Discussion in 'Current Events' started by StillBlue, Apr 25, 2022.
The only NATO nation with land based nuclear missiles is France. And they do not border Russia.
Of course there is always a residual risk, no doubt about it. And of course there are now various states with nuclear weapons, where one or the other should have certain fears. I'm not just talking about "mad midget" in North Korea or Iran or the secret nuclear power Saudi Arabia or Israel ...
Woe betide if another war breaks out between India and Pakistan, there is a pretty high risk that it will end with nuclear weapons!
But I'm the least worried about Russia... as long as, as I said, NATO or even individual member states of NATO are actively fighting with their own troops in the Ukraine against Russia... or some dangerous nonsense like Kennedy used against Cuba with the naval blockade (called quarantine), but this time against all Russian ports and coasts.
By keeping NATO in place and expanding it the US did keep the Cold War going.
Here's an interesting twist to the current conflict
Indonesia’s President Joko Widodo says that both Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Russian President Vladimir Putin have agreed to attend the Group of 20 (G-20) summit to be held in Bali in November.
Widodo, the current chair of the G-20, made the remarks in a televised statement on Friday in which he said that he had telephone conversations this week with Zelensky and Putin. He said he urged both leaders of Ukraine and Russia to end the war through negotiations.
Can anybody see:
1. Putin showing
2. If Putin shows, Zelensky showing?
3. Any other countries refusing to participate if Putin shows?
Other than the U.S. of course.
You sure about that
Absolutely. Do you have any actual evidence otherwise?
I'm also quite sure that France does not have a land border with Russia.
Why you ask me for evidence .. I asked you if you were sure .. France US .. only NATO nations with nukes ? Simple yes/no question
Once again I never said only France and the U.S. were the only NATO nations with nuclear weapons. The United Kingdom has nuclear weapons deployed aboard four Vanguard class ballistic missile submarines (16 nuclear missiles each).
But aside from the U.S. only France (in NATO) has land based nuclear missiles (although only a handful) and some nuclear weapons based aboard aircraft (the French are quite proud of being one of the few nations with a true nuclear triad.
I apologize if that was difficult for you to understand.
Why you being all snarky .. I didn't say you were wrong .. as is normally the case .. just asked for clarification -- you claiming the UK has no land based nukes period or just none deployed ?
From what I've read in books that are guides to nuclear weapons around the world the U.K. has no land based nuclear weapons anymore.
As of 1998, they have no land based nuclear missiles. They are on the subs mentioned.
“Since 1998, when the UK decommissioned its tactical WE.177 bombs, the Trident has been the only operational nuclear weapons system in British service. The delivery system consists of four Vanguard-classsubmarines based at HMNB Clyde in Scotland. Each submarine is armed with up to sixteen Trident II missiles, each carrying warheads in up to eight multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRVs).”
As you see, they do not launch them from land so they cannot be land based. They could, but don’t.
No worries .. and that could well be - perhaps due to violation of short-intermediate range treaty .. not sure why they would not have long range for China but perhaps figure the Subs are deterrent enough .. which is true.
1) IIRC a major factor in the decision by the British not to deploy land based nuclear missiles was the relative lack of space for launch sites compared to the U.S. and Soviet Union.
2) The British in their nuclear weapons strategy have always been focused (some say obsessed) with the capability of destroying Moscow. Reportedly the British have even more nuclear weapons targeted on Moscow and its surroundings than the U.S. does.
I would guess the US has more .. but matters not .. -- either can annihilate Russia - multiple times over
No we cannot. You're locked into the entire 'overkill' thinking which has always been false.
next you'll come up with something about the Castle Bravo nuclear test at Bikini Atoll
Sing it with me D "OH Yes We Can" - Destroy Russia
and while the Bikini data is better than anything you have proffered .. you were given a link which calculates the fallout - rads - and so on from the ground burst kilotonage of your choice. you proffering up a link which didn't have groundbursts - not recognizing the difference between an underground test and a ground burst .. trying to use Hiroshima - which was complete nonsense .. but after getting it handed to you over and over .. you return to the same vomit .. which is silly .. why do you do this .. some desperate denial response .. like world will fall apart if USA and Russia have the capability to destroy each other..
I've always known the difference between underground tests and ground bursts. You misstating what I've posted won't change that. And I've never had it "handed to me" on this issue. You're imagining your own supposed competence.
You a captive of mathematical determinism. You think to the effect that just because a 15 kiloton weapon killed 100,000 at Hiroshima that a 150 kiloton weapon would kill one million, and a 1.5 megaton weapon would kill 10 million and so on. It doesn't work that way.
You posted a link that did not support your claim - had no info on ground bursts but you had claimed it did. and so yes . you had it handed to you .. your claim shown to be a preposterous falsehood.
Your claim that I said what you say above is a moronic falsehood - never did I say such a thing.
You constantly misstate what I've posted. Like the thing about underground tests and groundbursts.
And it isn't for you to determine if you've won an argument here or not. I would wager that at least as many persons who have read both of our posts side with me rather than you.
I didn't mistate what you did. You claimed there were groundbursts at the Russian Test site .. posting a link - but not citing anything from that link as usual .. when I go to the link .. turns out the testing was underground and air burst .. not ground burst - which I am sorry to say, means that you lose .. unless the game is who can post the most ridiculous false nonsense.
Assuming you're referring to Nova Zemyla then all three (underground, surface (ground) and air bursts) were conducted there. A little reading would've told you that.
Ah what the hell. It's the educator in me.
Second paragraph down sweetie.
That is a different link than you posted previously -- what are you an "educator" in .. "how to decieve" and moronic bait and switch tactics ?!
But - with a capital B - you have managed to support claim that there was at least one ground test . Now all you have to do is show the amount of surface testing done .. and show area was habitable in "Years not Decades" after the fact .
Educate away mate
Doing what you do best. Moving the goalposts.
I didn't move any goal post .. "Its Your Claim". You stated that after a full out nuclear attack by Russia - complete with ground bursts - USA would be back up and running in "Years not Decades". Now you deny that this was your claim = moving the goal post .. and accuse me of moving the goal posts . projecting your failings onto others - and then later you insist your claim was supported.
This is a circle of deception ..
Separate names with a comma.