Nuclear Weapons Convoy Spotted in Russia

[applegrove]

Nuclear Weapons Convoy Spotted in Russia

October 3, 2022 at 8:52 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard 127 Comments

https://politicalwire.com/2022/10/03/nuclear-weapons-convoy-spotted-in-russia/

"SNIP......

“A Russian convoy transporting equipment for Russia’s nuclear weapons program has sparked fears that Vladimir Putin could be preparing a test to send a ‘signal to the West,'” The Telegraph reports.

“A train operated by the secretive nuclear division and linked to the 12th main directorate of the Russian ministry of defense was spotted in central Russia over the weekend heading towards the front line in Ukraine.”

......SNIP"

Applegrove: so far the Telegraph. co UK is the only source for this story.

[applegrove]

1. Let's hope it is theatre. I don't think Putin is doing anything but looking for an off ramp.

To do that he is saber-rattling. To use them would be suicidal. Putin is not a suucidal person. His army would be destroyed by NATO and there goes his dictatorship.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/putin-faces-irreversible-reality-ukraine-invasion-latest-moves/story?id=90824658

[sakabatou]

2. I hope so too.

[roamer65]

3. An above ground or atmospheric test violates the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty of 1963.

Russia inherited its participation from the Soviet Union.

[former9thward]

13. Well, we have been told Russia has no right to the UN SC seat

because it is not the same country. So wouldn't that logic apply to Soviet era treaties?

[SunSeeker]

26. The 1963 Test Ban Treaty has nothing to do with the UN and UN membership rules.

The UN was not a party to the 1963 Test Ban Treaty.
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/test-ban-treaty

And Ukraine is arguing that Russia should be kicked off the UN SC because it has violated the UN charter by its genocidal invasion of its neighbor, not because Russia isn't the USSR.
https://www.npr.org/2022/04/05/1091050554/zelenskyy-un-security-council-speech

Do you think Russia should be on the UN SC?

[former9thward]

34. This has nothing to do with what Ukraine says.

As the poster I was replying to knows, there have been countless posts saying Russia is not the same country as the USSR and therefore should not have the USSR SC seat. By THAT logic then Russia does not need to comply with anything the USSR agreed to. I am sure you have seen all these posts so why you would be bring up Ukraine's position I don't know since it is irrelevant to this discussion.

[SunSeeker]

35. Got it, you're just trashing DU and DUers.

There have not been "countless posts" on DU saying Russia should be kicked off the UN SC because it is not the USSR. Even if there had been, the fact is Russia continues to insist it is the same as the USSR for purposes of sitting on the UN SC, and continues to sit on the UN SC. So as long as Russia continues to do that, Russia should be required to be consistent in its "logic" and comply with the 1963 Test Ban Treaty.

If and when Russia is kicked off the UN SC for not being the USSR, THEN Russia can try to argue that it is not the USSR for purposes of the Test Ban Treaty either. I think it is much more important for Russia to be kicked off the UN SC, even if it means Russia is no longer bound by the Test Ban Treaty, particularly since Russia is already violating the Test Ban Treaty anyway. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/29/russia-nuclear-test-ban-treaty-probably-violating-us

I notice you refuse to answer if you think Russia should be on the UN SC.

[former9thward]

36. I support the rules of the UN.

Under the rules of the UN Russia is a SC member, just as China is even though they have radically changed their government and geography since 1946. If people want Russia out then a new UN is needed. The U.S. and Biden oppose that. Do you? Noted that you think its "trashing" to question logic in posts.

[SunSeeker]

38. Well Russia DOESN'T support the rules of the UN. Yet you want it on the UN SC with veto power.

There is nothing "logical" about your position.

It is not "logical" for a country that commits genocide to have veto power on the UN SC. I don't know what you mean by a "new UN," but we do need reforms to the UN SC so that the UN can stop genocidal dictators and can enforce its own charter.

And you are dead wrong about Biden's and the US position. The US and Biden absolutely do support major reforms to the UN SC. In his recent speech to the UN, Biden called for far reaching changes to the UN SC, including an increase in both permanent and nonpermanent members of UN SC to dilute Russia’s power. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/21/biden-un-blasts-russia-ukraine/

And yes you absolutely are trashing DUers and DU, by falsely claiming there are "countless" DU posts on the position, and suggesting it is "illogical" for DUers to expect Russia to comply with the 1963 Test Ban Treaty while Russia is still sitting on the UN SC as the USSR. All so you can claim DUers are "illogical."

Like I said in my above post, there is nothing contradictory or "illogical" about wanting Russia, as long as it is still on the UN SC, even though it should not be, to at least comply with the 1963 Test Ban Treaty as the USSR. It is you who is twisting logic in a knot, and misrepresenting now Biden’s position, to trash DU and DUers.

[former9thward]

40. Biden does not want Russia out of the SC

Biden does not want to remove Russia's veto powers. It is false to say those things. Those would be the ONLY two things which "dilutes" Russian SC power. Biden does not want those things and why you would say he does I don't know.

[SunSeeker]

41. Biden wants Russia's power diluted on the SC, which has the same practical effect.

I never said Biden wanted Russia out of the SC. YOU are the one who misrepresented Bidens position saying Biden does not want a "new UN" (i.e. any UN changes). Biden in fact explicitly said he wants major changes to dilute Russia’s veto power. I gave you the citation to his recent speech. Where is your citation supporting your assertion that Biden opposes diluting Russia's current veto power?

Read my post again. I said:

The US and Biden absolutely do support major reforms to the UN SC. In his recent speech to the UN, Biden called for far reaching changes to the UN SC, including an increase in both permanent and nonpermanent members of UN SC to dilute Russia’s power. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/21/biden-un-blasts-russia-ukraine/

Biden, like all DUers except apparently you, wants to reform the UN SC so that Russia does not control it like it does now. And you are again dead wrong, removing Russia completely or removing all of its veto powers is NOT "the ONLY two things which 'dilutes' Russian SC power." How about if the SC is reformed by adding more members (as Biden said), and then requiring 2 or more countries on the SC to assert a veto in order for that veto to prevail? There are a myriad of other similar reforms that would achieve the same result.

You came in this thread to attack a strawman (referring to "countless DU posts," none of which are in this thread) so you could attack DUers as "illogical." Now you have dug yourself into a hole trying to defend Russia’s UN SC powers by misrepresenting Biden’s position. This is a really good time for you to stop digging.

[former9thward]

42. Russia can veto any of those changes.

And China can also. So YOUR proposed changes would go nowhere. Biden never said anything about "2 or more countries" to assert a veto even though you put his name in the same sentence as your proposal. The U.S. would never agree to that change because it is often the only country exercising a veto when the UN passes one of its many anti-Israel resolutions.

[SunSeeker]

43. Russia being able to veto anything is exactly why Biden wants a sweeping overhaul of the UN SC.

If we add more countries to the UN SC, and depending on the countries added, there may be 2 votes to veto any "anti-Israel" resolution, so never say never.

If the countries of the world get together (with Biden’s leadership) and decide we will change the rules of the UN SC, then we will just do that. Russia won't be able to do a damn thing about it. Russia can either stay on the UN SC under the new rules or leave.

Try using a little creativity and imagination, instead of a "no we can't" attitude. That is how progress is made. It's certainly not made by bashing DUers as being "illogical."

[Mme. Defarge]

4. Good Source!

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/political-wire/

Political Wire

Political Wire - Least Biased - Credible - ReliableFactual Reporting: High - Credible - Reliable

LEAST BIASED

These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes). The reporting is factual and usually sourced. These are the most credible media sources. See all Least Biased Sources.

Overall, we rate the free content available on Political Wire Least Biased based on balanced story selection and minimal use of loaded words. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and clean fact check record.
Detailed Report

Factual Reporting: HIGH
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180

History

Founded in 1999, Political Wire is a political blog published by Taegan Goddard, a former policy adviser to Democratic U.S. Senator Donald Riegle and Independent Governor Lowell Weicker, and the co-author of the political management book, You Won – Now What?. According to their about page “Political Wire, is one of the earliest and most influential political web sites. Goddard earned degrees from Vassar College and Harvard University.”

[Corgigal]

5. Thank you..

Was just thinking this.

Damnnnnn.

[applegrove]

6. The article outake is from The Telegraph in the UK. I think a sturdy source too. N/T

[regnaD kciN]

7. Not sure about it being unbiased...

...it's popularly known as the "Torygraph" in the U.K. for a reason.

[applegrove]

8. I stand corrected. I read the little blurb at Wikipedia. It said something about being the paper of

record in U K. Obviously propaganda. I should not trust wikipedia.

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. See #29 - "right biased", "mixed" for factual reporting

It's worst on climate change - it's a bastion of denial. It looks like a BBC article in 2004 said " in the years the Tories were in power, it even came to be regarded as the paper of record over The Times". That would mean in the years up to 1997. That's disputable then, but it has many, many faults these days.

[applegrove]

31. I guess I was skimming.

N/T

[Mme. Defarge]

33. Oops!

I guess I was, too. Did not check out The Telegraph rating. I’ll try to be more thorough going forward. Meanwhile, in this case, it’s probably good to be wrong.

[muriel_volestrangler]

29. Well, Media Bias Fact Check lets itself down there; Daily Telegraph is "Right Biased"

Political Wire just passes on what other media is saying. It's only as credible as the source it summarises, and Media Bias Fact Check ought to note that prominently in its write-up.

Daily Telegraph (UK)

RIGHT BIAS
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports, and omit information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources.

Overall, we rate The Telegraph Right Biased based on story selection that strongly favors the right and Mixed for factual reporting due to poor sourcing of information and some failed fact checks.
...
The Telegraph regularly utilizes emotionally loaded language in their headlines and sources poorly through quotations or self-referral sourcing. They also routinely publish clickbait tabloid-style news such as “Is this workout the secret to Jennifer Aniston’s youthful physique at 50?” and crime stories in their News section: “Libby Squire suspect charged with stealing sex toys and knickers from other women months before the disappearance of student.”

In the past, The Telegraph issued an apology letter to Melania Trump for publishing false statements regarding her family and her modeling career and also agreed to pay substantial damages’ over the article they published about the First Lady. Further, a Reuters institute survey found that 43% of respondents trust their news coverage and 22% do not, ranking them #9 in trust of the major UK news providers.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-telegraph/

[ColinC]

9. Time to lend Ukraine some tactical nukes.

[applegrove]

10. Nope. You destroy Putins troops with massive conventional and drone force if he nukes Ukraine.

You don't escalate into nuclear war. We already know Putin's troops are weak. I can't wait for peace negotiations myself. I'm sure Putin is getting there too.

[ColinC]

11. I guess I'm thinking only under the assumption it has already been escalated

But I also think that Ukraine having nukes could stop Putin directly in it's tracks, or even get them to back off entirely.

[applegrove]

12. This made me feel better:

Last edited Tue Oct 4, 2022, 01:33 AM - Edit history (1)

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/putin-faces-irreversible-reality-ukraine-invasion-latest-moves/story?id=90824658

[ShazzieB]

18. Oops.

I got a "Page Unavailable" message just now.

[applegrove]

20. Here is a fresh link:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/putin-faces-irreversible-reality-ukraine-invasion-latest-moves/story?id=90824658

[Silver Gaia]

22. Link isn't working. ?

ETA: Never mind! Thanks for fixing it!

[roamer65]

39. I agree.

How many nuclear states have been invaded lately?

Fact is that possession of nuclear weapons is a deterrent to invasions. They are a game changer.

[relayerbob]

14. This has not been confirmed

I've only seen it from one root source, so could easily be mistaken, false information, or a psyop on Russia's part.

[applegrove]

15. I hope so.

[relayerbob]

17. There's another thread on DU about this

It's in much more detail about what was supposedly seen.

[haele]

16. Since it's spotted, it's a target.

Those things aren't hypersonic. And they can't be fired when the train is moving.
If someone is stupid enough to try and launch it, you don't think there's a dozen interceptors ready to down it at a moment's notice?

And they dare not park that train anywhere near the Ukrainian border to start a launch sequence.

They'll end up with an air burst over their own border regions.
On edit -not a nuclear air burst, btw. Just a big poof as the rocket is hit and destroyed in mid-air.

Haele

[Crowman2009]

21. Ukraine could pull a John McClain if they capture this train.

With a message saying: Now we have a nuke. Ho! Ho! Ho!

[KS Toronado]

19. If it wasn't for the fact that a lot of innocent people could get killed

I wish Ukraine could find a way to attack the convoy having them go off way inside Russia.
What the hell can Putler say? "They bombed us before I could bomb them"

[Nululu]

23. USA is the only country to use nuclear weapons in war.

Putin should remember that.

A nuclear bombing of Ukraine should be considered an act of war against NATO. We would respond with everything.

Numerous officials have stated it would be suicide for Putin. Retaliation would be swift.

[AZLD4Candidate]

24. It should be considered an act of war against all humanity.

[Nululu]

25. Agree but NATO would get the fallout.

[Tomconroy]

27. I've seen the video. It's a video of a train with stuff on it

Located somewhere going someplace.

[Tetrachloride]

28. Zero confirmation.

Rampant speculation.

Alternatives are more likely

[WhiskeyGrinder]

32. Big difference between a "nuclear weapons convoy" and "a convoy transporting equipment for Russia's

nuclear weapons program." Shitty headline.

[Raine]

37. IF true probably just trying to psych everyone out

Hopefully 🙏🤞