Go ![]() | New ![]() | Find ![]() | Notify ![]() | Tools ![]() | Reply ![]() | ![]() |
Gracie Allen is my personal savior! |
I don't think that's true. The Russians aren't known for precision strikes, and nukes are kinda sloppy anyway. Once they're in play everyone gets to worry about radiation. We already know that just shunning and sanctioning Russia doesn't alter Russia's behavior, so there's no reason to think that they would stop Putin from tossing more nukes around once he decides to use one. Incidentally, the background noise has reached "full nutso" levels. Some Russian TV host made up a threat of "retaliatory strikes" he claimed came from Boris Johnson, the Brit Prime Minister. In response, the TV host said Britain would be wiped out by one ten-warhead Russian missile, or by a 1,600 foot tsunami of radioactive seawater generated by detonating a nuclear missile under water. From Kyle Mizokami at Popular Mechanics: http://www.yahoo.com/finance/n...ilate-164100861.htmlThis message has been edited. Last edited by: Il Cattivo, | |||
|
Freethinker |
As this seems to have turned into to the “Nukes?” thread, my thoughts. First, I believe that anyone who predicts what Putin will do is just engaging in mental self-pleasuring. That doesn’t mean, though, that it’s impossible to make reasonable guesses about what could happen in various situations. Could he decide that use of (a) tactical nuclear weapon(s) might gain him some significant tactical advantages, not least that it would demonstrate his seriousness to the world? I believe so. Further, if the threat of his using nukes has some people’s backbones turning to jelly, what would actual use do to that crowd? If he did, would that lead to a general nuclear exchange with New York, Moscow, D.C., and other major cities on both sides being turned into radioactive wastelands? Unlikely. I agree that the third time a nuclear weapon is used in warfare it would be crossing a line that would best not be crossed and could have profound consequences in the future, but I doubt the worst would happen right away. And if it didn’t happen right away, the consequences of that use would be much less than many people fear. Nuclear weapons, like shooting without hearing protection, have an almost mythic hold on people who don’t know much about either. Just as shooting without hearing protection was what people always did at one time and many of those people can still hear reasonably well, prior to the nuclear test ban treaties starting about 1963, atmospheric tests exposed significant populations to one degree of fallout or another. Many of those people are still alive and never developed diseases attributable to that exposure. What’s more, using a nuclear weapon doesn’t render the area permanently uninhabitable, and certainly not that it can’t be moved through. There are photos of General Groves, Robert Oppenheimer, and others walking around the ground zero site of the Trinity test. ![]() That doesn’t mean that shooting without hearing protection or setting off nuclear weapons is a good thing, but neither is necessarily the end of life as we know it. ► 6.4/93.6 “It is peace for our time.” — Neville the Appeaser | |||
|
Member |
It was a 'special operation' ![]() Kremlin to family members of Moskva cruiser crew: Ship sank by accident, no war compensation
| |||
|
Member |
^^^^^^^^^^^^ How stupid! Screwing your own people in a special way. No good can come of this for the Russian people. | |||
|
A Grateful American![]() |
But, he is making up for it by saving the world from the Biolabs and the Ukrainian children from the Nazis. (I know, you just hate clicking in links. I know...) (sarcastic emoticon)>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<(sarcastic emoticon) "the meaning of life, is to give life meaning" ✡ Ani Yehudi אני יהודי Le'olam lo shuv לעולם לא שוב! | |||
|
Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 |
![]() | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|