Well my point is that if you look at the type of injuries sustained by people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki then anything is better than being exposed to that. It's likely that you aren't going to have a quick and painless death in the way you would want. It's probably better to take active steps to try and avoid the blast, there's a fair chance you can actually survive unless you're close to the immediate blast zone.
What would a third world war really look like?
- Thread starter Domo
- Start date
Well my point is that if you look at the type of injuries sustained by people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki then anything is better than being exposed to that. It's likely that you aren't going to have a quick and painless death in the way you would want. It's probably better to take active steps to try and avoid the blast, there's a fair chance you can actually survive unless you're close to the immediate blast zone.
i think everyone but roar and ubersonic did. slightest effort on google would provide info on what the plane is capable of etc.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2003
- Posts
- 3,532
i hope we stay well out of syria ,
if we get involved just means more nutjobs on our streets causing mass murder and mayhem
russia will get sick of it eventually and pull out
if we get involved just means more nutjobs on our streets causing mass murder and mayhem
russia will get sick of it eventually and pull out
I never ridiculed it for having propellers, not once, I said it's from the 60's and has a top speed of 400mph and likely hadn't been upgraded to the same standard as the Maritime Patrol planes that Russia has in it's Pacific fleet. I understand that they use propellers to have a long loiter time. Maybe you could try reading the actual content of posts
Is it not worse to let mass murderers stay in power and commit the kind of atrocities we said we would never allow to happen again after WW2? He is literally gassing his own people. We are responsible to make sure that does not happen on this planet again, no one else is going to do that if we don't. China isn't, South America isn't, the African nations aren't going to. It's our job.
Don't forget you may be near enough to other sites of tactical interest to make life "interesting" I have this lot within a relative stone's throw:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Royal_Air_Force_stations_in_Shropshire
What fun!
Only Cosford and Shawbury are active as training schools and some of the ex-WW II sites don't even have runways any more.
Just in case, here’s the US guide to a nuclear attack. We don’t have such a thing in the UK (not anymore).
https://www.ready.gov/nuclear-explosion
https://www.ready.gov/nuclear-explosion
And this was the once-recorded script which would have been broadcast in the UK:
“This is the Wartime Broadcasting Service. This country has been attacked with nuclear weapons. Communications have been severely disrupted, and the number of casualties and the extent of the damage are not yet known,” his address began. “Stay tuned to this wavelength, stay calm and stay in your own homes. Remember, there is nothing to be gained by trying to get away.”
Love that last bit. True though!
“This is the Wartime Broadcasting Service. This country has been attacked with nuclear weapons. Communications have been severely disrupted, and the number of casualties and the extent of the damage are not yet known,” his address began. “Stay tuned to this wavelength, stay calm and stay in your own homes. Remember, there is nothing to be gained by trying to get away.”
Love that last bit. True though!
I don't for a minute think this would escalate to nuclear war and we have been through worse during the cold war. But now that things are getting a bit risky are people glad we have our own nuclear deterrent? Or would people still prefer we didn't have Trident?
Personally I think Trident is a very cheap system considering it is in constant use every day of the year.
Personally I think Trident is a very cheap system considering it is in constant use every day of the year.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2011
- Posts
- 4,418
- Location
- Cambridgeshire
One day I would like to live in a world where we don't need a nuclear deterrent, we're not there yet so I support renewal of Trident.
What I find of interest is whether a commander would choose to launch in the event of a full scale nuclear war. I wonder how many nukes would remain in silos due to either commanders exercising their discretion or flat out refusing the orders.
Actually I explained exactly why they still use them: because they can't afford to replace them like everyone else has (hell some countries have even replaced the replacements).
Not believing the myth being pushed that they are as capable as a modern plane or even as capable as a more modern obsolete plane doesn't mean people don't understand what they are capable of, it just means that they aren't buying into the hype/myth, because they understand what they are/aren't capable of.
I hope not.
The military movements on both sides taken at face value are kind of ominous - looks like Russia has moved up deployment of a wing of cruise missile capable bombers to Iran and a couple of bombers capable of being used for tactical nuclear capabilities.
This isn't far off being as worrying as anything during the Cold War but I just can't see Russia escalating to that level over Syria - if just isn't worth it.
I wouldn't be so quick to undersell Syria's importance to Russia. Lots of people (not you) seem to write it off because "Russia won't fight us just to keep an airbase/port" and "Russia won't fight us just over Syria's oil". But most of them don't seem to have actually looked at a map, Syria is less that 400 miles from Russia, it's closer to them than Aberdeen is to London.
I am not convinced they won't fight (at least a small skirmish) to ensure they don't end up with Islamic extremists taking over a country so close to them.
The worrying part is it boils down to the individuals at the helm. Trump, Putin and even May who is not seeking support from MPs.
The stakes are clearly high, it saddens me that we're just pawns in this game. Those capable of initiating such catastrophe are somewhat protected. I can't get my head around that.
The stakes are clearly high, it saddens me that we're just pawns in this game. Those capable of initiating such catastrophe are somewhat protected. I can't get my head around that.
Yeah - I was leaning on the nuclear inference more than the potential for more limited skirmish.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,211
Yep, they and their families will all be led to bunkers with facilities/food etc to last them 50 years.
We just get bombed for existing.
It occurred to me this morning that only nuclear powers have agreed to take military action over the chemical attach (US, UK, France). Non-nucelar powers declined.
For those out of the region yeah - Israel also seem onboard though they are speculatively a nuclear power and Saudi Arabia seems to be in.
A few other countries seem to be lending support in the background as well amongst them probably Italy and Australia.
Not so sure why France seems so eager to get involved aside from some French citizens apparently killed by Syrian regime awhile back.