Survivalist Forum banner

Russian military: ANY incoming missle considered nuke, may get nuke response

1K views 16 replies 7 participants last post by  Justme11 
#1 ·
#5 ·
The Russians have a bit of paranoia about being invaded since it has happened to them several times. Can't really blame them for that.

They know their military is weakened a good deal and also that they don't have too many allies. So they increase their level of bluster to include nuclear response to any significant attack.

The US should simply bring them onboard as an ally with a mutual defense pact (and stop with the economic sanctions) and all that nonsense would go away.

These are pretty good people by and large and there is nothing to be gained by having them as an opponent and a lot of be gained by cooperation.
 
#8 ·
MAD was the USA's program. It was instituted as a deterrent to the USSR and China to negate the "First Strike" option.

We "Assured" them that if they launched a missile at us or our allies we would destroy them even if we were already laid waste to.

We had the capability, they didn't. We still do. Not sure they do or ever did. A bunch of their tech is still on par with our late 80's early 90's tech.

I remember the condition of their ICBM's during the SALT1 and SALT2 drawdowns. >50% were inop due to poor maintenance, lack of parts and qualified people to maintain them.

Keep a wary eye on everyone, but don't loose sleep over the Russians or Chinese right now. Neither can afford to do anything to us other than tech piracy and meddling.
 
#9 ·
Did you read this part?

“Any attacking missile will be perceived as carrying a nuclear warhead,” the article said. “The information about the missile launch will be automatically relayed to the Russian military-political leadership, which will determine the scope of retaliatory action by nuclear forces depending on the evolving situation."

The threat they are making isnt MAD, or even the principle of it. Not sure why you keep circling back to an erroneous interpretation. The threat they're making is use of nuke weaponry at their leaderships discretion, not a wholesale dump of their arsenal.

Your claims of their abilities past or present are unsubstantiated and unproven, and MAD is a full scale attack deterrence doctrine, not a uniquely US policy.
 
#11 ·
Again, not contextually relevant here. Dead hand and fail safe refer back to MAD. Being that their statement didnt bring any of that up, it doesnt appear that the US is the intended audience of this announcement. Rather, some of the more regional, and unstable actors in the area are being put on notice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ghost863
#17 ·
Again, not contextually relevant here. Dead hand and fail safe refer back to MAD. Being that their statement didnt bring any of that up, it doesnt appear that the US is the intended audience of this announcement. Rather, some of the more regional, and unstable actors in the area are being put on notice.
I think Dead Hand is still relevant. They made this claim again only about 2 yrs ago, that they had placed Dead Hand back into automatic. (After some tension over whatever was going on at the time).

If having a rocket that launches automatically that will fly to Russia's missile launch sites and transmit automatic launch orders, upon some impact sensor signals that have Russian reliability doesn't make you a little nervous...?

http://defence.az/en/news/125814/uk...ver-russias-dreaded-dead-hand-doomsday-device

 
#14 ·
I stated unsubstantiated and unproven. A little reading comprehension might help you with that. Strike one.

What you attempted to itilicize and misidentified as my point was actually a paraphrase and summary of the linked article's title, nothing more, so you struck out there also.

The Russians made no reference to MAD, the US,
McNamara, or 1962. Join the rest of us here in 2020, slugger.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ghost863
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top