War

Roger A. Shrubber

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
printer said:
Lukashenko: ‘Nuclear weapons for everyone’ willing to join Russia and Belarus
Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko has said he’ll give nuclear weapons to states willing to join with Russia and Belarus, according to reports.
“It’s very simple. You have to join the union between Belarus and Russia, and that’s it: There will be nuclear weapons for everyone,” Lukashenko said on Russian state TV, as reported by NBC News.

“I think it’s possible,” Lukashenko said, per NBC, noting that he was expressing his personal view. “We need to strategically understand that we have a unique chance to unite.”

The comments come after the Belarusian leader and Russian President Vladimir Putin last week went ahead with a deal to deploy Moscow’s tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus as Russia continues its invasion of Ukraine.

The move of the weapons, which Putin announced earlier this year, has been interpreted by some as a warning to NATO. The Russian president has repeatedly threatened nuclear weapon use amid its ongoing war.

“Don’t worry about nuclear weapons. We are responsible for this. These are serious issues. Everything will be alright here,” Lukashenko said to Russian state news agency Belta, as reported by CNN. Belarus and Russia formed their “Union State” partnership in 1999.
thehill.com

Lukashenko: ‘Nuclear weapons for everyone’ willing to join Russia and Belarus

Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko has said he’ll give nuclear weapons to states willing to join with Russia and Belarus, according to reports. “It’s very simple. You have to join the union …
thehill.com thehill.com
Click to expand...
I'm curious who would join them, if they could?
With my limited knowledge of Eu and Eurasian politics, the only person even faintly likely to accept that offer would be Erdogan, and i don't think that is very likely. korea and iran would likely both take the offer, but they're physically cut off from russia, and unlikely to be able to make a significant contribution...
I think putin has all the allies he's going to get, even the maddest mad men know he's on his way out.
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Roger A. Shrubber said:
I'm curious who would join them, if they could?
With my limited knowledge of Eu and Eurasian politics, the only person even faintly likely to accept that offer would be Erdogan, and i don't think that is very likely. korea and iran would likely both take the offer, but they're physically cut off from russia, and unlikely to be able to make a significant contribution...
I think putin has all the allies he's going to get, even the maddest mad men know he's on his way out.
Click to expand...
It does not matter much where nukes are deployed since their reach is global. However, if he deploys them on NATO's borders, countries like Poland might want American or UK missiles deployed on its borders and Ukraine would ask for them to be deployed on its borders too. It is dangerous nuclear proliferation and should cost Russia its seat on the security council. In any case the missiles deployed in Belarus would be under Russian control, assuming they have enough conventional forces there to defend them from internal threats. They would also be secured against them being turned on Moscow by a sudden change in government. If there is a coup or revolution in Russia or Belarus, these weapons could end up in the hands of Russia's enemies. Most likely if there is regime change in Russia after defeat in Ukraine, they will seize the chance in Belarus to break away and seek Ukraine's help to do it.
 
Sativied

Sativied

Well-Known Member
Roger A. Shrubber said:
I'm curious who would join them, if they could?
With my limited knowledge of Eu and Eurasian politics, the only person even faintly likely to accept that offer would be Erdogan, and i don't think that is very likely. korea and iran would likely both take the offer, but they're physically cut off from russia, and unlikely to be able to make a significant contribution...
I think putin has all the allies he's going to get, even the maddest mad men know he's on his way out.
Click to expand...
Not very likely indeed, at least not in the current situation. Over a third of Turkey’s trade is with EU, biggest trading partners nation-wise is Germany, and the US. Turkey doesn’t need Russia as much as Russia needs Turkey. On the other hand, Turkey knows NATO, EU, and US needs Turkey to play ball in many situations, so Erdogan can afford to play both sides. The one thing Erdogan cannot afford at home is making the economic situation even worse. Turkey was one of the first to recognize Ukraine as a sovereign nation and its position is still that Russia needs to respect their boders including Crimea. Last but not least, Turkey already has US nukes.
 
printer

printer

Well-Known Member
DIY-HP-LED said:
It does not matter much where nukes are deployed since their reach is global. However, if he deploys them on NATO's borders, countries like Poland might want American or UK missiles deployed on its borders and Ukraine would ask for them to be deployed on its borders too. It is dangerous nuclear proliferation and should cost Russia its seat on the security council. In any case the missiles deployed in Belarus would be under Russian control, assuming they have enough conventional forces there to defend them from internal threats. They would also be secured against them being turned on Moscow by a sudden change in government. If there is a coup or revolution in Russia or Belarus, these weapons could end up in the hands of Russia's enemies. Most likely if there is regime change in Russia after defeat in Ukraine, they will seize the chance in Belarus to break away and seek Ukraine's help to do it.
Click to expand...
They are tactical nukes, not strategic nukes.
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
printer said:
They are tactical nukes, not strategic nukes.
Click to expand...
I'm aware of that and if NATO's were on the border of Ukraine, they could be in Vlad's bed with him before the phone rang to wake him up. Nukes can have a global reach and using short range tactical ones would probably trigger the ICBM kind. They are a threat to Europe, and I would expect NATO to respond in kind and with additional patriot batteries and other ABM systems that have been proven effective against them. Russia cannot respond with the same kind of ABM systems as we can since they are electronics intensive. In any case it is an idiotic proliferation that might backfire on Russia in a couple of different ways.
 
printer

printer

Well-Known Member
DIY-HP-LED said:
I'm aware of that and if NATO's were on the border of Ukraine, they could be in Vlad's bed with him before the phone rang to wake him up. Nukes can have a global reach and using short range tactical ones would probably trigger the ICBM kind. They are a threat to Europe, and I would expect NATO to respond in kind and with additional patriot batteries and other ABM systems that have been proven effective against them. Russia cannot respond with the same kind of ABM systems as we can since they are electronics intensive. In any case it is an idiotic proliferation that might backfire on Russia in a couple of different ways.
Click to expand...
"They are tactical nukes, not strategic nukes."

"It does not matter much where nukes are deployed since their reach is global."
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
printer said:
"They are tactical nukes, not strategic nukes."

"It does not matter much where nukes are deployed since their reach is global."
Click to expand...
If Russia uses tactical nukes, they risk a strategic response and once the genie is let out of the bottle it might not matter if they are tactical or strategic. It is the missile ranges that are the issue and time to target from launch, the warheads can be strategic if the targets are European cities. The article said tactical nukes, but short-range ballistic missiles can also carry strategic nukes. Tactical nukes are not actually very useful for tactical purposes and would not make a lot of difference in Ukraine, unless used on cities. It is the same for these so-called tactical nukes too, they would be targeted at cities and would best be described as short-range ballistic missiles. The Americans have such weapons in Turkey now and had a lot of them in Europe during the cold war. It was to be the NATO response to hordes of Soviet armor pouring into western Europe but with the fall of the Soviet Union they were withdrawn. This would be a step back in time to the cold war era. The real danger is if they give them to Iran and it could be a pretext to do just that, they have been doing Russia a lot of favors in this war.
 
Roger A. Shrubber

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Sativied said:
Specifically in reference to last week’s deal, which does not imply a limitation on the type Lukashenko is fantasizing about. In his dreams, it might as well be strategic nukes.
Click to expand...
Imagine the brochure.

For a limited time, every weapons system placed under the Lenin-Lease Program (TM) includes ABSOLUTELY FREE* a large garrison of Russian military operators and security personnel. No need to train your own specialists!

*Host satrapy is required to provide complete logistical support.
 
Roger A. Shrubber

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
Imagine the brochure.

For a limited time, every weapons system placed under the Lenin-Lease Program (TM) includes ABSOLUTELY FREE* a large garrison of Russian military operators and security personnel. No need to train your own specialists!

*Host satrapy is required to provide complete logistical support.
Click to expand...
Anyone who would pledge fealty to putin has already done so, i think....

Lenin-Lease :lol:
 
printer

printer

Well-Known Member
DIY-HP-LED said:
If Russia uses tactical nukes, they risk a strategic response and once the genie is let out of the bottle it might not matter if they are tactical or strategic. It is the missile ranges that are the issue and time to target from launch, the warheads can be strategic if the targets are European cities. The article said tactical nukes, but short-range ballistic missiles can also carry strategic nukes. Tactical nukes are not actually very useful for tactical purposes and would not make a lot of difference in Ukraine, unless used on cities. It is the same for these so-called tactical nukes too, they would be targeted at cities and would best be described as short-range ballistic missiles. The Americans have such weapons in Turkey now and had a lot of them in Europe during the cold war. It was to be the NATO response to hordes of Soviet armor pouring into western Europe but with the fall of the Soviet Union they were withdrawn. This would be a step back in time to the cold war era. The real danger is if they give them to Iran and it could be a pretext to do just that, they have been doing Russia a lot of favors in this war.
Click to expand...
So a sort range ballistic missile with a nuke is not a strategic nuke. Got it.
 
Roger A. Shrubber

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
printer said:
So a sort range ballistic missile with a nuke is not a strategic nuke. Got it.
Click to expand...
i totally get where you're coming from.
I don't think putin will use anything strategic, unless it's a last ditch effort to save his own ass from his own people.
a large yield bomb will spread radioactive waste along the prevailing winds, which at this time of year at least, looks like it would spread shit all over Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey, and parts of russia.

https://www.accuweather.com/en/ua/national/wind-flow
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top