I disagree, but granted, we are a tenacious bunch of cnuts.lots of speculation, obviously, but I don't think it would end humanity. We're so adaptive, we might actually survive as a species. Civilization however would not.
They won’t blow it up. First of Russian army is there as well and second they don’t want to exterminate the area but capture it.Would the radiation from this really travel across Europe? I understand the importance of not blowing up a nuclear power plant, but how does it affect the rest of Europe?
The problem for NATO with a tactical nuke used inside Ukraine, if that were to happen, is that Ukraine is not part of NATO. Moreover, Putin would probably tell lies - either denying the fact, or claiming that NATO has smuggled in the nuke and detonated it in order to blacken Russia's name.
It's hard to know, but my guess is that NATO would not respond militarily by sending forces into Ukraine - because WWWIII would likely be the result. I hope this guess is correct.
An attack on a NATO member is a whole different kettle of fish.
Your Wiki link seems to be broken? Anyway the numbers there doesn't make sense, as we have seen massive explosions in the past without any significant effect.Yeah, from 1945. But that part - "humanity will survive" a nuclear war. Not true.
This website (NY Times, 2022) says 100 nukes in China would destroy 34 million people. There are currently 15,000 nukes in the world according to the article.
This Wikipedia page says just 50 Hiroshima-sized bombs would cool temperatures in one hemisphere by several degrees, decimating crops.
What would 10,000 do? Feck. It would kill us all.
The US and the West should never have enticed Ukraine about joining NATO.
It was directly threatening to Russia.
Non military benefits should not have been conditional on Ukraine joining NATO.
No one can justify Putin invading Ukraine.
But lets not pretend the West did not have a huge role in what is happening now.
This is all very uncertain, but also consider that the US has agreed to having just ~1,400 deployed. The main targets of a US attack on Russia would be Russia's own nuclear weapon facilities to try to eliminate as much of their stockpile and launchers as possible before they can be used. Presumably Russia would also heavily target the US's stockpile. So I don't really see the scenario where 10,000 nukes are actually detonated because the initial salvos would take out much of the stockpile and launchers that would be used for 2nd strikes.Yeah, from 1945. But that part - "humanity will survive" a nuclear war. Not true.
This website (NY Times, 2022) says 100 nukes in China would destroy 34 million people. There are currently 15,000 nukes in the world according to the article.
This Wikipedia page says just 50 Hiroshima-sized bombs would cool temperatures in one hemisphere by several degrees, decimating crops.
What would 10,000 do? Feck. It would kill us all.
They won’t blow it up. First of Russian army is there as well and second they don’t want to exterminate the area but capture it.
Also these plants are well fortified from radiation outage.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/b...-war-strategy-escalationto-de-escalate-180680Nuclear warfare is a terrifying prospect. I cannot believe that there aren't any dissenting views within the Kremlin power structure, at least personally. I struggle to believe that smart Kremlinites fully believe their own bullshit that they're under threat and therefore need to preemptively nuke anyone (including Putin).
Stop it dude. Huge role? Huge? Yeah.The US and the West should never have enticed Ukraine about joining NATO.
It was directly threatening to Russia.
Non military benefits should not have been conditional on Ukraine joining NATO.
No one can justify Putin invading Ukraine.
But lets not pretend the West did not have a huge role in what is happening now.
Oops. Broken link - Here you goYour Wiki link seems to be broken? Anyway the numbers there doesn't make sense, as we have seen massive explosions in the past without any significant effect.
And the first link is completely useless as it gives no Information about the bomb sizes used for the study.
ukraine can join whatever the feck they want genius. Get the hell out of here manThe US and the West should never have enticed Ukraine about joining NATO.
It was directly threatening to Russia.
Non military benefits should not have been conditional on Ukraine joining NATO.
No one can justify Putin invading Ukraine.
But lets not pretend the West did not have a huge role in what is happening now.
Stop it dude. Huge role? Huge? Yeah.
In your view no one has agency, not Ukraine, not even Russia, just "the West".
ukraine can join whatever the feck they want genius. Get the hell out of here man
Enjoy your little wet red dreams of putin bro ha.Yes.
They can and we can see the result genius.
Yes.
They can and we can see the result genius.
Enjoy your little wet red dreams of putin bro ha.
There will be residual damage. Soil, radioactive dust and ash in the upper atmosphere which might harm people over time. It’s effect of course fades with distance and probably won’t affect rest of Europe in catastrophic sense.Which furthers my thoughts, why would it be catastrophic for Europe?
High quality of debate here tonight.Enjoy your little wet red dreams of putin bro ha.
Comic relief:
This is just insane.
well when you have such shit posters trying to blame a country for allowing themselves to be invaded by russia not much to debate im afraid. My fault for venturing outside football forum to see how trash some people are in reality.High quality of debate here tonight.
Ain’t too many people around the world now looking to the UK Prime Minister to be a key player in ending this diplomatically, or to be leading the talks once the war ends.Erm I’m not so sure about that if this is anything to go by.
I guess depends what you class as diplomacy?
As I said this makes no sense. Hiroshima had a power of 15kT, Tsar Bomba had 50MT, that is more than 3000 times bigger.Yeah, from 1945. But that part - "humanity will survive" a nuclear war. Not true.
This website (NY Times, 2022) says 100 nukes in China would destroy 34 million people. There are currently 15,000 nukes in the world according to the article.
This Wikipedia page says just 50 Hiroshima-sized bombs would cool temperatures in one hemisphere by several degrees, decimating crops.
What would 10,000 do? Feck. It would kill us all.
Would the radiation from this really travel across Europe? I understand the importance of not blowing up a nuclear power plant, but how does it affect the rest of Europe?
well when you have such shit posters trying to blame a country for allowing themselves to be invaded by russia not much to debate im afraid. My fault for venturing outside football forum to see how trash some people are in reality.
And an edit here, the fact that a staff member can think this is a thread that should see "debate" is frankly insulting. There is no debating this.
I understand the Russian perspective but I don't understand people justifying it as an excuse for war. The Ukranian people (40 million people) are clearly looking to the West and as a sovereign people it's their right to decide their country's future. Russia has lost any kind of ideological argument or philosophy they might have to persuade Ukraine not to do so. Does Russia have anything to offer other than aggressive nationalism?
It's very doubtful that all those could actually be used. Those on strategic ICBMs probably could be fired, those mounted on bombers and submarines on patrol also quite likely. Eveything in store most likely wouldn't be able to be used after the initial strikes, so we would be far closer to 1,000 than 15,000 actually detonated bombs.Oops. Broken link - Here you go
All you need to do is research this yourself. 15,000 nukes, exploding in a matter of hours, would wipe us off the face of the planet.
I say 1,000 nukes would do the job, but let's make it harder to deny.
It could depending on wind direction etc. But also important would be the handling of the accident. Tchernobyl was as we know handled in a bad way, so people and environment was contaminated by toxic fuel. Also how many reactors melt down would obviously affect it. In Norway people are hamstring iodine, even those it would have no effect on.
I am no expert, but I remember from Tchernobyl that it affected various livestock. Contaminated rain water poured down and contaminated grass and plants, which then contaminated sheep, reindeer etc. There are still some effects of that episode on norwegian soil. The mountains in the area where I live was the place most affected. Also Austria and Switzerland, I think, got the wind in their direction. Norway spent a lot of money on following up this catastrophy.
Would the radiation from this really travel across Europe? I understand the importance of not blowing up a nuclear power plant, but how does it affect the rest of Europe?
The US and the West should never have enticed Ukraine about joining NATO.
It was directly threatening to Russia.
Non military benefits should not have been conditional on Ukraine joining NATO.
No one can justify Putin invading Ukraine.
But lets not pretend the West did not have a huge role in what is happening now.
christ, do you realize how many lives will be lost before anything of this sort can happen? and you’re casually arguing for a regime change in a country with nukes and the second-largest army in the world.Russia has some infrastructure and enough people of good will to build a new society upon the remnants of the old regime unlike Afghanistan or Iraq. No one can promise easy days ahead, but giving a chance for intelligent and benevolent people to take their rightful place in leading the country is always worth a shot.
You'd have been better replying that than a crude comment about wet dreams.well when you have such shit posters trying to blame a country for allowing themselves to be invaded by russia not much to debate im afraid. My fault for venturing outside football forum to see how trash some people are in reality.
And an edit here, the fact that a staff member can think this is a thread that should see "debate" is frankly insulting. There is no debating this.
I largely agree. Also, new geopolitical rivalry: Brazil vs AustraliaIt's very doubtful that all those could actually be used. Those on strategic ICBMs probably could be fired, those mounted on bombers and submarines on patrol also quite likely. Eveything in store most likely wouldn't be able to be used after the initial strikes, so we would be far closer to 1,000 than 15,000 actually detonated bombs.
And no, it is unlikely that it would wipe humankind from the planet. Especially the southern hemisphere would be largely unaffected by direct strikes, a bit of cooling down would cause troubles as well as the increased radiation background, but we as a species would likely survive, like we did the ice ages or catastrophic supervolcanoes.