Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Feltima]

Because the risk is there and any sane and rational person realises that the survival of the species trumps every other option.

Precisely, I find it rather scary how many people seem gung ho about an open conflict with NATO and Russia. Everyone seems to think Russia is a paper tiger now, I'd rather not find out.

[Voidism]

I think talking about nukes only plays into exactly what putler wants.

The best thing would be to ignore his saber rattling altogether. It shouldn't change a thing.

[Fugus]

Precisely, I find it rather scary how many people seem gung ho about an open conflict with NATO and Russia. Everyone seems to think Russia is a paper tiger now, I'd rather not find out.

Most of us don't want an open conflict between NATO and Russia but won't aren't willing to roll over and give Russia what it wants just because it makes idle threats.

And even if Russia did back them up, bowing down and letting them get away with it would be worse for the world as a whole because they got rewarded for that threat so they and their leaders will know what threat to make along with any other nation who has nukes while showing ever other dictator wannabe to hurry up and start researching that technology as well because once they got it they can push as hard as they want and the only ones who would respond are the ones doing the exact same thing they want to do.

Given into Russia on this guarantees a repeat of it with Russian in the future and/or multiple other nations as they know once they get it, the US and NATO won't touch them no matter how bad they get.

[Gabriel]

Do you think he IS willing to stop?



If he uses nukes he wipes out Ukraine's military. He wouldn't have to use them near the frontline: Hit their supply centers or level Kiev to the ground.

The rest of the world won't do anything. For all the talk some people might have NATO will not launch a military intervention or start a nuclear exchange with Russia over Ukraine.

Now you can argue with this view, but Biden and others have made it clear: They will not fight Russia for Ukraine. They'll help Ukraine with training and equipment but not troops, and certainly not nukes. They've said it again and again in numerous interviews.

If they were willing to use nukes against Russia over Ukraine they'd say that directly.

You are delusional.

- - - Updated - - -

day 1 to press the forward button, day 2 to press the fire button, day 3 to teach what to do if the tank catches fire and you can't get out.

Kinda doubt they are taught that. The tank is more valuable than the crew anyway.

[Nymrohd]

I think talking about nukes only plays into exactly what putler wants.

The best thing would be to ignore his saber rattling altogether. It shouldn't change a thing.

Honestly, the smallest of the tactical nukes are probably a better option of WMD than chemical and biological. And I don't see Putin use biological agents but chemical warfare would not be surprising (simply because they've used them before) and they are absolutely horrifying. If they want to try and break Ukrainian morale, they'd be the best choice. Unlike nuclear weapons which if used they won't be able to deny, they absolutely can deny using chemicals and thus give reasonable doubt to China and India so they can continue supporting them financially.

ANY use of WMDs should lead to a NATO response imo. Which should include wiping Russia out of the Black Sea and if not placing boots on the ground, we can still directly help attack their supply and military operations within Ukraine, obviously including Crimea. I don't think there is a case in which Russia uses WMDs and they do not lose the war soon after.

[Kokolums]

Honestly, the smallest of the tactical nukes are probably a better option of WMD than chemical and biological. And I don't see Putin use biological agents but chemical warfare would not be surprising (simply because they've used them before) and they are absolutely horrifying. If they want to try and break Ukrainian morale, they'd be the best choice. Unlike nuclear weapons which if used they won't be able to deny, they absolutely can deny using chemicals and thus give reasonable doubt to China and India so they can continue supporting them financially.

ANY use of WMDs should lead to a NATO response imo. Which should include wiping Russia out of the Black Sea and if not placing boots on the ground, we can still directly help attack their supply and military operations within Ukraine, obviously including Crimea. I don't think there is a case in which Russia uses WMDs and they do not lose the war soon after.

if nato fires one bullet at russia, putin will throw 500 nukes at the west. theyve made it clear that any nato response is death.

[Gabriel]

if nato fires one bullet at russia, putin will throw 500 nukes at the west. theyve made it clear that any nato response is death.

Please, more like 50 at most. I'm pretty ready to call russia's bluff at this point.

[Nymrohd]

if nato fires one bullet at russia, putin will throw 500 nukes at the west. theyve made it clear that any nato response is death.

Yes sure, right after the US Civil War. And then cats will rule the Earth.

[Azadina]

if nato fires one bullet at russia, putin will throw 500 nukes at the west. theyve made it clear that any nato response is death.

Is that before, or after they help Trumpkin Incels slaughter libcucks in US civil war? And why 500? Why not 29546?

[Liftbrul]

theyve made it clear that any nato response is death.

Yeah, the classic final Russian warning. I could take a shit down Putin's throat and all that bitchmade little coward would do is say "thank you" and "may I have another", just like all the people fellating his boot. They're all a gaggle of limp dicks and nothing more.

[Feltima]

Most of us don't want an open conflict between NATO and Russia but won't aren't willing to roll over and give Russia what it wants just because it makes idle threats.

And even if Russia did back them up, bowing down and letting them get away with it would be worse for the world as a whole because they got rewarded for that threat so they and their leaders will know what threat to make along with any other nation who has nukes while showing ever other dictator wannabe to hurry up and start researching that technology as well because once they got it they can push as hard as they want and the only ones who would respond are the ones doing the exact same thing they want to do.

Given into Russia on this guarantees a repeat of it with Russian in the future and/or multiple other nations as they know once they get it, the US and NATO won't touch them no matter how bad they get.

The problem is the tug of war over borders. Every country involved sees this as existential. So it's never going to end, till we have WW III, and someone or all of us get wiped out then. Well, not all of humanity, I don't think the MAD really pans out anymore, politically or strategically.

If everyone turns out to be right about Russia not having a fraction of their Soviet-era arsenal, but even if it's only 50, millions of people in Europe will probably die.

If the US gets involved, a couple of strategic areas might get nuked, but civilian populations will have a relatively solid chance of not getting struck as long as it's not the east coast. Even then, civilian centers aren't likely. Europe and Russia will be decimated though. The continent would end up a partially irritated wasteland.

[Gabriel]

The problem is the tug of war over borders. Every country involved sees this as existential. So it's never going to end, till we have WW III, and someone or all of us get wiped out then. Well, not all of humanity, I don't think the MAD really pans out anymore, politically or strategically.

If everyone turns out to be right about Russia not having a fraction of their Soviet-era arsenal, but even if it's only 50, millions of people in Europe will probably die.

If the US gets involved, a couple of strategic areas might get nuked, but civilian populations will have a relatively solid chance of not getting struck as long as it's not the east coast. Even then, civilian centers aren't likely. Europe and Russia will be decimated though. The continent would end up a partially irritated wasteland.

No it wouldn't. Tens of millions of people would die, but in couple of decades, infrastructure would be back to what it is now, or even stronger.

russia on the other hand will be a lawless wilderness for the next hundred years after Moscow and St. Petersburg get glassed.

[Feltima]

No it wouldn't. Tens of millions of people would die, but in couple of decades, infrastructure would be back to what it is now, or even stronger.

russia on the other hand will be a lawless wilderness for the next hundred years after Moscow and St. Petersburg get glassed.

You think Europe would be fine after being hit by tens to hundreds of 50-100+ megaton warheads? A 50-megaton nuke has a blast radius of about 22 miles.

Yeah, Moscow will be glass, but so will London, Paris, Warsaw, Brussels, and many more.

Terrifying times we're in when folks think that's worth it. Europe would be economically decimated from this for decades, famine would run rampant, and the consequences of radiation for survival would be terrible.

Well, that's one way to solve global warming, I guess.

[Gorsameth]

if nato fires one bullet at russia, putin will throw 500 nukes at the west. theyve made it clear that any nato response is death.

Putin would also nuke if Ukraine attacked targets in Russia, and they did, and there was no nuke.
Putin would also nuke if Ukraine crossed into Russia, and they did, and there was no nuke.
Putin would also nuke if Ukraine attacked the annexed regions, and they did, and there is still no nuke.
Putin would also nuke if NATO kept supporting Ukraine, and they have increased support, and there is still no nuke.

The problem with red lines is that you put them far away and make it clear you WILL act when they are crossed, because if you make a red line out of everything and people keep calling your bluff no one gives a shit about your threats.

Russia knows that if they use any Nuclear, Chemical or Biological weapon that NATO will escalate hard, as has always happened when someone used them.

[Santti]

You think Europe would be fine after being hit by tens to hundreds of 50-100+ megaton warheads? A 50-megaton nuke has a blast radius of about 22 miles.

Yeah, Moscow will be glass, but so will London, Paris, Warsaw, Brussels, and many more.

Terrifying times we're in when folks think that's worth it. Europe would be economically decimated from this for decades, famine would run rampant, and the consequences of radiation for survival would be terrible.

Well, that's one way to solve global warming, I guess.

Sigh...

If it ever came to nuclear warfare like that, the sides of the conflict would not target each others civilian centers. They literally can't afford to waste nukes doing that. They would target the launchers to take out the others nuclear capability. And 1 nuke to do that per target is not enough, if they are bunkers deep under earth. Some nukes will be duds as well, so you need to put even more per target.

Modern nukes are not tsar bombas. No, they are much, much smaller. Because they are accurate, there is no need for big booms. You'd probably need upwards a hundred to take down a very large civilian center with these. Also, radiation from nuclear weapons doesn't last very long. It's like days or weeks.

[Gabriel]

You think Europe would be fine after being hit by tens to hundreds of 50-100+ megaton warheads? A 50-megaton nuke has a blast radius of about 22 miles.

Yeah, Moscow will be glass, but so will London, Paris, Warsaw, Brussels, and many more.

Terrifying times we're in when folks think that's worth it. Europe would be economically decimated from this for decades, famine would run rampant, and the consequences of radiation for survival would be terrible.

Well, that's one way to solve global warming, I guess.

Ohh my fucking god I want people whose knowledge on nukes is based on the Fallout series to leave.

[Torched]

You think Europe would be fine after being hit by tens to hundreds of 50-100+ megaton warheads? A 50-megaton nuke has a blast radius of about 22 miles.

Yeah, Moscow will be glass, but so will London, Paris, Warsaw, Brussels, and many more.

Terrifying times we're in when folks think that's worth it. Europe would be economically decimated from this for decades, famine would run rampant, and the consequences of radiation for survival would be terrible.

Well, that's one way to solve global warming, I guess.

Ok first of all, NONE of the russian nukes come even close to 50-100 megatons. The TSAR bomba the largest nuke EVER build and used was 50 megaton, it was so big that it would be impossible to launch it with any rocket that russia has.
No country on earth has any nukes that come even close to that 100 megaton yield.
The biggest nuke that the US have ever tested and made was 15 megatons (Castle Bravo).

The largest bomb currently in service in the U.S. nuclear arsenal is the B83, with a maximum yield of 1.2 megatons.

[Feltima]

Sigh...

If it ever came to nuclear warfare like that, the sides of the conflict would not target each others civilian centers. They literally can't afford to waste nukes doing that. They would target the launchers to take out the others nuclear capability. And 1 nuke to do that per target is not enough, if they are bunkers deep under earth. Some nukes will be duds as well, so you need to put even more per target.

Modern nukes are not tsar bombas. No, they are much, much smaller. Because they are accurate, there is no need for big booms. You'd probably need upwards a hundred to take down a very large civilian center with these. Also, radiation from nuclear weapons doesn't last very long. It's like days or weeks.

Right, that was my point about the US not having any civilian centers targeted, however, I was under the impression that European cities aren't that distant from launchers.

- - - Updated - - -

Ohh my fucking god I want people whose knowledge on nukes is based on the Fallout series to leave.

The Belogrod supposedly has 6 100 megaton "posideon torpedoes". Aint nobody said anything about radiation poisoning the waters for decades and mutant cows, however, an irridated tsunami sweeping London is a nightmare.

- - - Updated - - -

Ok first of all, NONE of the russian nukes come even close to 50-100 megatons. The TSAR bomba the largest nuke EVER build and used was 50 megaton, it was so big that it would be impossible to launch it with any rocket that russia has.
No country on earth has any nukes that come even close to that 100 megaton yield.
The biggest nuke that the US have ever tested and made was 15 megatons (Castle Bravo).

The largest bomb currently in service in the U.S. nuclear arsenal is the B83, with a maximum yield of 1.2 megatons.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-...drone-28150436

[Santti]

Right, that was my point about the US not having any civilian centers targeted, however, I was under the impression that European cities aren't that distant from launchers.

Irrelevant. Even if there were no nukes in European countries, they are still part of NATO. And US is part of NATO. Ergo, US is not sitting it's thumb up it's butt. Meaning nukes are reserved for US targets.

[Torched]

Right, that was my point about the US not having any civilian centers targeted, however, I was under the impression that European cities aren't that distant from launchers.

- - - Updated - - -



The Belogrod supposedly has 6 100 megaton "posideon torpedoes". Aint nobody said anything about radiation poisoning the waters for decades and mutant cows, however, an irridated tsunami sweeping London is a nightmare.

- - - Updated - - -



https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-...drone-28150436

........... ah yes the "super uber doomsday weapon" that is suppose to cause radioactive Tsunamis, if you believe that shit actually works... I have a bridge to sell you in Kherson (totally not blown up I promise)