Page 1 of 2 [ 29 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,456

09 Oct 2022, 8:50 pm

I no longer care about who wins that thing. I just want to avoid nuclear war. Sounds like both sides are stupid since neither side wants to give up to avoid the nukes.

Do the governments of all sides plan to go to the bunkers or something, so they don't care if the regular people like you and me have to die?



ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 33,887
Location: Long Island, New York

09 Oct 2022, 8:56 pm

Biden: Nuclear ‘Armageddon’ risk highest since ’62 crisis
Republicans are criticizing the remarks as "reckless" that will lead to panic. The problem with this criticism is there has been no panic, no stock market crash, and no run on stores and banks.

I think there are two main reasons.

1. People are chalking it up to Biden being Biden, senile, a gaffe machine, etc.

2. Putin's nuke threats have no credibility after repeatedly implying he will use nukes and not useing them.


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


MuddRM
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

Joined: 2 Sep 2021
Gender: Male
Posts: 436
Location: Beautiful(?) West Manchester Township, PA

09 Oct 2022, 11:17 pm

Again, to quote T. S. Eliot:

“This is the way the world shall end:
Not with a bang, but a whimper.”



Last edited by MuddRM on 10 Oct 2022, 3:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

lostonearth35
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jan 2010
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,720
Location: Lost on Earth, waddya think?

09 Oct 2022, 11:31 pm

If I went to sleep tonight with the blankets completely covering my head, how long do you think it would take for me suffocate and how unpleasant would it be?



Worthless
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Sep 2022
Gender: Male
Posts: 581

09 Oct 2022, 11:36 pm

QFT wrote:
I no longer care about who wins that thing. I just want to avoid nuclear war. Sounds like both sides are stupid since neither side wants to give up to avoid the nukes.

Do the governments of all sides plan to go to the bunkers or something, so they don't care if the regular people like you and me have to die?


If you give in whole heartedly eavytime there is nuclear saber rattling, then it doesn't solve the issue, far from it. Giving in to such threats encourage more of the same behaviour. putin never planned on stopping with Ukraine, by the way.

You don't turn tail and run when a bear is facing off with you. That doesn't prevent the bear from attacking, it encourages it.

If russia uses even one nuke on the battlefield, they are done, regardless of if the world avoids nuclear Armageddon. As it is, they have already significantly damaged themselves from this war.


If russia uses a nuke, it is global open season on russian officials and oligarchs. Happy hunting. :)



Edit: Also, you are upset at the Ukrainians for not just giving up and cowering at putins threats? His goons are commiting genocide against their people while stealing their land, their grain, and much more. They have watched their towns, cities, hospitials, schools, neighborhoods, cultural landmarks, ect. be destroyed. And you are mad they don't give in to threats at a time when they are decisivly winning? They gave up their nukes in 1994 under the condition of international guarantees that this exact situation would never happen. Additionally, russia's word isn't worth the rubles it is written on. They signed a treaty garenteing that they would never do this in exchange for Ukraine's nuclear stockpile. Lying is literally part of russian diplomatic, military, and political doctrine. Lying is what they do best. They have lied at every point about this war and their activities regarding it since before the "little green men" started appearing in Crimea back in 2014.

russia also signed a joint agreement with the rest of the UN security council just prior to their 2022 invasion which stated that nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.



lostonearth35
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jan 2010
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,720
Location: Lost on Earth, waddya think?

09 Oct 2022, 11:57 pm

I want to murder myself.



QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,456

10 Oct 2022, 3:23 am

Worthless wrote:
QFT wrote:
I no longer care about who wins that thing. I just want to avoid nuclear war. Sounds like both sides are stupid since neither side wants to give up to avoid the nukes.

Do the governments of all sides plan to go to the bunkers or something, so they don't care if the regular people like you and me have to die?


If you give in whole heartedly eavytime there is nuclear saber rattling, then it doesn't solve the issue, far from it. Giving in to such threats encourage more of the same behaviour. putin never planned on stopping with Ukraine, by the way.

You don't turn tail and run when a bear is facing off with you. That doesn't prevent the bear from attacking, it encourages it.

If russia uses even one nuke on the battlefield, they are done, regardless of if the world avoids nuclear Armageddon. As it is, they have already significantly damaged themselves from this war.


If russia uses a nuke, it is global open season on russian officials and oligarchs. Happy hunting. :)



Edit: Also, you are upset at the Ukrainians for not just giving up and cowering at putins threats? His goons are commiting genocide against their people while stealing their land, their grain, and much more. They have watched their towns, cities, hospitials, schools, neighborhoods, cultural landmarks, ect. be destroyed. And you are mad they don't give in to threats at a time when they are decisivly winning? They gave up their nukes in 1994 under the condition of international guarantees that this exact situation would never happen. Additionally, russia's word isn't worth the rubles it is written on. They signed a treaty garenteing that they would never do this in exchange for Ukraine's nuclear stockpile. Lying is literally part of russian diplomatic, military, and political doctrine. Lying is what they do best. They have lied at every point about this war and their activities regarding it since before the "little green men" started appearing in Crimea back in 2014.

russia also signed a joint agreement with the rest of the UN security council just prior to their 2022 invasion which stated that nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.


Which is worse: all of the above put together when we are alive and healthy, or avoiding all of the above but dying a death from radiation? I would say the latter is worse. I want to live.



magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,272
Location: Poland

10 Oct 2022, 3:50 am

Who is alive and healthy?
Those dying today under massive shelling of cities?

BTW, there's a lot of nuclear sabre rattling on the Kremlin's side but no signs of preparing to an actual launch. America (who is not a side in this war, btw) announced conventional intervention in case of Russia using nuclear warheads in Ukraine. So, as bad as the rhetorics sounds, we're still away from a nuclear holocaust. And I'm telling it from a place where potassium iodine distribution has already been organized, "just in case".


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,456

10 Oct 2022, 3:57 am

magz wrote:
Who is alive and healthy?
Those dying today under massive shelling of cities?


I might sound selfish but what I will say is the 100% truth. As of now, I want people in the US to be alive and healthy, because I live in the US. I know it is selfish, but everyone puts their live above others, whether they admit it or not. I don't want a nuclear bomb thrown at the US during the escalation, cause I don't want to die due to something at the other end of the world that I am not even a part of.



magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,272
Location: Poland

10 Oct 2022, 4:06 am

We're very far away from the level of escalation where the US territory is attacked.
Seeing how poorly Russian army is doing in Ukraine, it won't happen at all.
Don't forget anti-airforce and anti-rocket defense exists.

However, if e.g. Zaporozhia Nuclear Plant gets blown up, I'll be in the radioactive pollution zone. That is relatively likely. For me, it's not "something at the other end of the world that I am not even a part of".


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,456

10 Oct 2022, 4:15 am

magz wrote:
We're very far away from the level of escalation where the US territory is attacked.


I think I seen online a couple of weeks ago where Putin said that the country he would attack with nuclear weapons won't be Ukraine but would be one of its Western allies. He didn't mention US specifically, but it sounded worrisome.

Also, if Putin attacks "some" country, and US responds with conventional weapons, wouldn't Putin then attach the US?

The one way for Putin to actually win while attacking US is to use a huge nuclear bomb that would kill everyone in the US all at once (thus nobody would be alive to respond). That is one of the things I am worried about.

magz wrote:
Seeing how poorly Russian army is doing in Ukraine, it won't happen at all.


But they are doing poorly on the ground, while their nuclear arsenal is the biggest in the world (they even have more nuclear warheads than US).

So precisely "because" they are doing poorly on the ground, thats why they are contemplating of going nuclear.

magz wrote:
Don't forget anti-airforce and anti-rocket defense exists.


Would they be able to stop ALL nuclear attacks, or just some?



magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,272
Location: Poland

10 Oct 2022, 4:34 am

QFT wrote:
magz wrote:
We're very far away from the level of escalation where the US territory is attacked.


I think I seen online a couple of weeks ago where Putin said that the country he would attack with nuclear weapons won't be Ukraine but would be one of its Western allies. He didn't mention US specifically, but it sounded worrisome.

Also, if Putin attacks "some" country, and US responds with conventional weapons, wouldn't Putin then attach the US?
You haven't been paying attention for the last 20 years... he's been saying it all the time. Warsaw was a very common target.
Decades of death threats give you some perspective. In particular, they give you a perspective on how likely they are to be actually carried out.
Negligibly.

QFT wrote:
The one way for Putin to actually win while attacking US is to use a huge nuclear bomb that would kill everyone in the US all at once (thus nobody would be alive to respond). That is one of the things I am worried about.
There's no bomb that would kill everyone in the US at once. Even the Tsar Bomba doesn't come close to it.

QFT wrote:
magz wrote:
Seeing how poorly Russian army is doing in Ukraine, it won't happen at all.
But they are doing poorly on the ground, while their nuclear arsenal is the biggest in the world (they even have more nuclear warheads than US).

So precisely "because" they are doing poorly on the ground, thats why they are contemplating of going nuclear.
They're doing poorly on the ground and sea and air. Nuclear warheads can't do damage if they can't be successfully carried to their destination places - and US air forces are lonely on the top and US Navy is also superior.
It doesn't matter how many nuclear warheads Russia has if they don't have means to successfully carry them to where you are.

BTW, many of these warheads may exist only on paper - seeing how 1.5 million winter uniforms for mobilized soldiers turned out nonexistent, I wouldn't be surprised.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


Worthless
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Sep 2022
Gender: Male
Posts: 581

10 Oct 2022, 4:50 am

QFT wrote:
magz wrote:
We're very far away from the level of escalation where the US territory is attacked.


I think I seen online a couple of weeks ago where Putin said that the country he would attack with nuclear weapons won't be Ukraine but would be one of its Western allies. He didn't mention US specifically, but it sounded worrisome.

Also, if Putin attacks "some" country, and US responds with conventional weapons, wouldn't Putin then attach the US?

The one way for Putin to actually win while attacking US is to use a huge nuclear bomb that would kill everyone in the US all at once (thus nobody would be alive to respond). That is one of the things I am worried about.

magz wrote:
Seeing how poorly Russian army is doing in Ukraine, it won't happen at all.


But they are doing poorly on the ground, while their nuclear arsenal is the biggest in the world (they even have more nuclear warheads than US).

So precisely "because" they are doing poorly on the ground, thats why they are contemplating of going nuclear.

magz wrote:
Don't forget anti-airforce and anti-rocket defense exists.


Would they be able to stop ALL nuclear attacks, or just some?



There is NO scenario in which russia wins by using nukes. Do some research on Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), the US Nuclear Triad, and Continuity Of Government (COG).

There is no situation in which they could wipe out all of our weapons and us while avoiding a retaliatory strike. Pretty much the entire cold war was spent working on making sure that situation was impossible. First of all, our nuclear assets can be deployed prior to impact of a russian attack. We know when any rocket on earth is launched, especially of the size that is capable of carrying a nuclear payload (even so called "low yield" devices on short-range systems). Our ICBMs are on a constant state of readyness and purpously spread out and hardened against attack so as to require a direct hit on each silo. We also have nuclear assets stationed in Europe. But, the most critical nuclear asset we have is the fleet of nuclear submarines equiped with SLBMs. They would survive even the worst attack. Even one of our nuclear missile subs has the capability of turning russia to glass. They have doomsday protocols for self launch in the event that there is an attack and they are unable to receive the proper signals.

We also have a vast command and control network that is hardened against attack, this ranges from bunkers to specially heavily modified aircraft which are heardened against EMP. This includes a fleet of 747s nicknamed the doomsday planes.

Russia may have more on papper, but as can clearly be seen in Ukraine, russian military equipment is mostly soviet era with little or no updates, modernization, ect.. Compare that to the western equipment: one of the biggest differences, beside just being newer and in better condition, is the accuracy of the modern western weapons. The russians struggle in accuracy and relatability. They also struggle with things like maintenance. Additionally, approximately two thousand of the russian nukes are so called "tactical nuclear weapons" rather than strategic nuclear weapons.


In terms of deffence systems, you are correct; there is no defence system in the world capable of neutralizing a total nuclear exchange. In fact, there really isn't much in the way of those systems in place for ICBMs and especially for SLBMs. The closest that I can think of is moscow's nuclear defense, which litterally involves launching and detonating defensive nukes directly over the city to knock out enemy nukes.

I really hope that a silver lining from all this is that there is a new push to rid the world of nuclear weapons. It should have happened at the end of the twentieth centrury's cold war.



QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,456

10 Oct 2022, 5:01 am

magz wrote:
There's no bomb that would kill everyone in the US at once. Even the Tsar Bomba doesn't come close to it.


Worthless wrote:
Even one of our nuclear missile subs has the capability of turning russia to glass.


Sounds like a contradiction to me. The first quote implies that a single bomb can't wipe out the whole country, the second quote implies that it can. So which way is it?



Worthless
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Sep 2022
Gender: Male
Posts: 581

10 Oct 2022, 5:11 am

QFT wrote:
magz wrote:
There's no bomb that would kill everyone in the US at once. Even the Tsar Bomba doesn't come close to it.


Worthless wrote:
Even one of our nuclear missile subs has the capability of turning russia to glass.


Sounds like a contradiction to me. The first quote implies that a single bomb can't wipe out the whole country, the second quote implies that it can. So which way is it?



Not a contradiction at all. Our subs don't carry one bomb. That would be rediculous to the point of absurdaty, unless the entire sub WAS a giant nuclear bomb, especially of the cobalt varriety, but that is a whole other conversation. They don't carry just one missile or even just one warhead per missile. Each of our nuclear subs carries a staggering amount of strategic warheads. Even so, it does not mean that it actually glasses an entire continent and wipes out every single person and every hardened target, but one sub can certainly raze a country to the ground.



QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,456

10 Oct 2022, 5:13 am

Worthless wrote:
QFT wrote:
magz wrote:
There's no bomb that would kill everyone in the US at once. Even the Tsar Bomba doesn't come close to it.


Worthless wrote:
Even one of our nuclear missile subs has the capability of turning russia to glass.


Sounds like a contradiction to me. The first quote implies that a single bomb can't wipe out the whole country, the second quote implies that it can. So which way is it?



Not a contradiction at all. Our subs don't carry one bomb. That would be rediculous to the point of absurdaty, unless the entire sub WAS a giant nuclear bomb, especially of the cobalt varriety, but that is a whole other conversation. They don't carry just one missile or even just one warhead per missile. Each of our nuclear subs carries a staggering amount of strategic warheads. Even so, it does not mean that it actually glasses an entire continent and wipes out every single person and every hardened target, but one sub can certainly raze a country to the ground.


I thought that nuclear bomb and nuclear missle is the same thing?

But in any case, fact remains that US can wipe Russia to the ground (however way it happens to be). So similarly Russia can wipe US to the ground too (by doing exact same thing -- whatever thing you are referring to).