Are Russia preparing for WW3?

MoBeats said:
This is definitely a conversation for another thread but in short, I believe the only choice you've had was between Hilary and Bernie. Look at all the republican candidates, not two brain cells between them. No way was Hilary ever going to lose against one of them. She may as well be up against this chair I'm sat on.
So your choice is between a corporate slag who has clearly been funnelled to the top of the pile and a chair.
Click to expand...

At least the Republican process was democratic.
 
Hypothetically speaking, which way would the nukes be fired do you think? Presuming it's dead easy to wipe out the U.K. and that's done, the bulk of the to'ing and fro'ing would be between the US and Russia.
Would they go for the west coast first? Where are your nukes Raoul?
 
MoBeats said:
Hypothetically speaking, which way would the nukes be fired do you think? Presuming it's dead easy to wipe out the U.K. and that's done, the bulk of the to'ing and fro'ing would be between the US and Russia.
Would they go for the west coast first? Where are your nukes Raoul?
Click to expand...
What does it matter? Both the US and Russia (as well as the UK) keep nuclear armed submarines at sea at all times. Aside from that, the US and Russia can launch enough IBMs to wipe out each others' respective countries. It wouldn't matter which cities or coasts got hit first, because in the end they'd all be completely destroyed.

One H bomb would be enough to wipe out half of the American east coast. Both countries have hundreds, if not thousands, of the things.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
What does it matter? Both the US and Russia (as well as the UK) keep nuclear armed submarines at sea at all times. Aside from that, the US and Russia can launch enough IBMs to wipe out each others' respective countries. It wouldn't matter which cities or coasts got hit first, because in the end they'd all be completely destroyed.

One H bomb would be enough to wipe out half of the American east coast. Both countries have hundreds, if not thousands, of the things.
Click to expand...

Yeah basically it is either all out fire at all the targets at once unless whichever nut job decides to fire first actually thinks there can be such a thing as a limited exchange, then you would seem them used against say enemy forces in a theater of conflict, with a likely rapid escalation to full blown MAD exchange. Or which ever madman or woman fires first actually thinks there is a chance to get in a decapitation strike, which likely won't succeed thereby leading to a full on MAD exchange.
 
MoBeats said:
Hypothetically speaking, which way would the nukes be fired do you think? Presuming it's dead easy to wipe out the U.K. and that's done, the bulk of the to'ing and fro'ing would be between the US and Russia.
Would they go for the west coast first? Where are your nukes Raoul?
Click to expand...
In places you wouldn't expect (ground based nukes, anyway).
 
Haven't they got rockets to blow them out of the sky first though?
 
MoBeats said:
Haven't they got rockets to blow them out of the sky first though?
Click to expand...
If you have a stockpile of 5 thousand nuclear weapons, even if 99% were blocked, the other 1% would still be enough to destroy a continent. Both countries have stockpiles of roughly this amount. There isn't an Iron Dome sophisticated enough to guarantee 100% coverage.
JustAFan said:
Yeah basically it is either all out fire at all the targets at once unless whichever nut job decides to fire first actually thinks there can be such a thing as a limited exchange, then you would seem them used against say enemy forces in a theater of conflict, with a likely rapid escalation to full blown MAD exchange. Or which ever madman or woman fires first actually thinks there is a chance to get in a decapitation strike, which likely won't succeed thereby leading to a full on MAD exchange.
Click to expand...
Pretty much. Once they get used, that's the end.
 
RedSky said:
Russia are demolishing an entire City, they don't give a toss about civilian life. That's far worse than anything US has done in recent history (Americans are a bunch of cowboys as well).

According to Googles, Aleppo had a population of 2.3m, Birminghams population is just over 1m. So we're talking about a city with double the population of UKs 2nd biggest city.
Click to expand...
That's actually not true. Here are a few facts (I can provide you with sources if you have any doubts).

- More than 85% of Aleppo's civilians chose live in the half that is under the regime control.

- The "rebels" are actually the ones blocking humanitarian aid in Aleppo.

- The "rebels" kill as many if not more civilians in Aleppo by shelling the densely populated half of Aleppo that is under regime control.

- An example of people driven out of their homes after their areas were occupied by the "rebels" are the Palestinians who were living in Aleppo and were forced out of their home when the "rebels" occupied their homes (Handarat camp). Only about a month ago they managed to take it back, even though their homes suffered a lot of destruction. The child the "rebels" beheaded and took selfies with (which they eventually published a while ago) is one of those Palestinians.

Add to that, Al-Nusra is one of the most important and active fractions in Aleppo (and the other fractions fully support it and actually gave the US the middle finger when they asked them to distance themselves from Al-Nusra as part of the cease-fire deal).

The real situation in Aleppo is far from the picture put forward by the media. And if we're talking about "destruction of cities" which terrorists seized, here is Kobane after the great victory against ISIS.

_80718787_kobane8.jpg
 
Danny1982 said:
That's actually not true. Here are a few facts (I can provide you with sources if you have any doubts).

- More than 85% of Aleppo's civilians chose live in the half that is under the regime control.

- The "rebels" are actually the ones blocking humanitarian aid in Aleppo.

- The "rebels" kill as many if not more civilians in Aleppo by shelling the densely populated half of Aleppo that is under regime control.

- An example of people driven out of their homes after their areas were occupied by the "rebels" are the Palestinians who were living in Aleppo and were forced out of their home when the "rebels" occupied their homes (Handarat camp). Only about a month ago they managed to take it back, even though their homes suffered a lot of destruction. The child the "rebels" beheaded and took selfies with (which they eventually published a while ago) is one of those Palestinians.

Add to that, Al-Nusra is one of the most important and active fractions in Aleppo (and the other fractions fully support it and actually gave the US the middle finger when they asked them to distance themselves from Al-Nusra as part of the cease-fire deal).

The real situation in Aleppo is far from the picture put forward by the media. And if we're talking about "destruction of cities" which terrorists seized, here is Kobane after the great victory against ISIS.

_80718787_kobane8.jpg
Click to expand...

Yeah sources would be good thanks. Not doubting you, just want to read more up on it.
 
JustAFan said:
Yeah basically it is either all out fire at all the targets at once unless whichever nut job decides to fire first actually thinks there can be such a thing as a limited exchange, then you would seem them used against say enemy forces in a theater of conflict, with a likely rapid escalation to full blown MAD exchange. Or which ever madman or woman fires first actually thinks there is a chance to get in a decapitation strike, which likely won't succeed thereby leading to a full on MAD exchange.
Click to expand...

If anyone wants to watch a really realistic (at the time of making) documentary on how nuclear war would effect us, in the UK, watch Threads.

Made in 1983 and one of the most harrowing things anyone could watch. Also should be compulsory viewing for every person in the entire world.
 
Before we all get our knickers in a twist... The US is still way ahead of the rest of the world combined together in terms of military expendature and I suspect the US has not been as open about their military capabilities as the Russians have been over the past 5 years. Furthermore, the Chinese won't be too happy having 2 narcissistic nutjobs as neighbours and will do their utmost to keep the Russians and North Koreans in check. For example, an invasion of the Baltic countries with all its consequences simply won't be accepted by Beijing.
Although the US and its NATO allies quickly need to realign its strategies in order facilitate for the increase in Russian (and Chinese) military strength and new balances in power, it's also important that the powers to be do not misread each others intentions (as was the case on the eve of WWI). So I think it's a tad early to start building those bomb shelters. Calm down, calm down!!
 
Ramshock said:
:lol: Still anti Billary?
Click to expand...

Hillary will be a much better president, though I am not sure a much safer one based on her hawkish stance. No fly zones are a completely stupid act that will provoke incidents that lead to conflicts.

The point I made is that we need to have balanced views to have a reasonable discussion.

@Nikhil made very reasonable points, the response to them was the usual empty headed one.

The fact we are about to elect a completley corrupt serial liar is not all right just because we have a cartoon candidate on the other side.
 
Rams said:
You need to stop believing in fairy tails and start educating yourself. You could start, for example, by reading a well informed, researched and objective book. That really would open your mind...
Click to expand...
:wenger:
 
Free thought implies some sort of balance, there is none on that website. It's a lot more like TMZ.
 
Much of history has been made up to make the past more palatable. Don't believe everything you read.
 
Rams said:
In order to understand the present you need to understand the past. Read a few books. Read about WWII, the Cold War, etc. Educate yourself and open your mind.
Click to expand...
'Those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it' I know. But I think where we are at currently demands an understanding of the facts on the ground. With increasing research of the past we are inclined to relate it to the Cold War or WWI.

But, as someone once said, 'What is it, in and of itself?'
 
Rams said:
Exactly, unlike most of the crap that @MoBeats has been referring to. I think the irony will be lost on him.
Click to expand...
Funny. Trying to troll a rise out of me instead of debating. Very clever you must be, not intelligent enough to debate with me though which is unfortunate on an Internet forum. Thumbs up to that guy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.