Should We Prepare for a Nuclear Conflict?

[John cycling]

If Putin easily took Ukraine without other countries stepping in, do you really believe he would have stopped there?

If the U.S. (& NATO) took Ukraine without Russia stepping in, do you really think they'd stop there.

What if Russia was invading Mexico. Would the U.S. step in to try and stop them? Like Russia is doing in Ukraine?

Pappy I also remember back in the 60's being taught in school to get under our desks during the Cuban missile crisis......we know now that it wouldn't have done any good back then any more than it would today.

Of course hiding under a desk wouldn't work. Personally I'm going to hide in a closet. I've got a can of beans in there and some water.

 

[Paco Dennis]

With international negotiations and treaties it may have stopped the whole war. But, negotiations never happened. Now, it is fantasy to say Putin will take the Ukraine. So that scenario is off the table. It is a matter now, of a stand off between Russia against the U.S. and N.A.T.O.. This whole thing could have been avoided if the war mongers and military industrial complex wasn't pulling the strings to escalate this conflict. BIG $$$$$$$$$$$. Plus the oil control and agricultural control. BIG $$$$$$$$. This isn't about good guys against bad guys.

 

[Aneeda72]

The more setbacks that the Russian military suffer in Ukraine, The more likely that Putin will consider using Nukes.

I agree

 

[StarSong]

f the U.S. (& NATO) took Ukraine without Russia stepping in, do you really think they'd stop there.

I do not. Nor would I expect them to do so. The difference is that NATO is a country joining an alliance, it's not an absorption.

Yes, if Russia (or any other country) invaded Mexico the US would step in. I'm not clear how this is an analogy though.

 

[WhatInThe]

The conflict would be with nuclear fallout which eventually would cause more damage than what was done at the initial blast area.

Got to admit Putin and Russians blowing off the possible effects of nuclear fallout just by their laze fare attitude when they took Chernobyl eventually abandoning the move when troops started getting sick from 35 year old radioactive dirt/dust that was stirred up.

 

[Aneeda72]

If the U.S. (& NATO) took Ukraine without Russia stepping in, do you really think they'd stop there.

What if Russia was invading Mexico. Would the U.S. step in to try and stop them? Like Russia is doing in Ukraine?



Of course hiding under a desk wouldn't work. Personally I'm going to hide in a closet. I've got a can of beans in there and some water.

If Russia was invading Mexico, would the USA step in stop Russia from claiming and taking over Mexico? And, you know, the Mexican people. Seriously? @John cycling are you aware that one of the major disagreements between politicians in the USA is over the treatment of illegal Mexican immigrants.

Imagine a Russian Mexico-where Mexicans were now Russians. Hmm. The door into the USA on the USA/Mexico border would close so fast that IT would hit you in the butt and bounce you right back into Mexico. Cause American politicians really really dislike Russians. More than they dislike Mexicans. And why the politicians may claim to “love” the Russian people, I doubt their sincerity.

By cracky, you may have solved a problem. Let’s keep Ukraine and give the Russians Mexico.

 

[Paco Dennis]

I do not. Nor would I expect them to do so. The difference is that NATO is a country joining an alliance, it's not an absorption.

Yes, if Russia (or any other country) invaded Mexico the US would step in. I'm not clear how this is an analogy though.

The history of Western "democracy" ( the U.S. in todays world ) spread throughout the world is a very complex and debated subject. Some think the U.S. used criminal methods many times to take over countries ( look up "economic hitman" ). Others think that socialism and communism need to be wiped out, so the U.S. inspires nations through various methods ( usually economic and militarily ) to join NATO and receive protection if the bad communists invade. The west had Russia surrounded and the Ukraine was the last straw. Just as if the U.S. was surrounded by hostile enemies, finally we would try to stop them.

 

[Been There]

The political realm is filled with bear-pokers, most of them are bears themselves. Putin is a perfect example. Hitler was pretty relentless, too. China, Japan, England, Spain, the US, most Middle Eastern countries, and a lot of the rest of the world taken turns at being bears who've poked other bears.

At what point should people or territories under threat of absorption or extinction fight back even if outgunned? Should they simply surrender and let the chips fall where they may? And at what point should other countries lend a hand? Or should they simply sit by with the attitude of "Not my circus not my monkeys"?

Don't get me wrong, I hate war and see it as a massive game of egos. Unfortunately, territorial "wins" have never yet satisfied encroaching forces - it merely emboldens them.

If Putin easily took Ukraine without other countries stepping in, do you really believe he would have stopped there?

No, I doubt if he would stop with Ukraine. At one time, I think it was “Time” magazine that I read where Putin wanted to annex Poland.

I don’t consider myself a dumb person, but I don’t understand the line, “….in the lost economic battle…..” What is he referring to?

This war has become very dicey since Ukraine has applied for expedited entry into NATO. Having Ukraine join NATO while at war with Russia puts the U.S. in a very bad situation. If NATO were to accept Ukraine’s bid to fast-track their admission to NATO, the U.S. would be committed to fight a war with Russia and maybe in Russia. How do you think that would sit with our fellow citizens? Seeing planes flying into Dover, Delaware with dead bodies is nothing that none us should want to see happen.

Since the start of the war, Ukraine has used the U.S. as their piggy bank and arms depot. Every dollar we send to Ukraine is borrowed money at the U.S. taxpayer’s expense. To preserve a country’s right to their own autonomy and a country which the U.S. has no interests to protect, Ukraine is expecting too much. We should not put U.S. lives on the line in the situation previously mentioned. We did this in Vietnam and in Korea. Both were no wins and losses of life and money. I pray to God that we do not have another soldier, airman or sailor die on foreign soil while defending a country with no U.S. interests. This is one of the defects of NATO. Citizens in countries that lose their fellow citizens on foreign soil while fighting a war where they have no interests does not sit well with the people. The big question is always, “Why are we even over there?”

Like many other people here on this forum, I have been to war. I have seen many of my fellow U.S. citizens being killed. I have also killed other men that I didn’t even know because my government sent me there to do that. It can eat away at your soul, if you allow it to do that. Certain things will trigger an event in your mind and you have to walk away and settle yourself.

If the U.S. gives aid to Ukraine in the form of money, munitions, health aids and other supplies, ok, but please keep our men and women home. That’s my final words on this topic.

Nuclear Strike

 

[FastTrax]

The political realm is filled with bear-pokers, most of them are bears themselves. Putin is a perfect example. Hitler was pretty relentless, too. China, Japan, England, Spain, the US, most Middle Eastern countries, and a lot of the rest of the world taken turns at being bears who've poked other bears.

At what point should people or territories under threat of absorption or extinction fight back even if outgunned? Should they simply surrender and let the chips fall where they may? And at what point should other countries lend a hand? Or should they simply sit by with the attitude of "Not my circus not my monkeys"?

Don't get me wrong, I hate war and see it as a massive game of egos. Unfortunately, territorial "wins" have never yet satisfied encroaching forces - it merely emboldens them.

If Putin easily took Ukraine without other countries stepping in, do you really believe he would have stopped there?

Excellent point StarSong.

 

[Georgiagranny]

I've only skimmed the responses, but here's what I have to say: I'm not going to waste a single second of what's left of my life worrying about whether Putin is going to use nukes. What good does it do to worry about it? He might. He might not.

 

[Murrmurr]

My biggest fear is that the world will be destroyed before I finish building the shoe-rack/entryway table I'm currently working on. I have about another ten hours of work on it before I apply the finish, so maybe another 12 hours until completion.

Hmmm... what holds up better when exposed to radiation... varnish or poly? It doesn't say on the cans.

Both will instantaneously combust/disintegrate.

Sorry, Ben, that thing's a gonner.

 

[Murrmurr]

If the U.S. (& NATO) took Ukraine without Russia stepping in, do you really think they'd stop there.

What if Russia was invading Mexico. Would the U.S. step in to try and stop them? Like Russia is doing in Ukraine?

Yes, of course. Remember the nuke threat with Cuba? The the Bay of Pigs?

 

[StarSong]

The history of Western "democracy" ( the U.S. in todays world ) spread throughout the world is a very complex and debated subject. Some think the U.S. used criminal methods many times to take over countries ( look up "economic hitman" ). Others think that socialism and communism need to be wiped out, so the U.S. inspires nations through various methods ( usually economic and militarily ) to join NATO and receive protection if the bad communists invade. The west had Russia surrounded and the Ukraine was the last straw. Just as if the U.S. was surrounded by hostile enemies, finally we would try to stop them.

Russia is barely bordered by NATO countries or even Westernized countries. It's bordered by Azerbaijan, Belarus, China, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Kazakhstan, North Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Mongolia, Norway, Poland, and Ukraine. Also the Arctic Ocean, Black Sea, Caspian Sea, Sea of Japan and some other waterways. Of those, only Estonia, Norway, Latvia and Poland are NATO members.

Russia's longest border (besides the Arctic Sea) is with Kazakhstan, followed by China, Mongolia and then Ukraine. Russia's land borders with non-NATO countries dwarf those of NATO countries. 12,577 miles altogether.
NATO members: 872 miles. Non-NATO members: 11,704 miles.

Putin's true agenda is to restore the USSR to what it was before parts of it disintegrated in the early 1990s. The countries that split off have very little interest in becoming absorbed and fear being the next Crimea, which Russia invaded and annexed in 2004.

If countries in Russia's neighborhood felt they had nothing to fear from Russia, they wouldn't be so eager to join NATO.

 

[Lawrence00]

Nah, the architects of this proxy war will want to spend some of their profits. They'll shut it down.

 

[Murrmurr]

To you guys who think the Russia-Ukraine war was designed by the super rich or whatever; only Putin had the personal motive and desire to invade Ukraine.

Every war I can think of had its profiteers, but wars are extremely expensive, especially today. So they aren't only about politics or power and submission, there's always an economic element.

If the 3 to 5 global economic powerhouses are pulling the strings, then why isn't Africa the financial hub of the world and everyone's first choice, ultimate vacation destination?

 

[Been There]

One last thing, on Thursday Biden stated that Armageddon is not just a maybe if Russia turns on the heaters (nukes). The government ordered $290 million in radiation sickness drugs. None of this gives me confidence that “it’s just all talk.” If Russia and the U.S would fight a nuclear war, that alone doesn’t necessarily mean the end of the world or Armageddon as Biden calls it.

 

[SeniorBen]

The U.S. has nuclear weapons all over Europe, as do the individual European countries. We could strike Russia in less than a minute, whereas Russia, to attack the U.S., their missiles need to cross an ocean. It would take at least 30 minutes to reach the U.S.
Advantage U.S.

 

[Lawrence]

I suppose the safest place to be would in the south hemisphere, the bottom of the world you see. The least amount of nuclear fallout may be there, for the top of the world would be blown to smithereens. Perhaps mother nature made this plan, maybe it could be called the master fail safe plan.

 

[Harry Le Hermit]

The U.S. has nuclear weapons all over Europe, as do the individual European countries. We could strike Russia in less than a minute, whereas Russia, to attack the U.S., their missiles need to cross an ocean. It would take at least 30 minutes to reach the U.S.
Advantage U.S.

That ocean would be the Arctic Ocean, not to mention... just as we have submarines moving about the Barents Sea, the Russians have submarines off the U.S. coasts. Also, it should be mentioned, the distance from our European Allies to Russia is the exact same distance as the distance from Russia to our European Allies.

 

[Warrigal]

I suppose the safest place to be would in the south hemisphere, the bottom of the world you see. The least amount of nuclear fallout may be there, for the top of the world would be blown to smithereens. Perhaps mother nature made this plan, maybe it could be called the master fail safe plan.

Also, because of the way the atmospheric systems operate, there is very little interchange of pollutants across the equator. However, there is no reason why Australia could not be a target. We are pretty vital to global satellite communications and have bases in the Northern Territory that gather important intel.

If that happens we could expect our own radiation clouds.

 

[Harry Le Hermit]

Also, because of the way the atmospheric systems operate, there is very little interchange of pollutants across the equator. However, there is no reason why Australia could not be a target. We are pretty vital to global satellite communications and have bases in the Northern Territory that gather important intel.

If that happens we could expect our own radiation clouds.

You would be describing an high altitude air burst (EMP), to disable electronics. Such bursts have minimal fallout, which in Australia's region would fall into the Indian Ocean. Then there is the matter of type of radiation from ground bursts, which result in the most radioactive fallout, mixed with massive dust clouds.

Humans have tested more than 2,000 nuclear weapons since Japan. A lot has been learned from these tests, imo.

 

[Warrigal]

Australia is not a nuclear country. We only have one small Hi Far reactor that is used for research, and to make isotopes for medical treatments. I doubt that Russia would waste nuclear armed missiles on us but Kim Jong Un is as mad as a cut snake and might want to make a point to the US by showing how far he could lob one.

 

[FastTrax]

Our Minutemen III's and the Russian Sarmats will be waving at each other as they fly over the Polar Cap.

 

[David777]

As I mentioned earlier, all this nuclear hysteria is being fanned by war mongers apparently on social media after that inflamatory speech by B about how the clock is closer to WWIII than any time since the Cuban Missle Crisis. Probably after advisement of his two top neocons Bl and Nu that seem to have played key rolls getting us into this proxy war disaster and are likely now advising Zelensky about the need to punish Putin. Yesterday one news story related a Pentagon spokesman had to finally step in saying there is no evidence Russia is moving nuclear weapons or readying them. Read the full Google News refutation on this link beyond these snippets:

https://www.newsweek.com/zelensky-nuclear-putin-russia-war-pre-emptive-1749781

Moscow reacted strongly to the supposed call by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky about how to deter Russia from using nuclear weapons in the war in Ukraine. With the world on tenterhooks over whether Vladimir Putin might resort to non-conventional arms in Ukraine to turn around his faltering invasion, Zelensky described how "preventative strikes" were a disincentive for such atomic weapons. Russian officials condemned the comments, with Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, telling RIA Novosti that they were "nothing more than a call to start a world war with unpredictable, monstrous consequences."...

During a remote address to Australia's Lowy Institute on Thursday, Zelensky said NATO must make it impossible for Russia to use nuclear weapons in the war. He was asked about whether he believed if the likelihood of the use of Russian nuclear weapons against Ukraine has risen, and what more NATO needed to do to deter Russia from using nuclear weapons. Zelensky replied that NATO should "eliminate the possibility of Russia using nuclear weapons."

Last month, Putin had warned that the Russian military would "use all the means at our disposal" in Ukraine to "protect Russia and our people" suggesting that the use of nuclear weapons was "not a bluff." But Russian state media reports of Zelensky's comments have emphasized the Kremlin's official position that it "has no plans to use nuclear weapons." "Putin emphasized that there can be no winners in a nuclear war. Russia's detractors should know that it has such weapons, but Moscow does not threaten anyone," RIA reported.

 

[rgp]

I've only skimmed the responses, but here's what I have to say: I'm not going to waste a single second of what's left of my life worrying about whether Putin is going to use nukes. What good does it do to worry about it? He might. He might not.

Exactly ....... and if he does ...... good chance we may never know.

Essentially the world as we know it will just end.