What's new

Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki are ground burst, and the technology of delivery is not the same level as today, you cannot compare the 2 bomb in 1945 to what would have been done today, I can say even the severity is underestimated if we are using 1986 Chernobyl disaster

I mean, sure, if you think nuking Kyiv is not big deal to Russia or Belarus, go ahead, please do. But I was in the Army, and I went thru CBRN training, and my training tell me otherwise. I wouldn't do it if I was on the button, but well, you have your own opinion, just be glad when that did happen, you don't live in Moscow.
False, Hiroshima was not ground burst. It was air burst to maximize destruction caused by pressure wave. Its detonation height was 530 M. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Hiroshima).

Nagasaki was also 503 M detonation.
 
.
But logically you have to wonder is the first to strike the winner, even though you could strike back. If you're mostly all dead, what use is it for humanity to wipe out the rest and add even more nuclear pollution. It's a hard thought but an interesting debate. I personally just tip to shoot back
 
.
Does it matter? Should it matter?


Then the shopkeeper should not also cry if the adversory hold his or her children on ransom. If its open for all, then yes, its open for all. Then shopkeeper should not cry if the shops are petrol bombed.
Can you please stop dumping all western countries under “UK/US/NATO”?

Many countries such as germany, poland, chech, lithuania are pacifist since decades and are completely up in arms against this invasion on a sovereign european democracy.

Russia, who committed absolute atrocities against ukraine and poland in the past. A colonialist agressive empire.

And here we have people defending russia while lumping us in with the f*cking americans.

Who, still behave better in war then russia by the way. Look at population development in afghanistan during russian and american invasion for instance….
 
. .
False, Hiroshima was not ground burst. It was air burst to maximize destruction caused by pressure wave. Its detonation height was 530 M. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Hiroshima).

Nagasaki was also 503 M detonation.
Ground Burst is not just mean detonate on the ground..........Ground Burst mean the detonation is on Ground level, obstructed by Ground structure.

Anything detonated below 1000 meters are considered ground burst, because the earth is NOT flat, it's curve, and you need to clear most of the curvature to be able to do an air burst. Otherwise the blast will be limited by both curvature and any building that would absorb radiation.

The term Air Burst is used when the detonation CLEARED all ground obstacle so the explosion will bounce back toward the earth and create a shockwave. Not when it is 10 meters off the air.....
 
. .
Even since the Neocons engineered the countless invasions and color revolutions, I was following the news in Eastern Europe and the rest of the world and am up-to-date on how these forces who control the empire were pushing the Russians to act.

The problem with many European commentators is you either willingly ignore or are uninformed on how the shakers and movers of the empire were squeezing Russia to the point we have this disastrous war. These same forces ruin one country to the next.
So only recent history then….a shame.


Russia is a colonialist empire that cannot stomach losing some of its “subjects”.

America stirs the pot, sure…thats what they do…they need an “enemy” for their military-industry.

So Both have a certain amount of blame for this situation.
Russia i would say carries the most however. Starting an agressive war against yet another of their poor warsaw pact members. Despite their vow. And already with a history of the holodomor…
 
.
But logically you have to wonder is the first to strike the winner, even though you could strike back. If you're mostly all dead, what use is it for humanity to wipe out the rest and add even more nuclear pollution. It's a hard thought but an interesting debate. I personally just tip to shoot back
Would tell you this tho

I would rather die in the blast than live to try to "survive" the aftermath. I tried war once and that take a lot to survive when people are just shooting at you. OTOH, if you survive a nuclear blast, then everything on this earth is going to kill you, I don't know if I have the will to do that.

Which make does it matter who strike first a moot point....I am already dead, I don't care lol
 
.
Would tell you this tho

I would rather die in the blast than live to try to "survive" the aftermath. I tried war once and that take a lot to survive when people are just shooting at you. OTOH, if you survive a nuclear blast, then everything on this earth is going to kill you, I don't know if I have the will to do that.

Which make does it matter who strike first a moot point....I am already dead, I don't care lol

Cities are by far the most survivable places during nuclear war.

Subways deeper 100m are practically as good as purpose made shelters. Only direct hit from 1mt+ weapon will take one down.

Even on an open terrain, a 2m trench will shield you from a flash with 50/50 odds from a 1.2mt flash at 8km, and if you have a basic concrete pillbox at 5km.

Civilian bunkers at 20mpa strength will give you perfect security at 8km under few meters of earth. Military 50mpa+ can even save you directly inside the fireball deeper underground.
 
Last edited:
.
Would tell you this tho

I would rather die in the blast than live to try to "survive" the aftermath. I tried war once and that take a lot to survive when people are just shooting at you. OTOH, if you survive a nuclear blast, then everything on this earth is going to kill you, I don't know if I have the will to do that.

Which make does it matter who strike first a moot point....I am already dead, I don't care lol

Don’t want to create a new civilization ground up?
 
. .
Cities are by far the most survivable places during nuclear war.

Subways deeper 100m are practically as good as purpose made shelters. Only direct hit from 1mt+ weapon will take one down.

Even on an open terrain, a 2m trench will shield you from a flash with 50/50 odds from a 1.2mt flash at 8km, and if you have a basic concrete pillbox at 5km.
It's not how you survive the blast, it's about how you survive what happening after.

What would you do if you cannot just go to the market and get all you need? You have to scavenge necessity just to survive? How are you planning on doing that? Are you trying to be a farmer in the nuclear wasteland or trying to hunt down can food store to store and battling with your neighbour and in some cases, you need to kill them in order for you to survive??

It's no fun when you left in a place where you can't even drink the water you see in the open, because it is contaminated and you have to go hunt for bottle water, a world where no Police and Government are going to help you, and everyone is fending for themselves.

I would not like to live in that world.
 
. . . .
Status
Not open for further replies.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom