http://www.newsmax.com/

Moscow Says It Will Use Nukes in Local War

NewsMax.com

December 19, 1999

Russia has announced it wants opponents to understand it has changed its military policy, and will now use nuclear weapons in "smaller-scale conflicts."

It was a clear-cut warning to the United States and European nations that if they intervene in its war in Chechnya they may expect nuclear war in return.

At the same time, Russia announced it is also increasing its capability - by three-fold - to engage in strategic intercontinental ballistic-missile nuclear warfare with America.

This news came out of Moscow in conjunction with celebration of the 40th anniversary of its nuclear-missile forces.

In carefully timed interviews in Krasnaya Zvezda and the weekly Nezavisimoye Voyennoye Obozreniye, the chief of the missile force, Col.-Gen. Vladimir Yakovlev, said Russia had been compelled to rethink dramatically its nuclear-deterrent program.

"Russia, for objective reasons, is forced to lower the threshold for using nuclear weapons, extend the nuclear deterrent to smaller-scale conflicts and openly warn potential opponents about this," Yakovlev said.

Those reasons, he said, were the under-funding of Russia's rocket forces, due to the country's financial crisis, and the emergence of regional powers armed with missiles and nuclear technology.

Yakovlev made it clear Moscow will use its nuclear arms if attacked with chemical or biological weapons or outnumbered by conventional forces, Reuters news agency reported.

He told Nezavisimoye Voyennoye Obozreniye that Russia will continue to replace its existing intercontinental ballistic missiles with its new Topol-M ICBMs.

Topol-M is a highly mobile rocket with a multiple nuclear warhead that the Russian military has boasted can penetrate any missile-defense shield the United States can create.

Yakovlev forecast that Russia will also produce an aircraft-based cruise version of the Topol-M and place greater emphasis on space technology, Reuters said.

Although not the superpower the old Soviet Union was during the Cold War, Russia still has the world's second-largest nuclear arsenal of hundreds of missiles based on land, in prowling submarines and aboard long-range aircraft.

The newspaper Izvestiya reported Russia will double Topol-M production from the rate of 10 a year, as in 1998 and 1999, to 20 in 2000 and 30 in 2001 - giving it a total of 70 by 2002.

Izvestiya said Russia will use the new Topol-Ms to replace its aging, almost-obsolete ICBMs as fast as the new models come off the production line.

This would deprive Russia of millions of dollars of U.S. tax funds, conditioned on being used only to help it dismantle and destroy, but not replace, its old ICBM fleet.

Those funds were appropriated under the 1992 Nunn-Lugar Act, steered through Congress by former senators Sam Nunn, D-Ga., and Richard G. Lugar, R-Ind.

-- Uncle Bob (UNCLB0B@AOL.COM), December 19, 1999

Answers

God, my ulcer is acting up. Somebody please spray the Russians. They need to be prozaced immediately.

-- no reds (red@bad.news), December 19, 1999.

Russia still has the world's second-largest nuclear arsenal of hundreds of missiles based on land, in prowling submarines and aboard long-range aircraft.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't this read "thousands of missiles"? I can't remember if the START II limits were 6000, or if they've even been reached. At one point the number of warheads was in the tens of thousands, but since they were on multiple-warhead missiles, the lower number might still be right.

And as for "prowling submarines", I know that large numbers of Russian subs are out of commission, but I suppose there could still be a few. I thought they mostly preferred land-based ICBMs though. It's the US that likes submarine launched weapons.

-- You Know... (notme@nothere.junk), December 19, 1999.

Tens of thousands would be more correct.

Check out...

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/summary.htm

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/index.html

-- Stars and Stripes (stars_n_stripes@my-deja.com), December 19, 1999.

What I meant to say is that they have over 20,000 warheads stockpiled. See the above links for specific details as to weapons platforms and warhead types.

-- Stars and Stripes (stars_n_stripes@my-deja.com), December 19, 1999.

The US wouldn't do any differently in the same position.

-- Forrest Covington (theforrest@mindspring.com), December 19, 1999.

I hope...truly hope, that it does not happen.

I keep thinking along the lines that Russia, having such prblems taking on city, is very concerned and frustrated. Stick their fears of Y2K and their aging systems, their Nuke power plants maybe ready to blow and their long hard Winters with no power....that they are scared to death the U.S. might try something. I'm hoping it's more huff-and-puff.

But it IS interesting that they have buddied up with China at this time. These threats will; in all probability, get the money we have been sneding to them, cut or stopped.

-- Satanta (EventHoriz@n.com), December 19, 1999.

Patton was right.

-- (cavscout@fix.net), December 19, 1999.

So was McArthur. Just keep on goin'...

-- Rob (maxovrdrv51@hotmail.com), December 19, 1999.

The buildup of arms by the Russians and Chinese is frightening, especially since our forces have been slashed by about 40% since 1992. The Russians have upgraded their MiG-29s, developed and deployed the SS-27 (TOPAL-M) missile, and built the new Akula class subs. These replaced the Typhoon class subs (aka Red October)which were sold to the Chinese Navy. The Akula 941 and 971 are giants, extremely fast, and made with titanium hulls at the cost of about 5.8 billion each. The 941 is a first strike weapon which has a staggering array of weapons. These include 20 missile tubes designed for MIRVed SN-26 missiles. Each one of these carries 10 warheads each. In addition, they have 13 launch tubes for single warhead cruise missiles. Folks, don't kid yourselves, these things are designed for getting close to a coast line and taking out cities. They are extremely quiet and equal or better than our Ohio Class subs. Just a side note, since the "fall of Communism" Russia has spent $94 billion on 18 Akula 971 subs and 35 billion on the 941 class. Source - Mcalvany Intelligence Advisor, August 1999, page 18.

-- trafficjam (roadwork@ahead.soon), December 19, 1999.

Yep, the Russians have lowered the threshold for use of nuclear weapons alright. Right to the point that all of us will be getting a real up close and personal look at how low the threshold is somewhere between tonight and midnight on 12/31/99. Make your peace with God. Y2K isn't TEOTWAWKI, the coming nuclear first strike by the Russians is. It's the age old question about nuclear war: who's luckier, those killed by the nukes or the survivors?

-- We're Toast (itwasnicewhile@itlasted.com), December 19, 1999.

Brings a whole new meaning to the bumper sticker ---

THINK GLOBALLY, ACT LOCALLY.

>"<

-- SH (squirrel@huntr.com), December 19, 1999.

I did say that the Chechans should surrender before New Year's. Moscow has them lined up as being their version of the bad guys thanks to the apartment explosions. Now if Russia's SHTF in a big way, they have the foundation laid for demonstrating to their people their vengeance in a big, nuclear, way.

What better way to hide your own incompetence than by using a tactical nuke on your designated goat? Let's see, would ten kilotons on Grozny be enough to pacify the Russian people if there are serious failure and deaths in Moscow?

I wonder if Klintoon might not wish he had a handy target that he could demonstrate "the power of his vengeance" against? I hope the separatists in Idaho don't try to secede, Klintoon could never have it so good as Boris does right now.

WW

-- Wildweasel (vtmldm@epix.net), December 19, 1999.

I hate to rain on anybody's parade, but if you needed to make some last minute preps with your nukes and relocate some warheads and missiles, A threefold increase in capability would sure give you a good cover.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), December 19, 1999.

Doesn't it give you warm fuzzies to know that our national policy is now to stand by with our collective thumbs up our butt and watch Kansas (or Ohio, etc) turned into a glass parking lot before we do anything?

-- Greybear (greybear@home.com), December 20, 1999.

Kansas ??? McConnell AFB and Boeing in Wichita ? Surely they wouldn't hit those two ? (LOL). That puts me within fireball range guy !

-- Rob (maxovrdrv51@hotmail.com), December 20, 1999.

You got that right Greybear. Strictly hypotheticaly speaking, how many of our leaders would you have to bump off before you got down to somebody who actually gives a shit about the American people? And isn't already sold out to the NWO, the /Chinese, or corporate interest?

-- Nikoli Krushev (Doomsday@y2000.com), December 20, 1999.

what are you guys worried about? The stock market just fine. We can buy them commies out.

-- ron (rrest@hotmail.com), December 22, 1999.