U.S. President Barack Obama meets with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington May 26, 2015. Reuters/Kevin Lamarque
AFP: Russia's nuclear threats 'deeply troubling': NATO chief
Washington (AFP) - Russia's provocative rhetoric on nuclear weapons and its dramatic expansion of flights by nuclear bombers are "deeply troubling" and "dangerous," NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said Wednesday.
Russia's plans to deploy nuclear-capable missiles in Kaliningrad -- near Poland's border -- and its threat to move nuclear forces in Crimea would "fundamentally change the balance of security in Europe," Stoltenberg said in speech during a visit to Washington.
In blunt language, the NATO chief delivered a scathing critique of Russia's behavior over the past year -- including Moscow's armed intervention in Ukraine -- and vowed the transatlantic alliance would redouble its commitment to "collective defense."
Update: NATO: Russia May Use Nuclear Weapons Amid Growing War Fears -- Value Walk
WNU Editor: The Russians are saying the same thing about the West .... Russian Foreign Ministry Official Warns of Threat of Nuclear Expansion (Moscow Times).
17 comments:
WNU Editor,
Shortly after Russia secured Crimea, NATO started to remember that Russia has nukes,
Who was the country (outside from russia) that told they could use nuclear weapons?
Why is it after spending my school years learning how to defend myself from a Russian nuclear attack (crawling under my desk) that i admire the Russian politicians more than my own politicians ..
NATO Doctrine is that at the event of a full on war, "packages" of tactical and theater Nuclear weapons are to be released to individual Area Commanders to be used at their descretion.
Soviet, ( now Russian) doctrine is that any nuclear weapons use is Nuclear War and a full counterstrike is the response, ( mostly because between technological advantages, US anti- ballistic missile systems, numbers and the loss of weapons to a NATO first strike will leave the Russian counter strike massively weakened), and then, there is Perimetyr, and automated "doomsday" launch system for first Soviet, now Russian nukes, also known as " Dead Hand",
The "little" reminder to Denmark earlier this year, was that the NATO doctrine of blockaiding Russia in the Baltic, the Black Sea and the Artic Ocean, while hunting and killing Russian "boomers", is countered by the Soviet Doctrine of using nuclear armed ASW missiles and torpedo's to counter the massive NATO advantage.
During the Cold War, in NATO and US Wargaming, the "best" NATO ever managed was 22 hours before they used tactical nukes, and then it was a full on nuclear war.
The Nuclear Winter Studies, started in the late '70's and continued today, discovered that as little as 150 low yeild nuclear weapons detonated in the Northern Hemisphere, would in as little as 10 years, kill off 99% of all Humans from the cumulative effects.
Once a Nuclear War starts, it's " use 'em or lose 'em", so even if like China, India, Pakistan or Israel, you arn't directly involved, you fire them off at your enemies.
There is somewhere in the area of 16,000 nuclear weapons in the world.
The cockroaches wind up the winners.
Thank you jay for your response. I was about to do a history of U.S. nuclear doctrine starting with the installation of first-strike Pershing missile systems in West Germany in the 1980s .... but your summary is much better.
Do not feel bad JJ. In the 1980s .... many Soviet officials secretly admired Reagan.
Not saying nuclear war is a good idea but I have wondered for a long time if the effects have been over estimated. I can't pin down a number but I've seen counts as high as 2000 tests otaling 540 MT. The U.S alone has already tested over a thousand. It goes unspoken but this planet has already seen "nuclear war".
Ropestuff,
Google "Nuclear Winter". Read up on it.
Unlike nuclear tests, nuclear targets are loaded with "stuff" that burns, from buildings to people, and that "stuff" winds up as ash in the atmosphere, which not only remains radioactive and gradually rains down over decades, but it also cools the earth and shields it from sunlight.
Familiar with nuclear winter. So you are saying the reason the thousands of tests have not destroyed us is because of the sterility of test sites? Interesting. I would have to look into the individual test sites. The U.S desert tests meet that standard, and of course the under water and underground tests. The desert tests might still be iffy because I would expect the blast to turn sand into fallout. My understanding of fallout is that it is a popcorn like substance made of expanded molten mater. Sand would be liquified and and cast into the atmosphere where it would cool in a fluffy formation that would return to earth as fallout. I'm not seeing all of that and the radioactive dust created as different than the substrate in the average city.
Not saying thousands of bombs over cities wouldn't create nuclear winter, but I'm skeptical that 10 low yield weapons would.
Ok. I'm on board J. I guess I would much rather think the effects would be overstated. The quantity of burning material would be key.
As you know Ropestuff I live in Montreal, Quebec and every few years we have massive forest fires up north. The impact .... even though I am a thousand miles away is incredible. The sky and sun changes its hue completely. Now cities burning after being hit with a 200K blast .... and multiple strikes .... it would be many magnitudes greater. But interesting .... when a volcano like Mt. St. Helens blew up a few decades ago .... aircraft were diverted and ash fell .... but the impact had dissipated a few months later. That explosive power was equal to multiple nuclear blasts .... but the climate came back to normal very quickly after that.
There is a lot of contradiction and exaggeration in interpreting the data from these impacts .... but I think we can all agree that we do not want to test the hypothesis by having such a conflict.
Exactly WNUE. May this forever remain in the realm of theoretical puzzling.
For those curious, google "The Year with out Summer".
It's also that the tests were all one off's,
A nuclear strike would be almost simultanious dentonations of hundreds of large yeild nuclear weapons.
During the Cold War "tactical" nukes were developed to counter areas in conventional and nuclear was where it was believed the OpFor had overwhelming advantage.
So, to counter the non-existant "bomber gap", between the US and the USSR, the Genie AARAM was built, anlong with the nuclear tipped Bomarc SAM. The non-existant "massive" Soviet Bomber fleets would be swept from the sky by 20kt missiles that just needed to come close.
To stop Warsaw Pact Armies, 8 inch artillary shells, nuclear landmines, nuclear grenades, small yeild gravity bombs, even the Davy Crocket, a nuclear tipped recoiless rifle.
To neutralize the US Aircraft Carrier groups and NATO Sub Hunters, the USSR developed nuclear cruise missiles, torpedos, air launched ASW missiles.
All nuclear countries, developed policies, because of the massive losses caused by only a few tactical weapons being used for what they were designed, that countered the use of tactical nukes, with a counterstrike of full nukes.
As Brodie put it after he retired, ( the guy who developed at Rand, all of the possible theories and strategies around nuclear weapons), the only country you can actually use a Nuke against, is somebody who doesn't have nukes, and doesn't have allies that have nukes.
BTW, nobody has tested to see if a nuclear tipped AA missile, would dentonate a bomber fleets onboard cargo of large yeild nukes.
Thank you for reminding me of "The Year with out Summer".
I never said it before to you Jay .... but I always enjoy reading your summary of info and facts on an issue. Sometimes I agree .... sometimes I disagree .... but I am always learning something new. Thank you.
Post a Comment