Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

deuse · 21 Feb 2015 at 11:16

While eyes are on Russia, ISIS killed another 40 in Libya and nothing is said.

Felon · 21 Feb 2015 at 11:22

areksnumbr1sxylady said:
You`d have to be childishly naive to believe USA would stick its neck for EU if it all goes to hell and risk getting bombed.

A nuclear attack aimed squarely at the EU/UK - wouldn't just kill the EU/UK it would also kill a lot of Americans directly and indirectly through the effects on the climate.

It's naive and childish to think that the US could just sit across the Atlantic, somehow immune from a nuclear war raging against all it's allies, and in which it's own people would also suffer from.

Rroff · 21 Feb 2015 at 11:39

Screeeech said:
AFAIK - Britain alone has enough nuclear missiles to totally decimate most of Russia with one sub (scary thought) so I don't think having more really makes any difference, the deterrent is real, and it's there

I did some rough maths on it once IIRC our entire nuclear arsenal would only affect approx 1.5% of the land mass of Russia (depending on detonation height, terrain and environment conditions) obviously it would be targeted at high value targets to maximise effect.

Russia on the other hand (ignoring the global impact) could scorch every inch of the UK several times over with an all out nuclear attack.

Felon · 21 Feb 2015 at 11:51

Rroff said:
I did some rough maths on it once IIRC our entire nuclear arsenal would only affect approx 1.5% of the land mass of Russia (depending on detonation height, terrain and environment conditions) obviously it would be targeted at high value targets to maximise effect.

Russia on the other hand (ignoring the global impact) could scorch every inch of the UK several times over with an all out nuclear attack.

Agreed,

But I think all it does is highlight the crass nature of the whole thing - we could technically level all/most major Russian cities - they could vaporise every inch of English soil, but other than to prove a point, exactly where that gets anyone I have no idea!

Harlequin · 21 Feb 2015 at 11:53

btw the 2010 SDR said the vanguard force would each carry 8 missiles , each with 5 warheads + penetration aids

Amp34 · 21 Feb 2015 at 11:53

Harlequin said:
the nuclear chain of command has a system in place in the event of a surprise attack which destroys the UK - each sub at sea is sent a pre coded message a specific times

failure to receive that message and the `uk is destroyed system starts - the end result is launching of the weapons.

IIRC the UK is the only(?) nuclear state where the captain of the sub can unilaterally fire the nuclear missiles. They don't need codes sending to be able to launch like the U.S.. If they get the UK is destroyed message then the final decision of whether to launch or not is up to the captains of the subs.

Amp34 · 21 Feb 2015 at 11:55

deuse said:
While eyes are on Russia, ISIS killed another 40 in Libya and nothing is said.

The law of unintended consequences....

Even though most knew what Libya was going to be like if we helped the rebels even before we did...

Harlequin · 21 Feb 2015 at 11:59

Amp34 said:
IIRC the UK is the only(?) nuclear state where the captain of the sub can unilaterally fire the nuclear missiles. They don't need codes sending to be able to launch like the U.S.. If they get the UK is destroyed message then the final decision of whether to launch or not is up to the captains of the subs.

yes they have the `letters of last resort` written before each 3 month mission by the serving PM , sealed and taken to the boat`s safe. if unopened (which they all but 1 have been) they are removed at the end of each mission and destroyed.

I say all but 1 , because in the late 90`s , 1 of the boats lost communication and started the process , they only didn't fire because the captain wanted to triple check and surfaced the boat - and found the radio had broken!

oh and it `usual` for 1 to be on patrol , but the uk can have 3 of the 4 at sea if needed at short notice - and they have done before

Zethor · 21 Feb 2015 at 11:59

Nuclear thread derailment?

The Russians are 'protesting' against the 'coup' that happened last year. It's a breath of fresh air to see Russians stand up for what they believe in. :rolleyes:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31561769

Azza · 21 Feb 2015 at 12:00

Only a matter of time before the eastern front is on the march according to the DM.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...le-tactics-pose-existential-threat-being.html

do_ron_ron · 21 Feb 2015 at 12:27

Amp34 said:
The law of unintended consequences....

Even though most knew what Libya was going to be like if we helped the rebels even before we did...

It is an argument for leaving well alone.

Thanks to Cameron and his French counterpart and the so-called 'mission creep' we have a failed state with the western backed Govt. only being able to control at most part of one of the three provinces. Another Govt. in Benghazi controlling another part and the vast bulk of the country controlled by various militia.
According to US intel it is now a training camp for ISIS. It is also become more of a staging post for gangs of people smugglers as highlighted over the past weeks and months. This is probably due to the various militia getting funds.
We might not have liked Libya and it's ruler but at least it was stable.
We went into Iraq not having an exit plan and look at the mess.

Rroff · 21 Feb 2015 at 12:41

Azza said:
Only a matter of time before the eastern front is on the march according to the DM.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...le-tactics-pose-existential-threat-being.html

I do love how completely meaningless those numbers are never mind any degree of accuracy.

Still if it means the general public are disturbed enough by the disparity in numbers DM are peddling into being less supportive of cuts to our military that would be a good thing.

Nutella33 · 21 Feb 2015 at 14:07

russian soldiers from Yakutsk provinces finding the time to fight for ethnic russians

And kiev is displaying russian equipment in a square in kiev

Also casualty updates for Debaltseve are saying 179 killed.

Rroff said:
I do love how completely meaningless those numbers are never mind any degree of accuracy.

Ha quite.

into being less supportive of cuts to our military that would be a good thing.

A lot hinges on the next election as there is a new SDR after it. Mil people are still expecting cuts. It's why all the talking heads are being wheeled out atm.

Rroff · 21 Feb 2015 at 14:25

^^ That guy on the right in the second image has been in a few videos of combat action in the Ukraine. (Or another guy in the exact same uniform, hat and ethnic background).

Nutella33 · 21 Feb 2015 at 14:40

It probably is. They are all posing for photographs so I'm guessing its been taken from their twitter accounts and he may be the media active one.

mmj_uk · 21 Feb 2015 at 14:43

deuse said:
While eyes are on Russia, ISIS killed another 40 in Libya and nothing is said.

Who cares? we stopped Gaddafhi from pushing his Gold Dinar currency and accelerating the death of the US Dollar as world reserve currency. Mission accomplished as far as the US and its NATO puppets are concerned.

Nutella33 · 21 Feb 2015 at 14:57

mmj_uk said:
Who cares? we stopped Gaddafhi from pushing his Gold Dinar currency and accelerating the death of the US Dollar as world reserve currency. Mission accomplished as far as the US and its NATO puppets are concerned.

complete broken record aren't you? Libya under gaddafhi was already trading in euro's, pounds and yen. And still is even after the intervention.

Just as america isnt trying to invade britain, netherlands, canada, brazil, china, japan or most of western africa.

It is only trade between opec members that should be in dollars and even then two of the largest 12 producers dont follow that rule

clv101 · 21 Feb 2015 at 16:45

Screeeech said:
A pre-emptive nuclear strike on the EU and UK, in order to be successful would need to destroy all enemy military targets, including nuclear capability, communications, airfields, bases - everything.

Many of these things are in cities, or nearby cities - which means that in the exchange these cities would be targeted and destroyed.

In a nuclear explosion, most of the energy of the bomb is released as pure heat, the nuclear tests of the 1950s and beyond were all carried out in deserts and in the atmosphere where nothing flammable really exists. If you "nuke" a large city with a modern nuclear weapon, a city full of materials, chemicals, plastics, woods, factories, etc - it releases so much debris into the atmosphere. If you do this to many cities at once (for example all the EU and the UK, a lot of cities) the result is that so much stuff ends up in the atmosphere, the temperature of the planet - the whole northern hemisphere drops so much, that;

The temperature in the northern hemisphere drops 10-20 degrees in the first 6-12 months, due to the smoke in the atmosphere.
All crops fail and can't be re-grown, no food. (this is happening to most of the planet)
The atmosphere is full of radioactive dust, water is poisoned and remains poisoned for a long time.
Due to reliance on food-aid, nearly all 3rd world countries perish, due to America having no crops to provide aid.

Basically the effect on the climate, of unleashing that many nuclear weapons upon that many cities in one go - wouldn't be that far off an extinction level event, nobody needs to retaliate - and this is why in the 1980s, the scientific community including Russian and American scientists all agreed, that a pre-emptive strike is suicide, even if the other side doesn't get a single warhead away.

Captain Planet said:

That all seems heavily theoretical and not at all known to be true.

Click to expand...

Screeeech is spot on. I attended a session at EGU2013 on exactly this topic, here's the abstract: http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2013/EGU2013-1824.pdf

Even a modest nuclear exchange would be devastating for global agriculture.

Nutella33 · 21 Feb 2015 at 16:48

Really interesting cheers screeeech and clv101

Harlequin · 21 Feb 2015 at 17:43

clv101 said:
Screeeech is spot on. I attended a session at EGU2013 on exactly this topic, here's the abstract: http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2013/EGU2013-1824.pdf

Even a modest nuclear exchange would be devastating for global agriculture.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...fer-20-year-long-winter-worldwide-famine.html

even the daily fail linked to it! so it must be true!

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/nuclearwar1.html

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/nukergv.html

have a read