156 posts shown.
Justin Mendoza16 said:🙂like, where would they even launch from? some random hangar? just let them try touching a silo and they'll get an instant response...🤦
unless you think they're gonna sneak 'em out on a tractor or something...🤣
Kevin Murphy7 said:Look, man, if Russia dropped a nuke on Ukraine right now,
which other country would actually be willing to hit Russia back with the same level of force?
None of them.
Christian Torres3 said:The USA. They’ve got a much bigger stick, and Vladimir knows it all too well.
Timothy Williams5 said:darkdriver, you might want to dial back the talk about kilotons and the resulting population surges. It all feels a bit much—borderline pathological, if we’re being honest.
A civilized society doesn't operate on that kind of logic.
The Iranian MVP claims they aren't supplying UAVs to Russia.
https://mind.ua/news/20244314-v-iran...vedennya-vijni
https://www.repubblica.it/esteri/202...44185-P3-S3-T1Iran maintains that it hasn't provided Russian Federation combat unmanned aircraft (UAV) to be used in the war against Ukraine.
This was stated by Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Abdollahian during an interview with La Repubblica.
According to him, Iran avoids any actions that could trigger further escalation in Ukraine and will not be delivering combat UAVs to Russia.
Abdollahian noted that cooperation between Iran and Russia dates back to before the war in Ukraine began, and there haven't been any substantive changes to that dynamic recently.
“We have various forms of cooperation with Russia, particularly in defense, but we aren't aiding either side in the conflict because we believe the war needs to end.”
To me, this looks like leverage being applied toward the Russians, who are currently offering unplanned energy surpluses to Iranian buyers in Asia.
Chloe Nguyen21 said:Look, dečec, it’s all strictly accounted for. They know exactly how many nukes are on which sub; everything is tracked, where they are and what they're doing. You can't just go poking around sealed storage sites. If someone touches those, you've basically got thousands of projectiles from both sides ready to fly in a heartbeat. And you still haven't explained how Russia plans to wipe out a whole mile of Ukrainian soldiers with tactical nukes without getting caught in the blast themselves.🤦
End of discussion here. Move over to the chat so you don't spam this thread.
Chloe Nguyen21 said:What are you even talking about? I mean, do you actually have any idea where nuclear weapons are stored, who has access to them, or who's watching over them? There are agreements between the USA and Russia, there are strict protocols. Americans monitor their stockpiles 24/7 just like the Russians do with theirs. If anyone even thinks about tampering with those seals, an alarm goes off and everyone puts their nuclear forces on highest alert. It isn't some "tactical vs. strategic" distinction you can just play with. The Russians have already stated when that kind of weaponry would be used; they aren't stupid enough to just go poking a bear. You're sitting here claiming the Russians will use tactical nukes to wipe out a million Ukrainian soldiers... how old are you, seriously?🤦
Timothy Williams5 said:You’re absolutely right, provided we conveniently ignore the irrelevant facts that there were only a handful of such weapons on the planet at the time, that there was virtually no general understanding of radiation effects, and that there was no realistic possibility of retaliation for such a cataclysm.
If Russia were to drop something like that on Ukraine, they would instantly gain an exclusive global status similar to what Germany held in 1945; they'd be facing groups of armed Ukrainians ready to send the Kremlin straight into the stratosphere—it would be a level of global chaos never seen before.
All of this is being cheered on by the lunatics who don't view the slaughter of 250,000 people by a single bomb as some sort of issue—in fact, they seem to welcome it.
It’s that classic Russian logic: ever since the EU introduced sanctions, Russia only gets stronger, the economy flourishes, and technological development experiences its own kind of boom!
Apparently, if an atomic bomb hits a city, the population just keeps growing year after year.
One might almost think that not all evil follows the same rules.
steelheron25 said:Between 1945 and the beginning of the 1950s, we’re looking at... what, at least five years?
And let’s be honest, during those five years, they certainly weren't exactly the hottest travel destinations on the map.
Then again, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were two specific bombs used primarily for deterrence, and all of this happened nearly 77 years ago.
What we are discussing here involves a potentially higher volume of projectiles and a much more intense level of destruction—we aren't talking about psychological deterrence anymore, but actual devastation.
Furthermore, we are dealing with a timeframe that stretches longer than five years. And once again, are we putting the blame on the Russians, operating under the assumption that they are still targeting territory they intend to occupy, or is there something else at play?
steelheron25 said:That bastard could certainly pull it off, of course.
However, the actual deployment of nuclear weapons—which would be the first time such a thing has happened since 1945!—represents a massive red line that this scoundrel would have to be even more deranged than he already appears to be if he truly intended to cross it. The consequences are simply unfathomable.
And there is one rather crucial detail to consider: he would be attacking a neighboring country that he is currently in the middle of trying to conquer. Not some distant nation halfway across the globe. Does he honestly intend to "conquer" and then plant his flag in the middle of a radioactive wasteland?
Richard Wilson4 said:The second the Russians start waving nuclear threats around again, you know they’re feeling the pressure...
Harold Doyle3 said:A hundred million Chinese people and Indian people 🤦
Jeremy Peterson4 said:Anyone got the latest? I’ve been pretty much MIA for the last few months when it comes to following this whole mess, aside from catching wind that they’re gearing up to hit Chicago again.
Harold Doyle3 said:You really need to pay closer attention when you read, then you won't need everything explained to you.
electricsurfer47 said:Even Putin can see now that this was a mistake. But you have to ask yourself—what does Putin actually lose if he calls off the war??? He loses his political standing, himself, and everyone else tied to this whole mess.
In Russia, people are eventually going to realize how many Russians actually died
how much military gear was totally wiped out
And finally, how much damage the sanctions actually caused. I mean the real damage, not the fake version the White House kept spinning through the media.
----
If he walks away from the position he holds right now, he’ll most likely end up in prison, along with everyone else involved.
Jack Hill2 said:Gas imports: Then vs. Now (weekly average over the last 4 weeks)
2022
LNG 2,732 (38.4%)
Norway 2,711 (38.1%)
Russia 1,009 (14.2%)
Algeria 660 (9.3%)
__________________________
Total: 7,112
2021
Russia 3,057 (41.2%)
Norway 2,018 (27.2%)
LNG 1,654 (22.2%)
Algeria 701 (9.4%)
__________________________
Total: 7,430
Currently, Europe has sourced 6,103 out of the 7,430 units imported during this same period last year from sources other than Russia. This means Europe's reliance on Russia has dropped from 40% down to just 17%.
Meanwhile, Russian gas exports to Europe have plummeted from 3 billion to 1 billion...
Counting oil doesn't make sense here. Europe isn't dependent on Russia for oil at all. By the end of the year, 98% of oil will be imported from other sources.
Amanda Allen4 said:Ukraine can't do a damn thing, whereas the West actually has the atomic bombs to strike back.
Harold Doyle3 said:It doesn't help when you have a hundred million refugees flooding into your borders... how are you supposed to hold them back (or control the chaos) if you've got an enemy staring you down in the West at the same time?
If Vladimir decides to play nuclear roulette, it’s no different than if he just started dropping bombs all over Russia; the only difference is the labels on the casings will be in the Latin alphabet.
Harold Doyle3 said:Look, I’m a political amateur here, so bear with me while I throw out a few questions...
From a purely strategic standpoint: shouldn't the Russians be playing nice with the West instead of picking a fight? If climate change keeps accelerating—which, let's face it, is becoming our reality—they're going to end up with hundreds of millions of Chinese, Indian, and Arab people pressing against their southern borders looking for living space. Obviously, you can't just sit there and watch people perish from the heat, but there needs to be some kind of management. You can't have a total stampede. Russia couldn't handle that alone... but with some Western cooperation, it might actually be organized. Nukes won't solve a migration crisis. The US has Alaska and Canada to retreat to, then there's Europe Scandinavia, Greenland... even Antarctica...
Secondly:
The Russian aggression in Ukraine is essentially creating an "Israel x 15"!
The Ukrainians have access to NATO weaponry and direct experience fighting the Russians. They are going to become the finest soldiers on the planet. Plus, they are brilliant engineers and technicians; they'll figure out how to merge the best tech from both sides to build world-class hardware...
In my opinion, Russia is making some massive strategic blunders...
Kate Cook27 said:What makes you think Russia has already won? The war isn't over yet. You win some battles, lose others, retreat, push forward—but the conflict itself is still ongoing. It's not like if Russia takes the Donbas, they can just say, "Well, that's it, we're done, the Donbas is officially part of Russia now."