Russian invasion of Ukraine

Oh, just 10x bigger than this then? Don't know what all the fuss has been about.

View attachment 37499
Hiroshima
5b5b50eb8905f21b008b479b


Nagasaki
1200px-Nagasaki_City_View_from_Glover_Garden%2C_Nagasaki_2014.jpg


The point IS not to suggest these bombs aren't still devastating or destructive, OR that we can simply "brush off" their usage. I hope they're never used as the cost will be unbearable. But the narrative that it'll be "armaggeddon" is a little misplaced. This isn't the 80's, things have changed, most nukes are low yield now with reduced capability to create fallout.

Plus there are fewer of them, we have better detection and capacity to destroy them once launched, with multiple sites across Europe. Russia now has too many targets, with too few nukes that would survive being shot down by even more sites capable of doing so and having been detected much earlier.

Yes, the ones that would get through would be catastrophic; but the world survived Nakasaki and Hiroshima and they rebuilt. In the 80's it didn't look like we would survive M.A.D., today it's a different story. The whole point is NOT to spread fear. We already know they should never be used, scaring people as to their destructive power, when we already know it, helps nobody. I've seen the Tsar Bomba used as an example of the Russian Nuclear Capability many, many times. The fact is they don't have anything close to that anymore.
 
I don’t see it as some massive own goal. Had we been immediate neighbours then of course it would have been. These poor people face a big enough journey just to get out of their homes, never mind to the nearest border and then onto us.

Announce it though asap because it does need doing.

The meaningful move would be helping people fleeing that have families in the UK join them without hassle.

You are right, doubt huge numbers would even try, even if they did take a welcome all policy, given the distance and current difficulty in getting here. That's almost one they could have milked. The small numbers would probably be drawn by some already established links.
 
Hiroshima
5b5b50eb8905f21b008b479b


Nagasaki
1200px-Nagasaki_City_View_from_Glover_Garden%2C_Nagasaki_2014.jpg


The point IS not to suggest these bombs aren't still devastating or destructive, OR that we can simply "brush off" their usage. I hope they're never used as the cost will be unbearable. But the narrative that it'll be "armaggeddon" is a little misplaced. This isn't the 80's, things have changed, most nukes are low yield now with reduced capability to create fallout.

Plus there are fewer of them, we have better detection and capacity to destroy them once launched, with multiple sites across Europe. Russia now has too many targets, with too few nukes that would survive being shot down. the ones that would would be catastrophic; but the world survived Nakasaki and Hiroshima. In the 80's it didn't look like we would, today it's a different story. The whole point is nto to spread fear. We already know they should never be used, scaring people as to their destructive power, when we already know it, helps nobody. I've seen the Tsar Bomba used as an example of the Russian Nuclear Capability many, many times. The fact is they don't have anything close to that anymore.

Have you seen the Russian equipment during this war? What makes you think their nukes will be optimised by modern standards? Heh.
 
Ignore that old fart. He doesn’t understand that social media is now more often than not the first place that breaking news is reported. If it was up to him he’d be waiting for tomorrow Guardian to arrive to wait and be told what to think.
 
Last edited:

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.