mosssideblue
Well-Known Member
Let's hope if we do, it's at night as the trail of bombs display a lovely orange hue :)The 300kt one is what we’d likely get.
(we won’t get any though).
Let's hope if we do, it's at night as the trail of bombs display a lovely orange hue :)The 300kt one is what we’d likely get.
(we won’t get any though).
Yes but using the largest on recorded as an example is a good way to measure the destructive power. Let's face it, we don't really know what Russia have in the locker. If they used five or six smaller KT ones in a country or countries of their choosing then it would be equal to the Tsar if used strategically.People already know, I assure you.
Telling them they have thousands of Tsar Bombas isn't accurate or helpful either, is it.
Is this why? Genuinely? Presumed it was just a power thing, to make him look untouchable/aloof.
Drink the mask, wear the alcohol.I want to know should I still wear a mask and wash my hands in 99.9% alcohol?
Or should I just drink the alcohol?
Would any nukes be aimed at Borneo or South Africa at all? Just out of interest, no specific reason.Well, it's a different situation than the 80's. Much fewer nukes, better air defences, missiles not as close (East Germany, Ukraine no longer Soviet, etc) so longer time to react, better satellite surveillance, lower yield weapons, more defensive sites across Europe with the addition of several former Soviet Bloc members joining NATO.
So it'll be disastrous but nothing like what was feared in the 80's. Let's hope we never have to find out.
Ok. I see what you're saying.
I do think it's more likely to be related to her comments about British people going to fight in the Ukraine forces because they would spin this as direct foreign intervention from a NATO power.
It's all academic anyway because if this wasn't the pretext they'd make up another one.
The timing suggests it's her earlier comments. Academic though as you say and both equally as ridiculous as a 'reasoning'.
But nukes have a bit of a PR problem. A country that uses nukes nowadays will forever be a pariah. America sort of got away with it because it was the first time and it was at the end of a huge war so they could spin it as saving lots of lives. Russia would never be able to spin it as necessary. Even in WW2, the firebombing of Tokyo was actually far more destructive and killed more people than the atomic bombs, but no-one gets criticised for that.To me this is more to do with showing that the idea that Russia would't use them in Ukraine as it scorches the earth for hundreds of years is a myth.
Obviously no one ever wants them used, Ever, but 1 or 2 ( Unless its Tzar Bomba levels obviously ) wont stop Russia moving into Ukraine after, they are absolutely within the Realms of possibility if Russia feel cornered in Ukraine..
A lot of people live with the idea that Nukes will never be used by Russia as in there minds 1 nuke is the end of the world, It isn't. 100 of them then yeah your getting there!, 10k of them absolutely.
There are racists, murderers and wankers in nearly every country.It's Ukrainian Nazis shit....