Syria September 2015 ~ What's up?

[joepistole]

Imposing no fly zones is bulling. It is a clear case of an aggression, a violation of international law. The only instance which can establish no fly zones are a state over its own territory and the UNSC. Above will not do this, so, the only possibility to do this is a war, an aggression.

No, it isn't. No-fly zones have been and are used to prevent dictatorial abusive regimes from murdering their citizens. And they are not violations of international law when sanctioned by the UN or in cases of imminent threat to civilians, which is the case in Syria. Syria and now Russia are bombing innocent civilian targets.

Remember, if a plane is flying over Syrian territory without permission from the Syrian government, it can be shot down in full agreement with international law.

Well military aircraft from a variety of nations have been and continue to fly over Syrian territory without Syrian government approval, in part because there is effectively no Syrian government. The "Syrian government" (i.e. Assad) no longer rules over much of his former country.

You think so? I would not recommend to try if S 300 can shut down an american airplane.

The S 300 has been around for a very long time. It's old technology.

Yes, there is a large danger that appeasement of the US will not work. So, if US planes start to break international law in Syria and start to bomb some legitimate force, there may be no other reasonable choice except to shut them down.

Well, a couple of things, first the US isn't the only country conducting military operations inside the former Syrian state. A number of Arab and NATO states are conducting military operations in Syria against ISIS. That, by any stretch, isn't appeasement. It's fighting terrorists, you know, the people who have invaded Iraq, raped and cooked people alive and cut off heads and with a knife on video tapes.

The rest of the world does not matter. There will be two nuclear attacks, probably the first one from US, the second one from Russia, but this does not matter, and Russia as well as the US, as well as a large part of the remaining world (every US base will be a target in such a case, and they are in many countries) will be destroyed. If the prediction of nuclear winter after such a nuclear war is correct, this will be the end of mankind.

Oh, but it does. The war would be the rest of the world against Mother Russia and Mother Russia would lose and lose badly. What you are deliberately ignoring is the specifically referenced anti-ballistic missile capability of the US and her allies. Motehr Russia has no such capability.

More or less. And exactly the same thing happens with the US. And the Russians, as well as the Americans, will be the happy ones who will be killed immediately, instead of dying during the nuclear winter. All humankind can hope for is that the nuclear winter prediction appears the same type of BS as climate science, then there would be a chance for survival.

What you don't understand, is the war would be over very quickly and for a variety of reasons Russia will be unable to deliver her most of her nuclear war heads. As I said before, maybe a few of Russia's nuclear weapons get through, but most will not.

Russia does not want a war. But if necessary it is ready for war. Remember, it is the US which starts the war, by bombing or shooting on Syrian territory the Syrian army.

Well if Russia doesn't want war, then Mother Putin shouldn't be illegally invading, occupying and annexing neighboring states or attempting to bully NATO (e.g. invading Turkish airspace) and making threats it cannot possibility backup. A Russian war against the rest of the world will not end well for Mother Russia.

The US has 7,700 nuclear warheads. Mother Russia has fewer than 1,800 operational warheads. And we haven't even counted those of other Western nations like the United Kingdom and France. No matter how you look at it, a Russian war with the West will not end well for Mother Russia. The Russian army is considered moderately competent which is better than the old Soviet era, but it is nothing close to that of the US or other Western powers.

 

[Schmelzer]

No, it isn't. No-fly zones have been and are used to prevent dictatorial abusive regimes from murdering their citizens. And they are not violations of international law when sanctioned by the UN or in cases of imminent threat to civilians, which is the case in Syria.

No. Military actions against another state, without UNSC approval, are a violation of international law. No doubt that the US has violated this rule many times. But this is not based on international law, but simply based on superiour military power of the US. The US version of international law is, as everybody knows, that whatever the US wants to do it is allowed to do, however stupid the justification for the aggression.

And one of the main aims of Russia is the revival of international law.

Well military aircraft from a variety of nations have been and continue to fly over Syrian territory without Syrian government approval, in part because there is effectively no Syrian government.

This is the new international law - whenever the military of the enemy state is weak, one can do what one likes?

The S 300 has been around for a very long time. It's old technology.

Indeed, it is old enough to go to export. So, this will be what Assad can use. I think, this may be the optimal decision. One gives Assad S 300, so he can try to hit whatever airplanes are flying around without permission, without violating international law, but if the US starts a war, it is a war only with Assad, not with Russia. And we will see how good are modern American planes against old Russian air defense.

What I have heard is that around the Russian air base (another source has said on the Russian battle ships nearby) there is S 400.

Well, a couple of things, first the US isn't the only country conducting military operations inside the former Syrian state. A number of Arab and NATO states are conducting military operations in Syria against ISIS. That, by any stretch, isn't appeasement. It's fighting terrorists, you know, the people who have invaded Iraq, raped and cooked people alive and cut off heads and with a knife on video tapes.

To allow the US and their vassals to violate international law is, of course, appeasement. As long as all they bomb is the IS, it has been decided to tolerate the violation of international law. Of course, they prefer to bomb Syrian infrastructure, whenever it has an IS flag on its top, which is extremely problematic in case of electric stations near Aleppo, because the water supply for Aleppo depends on electricity. But, ok, formally the power station is under IS control, so the US has an excuse for bombing infrastructure.

But if they start to bomb Assads forces, this will not be tolerated. This would be an appeasement which is too dangerous for Russia. Not because of Syria itself, but because the same scheme will be used for all the central Asian states, and after taking the whole central Asia and positioning their missile defenses there, there can be a danger that the US gets a first strike ability. And if the US has first strike ability, it will use it. Thus, appeasement will lead, almost certainly, to a nuclear war.

Today, the US has no such first strike ability, and the US military knows this very well, thus, one can hope that they will not start a full scale nuclear war even if there starts a non-nuclear war in Syria.

The war would be the rest of the world against Mother Russia and Mother Russia would lose and lose badly.

A nuclear war will not have a winning side. So, yes, Russia would lose, so would the US and the rest of the world.

What you are deliberately ignoring is the specifically referenced anti-ballistic missile capability of the US and her allies. Motehr Russia has no such capability.

In your phantasy not. In reality is has. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-400_(missile)
But the anti-missile abilities of above sides are grossly insufficient against the missiles of the other side.

What you don't understand, is the war would be over very quickly and for a variety of reasons Russia will be unable to deliver her most of her nuclear war heads.

There is only one reason - your fantasy. But your fantasy plays no role on the real battlefield.

As I said before, maybe a few of Russia's nuclear weapons get through, but most will not.

Nobody cares about most. 5% going through will be sufficient to destroy the US.

The US has 7,700 nuclear warheads. Mother Russia has fewer than 1,800 operational warheads.

Nice try to omit "operational" on one side. Reverting this cheap propaganda trick gives:
Russia has 7,500 nuclear warheads. Mother America has fewer than 2,000 operational warheads.
http://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/status-world-nuclear-forces/ shows that there is no relevant difference in the numbers (and that one can, in comparison, forget about France and UK, BTW).

By the way, a remarkable example of how one can lie with a half-truth. Fits even arithmetically - 2 numbers out of 4.

And the question arises if this was intentional cheating. The clue is that you have correctly used the "operational" - applied it to the "fewer than 1,800" (nice variant of 1,780) but not to the 7,700 of US (my source gives 7,200, but this is irrelevant) . This strongly suggests that you know that this makes a difference, and probably also know the complete numbers. In this case, this would be a case of intentional disinformation. But, ok, there remains a probability that you have simply copypasted from some NATO propaganda site. In this case, the accusation would be unjust. Fortunately, you can, in this case, easily prove that you are an innocent victim of propaganda lies, instead of cheating yourself - simply give us links to your sources of these two numbers. Then we can see if they also contain the full number of Russian nuclear warheads and the operational American ones.

 

[Schmelzer]

And, by the way, you really want to claim that the US military, which at 9/11 was unable to defend the Pentagon from a civilian airplane at 9:37, more than an hour (8:19) after the first plane was kidnapped, and almost an hour (8:46) after the South tower was hit, has any serious defense capacity against a serious nuclear attack?

Think about that the Russian cruise missiles, the ones used from the Caspian sea against ISIS in Syria, can be hidden in a standard shipping container:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M-54_Klub
"A Klub-K variant, which is disguised as a shipping container that can be placed on a truck, train, or merchant vessel, was advertised in 2010 and was shown for the first time at the MAKS 2011 air show."

 

[joepistole]

And, by the way, you really want to claim that the US military, which at 9/11 was unable to defend the Pentagon from a civilian airplane at 9:37, more than an hour (8:19) after the first plane was kidnapped, and almost an hour (8:46) after the South tower was hit, has any serious defense capacity against a serious nuclear attack?

Think about that the Russian cruise missiles, the ones used from the Caspian sea against ISIS in Syria, can be hidden in a standard shipping container:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M-54_Klub
"A Klub-K variant, which is disguised as a shipping container that can be placed on a truck, train, or merchant vessel, was advertised in 2010 and was shown for the first time at the MAKS 2011 air show."

Oh my, I guess I touched a sensitive cord. I guess you can be forgiven for not knowing that in the US and in Western countries, the military isn't designed to protect itself from civilians. I understand that might be difficult to understand coming from the former Soviet Union. But that's the way it works in the US. The responsibility for preventing 9/11 like attacks falls on the FBI not the US military. So are you saying Mother Russia is going to disguise some folks, hijack some US airliners and run them into US military installations? Is that Mother Russia's plan? Well, it won't be as easy. The responsible US agencies have tighten security on civilian airliners with additional screening and American passengers are aware of the threat. By the way, running a commercial airliner into the Pentagon didn't in anyway damage American military capability...oops. While dramatic, it didn't in anyway damage America's ability to wage warfare.

As for Russian cruise missiles, I guess you missed the part about the Russian fleet disappearing in minutes of the outbreak of warfare between the US and Mother Russia or the part about Russia losing its GPS.

 

[joepistole]

No. Military actions against another state, without UNSC approval, are a violation of international law. No doubt that the US has violated this rule many times. But this is not based on international law, but simply based on superiour military power of the US. The US version of international law is, as everybody knows, that whatever the US wants to do it is allowed to do, however stupid the justification for the aggression.

I'm glad to see you admit, the Russian invasion, occupation and annexation of the lands of its neighbors was illegal under international law because those actions didn't have UNSC (UN Security Council) approval.

And one of the main aims of Russia is the revival of international law.

If that is so, then why has Mother Russia repeatedly and blatantly violated international law with repeated illegal invasions, occupations and annexations of the lands of neighboring countries?

This is the new international law - whenever the military of the enemy state is weak, one can do what one likes?

No, it's the international law of self defense. As I previously wrote, forces based in Syria illegally attacked a neighboring state. US along with Arab and Western military forces have attacked ISIS in defense of that state (i.e. Iraq) with the full support and backing of Iraq. The US or any allied nation, has not attacked Assad's forces. Gassing your own people as Assad (Russia's ally) has done, is illegal under international law.

Indeed, it is old enough to go to export. So, this will be what Assad can use. I think, this may be the optimal decision. One gives Assad S 300, so he can try to hit whatever airplanes are flying around without permission, without violating international law, but if the US starts a war, it is a war only with Assad, not with Russia. And we will see how good are modern American planes against old Russian air defense.

If Mother Russia wants to give Assad S 300 fine. If Assad uses them to threaten US or allied forces he will not have them for long.

What I have heard is that around the Russian air base (another source has said on the Russian battle ships nearby) there is S 400.

And?

To allow the US and their vassals to violate international law is, of course, appeasement. As long as all they bomb is the IS, it has been decided to tolerate the violation of international law. Of course, they prefer to bomb Syrian infrastructure, whenever it has an IS flag on its top, which is extremely problematic in case of electric stations near Aleppo, because the water supply for Aleppo depends on electricity. But, ok, formally the power station is under IS control, so the US has an excuse for bombing infrastructure.

Except the US doesn't have vassal states. The US isn't Mother Russia. I understand this is difficult for you, but the US doesn't operate nor has it ever operated like the former Soviet Union or Mother Russia. The West, and the US do not have vassal states. We have democracies. Each nation is independent. Each nation makes their own decisions. Canada, one of our closest allies, recently told the US government it is withdrawing its forces from Iraq because a new government was elected in Canada and that government no longer wants to invest its resources in Iraq.

But if they start to bomb Assads forces, this will not be tolerated. This would be an appeasement which is too dangerous for Russia. Not because of Syria itself, but because the same scheme will be used for all the central Asian states, and after taking the whole central Asia and positioning their missile defenses there, there can be a danger that the US gets a first strike ability. And if the US has first strike ability, it will use it. Thus, appeasement will lead, almost certainly, to a nuclear war.

Well, as long as Assad doesn't slaughter his citizens and gas them as he has done in the past, things which are also illegal under international law, then the US will not attack the remnants of Assad's military.

Additionally, the US already has first strike capability and it hasn't used it. If you believe otherwise, you are deluding Back in the day when the US was the sole nuclear power on the planet, it didn't use that power to invade Mother Russia, when it could have very easily done so. The unfortunate fact for you is the US isn't Mother Russia. Unlike Mother Russia the US is a super power and has been a super power for a very long time and has no desire to invade and conquer the world with its military might. But has and will act to protect its allies and itself.

Also unlike Mother Russia, the US doesn't suffer from a paranoid world view. No Mother Russia, the world isn't going to get you as long as you behave. The world really doesn't care about you as long as you don't invade, occupy, annex or otherwise threaten your neighbors or anyone else. You just aren't worth the effort.

Today, the US has no such first strike ability, and the US military knows this very well, thus, one can hope that they will not start a full scale nuclear war even if there starts a non-nuclear war in Syria.

Oh, and where do you get that bullshit, from Russian state owned and controlled media?

A nuclear war will not have a winning side. So, yes, Russia would lose, so would the US and the rest of the world.

Yes, Mother Russia would lose any military engagement with the US and its allies and it would definitely lose in a nuclear engagement and you continue to delude yourself by ignoring inconvenient facts, like the US anti-ballistic missile defenses. Russia lacks the technical ability to effectively deliver its nuclear bombs. Russia's nuclear machine is stuck in the 50's. It's nuclear bombers and missile systems were built in the 50's are are very easy targets. It's navy is what is referred to as a brown water (i.e. shallow water) and equally antiquated. Many of Russia's new cruise missiles, you know, the ones you like to tout, missed their targets when Russia recently deployed them in Syria.

Unfortunately, for you, the US and the rest of the world will not be as damaged by nuclear war as Mother Russia would be. Mother Russia would be decimated, the rest of the world, not so much.

In your phantasy not. In reality is has. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-400_(missile)

Yeah, the missiles which missed their targets.

But the anti-missile abilities of above sides are grossly insufficient against the missiles of the other side.

And you know this how? That is what you want to believe. That is what you need to believe. But that doesn't make it true.

There is only one reason - your fantasy. But your fantasy plays no role on the real battlefield.

Nobody cares about most. 5% going through will be sufficient to destroy the US.

Except, that isn't fantasy. It's reality. The US has multiple anti-ballistic missile capabilities. As has been repeatedly brought to your attention, the US anti-ballistic missile defense isn't limited to missiles. The US now has aircraft and naval vessels equipped with lasers which are fully capable of destroying any missile launched by Mother Russia.

As for your .5% figure, I think that's pretty high given the facts. But for the sake of discussion, let's assume that is true. That equates to about 9 missiles. Contrary to your assertion, that isn't enough to destroy the US. As previously pointed out most of Russia's nuclear capability is invested in weapons built more than a half century ago. Putin has attempted to modernize his military, but his efforts are far behind schedule and now that Mother Russia is under international sanctions thanks to his illegal invasions of neighboring states Russia's access to modern technology has been cut off, the outlook is bleak for Mother Russia.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/economi...lans-to-modernize-russian-military-1430955418
http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/09/russias-military-modernizes/

Nice try to omit "operational" on one side. Reverting this cheap propaganda trick gives:
Russia has 7,500 nuclear warheads. Mother America has fewer than 2,000 operational warheads.
http://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/status-world-nuclear-forces/ shows that there is no relevant difference in the numbers (and that one can, in comparison, forget about France and UK, BTW).

By the way, a remarkable example of how one can lie with a half-truth. Fits even arithmetically - 2 numbers out of 4.

And the question arises if this was intentional cheating. The clue is that you have correctly used the "operational" - applied it to the "fewer than 1,800" (nice variant of 1,780) but not to the 7,700 of US (my source gives 7,200, but this is irrelevant) . This strongly suggests that you know that this makes a difference, and probably also know the complete numbers. In this case, this would be a case of intentional disinformation. .

There is no "cheating", no propaganda, or omitting on my part and the only one deceiving or attempting to deceive is you my friend.

 

[Schmelzer]

[Some claims have been left unanswered because their propagandistic character was obvious anyway.]

I'm glad to see you admit, the Russian invasion, occupation and annexation of the lands of its neighbors was illegal under international law because those actions didn't have UNSC (UN Security Council) approval.

Except there was none.

In Georgia, there have been ceasefire contracts between Georgia with Abkhasia as well as South Ossetia, with Russians as peace forces acknowledged by above sides as well as UN. Georgia has broken the ceasefire, thus, no invasion. In the Ukraine, there was a coup against the legitimate president, after which the legitimate president as well as the legitimate government of Crimea asked Russians for support to preserve public order and safety.

No, it's the international law of self defense. As I previously wrote, forces based in Syria illegally attacked a neighboring state. The US or any allied nation, has not attacked Assad's forces.

Except that it was Syria which was attacked by forces based in Iraq. But this is not quite relevant, because, as long as the US bombs only IS, this will be tolerated by Assad as well as Russia.

If Mother Russia wants to give Assad S 300 fine. If Assad uses them to threaten US or allied forces he will not have them for long.

We will see. Ok, I hope we will not have a reason to see it, that Obama is not that stupid to try. And S 400 is a class better than S 300, it is not yet free for export.

Well, as long as Assad doesn't slaughter his citizens and gas them as he has done in the past, things which are also illegal under international law, then the US will not attack the remnants of Assad's military.

Again the boring gas lie, but, ok, let's hope so. Unfortunately, there are a lot of stupid warriers in the presidential elections who have fantasies about no fly zones and even worse actions which could lead to a nuclear war. So, really, let's hope that this is not a propaganda lie.

Additionally, the US already has first strike capability and it hasn't used it.

It has not. Yes, there was a time when the US was the only nuclear power, 1945-1949. As far as I know, in Hiroshima and Nagasaki they have used the only bombs they have had at that moment, so it is quite reasonable to think that before 1949 the nuclear arsenal was sufficient to guarantee a win in a new world war. Moreover, there have been no ballistic missiles at that time. It is known that there have been planes for this, but it would have been in no way easy.

Yeah, the missiles which missed their targets.

This laughable CNN propaganda claim about the 3 falling down somewhere in Iran? With a photo from a sinkhole looking like that of a mortar shell? Funny, but, no, this is not S 400, it has nothing to do with it.

And you know this how? That is what you want to believe. That is what you need to believe. But that doesn't make it true.

This is what all reasonable sources I have seen claim. Feel free to post a link to some source which claims differently.

As for your .5% figure, I think that's pretty high given the facts. But for the sake of discussion, let's assume that is true. That equates to about 9 missiles.

My number was 5%, that means 90. And that's only those which are on alert.

As previously pointed out most of Russia's nuclear capability is invested in weapons built more than a half century ago.

Which supports that your claims are completely unreliable. More than half a century back was before 1965. http://bos.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/04/13/0096340215581363.full.pdf has a list, with dates, on p.2, and not a single date is before 1965. And "Retirement of all Soviet-era ICBMs is well under way and scheduled for completion in 2022."

Regarding your cheating, even https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction has all four numbers

According to the Federation of American Scientists, an organization that assesses nuclear weapon stockpiles, in 2013, Russia possessed an estimated 8,500 total nuclear warheads of which 1,800 were strategically operational. The organization also claims that the U.S. had an estimated total 7,700 nuclear warheads of which 1,950 were strategically operational.

and not only the two you have chosen to cheat us: "The US has 7,700 nuclear warheads. Mother Russia has fewer than 1,800 operational warheads." Given that these are exactly your numbers, as Wiki is extremely easy to find (always on the first page of google) it is quite certain that this was the source for your numbers.

So, the case is clear. You have chosen the larger number for US and the smaller number for Russia, instead of all four numbers, or any pair of comparable numbers, with the obvious aim to cheat.

 

[joepistole]

[Some claims have been left unanswered because their propagandistic character was obvious anyway.]

Except the truth isn't propaganda. Being from the former Soviet Union, you probably don't understand the difference. The fact is you are running from unpleasant truths. You are being more than a little disingenuous.

Except there was none.

The only people who believe that are Russians. Just because your state owned media tells you something, it doesn't mean it's true. The unpleasant fact for you is Mother Russia illegally invaded, occupied and annexed portions of neighboring states. That is why Mother Russia is now under international sanctions.

In Georgia, there have been ceasefire contracts between Georgia with Abkhasia as well as South Ossetia, with Russians as peace forces acknowledged by above sides as well as UN. Georgia has broken the ceasefire, thus, no invasion. In the Ukraine, there was a coup against the legitimate president, after which the legitimate president as well as the legitimate government of Crimea asked Russians for support to preserve public order and safety.

Oh, then perhaps you can point to the UN resolution authorizing Russia's invasion, occupation, and annexation of Georgian lands? You can't because it doesn't exist. The fact is, in your previous post, you said any military action against a sovereign state was illegal without UN Security council approval. There were no conditions in your assertion. You are a hypocrite, a lying hypocrite at that. Where are the UN Security Council resolutions authorizing the Russian invasion, occupation and annexation of portions of Georgia and Ukraine? There are none. That's why you cannot point to a single UN Security Council resolution authorizing Russia's blatantly illegal actions in those states.

The argument you are making is, its legal for Mother Russia to invade, occupy and annex lands of its neighbors, but it its illegal for the US and allied nations to defend Iraq against ISIS in Syria or to prevent the remnants of Assad's army from murdering thousand of innocent Syrian civilians.

Going beyond the fact that Russia didn't have the requisite UN Security council resolution you previously said was necessary to invade or take military action against a country, and Mother Russia didn't have it. You now claim, the "legitimate" Ukrainian government requested "help". What happened was the duly elected Ukrainian parliament impeached the Ukrainian president and that president fled the country. Perhaps you can show me where the "legitimate" Ukrainian government authorized the illegal annexation of Crimea? The fact is your beloved Putin is on record admitting he had planned the whole Ukrainian invasion and annexation long before the actual events transpired. You should know this if you have access to legitimate news sources.

Except that it was Syria which was attacked by forces based in Iraq. But this is not quite relevant, because, as long as the US bombs only IS, this will be tolerated by Assad as well as Russia.

Assad has lost control of what was Syria. He no longer controls large swaths of what was Syria. There is group called ISIS, you may have heard of them. They control large swaths of what was Syria, and it was that group which invaded and now controls large portions of Iraq. Syria, Assad's government, doesn't control most of what was the Syrian state and Assad's government hasn't been attacked by anyone but its citizens. That is the truth of the matter. It isn't my fault, you find that fact unpleasant and inconsistent with your beliefs.

As you have been repeatedly told before, the US will bomb whomever it sees fit regardless of what Mother Russia likes or dislikes. If Syria doesn't want to face American military might, then he had better not bomb civilians. And the prospect of a Western enforced no-fly zone to protect Syrian civilians is a very real possibility and is being discussed in Western capitals.

We will see. Ok, I hope we will not have a reason to see it, that Obama is not that stupid to try. And S 400 is a class better than S 300, it is not yet free for export.

Well, unfortunately for you Russians and former Soviets, no one in the US spends much time fretting about Russia's military hardware or might.

Again the boring gas lie, but, ok, let's hope so. Unfortunately, there are a lot of stupid warriers in the presidential elections who have fantasies about no fly zones and even worse actions which could lead to a nuclear war. So, really, let's hope that this is not a propaganda lie.

Well you have a couple of problems here. One, the barrel bombs and gassing of Syrian civilians isn't a lie. It has been verified by a number of credible organizations including the UN.

"16 September 2013 – A United Nations team probing the possible use of chemical weapons in Syria has found “clear and convincing evidence” that Sarin gas was used in an incident that occurred on 21 August in the Ghouta area on the outskirts of Damascus in which hundreds of people were reportedly killed." http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=45856#.Viz4nLerTIU

Two, the current US president isn't running for election. No-fly zones are not fantasies and are seriously being considered. If Mother Russia wants to commit suicide by initiating a nuclear war, so be it. The West will not be bullied by a two-bit dictator, that isn't politics, that's reality. One of the problems Russia has is is operating under outdated paradigms. It still hasn't managed to evolve beyond the 1950's. Russia doesn't realize things have changed. It doesn't realize it isn't a superpower. It needs a dose of reality.

It has not. Yes, there was a time when the US was the only nuclear power, 1945-1949. As far as I know, in Hiroshima and Nagasaki they have used the only bombs they have had at that moment, so it is quite reasonable to think that before 1949 the nuclear arsenal was sufficient to guarantee a win in a new world war. Moreover, there have been no ballistic missiles at that time. It is known that there have been planes for this, but it would have been in no way easy.

Hmm...so you don't think the US can launch any number of nuclear weapons at Mother Russia at any point in time?

The unpleasant fact is you are falling victim to your leaders as Russian have historically done. They are playing you. They are yanking the chains of nationalism and you are responding exactly they way they want you to. You are being played.

A few months before Nagasaki and Hiroshima the US had no nuclear weapons. Just because the US used up its arsenal of weapons on those two bombs, it doesn't mean it couldn't make more within a very short period of time. The US did make many more nuclear bombs in a short period of time.

The fact is the US had no interest then in invading what was then the Soviet Union or the Russian state which followed. If the US wanted to attack and invade Russia it has had many opportunities to do so. It could have invaded when the Soviet Union collapsed. It didn't. You don't understand, the rest of the world isn't like Mother Russia or the former Soviet Union. Western countries don't invade, occupy and annex their neighbors lands. Russia does that.

The US was the sole nuclear power for a very long time. The US had more than enough time and resources to invade the Soviet Union. But the fact is no one wants to attack or invade Mother Russia. But it's that Russian paranoia which makes you vulnerable to the abuses of leaders like Putin and Stalin.

 

[joepistole]

This laughable CNN propaganda claim about the 3 falling down somewhere in Iran? With a photo from a sinkhole looking like that of a mortar shell? Funny, but, no, this is not S 400, it has nothing to do with it.

The truth isn't propaganda. It is unpleasant for you, but that doesn't make it propaganda. Frankly, you have propaganda on the mind.

My number was 5%, that means 90. And that's only those which are on alert.

Well then you should have put period in front of the number. But even 90, which is doubtful, wouldn't destroy the US. The US is a global power. It's going to take more than 90. The US isn't like Mother Russia. It's assets are not focused in on geographical area.

Which supports that your claims are completely unreliable. More than half a century back was before 1965. http://bos.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/04/13/0096340215581363.full.pdf has a list, with dates, on p.2, and not a single date is before 1965. And "Retirement of all Soviet-era ICBMs is well under way and scheduled for completion in 2022."

LOL...Earth to Schmelzer....Russia wouldn't be replacing those ICBMs if they weren't antiquated as I previously pointed out and as you pointed out Russia is years away from completing the task. "Underway", isn't completed. And as I pointed out, Putin's modernization plans are falling behind schedule. The fact is the 1950's era bombers Russia is flying around are not a threat to anyone but Mother Russia.

Regarding your cheating, even https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction has all four numbers

and not only the two you have chosen to cheat us: "The US has 7,700 nuclear warheads. Mother Russia has fewer than 1,800 operational warheads." Given that these are exactly your numbers, as Wiki is extremely easy to find (always on the first page of google) it is quite certain that this was the source for your numbers.

So, the case is clear. You have chosen the larger number for US and the smaller number for Russia, instead of all four numbers, or any pair of comparable numbers, with the obvious aim to cheat.

Hmm, and you thing there is something relevant there?

 

[Schmelzer]

Oh, then perhaps you can point to the UN resolution authorizing Russia's invasion, occupation, and annexation of Georgian lands?

There is no occupation. There are two independent countries, Abkhasia and South Ossetia, on territory which was, formally, in Soviet times part of Georgian Socialist Soviet Republic, which after the dissolution of the Soviet Union became independent.

The fact is, in your previous post, you said any military action against a sovereign state was illegal without UN Security council approval. There were no conditions in your assertion.

Of course, a post is not a complete documentation, and, of course, an aggression justifies self-defense against the aggressor state. This is, of course, possible without UNSC approval. Sorry for omitting this. And, of course, if one side breaks a ceasefire agreement, the peace force can also act against the aggressor state. There is also no necessity of an UNSC approval.

The argument you are making is, its legal for Mother Russia to invade, occupy and annex lands of its neighbors, but it its illegal for the US and allied nations to defend Iraq against ISIS in Syria or to prevent the remnants of Assad's army from murdering thousand of innocent Syrian civilians.

There is, indeed, an age-old precedent where where the fighting against some illegal military formation was continued on the territory of the neighbour state, which has been widely accepted as a legitimate self-defense. So, I can concede that one can invent some justification, based on this precedent. But even if one accepts this legal construction, this justifies only actions against the IS where no Syrian army is present to fight against it. If this justifies the bombing of electric power stations in Aleppo area, simply because there is an IS flag on them, is questionable. What would be justified by this precedent is that IS troops acting in Iraq and then running away to Syria may be chased on Syrian territory too. Some immediate short time response. But not more.

Whatever, the other fact is that the Syrian army has any right to shut American airplanes over Syrian territory once they are there without permission. And if the US starts any military action against the Syrian army, this is an aggression and Syria has the legal right to self-defense, and Russia the right to help. And no propaganda invention will help the US in this case.

What happened was the duly elected Ukrainian parliament impeached the Ukrainian president and that president fled the country.

No. There was no impeachment in correspondence with the legal requirement for impeachment of the Ukrainian constitution.

The fact is your beloved Putin is on record admitting he had planned the whole Ukrainian invasion and annexation long before the actual events transpired.

Reasonable politicians have to be prepared to very different things which may happen. There has been a conflict between Ukraine and Crimea quite close to a secessionist war already immediately after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and it was clear that this may reappear again at every moment, so it would have been quite stupid from the Russian side if they would not have had any plans if such things happen again. If it would become known that the US military has no plans at all for a nuclear war, what would you think about such a government?

Assad has lost control of what was Syria. He no longer controls large swaths of what was Syria. There is group called ISIS, you may have heard of them. They control large swaths of what was Syria, and it was that group which invaded and now controls large portions of Iraq.

You try to imply here the reverse order. IS was created in Iraq, and after that used the Syrian civil war to extend its power into Syria.

As you have been repeatedly told before, the US will bomb whomever it sees fit regardless of what Mother Russia likes or dislikes.

Thanks for openly admitting that the US is an aggressor state.

Well you have a couple of problems here. One, the barrel bombs and gassing of Syrian civilians isn't a lie. It has been verified by a number of credible organizations including the UN.

Who cares about barrel bombs, except NATO propaganda? And all the UN has said about the gas is that gas was used in Ghouta:

"16 September 2013 – A United Nations team probing the possible use of chemical weapons in Syria has found “clear and convincing evidence” that Sarin gas was used in an incident that occurred on 21 August in the Ghouta area on the outskirts of Damascus in which hundreds of people were reportedly killed." http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=45856#.Viz4nLerTIU

Correct. The question who was it was not decided.

Two, the current US president isn't running for election. No-fly zones are not fantasies and are seriously being considered.

Yes, I have heard about this. And this is very dangerous news. Because this brings the world close the a nuclear war.

Hmm...so you don't think the US can launch any number of nuclear weapons at Mother Russia at any point in time?

Of course they can launch. And destruct Russia. But there will be retaliation, and this retaliation will destruct the US in a quite symmetric way. I hope this will never happen. Not only because of the millions of Russians and Americans which will die, together with lots of Europeans, Japanese, and other states with American bases. But also because I expect that there is a large probability of a nuclear winter which would be the end of humanity as a whole.

A few months before Nagasaki and Hiroshima the US had no nuclear weapons. Just because the US used up its arsenal of weapons on those two bombs, it doesn't mean it couldn't make more within a very short period of time. The US did make many more nuclear bombs in a short period of time.

Possible, I don't have the numbers. Anyway, it would not have been an easy game to win a war against Stalin 1949, even with atomic bombs.

It could have invaded when the Soviet Union collapsed. It didn't.

No. At that time they had no first strike ability, and if the US would have invaded, they would have received a retaliation.

Western countries don't invade, occupy and annex their neighbors lands.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations

The US was the sole nuclear power for a very long time.

Four years are not very long. And they had no long range missiles at that time, the bomber at that time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-17_Flying_Fortress had a range of 3200 km, thus, 1600 km for a two-directional flight. And this against the air defense of one of the winners of the war. Not really an easy game.

 

[Schmelzer]

The US is a global power. It's going to take more than 90. The US isn't like Mother Russia. It's assets are not focused in on geographical area.

Who cares about what the US legally owns after 90 intercontinental missiles have hit it? Their aircraft carriers would be destroyed, they would be primary targets, the US bases too. I would say, if there would be no nuclear winter (in this case, anyway there would be nothing to care about) some of the neutral states, without US bases, would remain the strongest states and control the world.

By the way, ever heard about yellowstone? http://www.ryot.org/supervolcano-yellowstone-volcano-will-it-erupt/765673 What if a big H bomb explodes there?

Russia wouldn't be replacing those ICBMs if they weren't antiquated as I previously pointed out and as you pointed out Russia is years away from completing the task.

LOL. Nice try. If it does not replace them, they are outdated because they are old, if it replaces them they are outdated because else they would not replace them. Whatever happens, you can name them outdated, without any further argument. Of course, weapons which are fine today may become vulnerable in future, if the missile defense improves. So, one has to prepare for this. Russia does.

The fact is the 1950's era bombers Russia is flying around are not a threat to anyone but Mother Russia.

If they are a threat or not is something we cannot know. All what we can easily find out is that your information is, as usual, a lie. The White Swan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-160 entered service 1987.

Hmm, and you thing there is something relevant there?

I think there is only one possibility to explain that you find nothing relevant: If you are so used to telling lies that you find nothing objectionable in this nice example of a half-truth. In comparison with your standards, a half-truth maybe, indeed, something honorable.

 

[joepistole]

There is no occupation. There are two independent countries, Abkhasia and South Ossetia, on territory which was, formally, in Soviet times part of Georgian Socialist Soviet Republic, which after the dissolution of the Soviet Union became independent.

Oh, then what are those Russian troops doing in Georgia and Ukraine if there is no Russian occupation? Do you want to believe those Russian troops are just spending their vacations fighting Georgians and Ukrainians. And Russia didn't annex Crimea from Ukraine? Where did all those Russian troops in Eastern Ukraine come from? Unfortunately, the world isn't as dumb as you need it to be.

Of course, a post is not a complete documentation, and, of course, an aggression justifies self-defense against the aggressor state. This is, of course, possible without UNSC approval. Sorry for omitting this. And, of course, if one side breaks a ceasefire agreement, the peace force can also act against the aggressor state. There is also no necessity of an UNSC approval.

Oh, so now, it's legal for Mother Russia to to those things without UN Security Council approval, but it's illegal for other countries to defend themselves or to prevent the slaughter of innocent civilians without UN Security Council approval.

There is, indeed, an age-old precedent where where the fighting against some illegal military formation was continued on the territory of the neighbour state, which has been widely accepted as a legitimate self-defense. So, I can concede that one can invent some justification, based on this precedent. But even if one accepts this legal construction, this justifies only actions against the IS where no Syrian army is present to fight against it. If this justifies the bombing of electric power stations in Aleppo area, simply because there is an IS flag on them, is questionable. What would be justified by this precedent is that IS troops acting in Iraq and then running away to Syria may be chased on Syrian territory too. Some immediate short time response. But not more.

Well, it's not Syrian territory anymore. Syria has no control over that territory. That territory is governed by ISIS. ISIS polices the streets and runs all organs of governance in what was formerly Syrian territory. Assad and Russia can cry over spilled milk, but they can't put the milk back in the bottle. Assad's people rose up against him and have created a new state. Whither that state survives is another matter. But one cannot honestly deny its existence.

Whatever, the other fact is that the Syrian army has any right to shut American airplanes over Syrian territory once they are there without permission. And if the US starts any military action against the Syrian army, this is an aggression and Syria has the legal right to self-defense, and Russia the right to help. And no propaganda invention will help the US in this case.

Well that depends on circumstance, but if Syria or Mother Russia wants to take a crack at firing on anything American, there will be hell to pay, and neither Mother Russia or Syria can pay the price of that folly.

No. There was no impeachment in correspondence with the legal requirement for impeachment of the Ukrainian constitution.

Except there was. I suggest you beef up on your history. It has long been held people have the right of self governance, to determine their own government. That's difficult for Russians to understand since they have never really had self governance. It's a strange notion they just don't understand.

Reasonable politicians have to be prepared to very different things which may happen. There has been a conflict between Ukraine and Crimea quite close to a secessionist war already immediately after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and it was clear that this may reappear again at every moment, so it would have been quite stupid from the Russian side if they would not have had any plans if such things happen again. If it would become known that the US military has no plans at all for a nuclear war, what would you think about such a government?

Except, none of that is true.

You try to imply here the reverse order. IS was created in Iraq, and after that used the Syrian civil war to extend its power into Syria.

That isn't true either. Some of ISIS leaders did originate in Iraq, but that doesn't mean ISIS invaded Syria. ISIS was founded in 2014 and by that time, the folks who founded ISIS had been in Syria for years.

Thanks for openly admitting that the US is an aggressor state.

LOL...are you on drugs? The fact that the US will defend itself and its allies and will not be intimidated doesn't mean it is an "aggressor state".

Who cares about barrel bombs, except NATO propaganda? And all the UN has said about the gas is that gas was used in Ghouta:

Yeah, who cares about murdering innocent men, women and children. Russia and their ally, Assad, clearly don't, else they wouldn't do it or sanction it. The truth isn't propaganda. It's just the truth.

Correct. The question who was it was not decided.

Yes it was decided. You just don't like the answer. The only party who had access to Sarin gas was Assad. It's not something the rebels had access to and it was used on rebel populations. It wasn't used against Assad's supporters.

Yes, I have heard about this. And this is very dangerous news. Because this brings the world close the a nuclear war.

Well, it's contrary to your assertion that this was a political decision. It isn't. If Mother Russia wants to begin a war with the US, so be it. It will not end well for Mother Russia.

Of course they can launch. And destruct Russia. But there will be retaliation, and this retaliation will destruct the US in a quite symmetric way. I hope this will never happen. Not only because of the millions of Russians and Americans which will die, together with lots of Europeans, Japanese, and other states with American bases. But also because I expect that there is a large probability of a nuclear winter which would be the end of humanity as a whole.

Well then you are contradicting yourself again. The US does have first strike capability. I seriously doubt Mother Russia will be able to launch or deliver enough nuclear devices to create a nuclear winter. You are still living in a world which no longer exists.

Possible, I don't have the numbers. Anyway, it would not have been an easy game to win a war against Stalin 1949, even with atomic bombs.

Well that is your belief. But that isn't reality. WWII seriously depleted the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union had lost more than 27 million people to WWII, and then you need to add in Stalin's purges. That's close to one in 5 Russians died during WWII. And you ignoring the fact, American factories were supplying Russia with needed goods and supplies, supplies it needed to wage war. The US lost 400 thousand lives in comparison and the US fought against 3 countries on 3 continents. Russia fought against one country on one continent.

 

[joepistole]

No. At that time they had no first strike ability, and if the US would have invaded, they would have received a retaliation.

Oh, and where is the basis for that assessment? I think only a fool would agree with that assessment. The US has troops strategically positioned to strike anywhere in the world on a moments notice. You don't know if Russia would have been capable of retaliation? Need I remind you a state of chaos existed within Mother Russia when the Soviet Union collapsed. Soldiers were not getting paid. If the US wanted, it could have easily conducted a first strike.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations

Ok, is there a point in there somewhere? The point is Western countries don't invade and annex neighboring countries. Colonialism died a very long time ago. I guess Russia didn't get the memo.

Four years are not very long. And they had no long range missiles at that time, the bomber at that time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-17_Flying_Fortreouss had a range of 3200 km, thus, 1600 km for a two-directional flight. And this against the air defense of one of the winners of the war. Not really an easy game.

Four years was more than enough time to conquer Mother Russia. The US fought 3 countries on three continents in less time. And if the US had invaded Mother Russia, Mother Russia would not have had the resources to devote to nuclear weapons production. US troops could have kept on rolling if the US had any desires to invade Mother Russia. Mother Russia had already lost nearly a fifth of her population to war and millions more due to Stalin's purges. You don't think the Nazi's or Imperial Japan didn't have good military hardware? Mother Russia didn't have much to fight with after WWII, it would have been the perfect time for the US to invade Russia. But the US didn't, even though it held all the cards, because the US has no designs on Russia. It has never had a desire to attack or conquer Russia. Russian's flatter themselves to think otherwise. The US isn't Mother Russia. The US doesn't view the world through the lenses of win-lose but rather win-win.

 

[joepistole]

Who cares about what the US legally owns after 90 intercontinental missiles have hit it? Their aircraft carriers would be destroyed, they would be primary targets, the US bases too. I would say, if there would be no nuclear winter (in this case, anyway there would be nothing to care about) some of the neutral states, without US bases, would remain the strongest states and control the world.

Would they? You hope they would be. But first you have to find them, then you have to successfully attach them and get past those aforementioned lasers. The US has literally several hundred military bases around the world along with 11 fleets. And as I said before should a war breakout, Russia's naval launch platforms will be lost within minutes. So they are not much of a threat, neither are Russia's land based ballistic missiles. Your 90 missiles couldn't possibly hit all the targets required to destroy the US.

No. At that time they had no first strike ability, and if the US would have invaded, they would have received a retaliation.

LOL....so now you are placing all your hopes on a super volcano?

 

[joepistole]

LOL. Nice try. If it does not replace them, they are outdated because they are old, if it replaces them they are outdated because else they would not replace them. Whatever happens, you can name them outdated, without any further argument. Of course, weapons which are fine today may become vulnerable in future, if the missile defense improves. So, one has to prepare for this. Russia does.

This really isn't that difficult, Russia's nuclear weapons are outdated right now. That's why Russia has begun to replace them. But also as pointed out, Putin's efforts to modernize his military is falling behind schedule. He doesn't have the money or the resources he needs to modernize his military.

If they are a threat or not is something we cannot know. All what we can easily find out is that your information is, as usual, a lie. The White Swanhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-160 entered service 1987

Except we can and do know. They are slow moving, big, easily identifiable and tracked, lumbering, and easily shot down. So they pose no real threat to anyone other than to the Russians flying them.

 

[Schmelzer]

Oh, then what are those Russian troops doing in Georgia and Ukraine if there is no Russian occupation?

Nothing, because there are no Russian troops in these states. There are some in Abkhasia and South Ossetia, in agreement with the government of these states, there are some on Crimea, but it is no longer part of Ukraine.

Do you want to believe those Russian troops are just spending their vacations fighting Georgians and Ukrainians. And Russia didn't annex Crimea from Ukraine? Where did all those Russian troops in Eastern Ukraine come from?

Near the border between Georgia and South Ossetia and Abkhasia the Russians have been not for spending vacations, but as peace forces, as the sides have agreed at the time they have made the ceasefire agreement. In Novorussia it is reasonable to expect that there have been some support with weapons and instructors - but not much, given that the Western propaganda was unable to present some proofs. What would have happened with the Ukrainian army if there would have been Russian troops you can see a little bit (based only on a few number of planes and helicopters) now in Syria.

Oh, so now, it's legal for Mother Russia to to those things without UN Security Council approval, but it's illegal for other countries to defend themselves or to prevent the slaughter of innocent civilians without UN Security Council approval.

The right to defend yourself the US has - but it is not attacked. If Iraq is attacked by some ISIS troops, it can also defend themself, and if they run away to Syria they can chase and kill them on Syrian territory, once no Syrian army is doing this. But this is justified by self-defense in the aftermath of such an attack. It does not justify a permanent bombing, and even less bombing electric power stations near Aleppo.

But if there are claims of slaughter of the own population, a military action against this requires a UNSC approval. Such is life.

Well, it's not Syrian territory anymore. Syria has no control over that territory.

Legally it is yet. Maybe ISIS can run in the streets, but Russia can run in the air and bomb them.

Except there was. I suggest you beef up on your history. It has long been held people have the right of self governance, to determine their own government.

There was an attempt for impeachment, but they have not got the required number of votes. And the president Janukovitch was democratically elected, so, the result of the peoples right to determine their own government. Once the Western parts of the Ukraine decided to deny the Eastern parts this right, Crimea and Donbass decided to leave them and to determine their own government themself.

The only party who had access to Sarin gas was Assad. It's not something the rebels had access to and it was used on rebel populations. It wasn't used against Assad's supporters.

The aim was to allow the US to start the war. Thus, the aim was to make it look like Assad has done it. There have been many people interested in this war, in particular Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which all are able to provide their rebels Sarin. It could have been captured as well from the Syrian army. Most sources point to Turkey as the provider of Sarin.

Well then you are contradicting yourself again. The US does have first strike capability.

No. First strike ability means it could prevent the retaliatory strike. So, the US does not have it. It can strike first if it likes nuclear suicide, but this is not first strike ability.
http://thesaker.is/why-the-us-russian-nuclear-balance-is-as-solid-as-ever/

This really isn't that difficult, Russia's nuclear weapons are outdated right now.

http://thesaker.is/short-reminder-about-us-and-russian-nuclear-weapons/
1) The entire US nuclear arsenal is hopelessly outdated, especially it’s land-based component which is over 30 years old and whose B-1 and B-2 bombers which cannot deliver cruise missiles and whose “stealth” capabilities are no match for Russian air defense systems. The only part of the US nuclear triad which is more or less in good shape are the US Navy boomers.
2) The US GMD cannot even intercept primitive ballistic missiles.
3) Russia has recently deployed brand new mobile land-based (SS-27, SS-29) and sea based ballistic missiles (R-29RMU2, RSM-56) which are designed to be able to evade future ABM systems.

About the White Swan:

They are slow moving, big, easily identifiable and tracked, lumbering, and easily shot down. So they pose no real threat to anyone other than to the Russians flying them.

Your claims are as reliable as usual. Easily detectable: http://sputniknews.com/russia/20060422/46792049.html "Russian military planes flew undetected through the U.S. zone of the Arctic Ocean to Canada during recent military exercises, a senior Air Force commander said Saturday. The commander of the country's long-range strategic bombers, Lieutenant General Igor Khvorov, said the U.S. Air Force is now investigating why its military was unable to detect the Russian bombers." Slow moving: "The Tu-160 is also larger and faster than the B-1B and has a slightly greater combat range" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-160

 

[joepistole]

Nothing, because there are no Russian troops in these states. There are some in Abkhasia and South Ossetia, in agreement with the government of these states, there are some on Crimea, but it is no longer part of Ukraine.

Except they are, and unfortunately for you and your fellow Russian's the world is not as dumb as you need it to be. The fact a number of world leaders have spoken out against Mother Russia for her violations of international law and aggression and have even gone so far as to cease trade with Russia says otherwise.

Near the border between Georgia and South Ossetia and Abkhasia the Russians have been not for spending vacations, but as peace forces, as the sides have agreed at the time they have made the ceasefire agreement. In Novorussia it is reasonable to expect that there have been some support with weapons and instructors - but not much, given that the Western propaganda was unable to present some proofs. What would have happened with the Ukrainian army if there would have been Russian troops you can see a little bit (based only on a few number of planes and helicopters) now in Syria.

Oh, so now Russia has army personnel in those countries, but they are "peace keepers". The fact is they aren't peace keepers. They are armed combatants who have illegally invaded and annexed lands which do not belong to Mother Russia. At one point, Putin explained his troops presence in Ukraine by saying they were just vacationing Russian troops who chose to fight against the Ukrainian government. By the way, it's not Novorussia. It's Eastern Ukraine. It has never been Novorussia.

The right to defend yourself the US has - but it is not attacked. If Iraq is attacked by some ISIS troops, it can also defend themself, and if they run away to Syria they can chase and kill them on Syrian territory, once no Syrian army is doing this. But this is justified by self-defense in the aftermath of such an attack. It does not justify a permanent bombing, and even less bombing electric power stations near Aleppo.

You have once again contradicted yourself. So now it's ok whereas you had previously claimed it was illegal.

But if there are claims of slaughter of the own population, a military action against this requires a UNSC approval. Such is life.

No it doesn't.

Legally it is yet. Maybe ISIS can run in the streets, but Russia can run in the air and bomb them.

If that is what Russia does, then fine. No one objects to Russia bombing ISIS targets as long as they play by the rules (i.e. don't threaten others). What they do object to is Syria or Mother Russia bombing innocent civilians or using weapons of mass destruction on innocent civilians.

There was an attempt for impeachment, but they have not got the required number of votes. And the president Janukovitch was democratically elected, so, the result of the peoples right to determine their own government. Once the Western parts of the Ukraine decided to deny the Eastern parts this right, Crimea and Donbass decided to leave them and to determine their own government themself.

Except they did get the required number of votes and they did impeach Janukovitch. But Janukovitch fled the country and abandoned his post and his country. No one was denied any rights. What happened is Putin lost his puppet. The Ukrainian people were angered by Janukovitch's corruption.

The aim was to allow the US to start the war. Thus, the aim was to make it look like Assad has done it. There have been many people interested in this war, in particular Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which all are able to provide their rebels Sarin. It could have been captured as well from the Syrian army. Most sources point to Turkey as the provider of Sarin.

And where is the evidence to back up that claim? You have none. It's just more of the bullshit you receive for your state owned media.

No. First strike ability means it could prevent the retaliatory strike. So, the US does not have it. It can strike first if it likes nuclear suicide, but this is not first strike ability.
http://thesaker.is/why-the-us-russian-nuclear-balance-is-as-solid-as-ever/

No it doesn't. It means what it says.

http://thesaker.is/short-reminder-about-us-and-russian-nuclear-weapons

1) The entire US nuclear arsenal is hopelessly outdated, especially it’s land-based component which is over 30 years old and whose B-1 and B-2 bombers which cannot deliver cruise missiles and whose “stealth” capabilities are no match for Russian air defense systems. The only part of the US nuclear triad which is more or less in good shape are the US Navy boomers.
2) The US GMD cannot even intercept primitive ballistic missiles.
3) Russia has recently deployed brand new mobile land-based (SS-27, SS-29) and sea based ballistic missiles (R-29RMU2, RSM-56) which are designed to be able to evade future ABM systems.

About the White Swan:

Your claims are as reliable as usual. Easily detectable: http://sputniknews.com/russia/20060422/46792049.html "Russian military planes flew undetected through the U.S. zone of the Arctic Ocean to Canada during recent military exercises, a senior Air Force commander said Saturday. The commander of the country's long-range strategic bombers, Lieutenant General Igor Khvorov, said the U.S. Air Force is now investigating why its military was unable to detect the Russian bombers." Slow moving: "The Tu-160 is also larger and faster than the B-1B and has a slightly greater combat range" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-160

Russian propaganda really isn't impressive or truthful. You keep telling yourself that. Maybe you want to test it?

Any land based or air based nuclear delivery vehicle is flawed. That's why the US has moved the bulk of it's nuclear capability to it's navy.

The fact that is the US has a vast fleet of warships. Russia doesn't. Russia's nuclear defense is almost completely vested in its land and air assets. That's one reason why Russia's nukes are so vulnerable. Upgrading its existing nukes won't change that. It won't make them less vulnerable. Frankly, it's a waste of money and scarce Russian resources. But it will give folks like you a reason to beat your chests.

It's because land and air based nukes are so vulnerable, The US has for many years now considered eliminating them. And frankly, I'm not sure why the US hasn't ditched them.

Strategically, land and air based nukes don't make sense. Technology has rendered them virtually useless. Maybe the US maintains them to cause Russia to waste its scarce resources.

 

[Schmelzer]

LOL....so now you are placing all your hopes on a super volcano?

I have no hopes in this regard. Except for the hope that enough people with power in the US think about the very idea what would probably happen if even a single one nuclear bomb hits this place.

But first you have to find them, then you have to successfully attach them and get past those aforementioned lasers. The US has literally several hundred military bases around the world along with 11 fleets.

To find what? The US bases are well-known. And your lasers have been too slow even to defend the Pentagon at 9/11.

And as I said before should a war breakout, Russia's naval launch platforms will be lost within minutes.

You like to say a lot. Here is what the guys from the US navy have to tell: http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2013-06/russian-submarine-fleet-reborn
With nice surprises for you. Like about the abilities of outdated (sold to the Chinese) submarines: "Several embarrassing incidents involving Chinese submarines appearing, undetected, shockingly close to American carrier strike groups have generated major news headlines in recent years."
What a nearby undetected submarine means should be clear too: "While the technological advances are impressive, the Yasen’s armament makes her truly terrifying. ... Furthermore, although reports conflict as to whether the capability currently exists, the original Schval design accommodated a nuclear warhead, adding the power to annihilate even the largest aircraft carriers without warning, with a single shot."

And, about the naval launch platforms, remember that the missiles to Syria have been launched from the Caspian sea. Never heard of that horrible Caspian sea float? Me too. These are nothing but small ships designed for coast protection. You want to kill them all in a few minutes? Every civilian looking ship, with a standard container on board, can be a naval launch platform for cruise missiles.

Oh, so now Russia has army personnel in those countries, but they are "peace keepers".

They have been before 2008. The base for this have been ceasefire agreements of Georgia with South Ossetia 1992 and Abkhasia 1994.

They were attacked by Georgians, at 8.8.8, when Georgia started its aggression against South Ossetia, which started the war. The war was over after a few days, as expected once the Georgian army was trained by the US. After this, Russia has diplomatically acknowledged Abkhasia and South Ossetia, and now there are simply there because they have been invited by these states, and will leave if these states no longer want them.

At one point, Putin explained his troops presence in Ukraine by saying they were just vacationing Russian troops who chose to fight against the Ukrainian government. By the way, it's not Novorussia. It's Eastern Ukraine. It has never been Novorussia.

No, it was not Putin who has talked about soldiers on vacation, but Sachartschenko was joking about this. There has been a lot of talk from Ukrainian propaganda about Russian troops, but no real proof of this. So, if there have been some, then only only a few. Comparable in numbers to the CIA guys supporting Al Qaida in Syria.
And, of course, it has been Novorussia, from the time these lands became part of Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novorossiya#/media/File:1800_Novoros_gov.jpg

If that is what Russia does, then fine. No one objects to Russia bombing ISIS targets as long as they play by the rules (i.e. don't threaten others). What they do object to is Syria or Mother Russia bombing innocent civilians or using weapons of mass destruction on innocent civilians.

Once nor Russia, nor Assad are doing this, no problem. Strangely, the US seems to object also if Russia bombs other terrorist groups, like Al Qaida.

What happened is Putin lost his puppet. The Ukrainian people were angered by Janukovitch's corruption.

Except that he never was Putin's puppet, but Achmetow's puppet. Achmetow is an Ukrainian oligarch. The funny fact is Timoschenko was more close to being a Putin puppet - she was cheap enough to buy, and has signed a really nice contract with Putin.

And where is the evidence to back up that claim? You have none. It's just more of the bullshit you receive for your state owned media.

https://consortiumnews.com/2013/09/06/obama-warned-on-syrian-intel/
http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/u-s-military-confirms-rebels-had-sarin/
http://www.voltairenet.org/article180130.html

 

[sculptor]

nukes
an emp(or dozens of them)
guidance systems
and then?

 

[sculptor]

note the blue and purple----------large percentage of ethnic russians

 

[joepistole]

I have no hopes in this regard. Except for the hope that enough people with power in the US think about the very idea what would probably happen if even a single one nuclear bomb hits this place.

LOL....so you think a nuclear detonation will set off super volcano do you. I don't think you will find many geologist who will buy into that hope.

To find what? The US bases are well-known. And your lasers have been too slow even to defend the Pentagon at 9/11.

Yes they are well known, and their several hundreds of them. But you don't know where US naval assets are, and the bases far exceed your 90 missiles.

You like to say a lot. Here is what the guys from the US navy have to tell: http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2013-06/russian-submarine-fleet-reborn
With nice surprises for you. Like about the abilities of outdated (sold to the Chinese) submarines: "Several embarrassing incidents involving Chinese submarines appearing, undetected, shockingly close to American carrier strike groups have generated major news headlines in recent years."
What a nearby undetected submarine means should be clear too: "While the technological advances are impressive, the Yasen’s armament makes her truly terrifying. ... Furthermore, although reports conflict as to whether the capability currently exists, the original Schval design accommodated a nuclear warhead, adding the power to annihilate even the largest aircraft carriers without warning, with a single shot."

Mother Russia has 5, count'em 5 ballistic missile subs. The US fleet alone has several fold that amount and they are new and modern. And the US is about to deploy a new basaltic submarine. The article you referenced spoke to Russia's aspirations, not what it has. There is a big difference. Putin is yanking the nationalist chains, just like Hitler did before him. Putin has many dreams of glory, but that's all they are. US military assets track Russian submarines from the moment they leave port until the moment they return to port. So if it came to war, Russia's navy would be demolished within minutes of the outbreak of war. Russia's operational navy isn't that big.

And, about the naval launch platforms, remember that the missiles to Syria have been launched from the Caspian sea. Never heard of that horrible Caspian sea float? Me too. These are nothing but small ships designed for coast protection. You want to kill them all in a few minutes? Every civilian looking ship, with a standard container on board, can be a naval launch platform for cruise missiles.

Russia launched the missiles from the Caspian because Russia has a brown water fleet as opposed to the US which has a blue water fleet. And I don't see missiles which cannot hit their targets as a particular threat. If Mother Russia wants to equip civilian ships with missile technology, it doesn't change things. Missile hardware is easily identifiable.

They have been before 2008. The base for this have been ceasefire agreements of Georgia with South Ossetia 1992 and Abkhasia 1994.

So Mother Russia had cease fire agreements with Georgia? Mother Russia shouldn't have invaded Georgia. If Mother Russia hadn't invaded Georgia there would not be a need for cease fire agreements.

They were attacked by Georgians, at 8.8.8, when Georgia started its aggression against South Ossetia, which started the war. The war was over after a few days, as expected once the Georgian army was trained by the US. After this, Russia has diplomatically acknowledged Abkhasia and South Ossetia, and now there are simply there because they have been invited by these states, and will leave if these states no longer want them.

Unfortunately, for you and Mother Russia, the rest of the world isn't as dumb as you need it to be.

No, it was not Putin who has talked about soldiers on vacation, but Sachartschenko was joking about this. There has been a lot of talk from Ukrainian propaganda about Russian troops, but no real proof of this. So, if there have been some, then only only a few. Comparable in numbers to the CIA guys supporting Al Qaida in Syria.
And, of course, it has been Novorussia, from the time these lands became part of Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novorossiya#/media/File:1800_Novoros_gov.jpg

Except there is real proof. You don't recall the prisoner exchanges where Ukrainian exchanged captured Russian soldiers for captured Ukrainian soldiers? And CIA guys are not uniformed soldiers, nor do they fight on the front lines, nor are they are not supporting Al Qaeda in Syria...oops.

Here is one of the problems you face, Russia has floated a number of excuses for its aggression. They are often contradictory and inconsistent with known facts. Russia has been caught in a number of lies. For example, the little green men who showed up in Crimea. At first Putin denied they were his military units, weeks later he admitted they were his men and planning the whole thing weeks in advance. Russia has consistently lied about its aggression.

Once nor Russia, nor Assad are doing this, no problem. Strangely, the US seems to object also if Russia bombs other terrorist groups, like Al Qaida.

Oh, then you should be able to prove that. Where has the US objected to Russia bombing terrorist groups. The Free Syrian Army isn't a terrorist group. It is a revolutionary army. It didn't use Sarin and chlorine gas on its citizens. Russia's ally, Assad did those things.

Except that he never was Putin's puppet, but Achmetow's puppet. Achmetow is an Ukrainian oligarch. The funny fact is Timoschenko was more close to being a Putin puppet - she was cheap enough to buy, and has signed a really nice contract with Putin.

https://consortiumnews.com/2013/09/06/obama-warned-on-syrian-intel/
http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/u-s-military-confirms-rebels-had-sarin/
http://www.voltairenet.org/article180130.html

Except, he has been and remains Putin's puppet. When Ukrainians expressed their anger, he fled the country and into the arms of Mother Putin. He's still living in Mother Russia.

And finally, how about using some credible references? Your references are simply not credible. Conspiracy web sites are just not credible, in fact they are flat out wrong.

"In mid-September 2013, the UN investigation team reported that it had confirmed the use of sarin in the Ghouta attack.[17]The Mission "collected clear and convincing evidence that surface-to-surface rockets containing the nerve agent sarin were used in the Ein Tarma, Moadamiyah and Zalmalka in the Ghouta area of Damascus."[29] In 2014, a report of the UN Human Rights Council found that "significant quantities of sarin were used in a well-planned indiscriminate attack targeting civilian-inhabited areas, causing mass casualties. The evidence available concerning the nature, quality and quantity of the agents used on 21 August indicated that the perpetrators likely had access to the chemical weapons stockpile of the Syrian military, as well as the expertise and equipment necessary to manipulate safely large amount of chemical agents."[30] It also stated that the chemical agents used in the Khan al-Assal chemical attack "bore the same unique hallmarks" as those used in Al-Ghouta attack."[30][31][32] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghouta_chemical_attack

The rebels didn't have access to sarin gas, nor did they have the equipment or training to deploy it. And why would the rebels gas their own children, their own families? And then there is the matter of the barrel bombs. The world isn't as dumb as Mother Russia needs it to be.