• Russia delivers nuclear threat to Denmark, NATO concerned
    116 replies, posted
[QUOTE=gman003-main;47374478]Somewhat, but not very. After WW2, Europe basically got divided in half. UK/US got one half, USSR got the other. America rebuilt France and its part of Germany. Ironically, this led to America's later decline in heavy industry - before the war, everyone was running outdated processes, because the newer ones just weren't better enough to justify tearing down the old ones and building new ones. But since everything in Germany was bombed into oblivion, there was no reason not to build stuff to the latest process, which gave them a competitive edge later on. Meanwhile, Britain was having a bit of downtime because they got bombed pretty hard too, and didn't rebuild quite as effectively. Meanwhile, Russia basically pillaged their half. Heavy industry was packed up and moved into Russia, skilled workers were relocated. Oh, and they literally deported everyone from Koenigsberg to give it to Russians - they renamed it Kaliningrad, and it remains that little exclave of Russia between Poland and Lithuania. For the clearest example, compare East and West Germany - both started from the same position, but West Germany became a champion of industry while East Germany languished in relative poverty. Both sides did their share of empire-building, but NATO was built more democratically. There were never active threats from the US to keep countries in it, which meant that even though America was clearly the dominant member, they couldn't force the rest to follow everything they said. Russia kept the Warsaw Pact alive through military power - usually threatened, sometimes actual, as with Hungary. It also helped that there were several large NATO members that could keep the US in check - France and Britain, mainly, later Germany as well. Outside Europe, they both behaved pretty similarly, sponsoring revolutions and fighting proxy wars. Both sides were pretty clearly in the wrong there, not gonna argue. Now let's look at modern actions. America did drag NATO into Afghanistan, but that was probably more to make it look less retaliatory than for the actual military assistance (think about it - did the US really need help with the actual fighting?). But NATO wasn't dragged into the war in Iraq, and the Libya war was spearheaded by Italy and France, not the US. And NATO's expansion into former Warsaw Pact countries was initiated by them, not by NATO. Russia's new attempt at an alliance, CIS/CSTO (CIS is their EU equivalent, CSTO is their NATO equivalent), seems to be collapsing because it doesn't offer the members any benefits, and Russia is no longer seen as able to back up their threats (interestingly, Ukraine formed an alliance with several former CSTO members). Oh, and there's the whole Ukraine thing. Even if you buy into the "America funded the revolution" propaganda (I've heard no actual evidence, only "it benefits them, they have a history of doing such things, so it was obviously them"), Russia is literally trying to steal a country by military force. America never tried to annex any country. Russia conquered Crimea, rigged some elections to make it look official, then straight-up annexed it. That's a big line to cross.[/QUOTE] While I agree with most if your post, the part where the United States never annexed anything isn't true. The US annexed both New Mexico and California, and arguably also Texas under more confusing circumstances. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War[/URL]
[QUOTE=assassin_Raptor;47374737]Kinda overkill to use a nuke on a ship though right?[/QUOTE] Nukes are all about overkill. The US made [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-26_Falcon]nuclear anti-aircraft missiles[/url] and [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_Atomic_Demolition_Munition]nuclear land mines[/url], and America, Britain and Russia made [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_depth_bomb]nuclear depth charges[/url]. When you think about it, even using nukes against cities is kind of overkill. [editline]22nd March 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Bonde;47375208]While I agree with most if your post, the part where the United States never annexed anything isn't true. The US annexed both New Mexico and California, and arguably also Texas under more confusing circumstances. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War[/URL][/QUOTE] I was speaking in context of WW2, the Cold War and post-Cold War era. Not saying that you're not right, just that it wasn't relevant to the context.
cmon putin, havent you ever listened to junior senior? Denmark is too cool to be nuked.
Why would you deliver a [i]nuclear[/i] threat to Denmark? Seems a little overkill, doesn't it?
"If theres a nuclear war you will be a target" If theres a nuclear war the whole worlds fucked anyway
[QUOTE=Bonde;47373105]Picture of the frigate in question: [img]http://i.imgur.com/AcMjmwZ.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] No wonder Russia is waving nuclear threats at us, we're sending our finest cannons for battle.
[QUOTE=Harry3;47379069]"If theres a nuclear war you will be a target" If theres a nuclear war the whole worlds fucked anyway[/QUOTE] No, it's really not. We should probably stop believing in this myth by now.
[QUOTE=Explosions;47380062]No, it's really not. We should probably stop believing in this myth by now.[/QUOTE] How is it not? Not trying to be snarky/shitty genuinely don't know how it's not and am curious.
[QUOTE=Smallheart;47380065]How is it not? Not trying to be snarky/shitty genuinely don't know how it's not and am curious.[/QUOTE] Why would a nuclear war lead to an armageddon scenario for the entire world? Why would a country like, say, Chile be horrifically affected by a nuclear exchange between the US and Russia?
More anti terror/surveliance laws incomming. Sigh we are slowly losing our freedoms in my country while we gained are our own version of the american exceptionalism syndrome.
[QUOTE=Explosions;47380101]Why would a nuclear war lead to an armageddon scenario for the entire world? Why would a country like, say, Chile be horrifically affected by a nuclear exchange between the US and Russia?[/QUOTE] In a large-scale nuclear war, enough fallout would be released to cause severe global effects. I'm not sure if we've reduced stockpiles enough that such a scenario is impossible, but at one point there really were enough that the fallout would poison the entire planet.
[QUOTE=Explosions;47380101]Why would a nuclear war lead to an armageddon scenario for the entire world? Why would a country like, say, Chile be horrifically affected by a nuclear exchange between the US and Russia?[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure the world markets would crash in a nuclear war, atleast briefly. But saying Europe would become an apocalyptic hellhole because of a nuclear war between the US and Russia, is pulling words out of your ass. Another thing to consider is for a nuclear war to happen, someone has to "pull the trigger". It's hard enough to kill someone for alot of people. Killing millions requires some serious mental issues.
Replying to a few people here, but in the event of full nuclear exchange between the US and Russia wouldn't the amount of radioactive fallout affect global temperatures for several years, fucking up the ability to grow crops? Wouldn't economic collapse affect the ability to transport reserves to survivors? Wouldn't the very surface of the planet be riddled with radiation?
[QUOTE=Smallheart;47380137]Replying to a few people here, but in the event of full nuclear exchange between the US and Russia wouldn't the amount of radioactive fallout affect global temperatures for several years, fucking up the ability to grow crops? Wouldn't economic collapse affect the ability to transport reserves to survivors? Wouldn't the very surface of the planet be riddled with radiation?[/QUOTE] Yeah but we might all turn into spiderman how rad would that be.
[QUOTE=Smallheart;47380137]Replying to a few people here, but in the event of full nuclear exchange between the US and Russia wouldn't the amount of radioactive fallout affect global temperatures for several years, fucking up the ability to grow crops? Wouldn't economic collapse affect the ability to transport reserves to survivors? Wouldn't the very surface of the planet be riddled with radiation?[/QUOTE] Fallout has nothing to do with world temperature. Some environmentalists in the early 80s invented "nuclear winter" as a tactic for disarmament but it was false then and is false now. As for fallout itself, radiation reduces to short-term survival levels within weeks. Within a few years the problem is virtually gone, as long as some type of water purification is undertaken. This is if we consider ground burst attacks, as air bursts produce very small amounts of fallout. Of course, if nuclear power plants are targeted then radioactive contamination would exists for thousands of years, but that would not be from the nuclear weapons themselves. Obviously a nuclear war, even a relatively small or local exchange, would be the most disastrous event ever to occur in human history. But to act like it would be an apocalypse for the entire world and that there is no hope is stupid and wrong.
[QUOTE=Showgun;47369872]they really do have some scary shit like the RS-24 that can carry up to 10 independent nuclear warheads per missile, and they have hundreds of them[/QUOTE] if they decided to nuke a nuke in the atmosphere in retaliation rip all
[QUOTE=Explosions;47380231]Fallout has nothing to do with world temperature. Some environmentalists in the early 80s invented "nuclear winter" as a tactic for disarmament but it was false then and is false now. As for fallout itself, radiation reduces to short-term survival levels within weeks. Within a few years the problem is virtually gone, as long as some type of water purification is undertaken. This is if we consider ground burst attacks, as air bursts produce very small amounts of fallout. Of course, if nuclear power plants are targeted then radioactive contamination would exists for thousands of years, but that would not be from the nuclear weapons themselves. Obviously a nuclear war, even a relatively small or local exchange, would be the most disastrous event ever to occur in human history. But to act like it would be an apocalypse for the entire world and that there is no hope is stupid and wrong.[/QUOTE] It makes for good Fiction though at least.
[QUOTE=Explosions;47380231]Fallout has nothing to do with world temperature. Some environmentalists in the early 80s invented "nuclear winter" as a tactic for disarmament but it was false then and is false now. As for fallout itself, radiation reduces to short-term survival levels within weeks. Within a few years the problem is virtually gone, as long as some type of water purification is undertaken. This is if we consider ground burst attacks, as air bursts produce very small amounts of fallout. Of course, if nuclear power plants are targeted then radioactive contamination would exists for thousands of years, but that would not be from the nuclear weapons themselves. Obviously a nuclear war, even a relatively small or local exchange, would be the most disastrous event ever to occur in human history. But to act like it would be an apocalypse for the entire world and that there is no hope is stupid and wrong.[/QUOTE] Nuclear winter isn't false. A large-scale nuclear war (tens of thousands of megaton-scale warheads used) would blast enough fallout into the upper atmosphere to block a significant portion of sunlight. This would have caused a global catastrophe. Disarmament has proceeded enough that we may not have enough nukes to cause a catastrophic nuclear winter (we're down to about 10,000 nukes total, most of them relatively smaller than at the peak). There would still be a brief nuclear winter, but it would be more along the lines of "and the crops failed for a few years" than "and then the crops never grew again and everyone died, the end". This is distinct from the radioactive problems of fallout - technically, there's nothing nuclear about nuclear winter, you could [I]in theory[/I] cause the same effect with equivalent amounts of conventional explosives.
Can we please have an up-to-date remake of Threads, with a Russian version made and broadcast across whatever TV channels Putin likes watching, [I]please[/I]?
[QUOTE=gman003-main;47380499]Nuclear winter isn't false. A large-scale nuclear war (tens of thousands of megaton-scale warheads used) would blast enough fallout into the upper atmosphere to block a significant portion of sunlight. This would have caused a global catastrophe. Disarmament has proceeded enough that we may not have enough nukes to cause a catastrophic nuclear winter (we're down to about 10,000 nukes total, most of them relatively smaller than at the peak). There would still be a brief nuclear winter, but it would be more along the lines of "and the crops failed for a few years" than "and then the crops never grew again and everyone died, the end". This is distinct from the radioactive problems of fallout - technically, there's nothing nuclear about nuclear winter, you could [I]in theory[/I] cause the same effect with equivalent amounts of conventional explosives.[/QUOTE] You seems to have the wrong definition of fallout. Nuclear winter theory actually doesn't have much to do with fallout, which is irradiated particles pushed into the air by a ground burst nuclear explosion. It instead counts on firestorms caused by the explosions generating large amounts of smoke which blocks sunlight. This smoke usually isn't called fallout. At least I've never heard it called that. The problem with the nuclear winter theory is that it assumes every nuclear blast would cause a firestorm. This is patently false. First, there isn't a good reason to believe that cities would be the primary targets in a nuclear war. There is a very good chance that at least the aggressor would target the enemy's weapons and military bases. This would cause a great deal of fallout to be produced, but not very many firestorms if any. Second, not every nuclear attack on a city would cause a firestorm. We currently have two examples of nuclear attacks on cities: Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Only Hiroshima suffered a firestorm from the attack. This is because Japanese cities were made mostly out of wooden structures at the time and because Hiroshima's flat geography made it easier for a firestorm to form. Nuclear attacks on modern cities are extremely unlikely to result in firestorms due to the lower amount of wood in the buildings (as well as the stronger bombs, which actually decrease the likelihood of a firestorm happening).
[QUOTE=Explosions;47380101]Why would a nuclear war lead to an armageddon scenario for the entire world? Why would a country like, say, Chile be horrifically affected by a nuclear exchange between the US and Russia?[/QUOTE] Thinking primarily of the effect on trade and economy. Not in terms of the environment.
[QUOTE=Riller;47370037]I do find it moderately hilarious that they see a purely defensive weapons-system as a threat to them. A missile defense system does not have any offensive use whatsoever.[/QUOTE] It's capable of shooting down their big scary missiles that they worked so hard making, and they find that offensive.
[QUOTE=Explosions;47380736]You seems to have the wrong definition of fallout. Nuclear winter theory actually doesn't have much to do with fallout, which is irradiated particles pushed into the air by a ground burst nuclear explosion. It instead counts on firestorms caused by the explosions generating large amounts of smoke which blocks sunlight. This smoke usually isn't called fallout. At least I've never heard it called that. The problem with the nuclear winter theory is that it assumes every nuclear blast would cause a firestorm. This is patently false. First, there isn't a good reason to believe that cities would be the primary targets in a nuclear war. There is a very good chance that at least the aggressor would target the enemy's weapons and military bases. This would cause a great deal of fallout to be produced, but not very many firestorms if any. Second, not every nuclear attack on a city would cause a firestorm. We currently have two examples of nuclear attacks on cities: Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Only Hiroshima suffered a firestorm from the attack. This is because Japanese cities were made mostly out of wooden structures at the time and because Hiroshima's flat geography made it easier for a firestorm to form. Nuclear attacks on modern cities are extremely unlikely to result in firestorms due to the lower amount of wood in the buildings (as well as the stronger bombs, which actually decrease the likelihood of a firestorm happening).[/QUOTE] Fallout is any material that is sucked up through the fireball and contaminated with radioactive material. Burning buildings, dirt, rubble particles, whatever. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were relatively small nukes. Their destruction came from the overpressure and firestorm. Larger nukes dig out a large crater, and that dirt gets irradiated and launched pretty high. The fireball also sucks up a lot of material and lofts it skyward - in large nukes, that can suck it into the jetstream. Nuclear testing had a measurable effect on climate, and that was mere hundreds of explosions over decades. Consider the potential of thousands of detonations in just hours.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;47380836]Fallout is any material that is sucked up through the fireball and contaminated with radioactive material. Burning buildings, dirt, rubble particles, whatever.[/quote] Correct. Except if a city is attacked, it would almost certainly be with an air burst and the fireball would not touch the ground. Air burst attacks are much more effective at causing large amounts of damage, and would mostly be used against cities and some military targets. The only attacks which would cause large amounts of radioactive fallout would be the ground burst attacks targeted at silos. [quote]Hiroshima and Nagasaki were relatively small nukes. Their destruction came from the overpressure and firestorm. Larger nukes dig out a large crater, and that dirt gets irradiated and launched pretty high. The fireball also sucks up a lot of material and lofts it skyward - in large nukes, that can suck it into the jetstream.[/quote] Once again, cities would almost always be air burst attacks. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki nukes were air bursts and the fallout was minimal. [quote]Nuclear testing had a measurable effect on climate, and that was mere hundreds of explosions over decades. Consider the potential of thousands of detonations in just hours.[/QUOTE] Of course, any nuclear exchange would have devastating, possibly generational effects on the environment. But pretending that it would be some doomsday event no matter what is just incorrect.
[QUOTE=Explosions;47380948]Of course, any nuclear exchange would have devastating, possibly generational effects on the environment. But pretending that it would be some doomsday event no matter what is just incorrect.[/QUOTE] I kinda blame the fiction. Think about it? all the fiction about how fucked we would all be in Nuclear War, compared to an actual Nuclear War.
[QUOTE=Showgun;47369872]they really do have some scary shit like the RS-24 that can carry up to 10 independent nuclear warheads per missile, and they have hundreds of them[/QUOTE] That technology isn't new, the US's Minuteman do the same thing, and western missile defense is making huge breakthroughs, I wouldn't worry about it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.