Nikolay Patrushev, the secretary of the Russian Security Council, warned Monday that Moscow possesses weapons capable of wiping out an enemy, including the United States.
“Russia is patient and does not intimidate anyone with its military advantage However, it possesses advanced unique weapons capable of destroying any enemy, including the United States, in case of a threat to its existence,” Patrushev said, according to the Russian news agency TASS.
Moscow’s military doctrine allows the use of nuclear weapons if Russian officials believe Russia is facing an existential threat. Patrushev added that Russia would be able to respond to a pre-emptive nuclear strike launched by the US.
“American politicians captivated by their domestic propaganda somehow remain certain that in case of a direct conflict with Russia, the United States is capable of delivering a pre-emptive missile strike, following which Russia will already be unable to retaliate. This is short-sighted absurdity, which is also very dangerous,” Patrushev said.
The warning from Patrushev comes after Russian President Vladimir Putin announced Russia would deploy nuclear weapons to Belarus. The Russian leader said the move was related to the UK providing Ukraine with depleted uranium ammunition, which is radioactive and is linked to cancer and birth defects.
The US and its allies continue to ramp up support for Ukraine despite the risk of escalation with Russia. Poland and Slovakia recently became the first NATO members to provide fighter jets by pledging Soviet-made MiG 29s, a step NATO previously ruled out over fears Russia could perceive such support as the alliance directly entering the war.
67 thoughts on “Russian Official Says Moscow Has Weapons That Can Destroy the US”
All because Wash. and the MIC profit from interventions around the world. How many since WWII? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_the_United_States
Of course they do. They should have been a very obvious. And we have enough weapons to destroy them. Same thing with China. And we should never use them on each other and destroy the planet and all of us on it. All these mindless escalations by politicians bring us ever closer.
This is what cowards sound like when they realize they are unable to achieve their war objectives.
A few here will say this is not a threat but another reminder to the US of the Russian Nuclear doctrine however, if the US says anything about nukes, that’s straight up a threat.
And I can already see the majority here, conveniently choosing to criticize the US instead of the very entity that made the nuke statement.
I think that your statement is over simplification of the problem.
We live in a nuclear world and have had to deal with this issue for a long time.
Wanting to avert nuclear escalation is paramount to ANTIWAR people everywhere.
But we cannot simply follow the doctrine blindly…
Sometimes, even antiwar people have to kick a– and take names, if you will.
It’s just that the only kicks and name taking are going in a westerly direction while zero criticism is going towards Russia. Again, antiwar is against all wars and all belligerents.
The nearly thousand American bases around the planet says your characterization is full of crap. Either that or you are hopelessly (or deliberately) naive, which in the latter case would pin the tail on a hypocritical donkey 😉
Let me help you; The US has an estimated of 750 military bases around the world. Most at the request or authorized by the host country under security cooperation agreements.
And what does your comment have to do with my response to Donna?
Are you one of those that allow anyone in the world to do whatever it wants with another country because the US has military bases abroad?
The self-irony in what you just wrote deserves to stand by itself 😉
“Let me help you; The US has an estimated of 750 military bases around the world. Most at the request or authorized by the host country under security cooperation agreements.”
And if you asked the people of all those countries where our troops are stationed, I would imagine a good portion would tell us to get the f*ck out. I recall the people around the bases I was stationed in the US didn’t particularly like us being there either.
Right back at ya Don. If the US says anything about nukes, and they do, would/do you call them cowards?
Absolutely, and I start with the American Medvedev, Lindsay Graham.
We’re talking about the U.S. Gov’ment. Check the records and see who has started more wars and invaded more countries in the last 75 years than any other major power. Criticism is well deserved.
How would you characterize the fact that the US has had nuclear weapons stationed in Europe since the 1950’s?
Is it because there wasn’t enough room for them here in the states and Europeans have a lot of empty warehouses?
In the case of this article, are you assuming that the two sides should keep secret their capabilities so that the other side might be tempted to initiate a first strike? And are you advancing your POV given that the US has not ruled out a first strike response?
Please respond to these last two questions specifically.
You are countering my point with an off topic.
But I will answer your first question: It was the cold war and Russia had thousands of nuclear missiles pointing West.
No one here except you is characterizing the Russian statement as a threat. This says everything about you, but nothing about the Russian official who has “reminded” Uncle Sam to keep it in his pants.
Thank you for confirming my point.
You are the very stereotype I point out here.
You’re welcome 😉 It doesn’t take much to satisfy some people. Glad to help 😉
We bombed an air base not to far from Moscow. Russia has been less aggressive than the US would be if they bombed Andrew’s Air Force Base.
We are criticizing US behavior because it has been over the top belligerent and confrontational. Furthermore, our actions have hurt the US and Ukraine more than anyone. For some, those MAY be the two goals.
Again, way to spin the article and my comments away from the Russian perpetrator making this horrible statements.
Is that your best come back? Off topic?
It is very much on topic. Your claim is that Russia’s statements are overly defensive and aggressive. I am asserting that their statements, if anything, are on the mild side.
This is the complete opposite of your interpretation. And I pointed out that the overall US reaction in a similar situation would be MUCH more aggressive. That you seem to agree with.
If by “We” you mean the USA, “We” did not attack anything in Russia. When the Viet Cong used Russian and Chinese supplied weapons to attack US bases in the war, the attacks were by Vietnamese, not the USSR and China.
Considering that Russia has more nukes on hand than the US and our top allies combined, and many of theirs are on mobile launchers, it is entirely possible- probable- they will get off a complete counter strike AND have plenty left over for a second strike. No matter who launches first, we’re going down and probably for the count. I fear it will be us who is effectively ‘bombed into the stone age’.
Comments are closed.