Russian invasion of Ukraine

Scottyboi said:
Wouldn't just be us responding either, Russia would be toast and millions of innocent people dead all for some short arse insecure bald ****. Someone please just buy him a MX5 convertible and let him have his midlife crisis in peace.
Click to expand...
I feel personally attacked by this post. I used to love my baby blue mx5 with the pop up headlights.
 
SWP's back said:
I feel personally attacked by this post. I used to love my baby blue mx5 with the pop up headlights.
Click to expand...

96862-very-experienced-drifter-8125_100243056661414_100000271596210_3902_3029817_n.jpg
 
metalblue said:
It wouldn’t be good, I don’t think anyone other than the Russians are advocating for one. That simulation is based on Russia first strike, that wouldn’t happen - they would get hit first. Our first strike might concentrate on military targets whereas Russia will quite possibly go for cities (as is the MO of the filthy scum). Millions upon millions will die. Countries already with food insecurity will be largely wiped out with famine.

Nuclear winter isn’t a 100% certainty like it was back in the 70s/80s - it would very much depend on the outcome of fires as modern nukes are air bursts - the outcome isn’t well known, if both sides target cities then it’s quite probable - if they target military sites then it’s quite unlikely. I hope we never find out.
Click to expand...
why would NATO strike first,i think Russia would have a preemptive strike first and the second strike back from NATO, a preemptive strike wouldnt have the efect as of many years back by weakening the oponents reply power as there are now so many nukes distributed in strategic points around the world. the dead hand system operated by the Russians is controlled by radiation sensors in cities and towns also military instilations which would ensure a swift automatic reply which NATO are fully aware of, so from of a NATO point of view while zero nukes have been launched there is still a small percentage that this could remain so despite how small the percentage may be at that period before a possible nuclear war
 
Last edited:
marco said:
why would NATO strike first,i think Russia would have a preemptive strike first and the second strike back from NATO, a preemptive strike wouldnt have the efect as of many years back by weakening the oponents reply power as there are now so many nukes distributed in strategic points around the world. the dead hand system operated by the Russians is controlled by radiation sensors in cities and towns also military instilations which would ensure a swift automatic reply which NATO are fully aware of, so from of a NATO point of view while zero nukes have been launched there is still a small percentage that this could remain so despite how small the percentage may be at that period before a nuclear war
Click to expand...

Russia first strike could take out some 30-50% of US/NATO nukes. US/NATO first strike could take out 50-75% of Russian nukes. A first strike would allow for a second strike to target remaining mobile forces to eliminate any further threat. Regarding dead hand, that is for the land based silo force I believe, it’s been estimated that the US/NATO could get as much as 99% of that destroyed with a first strike.

In any case it’s going to be a shit day for us all, whoever goes first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.