Is Russia Planning a Limited Nuclear Strike on Europe? Uh...No. That’s Ridiculous Pentagon Propaganda

America has published a new nuclear doctrine. Their main goal is to contain Russia and then China, North Korea, and Iran. Their new tool is a possibility of a nuclear response to a non-nuclear attack but only in case of emergency. Moscow, Beijing, and Teheran have already sharply opposed Washington's unpeaceful atom. In this context, a conflict is being waged by the President and the FBI. Trump declassified the report that confirms that FBI did everything possible including breaking the law to prove he was in collusion with Russia. But they failed. This week was long and tough we'll discuss that in a minute. But... The US is the first and the only nation who, to put it lightly are experienced at deciding to employ nuclear weapons. They are going to respond even if a non-nuclear state attacks them in any way. Logically speaking, if this doctrine had been adopted by the time the Twin Towers were destroyed the US would have delivered a nuclear strike against Afghanistan. It wouldn't have violated the doctrine. I might be wrong. - Mr. Zhirinovsky? Vladimir Zhirinovsky, leader of LDPR: First of all, in 1871 an American Republican said that America needs to wage three World Wars. The first one passed. The second one passed. Now, they are gradually preparing for the third one. - Who said that? - Pike. Historically it's nothing new. It happened even before the first war. Pike was considered a weirdo making things up. - Have you noticed? - What? - The naive Zlobin is the only person in Russia who thinks he can catch Zhirinovsky unaware. - Yes, he's trying. That's first. Secondly since 1945 they've been regularly refreshing their doctrine for 72 years. We must be thankful: Previously, they had a fixed date for delivering strikes — May 15, 1945 or the number of aircraft — 100 nuclear bombers ascend or the number of targets — destroy 20 major Russian cities then 100 Russian cities. They are doing it to make the society get used to the fact that it's possible and legal. They are strengthening their doctrine. Every time, they are mentioning the possibility of preemptive strikes and nuclear strikes with almost no restrictions. And now, the possibility to deliver a nuclear strike responding to a non-nuclear attack. If some guerrillas from Columbia capture an American soldier they can blow up half the country with a nuclear strike. - It wouldn't help the hostage though. - Indeed. It's a sign of weakness. A weak and a cowardly nation. Why are they focusing on nuclear weapons? They wouldn't be able to fight. The US Army has never encountered… - Mr. Zhirinovsky, we're constantly saying what the US Army can't do. It almost seems like we're persuading ourselves. We have the historical reality. Whether the US Army can fight or can't… - Where? Name the battle! in Africa? - Basically, anywhere. For so many years, they've been in Iraq and Afghanistan. Like it or not even if they're not fighting they're still there and this fact definitely can't be ignored. - I'm not encouraged to ignore it I'm explaining why the US focuses on nuclear weapons. Corruption helped them capture Iraq. Iraqi troops stayed in their barracks. If Saddam's troops had engaged there would have been hundreds of thousands of casualties. But they stayed in the barracks. And Afghans are highlanders. They don't have an "army." And what have they done in Syria recently? Trump announces that they won a victory in Syria. What victory? Where's their victory? They were sending forward Kurds armed with American weapons. Iran was doing something, Turkey was our Air Forces were. Where was the US? - Well, it's working for them. - It's good for propaganda purposes. In this sense, we're lagging. Our approach isn't that advanced. I was so happy when in 2003 we added an item to our doctrine allowing us to deliver a preemptive strike. Never allow a second June 22. We'll strike on June 20. I mean 1941. - I know. - In 2014, we removed it. We're trying to establish relationships. We sunk our space station. We removed our base from Cuba. Withdrew troops from Vietnam. We even removed the preemptive strike to little effect. They offend us daily. Even Trump's gone mad. He's always going on about Russia. I'm happy — that's a sign of their weakness, cowardice. They understand that they're done. Any war would be the last one for them. They're always using proxies. Now, they have a new objective. They've already tried the Middle East. Korean was put off. Now they're trying to provoke Eastern Europe to make Slavic brothers fight. That's low! Bulgaria, Serbia, and Ukraine don't understand that. Nobody does. Blood will be shed once again. Their policy is sneaky, slimy, and sinister. The whole world must hate it. America radiates cowardice, weakness, hypocrisy, arrogance, and rudeness. It could be described with every negative word from every language. American flags are burned across the world. It's time to close the country. - You sure? - Yep. Igor Morozov, Federation Council: Following Zhirinovsky's logic: During the last six months Pentagon's been considering the fact that Russia is ready to deliver preemptively, as Mr. Zhirinovsky has mentioned a limited nuclear strike against Eastern Europe. It's hard to tell where did they get the information. It probably has the same source as the Ukrainian coup. The US prepares the conflict waits for our response and then respond to our response classifying it as a threat we initially created. What stands in their current doctrine? They are ready to protect their Eastern European allies in case Russia delivers a limited nuclear strike. But we don't have that in our military doctrine. We don't have it in our National… - What's a limited nuclear strike for Europe? The whole Europe felt the explosion in Chernobyl. Can there be a "limited" strike against Europe? Vladimir Zhirinovsky: A small one, a tiny Hiroshima. A teeny-tiny crater where Poroshenko's residence had been, for example. - As a physicist to a physicist: do you understand what a tiny nuclear bomb is? - It's got a 10-km radius. 10-km. It's like drinking 30 grams of vodka compared to a liter. There's a difference. 30 grams won't get you too drunk. - The thing is, nuclear bombs don't work that way. - OK, there would be radiation but not so much. - A personal bomb for Poroshenko? - Don't you know what a small dose is? - Well, we know what a nuclear bomb is. You think you can scoop something off the nuclear bomb? Igor Morozov: I'd like to finish. That's why, for the first time, their doctrine includes the possibility of delivering localized nuclear strikes. - Which they're developing. - You see, they're distorting the reality. If they carry out their plan, it would have grave consequences. But their doctrine lists another threat, a cyber-threat. A cyber threat could be considered a threat to their national interests and receive a localized response. Thus, if during the next elections, the US considers the cyber-attacks on the Democrats' server to be a threat shall we freak out and do everything possible to protect their parties' servers? They are abusing international relations. - Sure, but there's no proof.