Will Russia's nuclear weapons work?

Post Reply New Topic

quite a bunch of our nukes are going to expire, and under obama we haven't made any more. mean while Russia has been making more to replace their expiring nukes. the the better question give our expiring nukes, uter failure of our nuke military control, firing of the generals in charge, failure of safety and proper protocols. will our nukes work?

There's only one way to find out.

Apparently Ukraine is left alone, again.

Way to go for European solidarity, first they stripped them down from their nuclear power in 1996, and then they left them naked to the bear.

I think the only solution for a such country is to divide it, ethnic Russians' areas added to Russia, and the rest as independent Western country (possibly EU); otherwise it's impossible now to integrate it as a whole to either West or East.
I mean, hell, they the Russian ethnics aren't the same people, they don't even speak the same main language, openly want to restore the Russian empire, and apparently the eastern "Ukrainians" view themselves as Russians more than anything else, dividing it is the most peaceful solution, this how Pakistan happened.

Splitting off that section of the Ukraine and passing it back to Russia does seem the most sensible solution, if that is what the majority of the inhabitants there want, as they did with the Crimea. The main difference seems to be that the Crimea was already a separate land mass whereas splitting east Ukraine off perhaps couldn't be so clinical from a border point of view.

I have a daughter in law who is from Donestsk and who's family (parents, sisters etc) still live there. They are all living in daily terror and just want the fighting to stop and to go about their normal daily lives without fear of being shot or being hit with rockets. I don't think they care about the politics so much as just wanting peace to return.

The US/EU/NATO/IMF aren't interested in a divided nationalist Ukraine, pretty much all of the developed productive and strategically important parts of the country are or at least were before this war in eastern and southern Ukraine. If Ukraine were to be divided you'd probably see Transcarpathia in the far west of the country break off too.

Ukraine tried to get closer to us (the EU), and got attacked as a result. We do not defend them. That's a shame. And also contrary to our interests, as other countries in similar situations will know what to expect. By excluding even the possibility of going to war, we send Putin the message that he can do whatever he wants.

A nuklear strike against Russian territory would likely bring nuclear retaliation. However, we could order the population to vacate a strip on the Ukrainian side of the border, and nuke it. This is what was planned during the Cold War in the event the Soviets attack West Germany, as the only way to stop them. Alternatively, NATO could send troops, and once they meet the regular Russian troops, neither would dare attack the other; the earlier we'd did this, the more territory Ukraine would've retained.

Obviously it doesn't look like a full-scale Russian invasion because Putin wants to save the faint appearance that they are not Russian troops. But if they were really not Russian soldiers, that would further support a NATO intervention: NATO troops could easily beat a couple thousand rebels even if the Ukrainian army can't, and it wouldn't be as dangerous as attacking the Russians.


There is little indication that the majority of the locals actually want to secede; the opponents are obviously too afraid to speak up. The Crimean referendum was very blatantly rigged: Officially there were more Yes votes than all ethnic Russians. It would be ludicrous to think Ukrainians or Tatars voted Yes.

There was really no such thing as a Ukrainian national identity until about a 100 or so years ago and they didn't become an independent country until 1991, they're all Slavs. The Ukrainian census isn't really reliable, the nationalists have an agenda of pushing mono-ethnic Ukrainian national identity when in reality it is multi-ethnic state. Ukraine for example count Rusyns as Ukrainian, they do not recognize them as a distinct minority group. The east and south of Ukraine speak Russian and are culturally closer to Russia than they are with the western Ukrainians.

[img][800:701]http://i57.tinypic.com/243q2y8.jpg[/img]

This picture should illustrate the divide that exists in Ukraine, something like 90% of Crimea voted for Viktor Yanukovych and even more did in Donetsk and Luhansk despite their being a lower % of ethnic Russians. That was before their was a violent coup, them wanting to ban the Russian language, declaring them terrorists, and launching a military campaign against them. Who do you think the people of eastern Ukraine support?

Learning a little about the country Ukraine goes a long way to helping you understand who is telling the truth in this conflict.

So what? It's a common tactic of nationalists to ridicule neighboring nations for not having a country until recently, but how does that matter?



Still no definitive indication how many of the locals want to belong to Russia. As the map admits (by separating Russian-speaking and ethnic Russian), there are many people who speak Russian but consider themself Ukrainians. Many of them would probably choose Ukraine.



Nobody wanted to ban the Russian language, at most remove a 2012 law which gave it official status.
It's the violent separatists they declared terrorists and launched the campaign against, not Russians in general. Another common tactic to confuse an attack on violent nationalists with an attack on the people they belong to. There are civilian casualties, as in any war unfortunately, but that's as much a responsibility of the separatists as of the government.

If I lived there, and initially opposed separatism, I'd recognize the government's campaign as legitimate, even if it puts me in danger (which I'd mostly blame on the separatists). But many people think differently, so the campaign may have increased support for separatism.

Note, however, that even if most locals support separatism, only the majority of a country has the right to make such decisions, not the majority of a region, or town, or street. If any community had the right to secede by majority decision, countries would fall apart to tiny (and often animose) pieces.

Is there any reason to think they wouldn't work?

So you believe that Kosovo is rightfully part of Serbia correct? You don't believe in self-determination? That is just a nonsense opinion to me, I'm sorry. I would like you to explain the difference between Novorossiya and Kosovo if you can, other than one aligned with US interest and the other didn't.

As for the rest of the post, I think your just ignorant. The rebels are not the one's shelling schools and hospitals, they're not shelling UA held cities at all. It didn't start as an armed insurrection, it actually started as a violent coup in Kiev that overthrew the DEMOCRATICALLY elected president Viktor Yanukovych who carried the Donetsk and Luhansk with even more of the vote than Crimea. Ukraine is divided pretty much in half, look at the map. The nationalists which along with the oligarchs control the government in Kiev did not have any significant support in the east of the country, they are very unpopular and likened to Nazis which their ideological forebearer Stepan Bandera was.

The rebels didn't start this war, the people in these regions did not want to live under the iron fist of nationalists after the illegal coup, they didn't want to declare independence or join Russia at first. They originally wanted federalism and autonomy to protect their cultural identities and interests. The government in Kiev didn't listen, the first action they took in power was to revoke the language law, when they didn't listen the people took over their local government buildings, and instead of negotiating the government in Kiev sent in troops. These people do not support the government in Kiev, I doubt the people of Kiev will tolerate the government in Kiev much longer either. They live on borrowed time, they're fighting a war that nobody besides the US/EU and the extreme nationalists want to fight and they're on the verge of economic collapse. They're prepping for a long winter with no gas.

Yes. It's right that the NATO protected the people of Kosovo, who (unlike Russians in Ukraine) were being massacred. But after the nationalist governtment fell in Serbia, it should've been returned to Serbia, with appropriate guarantees that they won't be targeted again.


But they made it necessary with their insurrection. I don't agree with the nature of the government change either (after which, however, the new president was elected democratically), but not even Yanukovich authorized the secession (let alone Russian takeover) of the Eastern regions.


Neither do they have an obligation to. I'd support such negotiations, but not under force.


And, judging by the election results, the majority of Ukrainians. That, plus US/EU is not so negligible. Or, rather, wouldn't be so negligible if the EU wasn't as pacifist as it unfortunately is.

Last edited by 1024 on 03 Sep 2014, 6:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The KLA was considered a terrorist group by the US, they were far more violent than the rebels in eastern Ukraine. These rebels never attacked Ukrainian civilians, they never committed any acts of terrorism. The KLA attacked the Serbians and the Serbian government responded harshly. There was plenty of tit for tat in the Balkan wars, the US declared the one side bad and resolved the other from all blame as they usually do since it fit their national interest at the time. There is a nationalist government in Kiev right now that openly praises Nazi war criminals, I really don't see any way how you can justify Kosovo and not the other.

I straight disagree about your idea of secession, I think that people have a right to self determination. International law and "territorial integrity" are not as important as the will of the people, territorial integrity and international law have no meaning if it is applied selectively which it is. That is a perfect example of this "might makes right" mentality that the West is condemning Russia for having supposedly. It's a joke to me, I don't believe in war besides defensive ones. I don't think interventionism is good for the US or the country's it wants to "free".

Ukraine had an opportunity to negotiate, they choose war instead. Now their incompetence and ideological hubris is coming back to haunt them, they'll be lucky to stop the rebels where they are now because the pace they are on now they will completely lose their access to the sea. Ukraine needs to negotiate with the rebels, they have legitimate demands but they call them terrorists and promise them nothing but death. What future do they have in this Ukraine?

You'd be wrong to think that the government in Ukraine is free and fair btw, they've chased off and banned the real opposition. It does not reflect the real wants and wishes of the country.

Don't know what to think of this.Hope we don't send more.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -East.html

Why not? Send whatever they need.

https://news.yahoo.com/germany-supply-u ... 53837.html

Would you volunteer to serve and die because the west and east Ukraine can't get a long? It's easy to be a hawk when it doesn't involve you directly, we call that a chicken hawk. Unless you're personally willing to serve then I don't think you have a right to advocate for war. There are many volunteers fighting on both sides, how much do you really believe in this war?

Last edited by Jacoby on 03 Sep 2014, 7:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I feel sympathy for the people there, but I'd rather not have US involvement .As soon as they drop off a "few" soldiers,then they send more.
As for sending them medical and humanitarian supplies,that's fine with me.