willalbion
Well-known member
Trouble is, whilst Biden may threaten it - the sense is Putin would actually do it.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Should NATO send in troops and planes
- Thread starter Icy Gull
- Start date
Trouble is, whilst Biden may threaten it - the sense is Putin would actually do it.
Razzoo
Well-known member
Jeez, who are you, the thread police?
I am just so relieved he's managed to book himself onto the last flight to Southwick. #prayforsweden
Drones could annihilate Russian hardware no problem at all, as could NON-NUCLEAR cruise missiles.
There would be no targets for Putin to retaliate against in that sphere.
[But at this stage, I want the West/world to carry on strangling the life out of Russia’s economy, trade, overseas reserves, access to sound currencies, cultural ties and assets held overseas by his cronies].
Gabbafella
Well-known member
- Aug 22, 2012
- 4,835
It's inevitable that I think we will have to get involved sooner or later. There are very few military targets being attacked and way too many civilians for things to be left to play out.
If backed into a corner there's always a chance Putin will push the button, but how many people can the world watch being slaughtered before action is taken?
A no fly zone is the least that needs to be done, the whole world needs to send as many munitions as possible to prevent Ukraine from falling.
Those fighting are immensely brave and deserve as much help as possible.
If backed into a corner there's always a chance Putin will push the button, but how many people can the world watch being slaughtered before action is taken?
A no fly zone is the least that needs to be done, the whole world needs to send as many munitions as possible to prevent Ukraine from falling.
Those fighting are immensely brave and deserve as much help as possible.
Creaky
Well-known member
That’s why I mentioned JFK - Khrushchev believed JFK would act - Biden can show the same “strength” if he has the courage to do so.
Flex Your Head
Well-known member
There are more than 12,000 nuclear warheads in this world. It would just take 100 of them to extinguish life on Earth.
Those who didn't die in the blasts would starve or freeze to death in the ensuing nuclear winter which would drop temperatures below freezing in almost all areas of the world for decades. No plants or crops would grow.
And if, somehow, you survived that, you would most likely die of cancer caused by the radiation.
There is no safe place. Anywhere.
Also, there was a recent report that showed that if a bomb the size of either of those that fell on Nagasaki and Hiroshima was to fall on the UK, the NHS would collapse within a couple of days.
Those bombs were 15 kilotons each. Modern, far more destructive, thermonuclear bombs are typically 1,000 kilotons. Some are far bigger than that.
Nuclear war is an extinction event. Simple as that. There can be no winner.
Watch this. [video]https://archive.org/details/threads_201712[/video]
Listen to this. http://www.juliemcdowall.com/index.php/podcast/
Those who didn't die in the blasts would starve or freeze to death in the ensuing nuclear winter which would drop temperatures below freezing in almost all areas of the world for decades. No plants or crops would grow.
And if, somehow, you survived that, you would most likely die of cancer caused by the radiation.
There is no safe place. Anywhere.
Also, there was a recent report that showed that if a bomb the size of either of those that fell on Nagasaki and Hiroshima was to fall on the UK, the NHS would collapse within a couple of days.
Those bombs were 15 kilotons each. Modern, far more destructive, thermonuclear bombs are typically 1,000 kilotons. Some are far bigger than that.
Nuclear war is an extinction event. Simple as that. There can be no winner.
Watch this. [video]https://archive.org/details/threads_201712[/video]
Listen to this. http://www.juliemcdowall.com/index.php/podcast/
No, just a normal bloke who is asking a weirdo to post his shit elsewhere. Problem?
Razzoo
Well-known member
You could use the ignore feature and stop being such a control freak. I always had you down as a normal bloke
With all due respect, I couldn't say the same.
99 times out of 100 I would normally say " No "
However, there is no way out for Putin. In Russia he can't survive this. His only solution is to be victorious otherwise he will destroy everything in his path and he will. The only solution for the the West is for Ukraine to win and drive the Russians out which would mean the Military would depose him back home. Putin night be ready to take the world with him rather than give up power but I am not sure everyone around him feels the same.
So with a heavy heart I voted YES.
However, there is no way out for Putin. In Russia he can't survive this. His only solution is to be victorious otherwise he will destroy everything in his path and he will. The only solution for the the West is for Ukraine to win and drive the Russians out which would mean the Military would depose him back home. Putin night be ready to take the world with him rather than give up power but I am not sure everyone around him feels the same.
So with a heavy heart I voted YES.
portlock seagull
Well-known member
- Jul 28, 2003
- 17,609
The NHS wouldn’t collapse. It wouldn’t be able to cope for sure, people would simply die as they did in Japan. But two equivalent bombs wouldn’t wipe out the UK so it’s hard to see why the NHS would collapse. Maybe in the ensuing exchanges because I’d want trident to vaporise Moscow in the meantime which would in turn mean London as well. But two WW2 equivalent strikes would not be an extinction event. Or we’d already be extinct wouldn’t we? Anyway, splitting hairs really. Nuclear war could see us all killed you’re right.
100 times out of 100 I’d say “no”.
Biden announced a no fly zone on Monday
Nato shot down a Russian jet on Tuesday
We were making war by Wednesday
And nukes on Thursday and Friday and Saturday
We’re all dead on Sunday
kevo
Well-known member
- Mar 8, 2008
- 9,541
You missed the bit where he said current warheads are more than 60x the size of the ones used in Japan. Even if just one fell on London, a vast area beyond the city would be decimated. Life in the UK as we know it would cease. It would be hell on earth, you'd be better off dead.
Flex Your Head
Well-known member
The NHS would collapse.
"The panel’s conclusion was stark: Britain’s medical community could only be prepared for nuclear catastrophe by being on a permanent war footing. Otherwise, even the smallest Soviet attack “would cause the medical services in the country to collapse”."
https://wellcomecollection.org/articles/W6jRjhIAACIAm3V3
No, two Hiroshima type wouldn't be an extinction event, but a nuclear war absolutely would.
sydney
tinky ****in winky
raises the stakes when Nato and Russians start killing each other and shooting each other planes down ....no from me.
I'd do it with the blessing of the mods... the Swansman anti-echo chamber... home of the ****tards.
If bombs started dropping I’d get insanely drunk and then off myself. Living (waiting for an horrific death) would be the worst outcome for any individual.
sydney
tinky ****in winky
what size shoe are you..?
Baldseagull
Well-known member
No mate, it really isn't. Countries like Iceland, Luxembourg and Lithuania are tiny, and really add nothing militarily to the might of NATO, but their membership adds to the stability of Europe, which is good for all.