The end?

Those of you who seem to know a lot about this war on here..

Just out of interest where will all the heads of NATO and western governments hide to ride out the nuclear fall out?

Whilst the rest of us die slowly?
 
HolgateCorner said:
Those of you who seem to know a lot about this war on here..

Just out of interest where will all the heads of NATO and western governments hide to ride out the nuclear fall out?

Whilst the rest of us die slowly?
Click to expand...
Nah if you live on Teesside you will die very quickly. If you are lucky you will be vapourised you will flicker out of existence so quickly that the nerves in your skin will not register any pain signals because they cannot travel any quicker than the radiation that is killing you. If you are a bit further out you may be killed by the heat wave or the blast, again pretty quickly. Further out most of those to die will only last minutes or at most hours (in agony I'm afraid). If you last beyond that you're really fkked as you may die from any number of causes, latterly you will likely starve as crops fail during the ensuing Nuclear Winter which will even extend to the Southern Hemisphere despite fewer detonations there.

I'm not sure I want to be among the designated survivors eeking out their lives deep underground waiting for the dust and fallout to settle to emerge into a world with nothing much in the way of fauna and poisoned land.

Sleep well kids.
 
Muttley said:
Nah if you live on Teesside you will die very quickly. If you are lucky you will be vapourised you will flicker out of existence so quickly that the nerves in your skin will not register any pain signals because they cannot travel any quicker than the radiation that is killing you. If you are a bit further out you may be killed by the heat wave or the blast, again pretty quickly. Further out most of those to die will only last minutes or at most hours (in agony I'm afraid). If you last beyond that you're really fkked as you may die from any number of causes, latterly you will likely starve as crops fail during the ensuing Nuclear Winter which will even extend to the Southern Hemisphere despite fewer detonations there.

I'm not sure I want to be among the designated survivors eeking out their lives deep underground waiting for the dust and fallout to settle to emerge into a world with nothing much in the way of fauna and poisoned land.

Sleep well kids.
Click to expand...
It’s a grim outlook isn’t it?

That’s why nobody on here should be underestimating the need to end this war and get peace for the general population rather than falling in behind idiot politicians on all sides who seem more capable of promoting conflict than peace.
 
When they released the queen’s message after 30 years, she talked of chemical rather than nuclear attack.
 
HolgateCorner said:
It’s a grim outlook isn’t it?

That’s why nobody on here should be underestimating the need to end this war and get peace for the general population rather than falling in behind idiot politicians on all sides who seem more capable of promoting conflict than peace.
Click to expand...

It’s absolutely grim, no doubt about it.

But I’m not sure anyone is underestimating the need to end the war, the question is how can it end?

If we don’t support Ukraine, they lose their country. If we force them into negotiating they probably lose around 1/5 of their country and leave themselves (and other nations) open to future attacks. If we support them then they can probably win, but will Putin accept that?

It’s not a nice or comfortable situation, but the world should have stood up to Russia years ago, the fact we didn’t has lead to this awful situation as Putin believed the West/EU/NATO was decadent, divided and weak. How much Ukrainian territory should be given away to ensure maybe a few years peace? How do you deal with a nuclear bully? Difficult questions with no simple answers, but appeasement and concessions don’t seem to be the correct way to go whilst a united front has been a wake up call for Russia, even if Putin has his head in the sand.

Like Mark Galeotti states: “Putin is a rational actor” - yes he’s surrounded by his echo chamber, but I don’t think he has a death wish, I don’t think his cabal do either. Here’s hoping.
 
Smoggle said:
It’s absolutely grim, no doubt about it.

But I’m not sure anyone is underestimating the need to end the war, the question is how can it end?

If we don’t support Ukraine, they lose their country. If we force them into negotiating they probably lose around 1/5 of their country and leave themselves (and other nations) open to future attacks. If we support them then they can probably win, but will Putin accept that?

It’s not a nice or comfortable situation, but the world should have stood up to Russia years ago, the fact we didn’t has lead to this awful situation as Putin believed the West/EU/NATO was decadent, divided and weak. How much Ukrainian territory should be given away to ensure maybe a few years peace? How do you deal with a nuclear bully? Difficult questions with no simple answers, but appeasement and concessions don’t seem to be the correct way to go whilst a united front has been a wake up call for Russia, even if Putin has his head in the sand.

Like Mark Galeotti states: “Putin is a rational actor” - yes he’s surrounded by his echo chamber, but I don’t think he has a death wish, I don’t think his cabal do either. Here’s hoping.
Click to expand...

In general, through life, I have considered myself a pacifist by and large. Anti-war ... mostly. But there are exceptions and this is one of them. Putin had to be stopped and, thanks to Ukraine, his larger plans to re-draw the map are in tatters. I agree that he should have been stopped much earlier. There was too much appeasement (and downright "support" from some areas .... hello Germany). But we are where we are now and we have learned that Russia is not the great military fighting force that people had presumed. They were badly led, badly equipped and much less motivated than Ukraine. But what they are, still, is a nuclear force. Most of their nuclear arsenal is in poor shape, but some of it won't be (estimated 750 maintained and functioning.... but only 1/3 of those long rainge nukes). It's still enough.

But he is fully aware of what happens if he uses nukes, even battlefield nukes.
When this thread started Russia was at a crux point and was considering 3 options.
1) Withdrawal/peace (at the behest of Xi, Modi and Erdogan). The signs were that Putin was considering this but, after the capitulation of his forces last week and the incursion and missile strikes around Rostov and Belgorod, the more hawkish of his close circle/generals seem to have ruled that out. It would have meant surrender, effectively and the end of their days.
2) Mobilisation. Putin had always avoided this option, which is why it was a Special Military Operation, rather than war. He knew that mobilising ethnic Russians in Moscow and St. petersberg would be politically difficult and that conscription from the various Stans might lead to civil wars and the break up of Russia.
3) Nukes. Given that he knows that this really would be the end, so far he has avoided it (yet continued to threaten, as he has throughout the conflict). The other problem is that any small scale nuclear strikes in Ukraine are hazardous for his own troops/people. The other problem is the anticipated failure rate of the missiles ... it's a gamble whether they reach their intended target, or drop on Russian territory.

So they went with mobilisation. Given that these raw recruits are being sent to the front line with no training and inadequate weaponry, this is only going to buy time and cost many unnecessary lives. But we already know that Putin's cabal have a callous disregard for their own soldiers.

NATO now has approx 300,000 troops along its Eastern boundary plus 150,000 Swedes and Fins. The Russian subs are getting pinged regularly ... as a message. The huge lend/lease shipments are on their way. If NATO enters the war, I think it will be over quickly. Let's just hope Putin and his generals prefer option 1 to option 3 in the end.
 
Smoggle said:
It’s absolutely grim, no doubt about it.

But I’m not sure anyone is underestimating the need to end the war, the question is how can it end?

If we don’t support Ukraine, they lose their country. If we force them into negotiating they probably lose around 1/5 of their country and leave themselves (and other nations) open to future attacks. If we support them then they can probably win, but will Putin accept that?

It’s not a nice or comfortable situation, but the world should have stood up to Russia years ago, the fact we didn’t has lead to this awful situation as Putin believed the West/EU/NATO was decadent, divided and weak. How much Ukrainian territory should be given away to ensure maybe a few years peace? How do you deal with a nuclear bully? Difficult questions with no simple answers, but appeasement and concessions don’t seem to be the correct way to go whilst a united front has been a wake up call for Russia, even if Putin has his head in the sand.

Like Mark Galeotti states: “Putin is a rational actor” - yes he’s surrounded by his echo chamber, but I don’t think he has a death wish, I don’t think his cabal do either. Here’s hoping.
Click to expand...
I don’t see much international effort going in to sort it out, one thing I am certain about is that throwing more and more resources at arms and armies will only lead to one outcome.

When the fall out descends on what is left, will you still be saying ‘there was no alternative, shxt happens?’
 
HolgateCorner said:
I don’t see much international effort going in to sort it out, one thing I am certain about is that throwing more and more resources at arms and armies will only lead to one outcome.

When the fall out descends on what is left, will you still be saying ‘there was no alternative, shxt happens?’
Click to expand...

There's an absolute **** tonnes worth of international effort going in to trying to sort it out.

It's just that effort's goal is not "Ukraine surrenders, Russia gets what it wants", which is what you seem to think is the correct path.
 
As we have learnt by now, if Putin gets Ukraine he won't stop there, he didn't stop after Chechnya, he didn't stop after Georgia, he didn't stop after Crimea, next thing he'll take Lithuania to open a land corridor to Kaliningrad or attack Finland because that used to be part of Russia, he might want Poland or the other former Warsaw Pact countries to re-join his new Soviet Republic.

He has to be stopped this time otherwise next time it will be our boys dying.
 
HolgateCorner said:
Those of you who seem to know a lot about this war on here..

Just out of interest where will all the heads of NATO and western governments hide to ride out the nuclear fall out?

Whilst the rest of us die slowly?
Click to expand...
New Zealand is apparently a hideaway hole for the rich and famous
 
Randy said:
New Zealand is apparently a hideaway hole for the rich and famous
Click to expand...
Worked for the Pandemic, won't work for a Nuclear Winter.

Here's a handy spotter's guide to Armageddon
Capture.JPG

Looks like they decided not to bother nuking Glasgow despite Faslane!
 
Muttley said:
Worked for the Pandemic, won't work for a Nuclear Winter.

Here's a handy spotter's guide to Armageddon
View attachment 45029

Looks like they decided not to bother nuking Glasgow despite Faslane!
Click to expand...

Levelling up - more targets in the north than the south - just shows we are far more important up here than down there!!

No point wasting a nuke on Faslane - the subs won't be there or returning for a resupply!
 
Muttley said:
Worked for the Pandemic, won't work for a Nuclear Winter.

Here's a handy spotter's guide to Armageddon
View attachment 45029

Looks like they decided not to bother nuking Glasgow despite Faslane!
Click to expand...
Seems a randomly ordered list. The top three are strange choices. Why those three and not like you say Faslane, Southampton, Plymouth, London and potentially Lincolnshire?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top