Will Russia move to deter the US from using nuclear weapons

[Gman]

against Iran? I think if this continues Russia will eventually end up making some kind of open threat to the US. Russia still has plenty of nuclear capability to make a serious threat toward the US if it becomes anywhere close to apparent Bush intends to used nukes in Iran.

While there may no longer be the certainty of mutually assured destruction, unacceptable damage and loss of life may still be enough to deter Bush and the neocons.

The problem here is that the theory of deterrence is based on the thoughts and actions of a reasonable person. I'm not sure that is the case with neocons.

Watch in the next several weeks and months for moves by Russia. Russia may start having unexpected war games or other ways of announcing it is also getting ready for something. But most will be done through diplomatic channels, at least as far as that can go. Then Russia must go public.

This could even unfold as a new Cuban Missle Crisis - type crisis. Then who blinks? The Russians or Bush and the neocons knowing they've got Jesus' second coming in their back pocket if they can pull this off.

Again, the theory of deterrence is based on the assumption of dealing with reasonable people. We may now be in more danger than we can possibly imagine.

[MadMaddie]

1. Not only Russia but China too....especially since both

of them get a vast amount of oil from Iran.....if the US attacks Iran....the Iranians like the Saddam military will destroy their oil fields...directly impacting Russia and China...

You are right the theory of deterrance is based on reasonable people being involved...* is not reasonable...he is sociopathic....a war monger and a hater.....and he unfortunately has been empowered...

He has to be removed....impeached and tried for Treason..

[SoftUnderbelly]

2. n/t

Russia will do everything in its power to prevent any kind of attack on Iran - nuclear or conventional. Im no where near being convinced the USA will use nuclear weapons (except in a case of retaliation) as it must be remembered that the bush admin seems to worship mammon above all other gods, and i dont think nuclear holocaust will do much good to any of their share portfolios.

[longship]

3. Consider this.

Both China and Russia are in the Iranian sphere.

Wouldn't you like to be a fly on the wall in the highest diplomatic channels?
I imagine that Sy Hersh's New Yorker article lit things up a bit. If you don't think Putin and Ziyang are more than a bit upset about this... Well, consider what they might do if there are actual US force movements that give China and Russia cause to think that ChimpCo is actually going to act on the plans.

The lights are burning bright at the State Department these days. The questions are:

1. What can Condi do to stop it?
2. Does Condi even *want* to stop it?

[cynatnite]

4. Jim Myzle (sp? he's got a long last name) told Tweety today...

That Cheney wants military action, but Condi doesn't. Rummy's kicking back in his easy chair not saying anything, but I bet he's hoping to try out those cool nuclear bombs sitting in missile silos.

[Horse with no Name]

5. Do you think China will use it's financial leverage against the US?

Call the note due, so to speak?

[NNN0LHI]

6. Supposedly Saudi Arabia is asking Russia to do just that

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1023536

Riyadh seeks Russian help to prevent US strike on Iran

RIYADH: Saudi Arabia, concerned that US military action against Iran would wreak further havoc in the region, has asked Russia to block any bid by Washington to secure UN cover for an attack, a Russian diplomat said on Tuesday.

During a visit to Moscow last week, the head of the Saudi National Security Council "urged Russia to strive to prevent the adoption of a UN Security Council resolution which the US could use as justification to launch a military assault to knock out Iran's nuclear facilities," the diplomat said.

Prince Bandar bin Sultan, a former longtime ambassador to the United States who is often tasked with delicate missions, met Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Moscow on April 4.

Saudi officials did not give details about the meeting but the Russian foreign ministry said the issue of the Iranian nuclear programme was broached during the talks.


Problem is I don't trust the Saudi ruling family any farther than I can throw them. Prince Bandar and the Bush family are thicker than thieves. They are old family fiends.

[Gman]

8. You refer to the man called Bandar Bush

[LittleClarkie]

7. I wonder if this is a replay of Nixon's "mad dog" theory

where he tried to convince his adversaries that he was crazy enough to go off on them.

[salin]

10. One would hope... but one thing Jr has, that Nixon didn't

some sort of megalomania complex that he uses to justify his actions ala "God put me here for a reason... and since God put me here, God must know what I am about to do, and thus must also have already santified it... so therefor I do as I want..." I think jr really is more than a wee bit deluded.

[CarlSheeler4U]

9. Russia has a big stake. Larger than we might realize

Iran, unlike Iraq, has not had a depleted military from the vestiges of
Desert Storm. Iran has received support from China, Russia and France.

Assuming the world's most advanced countries opted to stay on the
sidelines, do we believe that any support would be avaiable for any
subsequent attack on the US?

How could we say such an attack on our civilians was not justified
beacuse we empowered our leaders to do nothing to prevent it from
occuring? The civilian casualities would be enormous there
(Iran)...and what about blowback, as if our foreign and energy policies
since the mid 1900's are not bad enough?

How does this legitimately differ from invading Poland, Czechlosavkia
and Austria? The same saber-rattling applied as justification. Let's
say we can do it, because we can. Does this result in "might makes
right?"

What then would prevent China from invading Taiwan and South Korea
under similar pretenses? Venezuela would seek Russian support to
protect its borders and the whole option of preventive first strikes
creates justification (remember Pearl Harbor?). How about a Sino-Russo
pact if things get hairy?

The point is right here, right now we will either watch in the manner
German citizens did in the late 1930's and early 1940's as their young
men are recruited for the "noble" cause or we will act with resolve
sooner than later.

The alternative to this debacle is cut the BS and invest the tens or
hundreds of billions needed to produce alternative energy instead of
maintaining occupancy of Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, which if one
bothers to examine on a world map border each other and puts Russia in
the unenviable position of spooling up its own military, nuclear
arsenal and reformation of the former Soviet bloc. Yes, hthe US will have a decisive first strike, but the occupation will be a bettle of attrition.

This is not a movie, this is a real take. I warned a group of College
Democrats at Brown in November that this could occur before 2010 and
they looked at me like I went to public school, which I did.

Being a Marine vet with combat and staff planning experience forces one
to think of the world in pieces of a puzzle with "what if" planning.

Now folks understand why I believe that post election 2006 and waiting
till 2008 is way too late for Impeachment. Further, putting the US in
a battle footing has historic foundation in political motivation.

The public seldom changes its elected officials in time of war and it
opens a third nightmare scenario where King George's toilet paper
called our Constitution has its amendment removed permitting a third
term in office. I think it's time to restore the color coded alerts
and declare that our country is at a red alert and the threat is from
within.

I welcome folks' thoughts and input.

Carl
Sheeler for US Senate (D-RI)
www.carlsheeler.com
[e-mail]