Turkey shot down Russian Jet: reportedly by two F16's

originally posted by: wantsome
a reply to: bjarneorn
The US will not let NATO fall easily.

You should look at this, from a different angle.

Let us assume, there is a war in Europe ... NATO strikes, No more Russia ... unfortunately, the fallout means ... no more Europe.

The US will survive, most likely.

NATO is not an ally to Europe ... it's a negative for Europe. Russia is a part of Europe and always will be, it's nothing that Europe can "rid" itself, and with modern armament ones fate is tied with the others. The US of A, is playing a rat here ... their game, is Russia will annihilate Europe ... that is, they are playing Europe as a buffer zone to feed into the beast, while they destroy Russia.

US got rich from WWII, without WWII ... the US would be a second grade nation today. NATO serves the US, it serves neither Europe or Russia.

originally posted by: bjarneorn

a reply to: madenusa
I realize there have been a lot of back door conspiracies based on $$$. Needless, to say, even the bankers would not profit from a nuclear ww3! It is not profitable.

A crackpot theory really, just playing with different line of thought.

But what is so scary about a nuclear war? is it better to see endless hunger and suffering around the world?

Seriously? Hunger and suffering around the world is something humankind can rectify much more easily than the death, disease, and destruction of a nuclear war. True, it seems insurmountable in our current greedy mad material state of humanity...but it is achievable. Many today, are trying to resolve that and the difficulty is conflicts, wars, and greed. They are the unsung heros lost in the back pages of media reports. Nuclear War is scary because that would be to consuming of resources...more will suffer and set back advances civilization has made by many many years.

originally posted by: bjarneorn

originally posted by: wantsome
a reply to: bjarneorn
The US will not let NATO fall easily.

You should look at this, from a different angle.

Let us assume, there is a war in Europe ... NATO strikes, No more Russia ... unfortunately, the fallout means ... no more Europe.

The US will survive, most likely.

NATO is not an ally to Europe ... it's a negative for Europe. Russia is a part of Europe and always will be, it's nothing that Europe can "rid" itself, and with modern armament ones fate is tied with the others. The US of A, is playing a rat here ... their game, is Russia will annihilate Europe ... that is, they are playing Europe as a buffer zone to feed into the beast, while they destroy Russia.

US got rich from WWII, without WWII ... the US would be a second grade nation today. NATO serves the US, it serves neither Europe or Russia.

Most of Europe is in NATO. NATO is a treaty it stands for North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The nations that are members have sworn an oath to defend each other.

originally posted by: CynConcepts
Seriously? Hunger and suffering around the world is something humankind can rectify much more easily than the death, disease, and destruction of a nuclear war. True, it seems insurmountable in our current greedy mad material state of humanity...but it is achievable. Many today, are trying to resolve that and the difficulty is conflicts, wars, and greed. They are the unsung heros lost in the back pages of media reports. Nuclear War is scary because that would be to consuming of resources...more will suffer and set back advances civilization has made by many many years.

First of all, that everyone will die in a nuclear war is false. Hiroshima taught us that. Secondly, the nuclear threat only works on people like you ... it's only a threat, to those who are so afraid that they will willingly deprive themselves of all rights, to obtain the security.

The only USE of a nuclear armament, is to deter. But, it will only work to deter ... if your enemy believes you really will use it. Which is why every nation on this planet fears the US ... and not Russia.

originally posted by: wantsome

originally posted by: bjarneorn

originally posted by: wantsome
a reply to: bjarneorn
The US will not let NATO fall easily.

You should look at this, from a different angle.

Let us assume, there is a war in Europe ... NATO strikes, No more Russia ... unfortunately, the fallout means ... no more Europe.

The US will survive, most likely.

NATO is not an ally to Europe ... it's a negative for Europe. Russia is a part of Europe and always will be, it's nothing that Europe can "rid" itself, and with modern armament ones fate is tied with the others. The US of A, is playing a rat here ... their game, is Russia will annihilate Europe ... that is, they are playing Europe as a buffer zone to feed into the beast, while they destroy Russia.

US got rich from WWII, without WWII ... the US would be a second grade nation today. NATO serves the US, it serves neither Europe or Russia.

Most of Europe is in NATO. NATO is a treaty it stands for North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The nations that are members have sworn an oath to defend each other.

Most of the public in European nations were very reluctant to let turkey into nato....there is a. Reason they are not part of the eu yet

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

You are forgetting the russian marine killed in a rescue bid for the surviving pilot....

lets just hope everyone finds it in their hearts to forgive one another and unite on ISIS!

originally posted by: bjarneorn

originally posted by: CynConcepts
Seriously? Hunger and suffering around the world is something humankind can rectify much more easily than the death, disease, and destruction of a nuclear war. True, it seems insurmountable in our current greedy mad material state of humanity...but it is achievable. Many today, are trying to resolve that and the difficulty is conflicts, wars, and greed. They are the unsung heros lost in the back pages of media reports. Nuclear War is scary because that would be to consuming of resources...more will suffer and set back advances civilization has made by many many years.

First of all, that everyone will die in a nuclear war is false. Hiroshima taught us that. Secondly, the nuclear threat only works on people like you ... it's only a threat, to those who are so afraid that they will willingly deprive themselves of all rights, to obtain the security.




The only USE of a nuclear armament, is to deter. But, it will only work to deter ... if your enemy believes you really will use it. Which is why every nation on this planet fears the US ... and not Russia.

this is now false. there are "enhanced" nuclear weapons that will kill every thing down to microbes. Russia has them. America does not.

en.wikipedia.org...

Assume a cobalt bomb deposits intense fallout causing a dose rate of 10 sieverts (Sv) per hour. At this dose rate, any unsheltered person exposed to the fallout would receive a lethal dose in about 30 minutes (assuming a median lethal dose of 5 Sv). People in well-built shelters would be safe due to radiation shielding.
After one half-life of 5.27 years, only half of the cobalt-60 will have decayed, and the dose rate in the affected area would be 5 Sv/hour. At this dose rate, a person exposed to the radiation would receive a lethal dose in 1 hour.
After 10 half-lives (about 53 years), the dose rate would have decayed to around 10 mSv/hour. At this point, a healthy person could spend 1 to 4 days exposed to the fallout with no immediate effects.
After 20 half-lives (about 105 years), the dose rate would have decayed to around 10 μSv/hour. At this stage, humans could remain unsheltered full-time since their yearly radiation dose would be about 80 mSv. However, this yearly dose rate is on the order of 30 times greater than the peacetime exposure rate of 2.5 mSv/year. As a result, the rate of cancer incidence in the survivor population would likely increase.
After 27 half-lives (about 142 years), the dose rate from cobalt-60 would have decayed to less than 1 mSv/year and could be considered negligible.

originally posted by: combatmaster
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

You are forgetting the russian marine killed in a rescue bid for the surviving pilot....

lets just hope everyone finds it in their hearts to forgive one another and unite on ISIS!

Agreed! Why the hell do those fanatics have our weapons! My guess is turkey traded theirs for cheap oil. There should seriously be sanctions against them! I can't blame the Russians for being pissed off

originally posted by: Ancientgreek

originally posted by: wantsome

originally posted by: bjarneorn

originally posted by: wantsome
a reply to: bjarneorn
The US will not let NATO fall easily.

You should look at this, from a different angle.

Let us assume, there is a war in Europe ... NATO strikes, No more Russia ... unfortunately, the fallout means ... no more Europe.

The US will survive, most likely.

NATO is not an ally to Europe ... it's a negative for Europe. Russia is a part of Europe and always will be, it's nothing that Europe can "rid" itself, and with modern armament ones fate is tied with the others. The US of A, is playing a rat here ... their game, is Russia will annihilate Europe ... that is, they are playing Europe as a buffer zone to feed into the beast, while they destroy Russia.

US got rich from WWII, without WWII ... the US would be a second grade nation today. NATO serves the US, it serves neither Europe or Russia.

Most of Europe is in NATO. NATO is a treaty it stands for North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The nations that are members have sworn an oath to defend each other.

Most of the public in European nations were very reluctant to let turkey into nato....there is a. Reason they are not part of the eu yet

NATO was started in the 1949. The world was divided after WW2 between the Russians and the US. The west had NATO the east was Russia and the Warsaw pact. The EU didn't come around until the 1990's after the soviet union broke up. NATO existed as a response the soviets. I don't know when Turkey was excepted into NATO but it had to of been long before the EU was started.

originally posted by: wantsome
Most of Europe is in NATO. NATO is a treaty it stands for North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The nations that are members have sworn an oath to defend each other.

Defend themselves from what, a nuclear superpower?

The idea itself, is so apparently false ... that it's breath taking.

NATO, yes is the North Atlantic Trade Organization ... it "binds" Europe as a slave nations to the US. Post WWII, Europe was enslaved by the Marshal act, and bombarded with propaganda. Then, they were bombarded with "hate the Russians" ... the same people that actually saved Europe from the nazis. And this same propaganda brainwashed the European youth to believe "The us will save you". Endless hero worshipping, of the "imaginary" savior who took the credit from the Russians. The ideology of the modern European youth ... is "made in hollywood". Zero realism.

Save them by total nuclear annihilation ... and how exactly? By putting Europe as it's "front line" in it's endless hate mongering towards Russia? Who do you think, is in the dangerzone there ... Europe ... wow, big surprise.

a reply to: wantsome


Turkey entered in February of 1952

originally posted by: bjarneorn

originally posted by: CynConcepts
Seriously? Hunger and suffering around the world is something humankind can rectify much more easily than the death, disease, and destruction of a nuclear war. True, it seems insurmountable in our current greedy mad material state of humanity...but it is achievable. Many today, are trying to resolve that and the difficulty is conflicts, wars, and greed. They are the unsung heros lost in the back pages of media reports. Nuclear War is scary because that would be to consuming of resources...more will suffer and set back advances civilization has made by many many years.

First of all, that everyone will die in a nuclear war is false. Hiroshima taught us that. Secondly, the nuclear threat only works on people like you ... it's only a threat, to those who are so afraid that they will willingly deprive themselves of all rights, to obtain the security.

The only USE of a nuclear armament, is to deter. But, it will only work to deter ... if your enemy believes you really will use it. Which is why every nation on this planet fears the US ... and not Russia.

Hiroshima showed us the destruction to innocent civilians and how it lasted through generational defects. The world did come together afterwards to assist. There was only 2 bombs back then. I am not afraid of nuclear war. History has shown what it is capable of. I cannot foresee the world multiplying such destruction on humanity. Now, could some smaller insane regime shoot off some nukes, certainly!

As far as deterrents go, let it be so, if that nullifies it.

Honestly, I have to hit the hay, before my husband goes nuclear on me! Hopefully, tomorrow, I can gain a better perspective on this stuff. Thank you all for your input!

originally posted by: bjarneorn

originally posted by: wantsome
Most of Europe is in NATO. NATO is a treaty it stands for North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The nations that are members have sworn an oath to defend each other.

Defend themselves from what, a nuclear superpower?

The idea itself, is so apparently false ... that it's breath taking.

NATO, yes is the North Atlantic Trade Organization ... it "binds" Europe as a slave nations to the US. Post WWII, Europe was enslaved by the Marshal act, and bombarded with propaganda. Then, they were bombarded with "hate the Russians" ... the same people that actually saved Europe from the nazis. And this same propaganda brainwashed the European youth to believe "The us will save you". Endless hero worshipping, of the "imaginary" savior who took the credit from the Russians. The ideology of the modern European youth ... is "made in hollywood". Zero realism.

Save them by total nuclear annihilation ... and how exactly? By putting Europe as it's "front line" in it's endless hate mongering towards Russia? Who do you think, is in the dangerzone there ... Europe ... wow, big surprise.

The Russians saved me? My grandfather was at Omaha Beach Normandy first wave. It was the largest invasion of mankind. The Russians wouldn't have survived if it weren't for the support of the US and Brits with weapons and tanks. The Russians only took Berlin because we pounded it to mud with bombs.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

In 2015, a Russian nuclear-armed torpedo design was apparently leaked

While we can also read ...

Such "salted" weapons were requested by the U.S. Air Force and seriously investigated, but not deployed

This is back in the 50's.

As far as is publicly known, no cobalt bombs have ever been built. The Operation Antler/Round 1 test by the British at the Tadje site in the Maralinga range in Australia on September 14, 1957 tested a bomb using cobalt pellets as a radiochemical tracer for estimating yield. This was considered a failure and the experiment was not repeated.[5] Furthermore the triple "taiga" nuclear salvo test, as part of the preliminary March 1971 Pechora–Kama Canal project, produced substantial amounts of Co-60

I think we can "safely" assume, the west has these weapons long before the Russians did ... if they even DO have them.

a reply to: bjarneorn

The Hiroshima blast was 15 kilotons....keep reading!!

A single modern Trident II missile contains EIGHT (8) independently targeted 475 kiloton warheads! A single Ohio class boomer carries TWENTY FOUR (24) of these missiles. There are approximately FOURTEEN (14) of these subs circling the globe right now (not including any other allied subs like the Vanguard).

Simple math...just with the Tridents alone, land based ICBMS not withstanding, this represents 85,120 (eighty five thousand one hundred and twenty) TIMES the power of that released on Hiroshima in 1945!!!

I think you might want to rethink your statement!!

originally posted by: wantsome
The Russians saved me? My grandfather was at Omaha Beach Normandy first wave. It was the largest invasion of mankind. The Russians wouldn't have survived if it weren't for the support of the US and Brits with weapons and tanks. The Russians only took Berlin because we pounded it to mud with bombs.

And if it wasn't for the Russians, you'd be nothing more than a forgotten fleck somewhere in French soil ... the allies were losing, when the Russians advanced. And the only reason the US/Britain got even a part of Germany, was because the Germans were so scared they surrendered to the west to avoid complete Russian annihilation.

a reply to: rigel4

Someone said the Russian were on their way to bomb ethnic Turkoman fighting Assad and ISIS, the Russians backed Assad but views all who are against Assad as terrorist..

ISTANBUL -- Russian President Vladimir Putin accused Turkey on Tuesday of directly supporting the so-called Islamic State after Turkish forces shot down one of Russia's fighter jets near Syria's border.

"Our military men are fighting terrorism, sacrificing their own lives, but today’s loss is a stab in the back by the accomplices of terrorism," Putin said of Turkey, alleging that Ankara directly finances terrorism through illicit oil sales.

A Russian marine was killed during a search-and-rescue mission for the pilots of the downed jet, Russia's Defense Ministry said in a briefing Tuesday. One of the helicopt
ers being used to carry out the mission was fired on and had to make an emergency landing.

Turkey has expressed concern for the Turkmen, a Sunni Muslim minority community that opposed Assad, who are targeted by Russian and Syrian regime airstrikes in Syria.
www.huffingtonpost.com... c54aa?5q00be29

The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.

originally posted by: CynConcepts

originally posted by: bjarneorn

originally posted by: CynConcepts
Seriously? Hunger and suffering around the world is something humankind can rectify much more easily than the death, disease, and destruction of a nuclear war. True, it seems insurmountable in our current greedy mad material state of humanity...but it is achievable. Many today, are trying to resolve that and the difficulty is conflicts, wars, and greed. They are the unsung heros lost in the back pages of media reports. Nuclear War is scary because that would be to consuming of resources...more will suffer and set back advances civilization has made by many many years.

First of all, that everyone will die in a nuclear war is false. Hiroshima taught us that. Secondly, the nuclear threat only works on people like you ... it's only a threat, to those who are so afraid that they will willingly deprive themselves of all rights, to obtain the security.

The only USE of a nuclear armament, is to deter. But, it will only work to deter ... if your enemy believes you really will use it. Which is why every nation on this planet fears the US ... and not Russia.

Hiroshima showed us the destruction to innocent civilians and how it lasted through generational defects. The world did come together afterwards to assist. There was only 2 bombs back then. I am not afraid of nuclear war. History has shown what it is capable of. I cannot foresee the world multiplying such destruction on humanity. Now, could some smaller insane regime shoot off some nukes, certainly!

As far as deterrents go, let it be so, if that nullifies it.

Honestly, I have to hit the hay, before my husband goes nuclear on me!

Hopefully, tomorrow, I can gain a better perspective on this stuff. Thank you all for your input!

ask yourself this if cobalt nukes become pointless as soon as your foes also make them, why has russia made them knowing how uncomplicated it is to make them? ask your self why russia has made cobalt laced torpedoes? why have they made robotic subs with 100MT yield cobalt laced bombs? why were those russian incursions into scandanavian fjords using bottom crawling submarine vehicles done?

freebeacon.com...

originally posted by: bjarneorn
a reply to: stormbringer1701

In 2015, a Russian nuclear-armed torpedo design was apparently leaked

While we can also read ...

Such "salted" weapons were requested by the U.S. Air Force and seriously investigated, but not deployed

This is back in the 50's.

As far as is publicly known, no cobalt bombs have ever been built. The Operation Antler/Round 1 test by the British at the Tadje site in the Maralinga range in Australia on September 14, 1957 tested a bomb using cobalt pellets as a radiochemical tracer for estimating yield. This was considered a failure and the experiment was not repeated.[5] Furthermore the triple "taiga" nuclear salvo test, as part of the preliminary March 1971 Pechora–Kama Canal project, produced substantial amounts of Co-60

I think we can "safely" assume, the west has these weapons long before the Russians did ... if they even DO have them.

I do not think we do. if we did pacifist groups such as the AAS would have been raising the alarm on them as they did on all our other weapons programs including nuclear ones.

a reply to: bjarneorn

I was with you there for a while, but now you must be smoking something!!

That's just silly and ludicrous.