RugbyRebels

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 78876.html

A nuke that can wipe out 3/4 of New York state.

That's a big bucket of sunshine!

Purely a defensive weapon, of course.

Lobb it into Brooklyn to de-gentrify it and cleanse the area of repulsive hipsters.

Whilst the West's nuclear arsenal just promote good health and crop growth???

WaspInWales wrote:Whilst the West's nuclear arsenal just promote good health and crop growth???

Lol. Is this piece of whataboutery meant to convince us that this new Russian development is meaningless?

"Nothing to see here - nothing like a new arms race or anything"

Stones of granite wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:Whilst the West's nuclear arsenal just promote good health and crop growth???

Lol. Is this piece of whataboutery meant to convince us that this new Russian development is meaningless?

"Nothing to see here - nothing like a new arms race or anything"

Of course there is something to see here. Its f*cking terrifying.

It may, just may, have to do with more NATO and US troops along the Russian border since WWII (I see the UK has sent a thousand more today), it may have something to do with the increasing number of first strike missile defence systems being built around them. And we will say this is in response to their actions in Crimea, for which Russia will say was in response to the west backing a military coup, which we will say is in response to etc... etc...

There are two sides to this conflict. Putin didn't just wake up one day and decide "you know what, fuck it, I'm going to be a fucking Bond-Villain". Adam Curtis has done a couple of decent documentaries on the BBC about how extremely complicated political issues have now been distilled down into good (the West) versus evil (everyone who doesn't open themselves up to private investment; a definition given by the CIA director, not me) to appeal to a dumbed down generation.

We are all losers from this, but I think what WiW is pointing out is its not like the west hasn't been developing their own types of nuclear weapons and military systems. Russia isn't unilaterally deciding to begin the Cold War again.

jared_7 wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:Whilst the West's nuclear arsenal just promote good health and crop growth???

Lol. Is this piece of whataboutery meant to convince us that this new Russian development is meaningless?

"Nothing to see here - nothing like a new arms race or anything"

Of course there is something to see here. Its f*cking terrifying.

It may, just may, have to do with more NATO and US troops along the Russian border since WWII (I see the UK has sent a thousand more today), it may have something to do with the increasing number of first strike missile defence systems being built around them. And we will say this is in response to their actions in Crimea, for which Russia will say was in response to the west backing a military coup, which we will say is in response to etc... etc...

There are two sides to this conflict. Putin didn't just wake up one day and decide "you know what, fuck it, I'm going to be a fucking Bond-Villain". Adam Curtis has done a couple of decent documentaries on the BBC about how extremely complicated political issues have now been distilled down into good (the West) versus evil (everyone who doesn't open themselves up to private investment; a definition given by the CIA director, not me) to appeal to a dumbed down generation.

We are all losers from this, but I think what WiW is pointing out is its not like the west hasn't been developing their own types of nuclear weapons and military systems. Russia isn't unilaterally deciding to begin the Cold War again.

What nuclear weapon delivery systems has the West been developing since the end of the Cold War?

"Russia isn't unilaterally deciding to begin the Cold War again"
Perhaps not, but the introduction of this delivery system IS unilaterally re-starting the arms race. There is no nuclear weapons delivery system in any NATO country's inventory that comes remotely close to the capability of this system.

Mind you, with the state of Russia's economy at the moment, there is a fair chance an arms race will turn out bankrupting them again.

Stones of granite wrote:What nuclear weapon delivery systems has the West been developing since the end of the Cold War?

"Russia isn't unilaterally deciding to begin the Cold War again"
Perhaps not, but the introduction of this delivery system IS unilaterally re-starting the arms race. There is no nuclear weapons delivery system in any NATO country's inventory that comes remotely close to the capability of this system.

Mind you, with the state of Russia's economy at the moment, there is a fair chance an arms race will turn out bankrupting them again.

Are you saying the US hasn't been upgrading its nuclear arsenal at all? Or are you specifically talking about delivery systems?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/12/scien ... .html?_r=0

The US and NATO basically has free reign over most of the world, US ships are free to roam where they please (compare with Russia sending their Naval ship through the ed at the moment) and basically any country will allow troops and weapons systems in their backyard. Missile defence systems have been built in countries neighbouring Russia; can you imagine if Russia was to build one in Mexico? Well we know what would happen, the Cuban missile crisis, exactly as we are seeing playing out in reverse here.

I'm not Rowan, I'm not trying to be a patsy for Russia or China, or anti-West. I'm just recognising these actions aren't taking in place in isolation.

If you read the article posted, or any other for that matter, you are getting a spin, our spin. It is all on Russia; tensions are high because THEY acted in the Ukraine, THEY are the ones building these destructive weapons. There is either no mention of anything the US or NATO are doing or have done, and if there is it is always that they are reacting to aggression, rather than causing it.

The solution to this imminent crisis is diplomacy, one side starting by backing down, troops being pulled, systems being removed, sanctions being altered. On both sides. But that wont happen and once again it is because both sides are not prepared to; but driven mainly by the US (a number of EU countries have expressed desire to lighten strategy against Russia, and have been shot down).

Russia is being tactically squeezed in a number of ways and this was always going to be their reaction.

jared_7 wrote: If you read the article posted, or any other for that matter, you are getting a spin, our spin. It is all on Russia; tensions are high because THEY acted in the Ukraine, THEY are the ones building these destructive weapons. There is either no mention of anything the US or NATO are doing or have done, and if there is it is always that they are reacting to aggression, rather than causing it.

The solution to this imminent crisis is diplomacy, one side starting by backing down, troops being pulled, systems being removed, sanctions being altered. On both sides. But that wont happen and once again it is because both sides are not prepared to; but driven mainly by the US (a number of EU countries have expressed desire to lighten strategy against Russia, and have been shot down).

Russia is being tactically squeezed in a number of ways and this was always going to be their reaction.

All for control of energy resources. It's sickening.
I had to laugh at the 'would you rather have a few blackouts or WWIII....? quote'.
I've never been close to the upper echelons of government/corporate decision making/nefarious machinations but I sure hope they got the same answer as the rest of us.

I'd hoped nuclear brinkmanship was a thing we'd filed alongside flat world/dragons/aliens and English chivalry. That the very people who seem prepared to play this game are also some of the most powerful people on the planet is a poor indictment of democracy and any pride we might take in the word civilization is totally gone.
As the situation ramps up,....Corbyn saying he would never press the button in any situation reflects my view the best.

WaspInWales wrote:Whilst the West's nuclear arsenal just promote good health and crop growth???

No, no, no.....our ones open a hidden portal to a staircase that leads into a secret world full of toys and sweets.

jared_7 wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:What nuclear weapon delivery systems has the West been developing since the end of the Cold War?

"Russia isn't unilaterally deciding to begin the Cold War again"
Perhaps not, but the introduction of this delivery system IS unilaterally re-starting the arms race. There is no nuclear weapons delivery system in any NATO country's inventory that comes remotely close to the capability of this system.

Mind you, with the state of Russia's economy at the moment, there is a fair chance an arms race will turn out bankrupting them again.

Are you saying the US hasn't been upgrading its nuclear arsenal at all? Or are you specifically talking about delivery systems?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/12/scien ... .html?_r=0

The US and NATO basically has free reign over most of the world, US ships are free to roam where they please (compare with Russia sending their Naval ship through the ed at the moment) and basically any country will allow troops and weapons systems in their backyard. Missile defence systems have been built in countries neighbouring Russia; can you imagine if Russia was to build one in Mexico? Well we know what would happen, the Cuban missile crisis, exactly as we are seeing playing out in reverse here.

I'm not Rowan, I'm not trying to be a patsy for Russia or China, or anti-West. I'm just recognising these actions aren't taking in place in isolation.

If you read the article posted, or any other for that matter, you are getting a spin, our spin. It is all on Russia; tensions are high because THEY acted in the Ukraine, THEY are the ones building these destructive weapons. There is either no mention of anything the US or NATO are doing or have done, and if there is it is always that they are reacting to aggression, rather than causing it.

The solution to this imminent crisis is diplomacy, one side starting by backing down, troops being pulled, systems being removed, sanctions being altered. On both sides. But that wont happen and once again it is because both sides are not prepared to; but driven mainly by the US (a number of EU countries have expressed desire to lighten strategy against Russia, and have been shot down).

Russia is being tactically squeezed in a number of ways and this was always going to be their reaction.

Two things. Firstly the article you linked to is about smaller nuclear weapons, not strategic ones. Secondly, the whole discussion is about delivery systems. The new Russian system is intended to replace an existing delivery system but with a level of capability an order higher than anything they or the West have.
I don't see how you can compare anti-missile systems with the nuclear delivery systems that the USSR were trying to deploy during the Cuban missile crisis. Well, at least not unless you are deliberately creating a false dichotomy. You do know, don't you, that Russia has installed their S400 system with anti-missile and anti-aircraft capability in Syria, which has large areas of Turkey and the RAF base in Cyprus within range? Is this a "first-strike weapon"?

You mentioned in your earlier post that we have announced that we are sending a few hundred troops to the Baltic states, but of course you didn't mention the Russian exercise just over the border involving 35,000 troops which is rehearsing an invasion of the Baltic states. I wonder why.

Of course you're doing a Rowan. All of this discussion is just to distract attention from the fact that Russia has unilaterally massively increased the stakes with a step-change in nuclear weapons delivery, and kicked off a new arms race.

I was in Russia for about a month a little over a year ago. Whenever we ate, the waiters apologised that there was no cheese because of Western sanctions. Putin has got them believing that the import ban on cheese that he imposed is actually Western sanctions. When I mentioned this to our Russian colleagues (we have an office in Moscow) they just shrugged.

Stones of granite wrote:Two things. Firstly the article you linked to is about smaller nuclear weapons, not strategic ones. Secondly, the whole discussion is about delivery systems. The new Russian system is intended to replace an existing delivery system but with a level of capability an order higher than anything they or the West have.
I don't see how you can compare anti-missile systems with the nuclear delivery systems that the USSR were trying to deploy during the Cuban missile crisis. Well, at least not unless you are deliberately creating a false dichotomy. You do know, don't you, that Russia has installed their S400 system with anti-missile and anti-aircraft capability in Syria, which has large areas of Turkey and the RAF base in Cyprus within range? Is this a "first-strike weapon"?

This article is about delivery systems and you are trying to limit it to such, like it is occurring in isolation to everything else that is happening in the world. "Defence" systems encircling a country on the other side of the world are not defence systems, they are acts of aggression. The US has developed small nuclear weapons, why? The only thing making them smaller does is make them more likely to be used. That is just as scary.

Stones of granite wrote:You mentioned in your earlier post that we have announced that we are sending a few hundred troops to the Baltic states, but of course you didn't mention the Russian exercise just over the border involving 35,000 troops which is rehearsing an invasion of the Baltic states. I wonder why.

Is it??!?!

Stones of granite wrote:Of course you're doing a Rowan. All of this discussion is just to distract attention from the fact that Russia has unilaterally massively increased the stakes with a step-change in nuclear weapons delivery, and kicked off a new arms race.

Bullshit. I'm not distracting from anything. This fucking scares me. I just want the resolution to be deescalation, not further escalation. This is a culmination of a number of steps from both sides. It wasn't fucking tellytubby happy land and then Putin came out of nowhere and decided to just ruin it all and build big fuck off nuke.

Stones of granite wrote:I was in Russia for about a month a little over a year ago. Whenever we ate, the waiters apologised that there was no cheese because of Western sanctions. Putin has got them believing that the import ban on cheese that he imposed is actually Western sanctions. When I mentioned this to our Russian colleagues (we have an office in Moscow) they just shrugged.

Its amazing what propaganda can do, isn't it?

Now, do you think that we are inherently more intelligent than the Russian population? Is it some form of racism? Are they stupid? I ask, of course, because its amazing such large swathes of the population have been so duped, yet it is unconscionable that the same thing is happening to us. Must just be our superior genes, I guess?

jared_7 wrote:Must just be our superior genes, I guess?

Russian jeans are shyte!

jared_7 wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:Whilst the West's nuclear arsenal just promote good health and crop growth???

Lol. Is this piece of whataboutery meant to convince us that this new Russian development is meaningless?

"Nothing to see here - nothing like a new arms race or anything"

Of course there is something to see here. Its f*cking terrifying.

It may, just may, have to do with more NATO and US troops along the Russian border since WWII (I see the UK has sent a thousand more today), it may have something to do with the increasing number of first strike missile defence systems being built around them. And we will say this is in response to their actions in Crimea, for which Russia will say was in response to the west backing a military coup, which we will say is in response to etc... etc...

There are two sides to this conflict. Putin didn't just wake up one day and decide "you know what, fuck it, I'm going to be a fucking Bond-Villain". Adam Curtis has done a couple of decent documentaries on the BBC about how extremely complicated political issues have now been distilled down into good (the West) versus evil (everyone who doesn't open themselves up to private investment; a definition given by the CIA director, not me) to appeal to a dumbed down generation.

We are all losers from this, but I think what WiW is pointing out is its not like the west hasn't been developing their own types of nuclear weapons and military systems. Russia isn't unilaterally deciding to begin the Cold War again.

Well it was more the fact that our weapons are already more than capable of wiping out rather large areas and decimating life at will too.

I thought the thread was going to be about briefcase bombs. I seem to remember they were the big worry not so long ago.

I don't see how this changes anything (in terms of what nukes ca do). Since WW2 there's been enough yield to wipe out humanity many times over.

Most of the advances made with nukes have been in Ballistic Missile Defence systems.

jared_7 wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:
Are you saying the US hasn't been upgrading its nuclear arsenal at all? Or are you specifically talking about delivery systems?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/12/scien ... .html?_r=0

The seppo taxpayer spends billions on defence. They're always upgrading.

Interesting article, but I'm not sure what your point is? Nuclear tipped missiles have been around for a long time. Sure, it looks like they can do all kinds of cool stuff with this toy: it's precise, the yield can be varied, and it can do bunker buster shyte that has been around for a long time, but that fighter/bomber has to get past hostile radar first. They ain't going to get through Russian defences with their latest generation of fighter.

Vengeful Glutton wrote:

jared_7 wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:
Are you saying the US hasn't been upgrading its nuclear arsenal at all? Or are you specifically talking about delivery systems?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/12/scien ... .html?_r=0

The seppo taxpayer spends billions on defence. They're always upgrading.

Interesting article, but I'm not sure what your point is? Nuclear tipped missiles have been around for a long time. Sure, it looks like they can do all kinds of cool stuff with this toy: it's precise, the yield can be varied, and it can do bunker buster shyte that has been around for a long time, but that fighter/bomber has to get past hostile radar first. They ain't going to get through Russian defences with their latest generation of fighter.

To be honest, the article didn't need to be posted. Its obvious all countries are constantly upgrading their weapons, whether it is delivery method, how much damage they do, guidance capabilities, whatever.

My point was, to say that Russia has unilaterally started the arms race again, by using a deliberately, extremely narrow definition of what upgrades "count", is ridiculous.

jared_7 wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:Two things. Firstly the article you linked to is about smaller nuclear weapons, not strategic ones. Secondly, the whole discussion is about delivery systems. The new Russian system is intended to replace an existing delivery system but with a level of capability an order higher than anything they or the West have.
I don't see how you can compare anti-missile systems with the nuclear delivery systems that the USSR were trying to deploy during the Cuban missile crisis. Well, at least not unless you are deliberately creating a false dichotomy. You do know, don't you, that Russia has installed their S400 system with anti-missile and anti-aircraft capability in Syria, which has large areas of Turkey and the RAF base in Cyprus within range? Is this a "first-strike weapon"?

This article is about delivery systems and you are trying to limit it to such, like it is occurring in isolation to everything else that is happening in the world. "Defence" systems encircling a country on the other side of the world are not defence systems, they are acts of aggression. The US has developed small nuclear weapons, why? The only thing making them smaller does is make them more likely to be used. That is just as scary.

Stones of granite wrote:You mentioned in your earlier post that we have announced that we are sending a few hundred troops to the Baltic states, but of course you didn't mention the Russian exercise just over the border involving 35,000 troops which is rehearsing an invasion of the Baltic states. I wonder why.

Is it??!?!

Stones of granite wrote:Of course you're doing a Rowan. All of this discussion is just to distract attention from the fact that Russia has unilaterally massively increased the stakes with a step-change in nuclear weapons delivery, and kicked off a new arms race.

Bullshit. I'm not distracting from anything. This fucking scares me. I just want the resolution to be deescalation, not further escalation. This is a culmination of a number of steps from both sides. It wasn't fucking tellytubby happy land and then Putin came out of nowhere and decided to just ruin it all and build big fuck off nuke.

Stones of granite wrote:I was in Russia for about a month a little over a year ago. Whenever we ate, the waiters apologised that there was no cheese because of Western sanctions. Putin has got them believing that the import ban on cheese that he imposed is actually Western sanctions. When I mentioned this to our Russian colleagues (we have an office in Moscow) they just shrugged.

Now, do you think that we are inherently more intelligent than the Russian population?

No I don't. So, I guess the rest of your sneering post is redundant.

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:
Russian jeans are shyte!

She was Da bomb/shoot the the bomb. In the heat of battle who knows what was said...?.