RAF scrambled to intercept Russian bombers.

neoboy said:
The only survivors of a nuclear fallout will be cockroaches and salesmen.
Click to expand...

Cockroaches aren't spectacularly resistant to ionising radiation, although they are abour 10 times as resistant as humans.

The big winner is Conan the Bacterium, Deinococcus radiodurans. You need serious nukage to kill that. 1.5 Megarads won't kill it all. You can also dry it out, soak it in acid, freeze it in space...and it still lives. If any one thing is left alive, that's it.
 
Angilion said:
freeze it in space.
Click to expand...

Space is not cold. In fact, space has no temperature at all since temperature is a measure of a quality found only in matter of which the vacuum of space has very little. The few particles that are encountered have varying temperatures from near absolute zero to thousands of Kelvin depending on their nature but, since they are so few and far between, their influence is negligible. Fictional depictions of liquids freezing instantly when exposed to space, such as in the movie Mission to Mars, are produced for dramatic effect - Wikipedia
 
would be actually get 100% pasted by russia if we went to war?

i saw them as average, but with huge numbers behind them.

surely quality counts for something? (although against huge huge numbers lol)
 
Sounds interesting, but it's from Wikipedia and therefore doesn't mean much. Maybe it's right, maybe it isn't.

An astrophysicist with NASA states 2.7K, which is extremely cold:

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980301b.html

A better question would be "How rapidly would the bacterium (or whatever) lose heat in space?".

Hmm...no conduction, no convection.

As far as I know, the answer would be "very, very slowly".

So yes, I was wrong about "freeze it in space". I have read or watched too much inaccurate sci-fi :) It's the lack of pressure that will kill you, not low temperature.
 
EdGey said:
would be actually get 100% pasted by russia if we went to war?

i saw them as average, but with huge numbers behind them.

surely quality counts for something? (although against huge huge numbers lol)
Click to expand...

Russia might have trouble occupying the UK, but not conquering it. Particularly if they didn't care how much damage they did.

Besides, they could just turn the gas off and ruin much of Europe in days. Why bother with a war?
 
Angilion said:
Russia might have trouble occupying the UK, but not conquering it. Particularly if they didn't care how much damage they did.

Besides, they could just turn the gas off and ruin much of Europe in days. Why bother with a war?
Click to expand...

Ive just done some googling looking for information on Russias military and it says : "Over 80 percent of military equipment is outdated and out of order" Now we have one of the best militarys in the world so even at full strength i dont think it would be a walk in the park... but at 20% i dont think so.
 
sanaxe1 said:
Ive just done some googling looking for information on Russias military and it says : "Over 80 percent of military equipment is outdated and out of order" Now we have one of the best militarys in the world so even at full strength i dont think it would be a walk in the park... but at 20% i dont think so.
Click to expand...

you gotta remember 20% is still a lot lot lot more than the UK..
 
just cause it's old doesn;t mean it;s not effective. A bullet from a 60 year old ak47 is just as deadly as one from a brand new g36, if not more so as the Americans found out in Nam.
 
Tefal said:
just cause it's old doesn;t mean it;s not effective. A bullet from a 60 year old ak47 is just as deadly as one from a brand new g36, if not more so as the Americans found out in Nam.
Click to expand...

The chances of being hit by one is less though.

Does the UK actually have any ICBMs? Or are they all IRBMs/MRBMs? edit just googled that and found the answer

also acording to this http://www.gizmag.com/go/6453/ russia and america both have 2200 ICBMs each
 
sanaxe1 said:
Ive just done some googling looking for information on Russias military and it says : "Over 80 percent of military equipment is outdated and out of order" Now we have one of the best militarys in the world so even at full strength i dont think it would be a walk in the park... but at 20% i dont think so.
Click to expand...

Is that information current? Russia has a lot more money to spend now than it had a few years ago.

Besides, 20% of the equipment intended to match the USA military power is probably a lot more than the UK has. Having several times as many soldiers certainly helps, too.
 
how does our airforce compare to the russian airforce?

im guessing they have about 200 x more planes than us, but quality?

their migs are good planes yeh, obviously not in comparison to that of the eurofighter but still. would the RAF be able to cope with such massive numbers?

*tries to imagin a helpless war between the uk and russia and who would win/how fast/what the losses would be on each side*
 
Last edited:
EdGey said:
how does our airforce compare to the russian airforce?

im guessing they have about 200 x more planes than us, but quality?

their migs are good planes yeh, obviously not in comparison to that of the eurofighter but still. would the RAF be able to cope with such massive numbers?

*tries to imagin a helpless war between the uk and russia and who would win/how fast/what the losses would be on each side*
Click to expand...

Yeah, but thier missiles are still just as good as ours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom