Russia Declares Right to Nuke

[lovuian]

Run time: 01:17 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ir8LswN8QyM   Posted on YouTube: October 14, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: October 14, 2009 By DU Member: lovuian Views on DU: 1432

 
http://english.pravda.ru/russia/kremlin/14-10-2009/109884-russia_nuclear-0

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in an interview with Echo of Moscow radio station that the USA did not permit a nuclear first-strike under its own military guidelines.

Is this true?
Does Depleted Uranium count?
as a Nuclear first=strike?

[Diclotican]

1. lovuian

lovuian

The Russians is more or less sablerassling, again. But they do have a point about nuclear weapon... The US have for years now tried to stop the gap between conventional weapons, and nuclear one, with some of the biggest, most mean "bunker busters" human ever have seen to this day... And the nuclear weapons have been smaller and smaller, and a new generation of Small nuclear weapons is out there, who can be used against targets - and they claim that the new weapons is not radiation danger than the "old types" of today

I for one Will say that the use of Depleted Uranium os a sort of use of nuclear weapon.Even if it docent blow up as a nuclear weapon, it radiate, and radiate for a long time after use... And it is more or less proven that DU ammo is DANGEROUS for humans, more than 12 year after the Iraq-Kuwait war, it is still a lot of cancer in the area of Basra, before the war, when the US first used the stuff - many of the types who is there today was not existing, or at least on a level where it was more or less "statistic safe"...

But I guess it count first and most important when americans are hit by the weapons the americans is using in large quanta I guess... Yes I'm cynical, but i am also somewhat of a realist, and this type of weapons is "to important" in the US military to be stopped used because of little radiation poising by civilians who the US have no responsibility for, or care for...

Diclotican

[lovuian]

2. Diclotican

If you count depleted uranium as a small nuclear weapon then we have preemptively used it on many countries
Iraq and Afghanistan for one

so I find Hillary's statement curious
she must mean the Big Nuke

[Diclotican]

5. lovuian

lovuian

She might mean the BIG ONES who level a city of millions in a blast And if that is the case, only ONE nation as i know it have ever USED the bomb... And we all know which country that is... So no name is needed to point to direction I guess..

DU ammo is a waste product from production of nuclear fission, and is low radiated (as I know it then) compared to other nuclear waste products.. But still it IS radioactive, and it is still a waste product.. The reason the US, and other nations is using Du ammo is because it is cheap compared to other type of ammo with the same penetration range.. And it is also easy to produce compared to other type of ammo.. And even small amount of DU ammo is enough to blow large holes in everything from T55 to the newest western tanks.. It is versatile and cheap.. And can and is used in most conventional weapon of today..

The other side of the weapon, who you never will be told by they who made the weapon, and who in the first case decided DU is a smart metal to have on weapon, is that it is poisonous, and can/Will harm large areas because of the radiation. DU is really a horrible weapon for the enemy then.. It burns skin and bones to nothing is there.. And even US enlisted and officers have told stories that when they used DU on iraq Tanks in the first golf war, the tanks could burn for days - not just from the ammo and the petrol inside, but also from the Heat the DU managed to produce when they fired the weapons...

I'm not sure what to say about it, but I would say that DU is a form of nuclear weapon, even tho it doesn't blow up like their bigger brothers and sisters and level a whole city. As long as it is radioactive - as DU ammo is, it should be recognized as a form of small nuclear weapon and be used like that - never.

The only reason no country have used a nuclear weapon after 1945 is because the weapons itself was in a way to big to be used.. Even if both Warsaw and NATO pact country's do had plans for using nuclear weapons on a central european war front, everything from "Small" tactical weapons to city busters was planed if the two forces ever got into action.. It never materialized thankfully, even it was close more than one time between 1948 and 1989.. Today both the will and the technology is seen to make the weapons so small both in zise and in Yeld, that someone believe for real that nuclear weapon can and should be used against the enemy.. The problems is that the first nation in modern time who use a nuclear weapon even if the yield is "small" compared to other systems Will be given all the contempt it deserve.. The past Republican Administration of mr Bush jr, more than one treated the world with the use of nuclear weapon, if they dosen play by the book of them.. If a Administration who was more stubborn and less willing to play ball with the world at large, then what?. (even it Will be hard to go more down than the republican administration of mr Bush jr then) Should US as the biggest spender of weapon also be allowed to USE the weapon, even a small, small tactical weapon against country the US doesn't trust or like?. Or should every nuclear weapon state be allowed to make a pre-emtive strike when needed?...

I for one would hope to give my children (when that time comes) a near nuclear free weapon world to their future. It is so dead wrong to even think about the billions of billions who have been used to dig holes in the ground, to put missiles with nuclear weapon on them, to stand guard in more than 60 year now, against an enemy who also had the nuclear weapon, and who also used trillions of dollars, to waste it on a war who thankfully never materialized itself because both sides had to much to loose to risk it.. But darn it was close many times and even if the Cuba crises was the most known it is many other times both sides had their nuclear weapons on standby. Billions of dollars, who could and should have been used to give us a better future than past.. If the world have spend so many money on peace as they have been doing on war, i really doubt that it would have been necessary to have nuclear weapons, or an army for that case... And the military industry had always survived, they could always try to explore the galaxy..

Diclotican

[stevenleser]

3. No, Depleted Uranium does not count

Just like a radiological bomb does not count as a nuclear weapon or nuclear first strike even though its primary death and injury method is radiation. As wikipedia notes, "It is primarily known as a dirty bomb or "salted bomb" because it is not a true nuclear weapon and does not yield the same explosive power. It uses conventional explosives to spread radioactive material, most commonly the spent fuels from nuclear power plants or radioactive medical waste."

A nuclear weapon is a weapon that uses nuclear fission in massive chain reactions or fusion to create widespread death and/or destruction via a combination of blast, heat and intense radiation.

[lovuian]

4. Thanks for clearing that up

Russia has been testing our defenses

Subs spotted 200 miles next to our coast
Swooping aircraft carriers
Crossing into countries air space

Its funny
now that we have lost our money power over the world
is the next thing to go is our military power

how long can we build bases all over the world and mission shields
when we are trillions in debt

how are we going to bribe this people with worthless dollars????

what a dilemna

[Diclotican]

8. lovuian

lovuian

The Russian Aiforce and Navy have been "testing" US borders for the last 50 year or so.. As long as Russia have had an long range Navy and Airforce they have allways had patrols who put them in the border lines of United States of America.. Do you really belive for a nano second that the last couple of subs, who have been detected outside the coast of US haven't been doing that for the last couple of decades... I for one have read, and know some stories about russian subs who more or less lurked inside some of your habours sometimes... And I also know some stories about US subs who more or less lurked inside some of their habours - even some really nasty military one on the pasific ocean side of Russia.. And thankfully neither was discovered.. Even that I belive the US counterpart do have some leverage against their russian counterparts...

And for the most part the russian subs was allmoust a decade older than the US subs in most of the cold war anyway... More noise, and far more accidents than the US had...

Russian Airforce, who are for the most part not excactly top of the like aircraft - the versaltile TU96/142 is a design who is from the late 1940-1950, and who can give their ancestory to four B29 bombers who was "confisicated" when they had to have an emergency landing in Siberia in the late stages of the war.. Thankfully the crew was given back in good condition, but their aircraft never came back to US soil then.. Even the Backfire T160 Blacjack who by the way is a large cousine of your B1B bomber is more than 40 year old - and compared to their american counterparts rather outdated.. Even TU160 have not been fitted with many of the newest tecnology that most first line pilots in the west takes for granted.. Half of the Fighter squadrons of MIG29 is grounded becouse they have no spare to get them out and of the ground. For the most part everything have to be rebuild and the russian airforce just dosen't have the money to fix them as they want it.. In many cases half the fighters is canibalized to make the other half able to fly, and the russian pilotes also lack what is practized again and again in west, training, training and more traning.. For the most part, the pilotes who are now flying near your airspace is not doing it to provoce a war or to test your strengt, but rater to learn the new aviators to know the airplanes.. The TU95s and the TU160 is beast to fly - even beatifully beast, they are still beast to fly, and in most cases the new russian pilotes have not been known to get enough hour under the best to really know this beast and to know their limits, but also their abilities.. It was far more knowlegde about the inner working of the Tu family and MIG familiy and SU familiy of bombers and fighters before Soviet colapsed and the train stoped up in a grain pit.. It is more than 17 year since the Russian Airforce and Navy last had the chance to really practice what they are there for... And even if they DID get their force up to 50-60 percent over the last decade for what was the norm of the 1980s, then still they have a lot work to do, to get up to the top of the line they do had in the early 1980s when they had more than 2000 figheter/bomber less than 20 km of the Norwigian border.. At that point we had not be given all our F16s yet - and still had to wait long before the F5 was "relived of duty" - that happend first in the early 2000s..

You cant hold military bases all over the glove when you are billions in debt.. Some country have alleready ask the US troops to leave, other wil do it later. Even the british empire who had been there for more than 300 year, and expandet to an area who on one time was 1/5 of the planets surface had the brain to understand that the money needed, and the money they had was going the wrong way after WW2... Even that it took a decade and half before the Empire finally was over, and most of the empirets assets was independed in one form or another the empire of UK, was down peacefully, and it dosen't broke the UK treassary to mutch in the end too.. Vel the Pound had to be re set some times in the meantime, and it never got the same power in the world that it had before.. But the Pound is still a mighty old currency in world affairs... And as long as the britts have their pound sterling, the world wil survive I guess:think:

If Obama is willing, he might get many of your roops home, and many bases closed before the next decade is over.. Yes it wil be painfull, both for the soldiers, the sivilians who in many cases is depended of the job the military bases is given them. But in time it wil other jobs.. And in the end even the Empire of USA might surive this too... In difference to most empires before them the americans can relocade, and even build new ones when they lost some bases around the world. The idea here is not to trow the last american back to the Iseland of Hawaii, but rather to do it more easy to manage the bases you have out there.. You dosen't need more than 10000 bases to controll the world.. You can still ha lot of leverage in world affairs with 500, or less, if the bases is build smart where they are needed.. Most of the UK bases in the time of the mighty British Empire was located where trade routes, and peopole was traveling.. Or where conections to other parts of the world was important.. In the whole the empire of India, where the british King and Queen was emperor and empress, the whole military administration was less than 5000 british soldiers.. 5000 soldiers in a place who was maybe 60 times the sise of UK... Most british who was in India was not even military, but rather in the sivilian sectors as sivilian servants and sutch.. Many from the gentry and many others got their "spores" in the Indian sub continent...

If your dollar is wortless - and I hope it wil not be like that, but I have fear it becouse it is in bad shape.. Then your bases wil be closed faster than everyone can dream of.. When the US dollar isen't wort the print it is made of. Then it goes the same way as the old Reichmarc of the Weimar Republic, or the Ruble of the Russians in the 1990s... DOwn the drain... In germany's case a new currency, the D mark was the salvation... In the Russian case the ruble is still there - just hanging in as it goes up and down in the currency marked...

I hope that the US dollar dosent go the same way as the dodo - but I also hope that many of your bases in the world wil be closed, not becouse i "hate" americans, but becouse I really dosen se the point of having more than 1000 military bases around the world - spesially when nobody in their right main have the power to try to attac you in any way... The US is using more than 20 times the rest of the group of "the biggest spenders" in the world are doing - and still many americans are scared to death for the fact that in "maybe 20 or 30 years time" China can be deep sea power.. And you have had an vice-president who on the record have told the world that he wanted to treatedn China to stop builing new fighter jets, and to modernize the military.. And you have the same vice-president who more or less provoced the russians to really start a little arm race in the baltic region, becouse of the missile plan he and jr wanted to put in Poland and in the Chech Republic...

For me who are on the outside I would say many americans - or maybe even most of you are really scared of the world outside of your own borders.. And you have a scaring lack of knowlegde about the same world. But want to comand and to "lead" the world in the direction you want it to be like... Maybe it is time for americans, to try to educate themself about the world outside Arkansas, or Florida or Vermont.. Maybe even try to educate yourself of why so many is pissed of, and dosent want your military bases on their soil anymore in the same degee as 50 year ago?.. Try to understand and be somewhat educated about the world outside your own borders - then maybe, just maybee you wil understand the rest of the world.. And in most cases survive as an nation by using diplomacy and not military... Diplomacy is in most cases far more easy and cheap compared to using strong arm tactic.

Diclotican

[winyanstaz]

6. Gee thanks republicans and Bush and Cheney...

This is another stab in the back we owe you for.

[JDPriestly]

7. That is why I see the Republicans, Bush and Cheney as traitors.

Our military power is important, too important to be wasted on vague goals like bringing regime change to Iraq. I'm still not clear as to why we went into Iraq. If it was to obtain the oil, why did we waste so much oil and so many other resources to get that oil? We can't stay in Iraq until all their oil is gone. We simply can't afford it.

We should be looking far more diligently for alternative energy sources.

[winyanstaz]

9. You know..I have thought that too...

That it would have been far cheaper to buy the oil.
Then I thought perhaps it was just for the toe-hold to build more military bases so they could conquer the whole middle east.
Now I think more that it is to kill off as many American soldiers as they can and to keep them far from home so there is no one here to defend us when they are ready for their NWO.
I am not saying any of these are the reason...just reasons I have thought about and wondered why.