Uh-oh. Russia talking about reserving the right to pre-emptively nuke threats to their security. Good thing Obama caved on the missile defense for the former Soviet states in Eastern Europe. Great timing too. Right as Hillary hits Moscow to broker our latest cave-in to Russia (whatever it is). http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9BAUJ680&show_article=1&catnum=0
Russia also adds that sanctions for Iran are off of the table. This after a month of the US talking tough about sanctions, and then today, Hillary agrees that it is too early to discuss sanctions. Exactly why did we blink on missile defense? What has Russia done since then, other than flex their muscles today? Obama on political opponents: "If they bring a knife ... we bring a gun!" Obama on negotiations with former adversaries: "If they bring a knife ... we turn around and let them stab us in the back!"
Oh, it gets even better! Are these inspections going to be reciprocated? Or are we allowing Russia to inspect us, without Russia allowing us to inspect them?
That same article about the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons references mentions "came amid grumbling in Moscow over U.S. moves to modify plans for a missile shield near Russia's borders rather than ditch the idea outright." Don't know if you made it down that far in the article, or didn't want to supply that information, instead just providing the remark on the missile shield.
When was the last time Russia talked about pre-emptive use of nukes? I don't recall it in my lifetime, and I'm in my 30s. Plus, seems like a good idea to keep the shield now that Moscow is rattling its sabre.
The last time? Oh, I dunno....last year. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-01-19-russia_N.htm?csp=34 Comments made January, 2008. Don't think obama was president just yet, and I don 't believe there was tlak of Obama pulling down the missile shield yet. So it seems as if Russia has done this before. Very recently. But it probably was Obama's fault last year as well.
Well, to be fair, the time you quoted was from a military source. Today's came directly from the Putin/Medvedev staff, and it also specifically mentioned the United States. So, while I cede one point, I'll also point out that the actual power brokers are now specifically calling out the US as a potential threat.
Once again you overblow the situation. Any strike against our allies would be a strike against ourselves, that has never changed. Any strike they could make would never stop us from completely annhiliating them and probably the rest of the planet Great count our warheads. So that way you will know how far you will be nuked into the dirt if you do anything stupid. The nuclear threats from the Russians fall on deaf ears. Rattle your saber. Ours is bigger and sharper.
Our President advocates a nuke-free world. He's also allowing Russian inspectors to check out our facilities. What are we gaining in this?
The article says they ALSO singled out the US and NATO. A nice method of reporters to link two paragraphs that usually weren't linked in meaning originally. As in the chief of staff mentioned pre-emptive strike, and then later on mentioned US and NATO, but it is reported as if the guy said we will use a pre-emptive strike against the US, when that's not the case. Regardless, you acted as if them discussing pre-emptive strikes had never happened in your lifetime, and it happened just last year. Is there a huge difference to the chief of staff of the military, and a security council chief? Both are under the president's authority.
Somebody just needs to tell Russia that President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. That will clear up this whole misunderstanding. I'm sure Putin has a lot of respect for President Obama, and all he's done for the world in his life.
Misunderstanding of what? Something they did when Bush was president as well? Was it because of Bush wanting to stop missile shields? Why did they do it before? They alluded to the US before. Can you show me a direct quote where they reference the US in their preemptive strike talk? Or just the followup paragraph I mentioned above? Did you actually care for a discussion about the article you posted, or were you really just looking to take a swipe at Obama, because Drudge had it as his top story, and then bail on it with a Nobel joke?
Wow talk about partisan colon blow. You don't think the Ruskies ever planned to do a pre-emptive dump during the Cold War days? Please. Just because they feel like letting the whole world know now doesn't mean they didn't have intentions to do it back then, especially if there was a conflict in Europe.
True and preemptive strikes have been part of our game plan for quite a while too. Preemptive Strikes Part Of U.S. Strategic Doctrine
Actually, I don't think the Russians had any pre-emptive nuke plans during the Cold War days, especially in Europe. They had a massive standing army (4M to 10M) and could have easily marched right through Germany and seized control, like they did in many of their other satellite countries. It was the US that would have used a tactical nuke if that happened. FWIW
It's a shame we keep it all bottled up. We need to do some live testing. Maybe start with Iran and then to Detroit.
Thank God Bush didn't start a pre-emption doctrine that destabilized the planet and became the excuse for every dictator who wanted to use the same doctrine...oh wait.
