Oops. Broken link - Here you go
All you need to do is research this yourself. 15,000 nukes, exploding in a matter of hours, would wipe us off the face of the planet.
I say 1,000 nukes would do the job, but let's make it harder to deny.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
All you need to do is research this yourself. 15,000 nukes, exploding in a matter of hours, would wipe us off the face of the planet.
I say 1,000 nukes would do the job, but let's make it harder to deny.
ukraine can join whatever the feck they want genius. Get the hell out of here man
keep drinking your coolaid
Enjoy your little wet red dreams of putin bro ha.
causality ≠ guilt
There will be residual damage. Soil, radioactive dust and ash in the upper atmosphere which might harm people over time. It’s effect of course fades with distance and probably won’t affect rest of Europe in catastrophic sense.
High quality of debate here tonight.
If you have started watching twice and not made it to the end, it does really deliver. I wonder how the conversation then played out.
well when you have such shit posters trying to blame a country for allowing themselves to be invaded by russia not much to debate im afraid. My fault for venturing outside football forum to see how trash some people are in reality.
And an edit here, the fact that a staff member can think this is a thread that should see "debate" is frankly insulting. There is no debating this.
This is good news. Putin -and people in his inner cercle- won’t care about small manifestations, But this kind of pressure if they stand by it can be a real game changer.
Ain’t too many people around the world now looking to the UK Prime Minister to be a key player in ending this diplomatically, or to be leading the talks once the war ends.
As I said this makes no sense. Hiroshima had a power of 15kT, Tsar Bomba had 50MT, that is more than 3000 times bigger.
It didn't destroy the atmosphere, or kill everyone. It just did a massive explosion.
It could depending on wind direction etc. But also important would be the handling of the accident. Tchernobyl was as we know handled in a bad way, so people and environment was contaminated by toxic fuel. Also how many reactors melt down would obviously affect it. In Norway people are hamstring iodine, even those it would have no effect on.
I am no expert, but I remember from Tchernobyl that it affected various livestock. Contaminated rain water poured down and contaminated grass and plants, which then contaminated sheep, reindeer etc. There are still some effects of that episode on norwegian soil. The mountains in the area where I live was the place most affected. Also Austria and Switzerland, I think, got the wind in their direction. Norway spent a lot of money on following up this catastrophy.
Edit: also now thought about all the wheat production in Ukraine. I guess that industry could be rendered useless for xx amount of years if accident was badly handled and wind went all over the place?
I do wonder as a species whether we'd be dumb enough to fire all the nukes. I'd like to think there's instructions to fire a limited barrage at key areas only.
I'm sure plenty of operators wouldn't fire even if a nuke was about to hit their base. Killing millions as your final act? Feck that.
I'm sure plenty of operators wouldn't fire even if a nuke was about to hit their base. Killing millions as your final act? Feck that.
Enerhodar is also the same place they lobbed grenades into the crowd yesterday. They really want that nuclear plant...
Which is ironically the same approach the Kremlin is taking.
Certainly not.
It's very doubtful that all those could actually be used. Those on strategic ICBMs probably could be fired, those mounted on bombers and submarines on patrol also quite likely. Eveything in store most likely wouldn't be able to be used after the initial strikes, so we would be far closer to 1,000 than 15,000 actually detonated bombs.
And no, it is unlikely that it would wipe humankind from the planet. Especially the southern hemisphere would be largely unaffected by direct strikes, a bit of cooling down would cause troubles as well as the increased radiation background, but we as a species would likely survive, like we did the ice ages or catastrophic supervolcanoes.
Chernobyl was also designed in a massively unsafe way.
It has been a decade so I cannot quite remember the statistics, but the Fukushima meltdown was of a similar size to Chernobyl, but because of the safer design of the plant and materials used, it did not have the same impact on nearby land.
After Chernobyl radiation spread as far as the UK in the form or radioactive rain, in other words the whole of Europe is at risk depending on the wind direction.
It's extremely unlikely there will be any problems, Russian troops don't want to blow the lid off the reactors right next to them any more than we want them to. The thick concrete and metal designed to keep them in also does a good job of keeping unwanted things out, the risk is more to the water and generators needed to keep them from overheating. An operating reactor is also more much dangerous than a shutdown one so i hope Ukraine is not running them right now.
Now that is utterly disrespectful to everything that people from former Warsaw Pact countries have experienced during the Cold War. Do you think they would have joined NATO if the Soviets treated them better during the 40 years of Soviet rule? Those countries had a right to do whatever they want based on their own assessments about reality on the ground and past history; that is the primary principle of sovereignty.
Cuba went their separate opposite to the US because of near colonial rule prior to 1959. And as far as everyone is concerned, Cuba has maintained privileged relations with Russia since then and the US still have to suck it up.
christ, do you realize how many lives will be lost before anything of this sort can happen? and you’re casually arguing for a regime change in a country with nukes and the second-largest army in the world.
You'd have been better replying that than a crude comment about wet dreams.
I largely agree. Also, new geopolitical rivalry: Brazil vs Australia
Every cloud has its silver lining then. England has been blamed for nearly everything and our current record whichever party it is, Blair and Boris are our recent efforts. It's probably best UK sit out the next 500 years and let someone else try and get the blame.
Urgh, such a depressingly dump concept. Willing to risk a "limited nuclear war" to get the upper hand in negotiations. If their Ukraine operation is anything to go by, the Russians don't exactly have a brilliant grasp on how Western governments behave.
Funny how you haven't mentioned Putin's huge role. "I can't justify Putin invading Russia...but it's mainly the wests fault" right...
If you were thinking about putting a headguard on, can I punch you in the face before you do and say you had a huge role in my actions?
The assembled research by specialists for Greenpeace International concludes that the safety of Zaporizhzhia is severely compromised by the war. In a worst-case scenario, where explosions destroy the reactor containment and cooling systems, the potential release of radioactivity from both the reactor core and the spent fuel pool into the atmosphere could create a disaster far worse even than the Fukushima Daiichi catastrophe of 2011, with areas of land hundreds of kilometres from the reactor site potentially becoming inhospitable for decades. Even without direct damage to the plant, the reactor’s rely heavily on the electric grid for operating cooling systems, on the availability of nuclear technicians and personnel and access to heavy equipment and logistics.
Three reactors are currently operating and three have been shut down since the start of the war.
edit:
Russia’s aggression has already damaged two radioactive waste disposal sites at Kharkiv and Kyiv. So they are not exactly... careful!!
It should also be pointed out that Putin isn't demanding Eastern Europe turn into variations of Switzerland. He actively wants to extend the Russian State's influence and re-create that Warsaw Pact.
Dude, just go research the subject. Feck. I'm no nuclear physicist. My memory is too bad. I can't even remember the point I was trying to make.
You're underestimating the power of nuclear warheads. But anyway, I will gladly agree to disagree. That's my way of saying I'm outta here, 'cause I have stuff to do
Was NATO the only solution to those countries becoming a part of the 'West'?
You know what I am saying.
Yes. Easily.
Depends on the wind direction, but likely they just want to control the light switches.
Both organizations have standards and requirements for membership. The worst we can say is that perhaps these are too strict and there should be a function to relax requirements and instead prescribe solutions that can be implemented post membership but the suggestion that working toward NATO or EU membership for any former Soviet Republic or Warsaw Pact member is detrimental is ridiculous and diminishes their intellectual standing in my opinion.
This isn't a time to throw out contrarian arguments for the sake of appearing balanced.