Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
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 |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"has a nato member been nuked?" tactical nuke fallout travels. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"has a nato member been nuked?" What is your redline? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"has a nato member been nuked? tactical nuke fallout travels." i'll ask again ... has a nato country been nuked? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"has a nato member been nuked? tactical nuke fallout travels. i'll ask again ... has a nato country been nuked?" should Ukraine be nuked? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"has a nato member been nuked? tactical nuke fallout travels. i'll ask again ... has a nato country been nuked?" Not yet.. First time for everything. History proves it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"has a nato member been nuked? tactical nuke fallout travels. i'll ask again ... has a nato country been nuked? should Ukraine be nuked? " you're thread has become pointless now.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"has a nato member been nuked? tactical nuke fallout travels. i'll ask again ... has a nato country been nuked? should Ukraine be nuked? you're thread has become pointless now. "no it hasn't... What is your response if Ukraine gets nuked. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"has a nato member been nuked? tactical nuke fallout travels. i'll ask again ... has a nato country been nuked? should Ukraine be nuked? you're thread has become pointless now. no it hasn't... What is your response if Ukraine gets nuked."You still haven't answered your redline. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"has a nato member been nuked? tactical nuke fallout travels. i'll ask again ... has a nato country been nuked? should Ukraine be nuked? you're thread has become pointless now. no it hasn't... What is your response if Ukraine gets nuked.You still haven't answered your redline."because you haven't answered the question .... you're just comming across like trumps mate putin now | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do we have a choice other than arm Ukraine with equivalents. Personally, it's heading that way just being dragged out in the hope we back down. Many things we don't get to choose and the outcome of this is one of then. Find the lyrics for and play Pink Floyd's - Us and Them." Hat off... nice call.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That’s because no-one else had nuclear weapons at that time!" Do you think someone else would have nuked the US in retaliation for Hiroshima & Nagasaki, if they had the means to do so? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That’s because no-one else had nuclear weapons at that time! Do you think someone else would have nuked the US in retaliation for Hiroshima & Nagasaki, if they had the means to do so? " Japan would | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's a fairly safe bet that if one nuke goes off, then within the next few minutes every nuke will go off. Shortly thereafter people won't be debating about whether they are okay or not with it. They'll be more concerned about being dead." Not necessarily.. There is logic as I've said before, in how much pain one is willing to accept. It would be more than one tactical nuke before the response becomes more harsh. Is there any point in destroying the entire globe if London was chosen as a warning shot. How many warnings do others accept before it becomes enough is enough. Blood dries quickly. Why escalate to global destruction if its not necessary? Do you throw stones at your neighbours windows until there are none left or stop before it gets out of hand. Putin could test how far he could push it by dropping a few. The decision for all out destruction may not ne best policy for the ones not affected. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"has a nato member been nuked? tactical nuke fallout travels. i'll ask again ... has a nato country been nuked? should Ukraine be nuked? you're thread has become pointless now. no it hasn't... What is your response if Ukraine gets nuked.You still haven't answered your redline.
because you haven't answered the question .... you're just comming across like trumps mate putin now"umm I don't think you aware but trump is not in charge of now is he? I more concerned about the outcome than Trump. Silly you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only one country has used nuclear weapons in war, on civilians. They had zero consequences." did you forget the firebombing of Japan or is that not in your agenda. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The more people talk about using nuclear weapons the more acceptable the thought becomes. Putin has been preparing the Russian people for just such an event. If Putin uses even tactical nukes he MUST be called out. If not he will walk into any country that chooses. I hope Biden, Europe etc will explain to Putin how bankrupt his idea of using nukes is but ultimately they cannot be left unpunished. " Tac nukes is the redline. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only one country has used nuclear weapons in war, on civilians. They had zero consequences." but yet firebombing is acceptable in your eyes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only one country has used nuclear weapons in war, on civilians. They had zero consequences. but yet firebombing is acceptable in your eyes." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo so your analogy on what is worse is a moot point. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only one country has used nuclear weapons in war, on civilians. They had zero consequences. but yet firebombing is acceptable in your eyes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo so your analogy on what is worse is a moot point." Sometimes Blu your thought processes are just plain weird. The point that was being made was that the USA dropped two nukes on Japan and felt able to do so because nobody could retaliate in kind (unlike today). In other words there were no consequences for the USA for using nukes. What has the firebombing of Tokyo got to do with that point? Beyond the some historians calling it a war crime, what were the consequences to the USA of the firebombing? Just cannot follow your thought processes sometimes! AND you still never answered the questions on your private medical insurance in two other threads! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only one country has used nuclear weapons in war, on civilians. They had zero consequences. did you forget the firebombing of Japan or is that not in your agenda." What agenda? Did anyone retaliate against the USA? And if not, should they have fired nukes if they have had them? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only one country has used nuclear weapons in war, on civilians. They had zero consequences. but yet firebombing is acceptable in your eyes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo so your analogy on what is worse is a moot point. Sometimes Blu your thought processes are just plain weird. The point that was being made was that the USA dropped two nukes on Japan and felt able to do so because nobody could retaliate in kind (unlike today). In other words there were no consequences for the USA for using nukes. What has the firebombing of Tokyo got to do with that point? Beyond the some historians calling it a war crime, what were the consequences to the USA of the firebombing? Just cannot follow your thought processes sometimes! AND you still never answered the questions on your private medical insurance in two other threads!" Firebombing was a tactic used in Dresden, Coventry and lots of other places so nothing to see here Putin is desperate and rumour has it that he has cancer which could explain his desire to leave a legacy of infamy but could if true also explain his irrational behaviour The trouble is he has nowhere to go and nobody is ready to depose him | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only one country has used nuclear weapons in war, on civilians. They had zero consequences. but yet firebombing is acceptable in your eyes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo so your analogy on what is worse is a moot point. Sometimes Blu your thought processes are just plain weird. The point that was being made was that the USA dropped two nukes on Japan and felt able to do so because nobody could retaliate in kind (unlike today). In other words there were no consequences for the USA for using nukes. What has the firebombing of Tokyo got to do with that point? Beyond the some historians calling it a war crime, what were the consequences to the USA of the firebombing? Just cannot follow your thought processes sometimes! AND you still never answered the questions on your private medical insurance in two other threads!" I also don't understand what this other war crime has got to do with anything. If the question is: "should a country be nuked in retaliation for nuking someone else?". It seems logical to look at the only time this has happened in human history. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only one country has used nuclear weapons in war, on civilians. They had zero consequences. but yet firebombing is acceptable in your eyes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo so your analogy on what is worse is a moot point. Sometimes Blu your thought processes are just plain weird. The point that was being made was that the USA dropped two nukes on Japan and felt able to do so because nobody could retaliate in kind (unlike today). In other words there were no consequences for the USA for using nukes. What has the firebombing of Tokyo got to do with that point? Beyond the some historians calling it a war crime, what were the consequences to the USA of the firebombing? Just cannot follow your thought processes sometimes! AND you still never answered the questions on your private medical insurance in two other threads! I also don't understand what this other war crime has got to do with anything. If the question is: "should a country be nuked in retaliation for nuking someone else?". It seems logical to look at the only time this has happened in human history. " Like others I am confused where you are going with this Johnny. The use of nukes in WW2 saved thousands of lives that would have been lost in conventional fighting but at the expense of many Japanese lives. The nuke was then only viewed as a massive version of a conventional bomb. Its biggest benefit however was not the end of the US/Japan war but the many years of relative peace that followed simply because major wars became too costly to contemplate. Sadly this perception of "Don't touch me I have nukes" is probably why Putin thought he could invade the Ukraine without any come back. He practiced that in 2014 and did not suffer so why not take a bit more? I don't think he will use nukes. He cannot be sure Ukraine does not already have them on their land. The only solution now is for the Russian people to rise up and get rid of Putin. Sadly that may take some time. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only one country has used nuclear weapons in war, on civilians. They had zero consequences. but yet firebombing is acceptable in your eyes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo so your analogy on what is worse is a moot point. Sometimes Blu your thought processes are just plain weird. The point that was being made was that the USA dropped two nukes on Japan and felt able to do so because nobody could retaliate in kind (unlike today). In other words there were no consequences for the USA for using nukes. What has the firebombing of Tokyo got to do with that point? Beyond the some historians calling it a war crime, what were the consequences to the USA of the firebombing? Just cannot follow your thought processes sometimes! AND you still never answered the questions on your private medical insurance in two other threads! I also don't understand what this other war crime has got to do with anything. If the question is: "should a country be nuked in retaliation for nuking someone else?". It seems logical to look at the only time this has happened in human history. Like others I am confused where you are going with this Johnny. The use of nukes in WW2 saved thousands of lives that would have been lost in conventional fighting but at the expense of many Japanese lives. The nuke was then only viewed as a massive version of a conventional bomb. Its biggest benefit however was not the end of the US/Japan war but the many years of relative peace that followed simply because major wars became too costly to contemplate. Sadly this perception of "Don't touch me I have nukes" is probably why Putin thought he could invade the Ukraine without any come back. He practiced that in 2014 and did not suffer so why not take a bit more? I don't think he will use nukes. He cannot be sure Ukraine does not already have them on their land. The only solution now is for the Russian people to rise up and get rid of Putin. Sadly that may take some time. " My point is. I am against the use of dropping nukes on civilians. It's fairly simple. And not sure why you think it needs justifying? But there you go. If people, especially Americans, are calling for nuclear retaliation in the event of Putin using them on Ukraine, then presumably they would have been happy if Japan or others dropped them on US cities? Of course they wouldn't. Which is the point. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only one country has used nuclear weapons in war, on civilians. They had zero consequences. but yet firebombing is acceptable in your eyes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo so your analogy on what is worse is a moot point. Sometimes Blu your thought processes are just plain weird. The point that was being made was that the USA dropped two nukes on Japan and felt able to do so because nobody could retaliate in kind (unlike today). In other words there were no consequences for the USA for using nukes. What has the firebombing of Tokyo got to do with that point? Beyond the some historians calling it a war crime, what were the consequences to the USA of the firebombing? Just cannot follow your thought processes sometimes! AND you still never answered the questions on your private medical insurance in two other threads! I also don't understand what this other war crime has got to do with anything. If the question is: "should a country be nuked in retaliation for nuking someone else?". It seems logical to look at the only time this has happened in human history. Like others I am confused where you are going with this Johnny. The use of nukes in WW2 saved thousands of lives that would have been lost in conventional fighting but at the expense of many Japanese lives. The nuke was then only viewed as a massive version of a conventional bomb. Its biggest benefit however was not the end of the US/Japan war but the many years of relative peace that followed simply because major wars became too costly to contemplate. Sadly this perception of "Don't touch me I have nukes" is probably why Putin thought he could invade the Ukraine without any come back. He practiced that in 2014 and did not suffer so why not take a bit more? I don't think he will use nukes. He cannot be sure Ukraine does not already have them on their land. The only solution now is for the Russian people to rise up and get rid of Putin. Sadly that may take some time. My point is. I am against the use of dropping nukes on civilians. It's fairly simple. And not sure why you think it needs justifying? But there you go. If people, especially Americans, are calling for nuclear retaliation in the event of Putin using them on Ukraine, then presumably they would have been happy if Japan or others dropped them on US cities? Of course they wouldn't. Which is the point. " I think we are all against the use of nukes. The USA knew that Japan did not have nukes so was confident that they would not be attacked in retaliation. However, that did not last long after the war ended because a series of countries became nuclear powers. I think the Nato response to Russia nuking Ukraine would be measured. It is however likely that there are theatre nuclear cruise misiles already in Poland awaiting the right time to deploy  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's been weighing on my mind a lot lately. We have friends serving in Poland . Putin's nuclear threats and a call up of reserves is frightening. Just a general question if Putin uses nukes on Ukrainian soil and NATO responds in masse are you all ok with that ?" No. Because most of us will die. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's been weighing on my mind a lot lately. We have friends serving in Poland . Putin's nuclear threats and a call up of reserves is frightening. Just a general question if Putin uses nukes on Ukrainian soil and NATO responds in masse are you all ok with that ?" I think if the Russians were to use nukes the world reaction would be as such as I think nato would send troops in… No country is going to side with Russia after that….. The more plausible scenario is that Russia will use the sham referendums to claim the land as Russian territory to then try a flood them with troops and he say to his people they are invading the motherland! They are not going to attack a nato country as article 5 would be invoked | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only one country has used nuclear weapons in war, on civilians. They had zero consequences. but yet firebombing is acceptable in your eyes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo so your analogy on what is worse is a moot point. Sometimes Blu your thought processes are just plain weird. The point that was being made was that the USA dropped two nukes on Japan and felt able to do so because nobody could retaliate in kind (unlike today). In other words there were no consequences for the USA for using nukes. What has the firebombing of Tokyo got to do with that point? Beyond the some historians calling it a war crime, what were the consequences to the USA of the firebombing? Just cannot follow your thought processes sometimes! AND you still never answered the questions on your private medical insurance in two other threads! I also don't understand what this other war crime has got to do with anything. If the question is: "should a country be nuked in retaliation for nuking someone else?". It seems logical to look at the only time this has happened in human history. Like others I am confused where you are going with this Johnny. The use of nukes in WW2 saved thousands of lives that would have been lost in conventional fighting but at the expense of many Japanese lives. The nuke was then only viewed as a massive version of a conventional bomb. Its biggest benefit however was not the end of the US/Japan war but the many years of relative peace that followed simply because major wars became too costly to contemplate. Sadly this perception of "Don't touch me I have nukes" is probably why Putin thought he could invade the Ukraine without any come back. He practiced that in 2014 and did not suffer so why not take a bit more? I don't think he will use nukes. He cannot be sure Ukraine does not already have them on their land. The only solution now is for the Russian people to rise up and get rid of Putin. Sadly that may take some time. My point is. I am against the use of dropping nukes on civilians. It's fairly simple. And not sure why you think it needs justifying? But there you go. If people, especially Americans, are calling for nuclear retaliation in the event of Putin using them on Ukraine, then presumably they would have been happy if Japan or others dropped them on US cities? Of course they wouldn't. Which is the point. I think we are all against the use of nukes. The USA knew that Japan did not have nukes so was confident that they would not be attacked in retaliation. However, that did not last long after the war ended because a series of countries became nuclear powers. I think the Nato response to Russia nuking Ukraine would be measured. It is however likely that there are theatre nuclear cruise misiles already in Poland awaiting the right time to deploy "the reason the allies dropped the two nuclear bombes were two fold 1 to shorten the war and bring it to an end without having to invade the Japanese main islands with the resulting huge casualty's to the invading force . 2 to let the Russians know they had them they worked and they were prepared to use them if they continued with there expansion . Any fear of Japanese retaliation was pretty much none existent post the battle of midway as the Japs lost the bulk of their carrier force and with it the ability to forward project in any meaningful way .the allies had complete & total air superiority in the pacific theater from late 1943 onwards and with the B29 the means to flatten Japan city by city with virtual impunity . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Where is the Russian Air Force by the way? " Can’t fly them anywhere near close due to the danger of Ukrainian SAMs… hence it’s really all drones and old imprecise weapons | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's been weighing on my mind a lot lately. We have friends serving in Poland . Putin's nuclear threats and a call up of reserves is frightening. Just a general question if Putin uses nukes on Ukrainian soil and NATO responds in masse are you all ok with that ?" Putin is about to annexe the 4 regions as a result of these referenda at which point Russia will recognise them as Russian. As soon as Ukraine attacks any of these regions, Russian military doctrine allows the use of nuclear weapons. This should've been stopped with Crimea but it's too late. Ukraine will be forced to accept a loss of territory by the EU, UN, NATO in my opinion but, in answer to your question, YES, I would be ok with it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's been weighing on my mind a lot lately. We have friends serving in Poland . Putin's nuclear threats and a call up of reserves is frightening. Just a general question if Putin uses nukes on Ukrainian soil and NATO responds in masse are you all ok with that ? Putin is about to annexe the 4 regions as a result of these referenda at which point Russia will recognise them as Russian. As soon as Ukraine attacks any of these regions, Russian military doctrine allows the use of nuclear weapons. This should've been stopped with Crimea but it's too late. Ukraine will be forced to accept a loss of territory by the EU, UN, NATO in my opinion but, in answer to your question, YES, I would be ok with it" I agree it why they having the Sham referendum and why Putin bolstering his forces to counter a NATO "Redline". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's been weighing on my mind a lot lately. We have friends serving in Poland . Putin's nuclear threats and a call up of reserves is frightening. Just a general question if Putin uses nukes on Ukrainian soil and NATO responds in masse are you all ok with that ?" What do they say? you don’t piss on your own doorstep. Putin Nuking Ukraine is not going to happen, fallout travels and who are the nearest neighbours? Also, if he did do that, I suspect his “friends” would turn on him faster than a road runner being chased by a coyote. Because it raises serious question such as if he can do it to one country what stops him from doing it to another country, if there are disagreements. He may however target nuclear reactors because that could easily dismissed as an accident, and easier politically to recover from. There should be UN intervention to protect those sites only. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's been weighing on my mind a lot lately. We have friends serving in Poland . Putin's nuclear threats and a call up of reserves is frightening. Just a general question if Putin uses nukes on Ukrainian soil and NATO responds in masse are you all ok with that ? What do they say? you don’t piss on your own doorstep. Putin Nuking Ukraine is not going to happen, fallout travels and who are the nearest neighbours? Also, if he did do that, I suspect his “friends” would turn on him faster than a road runner being chased by a coyote. Because it raises serious question such as if he can do it to one country what stops him from doing it to another country, if there are disagreements. He may however target nuclear reactors because that could easily dismissed as an accident, and easier politically to recover from. There should be UN intervention to protect those sites only. " Friend with the 101st deployed they just want to end it . I hear it all the time . They are heartbroken warriors that want to do something besides sit on the sidelines. Watching world suffering going on and thier hands are tied. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's been weighing on my mind a lot lately. We have friends serving in Poland . Putin's nuclear threats and a call up of reserves is frightening. Just a general question if Putin uses nukes on Ukrainian soil and NATO responds in masse are you all ok with that ? What do they say? you don’t piss on your own doorstep. Putin Nuking Ukraine is not going to happen, fallout travels and who are the nearest neighbours? Also, if he did do that, I suspect his “friends” would turn on him faster than a road runner being chased by a coyote. Because it raises serious question such as if he can do it to one country what stops him from doing it to another country, if there are disagreements. He may however target nuclear reactors because that could easily dismissed as an accident, and easier politically to recover from. There should be UN intervention to protect those sites only. Friend with the 101st deployed they just want to end it . I hear it all the time . They are heartbroken warriors that want to do something besides sit on the sidelines. Watching world suffering going on and thier hands are tied." we were told to fear the Russians. They are just a 3rd world country with nukes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Where is the Russian Air Force by the way? Can’t fly them anywhere near close due to the danger of Ukrainian SAMs… hence it’s really all drones and old imprecise weapons " Are you a military expert? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Where is the Russian Air Force by the way? Can’t fly them anywhere near close due to the danger of Ukrainian SAMs… hence it’s really all drones and old imprecise weapons Are you a military expert?" They never established air superiority. A crucial component of of combined arms. Russia failed at SEAD operations. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think Putin wants to fllod Ukraine with conscripts and cut off all energy supply to Europe. He will throw as many of his own people into the meat grinder as he needs to. He cannot lose, in his mind it's existential. However if he uses a nuke, China and India will both cut him off entirely. If there is a coup he needs somewhere to run to." Whatever Putin does he would always find a welcome at Mar-a-Lago with his bosom buddy Trump. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think Putin wants to fllod Ukraine with conscripts and cut off all energy supply to Europe. He will throw as many of his own people into the meat grinder as he needs to. He cannot lose, in his mind it's existential. However if he uses a nuke, China and India will both cut him off entirely. If there is a coup he needs somewhere to run to. Whatever Putin does he would always find a welcome at Mar-a-Lago with his bosom buddy Trump." I imagine that guy will soon be residing at somewhat less palatial surroundings. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think Putin wants to fllod Ukraine with conscripts and cut off all energy supply to Europe. He will throw as many of his own people into the meat grinder as he needs to. He cannot lose, in his mind it's existential. However if he uses a nuke, China and India will both cut him off entirely. If there is a coup he needs somewhere to run to. Whatever Putin does he would always find a welcome at Mar-a-Lago with his bosom buddy Trump. I imagine that guy will soon be residing at somewhat less palatial surroundings." I think if it came to that it would be house arrest only, after all it would mean sending his entire secret service protection detail to prison also. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As a long time member of CND I hate to say it but we told you so! Never a weapon made that hasn’t been used twice!" And humanity has never unlearned how to make weapons. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If putin used a nuke I don’t think NATO would use nukes back… but I do think there would be some very tactical laser guided cruise missiles sent back to take out air defences Do that and I think you put the fear of god in them knowing that if they did it again the next response could involve planes…. " dont think they would stop at cruise missiles that would be the softening up think they would be followed by massive air strikes against command control and govt assets especially Russia's rail network as putins miltary is very dependent on rail for movement and resupply destroy that and his ability to fight would diminish exponentially | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Yep we all do it with different topics, me included. We should try and harness all this amazing brain power to do something good!  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I hope the Russian Intelligence Service aren’t monitoring the Fab Forums, they’ll be getting a tonne of intel from all the military experts here...
Yep we all do it with different topics, me included. We should try and harness all this amazing brain power to do something good! "It proves not all men have their brains in their balls like "some" claim. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I hope the Russian Intelligence Service aren’t monitoring the Fab Forums, they’ll be getting a tonne of intel from all the military experts here...
Yep we all do it with different topics, me included. We should try and harness all this amazing brain power to do something good!
It proves not all men have their brains in their balls like "some" claim. "Yep but us fellas all have at least one story about when the little brain took over from the big brain | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I hope the Russian Intelligence Service aren’t monitoring the Fab Forums, they’ll be getting a tonne of intel from all the military experts here...
Yep we all do it with different topics, me included. We should try and harness all this amazing brain power to do something good!
It proves not all men have their brains in their balls like "some" claim.
Yep but us fellas all have at least one story about when the little brain took over from the big brain "I agree. The little brain punches well above its weight. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I hope the Russian Intelligence Service aren’t monitoring the Fab Forums, they’ll be getting a tonne of intel from all the military experts here...
Yep we all do it with different topics, me included. We should try and harness all this amazing brain power to do something good!
It proves not all men have their brains in their balls like "some" claim.
Yep but us fellas all have at least one story about when the little brain took over from the big brain
I agree. The little brain punches well above its weight. "Speak for yourself | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"has a nato member been nuked? tactical nuke fallout travels. i'll ask again ... has a nato country been nuked? should Ukraine be nuked? you're thread has become pointless now. no it hasn't... What is your response if Ukraine gets nuked."If Putin lobs a tactical battlefield nuke on Ukraine, will the West lob a nuke on Moscow, I think that's the drift of your question. Correct me if I'm wrong. The answer to your question will then be absolutely not. There will be lots of sabre rattling, threats, wonderful speeches, mobilisation of troops, increased sanctions but while this takes time all the politicians will be praying for some other bad news so everyone looks the other way for an hour. There is a major difference between the type of nuke that's being discussed to the Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles that we all see launching from subs on TV and films. And Ukraine isn't worth a 3rd WW, if it escalates deals will be done. Hope I'm right regarding nukes but wouldn't stake my house on it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"has a nato member been nuked? tactical nuke fallout travels. i'll ask again ... has a nato country been nuked? should Ukraine be nuked? you're thread has become pointless now. no it hasn't... What is your response if Ukraine gets nuked.
If Putin lobs a tactical battlefield nuke on Ukraine, will the West lob a nuke on Moscow, I think that's the drift of your question.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
The answer to your question will then be absolutely not.
There will be lots of sabre rattling, threats, wonderful speeches, mobilisation of troops, increased sanctions but while this takes time all the politicians will be praying for some other bad news so everyone looks the other way for an hour.
There is a major difference between the type of nuke that's being discussed to the Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles that we all see launching from subs on TV and films.
And Ukraine isn't worth a 3rd WW, if it escalates deals will be done.
Hope I'm right regarding nukes but wouldn't stake my house on it.
"Putin has made it pretty clear he doesn't intend to stop at Ukraine, though | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There was a comment about the Russian airforce not being present much. Not to come across as an expert but think about the size of the air force, Google it if you need to. Then try to imagine how you would deploy those forces if you had to defend the border of the biggest country in the world." they can have the biggest bestest airforce in the world but if they havent got tactical air superiority over the battle field they are just targets and vulnerable targets at that especially helicopters which takes away mobility and support for ground troops .the Russians have failed to establish air superiority hence being at first held them pushed back.they are now finding their reliance on rail transport for resuply is costing them dearly as they are restricted to operating within 100 miles of vulnerable rail hubs or theyre logistics tail is restricted and vulnerable | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As a long time member of CND I hate to say it but we told you so!" Actually, I would say the opposite. At the break up of the Soviet Union Ukraine was a nuclear armed state. It is the only nuclear state to have unilaterally disarmed. So it is ironic that it now finds itself potentially threatened with nuclear weapons and exposes the unilateral disarmament peddled by CND as bollocks. Going back to the OPs question, I doubt NATO will respond to a TNW use in Ukraine. More likely is it will supply matching technology to the Ukrainians. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As a long time member of CND I hate to say it but we told you so! Actually, I would say the opposite. At the break up of the Soviet Union Ukraine was a nuclear armed state. It is the only nuclear state to have unilaterally disarmed. So it is ironic that it now finds itself potentially threatened with nuclear weapons and exposes the unilateral disarmament peddled by CND as bollocks. Going back to the OPs question, I doubt NATO will respond to a TNW use in Ukraine. More likely is it will supply matching technology to the Ukrainians. " it's a great excuse to invoke article 5 . Fallout can be considered a attack. Just like Russia trying the referendums. It's a excuse. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There was a comment about the Russian airforce not being present much. Not to come across as an expert but think about the size of the air force, Google it if you need to. Then try to imagine how you would deploy those forces if you had to defend the border of the biggest country in the world." Having thousands of planes is one thing, keeping them maintained with a regular supply of spare parts and structured maintenance programme to keep them in the air is quite another thing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As a long time member of CND I hate to say it but we told you so! Never a weapon made that hasn’t been used twice!" Probably better CND didn't get their way as Russia would have come uninvited to our shores many years ago. Let hope what we, and NATO have is enough to keep Russia at bay. I would love a world without Nukes but reality is, we cannot ever be without them as someone will always pull the Ace card and take advantage of those without. If UK and Russia had not done a deal with Ukraine to give their's up, do you honestly believe what we see today would be happening. I was told at the time, we'll live to regret letting them disarm Ukraine and 30 years later - here we are. On the eve of WW3.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To be fair Ukraine would probably be a useful NATO member given the amount of military materiel it's been gifted." And for the spirit that they have shown. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To be fair Ukraine would probably be a useful NATO member given the amount of military materiel it's been gifted. And for the spirit that they have shown." 18 more HIMARS heading there. Ukrainian Army have been lions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Absolutely.. Sacrifice them and their losses and we'll all pay the price. Reinstatement of the USSR.. Frankie says, "no more".." My impression is that Putin is more interested in empire, and revenge. Not just the USSR | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To be fair Ukraine would probably be a useful NATO member given the amount of military materiel it's been gifted." So would Afghanistan after how much America left there lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To be fair Ukraine would probably be a useful NATO member given the amount of military materiel it's been gifted. So would Afghanistan after how much America left there lol" you do realize it's older equipment intended for the Afghan military. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To be fair Ukraine would probably be a useful NATO member given the amount of military materiel it's been gifted. So would Afghanistan after how much America left there lol you do realize it's older equipment intended for the Afghan military." The launderette moves from one country to another and the washing never stops. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To be fair Ukraine would probably be a useful NATO member given the amount of military materiel it's been gifted. So would Afghanistan after how much America left there lol you do realize it's older equipment intended for the Afghan military. Older equipment. Intended for good use. But afghan military bailed. So how is the Taliban going to reverse engineer parts for the equipment ali baba ? The launderette moves from one country to another and the washing never stops. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Absolutely.. Sacrifice them and their losses and we'll all pay the price. Reinstatement of the USSR.. Frankie says, "no more".. My impression is that Putin is more interested in empire, and revenge. Not just the USSR" He is definitely getting more Revved up in his Western hate speeches as time goes on. Catastrophe. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Absolutely.. Sacrifice them and their losses and we'll all pay the price. Reinstatement of the USSR.. Frankie says, "no more".. My impression is that Putin is more interested in empire, and revenge. Not just the USSR He is definitely getting more Revved up in his Western hate speeches as time goes on. Catastrophe. " Typical Dick .. tater.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It does not bear thinking about what we may witness in our time. Every year something bad happens same sayings "its 199?, these things don't happen" to "its 20??, these things don't happen". They said the same in Europe in 1939, Pearl Harbour in 1941, Bosnia 1991 Rwanda in 1990, Bosnua in 1992, Twin Towers of 2001, IS and many other genocidal events. Before that, the Crusades and many other devastating human on human destruction. "These things don't happen" is not correct terminology, it's "if it can happen, it will likely happen". It's all down to insanity of the madman willing to commit the atrocity. Nothing, anymore surprises me at whatever cost. Humans are monkeys, Shock the Monkey inside and it will kill other Monkeys. What actually is the Human Condition? So, when others laugh at suggestions of what's possible, they need to look back in recent history as the proof is there." Yes but other than that everything is cool? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It does not bear thinking about what we may witness in our time. Every year something bad happens same sayings "its 199?, these things don't happen" to "its 20??, these things don't happen". They said the same in Europe in 1939, Pearl Harbour in 1941, Bosnia 1991 Rwanda in 1990, Bosnua in 1992, Twin Towers of 2001, IS and many other genocidal events. Before that, the Crusades and many other devastating human on human destruction. "These things don't happen" is not correct terminology, it's "if it can happen, it will likely happen". It's all down to insanity of the madman willing to commit the atrocity. Nothing, anymore surprises me at whatever cost. Humans are monkeys, Shock the Monkey inside and it will kill other Monkeys. What actually is the Human Condition? So, when others laugh at suggestions of what's possible, they need to look back in recent history as the proof is there." take a Xanax and calm down. This about old school colonialism. Annexing territory that is beneficial to national interests. Plain and simple. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He is running out of road. His army is getting rolled back. Hundreds of thousands of people are fleeing the draft. His conscripts will fail against battle hardened Ukrainians who will have even more modern weapons while his are running out. In my opinion if he was to try and use a nuke his own generals would remove him." That is of course your opinion? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He is running out of road. His army is getting rolled back. Hundreds of thousands of people are fleeing the draft. His conscripts will fail against battle hardened Ukrainians who will have even more modern weapons while his are running out. In my opinion if he was to try and use a nuke his own generals would remove him. That is of course your opinion?" well he not wrong. Valery Gerasimov is a tactical genius. He has been regulated to nothing because he disagrees with Putin. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He is running out of road. His army is getting rolled back. Hundreds of thousands of people are fleeing the draft. His conscripts will fail against battle hardened Ukrainians who will have even more modern weapons while his are running out. In my opinion if he was to try and use a nuke his own generals would remove him. That is of course your opinion?" Well I can't predict the future obviously. But where would he hit with a nuke? Ukraine? The land he wants to take? Where the prevailing wind takes any fallout straight to Russia? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It does not bear thinking about what we may witness in our time. Every year something bad happens same sayings "its 199?, these things don't happen" to "its 20??, these things don't happen". They said the same in Europe in 1939, Pearl Harbour in 1941, Bosnia 1991 Rwanda in 1990, Bosnua in 1992, Twin Towers of 2001, IS and many other genocidal events. Before that, the Crusades and many other devastating human on human destruction. "These things don't happen" is not correct terminology, it's "if it can happen, it will likely happen". It's all down to insanity of the madman willing to commit the atrocity. Nothing, anymore surprises me at whatever cost. Humans are monkeys, Shock the Monkey inside and it will kill other Monkeys. What actually is the Human Condition? So, when others laugh at suggestions of what's possible, they need to look back in recent history as the proof is there. Yes but other than that everything is cool?" Why wouldn't it be? Each of our destinations is certain, just depends which road is taken to get there.. Very weird how those call others willing to accept fate as it arrives as its somehow deranged or frantic!! Do I have any control over Putin or any other madman wants to do? No - so why is it not cool? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He is running out of road. His army is getting rolled back. Hundreds of thousands of people are fleeing the draft. His conscripts will fail against battle hardened Ukrainians who will have even more modern weapons while his are running out. In my opinion if he was to try and use a nuke his own generals would remove him. That is of course your opinion? Well I can't predict the future obviously. But where would he hit with a nuke? Ukraine? The land he wants to take? Where the prevailing wind takes any fallout straight to Russia? " More logical at those sending weapons to support Ukraine. Think of anywhere? Oh, that Tsunami Nuke.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He is running out of road. His army is getting rolled back. Hundreds of thousands of people are fleeing the draft. His conscripts will fail against battle hardened Ukrainians who will have even more modern weapons while his are running out. In my opinion if he was to try and use a nuke his own generals would remove him. That is of course your opinion? Well I can't predict the future obviously. But where would he hit with a nuke? Ukraine? The land he wants to take? Where the prevailing wind takes any fallout straight to Russia? More logical at those sending weapons to support Ukraine. Think of anywhere? Oh, that Tsunami Nuke.." I don't think so. Putin is talking like this because he wishes to scare us. If he tried to order a nuclear strike on a NATO country his army would refuse and it would be the end of him. To survive (as in not be killed) he has to remain in power. He is afraid that if he loses the war that will happen. I think he is desperate to hold on to some land so that he can declare victory, but the Ukrainians are not going to let him do that. The best thing that could happen is that he is removed and blamed by the Russians for the whole thing. But I don't have a crystal ball. I think it needs to be made very clear that if he were to use a nuke it would be the end for him personally. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He is running out of road. His army is getting rolled back. Hundreds of thousands of people are fleeing the draft. His conscripts will fail against battle hardened Ukrainians who will have even more modern weapons while his are running out. In my opinion if he was to try and use a nuke his own generals would remove him." The US used atomic weapons "as the casually count would ultimately be lower". If you think his Generals will save us, I'd read the story of 'the night of the Long Knives' from Germany, when Hitler cleared put those that wouldn't follow or believe in his demands. It could go either way.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's been weighing on my mind a lot lately. We have friends serving in Poland . Putin's nuclear threats and a call up of reserves is frightening. Just a general question if Putin uses nukes on Ukrainian soil and NATO responds in masse are you all ok with that ?" Absolutely, would prefer to die in nuclear hellfire than live in a world where any idiot with a nuke can start using them to bl4ckmail people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Think Ukraine may become a second Syria. Hope not, but wouldn't put money on it, a kind of extended stalemate." Syria is not getting western support like Ukraine is. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Syria was invaded because of the abused, human rights abused..." but yet Western values are incorrect. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's been weighing on my mind a lot lately. We have friends serving in Poland . Putin's nuclear threats and a call up of reserves is frightening. Just a general question if Putin uses nukes on Ukrainian soil and NATO responds in masse are you all ok with that ? Absolutely, would prefer to die in nuclear hellfire than live in a world where any idiot with a nuke can start using them to bl4ckmail people." Hate to break it to you, but this has pretty much been global geo-politics for the last 70 years. A handful of states run by idiots bl4ckmailing the rest. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Think Ukraine may become a second Syria. Hope not, but wouldn't put money on it, a kind of extended stalemate. Syria is not getting western support like Ukraine is. " I really hope I'm wrong and it doesn't become a Syria but western support won't make too much difference in a long protracted haul. Really not too sure what a realistic outcome could be in the short term. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
