destructive capacity is phenomenally beyond the tests of the 1990s now.

 

Cannot allow testing to recommence. Opening permissibly new nuclear discussions beggars, down the track, some kind of testing regime. 

 

They can design new nuclear weapons directly on computers.  In many cases they do not need to test a fully assembled weapon, much of the physics can be tested on a small scale, which is one potential use for the National Ignition Facility.

 

Yes, thermonuclear bombs developed in the 1950s were vastly more powerful than early atomic bombs. They do not even build them that big now. What is real scary  is the development of very small, low radiation, cleaner weapons for tactical use, hitting subs, carriers, etc. That would make it much more tempting to cross the nuclear boundary from a conventional war.

 

Recent threats from Putin to design and upgrade nuclear capabilities are the reason Trump brought this issue up, I'm sure he is being briefed by the defence department on defence needs.

Edited December 23, 2016 by rabas

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, rabas said:

 

Yes, thermonuclear bombs developed in the 1950s were vastly more powerful than early atomic bombs. They do not even build them that big now. What is real scary  is the development of very small, low radiation, cleaner weapons for tactical use, hitting subs, carriers, etc. That would make it much more tempting to cross the nuclear boundary from a conventional to war.

Each nuclear weapon relies on fission, even the fusion bombs. That's how one creates enough energy to detonate fusion bomb, or H-bomb as it's called in USA. Those are called as 2nd stage bombs. There are 3rd stage bombs. 
 

The fact is that the nuclear bombs are the modern day Pandora's box. Once opened by a nuclear power, any of them, it can't no longer be closed. 

Once you hear the news about nuclear explosion against another country, you should be aware that you have maximum of few years to live. After the first explosion the world becomes mad and cant be contained anymore.

"They used the nuclear bomb already, we have plenty of nukes, what are we waiting for? We need to retaliate or we lose it all" - said by each country which have nuclear weapons and stupid people leading the country. 

 

[A1Str8]

Call for more love! These two are competing for a douche medal. 

[tropo]

1 hour ago, Thakkar said:

 

Phew.

*wipes sweat off brow*

That's a relief. I've got time for a cigarette.

 

Thanks!

 

I don't lose sleep over this. Trump will build up the arsenal and we'll all be safe.

[nottocus]

Reset all. Nuke the planet i reckon. Humans heading for extinction so may as well speed it up. Let the cockroach people rule in 100,000 years time when radiation levels are safe