Russian President Vladimir Putin may be frustrated by the lack of progress in his war against Ukraine, which has placed Russia’s nuclear weapons on alert. Darryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, said Russian President Vladimir Putin’s order to put U.S. nuclear forces on alert was unfortunate, but given his previous secrecy about any country, he was trying to stop in Ukraine. contains threats, which is not entirely surprising. Since then, the question of how many nuclear weapons his country has and whether this is really a realistic option for the Russian president has become increasingly important. According to Alexander Ranoschka, despite Putin’s remarks, a nuclear war between his country and NATO remains unlikely.
PBS.Org reported Feb. 28, 2022
WASHINGTON (AP) — Russian President Vladimir Putin’s implied threat to turn the Ukraine war into a broader nuclear conflict presents President Joe Biden with choices rarely contemplated in the atomic age, including whether to raise the alert level of U.S. nuclear forces.
This turn of events is all the more remarkable for the fact that less than a year ago, Putin and Biden issued a statement at their Geneva summit that seemed more in keeping with the idea that the threat of nuclear war was a Cold War relic. “Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought,” they agreed.
Putin on Sunday told his top defense and military officials to put nuclear forces in a “special regime of combat duty,” but it was not immediately clear how that might have changed the status of Russian nuclear forces, if at all. Russia, like the United States, keeps its land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs, in a high state of readiness at all times, and it is believed that Russian submarine-based nuclear missiles, like America’s, are similarly postured.
A nuclear attack on Ukraine, apart from the potential harm to the Ukrainian village and people, will only heighten the international reaction tremendously, deeply undermining Russia’s efforts to subdue Russia. If Putin turns Putin’s war in Ukraine into a nuclear conflict, given the West’s continued drive to cripple the Russian economy, Europe could see more destruction than Japan, where nuclear weapons were used for the first and only time in 1945. The West must help repel a Russian invasion of Ukraine, but that could mean giving Putin an exit strategy that is halfway between global humiliation and a coup in his own country, both of which could lead to unprecedented nuclear strike scenarios. In the short term, we need to be extremely careful when trying to throw President Putin off the ledge he so recklessly climbed.
Reported by thedailybeast.com, April 14, 2017
On Friday, as Russian Federation tanks and troops poured across the border into eastern Ukraine, Vladimir Putin talked about his country’s most destructive weaponry. “I want to remind you that Russia is one of the most powerful nuclear nations,” he said. “This is a reality, not just words.” Russia, he told listeners, is “strengthening our nuclear deterrence forces.”
That same day, Putin used a term for eastern Ukraine meaning “New Russia.” So when he refers to repelling “any aggression against Russia” and speaks of “nuclear deterrence,” as he did on Friday, the Russian president is really warning us he will use nukes to protect his grab of Ukrainian territory.
The fact still remains, will Vladimir Putin have the courage to fire a ballistic missile into Ukraine? Would he be willing to risk an all-out nuclear war with one of our nato allies, which would draw us straight into the war? The World waits to see.
God Bless America, God Bless the Veterans
Follow AFNN
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAz…
Twitter: @AFNNUSA
GETTR: @AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA
Patriot.Online: @AFNN
Alternative question: Would Joe Biden risk a “doomsday” exchange with Russia over a bombing in the Ukraine?
What is Putin’s evaluation of Biden likely to be? I know what mine is, and I am not encouraged for Ukraine.
I’m not encouraged for US, remembering that survey that went around nuke crews where a disturbing number said “wouldn’t turn keys no matter what.”
Having a strategy, based on fear, that an enemy will/may use nuclear weapons is not a very good foundation for making a strategy. Nuclear weapons have been on the table for most of everyone’s lives.
Getting them off the table is the only strategy to strive for, but not by using fear and capitulation. This isn’t a movie, where sound and visual effects change the dynamics. Whether or not Putin uses nuclear weapons is out of our control, unless you have capitulation as your primary option. A weapon is a weapon, period. A talk host went on and on about one of Putin’s weapons as being a “Lung sucking” bomb, that kills by robbing the area of air. Now, I can’t speak of having artillery shells hitting next to my “foxhole”, but I’ll guess that damages more than just a soldier’s hearing.
I have no idea if Putin would use nuclear weapons or not, but I’m sure not going to worry about it. I’m more worried about that sick excuse of a president we have using them, inappropriately. I’ll leave the solving of the problem, otherwise, to someone else.
But I’m sure not going to be worrying over either side using nuclear weapons, since I lived through that exact same threat all of my life. I had no say, then, and have no say, now.
I too have lived the entire “atomic age”. That does not, however, mean that I don’t worry about their use again. On the positive side, more people died in wars before their use than after. On the negative side, their destructive power has greatly increased.
“A weapon is a weapon, period.” A near miss from a 5.56 round is just a miss. A near miss from a hand grenade is still a problem.
I have less say now than I have ever had in the past, which was always miniscule.
One fallacy to avoid–the feeling that since we have always “muddled through” in the past, that will be true in the future, too.