Russia warns Denmark its warships could become nuclear targets

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stinkles said:
This is a country that caused a giant international mystery rather than admit its egomaniacal leader could catch a common cold. They Streisand effected his emotional and physical weakness in an attempt to hide it.


The one good thing about last week's madness is that it at least showed the problem in the country really does boil down to one man. And all sorts of things could get rid of that man, except ironically democracy or rule of law. Which he has placed himself above.

Putin is a clown and I hope his countrymen start to realize it. He has more in common with Maduro and Chavez than just politics.
Click to expand...
Wait, Putin had a cold? That's why he was gone for so long? Hahaha!
 
Meus Renaissance said:
The Missile Shield program has always been met with suspicion in Moscow; it gives NATO 1st strike capability and thus all the below states are natural nuclear targets. This is stating the obvious.

4C05788D-4B40-4FC1-A0AE-1F9D7F637134_mw1024_n_s.png
Click to expand...

There is no way that limited system could overcome Russia's entire arsenal.

Russia knows it as well. This is all about face.
 
Norml said:
I don't see why they're worried. If the US wanted to take over the world we would have done so at the end of WW2.
Click to expand...
Well you don't really have to. Building economic dependence is much cheaper than the conquest route to that end.

Kimawolf said:
Yep and its working flawlessly. Imagine if Russia put missile defense in Cuba or Mexico. We'd probably go to war.
Click to expand...
You almost did in the 60s over Cuba.

Syriel said:
Except, nothing like that is happening.
Click to expand...
This is down to the perspective of the beholder. From Russia's perspective, they view things like the moves the current Ukraine government as an act of western aggression. Whether they are 'right' or not is also irrelevant. Russia is taking action on what they view as western aggression and a threat to their security. You can't really ignore the 50+ years of tension during the cold war between the west. There are a lot of people on both sides that lived through that era still standing and in the case of Putin, in positions of power so there is great mistrust between the two sides.
 
Jasup said:
And if you retaliate, it becomes the first strike.

Basically: you can't strike us, but we can strike you.


Edit: anyway, I'm a bit worried that you don't seem to consider NATO potentially being the one making the initial strike. I'm not talking about current situation or immediate future, but further down the line. It's basically giving the future politicians the option to nuke Russia with minimal risk.
Click to expand...

A nuclear strike against Russia, even if Russia couldn't retaliate, is still pretty undesirable for NATO countries. A large barrage of nuclear weapons would create a ton of nuclear fallout right next to a lot of NATO member nations, and the heat released would push us further towards climate change. As always, nuclear weapons are so powerful and so dangerous that you can never use them without risk.

Besides, we don't exactly live in a world where there is the political will for civilized countries to raze entire cities to the ground. We are long past the WW2 days of massed bombers dropping thousands of bombs at once onto civilian populations. For Russia in particular, they are struggling to find the political will in Europe to even impose economic sanctions on Russia over its aggression in Ukraine. Even now, Russia is still tied to Europe and the US economically. Under what scenario do you imagine NATO launching a nuclear first strike against Russia?
 
With or without them, we would be targets for Russian first strikes regardless, we are the Scandinavian Seagate keepers.

Guess they just wanted to remind us of this.
 
SkyOdin said:
A nuclear strike against Russia, even if Russia couldn't retaliate, is still pretty undesirable for NATO countries. A large barrage of nuclear weapons would create a ton of nuclear fallout right next to a lot of NATO member nations, and the heat released would push us further towards climate change. As always, nuclear weapons are so powerful and so dangerous that you can never use them without risk.

Besides, we don't exactly live in a world where there is the political will for civilized countries to raze entire cities to the ground. We are long past the WW2 days of massed bombers dropping thousands of bombs at once onto civilian populations. For Russia in particular, they are struggling to find the political will in Europe to even impose economic sanctions on Russia over its aggression in Ukraine. Even now, Russia is still tied to Europe and the US economically. Under what scenario do you imagine NATO launching a nuclear first strike against Russia?
Click to expand...

It's the other way around actually, even a limited exchange could be enough to cause a catastrophic nuclear winter. Anything larger than that and we're talking The Road scenarios with no food production for years globally and the end of human civilization, even in the southern hemisphere that would have been spared direct strikes. So on the flip side it would probably solve climate change long term. Not that there would be that many people (or anyone) left alive to appreciate it.

That's why a war between NATO and Russia must be avoided at all costs. Apart from that I agree with everything else you wrote.

hydrophilic attack said:
Fucking maniacs. I'm pretty against Sweden joining NATO, but now I almost want us to do it, just to piss Putin off.
Click to expand...

We should join right away out of sheer self-preservation, double the defense budget and dust off the old civil defense projects. As it stands right now we're completely naked - we can't defend ourselves and have no allies to rely on. If Russia wanted to they could take us out in a week.
 
SkyOdin said:
A nuclear strike against Russia, even if Russia couldn't retaliate, is still pretty undesirable for NATO countries. A large barrage of nuclear weapons would create a ton of nuclear fallout right next to a lot of NATO member nations, and the heat released would push us further towards climate change. As always, nuclear weapons are so powerful and so dangerous that you can never use them without risk.

Besides, we don't exactly live in a world where there is the political will for civilized countries to raze entire cities to the ground. We are long past the WW2 days of massed bombers dropping thousands of bombs at once onto civilian populations. For Russia in particular, they are struggling to find the political will in Europe to even impose economic sanctions on Russia over its aggression in Ukraine. Even now, Russia is still tied to Europe and the US economically. Under what scenario do you imagine NATO launching a nuclear first strike against Russia?
Click to expand...

I should've said "minimal (or diminished) risk of retaliation"

At the moment I don't see NATO launching a nuclear first strike against Russia. However I can't tell the future either, but I do know that the political climate can chance drastically over time.
 
inky said:
Realistically they don't. But that hasn't stopped Putin from behaving like Hitler-lite. It's just posturing.
Click to expand...

I agree.

He really is acting like a successor to Hitler - how anyone in Russia could support this slime is unbelievable?

Mutually assured destruction should disperse any thoughts of nuclear war, but I really don't know with this fucking lunatic in charge of a significant number of nuclear warheads.
 
Meus Renaissance said:
The Missile Shield program has always been met with suspicion in Moscow; it gives NATO 1st strike capability and thus all the below states are natural nuclear targets. This is stating the obvious.
Click to expand...

This is absolute fantasy. The system is basically worthless as far as Russian capability is concerned.

Missile defense is basically pointless against remotely neer-peer opponents because it's way cheaper to build more missiles to get around any defense than it is to update the defense to deal with them.
 
Nivash said:
It's the other way around actually, even a limited exchange could be enough to cause a catastrophic nuclear winter. Anything larger than that and we're talking The Road scenarios with no food production for years globally and the end of human civilization, even in the southern hemisphere that would have been spared direct strikes. So on the flip side it would probably solve climate change long term. Not that there would be that many people (or anyone) left alive to appreciate it.

That's why a war between NATO and Russia must be avoided at all costs. Apart from that I agree with everything else you wrote.



We should join right away out of sheer self-preservation, double the defense budget and dust off the old civil defense projects. As it stands right now we're completely naked - we can't defend ourselves and have no allies to rely on. If Russia wanted to they could take us out in a week.
Click to expand...

Wait, you're Swedish?

:o

Always assumed you were American.
 
2thepoint said:
WTF.

Does Russia want to start WW3 or something?

I feel sorry for it's people having to deal with this shit.
Click to expand...

Yes because putin blames everyone on the west like the EU and filling them with propaganda in their head saying they want to start a war..and here in EU we and i think a lot say what? No hell no war? We never had war in 70 years i do not know what war really is or how it is and i do not want it. Putin is a insane man with horrible ideas that guy is a threat no more no less and people believe him that scares me the most.
 
Chittagong said:
Nah. Russia has long maintained that it doesn't like Nato presence on its borders. Just like USA wouldn't like Russian military on its border, or China wouldn't like USA on its border (hence, DPRK). The West has actively been getting more border states to Nato and EU, knowing it aggravates Russia to spend and act hostile, which in turn starts a sequence of ramifications that ensures the Russian economy stays on its knees and will never rise to an economic superpower like China is.
Click to expand...

Why does Russia have the right to determine what other sovereign nations do? Those sovereign nations that sought the protection of NATO from any foreign aggression certainly don't look foolish right about now.
 
Super_Cobra said:
Sometimes I wonder what's wrong with us human beings trying to destroy each other for no apparent reason.
We consider ourselves the masters of this planet yet we act like animals.
I guess we will be our own downfall.
Click to expand...

2deep

Kabouter said:
Why does Russia have the right to determine what other sovereign nations do? Those sovereign nations that sought the protection of NATO from any foreign aggression certainly don't look foolish right about now.
Click to expand...

Because there's no rule book. Sure, we may not like what country X does, but it's not as if they're defying some natural law. Russia can do what they want to do, we can do what we want to do, and the same goes for every country in the world.
 
potam said:
Because there's no rule book. Sure, we may not like what country X does, but it's not as if they're defying some natural law. Russia can do what they want to do, we can do what we want to do, and the same goes for every country in the world.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Furthermore, looking at history the US has done the exact same thing. The cold war wasn't too long ago.
 
PdotMichael said:
It's basically the only way to effective fight against modern air-defence ships. The three Iver Huitfeldt-class frigates outclassing everything in the Russian navy right now.
Click to expand...

Doesn't Russia have conventional warhead anti - ship cruise missiles that would work fine?
They don't really need to keep up with NATO ship wise to pose a serious threat without going straight to nukes.
 
reckless said:
Doesn't Russia have conventional warhead anti - ship cruise missiles that would work fine?
They don't really need to keep up with NATO ship wise to pose a serious threat without going straight to nukes.
Click to expand...
The advent of portable high performance computing has made effective countermeasures against many kinds of anti-ship missile systems possible. In effect, many modern vessels used by NATO navies are very difficult targets for conventional warheads to target.
 
Theonik said:
Well you don't really have to. Building economic dependence is much cheaper than the conquest route to that end.


You almost did in the 60s over Cuba.


This is down to the perspective of the beholder. From Russia's perspective, they view things like the moves the current Ukraine government as an act of western aggression. Whether they are 'right' or not is also irrelevant. Russia is taking action on what they view as western aggression and a threat to their security. You can't really ignore the 50+ years of tension during the cold war between the west. There are a lot of people on both sides that lived through that era still standing and in the case of Putin, in positions of power so there is great mistrust between the two sides.
Click to expand...


Yes that's my point. The entire sovereign nation thing people are saying is missing the bigger picture. Its about spheres of influence and power projection and that's Russia's sphere of influence. Again if Cuba or mexico wanted to LST Russia or China put missiles in their countries America would have another Cuba Missile crisis on its hand.
 
Remember how pissed off you guys were the last time Russians tried to put missiles in a neighboring country?

I think they have the right to be a little angry too.
 
fawaz said:
Remember how pissed off you guys were the last time Russians tried to put missiles in a neighboring country?

I think they have the right to be a little angry too.
Click to expand...

That was during the height of the cold war, those were offensive nuclear missiles.

These are defensive missiles systems hence the "missile shield".

And the worlds changed a lot since then.
 
fawaz said:
Remember how pissed off you guys were the last time Russians tried to put missiles in a neighboring country?

I think they have the right to be a little angry too.
Click to expand...

Can sovereign countries not make their own decisions to join NATO? No one is forced into joining the defense pact.
 
Nivash said:
It's the other way around actually, even a limited exchange could be enough to cause a catastrophic nuclear winter. Anything larger than that and we're talking The Road scenarios with no food production for years globally and the end of human civilization, even in the southern hemisphere that would have been spared direct strikes. So on the flip side it would probably solve climate change long term. Not that there would be that many people (or anyone) left alive to appreciate it.

That's why a war between NATO and Russia must be avoided at all costs. Apart from that I agree with everything else you wrote.



We should join right away out of sheer self-preservation, double the defense budget and dust off the old civil defense projects. As it stands right now we're completely naked - we can't defend ourselves and have no allies to rely on. If Russia wanted to they could take us out in a week.
Click to expand...

Don't worry bro. These's a little place called Finland between you and Russia.
 
reckless said:
That was during the height of the cold war, those were offensive nuclear missiles.

These are defensive missiles systems hence the "missile shield".

And the worlds changed a lot since then.
Click to expand...
That's why I said a little angry.

You guys almost started a fucking neuclear war over that shit.
 
reckless said:
That was during the height of the cold war, those were offensive nuclear missiles.

These are defensive missiles systems hence the "missile shield".

And the worlds changed a lot since then.
Click to expand...
Has it really? I would argue we are headed in that direction again.

fawaz said:
That's why I said a little angry.

You guys almost started a fucking neuclear war over that shit.
Click to expand...
That was when the US had short range nuclear missiles all over the USSR's borders too.
 
fawaz said:
That's why I said a little angry.

You guys almost started a fucking neuclear war over that shit.
Click to expand...

Because the only reason to put nuclear weapons that close was for a first strike that would have crippled us?

All denmark is doing it putting up special radar stations that are part of the "missile shield".
There is a huge difference between the two.
 
Theonik said:
Has it really? I would argue we are headed in that direction again.


That was when the US had short range nuclear missiles all over the USSR's borders too.
Click to expand...

Well at least now more of the world is on our side, so economics becomes a powerful weapon against Russia until they stop being insane. But that might be a while since Putin doesn't want to give up power.
 
reckless said:
Because the only reason to put nuclear weapons that close was for a first strike that would have crippled us?

All denmark is doing it putting up special radar stations that are part of the "missile shield".
There is a huge difference between the two.
Click to expand...
At the time the US had nuclear weapons equally close if not closer to the USSR's border.

Also in a nuclear race, losing first strike capability which the shield is meant to achieve exposes Russia to a potentially devastating nuclear strike. NATO already has first strike capability in Russia.
 
fawaz said:
Remember how pissed off you guys were the last time Russians tried to put missiles in a neighboring country?

I think they have the right to be a little angry too.
Click to expand...

If the Russians put a missile interceptor site in Cuba, it wouldn't mean much, because this type of missile defense would be completely worthless against the type of nuclear exchange the US and Russia would have.

The system in question is like a bulletproof vest, in case Iran or North Korea get their handguns working and feel like using it.

Meanwhile, Russia (and the US) have the equivalent of guns off a main battle tank.
 
Theonik said:
At the time the US had nuclear weapons equally close if not closer to the USSR's border.

Also in a nuclear race, losing first strike capability which the shield is meant to achieve exposes Russia to a potentially devastating nuclear strike. NATO already has first strike capability in Russia.
Click to expand...

Well yeah we were both doing really antagonizing things hence the height of the cold war.

Russia still has first strike capability its just reduced, the missile shield would be overwhelmed if Russia decided to go all out.

And they still have second strike capabilities (SLBMs) which weren't a thing back in the early 60's
 
reckless said:
Well at least now more of the world is on our side, so economics becomes a powerful weapon against Russia until they stop being insane. But that might be a while since Putin doesn't want to give up power.
Click to expand...

well, a cornered animal will bite... so i don't know if your line of tought works. :/
 
TacticalFox88 said:
I see

Question:

Does Swedish and Finnish Leadership believe the EU/US will step in in the event of an invasion or will they leave you guys to dry?
Click to expand...

I'm not even convinced that the Swedish leadership is aware that war is a possibility, let alone that they have bothered to come up with any contingencies. The military leadership on the other hand have made repeated attempts at informing them that we don't have any guarantees of assistance and that we must interpret this as that we probably won't get any. NATO has made this particularly clear and the EU does not have a working framework for that kind of military cooperation. Hell, if they had we probably wouldn't have joined in the first place. Must respect that precious useless neutrality after all.

It's basically down to what kind of scenario we're talking about. An outright invasion and attempted occupation of Sweden would probably trigger a NATO response because losing Sweden to Russia completely jeopardizes their northern front. Something less overt however? Not a guarantee. If they pull something similar to Crimea in say Gotland and secure a fait accompli before any real shooting starts they might not if it means war with Russia. Same thing if they just apply pressure to secure an appeasement over something they want. That's why I think joining NATO is vital. We need deterrence and we are as of now both incapable and unwilling of providing it ourselves.

fawaz said:
Don't worry bro. These's a little place called Finland between you and Russia.
Click to expand...

Not much protection when Kaliningrad is basically within firing range with their Iskanders and Russia has more than enough airborne and amphibian forces to take us out without a land invasion. A full conquest isn't what we should be worried about anyway, loss of strategic territory however is. And a host of other less overt scenarios.
 
reckless said:
Doesn't Russia have conventional warhead anti - ship cruise missiles that would work fine?
They don't really need to keep up with NATO ship wise to pose a serious threat without going straight to nukes.
Click to expand...

Sure, they have conventional anti-ship assets - most of them are straight from the Cold War with analogue electronics components and other completly outdated stuff though. The APAR in EW mode would mostlikely just melt the electronics of the missiles.
 
reckless said:
Well yeah we were both doing really antagonizing things hence the height of the cold war.

Russia still has first strike capability its just reduced, the missile shield would be overwhelmed if Russia decided to go all out.

And they still have second strike capabilities (SLBMs) which weren't a thing back in the early 60's
Click to expand...
SLBMs were actually just introduced around the time the Cuban missile crisis happened.

I don't think Russia is so much concerned that they would stop being threatening altogether but their rhetoric is that any attempt to diminish the impact of their nuclear deterrent is an act of aggression in itself. In effect they view this as a second arms race while there is mounting political tensions between the US and them and the US and rising powers in the east.
 
reckless said:
Well if we do nothing then Russia does whatever they want see Ukraine and what they are saying about the baltic countries. So its a lose - lose situation.
Click to expand...

like other poster evaluated, russia sees the belt as an agression initself. same for the ukraine joining nato. think russia wouldve kept its base/crimea if the ukraine is a "puppet" of the nato?

btw, not tryin to excuse russia here. but to understand theyr reaction you have to look at whats happening and what has happened in the past.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

I am become retarded but when
NSFW 
27
2K
Cyberpunkd replied
American YouTuber Sabbatical falsely imprisoned in Russia
30
2K
Mr Reasonable replied
Russia fines Google $20.5 decillion dollars
Business 
40
3K
Soodanim replied
Florida could let homeowners shoot down drones over their property
35
215
DeepEnigma replied
Nuclear fusion: French scientists manage to maintain plasma for 22 minutes, setting a new record and overtaking China
Science 
45
3K
Ballthyrm replied
Top Bottom