Russia WILL use pre-emptive nuclear strikes

They are saying, in a loud voice, that they are still strong and can/will defend their country with whatever means possible, including a preventative strike if necessary. We all know their conventional weapons are not what they used to be at all, so stated by Putin years ago, they would use Nukes if trapped in a corner to defend their country. This is nothing new.

Also - I think we (US) would make the same sort of gestures if we were in their shoes. Think about it, lets say that our conventional military was considerably weaker/less effective that it once was and it was Russia that was busy building Missile Defense systems all around our neighbors and attacking countries without provocation (Iraq). Then, imagine if the history of Russian Foreign policy (say, up to, not including the current administration) had been one of never attacking a country w/out provocation. Then spend 6 years watching a leader like Bush in office, fabricating excuses to attaching countries.

If I'm Russia, I'm very nervous as long a Bush is in office. I'd want the US to know we can (and will) defend ourselves. He is the closest thing we (US) has ever had to a dictator. His repeated attempts (with success !) to consolidate power into the executive branch of the US government are terrifying. His proven track record of complete disregard for the Constitution of the United States is disgusting. His willingness to attach a sovereign country without provocation are inexcusable.

Yeah, I understand Russia making those statements.

I'm thinkin' post-9/11, does Mutually Assure Destruction (MAD) work when you're not the central target of international terrorism?

Why did Bush threaten the -countries- terrorists operate in without using the spectre of full-on nuclear warfare in the mix? Why didn't he bust out the bombs and polish their shiny nosecones in public?

Why didn't he make the rest of the world -really- scared and not just fake-scared of boots on the ground?

It plays too much into Bin Laden's game just to threaten to invade and become target practice for the Mujahedeen. If it's everything or nothing in this game of terror, why not brandish the one card they don't have?

BTW steadward - did you catch the "Wolverines" comment about "Red Dawn"? Gotta remember, we Yanks had the belief of invulnerability until 9/11 came along. Flicks like that only highlight how traumatized a country gets when no foreign boots have occupied our territory (except you guys in 1812 and the Mexicans in 1848!).

They supported the US lead invasion of Iraq. France sat at the back and threw bottles. Partially perhaps due to a massive Muslim population and tension between communities in France more obvious than any other European nation so they may have feared a backlash at home more than other countries. France has had its fair share of Al Qaeda type terror threats though - Air France hijacking in 1994 springs to mind in which apparently the hi-jackers wanted to crash the plane over Paris...sound familiar? I'd say Paris has always been a terror target with France being an old collonial power- but their decision not to get involved in Iraq has probably served them well recently.

And has France had any Al Qaeda based terrorism yet?

Spain did, Britain did. What did they not do that France did?

I know my articles are old, but it goes to show who has Nuclear weapons and how they are prepared to use them.

The strange on in the list was France, who under Chirac said he would use NUCLEAR weapons in response to a TERRORIST attack.

Maybe we could follow an NRA lobbyist's approach...If everyone had a nuclear bomb, no-one would get hurt....

As is written in the article this is nothing new. All that is unusual is that someone has come out in the Russian Government and said it outright. It all fits into the wider picture of protecting their sphere of influence by putting out hardline rhetoric. The chances of Russia going through with something like this without some very serious antagonism (eg. in the form of US/Nato lead direct military involvement in some of its satellite countries) are very slim indeed. Its all about looking hard to get your own way - expel British diplomats and openly intimidate them to say "we're not afraid of you" and then openly state your willingness to use nuclear weapons and people become unwilling to not let you have your own way. Add this to the continuing threat of turning off the energy supply to its neighbours it gives Moscow even greater leverage in the region and globally. But I dont think the Russians will use nuclear or even conventional weapons if the US invades Iran, just expect more rhetoric in the meantime and if the US does invade Iran (which I think is now less likely too as where would Bush claim to get the mandate for that?) then the Russians will probably really throw their toys out of the pram but nothing mega serious.

All those articles are pretty outdated now phillyharper. Also they're biased towards Israel who hasn't yet declared their nuclear weapons. Soon as they do, a lot of this tension goegs away.

Gotta remember, most of this is rhetorical posturing, not serious challenges. When you have all the nuclear armed states together saying "well use ours, too!" you're just getting exactly what you'd expect.

It's like a Mexican Standoff: everyone's guns are out, there's no surprises left to pull. So we can all put 'em away real slowly...

Russia knows that the first way they get their way is through the international order by stalling efforts to encroach on their territory. They haven't revoked their UN ambassador as of yet, which is of utmost importance as you need someone to keep the lines of communication open and frequent. If they do continue to yank their diplomats, then we have to worry. They've done it as a gesture against Britain's insistences for more openness to investigation on Litvenenko's murder case, but I doubt that Russia will actually use their weapons unless the U.S. attacks Iran.

Dana Perino our white house press secretary, the official spokesperson for the executive branch and therefor both the state department and the president doesn't even have a working knowledge of the Cuban Missile crisis and wasn't capable of even entertaining a response to Vladimir Putin's comments that our controversial missile defense system was Russia's Cuban missile crisis. This is the person who is supposed to make statements about the threat that a rogue nuclear nation represents and she is in the most kind words possible an utterly inept and inappropriate person to fill the position. Now a comment is made about a potential preemptive nuke how is she to respond, how is the white house to respond. It seems as though when faced with legitimate WMD's the president is a buffoon. He has even scoffed and alienated the senior republican on the foreign relations committee who has been nominated for the Nobel peace prize three times for his work on nuclear non proliferation, Richard Lugar. What a sad state we are in. My generation wasn't supposed to live under the constant threat of atomic warfare, I am sickened.

Straight out of the Cold War.

Well, Bush and his "axis of evil" rhetoric and preemptive strike policy opened the door to this. So how can we condemn this now when we condoned it being done by Bush? This is where impeachment comes in, but unfortunately this country is too scared or distracted or lazy or a little of all of that to uphold the constitution. We would rather die in a nuclear conflagration that stand up for principle to avoid it it seems, and I find that absolutely insane.