Poo tin... Put@in...
Comments
-
So many others though not all tanksthegreatdivide said:MattFalle said:
link?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.
sounds quite funny.
There are others.
Plenty more too if you go looking0 -
Where and how are their men being killed?MattFalle said:
minimum of 500 yesterday alone, a thousand the day before.blazing_saddles said:
A military expert reckons due to said losses, they have 3 weeks tops before their invasion becomes a retreat.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.
as i've said before, its just incredibly sad
I don't mean what towns but what sort of situations.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
My concern is more he's about to suffer the humiliation of defeat, is possibly on his last legs anyway and just goes all in on those he sees as having caused it i.e. not just Ukraine. I'm not saying it's likely but he doesn't strike me as rational and people with egos can react badly to the risk of humiliation.john80 said:
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.Pross said:
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.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.0 -
Surely you can spot a troll by now?ballysmate said:
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.AndyG785 said:
Is that the same Western powers that promised Ukraine they would honour their security if they gave up Nuclear weapons?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.
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.
Strange.0 -
the us managed to block trump quite effectively so i'd say that they ate quite good at not allowing people to do stoopid stuff.First.Aspect said:
Pretty sure in both cases when it comes down to it, it is about as complicated as getting the starship enterprise to self destruct.MattFalle said:
how do you mean re US?First.Aspect said:
Yes, so not the same as abitshit.MattFalle said:
there is all very well and nice but you have to get there first.First.Aspect said:
That's not the same as saying the weapons themselves are a bit censored .MattFalle said:
yeah, i don't think you teally understand how the nuclear option works.First.Aspect said:
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.MattFalle said:
we discussed the nuclear option and, tbh, if their nukes are asshit as everything else they have, its not a massive worry.Pross said:
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.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.
And they would effectively go off in pairs. Bit like exchanging amazon vouchers with the relatives at Xmas.
mad vlad just hasn't got a big red button on his desk.
its all a lot more complicated.
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.
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.
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?
someone getting two blokes to turn a key and enter a code?
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?.The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
I get the concern but it would be hard to sell to your high ranking generals. This is how messed up the situation that a no fly zone in a country that is out with his borders is somehow an attack on Russia and would be met with a nuclear response the fact this is seen as a credible argument or in anyway justifiable is mental.Pross said:
My concern is more he's about to suffer the humiliation of defeat, is possibly on his last legs anyway and just goes all in on those he sees as having caused it i.e. not just Ukraine. I'm not saying it's likely but he doesn't strike me as rational and people with egos can react badly to the risk of humiliation.john80 said:
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.Pross said:
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.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.0 -
I was under the belief that nuclear missiles are incredibly complicated to make work correctly. That's why they cost so much and take so long to develop.
I can't remember the details but there's a good book about I *think* the Iranian nuclear armament programme their development of nukes.0 -
I mean Jan 6th was not a normal day at the Capitol but he only got a few people killed.MattFalle said:
the us managed to block trump quite effectively so i'd say that they ate quite good at not allowing people to do stoopid stuff.First.Aspect said:
Pretty sure in both cases when it comes down to it, it is about as complicated as getting the starship enterprise to self destruct.MattFalle said:
how do you mean re US?First.Aspect said:
Yes, so not the same as abitshit.MattFalle said:
there is all very well and nice but you have to get there first.First.Aspect said:
That's not the same as saying the weapons themselves are a bit censored .MattFalle said:
yeah, i don't think you teally understand how the nuclear option works.First.Aspect said:
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.MattFalle said:
we discussed the nuclear option and, tbh, if their nukes are asshit as everything else they have, its not a massive worry.Pross said:
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.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.
And they would effectively go off in pairs. Bit like exchanging amazon vouchers with the relatives at Xmas.
mad vlad just hasn't got a big red button on his desk.
its all a lot more complicated.
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.
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.
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?
someone getting two blokes to turn a key and enter a code?
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?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
his ground base that went in on the 6th are incredibly stupid.rjsterry said:
I mean Jan 6th was not a normal day at the Capitol but he only got a few people killed.MattFalle said:
the us managed to block trump quite effectively so i'd say that they ate quite good at not allowing people to do stoopid stuff.First.Aspect said:
Pretty sure in both cases when it comes down to it, it is about as complicated as getting the starship enterprise to self destruct.MattFalle said:
how do you mean re US?First.Aspect said:
Yes, so not the same as abitshit.MattFalle said:
there is all very well and nice but you have to get there first.First.Aspect said:
That's not the same as saying the weapons themselves are a bit censored .MattFalle said:
yeah, i don't think you teally understand how the nuclear option works.First.Aspect said:
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.MattFalle said:
we discussed the nuclear option and, tbh, if their nukes are asshit as everything else they have, its not a massive worry.Pross said:
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.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.
And they would effectively go off in pairs. Bit like exchanging amazon vouchers with the relatives at Xmas.
mad vlad just hasn't got a big red button on his desk.
its all a lot more complicated.
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.
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.
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?
someone getting two blokes to turn a key and enter a code?
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?
you don't become a general/admiral/top ranking crab but being as stupid as that.
essentially 6th Jan were a bunch of football fans..The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
Once you have created it the complicated bit is done as you have the design. However they have a shelf life so you have to keep reprocessing them to return them to spec. This is expensive. Given they can't maintain truck tyres this is questionable.shirley_basso said:I was under the belief that nuclear missiles are incredibly complicated to make work correctly. That's why they cost so much and take so long to develop.
I can't remember the details but there's a good book about I *think* the Iranian nuclear armament programme their development of nukes.0 -
It depends, as it does look bad if he was spending on the money on maintaining the nuclear arsenal instead.0
-
Agreed. The idiots didn't get the idea from nowhere, though.MattFalle said:
his ground base that went in on the 6th are incredibly stupid.rjsterry said:
I mean Jan 6th was not a normal day at the Capitol but he only got a few people killed.MattFalle said:
the us managed to block trump quite effectively so i'd say that they ate quite good at not allowing people to do stoopid stuff.First.Aspect said:
Pretty sure in both cases when it comes down to it, it is about as complicated as getting the starship enterprise to self destruct.MattFalle said:
how do you mean re US?First.Aspect said:
Yes, so not the same as abitshit.MattFalle said:
there is all very well and nice but you have to get there first.First.Aspect said:
That's not the same as saying the weapons themselves are a bit censored .MattFalle said:
yeah, i don't think you teally understand how the nuclear option works.First.Aspect said:
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.MattFalle said:
we discussed the nuclear option and, tbh, if their nukes are asshit as everything else they have, its not a massive worry.Pross said:
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.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.
And they would effectively go off in pairs. Bit like exchanging amazon vouchers with the relatives at Xmas.
mad vlad just hasn't got a big red button on his desk.
its all a lot more complicated.
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.
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.
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?
someone getting two blokes to turn a key and enter a code?
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?
you don't become a general/admiral/top ranking crab but being as stupid as that.
essentially 6th Jan were a bunch of football fans.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
.
oh yeah, the Lord of the Idiots gave it to them but, at the end of the day, its not difficult to sell daft ideas to fuckingstupid people.rjsterry said:
Agreed. The idiots didn't get the idea from nowhere, though.MattFalle said:
his ground base that went in on the 6th are incredibly stupid.rjsterry said:
I mean Jan 6th was not a normal day at the Capitol but he only got a few people killed.MattFalle said:
the us managed to block trump quite effectively so i'd say that they ate quite good at not allowing people to do stoopid stuff.First.Aspect said:
Pretty sure in both cases when it comes down to it, it is about as complicated as getting the starship enterprise to self destruct.MattFalle said:
how do you mean re US?First.Aspect said:
Yes, so not the same as abitshit.MattFalle said:
there is all very well and nice but you have to get there first.First.Aspect said:
That's not the same as saying the weapons themselves are a bit censored .MattFalle said:
yeah, i don't think you teally understand how the nuclear option works.First.Aspect said:
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.MattFalle said:
we discussed the nuclear option and, tbh, if their nukes are asshit as everything else they have, its not a massive worry.Pross said:
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.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.
And they would effectively go off in pairs. Bit like exchanging amazon vouchers with the relatives at Xmas.
mad vlad just hasn't got a big red button on his desk.
its all a lot more complicated.
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.
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.
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?
someone getting two blokes to turn a key and enter a code?
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?
you don't become a general/admiral/top ranking crab but being as stupid as that.
essentially 6th Jan were a bunch of football fans.
.The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
Yes I think it's quite tricky, thermonuclear anyway, but is still fundamentally 70 year old technology. Steering a rocket is probably hard. Targeting doesn't seem to matter much in Russian military strategy though.0
-
Would not underestimate Russian nukes and rocketry generally.
They had hypersonic weapons before the us did0 -
They don't necessarily have need to be stupid. While there are plenty of Russians who are against the war there are plenty who think it is a great thing because that is what all the media they see tells them.MattFalle said:.
oh yeah, the Lord of the Idiots gave it to them but, at the end of the day, its not difficult to sell daft ideas to fuckingstupid people.rjsterry said:
Agreed. The idiots didn't get the idea from nowhere, though.MattFalle said:
his ground base that went in on the 6th are incredibly stupid.rjsterry said:
I mean Jan 6th was not a normal day at the Capitol but he only got a few people killed.MattFalle said:
the us managed to block trump quite effectively so i'd say that they ate quite good at not allowing people to do stoopid stuff.First.Aspect said:
Pretty sure in both cases when it comes down to it, it is about as complicated as getting the starship enterprise to self destruct.MattFalle said:
how do you mean re US?First.Aspect said:
Yes, so not the same as abitshit.MattFalle said:
there is all very well and nice but you have to get there first.First.Aspect said:
That's not the same as saying the weapons themselves are a bit censored .MattFalle said:
yeah, i don't think you teally understand how the nuclear option works.First.Aspect said:
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.MattFalle said:
we discussed the nuclear option and, tbh, if their nukes are asshit as everything else they have, its not a massive worry.Pross said:
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.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.
And they would effectively go off in pairs. Bit like exchanging amazon vouchers with the relatives at Xmas.
mad vlad just hasn't got a big red button on his desk.
its all a lot more complicated.
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.
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.
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?
someone getting two blokes to turn a key and enter a code?
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?
you don't become a general/admiral/top ranking crab but being as stupid as that.
essentially 6th Jan were a bunch of football fans.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
First.Aspect said:
Yes I think it's quite tricky, thermonuclear anyway, but is still fundamentally 70 year old technology. Steering a rocket is probably hard. Targeting doesn't seem to matter much in Russian military strategy though.
Was recently reading a letter Feynman wrote after witnessing the first test bomb, one he helped create. Interesting to see it from the other end of the nuclear deterrent timeline.0 -
STOP BEING SUCH A WORRY WART AND STRESSING YOURSELF AND OTHER PEOPLE OUT.rick_chasey said:Would not underestimate Russian nukes and rocketry generally.
They had hypersonic weapons before the us did
They wete also the first people to put a monkey into space but i don't see thefucking PG Tips chips coming at me with a Kalash.
JUST STOP IT.The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
2 -
The big question mark is over their maintenance and neglect.rick_chasey said:Would not underestimate Russian nukes and rocketry generally.
They had hypersonic weapons before the us did
"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
there are also plenty of those Russians who may think that but wil do nothing when the chips are down, are infirm, lazy, biffed, etc.rjsterry said:
They don't necessarily have need to be stupid. While there are plenty of Russians who are against the war there are plenty who think it is a great thing because that is what all the media they see tells them.MattFalle said:.
oh yeah, the Lord of the Idiots gave it to them but, at the end of the day, its not difficult to sell daft ideas to fuckingstupid people.rjsterry said:
Agreed. The idiots didn't get the idea from nowhere, though.MattFalle said:
his ground base that went in on the 6th are incredibly stupid.rjsterry said:
I mean Jan 6th was not a normal day at the Capitol but he only got a few people killed.MattFalle said:
the us managed to block trump quite effectively so i'd say that they ate quite good at not allowing people to do stoopid stuff.First.Aspect said:
Pretty sure in both cases when it comes down to it, it is about as complicated as getting the starship enterprise to self destruct.MattFalle said:
how do you mean re US?First.Aspect said:
Yes, so not the same as abitshit.MattFalle said:
there is all very well and nice but you have to get there first.First.Aspect said:
That's not the same as saying the weapons themselves are a bit censored .MattFalle said:
yeah, i don't think you teally understand how the nuclear option works.First.Aspect said:
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.MattFalle said:
we discussed the nuclear option and, tbh, if their nukes are asshit as everything else they have, its not a massive worry.Pross said:
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.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.
And they would effectively go off in pairs. Bit like exchanging amazon vouchers with the relatives at Xmas.
mad vlad just hasn't got a big red button on his desk.
its all a lot more complicated.
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.
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.
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?
someone getting two blokes to turn a key and enter a code?
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?
you don't become a general/admiral/top ranking crab but being as stupid as that.
essentially 6th Jan were a bunch of football fans.
its like all the nobs who go on about "yeah, WW2, we survived the Blitz, we can win against x,y,z"
fuckoff. i wouldn't let you in the carpark, let alone the scoff house and it wouldn't matter anyway because you'd never, ever go..The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
Unlike their lorries and tanks they’re not employing conscripts to look after their nukes.blazing_saddles said:
The big question mark is over their maintenance and neglect.rick_chasey said:Would not underestimate Russian nukes and rocketry generally.
They had hypersonic weapons before the us did
I’m not worrying I’m just saying that just because a load of conscripts are bad at fighting doesn’t have much or any baring on nuclear capability.0 -
blimey - that took a long time to arrive.briantrumpet said:First.Aspect said:Yes I think it's quite tricky, thermonuclear anyway, but is still fundamentally 70 year old technology. Steering a rocket is probably hard. Targeting doesn't seem to matter much in Russian military strategy though.
Was recently reading a letter Feynman wrote after witnessing the first test bomb, one he helped create. Interesting to see it from the other end of the nuclear deterrent timeline.
always said Royal Mail had gone toshit since the Tories privatised it.
I'd pop him a text back to say its arrived tbh. Probably quicker..The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
1 -
and its not just the missiles, its all the computer things that they need to drive them.blazing_saddles said:
The big question mark is over their maintenance and neglect.rick_chasey said:Would not underestimate Russian nukes and rocketry generally.
They had hypersonic weapons before the us did
you can't run an Aygo by plugging in an Atari you know.....The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
I was thinking more in terms of their nuclear subs. Closest thing I could think of.rick_chasey said:
Unlike their lorries and tanks they’re not employing conscripts to look after their nukes.blazing_saddles said:
The big question mark is over their maintenance and neglect.rick_chasey said:Would not underestimate Russian nukes and rocketry generally.
They had hypersonic weapons before the us did
I’m not worrying I’m just saying that just because a load of conscripts are bad at fighting doesn’t have much or any baring on nuclear capability.
"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
no, you're right.rick_chasey said:
Unlike their lorries and tanks they’re not employing conscripts to look after their nukes.blazing_saddles said:
The big question mark is over their maintenance and neglect.rick_chasey said:Would not underestimate Russian nukes and rocketry generally.
They had hypersonic weapons before the us did
I’m not worrying I’m just saying that just because a load of conscripts are bad at fighting doesn’t have much or any baring on nuclear capability.
they're employing badly paid lads who didn't join the army to kill people, they joined because its a job where you get free clothes.
you are worrying. stop it.
.The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
Honestly, nuclear war does not in the slightest worry me as by the time I hear about it happening it’ll only be minutes before I’m dead anyway so what’s there to do?
But I think it is a massive strategic mistake to think that the Russian nuclear capability is anything but effective and capable of blowing up the world a couple times over.
I also think, from what I’ve read from various Kremlinologists is that when Putin says he’d rather a no world than a world without Russia he means it. I also think he means it when he days he’ll use nukes if NATO attacks.
Nukes change the strategic landscape substantially. You can’t launch a full scale invasion of a nuclear power and expect to survive it.0 -
rightrick_chasey said:Honestly, nuclear war does not in the slightest worry me as by the time I hear about it happening it’ll only be minutes before I’m dead anyway so what’s there to do?
But I think it is a massive strategic mistake to think that the Russian nuclear capability is anything but effective and capable of blowing up the world a couple times over.
I also think, from what I’ve read from various Kremlinologists is that when Putin says he’d rather a no world than a world without Russia he means it. I also think he means it when he days he’ll use nukes if NATO attacks.
Nukes change the strategic landscape substantially. You can’t launch a full scale invasion of a nuclear power and expect to survive it.
NATO isn't going to attack. we'd have done it by now
all this stuff does worry you. do not go worrying your friends over some poxy middle class dinner party. i will find out and i will get angry if you do and send cargobike round to bullshityou to death.
stop reading the echo chamber. read some inspector montalbano books instead.
no one is invading a nuclear power. no one has suggested tgat they ever will. you are now making things up to worry yourself.
just #fuckingstopit..The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
Now now, relax.
It’s important as I think without nukes the temptation for other EU countries to throw in some troops may have been too much to resist.
And you can’t really examine the Russian demands for countries being or not being part of NATO, not just Ukraine but Finland etc, without taking the nuclear factor into account.0 -
Presumably you'd need better than V2 rocketry when trying to get past a modern missile defence system.
0 -
I don't worry about being hit by a train. I worry about surviving it.
Same thing with the after effects of some nuclear detonation.0
