FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Politics

WW3? Time to stock up on big rolls

Jump to newest
 

By *rFunBoy OP   Man
over a year ago

Longridge

Looks like Putin ready to take on NATO, our Armed Forces bosses recommending that Britain prepares for War with Russia over Poland.

Wasn't an invasion of Poland the trigger for WW2, today Russia blew up a satellite putting the ISS at risk of debris damage, testing of super nuke delivery systems, troops massing on Ukrainian border, bombers flying closer to the UK and Russian allied countries along EU's borders, friction in the Black Sea.

Have NATO got the balls to take us all into the Abyss.

Off to ALDI tomorrow to buy a Turkey and Bog Rolls and enjoy an early Christmas not ruined by fall out or lockdown..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago

Manchester

Wasn’t this test China’s anti satellite system where they blew up their own kit to test the missiles. The debris ended up in line with the. ISS so it’s moved out of the way. China excluded from ISS so sulking anyway.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rFunBoy OP   Man
over a year ago

Longridge

China did, Russia this time: They are making a point to the US that they have capability and willing to use it.

"US anger at Russian anti-satellite missile test debris"

1 hour ago:

satellites and rockets come close

The US has condemned Russia for conducting a "dangerous and irresponsible" missile test that it says endangered the crew aboard the International Space Station (ISS).

The test blew up one of Russia's own satellites, creating debris that forced the ISS crew to shelter in capsules.

The station currently has seven crew members on board - four Americans, a German and two Russians.

The space station orbits at an altitude of about 420km (260 miles).

"Earlier today, the Russian Federation recklessly conducted a destructive satellite test of a direct ascent anti-satellite missile against one of its own satellites," US state department spokesman Ned Price said at a briefing.

"The test has so far generated over 1,500 pieces of trackable orbital debris and hundreds of thousands of pieces of smaller orbital debris that now threaten the interests of all nations."

Russian space agency Roscosmos downplayed the incident.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rFunBoy OP   Man
over a year ago

Longridge

Oh well more sanctions.. and an excuse to shut off the gas.

Didn't Germany get sanctioned after WW1 that led to the rise of Hitler?

They've never worked..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I just hope they keep us out of it

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *arakiss12TV/TS
over a year ago

Bedford


"Looks like Putin ready to take on NATO, our Armed Forces bosses recommending that Britain prepares for War with Russia over Poland.

Wasn't an invasion of Poland the trigger for WW2, today Russia blew up a satellite putting the ISS at risk of debris damage, testing of super nuke delivery systems, troops massing on Ukrainian border, bombers flying closer to the UK and Russian allied countries along EU's borders, friction in the Black Sea.

Have NATO got the balls to take us all into the Abyss.

Off to ALDI tomorrow to buy a Turkey and Bog Rolls and enjoy an early Christmas not ruined by fall out or lockdown..

"

Looks dangerously a real prospect.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rFunBoy OP   Man
over a year ago

Longridge

I grew up with the threat of being nuked as lives near Manchester. I thought in 1989 it was over when the Wall came down.

Then I met a guy at work on at work at 17, who was about to retire and he explained a few things about history of Russia.

He said, Russia will soak up money, technology and become the Wests 'best friend', while at the same time create a massive military arsenal.

Then in 30yrs when they've had enough and big and strong, they'll turn on us like a dog and bite hard - his words were "they are just buying time and using us".

Not long after the conversation Putin was installed.

There is a story written in 2015 on the BBC well worth a read, you can find by Googling the term "Putin's formative German years". He is ex KGB, he saw his country fall apart that night the Wall fell, yet Moscow was silent.

Sanctioning countries does nothing but start wars and they are threatening harsher if Ukraine goes ahead. Putin already said he had nukes ready when Crimea was annexed, he'll sure have them ready again this time and new super upgraded versions. He may launch one to to show he is serious and whether the West responds, the outcome is clear.

You know the story after we stood by Poland in 1939.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Putin will not use nukes just as Hitler did not use poison gas the rest of the world would hit back with them.

Saying that all out war is a possibility Ukraine can't win by them self but now in a position to put up a good fight Putin might not stay in power long when Russian body bags start coming home in large numbers.

The USA did not lose Vietnam but lost the will to fight.

Vietnam was a unjust war just to clear that up

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rFunBoy OP   Man
over a year ago

Longridge

[Removed by poster at 10/12/21 12:35:34]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rFunBoy OP   Man
over a year ago

Longridge

Why would Russia not use one?

A warning shot on far away shores, gives NATO two options, retaliate and face mutual destruction or accept they are being held by their balls.

What one mad man did in history is no guide to what another is capable of in the future.

Some NATO countries meeting Russia behind closed doors to the exclusion of Eastern Europe countries.

Are they doing a deal to sacrifice a few?

Germany did use Chlorine gas in WW1 and the Allies threw mustard gas back, Hitler was on the receiving end which temporary blinded him.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rFunBoy OP   Man
over a year ago

Longridge

Plans were in place to use chemical warfare against German cities as a last resort in the event of invasion of the UK.

The British planned to use mustard gas and phosgene to help repel a German invasion in 1940–1941, and had there been an invasion may have also deployed it against German cities.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oxychick35Couple
over a year ago

thornaby


"Plans were in place to use chemical warfare against German cities as a last resort in the event of invasion of the UK.

The British planned to use mustard gas and phosgene to help repel a German invasion in 1940–1941, and had there been an invasion may have also deployed it against German cities."
anything is just to repel an invasion in my book

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Why would Russia not use one?

A warning shot on far away shores, gives NATO two options, retaliate and face mutual destruction or accept they are being held by their balls.

What one mad man did in history is no guide to what another is capable of in the future.

Some NATO countries meeting Russia behind closed doors to the exclusion of Eastern Europe countries.

Are they doing a deal to sacrifice a few?

Germany did use Chlorine gas in WW1 and the Allies threw mustard gas back, Hitler was on the receiving end which temporary blinded him."

Which is why he was against its use funnily enough in ww2 afaik

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Why would Russia not use one?

A warning shot on far away shores, gives NATO two options, retaliate and face mutual destruction or accept they are being held by their balls.

What one mad man did in history is no guide to what another is capable of in the future.

Some NATO countries meeting Russia behind closed doors to the exclusion of Eastern Europe countries.

Are they doing a deal to sacrifice a few?

Germany did use Chlorine gas in WW1 and the Allies threw mustard gas back, Hitler was on the receiving end which temporary blinded him.

Which is why he was against its use funnily enough in ww2 afaik "

Hitler was a evil man but till he went mad in the last couple years of the war he did care about his people well the ones he regarded as his people and new using gas by bombs from planes would kill 100s of thousands of his people in reprisal attacks.

The point a was trying to make is putin and the people backing him know that no one can win a nuclear war and if he fires off one he will get 10 back that's how it works in war.

And I don't want to here are you pro Hitler am not just pointing out facts

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rFunBoy OP   Man
over a year ago

Longridge

I get that..

But within his calculations, he'll realise that he could probably get away with one or two low yielders without retaliation and enough to convince NATO to leave him to it as the cost is too high.

Look at a scenario where Ukraine is overrun and NATO starts pushing back, what point would NATO be prepared to accept all out nuclear war, the first, second, third or more being dropped by Russia.

What I'm trying to get to is that it is not black or white but somewhere in between and what price do NATO countries accept to avoid total destruction of humanity?

This is a guy comfortable with poisoning and irradiating his enemies in other countries.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uddy laneMan
over a year ago

dudley

If it did kick off with nukes the UK would be targeted and who wants that.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rFunBoy OP   Man
over a year ago

Longridge

No one wants it, especially me..

It's an observation, not a wish.

Unfortunately, we don't get a say in what decisions others and our leaders take..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago

milton keynes


"I get that..

But within his calculations, he'll realise that he could probably get away with one or two low yielders without retaliation and enough to convince NATO to leave him to it as the cost is too high.

Look at a scenario where Ukraine is overrun and NATO starts pushing back, what point would NATO be prepared to accept all out nuclear war, the first, second, third or more being dropped by Russia.

What I'm trying to get to is that it is not black or white but somewhere in between and what price do NATO countries accept to avoid total destruction of humanity?

This is a guy comfortable with poisoning and irradiating his enemies in other countries."

I think it far to close to Russian land to contemplate that. I would think a decent chance of inflicting casualties on his own population if he did such a thing. Maybe if it was not so close he would do it

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rFunBoy OP   Man
over a year ago

Longridge

Depends which way the wind is blowing on the day. They were silent when Chernobyl was spewing radiation all over Europe. I was 15 that day we were told to stay indoors and not drink milk.

Only he knows how many of his own he's willing to sacrifice. There is always an 'acceptable' cost, its just collateral damage, made easier by anti-western propaganda being put on State TV Stations.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uddy laneMan
over a year ago

dudley


"No one wants it, especially me..

It's an observation, not a wish.

Unfortunately, we don't get a say in what decisions others and our leaders take.. "

We get a say with the vote that legitimises the "leaders" to do stuff we don't want them to do.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago

milton keynes


"Depends which way the wind is blowing on the day. They were silent when Chernobyl was spewing radiation all over Europe. I was 15 that day we were told to stay indoors and not drink milk.

Only he knows how many of his own he's willing to sacrifice. There is always an 'acceptable' cost, its just collateral damage, made easier by anti-western propaganda being put on State TV Stations."

Don't think even he is callous enough to nuke and kill vast amounts of his own people just to make a point. Especially based on which direction the wind may or may not blow

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rFunBoy OP   Man
over a year ago

Longridge

Really..

Did anyone think anyone was callous enough to fly planes into the Twin Towers, to bomb Pearl Harbour, to gas Kurds, to commit genocide in WW2, genocide on Uyghurs, genocide on Rohingyas.

Putin's happy to bomb schools and hospitals in Syria, support migrants freezing to death in Belarus, poison adversaries abroad, kill or lock up political opponents or anyone speaking against him.

Never say never..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago

milton keynes


"Really..

Did anyone think anyone was callous enough to fly planes into the Twin Towers, to bomb Pearl Harbour, to gas Kurds, to commit genocide in WW2, genocide on Uyghurs, genocide on Rohingyas.

Putin's happy to bomb schools and hospitals in Syria, support migrants freezing to death in Belarus, poison adversaries abroad, kill or lock up political opponents or anyone speaking against him.

Never say never.."

That's all very true though it has to be mentioned all those things were one group or country inflicting death on another. What this scenario is would mean one country inflicting death on its own population just to make a point. Its still my opinion Putin will not use nukes in Ukraine, especially just to prove a point. I do hope I'm right in that

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rFunBoy OP   Man
over a year ago

Longridge

It might not be Ukraine as too close to home, but a NATO member farther away is possible..

He's never been happy about the breakup of the USSR and believes giving people back their freedom in Eastern Europe wad a disgrace of the Russian motherland.

If you've ever seen or been to the KGB Station by the river in Vilnius, 6 foot thick walls so no-one hears you screaming, you'll understand why natives literally spit in the face of Russians living within the population.

I've seen it myself, its not nice, this is what Putin refers to as protection of Russians in other territories such as in Ukraine.

They are hated for the pain they inflicted when occupying. But it's possible to inflict damage on a NATO member with the threat, "do you want more"..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *coptoCouple
over a year ago

Côte d'Azur & Great Yarmouth

Despite its (many) faults and the accusations of federalist intentions etc., the EU has proven itself capable of sticking together, with the big'uns taking care of the littl'uns: financial support for Greece, sharing COVID vaccinations (or do you think Germany and/or France couldn't have grabbed ALL the Pfizer like we did the AZ and made a big thing of it?), backing Eire rather the the UK over the NI border etc.

And as long as they continue to do so, the Russian Federation knows that if it attacks one it will take them all on. But there'll never again be World Wars on land, think Cyber, Space and Maritime. And of those, it's only in Space technology that Russia is superior to the EU.

But if the EU were to dissolve - one down, twenty- seven to go - all bets are off...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eanoCoolMan
over a year ago

wisbech

The total combined forces of all the European member states is almost the same as Russia,s but they have way more planes, subs and naval ships than the EU countries, without support from the US if putin decided to roll his tanks through europe there would be little they could do to stop him. As the US turns its eyes more towards Asia Europe will need to start looking after itself and investing in a larger military capacity.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rFunBoy OP   Man
over a year ago

Longridge

Considering the 'Global UK' has just announced reduction of forces from 85k to 72k by 2025, that's a good start!

The weapons being showcased the last 2 years, nuclear engined cruise missiles, hypersonic missiles, unmanned nuclear drone submarines, upgraded bombers, satellite killers, upgraded fighters and many more..

Russia has spent years developing new delivery systems for many 1000's of warheads. The agreements Trump tore up has given free reign to build as many as they want let alone what's been built secretly both conventional and nuclear.

European and US armies combined would struggle against it.

Our Trident missles are stored in California, just hope the USA let's us have them in our hour of need as not the first time USA let us down.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *rFunBoy OP   Man
over a year ago

Longridge

Curious article on the BBC tonight:

Russian President Vladimir Putin has spoken of his regret at the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, revealing that he had to work as a taxi driver to supplement his income.

Economic troubles triggered by the collapse forced many Russians to seek new ways to earn money.

Mr Putin described the break-up as the collapse of historical Russia.

The remarks could fuel speculation about his intentions towards Ukraine, a former Soviet republic.

Worth watching: Russia, Latest History if you search Google or the BBC.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top