Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ and he won’t be able to take Poland or the Baltics.

This ends in Ukraine.

But it really shouldn’t at this point.
I think Putin does himself in, and we use this crisis to push for a significant draw down of their nuclear arsenal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He will not bomb DC.

1. The Russian Defense Budget is $61B.

2.) The US DOD Budget is $778B.

3.) To maintain the US nuclear arsenal, the US spends $37B.

4.) Due to Purchasing Price Parity differentials; money goes a lot further in Russia than in the US.

5.) US has 5,500~ nukes and Russia has 6,000~ (The 6K is only counting Russia’s total stockpiles not ready ones.

6.) If Russia is theoretically spending the same amount of money the US is on nukes, that means about half of their budget goes to their strategic forces; leaving them with 20-30B to spend on an Army, Navy and Air Force with force projection capabilities.

7) Despite the vast PPP differential; and fighting literally on Russia's borders, the Russian military's performance in the 2022 Russo-Ukraine War shows that they have no way in any shape or form the ability to effectively project force.

I do not think anyone believes their nuclear arsenal is over 50% operational; but their are definitely enough operational to do damage to specific high value targets in the US.
DC would get a majority of the punishment. The big question is will he do it.

I am sure the boys in Omaha are very busy these days.

I doubt he'd hit DC first. That would result in total annihilation of Russia and wouldn't do a thing to reduce retaliatory military capacity.

Exactly. This is the apocalyptic 'end of humanity' scenario. The talk is about him using a tactical nuke over water as a warning, in Ukraine, even a European country like Poland currently agitating. Of course that could all escalate to a global nuclear war, but DC isn't likely on the top of his list to hit tomorrow.

Anonymous wrote:The Russian’s “active stockpile” of nuclear bombs is 1,588.

Estimates vary on the viability of that number. An optimistic guess would be 50% are still functional.

But that brings up a separate issue: delivery systems.

ICBMs are amount they most complicated weapons ever devised. They literally leave earth’s atmosphere on the way to their targets. An endless list of things can go wrong to derail a launch as intended.

Have the Russians maintained these complicated systems in top working order? (I find that highly doubtful).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He will not bomb DC.

1. The Russian Defense Budget is $61B.

2.) The US DOD Budget is $778B.

3.) To maintain the US nuclear arsenal, the US spends $37B.

4.) Due to Purchasing Price Parity differentials; money goes a lot further in Russia than in the US.

5.) US has 5,500~ nukes and Russia has 6,000~ (The 6K is only counting Russia’s total stockpiles not ready ones.

6.) If Russia is theoretically spending the same amount of money the US is on nukes, that means about half of their budget goes to their strategic forces; leaving them with 20-30B to spend on an Army, Navy and Air Force with force projection capabilities.

7) Despite the vast PPP differential; and fighting literally on Russia's borders, the Russian military's performance in the 2022 Russo-Ukraine War shows that they have no way in any shape or form the ability to effectively project force.

I do not think anyone believes their nuclear arsenal is over 50% operational; but their are definitely enough operational to do damage to specific high value targets in the US.
DC would get a majority of the punishment. The big question is will he do it.

I am sure the boys in Omaha are very busy these days.

I doubt he'd hit DC first. That would result in total annihilation of Russia and wouldn't do a thing to reduce retaliatory military capacity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He will not bomb DC.

1. The Russian Defense Budget is $61B.

2.) The US DOD Budget is $778B.

3.) To maintain the US nuclear arsenal, the US spends $37B.

4.) Due to Purchasing Price Parity differentials; money goes a lot further in Russia than in the US.

5.) US has 5,500~ nukes and Russia has 6,000~ (The 6K is only counting Russia’s total stockpiles not ready ones.

6.) If Russia is theoretically spending the same amount of money the US is on nukes, that means about half of their budget goes to their strategic forces; leaving them with 20-30B to spend on an Army, Navy and Air Force with force projection capabilities.

7) Despite the vast PPP differential; and fighting literally on Russia's borders, the Russian military's performance in the 2022 Russo-Ukraine War shows that they have no way in any shape or form the ability to effectively project force.

I do not think anyone believes their nuclear arsenal is over 50% operational; but their are definitely enough operational to do damage to specific high value targets in the US.
DC would get a majority of the punishment. The big question is will he do it.

I am sure the boys in Omaha are very busy these days.

Anonymous wrote:^^^ and he won’t be able to take Poland or the Baltics.

This ends in Ukraine.

Anonymous wrote:He will not bomb DC.

1. The Russian Defense Budget is $61B.

2.) The US DOD Budget is $778B.

3.) To maintain the US nuclear arsenal, the US spends $37B.

4.) Due to Purchasing Price Parity differentials; money goes a lot further in Russia than in the US.

5.) US has 5,500~ nukes and Russia has 6,000~ (The 6K is only counting Russia’s total stockpiles not ready ones.

6.) If Russia is theoretically spending the same amount of money the US is on nukes, that means about half of their budget goes to their strategic forces; leaving them with 20-30B to spend on an Army, Navy and Air Force with force projection capabilities.

7) Despite the vast PPP differential; and fighting literally on Russia's borders, the Russian military's performance in the 2022 Russo-Ukraine War shows that they have no way in any shape or form the ability to effectively project force.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A lot of loud talk.

You haven’t been really paying attention if you think this is just loud talk on state tv

Trying to pay attention but please explain how this helps vlad or any of this friends? That option is just a murder suicide.

At this point do you think there are a lot of other options left? Invitation to G20? Russia’s reintegration to G7? Talks about visa free regime with the EU? Re-activation of free trade agreements?

Ummmm...withdraw? Does not this man have children of his own? He wants to subject them to a global nuke armegedden?

I can’t say what plans he has for his kids, but I do not have a lot of goodwill faith for someone who started their political career from blowing up residential houses in his own country to justify a Chechen war, went on to massive killing of civilians in grozny, Aleppo and other Syrian cities, and now several cities in Ukraine. YMMV.

Blowing up apartment buildings is depraved but it is not suicide. It is not killing your own children and destroying their home planet.

He has an underground bunker the size of a city.

Excuse my language but what would be the f***ing point?

The point would be a place to stay inside for the 6-8 weeks after a nuclear exchange to allow radiation levels from fallout to return to more or less normal. You’ll still have some strontium 90, cesium 137 and iodine 131 to be concerned about, but all the really dangerous highly energetic stuff will have decayed by 8 weeks, and radiation levels will be back near background levels again.

A nuclear exchange will NOT “kill the planet”, and people who understand science, and nuclear physics in particular, understand this. Which unfortunately, doesn’t provide the needed incentive not to use them. Say what you want about them, bu the Russians have first rate scientific knowledge when it comes to understanding nuclear concerns, every bit as good as ours. 8 weeks underground is enough to ensure survival. And they have a plan for that.

This is accurate.
I think we are a headed to a limited nuclear war.

DC area will be hit hardest; but they will not nuke a place like San Francisco as it has no strategic value. Pearl Harbor yes; LA probably not. Providence Rhode Island yes, Boston no.
It will be survivable for most of America, just not dc area as we will get 20-30 hitting us as we are target rich.

You have no clue what you are talking about. Every major city and military base in the US would be hit by multiple thermo nuclear warheads. San Francisco is a major port, 6th army HQ, Financial center of the West Coast, has a mothballed navy surface ships holding area, the world leader in tech, Travis Air Force base, etc. Oakland, silicon Valley and San Francisco would all receive multiple nuclear strikes.

There is no surviving a nuclear exchange. All electrons would be fried from EPG, infrastructure - power, water, sewage, etc off line, roads destroy(if you hit Boston or San Francisco you destroy the bridges and roads. This would be across the whole country. Now you add fall out and radioactive and you can not eat the food.

I don’t think so

I don't either

So if you don’t think the entire country is bombed and you live in the DC area, are you leaving the area?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A lot of loud talk.

You haven’t been really paying attention if you think this is just loud talk on state tv

Trying to pay attention but please explain how this helps vlad or any of this friends? That option is just a murder suicide.

At this point do you think there are a lot of other options left? Invitation to G20? Russia’s reintegration to G7? Talks about visa free regime with the EU? Re-activation of free trade agreements?

Ummmm...withdraw? Does not this man have children of his own? He wants to subject them to a global nuke armegedden?

I can’t say what plans he has for his kids, but I do not have a lot of goodwill faith for someone who started their political career from blowing up residential houses in his own country to justify a Chechen war, went on to massive killing of civilians in grozny, Aleppo and other Syrian cities, and now several cities in Ukraine. YMMV.

Blowing up apartment buildings is depraved but it is not suicide. It is not killing your own children and destroying their home planet.

He has an underground bunker the size of a city.

Excuse my language but what would be the f***ing point?

The point would be a place to stay inside for the 6-8 weeks after a nuclear exchange to allow radiation levels from fallout to return to more or less normal. You’ll still have some strontium 90, cesium 137 and iodine 131 to be concerned about, but all the really dangerous highly energetic stuff will have decayed by 8 weeks, and radiation levels will be back near background levels again.

A nuclear exchange will NOT “kill the planet”, and people who understand science, and nuclear physics in particular, understand this. Which unfortunately, doesn’t provide the needed incentive not to use them. Say what you want about them, bu the Russians have first rate scientific knowledge when it comes to understanding nuclear concerns, every bit as good as ours. 8 weeks underground is enough to ensure survival. And they have a plan for that.

This is accurate.
I think we are a headed to a limited nuclear war.

DC area will be hit hardest; but they will not nuke a place like San Francisco as it has no strategic value. Pearl Harbor yes; LA probably not. Providence Rhode Island yes, Boston no.
It will be survivable for most of America, just not dc area as we will get 20-30 hitting us as we are target rich.

You have no clue what you are talking about. Every major city and military base in the US would be hit by multiple thermo nuclear warheads. San Francisco is a major port, 6th army HQ, Financial center of the West Coast, has a mothballed navy surface ships holding area, the world leader in tech, Travis Air Force base, etc. Oakland, silicon Valley and San Francisco would all receive multiple nuclear strikes.

There is no surviving a nuclear exchange. All electrons would be fried from EPG, infrastructure - power, water, sewage, etc off line, roads destroy(if you hit Boston or San Francisco you destroy the bridges and roads. This would be across the whole country. Now you add fall out and radioactive and you can not eat the food.

I don’t think so

I don't either

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A lot of loud talk.

You haven’t been really paying attention if you think this is just loud talk on state tv

Trying to pay attention but please explain how this helps vlad or any of this friends? That option is just a murder suicide.

At this point do you think there are a lot of other options left? Invitation to G20? Russia’s reintegration to G7? Talks about visa free regime with the EU? Re-activation of free trade agreements?

Ummmm...withdraw? Does not this man have children of his own? He wants to subject them to a global nuke armegedden?

I can’t say what plans he has for his kids, but I do not have a lot of goodwill faith for someone who started their political career from blowing up residential houses in his own country to justify a Chechen war, went on to massive killing of civilians in grozny, Aleppo and other Syrian cities, and now several cities in Ukraine. YMMV.

Blowing up apartment buildings is depraved but it is not suicide. It is not killing your own children and destroying their home planet.

He has an underground bunker the size of a city.

Excuse my language but what would be the f***ing point?

The point would be a place to stay inside for the 6-8 weeks after a nuclear exchange to allow radiation levels from fallout to return to more or less normal. You’ll still have some strontium 90, cesium 137 and iodine 131 to be concerned about, but all the really dangerous highly energetic stuff will have decayed by 8 weeks, and radiation levels will be back near background levels again.

A nuclear exchange will NOT “kill the planet”, and people who understand science, and nuclear physics in particular, understand this. Which unfortunately, doesn’t provide the needed incentive not to use them. Say what you want about them, bu the Russians have first rate scientific knowledge when it comes to understanding nuclear concerns, every bit as good as ours. 8 weeks underground is enough to ensure survival. And they have a plan for that.

This is accurate.
I think we are a headed to a limited nuclear war.

DC area will be hit hardest; but they will not nuke a place like San Francisco as it has no strategic value. Pearl Harbor yes; LA probably not. Providence Rhode Island yes, Boston no.
It will be survivable for most of America, just not dc area as we will get 20-30 hitting us as we are target rich.

You have no clue what you are talking about. Every major city and military base in the US would be hit by multiple thermo nuclear warheads. San Francisco is a major port, 6th army HQ, Financial center of the West Coast, has a mothballed navy surface ships holding area, the world leader in tech, Travis Air Force base, etc. Oakland, silicon Valley and San Francisco would all receive multiple nuclear strikes.

There is no surviving a nuclear exchange. All electrons would be fried from EPG, infrastructure - power, water, sewage, etc off line, roads destroy(if you hit Boston or San Francisco you destroy the bridges and roads. This would be across the whole country. Now you add fall out and radioactive and you can not eat the food.

I don’t think so

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know why any government would use nukes. You can do as much damage with conventional fire power (look at Dresden) and not poison yourself via fallout.

If you put it to a vote, of course, no government would press the nuke button, because the majority of people are sane.

But if nukes are controlled by a small circle of people, and if that small circle, when facing military defeat, decides that it wants to take the rest of the world down with it, then there is chance that the button will get pressed.

Anonymous wrote:I don't know why any government would use nukes. You can do as much damage with conventional fire power (look at Dresden) and not poison yourself via fallout.