# Russia's nuclear strike first policy



## VinceW (12 Feb 2010)

Russia now has a nuclear "strike first" policy with it's neighbours,not just against NATO,and they wonder why NATO and the EU won't accept them as members. :

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20091023/156567212.html


----------



## a_majoor (14 Feb 2010)

I recall that after the fall of the wall and the opening of former East German archives warplans were discovered which were built around initiating WWIII's hot phase with surprise nuclear strikes across Western Europe and advancing the Soviet army directly after the strikes.

How very fortunate WW III never turned hot, and we have far less reason to worry about nuclear weapons now during WW IV  (since we can produce nuclear weapons on assembly line basis while our enemies cannot).


----------



## VinceW (14 Feb 2010)

Russia considers NATO expansion as "Provocation"

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,540426,00.html

If it looks like Georgia will get into NATO,the Russians may use nuclear weapons on them if they cannot stop them by other means.
Russia took the risk to invade once,I don't think it would be that out of character for them to go nuclear.
Hopefully they'll be smarter then that.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (15 Feb 2010)

VinceW said:
			
		

> Russia now has a nuclear "strike first" policy with it's neighbours,not just against NATO,and they wonder why NATO and the EU won't accept them as members. :
> 
> http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20091023/156567212.html



As the article states the Russians have been discussing this for some time. One factor may be that the Russian conventional forces are not what they used to be and they are forced to really more on their nuclear forces, both tactical and strategic.  



			
				VinceW said:
			
		

> Russia considers NATO expansion as "Provocation"
> 
> http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,540426,00.html
> 
> ...



Check the date of your info...the link you are providing is from Oct 2008. As long as tensions remain between the two the chances of Georgia joining NATO and the EU is somewhere between nil and none. As for the Russians nuking Georgia, ain't going to happen - it would be like swatting a fly with a sledgehammer. Plus, the political backlash would be too terrible to even comprehend.


----------



## aesop081 (15 Feb 2010)

So the Ruskies have a "nuke first" policy.....big f*****g deal !

During the cold war, the Yanks had a "nuke everyone even if they didnt attack us" retaliation policy, the Single Integrated Operational Plan.

Its all sabre rattling anyways.....


----------



## VinceW (15 Feb 2010)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Check the date of your info...the link you are providing is from Oct 2008.




It's still the same government that are running Russia from 2008,by Russia invading Georgia and declaring the South Ossetians as an independant of Georgia,they've now screwed up Georgia's attempt to join NATO,because they still recognize that area as Georgia,and it'll make it less likely for them to join with the mess Russia created.

Them using a nuc wouldn't be out of the question,if they ever do lose control of the Georgia situation,look at what they did to Chechyna,it's a complete shithole now because of them,the Russians are living through a Nationalistic period right now,and them using brute force again to whip up support for the government can't be ruled out,but you're probably right,someone in the government will remind them how bad the response from the world will be if they used nucs,even though they have Europe by the balls with how much oil and gas they supply them with.


----------



## vonGarvin (16 Feb 2010)

VinceW said:
			
		

> Them using a nuc wouldn't be out of the question,if they ever do lose control of the Georgia situation,look at what they did to Chechyna,it's a complete shithole now because of them,the Russians are living through a Nationalistic period right now,and them using brute force again to whip up support for the government can't be ruled out,but you're probably right,someone in the government will remind them how bad the response from the world will be if they used nucs,even though they have Europe by the balls with how much oil and gas they supply them with.


I'm using a first-strike nuclear option on your grammar.  Google "sentence structure", "punctuation" or even "spell-check".  I'm certain that you would be amazed.


> It wouldn't be out of the question for the Russians to use nuclear weapons if they ever lose control of the Georgia situation.  Look at what they did to Chechnya; it's a complete sh*t hole now because of them.  The Russians are living through a nationalistic period right now and for them to use brute force to whip up support for the government can't be ruled ou.  You're probably right, however; someone in the government will remind them how bad the response from the world would be if they used nuclear weapons, irrespective of the fact that they have Europe by the short and curlies in terms of how much oil and gas with which they supply them


Anyway, to stay on topic, the Russians don't think as we do over here.  Allow me to illustrate.  Where we would have seen nuclear weapons as a last resort option for war in Europe circa 1960 - 1990, the Soviets saw their use as not really that different from any other weapons.  They would have gone "all in", and early.  Most likely, had things come to blows, they would have struck West Germany with many nuclear strikes in order to reduce NATO's ability to resist.  This would most likely have been followed up by a rapid advance by ground forces to seize political and economic targets, as well as to seize any nuclear or chemical stockpiles.  Their aim would have been to make it complete by the time the West realised what was happening.  Depending on who the US president was at the time, the US may or may not have initiated a massive retaliatory strike, thus endangering their own country.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Feb 2010)

You should read "The Next 100 Years" by George Friedman.

Russia (in his view, which is largely based on the "World Island" theory of Halford John Mackinder) needs to create deep geographic barriers against invasions, especially from Europe and Turkey. This requires either occupying large areas of land (like during WW III when they pushed their western frontier into Germany itself), or establishing rings of client states who are under control of Russia.

NATO expansion in the 1990's unravelled the forward defenses in the West, and turmoil in the Caucus (the Russian "Near Beyond")  threatens the southern approaches. Western and Chinese influence in the 'Stans is also to be feared, although this is one of the few regions of the world that the United States, as a maritime power, cannot effectively reach.

Russian political interference in the Ukraine, the war with Georgia, using the supply of natural gas as an economic lever and the not so subtle threat of using nuclear weapons are all tools the Russians are using to recreate their old buffer zones. If Friedman is right in his forecast, this process will continue into the 2020's, then end as Russia suffers from its demographic collapse, and the Grand Duchy of Warsaw is reborn to become the leading power of Eastern Europe.


----------



## tsokman (17 Feb 2010)

It may be the case they are discussing first strike because NATO expansion agreements do not include extending nucleur umbrellas to new member states(im not exactly sure if thats the case)...so NATO expansion without a nucleur umbrella could be hollow...consider for example NATO forces in the former Soviet Central Asian states are easy targets for tactical nucleur strikes that dont  necessarily involve strategic nucleur confrontation...I think this is called having your forces "footloose" i.e having your forces exposed to tactical nucleur strikes without a strategic umbrella- the escalation to strategic remains ambiguous...Thats why I believe alot of the ABM stuff being discussed with the Eastern European countries is more about providing a shield for NATO conventional forces in the former Soviet areas and Moscow would consider it highly dangerous...If im not mistaken the Soviets did think tactical nucleur war was possible without necessarily escalating to strategic-thermonucleur exchange within specific operational windows of oppurtunity....


----------

