Russia v. USA Worldviews & Nuclear Security

[REALHumanRights]

Russia v. USA Worldviews & Nuclear Security

In October 4, 2022 Wall Street Journal, Hudson Institute's Walter Russell Mead writes an opinion column: "Putin's Nuclear Threat Is Real - The conflict isn't only about Ukraine. He's waging a global war on the U.S.-led order."

Mr. Mead writes about Russia dictator Putin: "the threat he poses to vital American interests must not be underestimated." I note this is a very different issue than Russia dictator Putin vs. NATO interests or European interests, but is following a direct and specifically targeted threat to USA itself. My perception is 20 years after 9/11, USA is back to belief that its homeland is once again invulnerable, untouchable, and issues of war happen... somewhere else... and are someone else's problem (e.g., Ukraine). But lack of USA-specific defenses should give pause on this. Our military and intelligence all wave away the possibility of any attacks on the USA homeland as "improbable." But haven't we heard this before? When fanatics with boxcutters were able commit horrific deaths and damage in NYC and DC, should we really continue to ignore Russia threats as only "improbable"?

Mr. Mead writes: "As the Biden administration scrambles to manage the most dangerous international confrontation since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, it must see the world through Mr. Putin’s eyes. Only then can officials know how seriously to take the nuclear saber-rattling and develop an appropriate response. While American presidents going back to George W. Bush have failed to appreciate the depth and passion of Mr. Putin’s hostility to the U.S., the Russian president isn’t that hard to read."

"Building a global front against Western and especially American power is central to Russian and Chinese foreign policy. Mr. Putin’s version of the anti-American worldview gives a special role to Russia. 'I would like to remind you that in the past, ambitions of world domination have repeatedly shattered against the courage and resilience of our people,' Mr. Putin told his audience in the Kremlin on Friday. In this view, Russia is the bulwark of the rest of the world against Western aggression and domination. And for Mr. Putin, the conquest of Ukraine is an essential step in preserving Russia’s ability to carry out its historic mission to curb the ambitions of the imperial West."

Separate from this article (and totally ignored by USA media), last week among four recent nuclear war threats from Russia to USA, the Russian Foreign Ministry specifically threatened the USA Department of Defense, stating the USA "Department of Defense should not doubt our determination to defend Russia national sovereignty, territorial integrity, and people by all weapon systems available to us."




Tuesday, September 21, 2022 - Russia President Vladimir Putin makes nuclear war threat.
Tuesday, September 27, 2022 - Russia Deputy Chairman of the Security Council Dmitry Medeved repeats nuclear war threat
Thursday, September 29, 2022 - Russia Foreign Ministry makes nuclear threat to USA DoD
Friday, September 30, 2022 - Russia President Vladimir Putin repeats nuclear threat during annexation speech.

 

[REALHumanRights]

Newsweek: "Biden Thinks Non-Nuclear Threats Will Stop Putin. His Military Doesn't" -- 'to deter Putin from using nuclear weapons in the first place, the officers say, the United States needs to talk the nuclear talk—and not be held back by the fear of having to walk the walk. 'We're in uncharted territory,' says a senior intelligence officer. 'Threatening to respond forcefully and creating catastrophic consequences for Russia [without] suggesting nuclear war: Is that strong enough to deter Putin? And is it really clear? I'm not so sure.' "

 

[Irag8er]

Newsweek: "Biden Thinks Non-Nuclear Threats Will Stop Putin. His Military Doesn't" -- 'to deter Putin from using nuclear weapons in the first place, the officers say, the United States needs to talk the nuclear talk—and not be held back by the fear of having to walk the walk. 'We're in uncharted territory,' says a senior intelligence officer. 'Threatening to respond forcefully and creating catastrophic consequences for Russia [without] suggesting nuclear war: Is that strong enough to deter Putin? And is it really clear? I'm not so sure.' "

Whatever opinion we may hold in regards to Putin, I have to think he knows what the repose would be , ALL possible response scenarios. Now will that knowledge deter Putin?.........................

 

[REALHumanRights]

Whatever opinion we may hold in regards to Putin, I have to think he knows what the repose would be , ALL possible response scenarios. Now will that knowledge deter Putin?.........................

I think the fundamental challenge is that if possible scenarios of a nuclear exchange are not detering some "anonymous" figures speaking to the media, who are reportedly from USA military/intelligence from asking if nuclear attacks would be needed, why would it deter Russia dictator Putin with an actual military war literally outside Russia's borders? That is the problem I see.

We can rightly condemn and reject the Russia dictator Putin's comments and actions, while still questioning what a USA response to a nuclear strike anywhere will really be. The DoD Secretary back in April talked about the need to use the Ukraine war to weaken the Russia military, and USA POTUS called for removal of the Russia dictator Putin. In USA, we read these and consider these are just and right responses to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. But others can read these differently and consider them threats to Russia's government, righteous or not. If things were reversed, I wonder what USA view would be.

Biden says of Putin: 'For God's sake, this man cannot remain in power'

President Biden's remark about Russian President Vladimir Putin came in a speech in Warsaw. A White House official later said Biden "was not discussing Putin's power in Russia, or regime change."

www.npr.org

 

[Yingyang]

Like these. See as an enemy to Russia most people think positively and believe it will move in a desirable future for themselves. Problem is unless you think like your enemy and try to understand that enemies train of thought, regardless of own belief of right or wrong, you'll underestimate that enemy and or possibly overestimate yourself. That is when shit goes horribly wrong. Back in the day there was 1 winner in such scenario . Nowadays everyone losses. If you can't get in his head , then chances are the outcome won't be desirable.

 

[Fascist lite]

So by adhering to this opinion you are being coerced into submitting to a leader who you believe is potentially willing to launch a nuclear strike. So that he can hold on to gains he made in a war of aggression.
What does this tell him if he is successful and where might it lead to next?

There are no outside arbitrators, no police, or courts that will prevent this type nuclear threat diplomacy from being used again.
Does it not encourage Putin or another nations from using it again.

I’m sorry to me that is just kicking the can down the road.

 

[REALHumanRights]

There are no outside arbitrators, no police, or courts that will prevent this type nuclear threat diplomacy from being used again.
Does it not encourage Putin or another nations from using it again.

Agree, and there never have been for the past 60 years. Right?
During the Cold War with the USSR, we had internal communications with people in the USSR to work to prevent this from getting conflict to such a point, in addition to MAD. We viewed and (the USSR viewed) themselves in these discussion as among "equals in power." We did and didn't do things, considering the USSR's reaction and/or despite the USSR's reaction, but we seriously took it into consideration. We fought vehemently with USSR. Kruschev threatened to "bury" us. But we stayed away from the USSR's border, and expected the same from them. I am not making a judgment that this was right or wrong, just reporting what I remember over those 30 years.

Kicking the can down the road was absolutely our primary strategy with the USSR. I completely understand how we don't want to hear that, especially with horrors in Ukraine, and how unpopular that is. And I agree with how unpopular all of that is as well. But history shows we basically waited the USSR out. I am sorry if that sounds disrepectful to great anti-Communist leaders like JFK (and others) who confronted Kruschev about Cuba 60 years ago, but after they withdrew, even Kennedy kicked the can down the road. Our proxy war in Vietnam against Communism was 5000 miles from the USSR border. And it was a debacle that we lost.

 

[Fascist lite]

Agree, and there never have been for the past 60 years. Right?
During the Cold War with the USSR, we had internal communications with people in the USSR to work to prevent this from getting conflict to such a point, in addition to MAD. We viewed and (the USSR viewed) themselves in these discussion as among "equals in power." We did and didn't do things, considering the USSR's reaction and/or despite the USSR's reaction, but we seriously took it into consideration. We fought vehemently with USSR. Kruschev threatened to "bury" us. But we stayed away from the USSR's border, and expected the same from them. I am not making a judgment that this was right or wrong, just reporting what I remember over those 30 years.

Kicking the can down the road was absolutely our primary strategy with the USSR. I completely understand how we don't want to hear that, especially with horrors in Ukraine, and how unpopular that is. And I agree with how unpopular all of that is as well. But history shows we basically waited the USSR out. I am sorry if that sounds disrepectful to great anti-Communist leaders like JFK (and others) who confronted Kruschev about Cuba 60 years ago, but after they withdrew, even Kennedy kicked the can down the road. Our proxy war in Vietnam against Communism was 5000 miles from the USSR border. And it was a debacle that we lost.

Do not agree with your comparison.
Not the same thing.

 

[Yingyang]

So by adhering to this opinion you are being coerced into submitting to a leader who you believe is potentially willing to launch a nuclear strike. So that he can hold on to gains he made in a war of aggression.
What does this tell him if he is successful and where might it lead to next?

There are no outside arbitrators, no police, or courts that will prevent this type nuclear threat diplomacy from being used again.
Does it not encourage Putin or another nations from using it again.

I’m sorry to me that is just kicking the can down the road.

Love the war of aggression statement. I guess if it wasn’t aggression the war would be justified. After all previous wars were never based on this excuse of unexceptable aggression. Previous wars were justified? C-mon. people that fight generally both wake up sore in the morning. Aggressor or not. I know because that is what I state to the dickead or dickheads what you call aggressor. Eg. My statement to aggressor- sure I'm in because win or lose we will both wake up sore in the morning. You see I know there is a chance I might not wake up in the morning, but I ain't gonna bitching about an aggressor if I'm dead because nothing bothers you when your dead. Any other undesirable outcome is the risk you take for standing up. If someone joins the military for battle on either side you shouldn't feel sorry for them because of lack of whatever or think it's funny they are dying. Simply because that individual should have already resided to the fact of giving their life for the cause. And if they don't agree to the cause then they shouldn't have risked joining because orders are orders. So you sit back and enjoy the show bag out Putin, bag out Russia and be confident tomorrow is just another day. Because I'm sure the families of your enemies current and past probably think the same way you are. oh and I should mention it isn't just families of the enemies that suffer. and I'm an advocate of fighting as much as I'm against it.

 

[Fascist lite]

Agree, and there never have been for the past 60 years. Right?
During the Cold War with the USSR, we had internal communications with people in the USSR to work to prevent this from getting conflict to such a point, in addition to MAD. We viewed and (the USSR viewed) themselves in these discussion as among "equals in power." We did and didn't do things, considering the USSR's reaction and/or despite the USSR's reaction, but we seriously took it into consideration. We fought vehemently with USSR. Kruschev threatened to "bury" us. But we stayed away from the USSR's border, and expected the same from them. I am not making a judgment that this was right or wrong, just reporting what I remember over those 30 years.

Kicking the can down the road was absolutely our primary strategy with the USSR. I completely understand how we don't want to hear that, especially with horrors in Ukraine, and how unpopular that is. And I agree with how unpopular all of that is as well. But history shows we basically waited the USSR out. I am sorry if that sounds disrepectful to great anti-Communist leaders like JFK (and others) who confronted Kruschev about Cuba 60 years ago, but after they withdrew, even Kennedy kicked the can down the road. Our proxy war in Vietnam against Communism was 5000 miles from the USSR border. And it was a debacle that we lost.

Also regarding the Cold War. It was infact a war fought with money, technology subterfuge and propaganda.
In essence that was its nature and battleground.
So with Russias attempt to reintroduce new delivery methods and warheads he is in essence willing to reignite the Cold War.
repeatedly mentioning their potential use or risk of nuclear weapons is propaganda aimed at deterring an unwanted action or response from an enemy.
You say the Cold War was just kicking the can down the road. I maintain it was in essence the fighting of a war with all means available. Be it technology, diplomacy, economic markets, financially, and lastly in the public opinion.

You cannot separate the public threats from the kinetic destruction. They are all working the same end deter or destroy an enemy or adversary.

So I would say the Cold War was won in part because nuclear war was averted for 70 years. For a time we had significantly reduced the threat levels. While also reducing the number of warheads in the world.

Who has reignited this new nuclear Cold War? Who has actually fielded several years ago intermediate range missiles hypersonic missiles capable of hitting Europe and carrying nuclear warheads.

Who is trying to develop and field a cobalt warhead which in my mind is predominantly a first strike weapon.

Once a person or nation is confronted with an enemy publicly announcing new weapons or possibility of when they might uses these weapons in war. You cannot allow that foreign policy and military tactic to succeed. Letting that leader or nation dictate unilaterally the terms of peace. Or you can respond.
It really is just that simple.
We will always keep talking and working to a reduced threat level. but wishing it so just does not make it so.

The ball is literally in Russias court they launched the war, they are the ones who continually through their press and government officials keep mentioning the threat of themselves using nukes.
They are the ones who have introduced the specter the offensive use of nuclear weapons to win a war they initiated and are now suffering significant set backs and losses in the war and at home.

This is all propaganda or public perception. Just like Putin hastily trying to annex and claim eastern Ukraine as Russian there by “justifying” their threats of nuclear response if this “new” Russian territory is attacked.
It’s just smoke and mirrors. “Russia” was never under threat of being invaded!

 

[intel-bank]

Love the war of aggression statement. I guess if it wasn’t aggression the war would be justified. After all previous wars were never based on this excuse of unexceptable aggression. Previous wars were justified? C-mon. people that fight generally both wake up sore in the morning. Aggressor or not. I know because that is what I state to the dickead or dickheads what you call aggressor. Eg. My statement to aggressor- sure I'm in because win or lose we will both wake up sore in the morning. You see I know there is a chance I might not wake up in the morning, but I ain't gonna bitching about an aggressor if I'm dead because nothing bothers you when your dead. Any other undesirable outcome is the risk you take for standing up. If someone joins the military for battle on either side you shouldn't feel sorry for them because of lack of whatever or think it's funny they are dying. Simply because that individual should have already resided to the fact of giving their life for the cause. And if they don't agree to the cause then they shouldn't have risked joining because orders are orders. So you sit back and enjoy the show bag out Putin, bag out Russia and be confident tomorrow is just another day. Because I'm sure the families of your enemies current and past probably think the same way you are. oh and I should mention it isn't just families of the enemies that suffer. and I'm an advocate of fighting as much as I'm against it.

I agree, No one has ever won in war, in the end, they just think they do. But the dead that fought the war will never live to create value. A few generations, you are looking at a significant drop in population, which affects the countrys economy and innovation for literally ever.
Unfortunately I think humans as a collective need a rude awakening. Because the general population is the only people that can prevent wars. The non-sociopaths who have picked up on their leaders views because they arent sociopaths, and they think a winner is possible.
But then again, even if that happened, wasnt ww1 the war to end all wars?

 

[Fascist lite]

Love the war of aggression statement. I guess if it wasn’t aggression the war would be justified. After all previous wars were never based on this excuse of unexceptable aggression. Previous wars were justified? C-mon. people that fight generally both wake up sore in the morning. Aggressor or not. I know because that is what I state to the dickead or dickheads what you call aggressor. Eg. My statement to aggressor- sure I'm in because win or lose we will both wake up sore in the morning. You see I know there is a chance I might not wake up in the morning, but I ain't gonna bitching about an aggressor if I'm dead because nothing bothers you when your dead. Any other undesirable outcome is the risk you take for standing up. If someone joins the military for battle on either side you shouldn't feel sorry for them because of lack of whatever or think it's funny they are dying. Simply because that individual should have already resided to the fact of giving their life for the cause. And if they don't agree to the cause then they shouldn't have risked joining because orders are orders. So you sit back and enjoy the show bag out Putin, bag out Russia and be confident tomorrow is just another day. Because I'm sure the families of your enemies current and past probably think the same way you are. oh and I should mention it isn't just families of the enemies that suffer. and I'm an advocate of fighting as much as I'm against it.

Russia decided to use a gun to force Ukraine to kiss their ass and then bend over Take it.
Ukraine decided to shoot back.
Nato seems to believe Russia needs shot back at because They were and are are dickheads and like shooting at their smaller neighbors.
Remember them bragging how it would only take a week to clean up Ukraine.
And here we are, is that simple enough?
We, they, everyone will all be sore in the morning or dead.
It’s a real shame Russia decided to bring a gun to the fight. Now everyone’s dying and what’s Russias response?

“You all better quit shooting at us or we might throw a grenade or two”

“Oh well fine, I guess Ukraine is your country now. Sorry Ukraine good luck with that. You’ll be better off with Russia running things for awhile anyway but you all hang in there”

That’s kinda the history of aggression or war or killing what ever you call it. That is what we’re looking at here isn’t it.

Which dickhead decided it was a good idea to swing on someone or grab a gun and shoot someone and make everyone miserable the next day.
Wanna see this all dialed down ask Putin to dial it down that’s where all this senseless violence and destruction started.

 

[REALHumanRights]

More Russia escalation reports in comments about USA nuclear readiness. I first saw this on Sky News Arabic - but NOWHERE in the USA and Western media. But I did find that in RIA Novosti by translating it and searching for it. Now of course RIA Novosti is a Russia state media, so in general we will of course consider it Russian propaganda. However, if this Russia state media is also making this claim, therefore Russia is making this claim. Something we should have right to know.
-- "UN, October 7 - RIA Novosti. Russia has recorded signs that indicate an increase in the activity of the nuclear forces of Western countries, said Konstantin Vorontsov, deputy head of the Russian delegation at a meeting of the First Committee of the UN General Assembly."

At times the conscious censorship of the USA/West media is really troubling, and wonder how much we are also not hearing. Censorship by enemy Russia is not improved by USA/West censorship. Sleepwalking is a dangerous approach to information gathering during war.

 

[Fascist lite]

More Russia escalation reports in comments about USA nuclear readiness. I first saw this on Sky News Arabic - but NOWHERE in the USA and Western media. But I did find that in RIA Novosti by translating it and searching for it. Now of course RIA Novosti is a Russia state media, so in general we will of course consider it Russian propaganda. However, if this Russia state media is also making this claim, therefore Russia is making this claim. Something we should have right to know.
-- "UN, October 7 - RIA Novosti. Russia has recorded signs that indicate an increase in the activity of the nuclear forces of Western countries, said Konstantin Vorontsov, deputy head of the Russian delegation at a meeting of the First Committee of the UN General Assembly."

At times the conscious censorship of the USA/West media is really troubling, and wonder how much we are also not hearing. Censorship by enemy Russia is not improved by USA/West censorship. Sleepwalking is a dangerous approach to information gathering during war.

Or Russia is doing what many of us suspect. Pontificating and bluffing.
Even if their, not then it is doubly so it makes no difference. They will do what they say.
Russia has decided nuclear weapons are a viable weapon to use in a conventional war they initiated.
If the world is about to burn maybe you should be posting with using a Russian translator. It seems they are the one who need the message more.

 

[REALHumanRights]

Or Russia is doing what many of us suspect. Pontificating and bluffing.

Of course, they are. But this is Russia state media, thus Russia government. Their continued efforts to report escalation, including when it is propaganda, are still part of the nuclear threat assessment between Russia and USA.

 

[REALHumanRights]

October 8, 2022. New nuclear war escalation by Russia state media Ria Novostia propaganda, which is leveraging UK Sun tabloid's reckless article, for Russia propaganda to falsely claim US nuclear bomb plots against Russia in four areas: Moscow, Russian soldiers in Ukraine, Crimea, and Black Sea Fleet. This Russia propaganda article comes as an apparent truck bomb on fuel truck actually does strike Russian convoy on bridge between Crimea and Russia.

The UK Sun tabloid author, Imogen Braddick, appears to be a 20-something "journalist" for the tabloid, who claims to be "a MSc student, China and Globalisation, King's College." Author Braddick gives no direct source for her report on these potential USA attacks on Russia. She quotes remarks from: US national security expert Jeffrey Edmonds (who does address USA nuclear attacks on Russia), former CIA director and retired army general David Petraeus (who discussed attacks on Russian forces, but not USA using nucleat attacks in October 2 ABC New interview), and (ironically) remarks from Mary Glantz from the "United States Institute of Peace." To correct the Russia propaganda report, Mary Glantz also did not state using nuclear weapons in her military response "for peace."

The article apparently started off with "7 devastating ways" to attack Russia, and ended up with "Five devastating ways." The context of the UK Sun tabloid article was also "Five devastating ways West could strike back at Putin if Russian tyrant launches nuke in Ukraine."

This is Russia state media, thus Russia government. The propaganda is partly false and significantly misleading. But their continued efforts involving nuclear escalation, including when it is propaganda, are still part of the nuclear threat assessment between Russia and USA. [Sidenote: One also has to wonder if the effects of a 20MT weapon on London and virtually all of the UK was known and understood by UK media and public, if such reckless pro-violence articles would be as common in the UK Sun and elsewhere.]

 

[REALHumanRights]

Washington Post waves away Russia nuclear threats and USA concern, using their DoD contacts to say "everything is fine."

"Generally, the right venue to warn that we face the biggest threat of Armageddon in 60 years wouldn’t seem to be a political fundraiser. "

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/10/07/biden-armageddon-nuclear-comments/

WaPo waves away nuclear threat: "It’s worth noting, though, that the Defense Department told Politico on Friday that “we have not seen any reason to adjust our own strategic nuclear posture nor do we have indications that Russia is preparing to imminently use nuclear weapons”; a Defense Department spokesperson said the president’s comments simply expressed that the United States was taking Putin’s threats seriously." "And it’s also worth noting that Biden has shown a real capacity for just saying things — things that White House officials then have to revise. (Certainly, many politicians have found themselves speaking a little too freely at political fundraisers, where they’re surrounded by people who support them and pay money to see them.)"

 

[REALHumanRights]

USA POTUS Reaction to Russia Nuclear Threats - Head to Delaware: "Armageddon Is Coming, but It’s Time for Another Weekend in Delaware"

Armageddon Is Coming, but It’s Time for Another Weekend in Delaware | National Review

The president — the lone official with the authority to launch nuclear weapons — isn’t supposed to just casually say that ‘Armageddon’ is on the horizon.

www.nationalreview.com

On Friday, POTUS Biden traveled to PHiladelphia, "and then he will go to Wilmington, Del., where he will remain over the weekend."
USA needs a CIC in charge in Washington DC to protect this nation during war time.
Independent here, not political partisan, nor pro-National Review. But they are right about this.

 

[reynolds]

Nothing new here guys...while Biden represented a possibility (nuclear war) which even if it is remote, it's still always a possibility when you have a war involving a nuclear capable country....you also have to keep in mind that when a geriatric man holds a conference in front of his electors in a closed door events, you can expect everything to come out of his mouth.
He's the guy who tries to shake hands with air.

 

[REALHumanRights]

Who has reignited this new nuclear Cold War? Who has actually fielded several years ago intermediate range missiles hypersonic missiles capable of hitting Europe and carrying nuclear warheads.
Who is trying to develop and field a cobalt warhead which in my mind is predominantly a first strike weapon.

Completely agree on Russia's position, including alleged reports on work on Cobalt nuclear bomb (Status-6 Oceanic Multipurpose System, e.g., Poseidon torpedo Статус-6 nuclear-powered, nuclear-armed UUV) to "produce enhanced amounts of radioactive fallout," and other alleged "superweapons" - the only real question there is it really bunker-proof, and how could they test it and survive?)

But we go back to the Cold War history of the USSR, we have been facing routine threats of 20, 25 MT ICBMs since the 1970s and continuing through 1990. A Cobalt nuke could be worse than a 20/25 MT ICBM, but at some point how much worse can it get from what we have been facing for the past 60 years? It may be technically not be as bad as Cobalt nuke, but the destruction is pretty complete.

For example, USA survived USSR threats of: R-36M2 Voevoda (SS-18 Mod 6) (20MT), R-36MUTTKh (SS-18 Mod 3) (20MT), R-36M (SS-18 Mod 1) [15B86] (24MT); R-36M (SS-18 Mod 1) [15B86] (10-20MT), R-36 8K67 Tsiklon (SS-9 Mod 2) [8F675] (25MT); R-36 8K67 Tsiklon (SS-9 Mod 1) (20MT); R-36 8K67 Tsiklon (SS-9 Mod 1) (18MT). Which of these were not plausible "first strike" weapons?

[Not to mention the bioterror horrors of chimeric and weaponized diseases of all different kinds, as Ken Alibek and others described.]

And USA survived with a COLD War, and not getting into direct conflict with the USSR. We had lots of good reasons to choose otherwise, but outside of the Cuba threat, we managed the nuclear threat conflict to deescalate, and even the Cuban Missile Crisis - a direct threat to USA - was deescalated. That didn't make USA weak compared to USSR - it allowed us to survive. No small accomplishment in retrospective analysis. IMO - if Russia must be totally conquered, then that needs to be a multipolar activity, not simply a unipolar USA-led effort, which is where we are today.