RUSSIA threatens DENMARK with NUCLEAR MISSILES Watch

This discussion is closed.
icdjabtjk
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#41
Report 4 years ago
#41
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
I like the idea of ABM shields.

The Aster missile can also be used.
Ok thats fine but I am not having a go at you some of the things you believe/said before are quite misinformed and you really can't trust the western media on any issues such as Russia, the Middle East, Israel, because a lot is just propaganda/lies believe it or not. Like how for example you totally believed that Iran has/is developing nuclear weapons and that Amadinajan threatened to wipe Israel off the map. These things and many more like this are complete lies, including NATO saying the defence shield in europe is directed towards Iran! Which is just... crazy haha.

You have to understand about the defence shield, the analogy is that during the cold war Russia had a big gun and was pointing it at the USA, the USA had a big gun and was pointing it at Russia. Lets just say that the USA and Russia are actually two people pointing guns at each other, and these people are glued in place, cannot move, and the guns fire slow moving bullets, so it was the case that if Russia fired their gun the USA could see the bullet coming and fire at Russia, and vice versa, and they'd both be killed. This is called mutually assured destruction and is what caused world wars to end because neither side wanted to fire and then be shot themselves also. However now the USA has a ballistic shield and is going to hide behind it. So now Russia is going to say "wait a minute.. now this means the USA can shoot us and we cant shoot them back, so what if they do shoot us, what's to stop them now?" So this is why it is completely imperative that Russia does target the missile shield around Russia and is capable of destroying it. Any country which joins the missile shield will be targeted by Russia, including by automated systems. For example Russia has a system called Dead Hand which will automatically launch a nuclear retaliation if Russia is attacked with nuclear weapons. This is to give a guarantee that they are not messing about and that a retaliation will happen no matter what if they are attacked. But it's not about revenge it's about defence and keeping the peace through the promise of mutually assured destruction.

The comment made by the Russian ambassador makes sense and is good advice, if denmark joins the shield then they are making themselves a target in a nuclear war. Not something to be done without consideration. (But of course stupid western propaganda "Russia threatening to nuke denmark!!! Omg putin is evil!! Russia is bad!!!")

Personally I think the missile shield is a big mistake, is escalating a nuclear arms race, making enemies of Russia because it is a threat to them and near their borders too, surrounding them, so for example with a 100% successful shield not only could the USA attack russia with nuclear weapons with no retaliation possible in theory, but so could France, so could the UK etc. I think that nuclear disarmament is a better option than building more nuclear weapons or tools to threaten a country by allowing a nuclear first strike against it.
1
queen-bee
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#42
Report 4 years ago
#42
All the hot scandinavian men will forever disappear :/
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#43
Report 4 years ago
#43
(Original post by wsxcde)
Ok thats fine but I am not having a go at you some of the things you believe/said before are quite misinformed and you really can't trust the western media on any issues such as Russia, the Middle East, Israel, because a lot is just propaganda/lies believe it or not. Like how for example you totally believed that Iran has/is developing nuclear weapons and that Amadinajan threatened to wipe Israel off the map. These things and many more like this are complete lies, including NATO saying the defence shield in europe is directed towards Iran! Which is just... crazy haha.

You have to understand about the defence shield, the analogy is that during the cold war Russia had a big gun and was pointing it at the USA, the USA had a big gun and was pointing it at Russia. Lets just say that the USA and Russia are actually two people pointing guns at each other, and these people are glued in place, cannot move, and the guns fire slow moving bullets, so it was the case that if Russia fired their gun the USA could see the bullet coming and fire at Russia, and vice versa, and they'd both be killed. This is called mutually assured destruction and is what caused world wars to end because neither side wanted to fire and then be shot themselves also. However now the USA has a ballistic shield and is going to hide behind it. So now Russia is going to say "wait a minute.. now this means the USA can shoot us and we cant shoot them back, so what if they do shoot us, what's to stop them now?" So this is why it is completely imperative that Russia does target the missile shield around Russia and is capable of destroying it. Any country which joins the missile shield will be targeted by Russia, including by automated systems. For example Russia has a system called Dead Hand which will automatically launch a nuclear retaliation if Russia is attacked with nuclear weapons. This is to give a guarantee that they are not messing about and that a retaliation will happen no matter what if they are attacked. But it's not about revenge it's about defence and keeping the peace through the promise of mutually assured destruction.

The comment made by the Russian ambassador makes sense and is good advice, if denmark joins the shield then they are making themselves a target in a nuclear war. Not something to be done without consideration. (But of course stupid western propaganda "Russia threatening to nuke denmark!!! Omg putin is evil!! Russia is bad!!!")

Personally I think the missile shield is a big mistake, is escalating a nuclear arms race, making enemies of Russia because it is a threat to them and near their borders too, surrounding them, so for example with a 100% successful shield not only could the USA attack russia with nuclear weapons with no retaliation possible in theory, but so could France, so could the UK etc. I think that nuclear disarmament is a better option than building more nuclear weapons or tools to threaten a country by allowing a nuclear first strike against it.
Russia's been going rigue for qute some time.

Whilst the ABM shield has been developed, the Russians have been upgrading their ICBM fleet.

To Soviet Union collapsed, the russian bear went away and licked it's wounds. It's now coming out to play.

It wasn't those involved in defence who said the world would be a better place post Cold War. It was politicians and bean counters looking to save money.

I like the idea of an ABM.

If you have a concern with it, take your argument up with a member of CND who thinks nothing bad wil ever happen
0
icdjabtjk
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#44
Report 4 years ago
#44
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Russia's been going rigue for qute some time.

Whilst the ABM shield has been developed, the Russians have been upgrading their ICBM fleet.

To Soviet Union collapsed, the russian bear went away and licked it's wounds. It's now coming out to play.

It wasn't those involved in defence who said the world would be a better place post Cold War. It was politicians and bean counters looking to save money.

I like the idea of an ABM.

If you have a concern with it, take your argument up with a member of CND who thinks nothing bad wil ever happen
Russias nuclear missile programme is being upgraded specifically because of the missile shield, like I said it's causing a nuclear arms race. Honestly no offence but you sound like you get all of 'your' opinions from propaganda, are quick to make leaps of logic, believe things which are embellished with an agenda without having a need to see the raw and impartial truth of the matter, and are not capable of having an impartial logical and analytical view of the world. I hope you are not really 36 and writing things like "the russian bear went away and licked it's wounds. It's now coming out to play." It's the kind of thing I'd expect to see written as a youtube comment from someone who I'd guess is 12 and wants to argue about how great the USA is because they want to feel good about themselves, no offence intended in saying this but it really is where I'd expect to see that kind of thing, and the main reason why I think saying this isn't so offensive is that, as well as it being true, I think you can do better than think like this!
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#45
Report 4 years ago
#45
(Original post by wsxcde)
Russias nuclear missile programme is being upgraded specifically because of the missile shield, like I said it's causing a nuclear arms race. Honestly no offence but you sound like you get all of 'your' opinions from propaganda, are quick to make leaps of logic, believe things which are embellished with an agenda without having a need to see the raw and impartial truth of the matter, and are not capable of having an impartial logical and analytical view of the world. I hope you are not really 36 and writing things like "the russian bear went away and licked it's wounds. It's now coming out to play." It's the kind of thing I'd expect to see written as a youtube comment from someone who I'd guess is 12 and wants to argue about how great the USA is because they want to feel good about themselves, no offence intended in saying this but it really is where I'd expect to see that kind of thing, and the main reason why I think saying this isn't so offensive is that, as well as it being true, I think you can do better than think like this!
Russia's ICBM systems are being upgraded because of the same reason we're upgrading ours. They're getting old and need replacing.

What about Russia's ABM shield? That predates the Americans?
0
MagicNMedicine
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#46
Report 4 years ago
#46
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
You may want to read up on the history of the iran / iraq war.
Lets be honest about the Iran/Iraq war - this was started by Saddam's Arab nationalist ambitions to dominate the region. Saddam invaded Iran when Iran was in a period of instability after the Iranian revolution.

After a few years, the Iraqis had lost the gains they made in Iranian territory, and Saddam offered peace terms but Khomenei didn't accept them because he wanted to invade Iraq and effect regime change by overthrowing Saddam.

Saddam was always going to be a threat to Iran while he was in post so regime change was a reasonable aim from the view of Iranian security. Saddam had cosied up to the Soviet Union getting Soviet weaponry and then he cosied up to the US to get supplies from the West as well.

The Khomenei regime was not exactly a paragon of human rights but it's not unreasonable to fight when you have an explicit enemy like Saddam on your borders. During the Iran-Iraq war the Israelis bombed Saddam too as they knew he was a potentially even bigger threat.
1
icdjabtjk
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#47
Report 4 years ago
#47
(Original post by MagicNMedicine)
Lets be honest about the Iran/Iraq war - this was started by Saddam's Arab nationalist ambitions to dominate the region. Saddam invaded Iran when Iran was in a period of instability after the Iranian revolution.

After a few years, the Iraqis had lost the gains they made in Iranian territory, and Saddam offered peace terms but Khomenei didn't accept them because he wanted to invade Iraq and effect regime change by overthrowing Saddam.

Saddam was always going to be a threat to Iran while he was in post so regime change was a reasonable aim from the view of Iranian security. Saddam had cosied up to the Soviet Union getting Soviet weaponry and then he cosied up to the US to get supplies from the West as well.

The Khomenei regime was not exactly a paragon of human rights but it's not unreasonable to fight when you have an explicit enemy like Saddam on your borders. During the Iran-Iraq war the Israelis bombed Saddam too as they knew he was a potentially even bigger threat.
You know that the US supplied Saddam, gave him lots of military equipment including chemical weapons and biological weapons like anthrax (which the US then used as an excuse "Iraq has chemical weapons! They're using chemical weapons!" when they wanted to invade Iraq, and some of which have later been rediscovered by the USA after the invasion of Iraq), and sent troops to train the Iraqi army and US special forces and mercinaries fought alongside Iraqi troops in the Iraq-Iran war

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...%80%93Iraq_war
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#48
Report 4 years ago
#48
(Original post by wsxcde)
You know that the US supplied Saddam, gave him lots of military equipment including chemical weapons and biological weapons like anthrax (which the US then used as an excuse "Iraq has chemical weapons! They're using chemical weapons!" when they wanted to invade Iraq, and some of which have later been rediscovered by the USA after the invasion of Iraq), and sent troops to train the Iraqi army and US special forces and mercinaries fought alongside Iraqi troops in the Iraq-Iran war

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...%80%93Iraq_war
ISTR pretty much all of the Iraqi military equipment being Russian/Soviet.

Which weapon systems didthe Americans supply Saddam? I know they werre backers of the Shah of Iran hence a load of American kit in Iranian service, but I'm struggling with US kit in Iraqi service.

This was the Iraqi army's premier main battle tank.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_of_Babylon_(tank)



do you know that one of the first things the Americans and the West did after Itaq invaded Iran was to smack a weapons boycott on them?

You've taken a military conflict that has it's origins based in a long standing political issue and tried to blame a third party for it.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Iraq_War
0
icdjabtjk
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#49
Report 4 years ago
#49
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
ISTR pretty much all of the Iraqi military equipment being Russian/Soviet.

Which weapon systems didthe Americans supply Saddam? I know they werre backers of the Shah of Iran hence a load of American kit in Iranian service, but I'm struggling with US kit in Iraqi service.

This was the Iraqi army's premier main battle tank.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_of_Babylon_(tank)



do you know that one of the first things the Americans and the West did after Itaq invaded Iran was to smack a weapons boycott on them?

You've taken a military conflict that has it's origins based in a long standing political issue and tried to blame a third party for it.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Iraq_War
You are getting the dates, leaders and what happened mixed up, Iran had a revolution in 1979 in which the Shah who the US supported, and who was also a horrible dictator who no one liked, was overthrown by the public and a new government which was now anti-US was installed in power. Since this time, 1979, the US began sanctioning Iran. The Iran-Iraq war then began in 1980 with the USA strongly backing Iraq. What equipment did the US give to Iraq? You can see some of it here in this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...%80%93Iraq_war
0
icdjabtjk
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#50
Report 4 years ago
#50
and what you are saying about boycott I think you are thinking of the USA sanctioning Iran not Iraq, or that the US sanctioned Iraq from 1990 Kuwait/gulf war.
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#51
Report 4 years ago
#51
(Original post by wsxcde)
You are getting the dates, leaders and what happened mixed up, Iran had a revolution in 1979 in which the Shah who the US supported, and who was also a horrible dictator who no one liked, was overthrown by the public and a new government which was now anti-US was installed in power. Since this time, 1979, the US began sanctioning Iran. The Iran-Iraq war then began in 1980 with the USA strongly backing Iraq. What equipment did the US give to Iraq? You can see some of it here in this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...%80%93Iraq_war
No I'm not. The U.S. supported the shah. This can be demonstrated by the amount of American military equipment sold to the iranian military in the 70s.

America also apparently backed Saddam hussein but the massive bulk of Iraqi equiement from that time period is actually soviet/russian.

The Americans backed iraq at times during the iran iraq war, but to say that the Americans went ape **** when iraq invaded Iran would be a massive understatement.

Iraq and the U.S. were never particularly close, but following the fall of the shah and the purge of his military, Saddam thought it would be a good time to have a go at iran without anybody backing him.

The Russians also backed Iraq during the iran Iraq war.

When there's a big war that goes on, many other nations will have to have some form of interaction with the warring factions. That does not mean that they're backing.

Switzerland for example didn't back Nazi germany because it had dealing with them.
I know yiuve given a wonderful link to Wikipedia totled American support. But try reading Sovviet support, Saudi support etc.
0
icdjabtjk
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#52
Report 4 years ago
#52
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
No I'm not. The U.S. supported the shah. This can be demonstrated by the amount of American military equipment sold to the iranian military in the 70s.

America also apparently backed Saddam hussein but the massive bulk of Iraqi equiement from that time period is actually soviet/russian.

The Americans backed iraq at times during the iran iraq war, but to say that the Americans went ape **** when iraq invaded Iran would be a massive understatement.

Iraq and the U.S. were never particularly close, but following the fall of the shah and the purge of his military, Saddam thought it would be a good time to have a go at iran without anybody backing him.

The Russians also backed Iraq during the iran Iraq war.

When there's a big war that goes on, many other nations will have to have some form of interaction with the warring factions. That does not mean that they're backing.

Switzerland for example didn't back Nazi germany because it had dealing with them.
I know yiuve given a wonderful link to Wikipedia totled American support. But try reading Sovviet support, Saudi support etc.
Yes... look at the dates... the shah was overthrown in 1979, the Iran-Iraq war happened in 1980... so you cant say "but the US supported the Shah!" there was no shah in the iran-iraq war, he was overthrown before it started and a new anti-US government took his place (anti-US because they wanted to throw the US puppet out of their country and have self determination)

Why cant you accept that the USA heavily supported and fully backed Saddam, including supplying him with chemical weapons and anthrax, sending US troops to train Iraqi troops, even special forces and mercinaries to fight Iran alongside Iraq, and that the USA wanted Iran to be invaded and the new government there to fall, you cant face facts?
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#53
Report 4 years ago
#53
(Original post by wsxcde)
and what you are saying about boycott I think you are thinking of the USA sanctioning Iran not Iraq, or that the US sanctioned Iraq from 1990 Kuwait/gulf war.
U.S. sanctions on Iran began in 1979 when the shah was deposed.

UN backed sactions and resolutions on Iraq began in 1980.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite...Resolution_479

I see non of the normal UN shenanigans of abstaining etc in any of the in resolutions

I've always wanted to ask an iranian like yourself. Do you go and watch the public executions when they hang people from cranes?
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#54
Report 4 years ago
#54
(Original post by wsxcde)
UN /= US

The USA gave Iraq billions of dollars during the Iran-Iraq war, lots of equipment, lots of chemical weapons and spotted Iranian targets with their intelligence for Iraqi troops to gas, sold them 60 attack helicopters, and many other things.


Your last line has just proven you a child anyway, what is your real age, 36? please tell me it isnt. and um I'm not Iranian what a strange assumption.
A whole 60 helicopters.

Which type of Attack helicopters?
0
icdjabtjk
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#55
Report 4 years ago
#55
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
A whole 60 helicopters.

Which type of Attack helicopters?
its in the link I showed you before
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#56
Report 4 years ago
#56
(Original post by wsxcde)
its in the link I showed you before
Wow. Hughes defenders.

Nothing like taking your life into your own hands by flying one of those bad boys over anything other than an empty field.

I thought you were talking about proper helicopter gunships like Cobras or Hinds. Not liaison helicopters with a machine gun bolted into it.

When the arch enemy of the U.S., the Russians were supplying iraq at the same time, the Russians atkeast supplied iraq with a proper gunship.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-24
0
icdjabtjk
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#57
Report 4 years ago
#57
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Wow. Hughes defenders.

Nothing like taking your life into your own hands by flying one of those bad boys over anything other than an empty field.

I thought you were talking about proper helicopter gunships like Cobras or Hinds. Not liaison helicopters with a machine gun bolted into it.

When the arch enemy of the U.S., the Russians were supplying iraq at the same time, the Russians atkeast supplied iraq with a proper gunship.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-24
But what exactly are you trying to argue now? You are kind of all over the place. Before you were trying to argue that the USA was not supporting Iraq, was boycotting Iraq and that they supported the Shah, who had already been removed. Now after I showed you that the USA gave Iraq billions of dollars, lots of equipment, worked with the Iraqi army spotting targets for them to gas, and gave them chemical weapons and anthrax, now you are linking a helicopter which USSR sold to Iraq. Are you wondering the reasons why USSR would supply Iraq as well because they are supposed to be enemies of the USA? I think there was a lot of competition in arms sales also as USSR was the worlds second largest weapons producer and the USA the first. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_...%80%93Iraq_war it says here that a large soviet agenda was actually proving their weapons were good as well as obviously profiteering and staying a huge arms producer.
0
icdjabtjk
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#58
Report 4 years ago
#58
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Wow. Hughes defenders.
You know that this probably shouldnt be continued anyway because this was about denmark joining the missile shield against russia. And Iran is relevant because NATO keeps claiming the shield is supposed to be against Iran, but the Iran-Iraq war a bit less so, though it links into the US and Israel in particular lying about Iran developing nuclear weapons and stuff.

But umm, well I dont even know what more there is to say on the topic than what was already said :P
0
icdjabtjk
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#59
Report 4 years ago
#59
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Wow. Hughes defenders.
Can you just see a couple of examples though that the USA did often attack Iran during the Iran-Iraq war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
0
Aj12
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#60
Report 4 years ago
#60
(Original post by wsxcde)
xxx

(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Wow ]
Could you two stick to the topic please. If you wish to discuss another issue then please make a separate thread.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you tempted to change your firm university choice on A-level results day?

Yes, I'll try and go to a uni higher up the league tables (152)
17.76%
Yes, there is a uni that I prefer and I'll fit in better (75)
8.76%
No I am happy with my course choice (506)
59.11%
I'm using Clearing when I have my exam results (123)
14.37%

Watched Threads

View All