Russian draft documents on legal security guarantees from the United States and NATO

[Rigby5]

There were both strategic and tactical nukes in large numbers in Europe during the cold war.

"The total number of nuclear weapons based in Europe reached an all-time peak of 7,300 during the height of Cold War tensions in 1971. The 98% reduction to today’s stockpile reflects the end of Cold War hostilities as well as shifting American defense priorities."

Fact Sheet: U.S. Nuclear Weapons in Europe - Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

Nuclear weapons owned by the United States have been deployed in Europe since the mid-1950s, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower authorized their storage at allied North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) bases on the continent for use against the Soviet Union. Though NATO officially declares...

armscontrolcenter.org

I never said there were not a lot of nukes in Europe.
I said that not lot of countries had or wanted them, and they were never before so close to Russia.
It is putting them close to Russia that makes WWIII necessary if we keep trying to do that.

 

[Rigby5]

The USSR was hard on its citizens.

Stalin killed millions. A Stanford historian answers the question, was it genocide?

Historian Norman Naimark argues that today's narrow definition of genocide is Stalin's lasting legacy.

news.stanford.edu

Mass killings under communist regimes - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So Stalin was a bad man, a greedy capitalist.
So what?
He died.

 

[Batcat]

Why would they bother? NATO nukes can easily hit Russia from outside Ukraine.

However it would take longer. More warning means more chance to intercept or to prepare.

 

[Toro]

 

[Toro]

 

[Toro]

Discussing with Rigby5 be like

 

[para bellum]

Wrong.
The Sprint was 3 stage, but the version they were going to put in Poland was 2 stage.
The Sprint was deployed in the US in 1975.

Would you please use a search engine sometime.

Anti-missile Sprint | Missilery.info

The Sprint anti-missile was developed in 1964 by the American company Martin Orlando and is designed to intercept the warheads of intercontinental ballistic missiles and medium-range missiles at

en.missilery.info

Sprint ABM

Sprint ABM

www.astronautix.com

Sentinel program - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And you have it totally backwards, as it was MIRV that made a wide general nuclear shield necessary, because with MIRV you can no longer try to impact each warhead with a kinetic or explosive warhead.

These were not wide area defenses. They were point defenses. Meant to protect individual cities and bases.

It was MIRV's that made them obsolete, because Russia could just add more warheads to the missile and our only recourse was to put in more and more ABM's. And even if it was successful, we'd be detonating nuclear warheads above our own cities.

We abandoned that approach in 1975.

The US was in the process of installing these nuclear Sprint missiles in Poland from 2002 and did not finally end the attempt until 2009.
But we only switched to different missiles, the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System.
And still have these nuclear missiles in Poland.

Bullshit. We are doing Aegis ashore in Poland, that is not nuclear.

There are no US nukes in Poland. There never were. Your assertion is not true.

{...
The United States missile defense complex in Poland, also called the European Interceptor Site (EIS), was a planned (but never built) American missile defense base. It was intended to contain 10 silo-based interceptors: two-stage versions of the existing three-stage Ground-Based Interceptors with Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicles that had a closing speed of about 7 km/s. The first planned complex was to be located near Redzikowo, Poland, forming a Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system in conjunction with a U.S. narrow-beam midcourse tracking and discrimination radar system located in Brdy, Czech Republic. EIS was cancelled in 2009 and subsequently replaced with a phased plan—the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System, which will include SM-3 Block IIA interceptors to be positioned in Poland from 2018.
...}

United States missile defense complex in Poland - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Obviously Iran is not a missile threat to Poland, and this is just an attempt to put US nukes closer to Russia.

Yes, that was the planned missile defense installation for Europe proposed by Bush 43. It was intended to use the GBI, which is a hit to kill system.

Obama cancelled it, and the US focused on Aegis for Europe. The facility in Poland, and a (promised but never delivered) dedicated Tico in the Med.

No nukes, not offensive systems.

Look at a globe, a ballistic missile from Iran passes right over Eastern Europe.

 

[Rigby5]

View attachment 642042

Wrong.
Russia never harms anyone, and has only acted defensively AFTER the US took over Kyiv with billions in bribes.
Why do you think Hunter Biden got millions for doing nothing?
All that money was stolen from US tax payers and from stolen Russian oil.

 

[Rigby5]

View attachment 642045

However, the Crimea, Donetsk, etc., are NOT ethnic Ukrainian but are ethnic Russian, that the Ukraine should give independence to since they are treating them so badly.
The Ukrainians also are not nice people, and have a history of massacre, raping, pillaging, etc.
They are the Cossacks.
They also ran Hitler's death camps for him, like Demjanjuk at Sobibor.

 

[Rigby5]

Would you please use a search engine sometime.

Anti-missile Sprint | Missilery.info

The Sprint anti-missile was developed in 1964 by the American company Martin Orlando and is designed to intercept the warheads of intercontinental ballistic missiles and medium-range missiles at

en.missilery.info

Sprint ABM

Sprint ABM

www.astronautix.com

Sentinel program - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

These were not wide area defenses. They were point defenses. Meant to protect individual cities and bases.

It was MIRV's that made them obsolete, because Russia could just add more warheads to the missile and our only recourse was to put in more and more ABM's. And even if it was successful, we'd be detonating nuclear warheads above our own cities.

We abandoned that approach in 1975.



Bullshit. We are doing Aegis ashore in Poland, that is not nuclear.

There are no US nukes in Poland. There never were. Your assertion is not true.

Yes, that was the planned missile defense installation for Europe proposed by Bush 43. It was intended to use the GBI, which is a hit to kill system.

Obama cancelled it, and the US focused on Aegis for Europe. The facility in Poland, and a (promised but never delivered) dedicated Tico in the Med.

No nukes, not offensive systems.

Look at a globe, a ballistic missile from Iran passes right over Eastern Europe.

View attachment 642056

You are totally wrong.
You said the Sprint was never in service and it was.
You said it was for point defense, which is wrong because that implies it impacts individual incoming missiles, and instead it is designed as an area shield, like for a whole city.
Soviets adding MIRVs does NOT mean you add more ABMs.
Since Sprint AMBs were nuclear, they wipe out ALL of the MIRV warheads from the incoming missile, no matter how many there are.
There are NO reliable ABMs that are not nuclear.
There is no point to any ABM that is not nuclear because of MIRVs.
Iran has no missiles capable of hitting the US, and Poland would never have agreed to become a target in order to protect the US from Iranian missiles.
All US ABMs are or can be nuclear.
There is nothing else remotely reliable for defense of a whole country.
Only ship defense ABM Aegis systems tend to not be nuclear, because they do not have to defend a very large area.
Clearly we want to install US weapons in Russia's border in order to be able to commit a first strike and survive.
That is immoral and in violation of treaties.
Just like we violated the SALT treaties by claiming our nukes are actually owned by other NATO countries.

 

[para bellum]

I never said there were not a lot of nukes in Europe.

Yes you did.

Wrong.
There were never lots of NATO nukes in Europe.

Russian draft documents on legal security guarantees from the United States and NATO

They deserved to be enslaved by Russia after WWII. Wrong. The Poles deserve to never be their own country due to what they did before WWI. Russia enslaved no one. Colonial imperialists enslave in order to steal resources. The countries Russia occupied needed rebuilding by Russia, and cost...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Mac-7]

When something is declared autocratically, against the will of the indigenous people, it is inherently illegal.

Then let the indigenous people take up arms if they want

But russians from russia are not indigenous to ukraine

 

[Rigby5]

Yes you did.

Russian draft documents on legal security guarantees from the United States and NATO

They deserved to be enslaved by Russia after WWII. Wrong. The Poles deserve to never be their own country due to what they did before WWI. Russia enslaved no one. Colonial imperialists enslave in order to steal resources. The countries Russia occupied needed rebuilding by Russia, and cost...

www.usmessageboard.com

Those are US nukes, NOT NATO nukes.
The US has lots of nukes in Europe, and had them in Turkey, and Poland, and wants to put them in the Ukraine, Sweden, Latvia, etc.
But US nukes are not the same as NATO nukes.
NATO is not so happy about all the US nukes we are putting in Europe.

 

[Rigby5]

Then let the indigenous people take up arms if they want

But russians from russia are not indigenous to ukraine

They have been, and the Azov battalion has been massacring whole villages for it.
So then Russia is required to intervene, just like the US should have in Rwanda.
But Russia also has other reasons to punish criminal behavior by Kyiv, such as stealing oil, violating treaties, trying to join NATO, etc.

 

[Batcat]

So Stalin was a bad man, a greedy capitalist.
So what?
He died.

You asked, “did Russia EVER do that was harmful to anyone?’ The USSR was a resu.t of the Russian Revolution. I would say killing 20,000,000 people could be considered harmful to the citizens of his nation.

Stalin was definitely not a capitalist, He was a communist although some will argue he was a Stalinist.

Stalin on the Inevitability of War with Capitalism

Iosif Stalin, Inevitability of Wars among Capitalist Countries. 1952 Original Source: Bol’shevik, No. 18 (September 1952), pp. 1-50. Reprinted in Pravda, 3 October 1952, pp. 2-5, and 4…

soviethistory.msu.edu

Stalinism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Stalinism is the means of governing and Marxist-Leninist policies implemented in the Soviet Unionfrom 1927 to 1953 by Joseph Stalin. It included the creation of a one-party totalitarian police state, rapid industrialization, the theory of socialism in one country, collectivization of agriculture, intensification of class conflict, a cult of personality,[1][2] and subordination of the interests of foreign communist parties to those of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, deemed by Stalinism to be the leading vanguard party of communist revolution at the time.[3]

Stalin's regime forcibly purged society of what it saw as threats to itself and its brand of communism (so-called "enemies of the people"), which included political dissidents, non-Soviet nationalists, the bourgeoisie, better-off peasants ("kulaks"),[4] and those of the working class who demonstrated "counter-revolutionary" sympathies.[5] This resulted in mass repression of such people as well as their families, including mass arrests, show trials, executions, and imprisonment in forced labor and concentration camps known as gulags.[6] The most notable examples of this were the Great Purge and the Dekulakization campaign. Stalinism was also marked by mass religious persecution,[7][8] and ethnic cleansing through forced deportations.[9] Some historians such as Robert Service have blamed Stalinist policies, particularly the collectivization policies, for causing famines such as the Holodomor.[7]Other historians and scholars disagree on the role of Stalinism.[10]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

However it would take longer. More warning means more chance to intercept or to prepare.

I guess their invasion was justified then........

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Russia never harms anyone, and has only acted defensively

Have you always been a commie fellator?
Were you ever sane?

 

[Batcat]

I guess their invasion was justified then........

Well we were upset when Russian put nuclear missiles in Cuba close to Florida.

Cuban Missile Crisis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well we were upset when Russian put nuclear missiles in Cuba close to Florida.

Cuban Missile Crisis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So Putin was justified.

 

[para bellum]

Those are US nukes, NOT NATO nukes.
The US has lots of nukes in Europe, and had them in Turkey, and Poland, and wants to put them in the Ukraine, Sweden, Latvia, etc.
But US nukes are not the same as NATO nukes.
NATO is not so happy about all the US nukes we are putting in Europe.

Pfft.

NATO doesn't have any nukes. Never did. NATO forces are made up from member States.

Even NATO calls them "NATO" nuclear forces, but the parts and pieces were never really NATO's. Semantics.

You are still wrong about Poland, and equally wrong about Ukraine and Sweden and Latvia. There is no reason to even do that.

The entire argument is specious. No country has a "launch on launch" nuclear posture. Not even Russia. It's always been "launch on impact".

Russia and the US can annihilate each other no matter who started it, and it doesn't really matter if the missiles are launched from under the icecap, or from a bomber or a silo. There is enough to get the job done regardless.