Poo tin... Put@in...

blazing_saddles

MattFalle said:

.

personally we feel no one is next as Russia is currently getting smashed to bits on the ground and their daily troop/equipt losses are, frankly, very very eye opening.

and their military isshit.

A military expert reckons due to said losses, they have 3 weeks tops before their invasion becomes a retreat.

First.Aspect

blazing_saddles said:

MattFalle said:

.

personally we feel no one is next as Russia is currently getting smashed to bits on the ground and their daily troop/equipt losses are, frankly, very very eye opening.

and their military isshit.

A military expert reckons due to said losses, they have 3 weeks tops before their invasion becomes a retreat.

Link?

Sounds hopeful, but then you see what indiscriminate shelling has done in about 5 days....

blazing_saddles

First.Aspect said:

blazing_saddles said:

MattFalle said:

.

personally we feel no one is next as Russia is currently getting smashed to bits on the ground and their daily troop/equipt losses are, frankly, very very eye opening.

and their military isshit.

A military expert reckons due to said losses, they have 3 weeks tops before their invasion becomes a retreat.

Link?

Sounds hopeful, but then you see what indiscriminate shelling has done in about 5 days....

He gives the Russian airforce a fortnight.
The original link has gone but it’s also in the Torygraph.
I will go fetch.

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/russian-aircraft-losses-ukraine-unsustainable-154300875.html

MattFalle

Tbf, theres lots of stuff about their military that we have been briefed on that isn't out and about.

they've gone from "ooooh, don't make them angry" to "yeah, i'm happy to have a pop at that. but i'm still not using that issuedshit".".

MattFalle

blazing_saddles said:

MattFalle said:

.

personally we feel no one is next as Russia is currently getting smashed to bits on the ground and their daily troop/equipt losses are, frankly, very very eye opening.

and their military isshit.

A military expert reckons due to said losses, they have 3 weeks tops before their invasion becomes a retreat.

minimum of 500 yesterday alone, a thousand the day before.

as i've said before, its just incredibly sad

morstar

Not that I’m suggesting we should find out but…

You wonder how many warheads are attached to serviceable missiles.

MattFalle

Pross said:

MattFalle said:

.

personally we feel no one is next as Russia is currently getting smashed to bits on the ground and their daily troop/equipt losses are, frankly, very very eye opening.

and their military isshit.

My biggest worry there is that if their military is shown to be weak there's a bigger risk that the mad man will go nuclear to assert his power.

we discussed the nuclear option and, tbh, if their nukes are asshit as everything else they have, its not a massive worry.

briantrumpet

First.Aspect said:

blazing_saddles said:

MattFalle said:

.

personally we feel no one is next as Russia is currently getting smashed to bits on the ground and their daily troop/equipt losses are, frankly, very very eye opening.

and their military isshit.

A military expert reckons due to said losses, they have 3 weeks tops before their invasion becomes a retreat.

Link?

Sounds hopeful, but then you see what indiscriminate shelling has done in about 5 days....

It's truly horrible (I still see the scars of the blitz in Exeter, and mourn what was lost), but if that's all they've got left they can do...

briantrumpet

A few more bombs not going to reach their target. I wonder how many more of these they can afford to lose.

https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1500911583291129860

imposter2.0

AndyG785 said:

Ballysmate said:

For real?
NATO has stated that they will fulfil its obligations should Russia tread on an inch of its members' soil.
You want them to escalate the conflict to stop Putin from lashing out. Can't see how that works.
And you arrogantly advocate "we" give him half of Ukraine. How does that solve the problem of an occupying force on a resisting country? May turn Ukraine into Russia's Vietnam.

Is that the same Western powers that promised Ukraine they would honour their security if they gave up Nuclear weapons?

Just don't see how you can be so certain the US will risk nuclear destruction for Latvia, they aren't willing to risk it for Ukraine despite the genocide, why would they for a far smaller country?
I have no such certainty, i suspect once Putin waves Nuclear war about we will shrink away as we have done over his last 3 invasions.

As i ve pointed out, we carved up eastern europe with no concern for what the countries involved wanted, we'll do the same for Ukraine if it suits us.

Putin will carry on until he has taken Kyiv and the south of the country, at that point he will negotiate and the place will be partitioned, this is inevitable.

Aside, when i use "we" its not me personally but western alliances, mainly the US, i d have thought that was obvious.

Nick - is that you..??

First.Aspect

MattFalle said:

Pross said:

MattFalle said:

.

personally we feel no one is next as Russia is currently getting smashed to bits on the ground and their daily troop/equipt losses are, frankly, very very eye opening.

and their military isshit.

My biggest worry there is that if their military is shown to be weak there's a bigger risk that the mad man will go nuclear to assert his power.

we discussed the nuclear option and, tbh, if their nukes are asshit as everything else they have, its not a massive worry.

Yeah I don't think you understand the implications. Not a kind of warfare anyone has any experience of, including you. If the ones they set off in WWII are like a tiny cake sample in the supermarket, the ones they have now are like the whole cake.

And they would effectively go off in pairs. Bit like exchanging amazon vouchers with the relatives at Xmas.

MattFalle

First.Aspect said:

MattFalle said:

Pross said:

MattFalle said:

.

personally we feel no one is next as Russia is currently getting smashed to bits on the ground and their daily troop/equipt losses are, frankly, very very eye opening.

and their military isshit.

My biggest worry there is that if their military is shown to be weak there's a bigger risk that the mad man will go nuclear to assert his power.

we discussed the nuclear option and, tbh, if their nukes are asshit as everything else they have, its not a massive worry.

Yeah I don't think you understand the implications. Not a kind of warfare anyone has any experience of, including you. If the ones they set off in WWII are like a tiny cake sample in the supermarket, the ones they have now are like the whole cake.

And they would effectively go off in pairs. Bit like exchanging amazon vouchers with the relatives at Xmas.

yeah, i don't think you teally understand how the nuclear option works.

mad vlad just hasn't got a big red button on his desk.

its all a lot more complicated.

MattFalle

briantrumpet said:

this woman really is a fuckingidiot.

briantrumpet

MattFalle said:

briantrumpet said:

this woman really is a fuckingidiot.

And probably a drunk idiot.

First.Aspect

MattFalle said:

First.Aspect said:

MattFalle said:

Pross said:

MattFalle said:

.

personally we feel no one is next as Russia is currently getting smashed to bits on the ground and their daily troop/equipt losses are, frankly, very very eye opening.

and their military isshit.

My biggest worry there is that if their military is shown to be weak there's a bigger risk that the mad man will go nuclear to assert his power.

we discussed the nuclear option and, tbh, if their nukes are asshit as everything else they have, its not a massive worry.

Yeah I don't think you understand the implications. Not a kind of warfare anyone has any experience of, including you. If the ones they set off in WWII are like a tiny cake sample in the supermarket, the ones they have now are like the whole cake.

And they would effectively go off in pairs. Bit like exchanging amazon vouchers with the relatives at Xmas.

yeah, i don't think you teally understand how the nuclear option works.

mad vlad just hasn't got a big red button on his desk.

its all a lot more complicated.

That's not the same as saying the weapons themselves are a bit shit.

The technology isn't that complicated - basically strap a couple of blocks of something a bit warm to a V2 separated by some boron, then attach to an egg timer and a motor to pull the boron out.

If 1 in 100 actually work, we are all pretty fecked. If several detonate accidentally cos they are abitshit, we are fecked.

I don't think it is all that likely to happen though.

More likely is they do something really stupid to one of the power stations as a good bye present.

johngti

MattFalle said:

First.Aspect said:

MattFalle said:

Pross said:

MattFalle said:

.

personally we feel no one is next as Russia is currently getting smashed to bits on the ground and their daily troop/equipt losses are, frankly, very very eye opening.

and their military isshit.

My biggest worry there is that if their military is shown to be weak there's a bigger risk that the mad man will go nuclear to assert his power.

we discussed the nuclear option and, tbh, if their nukes are asshit as everything else they have, its not a massive worry.

Yeah I don't think you understand the implications. Not a kind of warfare anyone has any experience of, including you. If the ones they set off in WWII are like a tiny cake sample in the supermarket, the ones they have now are like the whole cake.

And they would effectively go off in pairs. Bit like exchanging amazon vouchers with the relatives at Xmas.

yeah, i don't think you teally understand how the nuclear option works.

mad vlad just hasn't got a big red button on his desk.

its all a lot more complicated.

A colleague (and friend) is Romanian and has been getting really stressed by the whole thing. So I put my MF stylee sensible hat on and said (a) the nukes are such a big deal you can’t even think about it, (b) there’s a whole system that has to be followed to launch anything, including the agreement of two senior generals, and (c) nobody joins the army anywhere because they want to see their country destroyed, especially those that get promoted to very senior positions. And Russia launching nukes = Russia is no more.

Hope you’re proud of me MF

MattFalle

tbh, i'm actually quite surprised no one has really noticed the NATO/Soviet bloc shenanigans in Romania before.

that schiz has been happening for years.

shirley_basso

Keep it up for all of us!

MattFalle

First.Aspect said:

MattFalle said:

First.Aspect said:

MattFalle said:

Pross said:

MattFalle said:

.

personally we feel no one is next as Russia is currently getting smashed to bits on the ground and their daily troop/equipt losses are, frankly, very very eye opening.

and their military isshit.

My biggest worry there is that if their military is shown to be weak there's a bigger risk that the mad man will go nuclear to assert his power.

we discussed the nuclear option and, tbh, if their nukes are asshit as everything else they have, its not a massive worry.

Yeah I don't think you understand the implications. Not a kind of warfare anyone has any experience of, including you. If the ones they set off in WWII are like a tiny cake sample in the supermarket, the ones they have now are like the whole cake.

And they would effectively go off in pairs. Bit like exchanging amazon vouchers with the relatives at Xmas.

yeah, i don't think you teally understand how the nuclear option works.

mad vlad just hasn't got a big red button on his desk.

its all a lot more complicated.

That's not the same as saying the weapons themselves are a bit censored .

The technology isn't that complicated - basically strap a couple of blocks of something a bit warm to a V2 separated by some boron, then attach to an egg timer and a motor to pull the boron out.

If 1 in 100 actually work, we are all pretty fecked. If several detonate accidentally cos they are abitshit, we are fecked.

I don't think it is all that likely to happen though.

More likely is they do something really stupid to one of the power stations as a good bye present.

there is all very well and nice but you have to get there first.

all these people saying "we're gonna die before City win the Premiership" aren't really being too overly rational.

i'm not sure what i'd go for tbh. there would probably be a good old CB session beforehand then it would all get dramatic.

pangolin

MattFalle said:

First.Aspect said:

MattFalle said:

First.Aspect said:

MattFalle said:

Pross said:

MattFalle said:

.

personally we feel no one is next as Russia is currently getting smashed to bits on the ground and their daily troop/equipt losses are, frankly, very very eye opening.

and their military isshit.

My biggest worry there is that if their military is shown to be weak there's a bigger risk that the mad man will go nuclear to assert his power.

we discussed the nuclear option and, tbh, if their nukes are asshit as everything else they have, its not a massive worry.

Yeah I don't think you understand the implications. Not a kind of warfare anyone has any experience of, including you. If the ones they set off in WWII are like a tiny cake sample in the supermarket, the ones they have now are like the whole cake.

And they would effectively go off in pairs. Bit like exchanging amazon vouchers with the relatives at Xmas.

yeah, i don't think you teally understand how the nuclear option works.

mad vlad just hasn't got a big red button on his desk.

its all a lot more complicated.

That's not the same as saying the weapons themselves are a bit censored .

The technology isn't that complicated - basically strap a couple of blocks of something a bit warm to a V2 separated by some boron, then attach to an egg timer and a motor to pull the boron out.

If 1 in 100 actually work, we are all pretty fecked. If several detonate accidentally cos they are abitshit, we are fecked.

I don't think it is all that likely to happen though.

More likely is they do something really stupid to one of the power stations as a good bye present.

there is all very well and nice but you have to get there first.

all these people saying "we're gonna die before City win the Premiership" aren't really being too overly rational.

i'm not sure what i'd go for tbh. there would probably be a good old CB session beforehand then it would all get dramatic.

CB = ...? Conventional battle? Bombing?

MattFalle

chemical

biological

the CB of CBRN

ballysmate

AndyG785 said:

Ballysmate said:

For real?
NATO has stated that they will fulfil its obligations should Russia tread on an inch of its members' soil.
You want them to escalate the conflict to stop Putin from lashing out. Can't see how that works.
And you arrogantly advocate "we" give him half of Ukraine. How does that solve the problem of an occupying force on a resisting country? May turn Ukraine into Russia's Vietnam.

Is that the same Western powers that promised Ukraine they would honour their security if they gave up Nuclear weapons?

Just don't see how you can be so certain the US will risk nuclear destruction for Latvia, they aren't willing to risk it for Ukraine despite the genocide, why would they for a far smaller country?
I have no such certainty, i suspect once Putin waves Nuclear war about we will shrink away as we have done over his last 3 invasions.

As i ve pointed out, we carved up eastern europe with no concern for what the countries involved wanted, we'll do the same for Ukraine if it suits us.

Putin will carry on until he has taken Kyiv and the south of the country, at that point he will negotiate and the place will be partitioned, this is inevitable.

Aside, when i use "we" its not me personally but western alliances, mainly the US, i d have thought that was obvious.

First you say that we should threaten military action to support Ukraine then you say that we can't be certain that Nato would act to support a member nation like Latvia.
Strange.

First.Aspect

MattFalle said:

First.Aspect said:

MattFalle said:

First.Aspect said:

MattFalle said:

Pross said:

MattFalle said:

.

personally we feel no one is next as Russia is currently getting smashed to bits on the ground and their daily troop/equipt losses are, frankly, very very eye opening.

and their military isshit.

My biggest worry there is that if their military is shown to be weak there's a bigger risk that the mad man will go nuclear to assert his power.

we discussed the nuclear option and, tbh, if their nukes are asshit as everything else they have, its not a massive worry.

Yeah I don't think you understand the implications. Not a kind of warfare anyone has any experience of, including you. If the ones they set off in WWII are like a tiny cake sample in the supermarket, the ones they have now are like the whole cake.

And they would effectively go off in pairs. Bit like exchanging amazon vouchers with the relatives at Xmas.

yeah, i don't think you teally understand how the nuclear option works.

mad vlad just hasn't got a big red button on his desk.

its all a lot more complicated.

That's not the same as saying the weapons themselves are a bit censored .

The technology isn't that complicated - basically strap a couple of blocks of something a bit warm to a V2 separated by some boron, then attach to an egg timer and a motor to pull the boron out.

If 1 in 100 actually work, we are all pretty fecked. If several detonate accidentally cos they are abitshit, we are fecked.

I don't think it is all that likely to happen though.

More likely is they do something really stupid to one of the power stations as a good bye present.

there is all very well and nice but you have to get there first.

all these people saying "we're gonna die before City win the Premiership" aren't really being too overly rational.

i'm not sure what i'd go for tbh. there would probably be a good old CB session beforehand then it would all get dramatic.

Yes, so not the same as abitshit.

I haven't heard any analysis other than we are a long way from that happeming either, though.

Here's one for you - is it easier or harder for the US to launch one?

thegreatdivide

If I was Putin I’d be very worried about the Ukrainian farmers. They’re f@cking tooled up big time now. Just watched some lads driving a fully working, fully loaded T-72 back to the ranch.

MattFalle

First.Aspect said:

MattFalle said:

First.Aspect said:

MattFalle said:

First.Aspect said:

MattFalle said:

Pross said:

MattFalle said:

.

personally we feel no one is next as Russia is currently getting smashed to bits on the ground and their daily troop/equipt losses are, frankly, very very eye opening.

and their military isshit.

My biggest worry there is that if their military is shown to be weak there's a bigger risk that the mad man will go nuclear to assert his power.

we discussed the nuclear option and, tbh, if their nukes are asshit as everything else they have, its not a massive worry.

Yeah I don't think you understand the implications. Not a kind of warfare anyone has any experience of, including you. If the ones they set off in WWII are like a tiny cake sample in the supermarket, the ones they have now are like the whole cake.

And they would effectively go off in pairs. Bit like exchanging amazon vouchers with the relatives at Xmas.

yeah, i don't think you teally understand how the nuclear option works.

mad vlad just hasn't got a big red button on his desk.

its all a lot more complicated.

That's not the same as saying the weapons themselves are a bit censored .

The technology isn't that complicated - basically strap a couple of blocks of something a bit warm to a V2 separated by some boron, then attach to an egg timer and a motor to pull the boron out.

If 1 in 100 actually work, we are all pretty fecked. If several detonate accidentally cos they are abitshit, we are fecked.

I don't think it is all that likely to happen though.

More likely is they do something really stupid to one of the power stations as a good bye present.

there is all very well and nice but you have to get there first.

all these people saying "we're gonna die before City win the Premiership" aren't really being too overly rational.

i'm not sure what i'd go for tbh. there would probably be a good old CB session beforehand then it would all get dramatic.

Yes, so not the same as abitshit.

I haven't heard any analysis other than we are a long way from that happeming either, though.

Here's one for you - is it easier or harder for the US to launch one?

how do you mean re US?

someone getting two blokes to turn a key and enter a code?

rick_chasey

thegreatdivide said:

If I was Putin I’d be very worried about the Ukrainian farmers. They’re f@cking tooled up big time now. Just watched some lads driving a fully working, fully loaded T-72 back to the ranch.

The biggest military donors of kit have been…..Russia 😬

MattFalle

thegreatdivide said:

If I was Putin I’d be very worried about the Ukrainian farmers. They’re f@cking tooled up big time now. Just watched some lads driving a fully working, fully loaded T-72 back to the ranch.

link?

sounds quite funny.

thegreatdivide

MattFalle said:

thegreatdivide said:

If I was Putin I’d be very worried about the Ukrainian farmers. They’re f@cking tooled up big time now. Just watched some lads driving a fully working, fully loaded T-72 back to the ranch.

link?

sounds quite funny.

https://twitter.com/alvarodel_gado/status/1499023844794945547?s=21

There are others.

First.Aspect

MattFalle said:

First.Aspect said:

MattFalle said:

First.Aspect said:

MattFalle said:

First.Aspect said:

MattFalle said:

Pross said:

MattFalle said:

.

personally we feel no one is next as Russia is currently getting smashed to bits on the ground and their daily troop/equipt losses are, frankly, very very eye opening.

and their military isshit.

My biggest worry there is that if their military is shown to be weak there's a bigger risk that the mad man will go nuclear to assert his power.

we discussed the nuclear option and, tbh, if their nukes are asshit as everything else they have, its not a massive worry.

Yeah I don't think you understand the implications. Not a kind of warfare anyone has any experience of, including you. If the ones they set off in WWII are like a tiny cake sample in the supermarket, the ones they have now are like the whole cake.

And they would effectively go off in pairs. Bit like exchanging amazon vouchers with the relatives at Xmas.

yeah, i don't think you teally understand how the nuclear option works.

mad vlad just hasn't got a big red button on his desk.

its all a lot more complicated.

That's not the same as saying the weapons themselves are a bit censored .

The technology isn't that complicated - basically strap a couple of blocks of something a bit warm to a V2 separated by some boron, then attach to an egg timer and a motor to pull the boron out.

If 1 in 100 actually work, we are all pretty fecked. If several detonate accidentally cos they are abitshit, we are fecked.

I don't think it is all that likely to happen though.

More likely is they do something really stupid to one of the power stations as a good bye present.

there is all very well and nice but you have to get there first.

all these people saying "we're gonna die before City win the Premiership" aren't really being too overly rational.

i'm not sure what i'd go for tbh. there would probably be a good old CB session beforehand then it would all get dramatic.

Yes, so not the same as abitshit.

I haven't heard any analysis other than we are a long way from that happeming either, though.

Here's one for you - is it easier or harder for the US to launch one?

how do you mean re US?

someone getting two blokes to turn a key and enter a code?

Pretty sure in both cases when it comes down to it, it is about as complicated as getting the starship enterprise to self destruct.

If your argument is that putin has to go through a certain sequence if steps before his command will actually end up in the touch paper being lit, rather than being assasinated by one of his close friends, what about the US?

john80

Pross said:

MattFalle said:

.

personally we feel no one is next as Russia is currently getting smashed to bits on the ground and their daily troop/equipt losses are, frankly, very very eye opening.

and their military isshit.

My biggest worry there is that if their military is shown to be weak there's a bigger risk that the mad man will go nuclear to assert his power.

So he drops a nuclear bomb on say a Ukraine city and wipes out the population. Then what. Is this the kind of act that makes the rest of the country more or less hostile. Would we in the west ever deal with them economically again assuming we don't launch one back when brinkmanship goes wrong. There is a few downsides to the nuclear game plan.