Russia broadens South Ossetia conflict: Georgian president pleads for 'madness' to stop

Washington Times ^ | Sunday, August 10, 2008 | Kelly Hearn

[ETL]

Russia and Georgia appeared headed to a wider war Saturday, with Russia targeting military and civilian sites outside the conflict zone in the breakaway region of South Ossetia and rejecting an offer of a cease-fire from the government of Georgia.

The military action, which began Thursday when Georgian troops tried to retake control of South Ossetia, has left hundreds dead and sent hundreds of others fleeing from the area.

Georgian officials reported some 210 people dead and 400 wounded. Russian officials, who blamed Georgia for inflicting heavy causalities against Russian citizens in the breakaway South Ossetia enclave, put the death toll at 1,500.

Neither count could be independently confirmed.

Georgia's president, Mikhail Saakashvili, on Saturday issued a decree establishing martial law and putting Georgia in a state of war so that it could prepare for a full-scale Russian invasion. He has already summoned 2,000 soldiers home from Iraq, where they are fighting alongside coalition forces.

But Mr. Saakashvili also issued an urgent plea to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev for a cease-fire and a call for international mediation of the crisis.

"We call on Russia to stop this madness immediately," he said. "I ask President Medvedev to cease fire and begin negotiations right away."

Russia's ambassador to NATO said Saturday his country is not at war with Georgia, but there would be no cease-fire until Georgian troops returned to positions they held before their South Ossetian offensive.

Dmitry Rogozin urged the Western alliance to stay out of the "limited" South Ossetia conflict and said Russia was there to protect its nationals.

"We do not consider ourselves in a state of war. We are just [keeping] the peace and helping our peacekeepers and the civilian population," he said.

Article: Russia broadens South Ossetia conflict [4-page article]:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/10/russia-broadens-south-ossetia-offensive/

[Tommyjo]

I’m talking about the current situation in Georgia. No U.S. admin is going to despatch troops into Georgia as the current situation stands. Russia isn’t seeking to occupy Georgia and take over the entire country. It has annexed South Ossetia and that is essentially what the Russians are seeking to achieve. There won’t be any Russian tanks or troops on the Georgian-Turkish border.

[Tommyjo]

‘Putin can laugh all he likes but he is well aware we can hand him WWIII in a heartbeat.’

I like the jingoistic stance. Good job you ain’t in charge. ‘WWWIII in a heartbeat’ You are aware what MAD is? That is why WWIII between the U.S. and Russia has not taken place. WWWIII won’t be happeing anytime soon between U.S. and Russia - Not even in a hearbeat!

[brydic1]

I think you may be very mistaken. The Georgians started this war on that day hoping against hope that the gullible Americans would come to their aid. It is not going to happen and now they are suing that is begging for a ceasefire and peace. I am a American firster but lets not lose all perspective on what actually happened here. No reasonable thinking American could possibly think that we could commit troops or airpower right on the doorstep of Russia even should the Russians have been the aggressor. It would be much more appropriate to guard against the illegal alien invasion of America. At least if we could defend our own borders we might gain some credibility in the world.

[silverleaf]

The ineptitude in foreign policy of this administration is going to rank right up their with Carter's

Condi Rice for President! Not.

[Forward the Light Brigade]

This is Russian diplomacy in its classic state. A Cossack saber to the head, a cannon ball to the gut, or massed tanks. The sad thing is—it works nine times out of ten. Its a lot quicker than talk and it solves problems, sometimes.

[BobS]

There are going to big problems with Iran in a few months. Russia and China will stand down. Have you noticed how they deal with their own Muslim radical populations? Whole cities and towns are destroyed and burned down.

[silverleaf]

Presumably Turkey is taking notes about “Russian diplomacy” in case Kurdistan ever tries to pull a Kosovo/Ossetia.

[G8 Diplomat]

Have you noticed how they deal with their own Muslim radical populations? Whole cities and towns are destroyed and burned down.

Well, yes. Their attitude toward terrorists is "You can threaten anyone but me." They do what every exporter of terror does; sit still while the jihadists attack abroad, but crack down when they attack at home. The Saudis arrested hundreds of terrorists with plots to strike the oilfields, and the Iranians arrested a bunch of members of the Sunni militant group Jundallah, under charges of disrupting national security. It's not a sincere effort to fight terrorism, it's just a move to keep their own butts safe from the terror they fund.

[TLI]

I like the jingoistic stance. Good job you ain’t in charge. ‘WWWIII in a heartbeat’ You are aware what MAD is? That is why WWIII between the U.S. and Russia has not taken place.

Good for you. I don't have to be in charge, the folks that are in charge are moving FIVE Carrier Strike groups into the Persin Gulf to make sure nobody gets too excited over Putin's chest thumping. One does not deploy such firepower just for funnies, they are flipping Putin the bird square in his face in front of his friends. Putin will act tough but believe me he knows what such a deployment means. Five Carrier Strike Groups with the associated ships, nuke subs, guided missile destroyers and frigates, etc etc comes to about 40,000 navy personnel.

WW III will not take place because none of the folks looking at the business end of those Five Carrier Strike Groups wants to get shredded or vaporized first. Looks like Iran just might get that spanking from Israel and Putin is not tricking anyone with his Olympic Opening day stunt. Or have you forgotten about Israel has been itching to hit those Iranian nuke facilities?

Why do you think that f**kload of of free world nuclear firepower is deployed? Just for grins? Do you think Putin’s stunt is to grab attention away from the Olympics?

This thing is bigger than you think pal.

[TLI]

I’m talking about the current situation in Georgia. No U.S. admin is going to despatch troops into Georgia as the current situation stands.

They don’t have to, I never said they would. You assumed that supporting Georgia means putting troops in. Putin and the boys know exactly what is in Turkey and what we would do if they got ignorant and headed that way. Which is why they are probably not going to give it a go. For the very reasons I stated. And THAT is how we support Georgia.

[E. Cartman]

At least if we could defend our own borders we might gain some credibility in the world.

It is ironic that this "conservative" administration, while trying to mount a defense of our friends and allies, lets defense of The Republic go to crap.

[E. Cartman]

Presumably Turkey is taking notes about “Russian diplomacy” in case Kurdistan ever tries to pull a Kosvo/Ossetia.

I'd completely forgotten about Kurdistan. I'm sure Moscow has been making overtures to Kurdish leaders in support of "Greater Kurdistan" for years now already.

[Tommyjo]

Putin and Russia doesn’t give a hoot what is in Turkey. There are no strategic nuclear weapons based in Turkey. Russia is on homeground here with a huge nuclear arsenal behind it. It knows that the current U.S. President will be gone soon.

As I have stated before Russia is not looking to retake the whole of Georgia, but simply to annex the parts that it wants - the disputed regions. The last thing that Russia wants is to occupy a territory (Georgia) and people that can tie down hundreds of thousands of its troops as an occupying force.

[Tommyjo]

You are reading far too much into the hype of deployed carrier strike groups. It essentially has turned into a media frenzy. The naval deployments were nothing to to with events in Georgia, but simply naval movements and deployments made long before recent events.

The naval deployments are not for action against or to threaten Russia. You really need to study a map of the region. Carrier strike groups have been deploying into the Persian Gulf for decades now and had absolutely nothing to do with Russia.

[TLI]

Putin and Russia doesn’t give a hoot what is in Turkey. There are no strategic nuclear weapons based in Turkey.

No Nukes in Turkey? Huh?

Where have ya been for the last oh, forty years?

The Free Democratic Party (FDP) recently brought up the subject in the Bundestag, after the appearance of a critical report on the security controls at U.S. nuclear weapons facilities in Europe. Five storage sites remain active in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.

By Thomas Newdick Published: 14 July 2008

http:/ /www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3637173&c=FEA&s=SPE

-------------------------------------

The naval deployments were nothing to to with events in Georgia, but simply naval movements and deployments made long before recent events.

Uh huh, all just a coincidence. Right. The size of the Russian deployment clearly indicates is was not thrown together a week ago. Russia was in Georgia "providing aid" by repairing the rail lines four to five months ago. Georgia smelled a rat back then.

http://www.finchannel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14068&Itemid=55

Russia started planning this at least a year ago. And that was right about the time the Iranians started breaking the deadlines. Actually this could have started as much as two years ago.

The statement comes two days after the United States and five other key powers authorized the European Union's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, to continue sessions with Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani. The two negotiators have been seeking to set the terms of formal talks on Iran's nuclear program that would place the United States and Iran at the same negotiating table.

The Iranian leader denied U.S. claims that he is pursuing a covert nuclear weapons program, saying that Iran's spiritual leader has issued a decree prohibiting such a development. He said Iran is simply exercising its rights, under the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty, to develop nuclear power to meet the country's growing energy needs.

"The bottom line is, we do not need a bomb," he said.

By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 22, 2006; Page A13

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/20/AR2006092002122.html

Putin was just waiting for a really hot spot in the timeline to spank Georgia. His tipoff could easily have been the rather massive deployment. Definitely not business as usual.

This deployment is the largest naval task force from the United States and allied countries to assemble in the strategic waters of the Persian Gulf since the two Gulf wars.

The object of the naval deployment would be to enforce an eventual blockade on Iran, if as expected by many observers, current negotiations with the Islamic republic over its insistence to pursue enrichment of uranium, allowing it, eventually, to produce nuclear weapons yields no results.

Published: August 11, 2008

http://www.metimes.com/International/2008/08/11/special_report_kuwait_readying_for_war_in_gulf/7724/

As you can see, this thing is bigger than it appears.

This is classic distraction scenario in which Russia is, through a totally out of proportion action, is trying to create an atmosphere where most folks would think it best to delay that little Israeli airstrike.

Syrian officials now worry that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's upcoming exit amid a corruption scandal might herald an end to rapprochement with the Jewish state. Iranians and Syrians are also concerned about the ascendance of Israeli politicians such as Ehud Barak or Benjamin Netanyahu, whom they perceive as more likely to start a war against Iran or Syria.

By pinning down Iran we don't need to pretend to stay in Russia's "good graces" so we can do what we need to (if anything besides passive support) about Georgia, thus removing that card from Russia's hand. Which in it's own way is supporting Georgia.

And of course there are the Israelis that are itching to fry the Iran nuke operation since the Iranians busted their what, fourth or fifth (and final) deadline to accept a deal to shut down the centrifuges.

Nahrainnet website, quoting unnamed sources in the Iraqi defense ministry, said that for the past month Israel has been using US bases in Iraq to conduct overflights.

Speculation that Israel could bomb Iran has mounted since a big Israeli air drill last month. In the first week of June, 100 Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighters reportedly took part in an exercise over the eastern Mediterranean and Greece, which was interpreted as a dress rehearsal for a possible attack on Iran's nuclear installations.

http://eng lish.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8704221229

So as you can see, their is actually a lot going on in the Gulf which Putin is very much trying to take advantage of, in addition to Iran’s threat to blockade the Strait of Hormuz. Again, by taking full control of that area we remove that card that Putin thinks he can play to continue his “peacekeeping” mission that was supposed to be about South Ossetia without folks putting it very high on their lists of concerns.

http://www.metimes.com/Internation al/2008/08/11/special_report_kuwait_readying_for_war_in_gulf/7724/

And BTW, I can read a map as well, thank you.

[Tommyjo]

The term is strategic nuclear weapons. The weapons in Turkey are tactical nukes. You do understand what a tactical nuclear weapon is? The weapons employed are B-61 tactical nuclear weapons. Apart from the obvious, Turkish F-16s are also dual-keyed on the weapons. Again I’ll emphasis my point. There are NO STRATEGIC nuclear weapons based in Turkey.

The naval deployments have been going on for decades. If the U.S. wanted to prevent a Russian move on Georgia then all it had to do was deploy spearhead troops into Tiblisi proper.

If you can’t even distinguish between a STRATEGIC nuke and a TACTICAL nuke I simply despair how you interpret a map?

[TLI]

.

The term is strategic nuclear weapons. The weapons in Turkey are tactical nukes. You do understand what a tactical nuclear weapon is? The weapons employed are B-61 tactical nuclear weapons. Apart from the obvious, Turkish F-16s are also dual-keyed on the weapons. Again I’ll emphasis my point. There are NO STRATEGIC nuclear weapons based in Turkey.





Source 1

B-61 nuclear gravity bombs

The B61 is a variable-yield, kiloton-range weapon called "Full Fusing Option"(FUFO) or "Dial-a-yield" by many service personnel. Tactical versions (Mods 3, 4, and 10) can be set to 0.3, 1.5, 5, 10, 60, 80, or 170 kiloton explosive yield (depending on version). The strategic version (B61 Mod 7) has four yield options, with a maximum of 340 kilotons. Sources conflict on the yield of the earth-penetrating Mod 11; the physics package or bomb core components of the Mod 11 are apparently unchanged from the earlier strategic Mod 7, however the declassified 2001 Nuclear Posture Review [2] states that the B-61-11 has only a single yield; some sources indicate 10 KT, others suggest the 340 kiloton maximum yield as the Mod-7.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear _bomb

Source 2

Strategic nuclear weapon

A strategic nuclear weapon refers to a nuclear weapon which is designed to be used on targets as part of a strategic plan, such as nuclear missile locations, military command centers and large cities. They are contrasted with tactical nuclear weapons, which are designed for use in battle, as part of an attack with conventional forces. Strategic nuclear weapons have significantly larger yields, at least over 100 kilotons and up to many megatons. The most powerful nuclear weapon ever tested was the Tsar Bomba (about 50 megatons), detonated above Novaya Zemlya. Yields can overlap, though, and many weapons, such as the B61 nuclear bomb, are used in both roles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Str ategic_nuclear_weapon

Source 3

Strategic nuclear weapons generally have an explosive power of at least 100 kilotons yield, i.e. 100,000 tons of TNT.

http //www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2007/11/29_starr_explanation_terminology.php

Source 4

Upgrades...
The United States have quietly modernized the B61 nuclear bombs in Europe over the last five years (as of 2006) to upgrade the bombs' use-control and improve the stability of the weapons' during employment. New estimated lifespan? 20 years.

Source 5

Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Middle East Go to the Regional Map.

Turkey
Weapons of Mass Destruction Capabilities and Programs 1
Content Updated: April 2006
Page updated: November 2006


Nuclear
[2] No evidence of a (Turkish) nuclear weapons program. Plans to build approximately five nuclear power plants by the year 2015 to supply a total of 5,000MW. The first plant is to be constructed in the Sinop province.

5MW research reactor at the Cekmece Nuclear Research and Training Centre and 250KW research reactor at the Istanbul Technical Institute; both facilities are under IAEA safeguards.

15 B-61 nuclear gravity bombs deployed by the United States at Inçirlik Air Base (Turkey). Ratified the NPT on 4/17/80; ratified the CTBT on 2/16/2000.

http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/turkey.htm

Source 6

US Defense Council report: 90 nuclear "B 61" bombs stocked at Incirlik

Saturday, August 16, 2008

( Looks like that would be today, right?)

The report prepared by the US National Resources Defense Council called "US nuclear weapons in Europe," reveals that the US currently has 90 nuclear bombs of the "B 61" variety in Turkey, all on the Incirlik Air Force base.

The report, put together by Hans Kristensen of the Defense Council, is based on figures provided last February by the US Air Force. The report is being discussed in the Turkish Parliament (TBMM). In further details from the report, of the 90 nuclear bombs found at Incirlik, 50 are kept ready to be loaded onto American bomber planes, while 40 are ready to be loaded onto Turkish planes.

http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/4540623.asp?gid=74

You know, if you are not up to this you really should just say so...

[TLI]

Source 4 link...

http://www.nukestrat.com/us/afn/nato.htm

[Tommyjo]

I’m afraid that you are completely incorrect. Just because there are strategic variants of the B-61 does NOT mean that they are employed or stockpiled in Europe. This is as part of NATO nuclear deterrent and dual-keyed with various nationalities. Today it appears that a lot of the non-strategic B-61s have been removed from Europe in a variety of countries.

What you don’t seem to understand is that the strategic variants of the B-61 are reserved for the U.S. strategic heavy bomber fleet B-52s, B-1s and B-2s. Those strategic B-61s are with the strategic heavy bomber units. The tactical B-61s, as used by USAF F-15s and F-16s and the other dual keyed nations and their aircraft, are tactical B-61s.

http://www.nti.org/db/disarmament/country_nato.html

In regards to Turkey

http://www.nti.org/db/disarmament/country_turkey.html

Now check back the links that you posted in relation to ‘Recent Modernization of U.S. Nuclear Weapons In Europe’
B-61s Mod 3, 4 and 10. Those are TACTICAL B-61s.

[TLI]

Now check back the links that you posted in relation to ‘Recent Modernization of U.S. Nuclear Weapons In Europe’ B-61s Mod 3, 4 and 10. Those are TACTICAL B-61s.



Ok, lets just run a quick Google Search

The results become immediately clear. The key defining criteria of a strategic nuclear weapon is the globally accepted specification of a yield greater than 100 kilotons. In these first few examples from the search we see that exact criteria repeated many times.

"A strategic nuclear weapon refers to a nuclear weapon which is designed to be used on targets as part of a strategic plan, such as nuclear missile locations, military command centers and large cities. They are contrasted with tactical nuclear weapons, which are designed for use in battle, as part of an attack with conventional forces. Strategic nuclear weapons have significantly larger yields, at least over 100 kilotons and up to many megatons."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_nuclear_weapon



"Strategic nuclear weapons generally have an explosive power of at least 100 kilotons yield, i.e. 100,000 tons of TNT."

http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2007/11/29_starr_explanation_terminology.php



"A strategic nuclear weapon refers to a nuclear weapon which is designed to be used on targets as part of a strategic plan, such as nuclear missile locations, military command centers and large cities. They are contrasted with tactical nuclear weapons, which are designed for use in battle, as part of an attack with conventional forces. Strategic nuclear weapons have significantly larger yields, at least over 100 kilotons and up to many megatons."

http://www.answers.com/topic/strategic-nuclear-weapon-1



From the links you have provided (which is actually a single source) . . .

"U.S. Nuclear Weapons on the territories of 6 NATO States"

3. Destructive Force:
B-61-3: maximum yield of 170 Kt.
B-61-4: 45 Kt.
B-61-10: 80 Kt.




But there is the issue of who is defining "strategic nuclear weapon." According to some folks (Russians) any nuke that can be lobed into their territory is "strategic" no matter what the yield. Take a look...

"Strategic nuclear weapons are targeted mostly at cities and at other nuclear weapons, and are generally designed to be dropped by bombers or launched on ballistic missiles; tactical nuclear weapons are delivered by smaller devices over shorter distances. However, one nation's "tactical" warhead may be another's "strategic" warhead: Russia, for example, maintains that U.S. tactical warheads in Western Europe are in fact strategic warheads, because they can strike targets inside Russia itself, while Russian "tactical" warheads in the same arena cannot strike the U.S. heartland."

http://www.answers.com/topic/nuclear-weapon

As it is abundantly clear that the globally accepted definition of "strategic nuclear weapon" is one that is greater that 100 kt and the specifications in the single source you have provided state beyond any disputable point that the yield of the B-61-3 variant nuclear weapon is nearly twice the defined amount, i.e., 170 kt and given your adherence to claiming such weapons can or will not be considered "strategic" I can only conclude you are abandoning all credibility in your apparently failed attempt to "prove" your claim that some (your source does not state how many, only that they are in the inventory) of the 50 - 90 Nuclear Weapons reported to be in Turkey are considered "Tactical" and not "Strategic," namely the Type 3 variants, by using a single word in a single source, Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI).