Missile Defense Shield Threat To Russia -Putin Warns Of Nuclear War

Discussion in 'Latest US & World News' started by Jeannette, Jun 22, 2016.

  1. Jeannette

    Jeannette Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2012
    Messages:
    23,950
    Likes Received:
    1,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Vladimir Putin can't understand how the people in the West cannot realize what is going on, and has asked the journalists to start reporting honestly because the world is heading towards a nuclear war. He said those systems in Romania are a direct threat to Russia, and Washington knows that we know every step they are taking. The only ones who do not know are the reporters... because they are being lied to.


    Nobody has anything to gain from a nuclear stand-off against Russia. The power hungry decision-makers are few in number, but powerful enough to have subverted mainstream media to misrepresent Russia as the main threat to international security.


    [video=youtube;09GBjzxYymQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09GBjzxYymQ[/video]

    To understand how dangerous the situation is, during the Cuban missile crises, the Soviet submariner Vasili Arkhipov refused to obey his captain's orders and did not fire a missile against the United States. By morning, Khruschev and Kennedy had come to a mutual agreement...which I believe had to do with removing the American missiles in Turkey.

    The Romanians and Poles are in a stupor because of the propaganda being fed them. They are sitting on ground zero and their lives are in the hands of some Washington crazies.


    http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/06/putin-warns-of-nuclear-war-video.html
     
    Tommy Palven likes this.
  2. cerberus

    cerberus Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2015
    Messages:
    15,067
    Likes Received:
    1,911
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Proof, if proof were needed, that mankind has - without a shadow of doubt - finally gone mad. I'm just waiting for it! Here comes nuclear winter! Looks like Islamic State has left it too late?
     
  3. Ethereal

    Ethereal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    32,459
    Likes Received:
    813
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As usual, our resident war-mongering crazies will just repeat the same old propaganda narratives they've been fed by the US government from day one and claim, against all evidence and reason, that Russia is somehow the aggressor and the only way to contain their aggression is to encircle their country with an ever-increasing amount of military personnel and ordinance.

    Meanwhile, most Americans are walking around like zombies, blissfully unaware of the danger they're being put in by their so-called "leaders" in Washington DC.

    Our only hope at this point seems to be Putin's superlative leadership traits and strategic thinking.
     
  4. cerberus

    cerberus Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2015
    Messages:
    15,067
    Likes Received:
    1,911
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In a nutshell this is all to do with the abject failure of the US in the Syria war, and Putin's statesmanship in it - nothing more, nothing less - and the WH is going to war to mitigate its humiliation. FFS!! This is serious stuff!
     
  5. Ethereal

    Ethereal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    32,459
    Likes Received:
    813
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Obama is a mere puppet.

    The deep state are the ones really pulling the strings.

    Their goal is perpetual war and global dominance at almost any cost.

    In other words, they're completely insane.
     
  6. cerberus

    cerberus Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2015
    Messages:
    15,067
    Likes Received:
    1,911
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree with you, but they can't be so insane as to think they'll be spared the consequences of a nuclear war?
     
  7. Ethereal

    Ethereal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    32,459
    Likes Received:
    813
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They have all sorts of countermeasures available to them.

    Sophisticated, well provisioned command and control bunkers buried deep beneath the mountains, powered by nuclear reactors that can last decades.

    Sure, they'd rather it not come to that, but at least they will survive if it does.

    The rest of us won't be so lucky.
     
  8. cerberus

    cerberus Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2015
    Messages:
    15,067
    Likes Received:
    1,911
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But they must realise that they'll die in them?
     
  9. Ethereal

    Ethereal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    32,459
    Likes Received:
    813
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Like I said, they would rather it not come to that.

    But at least they have an out if it does come to that.

    And there will be no shortage of sustenance and pleasures in their doomsday bunkers.
     
  10. Darkbane

    Darkbane Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,860
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    0
    isn't a missile "shield" a defensive weapon... surely russia can't see these are attack weapons, as they don't effectively target ground troops or points, and their purpose and most efficient use is anti-missile... so if he considered someone arming themselves with a device that can shoot down his missiles, as aggression, wouldn't it first require his aggression to make use of these devices? I'm constantly amazed at people who call defensive weapons an aggressive action... they counter aggression...

    you see the struggle with logic here?

    P.S. and to bring up the cuban missile crisis where russian was attempting to launch a missile, is the very point of these anti-missile batteries for defensive purposes... its the same thing with nuclear weapons, why do big countries have nuclear weapons, to attack, or deter? they all claim to deter... so why is this any different, but to deter russia from crossing boundaries? why is anyone who dares to defend their borders, considered an aggressor?
     
  11. Jeannette

    Jeannette Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2012
    Messages:
    23,950
    Likes Received:
    1,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female

    If I aim a cannon towards your house and tell you it is for defensive purposes, what will your reaction be? Calling it 'defensive' is a deception in the same way Washington calls anyone a dictator who doesn't go along with their agenda.


    What we were never told, is that the USSR didn't back down, it forced Kennedy to remove the missiles it had placed in Turkey and which were a threat to them, in the same way the missiles in Cuba were a threat to us. If you can't see the logic in that, then you are a lost cause. As for the Russian who disobeyed orders, it just shows how easy it is for a nuclear war to occur.

    There was another Russian who is considered a hero, because he didn't react when something malfunctioned and the alarm was sounded for a missile attack. I remember also another incident when a missile was shot off from Germany by mistake, and it was caught just in time.

    So tell me how can Washington be trusted in anything, when originally that so called defensive shield that is being placed in Romania and Poland was supposed to protect from Iran? Well Iran is out of the game, and as Putin has always known, those missiles were always meant for Russia. It was just another Washington lie... something they make a habit of.

    Since Russia knows these things are all lies, then who is Washington trying to deceive other than the American and European public? This is why he is trying to make the reporters realize the danger of what is going on and to wake everyone up before it is too late.
     
  12. s002wjh

    s002wjh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,684
    Likes Received:
    72
    Trophy Points:
    48
    the effect of strategic deterrence is base on fact that ANY country posses ICBM can destroy each other via 2nd strike, hence Mutual Assurance destruction(MAD). if say one side has capabilities to BLOCK the other party, then MAD become invalidated, hence the party who posses both shield and spear can attack the other party 1st who only posses spear without any or little repercussions, since the 2nd strike from the latter party will be intercepted by missile shield. a spear and shield > just spear. example, during Orlando shooting the guy try to buy military grade armor, the store didn't sell him, if they did, the damage he did with both spear(ar15) and shield(armor) would be worst, he might likely has draw out shooting with police, could mean more time for him to kill innocent.

    Also missile shield has the ability to shoot down military/civilian satellite, hence it can be used as aggressive weapon.

    To counter this the other party either has to create its own missile shield or increase numbers and capabilities of its ICBM eg multiple warhead, maneuverable warhead etc. also the in the event of war the place that will be attack 1st will likely be the place station missile shield. So Russia in the future might station more short range missile, jet, and other platform to eliminated the missile shield in the event of war.

    in a nutshell basically we enter another arm race.
     
  13. Jeannette

    Jeannette Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2012
    Messages:
    23,950
    Likes Received:
    1,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female

    The nations that are endangering themselves are Romania and Poland, since Washington has given them no say in shooting off the missiles. Only the US has a say, yet it is not the US that will be destroyed. Those two countries are making themselves ground zero... and it is freaking out Vladimir Putin.

    He knows that if something happens, he will be killing the people living there, and that they were being duped by western propaganda and government stooges and had nothing to do with it. Yet how can he attack the US when it would start a world war, and the missiles are being shot off from Eastern Europe and not the US?
     
  14. Darkbane

    Darkbane Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,860
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    0
    but I've seen countless pro-russia postings on this website bragging about its ability to take out missiles, from land, air, and space...

    so why shouldn't others be able to take out russian missiles if russia can take out their missiles... you see my point... we circle back to russia being upset others can stop them just like they can stop others... the same old nuclear issues, we can do what you can do, so lets not do it at all... why should only russia have the power?
     
  15. Darkbane

    Darkbane Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,860
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    0
    so basically you're upset that other countries are showing they don't have to be afraid of russia, when russia has the same capabilities, and I would likely say more, than these other countries including the US in some aspects... you're upset russia can't push others around and others are saying, not so fast big guy...

    I'm not worried about the lies washington tells, anymore than the lies russia tells... they BOTH are massive liars who would tie if there was a contest for biggest liar...

    so why shouldn't other countries have the same power and capabilities as russia, and lie as much as russia... I don't have a problem with america or any other country willfully pointing missiles into russia, because russia is pointing them back... there is nothing wrong with this, other than russia emotions were hurt because they are upset someone else is doing what they do... thats all this is... do as I say, not as I do...
     
  16. Jeannette

    Jeannette Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2012
    Messages:
    23,950
    Likes Received:
    1,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female

    Because those missile are being placed on Russia's border by Washington, and yet when Khruschev tried to do the same, we almost ended up in a nuclear war. You seem to forget we are the known aggressors in the world. As an example, right now we are the ones that have 70,000 special forces in 81 countries, not Russia.

    The only country Russia has special forces in is Syria, and they were invited in by the legitimate president. Are you going to tell me that those 81 countries invited our men in?
     
  17. Darkbane

    Darkbane Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,860
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    0
    if the countries on the borders of russia, INVITED (to steal your logic) american missile defenses, whats wrong with that then? thats your logic... they were INVITED in...
     
  18. Jeannette

    Jeannette Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2012
    Messages:
    23,950
    Likes Received:
    1,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female


    If you have been paying close attention, you will know that everything Russia has done is a response to Nato. You do realize that Russia isn't the one that moved its country towards them...

    The reason you don't care is because you are not going to be blown to bits if something goes off. Romania and Poland are the ones. Well I have news for you, since the US is so adamant about having missiles that can hit Moscow and Saint Petersburg, then let's see how Washington will feel when there are subs with nuclear capabilities roaming about outside New York, Washington, Los Angeles, etc.
     
  19. Jeannette

    Jeannette Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2012
    Messages:
    23,950
    Likes Received:
    1,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female

    Do you believe that the press has been completely honest in those countries, and that it has revealed to the Eastern Europeans Russia's true military strength and what will happen to them? I don't think so. I think Washington is using its propaganda networks to steer those countries into a war so it can buy them up the way they did with the USSR when it collapsed.

    Why would you want to succumb the people of Eastern Europe to such a fate?
     
  20. Jeannette

    Jeannette Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2012
    Messages:
    23,950
    Likes Received:
    1,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Oops! I made a mistake. According to the Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley, the US had 187,000 troops deployed in 140 countries as of yesterday.
     

Share This Page