Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I disagree, but granted, we are a tenacious bunch of cnuts.
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.
I'm not too sure, any country in the world deploying a nuke - tactical or not - would illicit an immediate escalatory response from an opposing force. Modern tactical nukes are actually far more powerful than the bombs dropped on Japan in WW2. There isn't anything tactical about them other than the fact they aren't ridiculous hydrogen bombs.
If Russia were to nuke Ukraine the fallout will still have an affect on the rest of Europe, which would lead to deaths of civilians in NATO countries. Also, geopolitically, there's absolutely no way that the US would let Russia deploy a nuclear weapon with impunity.
Nuclear 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).
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.
And the first link is completely useless as it gives no Information about the bomb sizes used for the study.
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.
Anyway, count on me for more views on how nuclear war won't be that bad.
Here you can see the effect on a nuclear blast anywhere and according to type of bomb
https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/...EZmMiniW7-RILEhxW2Cdg-drwDLvawzEwC_mgJlSegvxY
https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/...EZmMiniW7-RILEhxW2Cdg-drwDLvawzEwC_mgJlSegvxY
Which furthers my thoughts, why would it be catastrophic for Europe?
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/b...-war-strategy-escalationto-de-escalate-180680
This should give you some insight in the reasoning behind that.
.Stop it dude. Huge role? Huge? Yeah.
In your view no one has agency, not Ukraine, not even Russia, just "the West".
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.
ukraine can join whatever the feck they want genius. Get the hell out of here man
keep drinking your coolaid
Enjoy your little wet red dreams of putin bro ha.
causality ≠ guilt
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.
High quality of debate here tonight.
If you have started watching twice and not made it to the end, it does really deliver. I wonder how the conversation then played out.
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.
This is good news. Putin -and people in his inner cercle- won’t care about small manifestations, But this kind of pressure if they stand by it can be a real game changer.
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.
As I said this makes no sense. Hiroshima had a power of 15kT, Tsar Bomba had 50MT, that is more than 3000 times bigger.
It didn't destroy the atmosphere, or kill everyone. It just did a massive explosion.
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.
Edit: also now thought about all the wheat production in Ukraine. I guess that industry could be rendered useless for xx amount of years if accident was badly handled and wind went all over the place?
I do wonder as a species whether we'd be dumb enough to fire all the nukes. I'd like to think there's instructions to fire a limited barrage at key areas only.
I'm sure plenty of operators wouldn't fire even if a nuke was about to hit their base. Killing millions as your final act? Feck that.
I'm sure plenty of operators wouldn't fire even if a nuke was about to hit their base. Killing millions as your final act? Feck that.
Enerhodar is also the same place they lobbed grenades into the crowd yesterday. They really want that nuclear plant...
Which is ironically the same approach the Kremlin is taking.
Certainly not.
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.
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.
Chernobyl was also designed in a massively unsafe way.
It has been a decade so I cannot quite remember the statistics, but the Fukushima meltdown was of a similar size to Chernobyl, but because of the safer design of the plant and materials used, it did not have the same impact on nearby land.
After Chernobyl radiation spread as far as the UK in the form or radioactive rain, in other words the whole of Europe is at risk depending on the wind direction.
It's extremely unlikely there will be any problems, Russian troops don't want to blow the lid off the reactors right next to them any more than we want them to. The thick concrete and metal designed to keep them in also does a good job of keeping unwanted things out, the risk is more to the water and generators needed to keep them from overheating. An operating reactor is also more much dangerous than a shutdown one so i hope Ukraine is not running them right now.
Now that is utterly disrespectful to everything that people from former Warsaw Pact countries have experienced during the Cold War. Do you think they would have joined NATO if the Soviets treated them better during the 40 years of Soviet rule? Those countries had a right to do whatever they want based on their own assessments about reality on the ground and past history; that is the primary principle of sovereignty.
Cuba went their separate opposite to the US because of near colonial rule prior to 1959. And as far as everyone is concerned, Cuba has maintained privileged relations with Russia since then and the US still have to suck it up.
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.
You'd have been better replying that than a crude comment about wet dreams.
I largely agree. Also, new geopolitical rivalry: Brazil vs Australia