F-22Raptor
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2014
- Messages
- 16,980
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments PART 2
- Thread starter waz
- Start date
BHAN85
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2015
- Messages
- 3,711
- Reaction score
- -6
- Country
- Location
Dollar doesnt dominate anything.
The things you can buy with dollars dominate effectively.
What can you buy with rubles? Vodka and a Penthouse in Siberia.
What can you buy with dollars? Everything that ruling elites desire, starting by corrupt and despotic Russian ruling elite.
Without a corrupt rich elite wishing things to buy with dollars, dollar power would be zero.
Basic things of common people like wheat, food, can be satisfied by Russian economy.
But expensive things and Western life of luxuries can only be bought in dollars.
USA dominates Russia because Russia elite is idiot and corrupt.
Common Russian people doesnt need dollars.
Filthy rich Russian elite needs dollars.
Unequality is antipatriotic by definition. Specially in Russia, when they are constantly risking a nuclear holocaust because they have a idiot iphoneloving economic elite of retardeds. They need to remember some lessons of comrade Lenin and forget current Western-cocksuckers idiots, if they want to survive.
Last edited:
serenity
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2007
- Messages
- 2,102
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
Actually....no.
Russia will not be "better" or "best" place to be to survive a nuclear blast due to its size. US alone had enough warhead to nuke every inch of Russia with changes (spare warhead not being used)
Using the follow website for ground det US missile/bomb have the combine power of
US Nuclear Device in service
W87/W88 MIRV (ICBM) - 450ktn - 700 Warheads Destruction power @3psi - 7539 sq km
W80/W84/W84-1 - 150ktn - 2100 Warheads Destruction Power @3psi - 3357 sq km
W76 MIRV (Trident II) - 100ktn - 3400 warhead Destruction power @3psi - 2568 sq km
B61 (Gravity Bomb B52/B1/B2) - 420 ktn - 3100 warhead Destruction power @3psi - 6615 sq km
B83 (Gravity Bomb B52/B1/B2) - 1.2 Mtn - 650 warhead Destruction power @3psi -13225 sq km
Combine US warhead destruction is 50,160,950 sq km. While not all of them are in active service, (for example, some W80 are being replaced by W88 or some W76 are being replaced with W87 and so on) but estimate US have around 5000-6000 warhead (nobody knows the exact number, even me, and I have TS/SCI clearance) so US alone would probably and very easily destory every inch of Russia territories probably twice if they wanted. So Even Russia is big, the US stockpile is even bigger...And then we are talking about ground det, which limited its destruction power, most nuke are going to do an airbrust instead of a ground det.
W76 - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
W80 (nuclear warhead) - Wikipedia
W84 - Wikipedia
W87 - Wikipedia
W88 - Wikipedia
B61 nuclear bomb - Wikipedia
B83 nuclear bomb - Wikipedia
The factor that dictate survivability, however, is another issue, it's depends on terrain and how well you prepare for it. People lived in the Rockies Mountain will have a better chance to survive a complete thermonuclear exchange than say people in the SF Bay Area or Manhattan because the mountain will shield and absorb a large does of radiation from the detonation. On the other hand, whether you have ready to use shelter and how well you prepare (so CRBN training and survival training) also put into a serious dictation on whether or not you will survive a nuclear blast, people like me, who had military experience, trained with CBRN, have wildlife survival technique (which you need to learn during SERE and Ranger school) and have civil defence training will most likely have a higher chance to survive than you.
On the other hand, you actually may want to rethink about surviving the aftermath, surviving the nuclear blast is the easy part, surviving what's coming afterward is not, Nuclear Winter and have to deal with fall out is not as exciting as you seen on TV like the movie "The Day After" or TV series like "Jericho". You are talking about an environment so hostile you cannot be outside for more than 10 minutes even if you had full CBRN suit on, and you are talking about working on these condition to fight thru a nuclear winter so you have food for next year when your can food run out. And that is assume you still have a government and a functioning armed force and police force to begin with, if not, then you are simply entering a world of jungle law, where survival the fittest literally mean you died if you are not the best, and sometime being the best is to rob and kill someone, now, between you and me, I can tell you I am pretty sure that is more geared toward my life than yours, having went thru 2 warzones and know the basics of wilderness survival, I mean, even if I give you a M4, you probably don't even know how to use it (how to reload it, how to maintain it or even how to fire it) let alone using it proficiently. And I am telling you this, I probably don't want to live in a post apocalyptic nuclear wasteland.....You may think it's fun to play it on Fallout 4, it's no fun when you have to do everything.........
Who tf said it would be fun? You really go on wild tangents with your own imaginations and strawmen.
Russia also has mountains similar to Rockies. No one would want to live in a post nuclear wasteland with no luxuries of the modern world and die from simple medical issues due to lack of services and the entire network of society. My post never mentioned such nonsense you wrote entire essay about.
Quite simply, Russia may consider it a more favorable exchange given it is so, so much larger than Europe. Russia can nuke every inch of Europe 5 times over then if US can nuke Russia's every inch with spare change. You must therefore also remember that Russia can nuke every inch of US with change left over. If Russian leaders do push for that for whatever insane hypothetical reasons, they may think to themselves that they can better survive.
In fact nuclear war isn't quite as destructive as Cold War made it out.
This is why both US and USSR had over 5000 warheads each during height. The actual main destructive zone (wiping out buildings etc) of typical 100KT yield warheads isn't quite as large as people think. 100KT can NOT even cover all of Sydney depending how you define fallout. In core destructive zones (the first two circles) it is about enough to take out Sydney's CBD.
3000 warheads averaging 100KT each isn't enough to truly "destroy" Russia completely even if by area the total spread of effect of those totals exceed Russia's landmass. In a nuclear showdown, Russia indeed IS absolutely the "best" to survive especially if their elites consider their bunkers more than enough to last several years in before coming out of. I hope they aren't that crazy and naive though.
On "survival" we agree. It is not the kind of world a person used to modernity would want to live in. But in such a case, Europe and US would be completely gone if Russia has even 70% of NATO's total yield since Russia is > 1/0.7*NATO
Yeah. But what if those Russian elites have built bunkers in those Siberian mountain regions? Maybe they might have a small tiny microscopic change of thinking that it is favorable to wipe out US and Europe and survive in that way. Nuclear fallout lasts several years but contaminated materials need cleanup. It is just that they may hide in vast Siberia and come out of bunkers years after fallout goes away and radiation subsides. Hiroshima and Nagasaki's fallout only lasted several years. Sure I know there is clean up required and many other things like total yield and dirt in atmosphere. But we should also remember that the whole theory of nuclear winter has recently been shown to be nowhere near a certainty. There may be no such thing as 10,000 warheads going off everywhere around all at once, causing so much dust in atmosphere.
Nukes are much less destructive than Cold War mentality made it out to be due to propaganda by both sides.
Unless we're all building 10MT yield warheads which we know isn't the case for either US or Russia since both hold a lot of tactical yield sized nukes and typically have 100KT ranged main warheads with MIRV missiles.
Last edited:
serenity
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2007
- Messages
- 2,102
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
In any case Russia seems to be countering Ukraine's counteroffensive and NATO resolve seems to be waning a bit with material support this month to push on the offensive. Russian elites probably won't be doing such stupid things like going nuclear.
jhungary
MILITARY PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2012
- Messages
- 19,295
- Reaction score
- 387
- Country
- Location
Again, no one have any "Advantage" in nuclear war, because you don't need to destroy the city in an initial blast to completely wipe out a city. Again, the blast itself is small, hence that's why I said surviving the blast is the easiest, what happened afterward, both immediate afterward and long term, is not.
Nuclear Bomb deal damage in 4 ways. 1 follow the other.
1.) Initial blast, the explosion wave (shock wave) will instantly vaporize anyone and any structure inside the blast zone.
2.) Vacuum effect, the blast will suck air into the giant fireball that the blast create, everything immediately outside the blast will be suck into the blast zone, which instantly deflate your lung and suck all the air out of your lung and you died because of it even if you are not in the initial blast zone. That air movement with this vacuum effect will make a hurricane look like a child play, because that wind also superheated by the bomb and can go up to 2000C
3.) The resulting inferno, that is one of the major killer, when nuclear bomb exploded, it generate heat that generate the famous fireball and mushroom cloud. That fire will radiate outside after the blast subsided. And as long as wind carry the fire in any direction, what you are facing is a fire that burn twice as hot as bushfire, with a lot of fuel to funnel it because the city is destroyed and there bound to be a lot of debris. The fire will go on until there are nothing left to burn or if you are lucky enough have a radiated rain drop on the fire to put it out, because you probably don't have any fire brigade left to put it out anymore Fire will spread and multiply and more importantly there are no one to check it
4.) Fallout, fallout is the other major killer, and it is long term, radiation fallout, especially in an airburst will be hung around by half-life, U235 half-life is 200 million year, and Pu 239 half-life is 23,000 year, so any u235 particle and Pu239 particle that left after the bomb went off will be there for that amount of year until it decay into something else. Inhaling something like 0.016u gram is lethal for human,
After this 4 stages, then we move on to surviving the aftermath
So if a 100ktn device exploded at say QVB building. It may blow up probably up to Manly in the North, Hurstville in the South, all those are going to be gone completely, nothing but empty land left, but then the fire started from this blast will move easily from the prevailing wind, say if the wind blow west, the fire can move through to Paramatta or even where I live in Blacktown the first day and basically burn down EVERYTHING in it. and the next unless it rain, it will move further with prevailing wind all the while the original fire is still burning and still spreading to other suburb.
On the other hand, even if you live in Blue Mountain. instead of Sydney, it would only shield you from the initial blast, the chance for you to survive the initial blast is higher, not by a lot, you are still talking about low 10% in the city versus high 20% in the mountain. And it will get worse for the 3rd and 4th stage, because you have even more fuel to burn and the area is harder to assess, so unless you live inside a shelter deep underground and with sufficient ventilation in the mountain area, you are going to die either by radiative exposure or by the resulting fire.
Also,.larger country mean travel time is longer, which mean it basically work against you own population because not everyone live near the mountain, and you probably have around 40 minutes to 1 hour to get to safety, the longer the travel mean the less chance you would be save
And again, the combine total of US stockpile alone can take out 50 million square kilometers, it would be enough to nuke the entire Russia twice and still have around 1/3 stockpile left, it actually not quite matter if you nuke it once, twice, three time or 4. Because after you nuke the first time, that change the city landscape which would mean subsequent explosion is more or less pointless, or "Wreck on a Wreck" It's like you put a bomb and detonate it, and then immediately put another bomb at the same place and you detonate it again, you are bombing a wreck, yes, it may make sure everyone dead,. but if you look at it this way, about 90% of everyone in that zone will died in the first bomb, you are taking another 90% out of that originally 10% that remain, that mean not much.
Edit:: Found this video on youtube produced in conjunction with ICRC.
It just follow 1 single nuke of unknown strength detonate in one city. It did not mentioned the ktn, but judging from the graph they use at the end, it's about 150ktn. ground burst (13.9 km radius 3rd degree burn)
Last edited:
Viet
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2012
- Messages
- 29,950
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Iskander is a tactical ballistic missile designed to hit high value military targets. Bombing a theater. Wow. That’s just naked terror by Russia.
The SC
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2012
- Messages
- 32,233
- Reaction score
- 21
- Country
- Location
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with The International Affairs journal (August 19, 2023)The ill-conceived policy pursued by the United States and its followers has made the current aggravation of the international situation inevitable despite our many years of attempts to prevent it, which is another manifestation of that degradation. I am referring to the full-scale crisis of European security, the blame for which lies entirely with our former partners.Modern Russia sees its mission in maintaining a global balance of interests and building a fairer architecture of international relations. We believe that creating favourable conditions for the peaceful and steady development of humanity on the basis of a unifying agenda should be a universal priority.A great danger in the context of the Ukrainian conflict is linked with the fact that the United States and NATO countries, while gearing up for confrontation, run the risk of becoming involved in a direct armed clash between nuclear powers. We think that this course of events can and must be prevented. The essential thing we must understand is that the West wants to do away with our country as a serious geopolitical rival. It is for this reason that Washington and Brussels have unleashed a hybrid war against us. The West must understand: Russia will use all means to defend its people and its vital interests. It would be better for our opponents to understand that confrontation with Russia is futile and switch to more civilized, i.e., political and diplomatic means for achieving a balance of interests.Lecturing other states or dictating to them which partners to choose or avoid is not what we do. Russia does not forbid any of our neighbours or partners from establishing ties with anyone, but always asks them to consider our legitimate interests. I think they hear us.
https://mid.ru/en/foreign_pol
Viet
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2012
- Messages
- 29,950
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
An interesting thought
A US military advisor, Dan Rice, recommends giving Ukraine Himars missiles armed with cluster ammunition M26. A detonation midair would cause a 10 times more deadly blast over Russian soldiers in trenches. The first and second lines of defense would be annihilated.
Ukraine artillery would need estimate 2,000 M26 missiles. The war would be over.
And the best thing: those missiles are stored in Germany and immediately available.
A US military advisor, Dan Rice, recommends giving Ukraine Himars missiles armed with cluster ammunition M26. A detonation midair would cause a 10 times more deadly blast over Russian soldiers in trenches. The first and second lines of defense would be annihilated.
Ukraine artillery would need estimate 2,000 M26 missiles. The war would be over.
And the best thing: those missiles are stored in Germany and immediately available.
aviator_fan
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- May 25, 2021
- Messages
- 889
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
They do make good movies. For now using a small country to humiliate a former enemy has required only brains and not balls. Saddam should have used a few of his brain cells over balls, and may have been the most powerful guy in mid-east and put Israel in check.
So the balls brain thinking is way outdated and belonged to a different era
Deino
INT'L MOD
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2014
- Messages
- 12,780
- Reaction score
- 22
- Country
- Location
For one constantly bashing all Ukrainians as Nazis you seem to hang around a bit too much and rely too often on this pro-Russian Nazi-sympathisier?? Don’t you?
For you not a moral issue? Most likely not since either it shows your true ideology or you simply don’t have any moral or honesty at all!
Question @jhungary and @F-22Raptor
USA knew ukraine would have to fight through mines and trenches. Without air support.
Why was this weapon, and the atacms not given to aid the ukrainians pro-actively?
Why is America being so chicken-shit about “worries on escalation” while russia is full on flattening cities, blowing up pipelines, shredding gas delivery contracts (unheard of during soviet time), causing niger and mali uprisings….and otherwise is over its neck in ukraine and hardly has anything conventional left (army is in tatters, troops getting pulled from finnish border).
Or is it strategic?
A longer drawn out war to deplete russia but also not cause to much instability in russian federation (the evil you know)?
For one constantly bashing all Ukrainians as Nazis you seem to hang around a bit too much and rely too often on this pro-Russian Nazi-sympathisier?? Don’t you?
For you not a moral issue? Most likely not since either it shows your true ideology or you simply don’t have any moral or honesty at all!
Listen carefully. You may learn something of value
Well that's what happens when you fail to come to the negotiating table and when NATO ups the ante trying to used Ukraine as a staging ground. The Clown of Kiev, Fcuked around and now he's going to find out.
Ukraine Is a Lost Cause....
Last edited:
