Skip to main content

View Diary: Putin Propagandist Threatens US with Nuclear Annihilation over Ukraine (182 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Check again, Meteor (0+ / 0-)

    1) Russia's nuclear SLBMs submarines have declined to seven old Deltas -- that are usually tied up at the dock.  Lying there with their legs spread --more vulnerable than the landbased ICBMs:

    http://russianforces.org/...

    http://blogs.fas.org/...

    2) The two subs in the new generation haven't been commissioned because their missiles are squirrelly:

    http://defensetech.org/...

    3) Thing may be different 3 years hence but right now Putin is over a barrel, hence likely to react vigorously and without warning.  

    And meanwhile the New York Times, the Washington Post , the 5  TV networks -- and Daily Kos -- are giving 314 millions Americans no warning whatsoever.  

    •  So, your argument is that the U.S.... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      auron renouille

      ...should not impose sanctions so that Putin will not feel threatened or it should launch a first-strike attack on Russia's nukes and hope that none of them manage to survive the attack?

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Mon Mar 17, 2014 at 09:51:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I have explained my argument clearly. (0+ / 0-)

        1) From the Russians' viewpoint, There is no reason for the USA to have poured  money into  Ukraine via NGOs Freedom House and National Endowment for Democracy -- and  to have persistently courted Ukraine to join nuclear -armed  NATO for years -- other than to gain a base from which to eventually neutralize and conquer Russia.  Possibly via a First Strike on Russia's ICBMs  that is feasible only if launched from Ukraine.

        http://www.nato.int/...

        "Two months later, at the NUC meeting of foreign ministers in Vilnius, Lithuania, in April 2005, the Allies and Ukraine launched an Intensified Dialogue on Ukraine’s aspirations to NATO membership. They also announced a package of short-term actions designed to enhance NATO-Ukraine cooperation in key reform areas.

        At the Bucharest Summit in April 2008, Allied leaders agreed that Ukraine may become a NATO member in future.

        In August 2009, a “Declaration to Complement the Charter on a Distinctive Partnership between NATO and Ukraine” was signed. It gives the NUC a central role in deepening political dialogue and cooperation, and in underpinning Ukraine’s reform efforts pertaining to its membership aspirations.

        In 2010, the newly elected government of President Viktor Yanukovych made it clear that while it was not presently pursuing NATO membership, it wished to maintain the existing level of cooperation with the Alliance and to fulfill existing agreements. "

        2) What else  is there in a bankrupt country 4500 miles from the USA?   How  does any of this  benefit  the American People?  And why is no one asking why we are there and why Washington is running these risks on a border about 250 miles from Moscow?  As opposed to letting Ukraine trade with EU while remaining no military threat to Russia.

        3) For Ukraine's benefit?  Clause 5 of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum  commits Russia to not attack Ukraine with nukes --unless Ukraine attacks Russian forces while  associated with or allied with a nuclear weapons state.
        Like, eg,, the USA.

        4) Crimea is irrelevant.   Unless the USA agrees that Ukraine will not join NATO --that it will remain neutral as Russia has proposed -- then Putin has no option but to constantly try to retake it.    Starting with the Eastern pro-Russian section. Look at how we reacted during the Cuban Missile crisis in the 1960s.

        •  Actually, we made a deal with the USSR to... (0+ / 0-)

          ...end the Cuban missile crisis, our missiles removed for their missiles removed.

          Thanks for your full explanation (even if you've provided it previously, I didn't see it).

          Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

          by Meteor Blades on Mon Mar 17, 2014 at 10:37:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  1) If you are interested in details of the First (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            native

            Strike threat to Russia, I put up a diary two weeks ago
             and debated some aspects  with another Kos user who seemed to have some military knowledge.

            http://www.dailykos.com/...

            2) Here are the rough ranges of Russian ICBM sites from the Ukraine (taken from  Annex C of the document I cited in the diary.)

            Dombarovskiy (30 RS-20s ICBMs): 1000 miles --in range

             Uzhur: (20 RS-20s): 3500 --out of range, but 2000 miles from Aghanistan  (in F22 range with four external fuel tanks?)

             Kozel’sk (20 RS-18): 150 miles --in range

             Tatishchevo (40 RS-18, 58 RS-12M2 silo): 350 miles --in range

             Teykovo (18 RS-12M2 mobile, 18 RS-24 ): 500 miles --in range

             Yoshkar-Ola (27 RS-12M mobile): 700 miles --in range

             Nizhniy Tagil (27 RS-12M mobile) : 1450 --in range of F22

             Barnual: (36 RS-12M mobile): 3000 miles --out of range (but 1700 miles from Afghanistan US bases, close to range of F22 and probably in range with wing external tanks, total stealth initially not needed in mountains? )

             Vypolzovo (18 RS-12M mobile): 500 miles --in range (and only 300 miles from NATO Latvia)

            3) One issue is whether conformal external fuel tanks made with stealth material are being developed that would extend the range of the F35s and F22s without
            degrading their concealment.  

            4) Others can disagree over some of the details--I welcome the debate.  What worries me is that our major News Media are refusing to touch the subject AT
            ALL .

            They are refusing to ask how Putin could objectively view our actions, how violently he might be compelled to react and what kind of cost-benefit analysis in Washington could justify the risks being taken.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (144)
  • Community (60)
  • Memorial Day (31)
  • Culture (31)
  • Environment (30)
  • Republicans (27)
  • Elections (23)
  • 2016 (23)
  • Spam (22)
  • GOP (20)
  • Civil Rights (20)
  • Bernie Sanders (19)
  • Science (19)
  • Education (19)
  • Media (18)
  • Climate Change (18)
  • Labor (18)
  • Rescued (18)
  • Law (16)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (15)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site