Russia holds massive nuclear war exercise involving 40MILLION people

a reply to: Pluginn

Former KGB... Stated the collapse of the USSR was a geopolitical disaster...

He is not capable of leading a Democracy and is incapable of existing in the 21st century. Its why he is acting like its the 1980's and that the USSR still exists. He likes power and to remain in power he needs to create a situation that he is familiar with. That situation is bringing back the evil west / nato / us mantra used during the days of the USSR.

His recent demands with the plutonium agreement speaks to that issue.

Putin is dangerous but only because he is not capable of dealing with the realities of the 21st century post USSR world.

I dont hate the Russian people. I cant stand the Russian government. There is a difference and pro russians cant seem to get their heads around that concept.

Russia actually has shelters and plans to save some of the people and all we ever did was say "duck n cover".

a reply to: Xcathdra

Western powers through nation building and freedom bombs have been the source of most of the world's suffering for the last 50 years.

originally posted by: Slickinfinity
Russia actually has shelters and plans to save some of the people and all we ever did was say "duck n cover".

No there are nuclear shelters in major cities.

originally posted by: Slickinfinity
a reply to: Xcathdra

Western powers through nation building and freedom bombs have been the source of most of the world's suffering for the last 50 years.

Eastern Europe would disagree with your assessment and it would explain why they want nothing to do with Russia or putin.

Russia/Putin is doing an exercise-for-show...

the bottom line is that Putin will require, in his mind & shared by world opinion.... that the psychopaths in USA leadership backed Russia into an Existential Corner -----
so Russia had to attack via the continent wide EMP to thwart the obtuse threat the USA made to send Jihadi Terrorists into Russia to mass murder the Russian citizens

a reply to: Xcathdra
It"s a failed argument because there is none
NATO was designed and purposed to counter Russia, clearly that has not changed.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The U.S. Launched 201 Out of the 248 Armed Conflicts Since the End of WWII and about 20 million people death.. let alone wounded or displaced.
And just recently withe the actions against Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and such almost the whole middle east in chaos with no end of suffering in sight because of that... and perhaps wwIII later on since Russia is involved now / is in the way of US foreign policy.

5 trillion spend with wars in the middle east and terrorism has been increased by 65.000%! (good job with the war against terrorism, you can't make this up...)[

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Slickinfinity
Russia actually has shelters and plans to save some of the people and all we ever did was say "duck n cover".

No there are nuclear shelters in major cities.

the elite leaders shut down Civil Defense in the 1960s....
the air-raid & bomb shelters were not designed as long term survival shelters (more than 12 hour stays)

the Russian shelters are designed for groups to manage themselves for several days underground...

any fantasy shelters for americans most likely would have been a joke as the contractors steadily ripped off the government to build their own bunkers fit-for-a-king.... I'm sure that the Clinton & Trump Foundations would both be in on the action of fleecing the masses

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Ohanka
a reply to: FamCore

Both.

Obama has pushed the world to the brink of nuclear war.

For what? is the question of course.

For control of Syria!

Yay team!

Hey WWI was started over Serbia


What’s bad is that Obama gets a pass.


He is a terrible leader that he let this thing escalate to such a degree

The stupid liberals are all paralyzed over their hatred of Assad and wont get in Obamas case for being a bad leader. The conservatives are just always ethnocentric. America right or wrong.


And with the Pro Israel media the truth about Syria is suppressed and distorted

missed_gear:

MAD is a concept approaching 70 years of age. Conventional thought is that cities, left in tact with respective populations...will starve-out within weeks.

I have always believed that a nuclear war would not kill a country outright, it would mortally wound it, leaving it to die a slow and painful death. While nuclear weapons exist, M.A.D. will remain a deterrent of some form. Today, however, strategists are planning ways around this, and it raises two assumptions:

a) that one can begin to believe that it can accept certain losses, and somehow gain an upper-hand or some advantage for recovery.

b) that a nuclear exchange can be controlled and regulated.

Both are myths. However, that does not mean that either one or both would not be considered as part of the tactical planning of eventually using nukes.The use of nuclear weapons are ultimately the last resort to try, not to win the conflict, but to gain an advantage for recovery. However, when the nukes fly, especially between Russia and the US, all countries with nukes would have to fire their own under the precept that you would need to use them or lose them. No country could afford to hold off firing their nukes while waiting to see if they might be hit or not.

Russia's nuclear targeting systems are nowhere near as accurate as those of the US, they are better than they were, but what they lack in accuracy, they more than make up for in deliverable payload and yield. Most Russian nukes are in the 5 to 20 megaton range. A single 20 megaton device would completely destroy the whole of New York, but New York would receive multiple nukes, as would every other major western city.

My own country, Britain, could not survive a full scale nuclear exchange. In fact, it would be one of the first of the western countries to be hit. Fylingdales in Yorkshire would be taken out first, as that is the listening post for nuclear launches for both Britain and America and NATO. By the time the first missile hit America, Britain would already be no more. This is why Britain does not have nuclear shelters, there would be no point, you cannot save the population in a country as small and compact as Britain. If given enough time, and if I wanted to survive, I would try to make it to one of the islands off the western coast of Britain and hunker down. If I managed that and survived, I would then have to wing it.

For Britons, the advice is to stay at home and build makeshift adhoc shelters. These would be nothing more than fire traps and fallout collection points, the massive over-pressures of nuclear detonations notwithstanding, and the somewhat deluded optimism that one's home will remain standing and fire proof. For any surviving government, they would not want a large population survival rate. The less people who survive the less problems that would hamper any recovery, and also, the less to feed and try to give medical aid, supplies of which will not abundant.

On the European continent, the situation would be very similar, although the Swiss seem to be better prepared, certainly more so than Britain. How they would cope in the aftermath I don't know? If they have already buried equipment and facilities and stock piles in case of nuclear war, they might do okay, but they would still have to contend with a contaminated Europe. Germany and France will be just as decimated as Britain, and none of the other European countries would fare much better.

A nuclear exchange would unfold in waves of tactics and strategy until it escalated to a full-on nuclear exchange. In order of targeting, military sites and government infrastructure would be first hit, along with non-governmental and non-military communications centres, and then finally civilian population centres. Things would probably escalate so rapidly that tactics and strategy would be thrown out the window, and everything could be hit at the same time.

It's all very grim and darkly negative, but I think it is essential that we face it head on, and treat the subject with the quiet respect it deserves.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Yep. I was just wondering what the hell they've been told about the reasoning for this.

No telling.

hey,
atleast we hear of it beforehand and not like the marathon thing- huh?

a reply to: SoulOfCeres

Your first link says annual drill..
As in yearly...


As in happens every year...

Where was all the debate last year?

Doom porners will doom porn..sigh

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: SoulOfCeres

Here's the Interfax link.
They're probably preparing for a Trump Presidency , just 4 weeks to go.

War is coming , only a miracle can stop it.

But I thought Trump and Putin were BFF's?

originally posted by: Pluginn
a reply to: Xcathdra
Russia is simple and can be trusted and can be easy the best ally you could wish for for another country... .

Have you ever read about how after WWII, Stalin played FDR and Churchill like a fiddle? He (Stalin) also made FDR feel like he could win over Stalin with a good ole boy routine. He thought both FDR and Churchill were schmucks, having to play to a public for re-election.

Putin is a part of a billionaire corrupt Russian oligarchy homegrown from the KGB who are also the Russian Mafia. You think the Russian Mafia is simple, trustworthy, and good allies? Putin is playing the American public like Stalin played FDR. He sees exactly which buttons to push to unwind the US.

The US have been a warmongering imperialist enterprise lately, but that doesn't make Putin any better. Just because one imperialist has his hands tied by a bigger imperialist doesn't mean you would want to trade one for the other.

a reply to: SoulOfCeres

I have sort of courted a theory that TPTB know that global warming is out of control (or, if you dont subscribe to climate change, maybe they think the "useless eaters" are consuming all the worlds resources too much), and the only way to stop it, is to reduce the population drastically. So they have a limited nuclear war, kill off a large segment of us, and sit in their posh underground bunkers for a couple of years until the fallout gets low enough for them to re-emerge and have the planet and all its resources all to themselves. Hopefully they aren't this crazy, this planet will NEVER be the same after such a terrible poisoning of the biosphere.

a reply to: openminded2011

Yea that crossed my mind as well before. Who knows...

originally posted by: all2human
a reply to: Xcathdra
It"s a failed argument because there is none
NATO was designed and purposed to counter Russia, clearly that has not changed.

and with Russias invasion of Georgia and Ukraine they validated NATO's continued existence. Prior to that Russia was a NATO partner for peace program member. Its difficult for you to argue NATO considers Russia a threat when they invited Russia into the program, which Russia accepted. They created a new council to include Russia, which russia accepted.

So yes, your argument has failed.

a reply to: Pluginn

Feel free to provide the comprehensive list of conflicts you are referring to and the sources you pulled them from please.