Russia to soon begin testing nuclear weapons?

aaronvan

Suspended
Original poster
Dec 21, 2011
1,349
9,287
República Cascadia
From pp. 150 of "My Journey at the Nuclear Brink" by former SecDef William Perry. Published Nov 25, 2015.

I believe it is likely that Russia will soon restart testing of nuclear bombs to validate the new weapons they are now designing. And they will use the failure to ratify the CTBT as their rationale. I also believe that the Russian tests will open a floodgate of testing: China, India, Pakistan, and, not to be outdone, the United States.

http://www.wjperryproject.org/

http://www.nti.org/
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,140
13,982
Hmm, maybe in response to the USA spending $1trillion to develop new "dial a nuke" weapons and our never ending march with Nato to their borders they're getting a bit worried?


Nahhhhhhh.....cleary the big bad Russians are just crazy psychopaths and really really want their paltry $78 billion defense budget to be used for imperialism. Boo!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jess13

aaronvan

Suspended
Original poster
Dec 21, 2011
1,349
9,287
República Cascadia
Hmm, maybe in response to the USA spending $1trillion to develop new "dial a nuke" weapons...
We've had variable-yield nukes since the early 1960s and the United States isn't developing any new nuclear warheads at the moment, although Obama is planning new, highly destabilizing mobile ground-based strategic missiles to replace our current Minuteman IIIs. He should offset the cost with his sold-gold Nobel Peace Prize, right?

I don't blame Russia for feeling surrounded by NATO. NATO should have disappeared with the Warsaw Pact disappeared. Oh, wait, that's crazy Trump talk! I meant to say that NATO is great and should never change; in fact, it should grow larger. /s
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jess13

VulchR

macrumors 68020
Jun 8, 2009
2,327
10,226
Scotland
Hmm, maybe in response to the USA spending $1trillion to develop new "dial a nuke" weapons and our never ending march with Nato to their borders they're getting a bit worried?


Nahhhhhhh.....cleary the big bad Russians are just crazy psychopaths and really really want their paltry $78 billion defense budget to be used for imperialism. Boo!
Obama replaced MIRV's on our ICBM's with single warheads. The Russian did not follow suit. If there is a new arms race, it's on Russia.
 

aaronvan

Suspended
Original poster
Dec 21, 2011
1,349
9,287
República Cascadia
Obama replaced MIRV's on our ICBM's with single warheads. The Russian did not follow suit. If there is a new arms race, it's on Russia.
We should eliminate the land-based ICBM leg of the nuclear triad. SSBM, air-launched cruise missiles, and gravity bombs are more than enough.
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,140
13,982
Obama replaced MIRV's on our ICBM's with single warheads. The Russian did not follow suit. If there is a new arms race, it's on Russia.
That's a tempest in a teapot when you're looking at the overall policy. Russia under a treaty with Ukraine could post up to (Edit) it was 25,000 troops there when national security was at stake. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_Treaty_on_the_Status_and_Conditions_of_the_Black_Sea_Fleet

I'd say from Russia's perspective having one of your only military outposts for your navy (located in Ukraine, specifically Crimea) become at risk for being overrun by both rebels and the threat of the US military having a good reason to move in it's rational they'd invoke their treaty with Ukraine.

Now, seeing as the US knows damn well that Russia had every right AND it was the rational move on their end to move those troops in (under a treaty the USA would have to be incompetent to not know about)...the question becomes why the hell did the US decide to run to the hilltops yelling about invasions and orchestrating a coup in the country where our diplomats (Victoria Nuland, an amazingly powerful neocon in the Obama administration) chose the new leader (remember the leaked conversation?) of the country with the hope to fold UKRAINE of all places into NATO?

But yea, Russia bad/America benevolent democracy spreader and totally not expansionist or imperialist at all. That's a much simpler way to go about looking at the world.
 

blackfox

macrumors 65816
Feb 18, 2003
1,208
4,026
PDX
That's a tempest in a teapot when you're looking at the overall policy. Russia under a treaty with Ukraine could post up to (Edit) it was 25,000 troops there when national security was at stake. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_Treaty_on_the_Status_and_Conditions_of_the_Black_Sea_Fleet

I'd say from Russia's perspective having one of your only military outposts for your navy (located in Ukraine, specifically Crimea) become at risk for being overrun by both rebels and the threat of the US military having a good reason to move in it's rational they'd invoke their treaty with Ukraine.

Now, seeing as the US knows damn well that Russia had every right AND it was the rational move on their end to move those troops in (under a treaty the USA would have to be incompetent to not know about)...the question becomes why the hell did the US decide to run to the hilltops yelling about invasions and orchestrating a coup in the country where our diplomats (Victoria Nuland, an amazingly powerful neocon in the Obama administration) chose the new leader (remember the leaked conversation?) of the country with the hope to fold UKRAINE of all places into NATO?

But yea, Russia bad/America benevolent democracy spreader and totally not expansionist or imperialist at all. That's a much simpler way to go about looking at the world.
Well, on a tangent from the Nuclear - but if goes Ukraine, then goes Moldova, and then perhaps Romania. The latter being a NATO member...Russia is already well on their way with gazprom...as China well knows, the new imperialism is economic, not boots on the ground.
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,140
13,982
Well, on a tangent from the Nuclear - but if goes Ukraine, then goes Moldova, and then perhaps Romania. The latter being a NATO member...Russia is already well on their way with gazprom...as China well knows, the new imperialism is economic, not boots on the ground.
Exactly, and hell China is doing a hell of a job selling themselves to Africa as the benevolent imperialists. They're investing millions in roads, schools, hospitals to offset any shady **** they're doing alongside it.

America is busy selling arms and setting up missiles all over the planet, while the major players in the future are buying the goodwill of other nations with (what a crazy idea) ways to improve the lives of the places they are interested in exploiting resources.

I'm constantly amazed at how blind to this perspective problem our politicians are. It's hard to keep up the goodwill charade as we continue to sell arms to places the rest of the world are (rightly) aligned against (the Saudi regime, for one).
 

VulchR

macrumors 68020
Jun 8, 2009
2,327
10,226
Scotland
That's a tempest in a teapot when you're looking at the overall policy. Russia under a treaty with Ukraine could post up to (Edit) it was 25,000 troops there when national security was at stake. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_Treaty_on_the_Status_and_Conditions_of_the_Black_Sea_Fleet

I'd say from Russia's perspective having one of your only military outposts for your navy (located in Ukraine, specifically Crimea) become at risk for being overrun by both rebels and the threat of the US military having a good reason to move in it's rational they'd invoke their treaty with Ukraine.

Now, seeing as the US knows damn well that Russia had every right AND it was the rational move on their end to move those troops in (under a treaty the USA would have to be incompetent to not know about)...the question becomes why the hell did the US decide to run to the hilltops yelling about invasions and orchestrating a coup in the country where our diplomats (Victoria Nuland, an amazingly powerful neocon in the Obama administration) chose the new leader (remember the leaked conversation?) of the country with the hope to fold UKRAINE of all places into NATO?

But yea, Russia bad/America benevolent democracy spreader and totally not expansionist or imperialist at all. That's a much simpler way to go about looking at the world.
Sorry, but you've been watching too much RT, or at least it sounds like it. Both the US and Russia pledged non-aggression toward the Ukraine in return for the Ukraine disarming its nuclear forces. The Ukraine and the US have complied - Russia has not. The issue was not about troop movements in the Crimea. The issue was the annexation of all of the Crimea by a bogus election orchestrated after ethnic cleansing by the Russians. That was a blatant land grab by Russia, and an incredibly foolish move. I note that this land grab conveniently bypassed the issue of renewing Russia's right to use Sevastopol, which was set to expire in 2017. What a coincidence... :rolleyes:
 

0007776

Suspended
Jul 11, 2006
6,474
8,051
Somewhere
Well, on a tangent from the Nuclear - but if goes Ukraine, then goes Moldova, and then perhaps Romania. The latter being a NATO member...Russia is already well on their way with gazprom...as China well knows, the new imperialism is economic, not boots on the ground.
That's the same BS theory that was used to justify Vietnam. And look where that got us. Do we need a few thousand more kids to die before people get the idea that we don't need to be fighting wars where we have no business?
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,140
13,982
Sorry, but you've been watching too much RT, or at least it sounds like it. Both the US and Russia pledged non-aggression toward the Ukraine in return for the Ukraine disarming its nuclear forces. The Ukraine and the US have complied - Russia has not. The issue was not about troop movements in the Crimea. The issue was the annexation of all of the Crimea by a bogus election orchestrated after ethnic cleansing by the Russians. That was a blatant land grab by Russia, and an incredibly foolish move. I note that this land grab conveniently bypassed the issue of renewing Russia's right to use Sevastopol, which was set to expire in 2017. What a coincidence... :rolleyes:
Good god, "I'll define decades of tension down to an artificial starting point in order to have this extremely narrow conversation".

Grunt grunt, America the benevolent, Russia the bloodthirsty.

I don't watch RT or any television. I'd prefer to read about world affairs in long form...you know...books.
 

VulchR

macrumors 68020
Jun 8, 2009
2,327
10,226
Scotland
Good god, "I'll define decades of tension down to an artificial starting point in order to have this extremely narrow conversation".

Grunt grunt, America the benevolent, Russia the bloodthirsty.

I don't watch RT or any television. I'd prefer to read about world affairs in long form...you know...books.
Have you read books about appeasement?
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,140
13,982
Have you read books about appeasement?
What you think if we let Russia stay with it's current borders and client states they are actively looking to expand?

Cowboy diplomacy just gets us closer to war.
 

VulchR

macrumors 68020
Jun 8, 2009
2,327
10,226
Scotland
What you think if we let Russia stay with it's current borders and client states they are actively looking to expand?
I would be delighted if Russia expanded no further, but I have no trust in a regime that annexes territory, first denying it as Putin did, and then smugly admitting it, as Putin did. Like you, I worry about the possibility of war. The question is whether we are closer to war now that Putin annexed the Crimea. I cannot imagine anybody in their right mind would believe the answer is anything other than 'yes'.

Cowboy diplomacy just gets us closer to war.
Agreed. Yippe ki yay.

 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,140
13,982
I would be delighted if Russia expanded no further, but I have no trust in a regime that annexes territory, first denying it as Putin did, and then smugly admitting it, as Putin did. Like you, I worry about the possibility of war. The question is whether we are closer to war now that Putin annexed the Crimea. I cannot imagine anybody in their right mind would believe the answer is anything other than 'yes'.
As I pointed out earlier, they annexed nothing. They were well within the rights laid out by the treaty between Ukraine and Crimea to place forces there, a fact the US clearly knows but refuses to acknowledge.

[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_Treaty_on_the_Status_and_Conditions_of_the_Black_Sea_Fleet[/url]

I know that nobody in western media dares to mention that fact, but it doesn't stop it from being true.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thermodynamic

VulchR

macrumors 68020
Jun 8, 2009
2,327
10,226
Scotland
As I pointed out earlier, they annexed nothing. They were well within the rights laid out by the treaty between Ukraine and Crimea to place forces there, a fact the US clearly knows but refuses to acknowledge.

I know that nobody in western media dares to mention that fact, but it doesn't stop it from being true.
They had rights to use the military bases there*, NOT to the entire peninsula. The did NOT have the right to hold a bogus referendum not supervised by the international community about whether Crimea should become part of Russia. They did NOT have the right to annex so much as a square meter of a sovereign nation. They did NOT have the right to use military and paramilitary forces to scare people out of there homes through violence and threats of violence. If all these actions sound like those of Germany in the 1930's, it is because they are like the actions of Germany in the 1930's. Anschluss by any other name would smell as rotten and corrupt....

EDIT: *until 2017, NOT in perpetuity
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,140
13,982
They had rights to use the military bases there*, NOT to the entire peninsula. The did NOT have the right to hold a bogus referendum not supervised by the international community about whether Crimea should become part of Russia. They did NOT have the right to annex so much as a square meter of a sovereign nation. They did NOT have the right to use military and paramilitary forces to scare people out of there homes through violence and threats of violence. If all these actions sound like those of Germany in the 1930's, it is because they are like the actions of Germany in the 1930's. Anschluss by any other name would smell as rotten and corrupt....

EDIT: *until 2017, NOT in perpetuity
And our electioneering doesn't bother you, how imperialist of you.

Remember it's ok if its "our" team....

Last I checked it's 2016, and treaties often sunset so they can be extended.
 

thermodynamic

Suspended
May 3, 2009
1,336
1,175
USA
If nothing else, making popcorn will become easier for a while...
[doublepost=1461097271][/doublepost]
Aww man, uncensored pictures of centaurs! Or the results of a nuke test gone wild?

Sorry, couldn't resist - and, yes, I'd make juvenile comments regardless who the person saddled was. If I remove my glasses and step back about 168 inches, he looks like Dick Cheney but with a better body.
[doublepost=1461097358][/doublepost]
As I pointed out earlier, they annexed nothing. They were well within the rights laid out by the treaty between Ukraine and Crimea to place forces there, a fact the US clearly knows but refuses to acknowledge.

[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_Treaty_on_the_Status_and_Conditions_of_the_Black_Sea_Fleet[/url]

I know that nobody in western media dares to mention that fact, but it doesn't stop it from being true.
I didn't know and I'm in the US. But if their leaders were well within their rights per their treaties, it wouldn't be right for us to interfere, would it?
 

blackfox

macrumors 65816
Feb 18, 2003
1,208
4,026
PDX
That's the same BS theory that was used to justify Vietnam. And look where that got us. Do we need a few thousand more kids to die before people get the idea that we don't need to be fighting wars where we have no business?
I feel that you misread my post.
 

Raid

macrumors 68020
Feb 18, 2003
2,143
3,907
Toronto
Hmm, maybe in response to the USA spending $1trillion to develop new "dial a nuke" weapons and our never ending march with Nato to their borders they're getting a bit worried?


Nahhhhhhh.....cleary the big bad Russians are just crazy psychopaths and really really want their paltry $78 billion defense budget to be used for imperialism. Boo!
... a little from column A, a little from column B...
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,140
13,982
.


I didn't know and I'm in the US. But if their leaders were well within their rights per their treaties, it wouldn't be right for us to interfere, would it?
Not only would it not be right, it could be viewed internationally (legally speaking, of course not in our media) as an act of aggression. Throw clear election tampering in (voice recording of Victoria Nulan) and well what do you have?

I can see why the Russians would be pissed.