Comments on: Russia Retains Option of Preemptive Nuclear Strike http://news.antiwar.com/2009/10/13/russia-retains-option-of-pre-emptive-nuclear-strike/ Original and up-to-date news Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:03:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: the_big_wedding http://news.antiwar.com/2009/10/13/russia-retains-option-of-pre-emptive-nuclear-strike/comment-page-1/#comment-5117 the_big_wedding Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:14:01 +0000 http://news.antiwar.com/?p=6593#comment-5117 So, why not? The US tore up the ABM treaty, is still attempting to effect nuclear primacy through "missle defense", the US and NATO have admitted eastern european countries to NATO, a direct contradiction of a promise made to Gorbachev by Bush I, the US is still building a first-strike missle defense system based in Europe, including probably the Ukraine; and Israel, who has at least 200 nuclear weapons, isn't even being compelled to sign the NPT. So, what would you expect? So, why not? The US tore up the ABM treaty, is still attempting to effect nuclear primacy through "missle defense", the US and NATO have admitted eastern european countries to NATO, a direct contradiction of a promise made to Gorbachev by Bush I, the US is still building a first-strike missle defense system based in Europe, including probably the Ukraine; and Israel, who has at least 200 nuclear weapons, isn't even being compelled to sign the NPT. So, what would you expect?

]]> By: the_big_wedding http://news.antiwar.com/2009/10/13/russia-retains-option-of-pre-emptive-nuclear-strike/comment-page-1/#comment-5116 the_big_wedding Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:13:11 +0000 http://news.antiwar.com/?p=6593#comment-5116 So, why not? The US tore up the ABM treaty, is still attempting to effect nuclear primacy through "missle defense", the US and NATO have admitted eastern european countries to NATO, a direct controdiction of a promise made to Gorbachev, and are still building a first-strike missle defense system to be based in Europe, including the Ukraine; and Israel, who has at least 200 nuclear weapons, isn't even being compelled to sign the NPT. So, what would you expect? So, why not? The US tore up the ABM treaty, is still attempting to effect nuclear primacy through "missle defense", the US and NATO have admitted eastern european countries to NATO, a direct controdiction of a promise made to Gorbachev, and are still building a first-strike missle defense system to be based in Europe, including the Ukraine; and Israel, who has at least 200 nuclear weapons, isn't even being compelled to sign the NPT. So, what would you expect?

]]> By: the_big_wedding http://news.antiwar.com/2009/10/13/russia-retains-option-of-pre-emptive-nuclear-strike/comment-page-1/#comment-5115 the_big_wedding Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:11:48 +0000 http://news.antiwar.com/?p=6593#comment-5115 So, why not? The US tore up the ABM treaty, is still attempting to effect nuclear primacy through "missle defense", the US and NATO have admitted eastern european countries to NATO, and even, perhaps, the Ukraine, and are still building a first-strike missle defense system to be based in Europe; and Israel, who has at least 200 nuclear weapons, isn't even being compelled to sign the NPT. So, what would you expect? So, why not? The US tore up the ABM treaty, is still attempting to effect nuclear primacy through "missle defense", the US and NATO have admitted eastern european countries to NATO, and even, perhaps, the Ukraine, and are still building a first-strike missle defense system to be based in Europe; and Israel, who has at least 200 nuclear weapons, isn't even being compelled to sign the NPT. So, what would you expect?

]]> By: Arthur Borges http://news.antiwar.com/2009/10/13/russia-retains-option-of-pre-emptive-nuclear-strike/comment-page-1/#comment-5114 Arthur Borges Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:46:09 +0000 http://news.antiwar.com/?p=6593#comment-5114 China on the other hand has a "no first use" policy and a total fleet of 16 missiles capable of entirely covering North America -- fewer than found on a single Trident submarine. China on the other hand has a "no first use" policy and a total fleet of 16 missiles capable of entirely covering North America — fewer than found on a single Trident submarine.

]]> By: gordon arnaut http://news.antiwar.com/2009/10/13/russia-retains-option-of-pre-emptive-nuclear-strike/comment-page-1/#comment-5107 gordon arnaut Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:18:20 +0000 http://news.antiwar.com/?p=6593#comment-5107 It is very misleading to say that Russia has had a "longstanding" policy to use nuclear weapons pre-emptively. Throughout the Cold War the Soviet Union had a policy of No First Use of nuclear weapons. Nato never did, nor does it now. So to say that both Nato and Russia have had a "longstanding" policy of First Use is to suggest an equivalence that does not exist in fact. Only Nato has had such a longstanding policy. Russia's policy change on No First Use is relatively recent. It was only in 2000 that Russia amended its policy and adopted a First Use option. Some Western commentators suggest this policy actually changed in 1993, when Russia announced it has not renewed its commitment to No First Use. But it did not specifically say that it had adopted the First Use option. So this is open to interpretation. In any case, even if we use the 1993 date, there can be no equivalence between the "longstanding" aspect of Nato and Russia. Once again we are treated to uninfored news writing on this website. Gordon Arnaut It is very misleading to say that Russia has had a "longstanding" policy to use nuclear weapons pre-emptively.

Throughout the Cold War the Soviet Union had a policy of No First Use of nuclear weapons. Nato never did, nor does it now.

So to say that both Nato and Russia have had a "longstanding" policy of First Use is to suggest an equivalence that does not exist in fact. Only Nato has had such a longstanding policy.

Russia's policy change on No First Use is relatively recent. It was only in 2000 that Russia amended its policy and adopted a First Use option.

Some Western commentators suggest this policy actually changed in 1993, when Russia announced it has not renewed its commitment to No First Use. But it did not specifically say that it had adopted the First Use option. So this is open to interpretation.

In any case, even if we use the 1993 date, there can be no equivalence between the "longstanding" aspect of Nato and Russia.

Once again we are treated to uninfored news writing on this website.

Gordon Arnaut

]]> By: MvGuy http://news.antiwar.com/2009/10/13/russia-retains-option-of-pre-emptive-nuclear-strike/comment-page-1/#comment-5094 MvGuy Wed, 14 Oct 2009 04:48:20 +0000 http://news.antiwar.com/?p=6593#comment-5094 AAAAAAAAAggggggghhhhhhhhhhhh....... Here's another fine mess you made george..!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAggggggghhhhhhhhhhhh……. Here's another fine mess you made george..!!!!!!

]]>