The end?

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 don't need to worry about bases in a nuclear strike. Faslane will be empty - the subs will be out and won't be returning. Southampton & Plymouth are irrelevant as the world will be a wasteland so they won't be concerned about the odd ship here and there. Catterick - all the troops will be deployed etc etc

Russia would just be interested in mutually assured destructions - that's the population and cities. Us poor buggers. The world as we know it will be over.

I'd imagine nuking the coast is a waste of a nuke too - half of it would head out to sea.

That list looks made up though!!
 
That list looks made up though!!
To be fair I doubt that the Dumas publish the actual strike list. Regardless of Faslane I can't see why you wouldn't nuke Glasgow. Would settle the sectarian nonsense once and for all (unless they kick off again in the queue for the Pearly Gates!)
 
You don't need to worry about bases in a nuclear strike. Faslane will be empty - the subs will be out and won't be returning. Southampton & Plymouth are irrelevant as the world will be a wasteland so they won't be concerned about the odd ship here and there. Catterick - all the troops will be deployed etc etc

Russia would just be interested in mutually assured destructions - that's the population and cities. Us poor buggers. The world as we know it will be over.

I'd imagine nuking the coast is a waste of a nuke too - half of it would head out to sea.

That list looks made up though!!
You would think areas with the most power stations and infrastructure businesses would be top targets. It's what I would do if I was looking to paralyse a country. There's an interesting mockumentary on National Geographic on Disney+ called American Blackout which explains the chaos caused by a national grid outage.
 
You would think areas with the most power stations and infrastructure businesses would be top targets. It's what I would do if I was looking to paralyse a country. There's an interesting mockumentary on National Geographic on Disney+ called American Blackout which explains the chaos caused by a national grid outage.
I was in NY during the big blackout in 2003(?) - mass wobble! It was hilarious to watch.
 
You would think areas with the most power stations and infrastructure businesses would be top targets. It's what I would do if I was looking to paralyse a country. There's an interesting mockumentary on National Geographic on Disney+ called American Blackout which explains the chaos caused by a national grid outage.

I don't think you need to worry too much about targeting specific sites when the whole world will be a wasteland - nothing will work anyway. Power lines will be blown apart, water pipes gone, 95% of the population dead etc

The UK would be a hole in the ground whether they target power stations or military sites or not.
 
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?’


Plenty is and has been done from pre-invasion diplomacy from several nations to post invasion sanctions and condemnation from allies and rivals alike. But as has been said, Putin will not stop at Ukraine, he’s already told us his intentions, why not take him at his word when in this respect he’s practicing exactly what he preaches?

No one wants nuclear war, I certainly don’t, and I’m hoping Putin doesn’t either. But what is your suggestion? How much of someone else’s country should we decide to give away (not that they’d let us)? Do we back down every time someone makes a nuclear threat? How will China and North Korea react to that? Will Russia use this threat more and more because they’ve seen it work? Of course they will, like they’ve pushed more and more because there has been minimal pushback on their previous threats and aggression. One day we have to make a stand and say no, or nuclear threats become the norm and the world becomes a very bitter, divided place which would, in my opinion, be at a high risk of armageddon as eventually someone will make good their many threats.

If Putin wants to use nuclear weapons and the people around him are ok with that, then he’ll use them anyway - whether that’s imminently against Ukraine or in a few years when he moves against a NATO country - you, I or anyone else have no control over that so if he’s serious it will likely happen regardless of appeasement, diplomacy or Ukrainian surrender. I might be very, very wrong, but I just can’t see it, it’s quite literally MAD.
 
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.
But who is going to fight his wars? Who will be left in his country? The mass exodus has already started.
 
I really can't see the Russian people still supporting the war if Putler nukes Ukraine. Could he then say he is nuking to liberate?
 
But who is going to fight his wars? Who will be left in his country? The mass exodus has already started.

Many have left or are trying to, but there’s still millions of potential soldiers if a full mobilisation was announced, this doesn’t mean they’re well trained, motivated or adequately commanded/supplied though.
 
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.

Yes, as I mentioned previously, I was in favour of the UK leading the way in nuclear disarmament. I’m still very much supportive of the world ridding itself of these horrific weapons, but it needs to be a joint venture borne out of mutual trust.

I hate this war and war in general, goodness knows the UK and many other countries have thrown themselves into needless conflicts in my lifetime. Just because I advocate a strong stance against Russia does not mean I don’t see the risks, but I believe not making a stand now will lead to far more dangerous times.


I agree that he should have been stopped much earlier. There was too much appeasement (and downright "support" from some areas .... hello Germany).

Whilst Germany has not covered itself in glory regarding Russia, there is some slight mitigation in that they have attempted to treat Russia gently and keep them at the table to bring about a slow democratic change, possibly with a small dose of WW2 guilt thrown in too.
 
We are dealing with a complete nutter the like of which not seen since Hitler we need to be very careful with him or it will be curtains for everybody.

All I am saying is we shouldn’t be promoting conflict, that is what he wants, he wants all out war and to sink the west. The devastation already caused in the Ukraine shows that he does not care a jot about people.

For once in the history of the human race our politicians need to be clever and find a calm way of nullifying him. Hopefully Biden and his team have it in them.
 
We are dealing with a complete nutter the like of which not seen since Hitler we need to be very careful with him or it will be curtains for everybody.
he's probably a psychopath but not a nutter, I don't believe he hears voices telling him what to do

All I am saying is we shouldn’t be promoting conflict, that is what he wants, he wants all out war and to sink the west.
Were promoting defence, to avoid greater conflict. I don't think he wants all out war, that will simply lead to his own death

The devastation already caused in the Ukraine shows that he does not care a jot about people.
So acquiescing to him will only lead to further war and destruction down the road. We acquiesced when he annexed crimea, and here we are he tried to take the whole of Ukraine.

and find a calm way of nullifying him.
If as you say he wants all out war, then you can't find a calm way, instead you have to let the bully know you're standing up to him, and see if he really is all that or not.

There alays comes a time to stand up to the bully, this is that time
 
We are dealing with a complete nutter the like of which not seen since Hitler we need to be very careful with him or it will be curtains for everybody.

All I am saying is we shouldn’t be promoting conflict, that is what he wants, he wants all out war and to sink the west. The devastation already caused in the Ukraine shows that he does not care a jot about people.

For once in the history of the human race our politicians need to be clever and find a calm way of nullifying him. Hopefully Biden and his team have it in them.


@BoroMart said pretty much everything I would have wanted to say, but I will add that you’re completely right to be cautious and I’m also very concerned about the future when we can’t know how it’s going to play out with so much at stake.

We can debate the events that got us to this point, including appeasing Putin or as some believe, NATO expansion - there’s strong views on this board on those and other related subjects - but right now we have to be firm or this situation is going to play out again and again.

That doesn’t mean we relish war or hate the Russians, I strongly believe that any rhetoric from us should be understanding and largely sympathetic towards ordinary Russians and, once Putin and his ilk are gone, we should look to incorporate Russia back into fold without a Versailles-like humiliation, lest we want to push them down another dangerous nationalist path.
 
@BoroMart said pretty much everything I would have wanted to say, but I will add that you’re completely right to be cautious and I’m also very concerned about the future when we can’t know how it’s going to play out with so much at stake.

We can debate the events that got us to this point, including appeasing Putin or as some believe, NATO expansion - there’s strong views on this board on those and other related subjects - but right now we have to be firm or this situation is going to play out again and again.

That doesn’t mean we relish war or hate the Russians, I strongly believe that any rhetoric from us should be understanding and largely sympathetic towards ordinary Russians and, once Putin and his ilk are gone, we should look to incorporate Russia back into fold without a Versailles-like humiliation, lest we want to push them down another dangerous nationalist path.

The problem with the argument from Putin apologists about nato expansion is it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny

Prior to crimea, Ukraine didn’t want to join nato . Crimea pushed the Ukrainians to want to enter it . In fact , polls in Ukraine before 2014 showed decisive no to membership . Crimea flipped that though . Because Russia is a dangerous , imperialist neighbour that is obsessed with empire . It always has been. That’s why a lot of their neighbours want nothing to do with them. Ukraine wanted to be in the eu . If their previous president didn’t renegade on his promise to chase eu membership and instead sign a deal with Russia , he never would have been ousted in the first place. It was blatant corruption when that Russian puppet signed an economic pact with Russia

Once again, if Russia weren’t trying to seize land off others, lots of their neighbours wouldn’t want to join nato . They can complain about spheres of influence all they like , but they have no right to dictate to another country who they are influenced by. This is all about bringing an empire back to Russia and cementing this ****. legacy .
 
The problem with the argument from Putin apologists about nato expansion is it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny

Prior to crimea, Ukraine didn’t want to join nato . Crimea pushed the Ukrainians to want to enter it . In fact , polls in Ukraine before 2014 showed decisive no to membership . Crimea flipped that though . Because Russia is a dangerous , imperialist neighbour that is obsessed with empire . It always has been. That’s why a lot of their neighbours want nothing to do with them

Once again, if Russia weren’t trying to seize land off others, lots of their neighbours wouldn’t want to join nato . They can complain about spheres of influence all they like , but they have no right to dictate to another country who they are influenced by. This is all about bringing an empire back to Russia and cementing this ****. legacy .

Yes, I’ve argued on here before that there’s a reason the countries formerly controlled by Moscow now want to distance and protect themselves from further Russian overtures. The broken promise of expansionism is largely a non-argument as Gorbachev had denied the promise was made and the US didn’t have the sole authority to make it anyway, even if something had been said.

However, it is still an argument that comes up and is used within Putin’s circle, so it plays a part in the overall discussion and propaganda surrounding the current situation.
 
Back
Top