• Putin appointed news agency head Dmitry Kiselyov: "Russia capable of turning U.S. into radioactive a
    64 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Cjk592;44266312]Imo, the only reason this guy is running his mouth is to give anti-Western Russians a sense of security. I would highly doubt there's much true meaning or potential behind his words.[/QUOTE] This. I don't think all his talk is meant to provoke or intimidate internationally, but rather to further cement a pro-Putin and anti-west sentiment domestically. The more support Putin has the more shit he can get away with.
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;44266230]They're kind of correct. Both Russia and the US have mutually-assured destruction programs going on. If Russia nukes the US then the whole world is fucked [t]http://www.ploughshares.org/sites/default/files/images/World-Nuke-Graph-with-Info-111413.png[/t] Nuke counts[/QUOTE] It really doesn't matter who has the most nukes, considering it'd only take a few nukes to fuck the entire planet. Why weren't nukes completely abolished. Why does an advanced aircraft (Canadian Avro arrow) get shut down in development, yet we continue and support the creation of weapons that can reduce this entire planet to an asteroid, as well as genetically mutate an entire population for generations. Not only that, but one country rushed out bombs upon their development and fucking deployed them on another country. I don't think they could stand a chance against the US on their own. However the US has made a few enemies in it's day, I'm sure. But the US spend billions upon billions on their military, and have a rather big arsenal. On top of that, if you're raging war on the US (as well as threatening with nuclear warfare), that also forces in the Canadians.
[QUOTE=Joscpe;44266394]Why weren't nukes completely abolished.[/QUOTE] How do you enforce a nuclear weapons ban? Who has the most firepower is the law, that's how everything ever works. It also doesn't help that countries without nuclear weapons get fucked
[QUOTE=Cjk592;44266312]Imo, the only reason this guy is running his mouth is to give anti-Western Russians a sense of security. I would highly doubt there's much true meaning or potential behind his words.[/QUOTE] Well they can, Russia has several thousand nukes stockpiled. Using them would be a terrible idea, but they can theoretically do it.
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;44266430]How do you enforce a nuclear weapons ban? Who has the most firepower is the law, that's how everything ever works. It also doesn't help that countries without nuclear weapons get fucked[/QUOTE] A giant particle beam cannon on the face of Luna.
[QUOTE=Joscpe;44266394]It really doesn't matter who has the most nukes, considering it'd only take a few nukes to fuck the entire planet. Why weren't nukes completely abolished. Why does an advanced aircraft (Canadian Avro arrow) get shut down in development, yet we continue and support the creation of weapons that can reduce this entire planet to an asteroid, as well as genetically mutate an entire population for generations. Not only that, but one country rushed out bombs upon their development and fucking deployed them on another country. .[/QUOTE] We made the irreversible mistake of discovering nukes. Now we can't get rid of them, because nobody wants to be the first to drop their weapon in case the enemy decides not to. If only one nation had nukes they could rule the planet. In reality however nukes are a deterrent to new world wars, because mutually assured destruction means nobody wants to be the one to escalate a conflict to the point where the red button may be pushed.
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;44266430]How do you enforce a nuclear weapons ban? Who has the most firepower is the law, that's how everything ever works. It also doesn't help that countries without nuclear weapons get fucked[/QUOTE] You don't. People prefer not to use them for fear of triggering a cascade of other nations firing their nukes at each other. At least this is how it is in theory, you never know what might happen, stateless actors could steal a device or make low-intensity nukes/dirty bombs with stolen nuclear material.
[QUOTE=Joscpe;44266394]It really doesn't matter who has the most nukes, considering it'd only take a few nukes to fuck the entire planet. Why weren't nukes completely abolished. Why does an advanced aircraft (Canadian Avro arrow) get shut down in development, yet we continue and support the creation of weapons that can reduce this entire planet to an asteroid, as well as genetically mutate an entire population for generations. Not only that, but one country rushed out bombs upon their development and fucking deployed them on another country. I don't think they could stand a chance against the US on their own. However the US has made a few enemies in it's day, I'm sure. But the US spend billions upon billions on their military, and have a rather big arsenal. On top of that, if you're raging war on the US (as well as threatening with nuclear warfare), that also forces in the Canadians.[/QUOTE] Western Europe would keep ties with the USA rather than Russia. So there's that, too. [editline]17th March 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Im Crimson;44266479]We made the irreversible mistake of discovering nukes. Now we can't get rid of them, because nobody wants to be the first to drop their weapon in case the enemy decides not to. If only one nation had nukes they could rule the planet. In reality however nukes are a deterrent to new world wars, because mutually assured destruction means nobody wants to be the one to escalate a conflict to the point where the red button may be pushed.[/QUOTE] As much as I'd love to be convinced of it, I can't imagine this going on forever. I'm not necessarily talking about our lifetimes, or even our children children lifetimes but I'm afraid eventually something might go wrong.
Even Civilization taunts aren't that undiplomatic, holy shit.
[QUOTE=Number-41;44266610]Even Civilization taunts aren't that undiplomatic, holy shit.[/QUOTE] We can only hope Russia doesn't act like Ghandi in real wartime
[QUOTE=Joscpe;44266394]It really doesn't matter who has the most nukes, considering it'd only take a few nukes to fuck the entire planet. Why weren't nukes completely abolished. Why does an advanced aircraft (Canadian Avro arrow) get shut down in development, yet we continue and support the creation of weapons that can reduce this entire planet to an asteroid, as well as genetically mutate an entire population for generations. Not only that, but one country rushed out bombs upon their development and fucking deployed them on another country. I don't think they could stand a chance against the US on their own. However the US has made a few enemies in it's day, I'm sure. But the US spend billions upon billions on their military, and have a rather big arsenal. On top of that, if you're raging war on the US (as well as threatening with nuclear warfare), that also forces in the Canadians.[/QUOTE] Forces everyone into it if it's a nuclear war. No one would actually get left out as far as that's concerned. Also it's kind of silly to bring up the Avro Arrow considering it was meant to be armed with air-to-air nuclear missiles for intercepting russian bombers.
After checking the data of the referendum, published by the Supreme Council of Crimea, a blogger came to some interesting conclusions - informs "Ukrainian Truth". Electoral commission announced that the vote took part 474.137 citizens of Sevastopol. Meanwhile, in this city where there is the only 383.499 people, which means that the turnout was 123 percent. According to the journalists of "Ukrainian Truth", fraud was carried out in a very simple way. Those who were not in the list appended to a separate discipline, and issued the ballot paper. In this way, same people could vote in several polling stations." why i'm not surprised ;)
[quote]...whose task will be to portray Russia in the best possible light.[/quote] Already off to a great start with this one.
[QUOTE=Joscpe;44266394]It really doesn't matter who has the most nukes, considering it'd only take a few nukes to fuck the entire planet. Why weren't nukes completely abolished. Why does an advanced aircraft (Canadian Avro arrow) get shut down in development, yet we continue and support the creation of weapons that can reduce this entire planet to an asteroid, as well as genetically mutate an entire population for generations. Not only that, but one country rushed out bombs upon their development and fucking deployed them on another country. I don't think they could stand a chance against the US on their own. However the US has made a few enemies in it's day, I'm sure. But the US spend billions upon billions on their military, and have a rather big arsenal. On top of that, if you're raging war on the US (as well as threatening with nuclear warfare), that also forces in the Canadians.[/QUOTE] Even all of the nukes currently stockpiled detonating at once would fail to make the planet uninhabitable. There would likely still be billions of humans on the planet. Many would die due to famine, but it would still fail to eradicate humans as a species or, really, even come close. They are powerful explosives, but not magic.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;44266044]I think you are grossly overestimating capabilities and scale any current rocket shield operates on. It might be able to catch some lone, lost rocket launched from Korea, but if Russia went all out nuclear apocalypse, very few warheads would get shot down and the losses everywhere, including mainland USA, would be unprecedented.[/QUOTE]Well, yeah they'd be unprecedented because no major US city has ever, ever been bombed before. Our missile defense would still intercept a majority of the missiles, though. At any given moment there's more than enough missile batteries to properly defend [i]all of North America[/i] operational or at a condition where they can be combat operational within ten minutes. Considering that even SLBMs can't strike in that timeframe, by the time ICBMs started flying they would be ready and waiting. Then there's the many, many more batteries and launchers either in storage or in a position where they'd need some prep time to be activated. ICBM threats aren't spontaneous, if the threat was credible every ballistic missile defense system in the country would have been given hours notice to get their shit together. That's not saying there will be failures to intercept, warheads will get through and depending on who gets intercepted, our silos, radars, military bases, and other non-civilian installations might actually be the target instead. During a 500 nuke plan, 20-30% of the incoming warheads are expected to hit North and South Dakota [i]alone[/i] simply because of it's military installations. Some targets, like the Pentagon and the Washington D.C metro area, are projected to be hit multiple times simply due to their strategic importance. We did well investing in missile defense while Russia pissed around with stupid shit, which is why Russia is vehemently opposed to placing them within former Warsaw Pact countries. During a full nuclear and conventional war, Russia does not want targets (cities and major transportation hubs) in Eastern Europe to survive a bombardment. Cities mean delays, which means time for counter-attacks, which can destroy their chances at victory. Worse still, they have next to no means to defeat American ICBMs and SLBMs, which would surely be on their way to blasting the shit out of Western Russia. They don't want the status quo to change, because the only direction it would change would be further out of their favor.[QUOTE=Laserbeams;44266430]How do you enforce a nuclear weapons ban? Who has the most firepower is the law, that's how everything ever works. It also doesn't help that countries without nuclear weapons get fucked[/QUOTE]Exactly the way NATO is doing it, develop amazing ballistic missile defense networks so nukes are useless for anything but draining the budget. Remember when Poland stopped being a part of the Soviet Union? Oh, man, they had a hard-on for joining NATO, they wanted everything and wanted missile defense batteries right away. Why? Nobody knows, Poland is weird sometimes, but Russia [i]completely fucking lost it[/i] and threatened all sorts of things, doing it again every single time plucky little Poland tried to get them. Ultimately it just pushed the already beefy Polish arms industry into developing their own shit, which you can see today. I wouldn't be surprised if Poland came up with a missile defense system similar to Iron Dome at some point, just to stick it to Russia.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/1Bju2Ko.png[/IMG]
This quote is pretty funny to you now. But i swear, as the one who tries to watch the weekly Vesti news just for the lulz generated by this bobblehead, it's probably one of the softest quotes of his addressed to America.
[QUOTE=Ezhik;44268607][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/1Bju2Ko.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] "Latest NATO weapons"...
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;44268733]"Latest NATO weapons"...[/QUOTE] This just in, Russia invents time machine with one use, spends it getting weapons from the 1970's
[QUOTE=Ezhik;44268607][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/1Bju2Ko.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] I wouldn't do it, but this makes me want to back the rebels. They can make the report again when their fortified positions get blown the fuck up by a javelin. The tanks they send to respond get slaughtered by the same javelins and the helicopters they send out to find the guys get fucked up by the same goddamn javelin. That is effectively game over and we haven't even gotten to any of the other arms! Rebel forces with modern NATO hardware would be utterly terrifying.
[QUOTE=GunFox;44269007]I wouldn't do it, but this makes me want to back the rebels. They can make the report again when their fortified positions get blown the fuck up by a javelin. The tanks they send to respond get slaughtered by the same javelins and the helicopters they send out to find the guys get fucked up by the same goddamn javelin. That is effectively game over and we haven't even gotten to any of the other arms! Rebel forces with modern NATO hardware would be utterly terrifying.[/QUOTE] Yeah. I'm sure FN has a warehouse of SCAR Mk16s they'd like to unload on someone.
[QUOTE=Number-41;44266610]Even Civilization taunts aren't that undiplomatic, holy shit.[/QUOTE] I think it would be a little.. esoteric.. for one of us to say "Oh look, the puny one appears. Did you forget to expand your borders?
Kiselyov always was a bunch of trash on legs, yelling whatever people above tell him to yell. One thing is EU standing by while a relatively small piece of land is being annexed, the other is a threat of all out nuclear war. If Russia as much as lifts a finger above that red button, it'll get wrecked before rockets get past the Atlantic. What a moron...
[QUOTE=GunFox;44269007]I wouldn't do it, but this makes me want to back the rebels. They can make the report again when their fortified positions get blown the fuck up by a javelin. The tanks they send to respond get slaughtered by the same javelins and the helicopters they send out to find the guys get fucked up by the same goddamn javelin. That is effectively game over and we haven't even gotten to any of the other arms! Rebel forces with modern NATO hardware would be utterly terrifying.[/QUOTE] I'm having images of the glorious javelin squads now...
[QUOTE=GunFox;44269007]I wouldn't do it, but this makes me want to back the rebels. They can make the report again when their fortified positions get blown the fuck up by a javelin. The tanks they send to respond get slaughtered by the same javelins and the helicopters they send out to find the guys get fucked up by the same goddamn javelin. That is effectively game over and we haven't even gotten to any of the other arms! Rebel forces with modern NATO hardware would be utterly terrifying.[/QUOTE] the horror.... [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-SmfybCbsY[/media]
If any war happens involving nuclear weapons, at least our descendants living in caves and bunkers will know it wasn't our fault.
You know, I wonder what the Russian soldiers in Crimea think. Like, are they all for it or are they wondering what the hell they're doing.
Man, year 2033 is approaching faster than I thought.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;44270292]Man, year 2033 is approaching faster than I thought.[/QUOTE] The nuclear war happened in 2013 in the Metro universe, so we're too late
[QUOTE=Squidman;44265976]I wish I could take Russia seriously, but their leadership acts akin to generic movie villain schlock[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Grimhound;44265999]We're in an age of global interconnection. We should be working together, damnit. Not threatening to blow one another to smithereens. I don't want nuclear or conventional war. I want these douchebags to shove off so that we can get biological immortality and AI waifus.[/QUOTE] Russia provides 1/3 of Germany's gas supply, as well as many other resources for dozens of European countries. The only reason the US has been so open to judge Putin's actions is because he isn't as economically tied to it as the European Union is. And according to Russian news/sources (as biased as they are) the US played a part in the revolution that happened in Ukraine in numerous ways, which ended up removing the pro-Russia leader that was there. So it's no surprise Putin made a move. Like the first comment in this thread said, it's not like Putin has no reasons to act the way he is acting now and it's not like the US isn't known for messing with other countries' governments and inciting revolutions so they can replace it with their own America-friendly leaders (happened dozens of times with Central/South American countries).
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.