Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

FriedClams said:
Nuclear weapons will not be used. Those Russian generals have families, children, as do all the oligarchs. Not an iota of a chance it ever happens.
Click to expand...
I think this may be more a signal that Putin is feeling the heat.
 
Frosty said:
Russia would likely launch many, not one. It would end the world. They take 4 minutes to reach the UK and Western Europe so we would only have time to respond with a retaliatory strike.

The UK's nuclear submarines would open the letter of last resort in their safe and carry out the PM's instructions.
Click to expand...
How do they reach Europe so quickly? Do they have them on the sea?

Poland is so close to Kaliningrad we would probably get one first.

Surely if even one is used then there will be ones immediately heading all over Russia within minutes? Which basically means Moscow, St Petersburg etc. cease to exist. Surely not even the most insane ones in Putin’s circle would be OK with that? Unless he has a button he can push to launch one it’s surely not a realistic scenario… I hope.
 
TheLiverBird said:
Indeed because you’d like to think those around Putin would be thinking of their own families in a Nuclear war, if Putin has lost his head, you’d hope, we’d hope, the world would hope, those around him would grow some testies
Click to expand...
FriedClams said:
Nuclear weapons will not be used. Those Russian generals have families, children, as do all the oligarchs. Not an iota of a chance it ever happens.
Click to expand...
Exactly, just look at the reaction on faces of those two at the end. His own people know that he has lost the plot.
 
zing said:
Ignorant question - how bad are nuclear weapons?

Do they wipe out cities, countries? What happens in the event of Russia launching one? Will there be time to react?
Click to expand...
The launch of nuclear weapons from land/water is a serious event and pretty easily noticed, as it generates massive noise, vibration and heat.
Most rockets of that size can be easily destroyed/re-coded/intercepted until they reach a target as long as they're identified rather early. We must also take into consideration that Russia's technology is quite behind and, most likely, most of their nuclear weapons can be easily hacked/redirected/destroyed in flight. (I'm talking out of my ass here. My father, who used to be in the military, tells me there was some law that all nuclear weapons must be in constant communication with the ground, must have fail safe mechanisms and a way to be disabled remotely, but don't know if that's true or not these days).

If they're destroyed in flight, there will be some radiation, but it will generally disperse upwards because of the massive heat. If one goes on the ground, damage needs to be evaluated based on several factors, how large was the missile, on what type of soil it hits, does it hit in a city with a lot underground infrastructure, wind/climate, etc. Usually a nuclear explosion fecks everything in an area, from infrastructure, water sources, vegetation, animals, humans and for quite a while I would say.

In no fecking way one should ever be used again on this planet, no matter the reasons.

There quite a few other better/smarter weapons than nuclear when fighting a war, especially since once you've let a nuke go, the other big players will know quite surely from where you've launched it.
 
zing said:
Ignorant question - how bad are nuclear weapons?

Do they wipe out cities, countries? What happens in the event of Russia launching one? Will there be time to react?
Click to expand...
A 1,000-kiloton nuclear blast might produce third-degree burns up to 5 miles away, second-degree burns up to 6 miles away, and first-degree burns up to 7 miles away, according to one estimate from AsapScience. People up to 53 miles away could also experience temporary blindness. According to the internet - so really not good.
 
Nuclear war would be a disaster. The whole world will be wiped out. The end of a civilisation - this is how previous civilisations have been wiped out, catastrophes like this.
 
DeGea said:
Nuclear war would be a disaster. The whole world will be wiped out. The end of a civilisation - this is how previous civilisations have been wiped out, catastrophes like this.
Click to expand...


There's always a reset at some point.
 
CraftySoAndSo said:
It's a grey area because Ukraine have to do something to respond to the propaganda and fake news being spewed in the Russian media. If they do nothing, then the propaganda will only grow stronger. They can't show photos of dead soldiers because that could do more harm as Russians who are on the fence about what to believe will see those photos and want retribution. Whereas doing what they're doing is showing they want peace by showing they won't kill if they don't have to and allowing these kids to ring home. Yes it breaks rules but they're in a very delicate situation and their country is at stake so i don't think they care about the rules right now.
Click to expand...
Yeah it is a tricky one, given the propaganda overdrive we have these days with social media. I do hope it is effective- these conscript kids from Russia may be on the wrong side, but they are also victims in this.
 
balaks said:
A 1,000-kiloton nuclear blast might produce third-degree burns up to 5 miles away, second-degree burns up to 6 miles away, and first-degree burns up to 7 miles away, according to one estimate from AsapScience. People up to 53 miles away could also experience temporary blindness. According to the internet - so really not good.
Click to expand...

Thanks - why are there people here saying Europe can be destroyed in minutes, as well as the world?

Is that due to the magnitude of today's nukes or does Russia have lots of them, and that's a worst case scenario where he just targets everyone?
 
zing said:
Ignorant question - how bad are nuclear weapons?

Do they wipe out cities, countries? What happens in the event of Russia launching one? Will there be time to react?
Click to expand...

Depends very much on the type and size.
Tactical nuclear weapons are relatively small. Much smaller than those used in WW2.
But the full size ones, well let's just say you don't want to know. Devastating in the extreme.
 
The Ukrainian delegation obviously won't include Zelensky or anybody too senior in the Ukraine government will it?
 
zing said:
Thanks - why are there people here saying Europe can be destroyed in minutes, as well as the world?

Is that due to the magnitude of today's nukes or does Russia have lots of them, and that's a worst case scenario where he just targets everyone?
Click to expand...

becuase a nuclear war will most likely be a multiple strike operation

not just one nuke
 
Excuse my naivety but why can’t these talks happen over video conference? Why do they have to risk their lives and meet in person?
 
zing said:
Thanks - why are there people here saying Europe can be destroyed in minutes, as well as the world?

Is that due to the magnitude of today's nukes or does Russia have lots of them, and that's a worst case scenario where he just targets everyone?
Click to expand...
Russia has 6,500 of them.
 
zing said:
Ignorant question - how bad are nuclear weapons?

Do they wipe out cities, countries? What happens in the event of Russia launching one? Will there be time to react?
Click to expand...

I share your ignorance. My approach to nuclear weapons subsists of 35 years with my fingers in my ears, pretending they don't exist lest I meltdown thinking about them.

Are all Russia's based in Russia, or do they have them readied in other locations to as well like the US? Do they have them on ships and submarines based around the world?
 
AFC NimbleThumb said:
You’re choosing to ignore the human aspect of the situation to hide behind ‘the rules’ which given the examples above are failing certain members of the human race simply based on passports alone.
Click to expand...
I don’t have a solution because it is about sheer capacity. You can’t bypass a bottleneck without smashing a bottle. The border forces will be working to maximum capacity and will have to prioritise who to process.

It is not about hiding behind rules either. I don’t see any reason for Ukraine or the EU to change the rules and would even support them continuing to prioritise their citizens. Citizens of third countries, including British citizens, one of which could have been myself in a few weeks’ time, will have to wait unfortunately.

The only obvious thing common-sense thing I would suggest is prioritising family groups with young children, but I imagine that is probably somewhat happening already.

You mention Ukraine failing foreign citizens who have contributed to the country right now, but you forget one important thing: all Ukrainian men between 18 and 60 cannot leave the country indefinitely. All foreign men stuck in Ukraine at least have the option of queuing to leave.
 
zing said:
Thanks - why are there people here saying Europe can be destroyed in minutes, as well as the world?

Is that due to the magnitude of today's nukes or does Russia have lots of them, and that's a worst case scenario where he just targets everyone?
Click to expand...

They have thousands of nuclear weapons (around 6000) and they would likely fire many at once targeting major cities and strategic targets of multiple countries. Every major city, every port city and every military base in the UK/USA, etc would be targeted - if a modern nuclear bomb went off in London you would be talking 300k people killed instantly as a minimum. Essentially the world as we know it would come to an end.
 
He already threatened nuclear war earlier this week.

Are we really supposed to believe him that he only had them on "stand by" until now? Laughable.
 
JJ12 said:
Excuse my naivety but why can’t these talks happen over video conference? Why do they have to risk their lives and meet in person?
Click to expand...
I'd imagine a video conference can potentially be hacked and locations can be revealed.
 
If he goes he will get shot en route and it’ll be put down to a random Russian squad who didn’t know who was inside the trucks.
Maybe I watch too many movies but I’d look at who is next in line in decision making and wonder if they were gotten at.
 
zing said:
Thanks - why are there people here saying Europe can be destroyed in minutes, as well as the world?

Is that due to the magnitude of today's nukes or does Russia have lots of them, and that's a worst case scenario where he just targets everyone?
Click to expand...

6000+ nukes would absolutely destroy the world, never mind Europe. Total annihilation.
The amount of radiation in the atmosphere would spread all across the world, poisoning water supplies, crops and everything else. A new ice age would possibly be another consequence. There might be survivors, but nevertheless we’re back to the Stone Age.

This is exactly why I don’t think it’ll happen, though.
 
Hopefully Putin comes to his senses instead of going all the way now that he's started the invasion.
 
Sarni said:
How do they reach Europe so quickly? Do they have them on the sea?

Poland is so close to Kaliningrad we would probably get one first.

Surely if even one is used then there will be ones immediately heading all over Russia within minutes? Which basically means Moscow, St Petersburg etc. cease to exist. Surely not even the most insane ones in Putin’s circle would be OK with that? Unless he has a button he can push to launch one it’s surely not a realistic scenario… I hope.
Click to expand...

During the Cold War we knew that ICBMs would take roughly 30 minutes to hit the USA and less than 5 to hit the UK. This does, as you say, depend on where the missiles are launched from. There are no longer missiles in East Germany and Czechia, but the extra distance they have to cover is offset in advances in rocketry.

Even more disturbing, the Russian nuclear launch system is automated, so does not require Presidential input in certain circumstances.
 
diarm said:
I share your ignorance. My approach to nuclear weapons subsists of 35 years with my fingers in my ears, pretending they don't exist lest I meltdown thinking about them.

Are all Russia's based in Russia, or do they have them readied in other locations to as well like the US? Do they have them on ships and submarines based around the world?
Click to expand...
The exact numbers of warheads are state secrets so everything is just guess work. It is belived that Russia has around 6500 nuclear warheads. That include landbased, airborne, ship and submarine based warheads.
 
dinostar77 said:
Never going to happen. Some people in this thread going way over the top.
Click to expand...

Well said. Let's just wait and see how things play out.
I have no worries at this moment of any likelihood of any nuclear weapons.
The whole point of having them is to use them as a threat.
In a sense, it is starting to demonstrate that things are not going the way he hoped.
This is his predictable reaction to all of the sanctions and support that Ukraine is getting and shows how marginalised he already is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.