If the worse happens in the war, what happens in Thailand?

[spidermike007]

14 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Yep ... ASEAN is fine & dandy, and wouldn't take sides against RU or CH.  Why would they, as no reason to.  

 

Thais don't really need either, but they are friendships of convenience and economically beneficial.

 

USA doing nothing but profiting from RU sanctions.  UK & EU suffering and really don't know what to do since so dependent on imports of food & energy. 

 

Unlike the USA ... and yet, they play USA's lapdog ... ????

While I question a lot of US foreign policy, what would you suggest, regarding Putin and Ukraine? Give him free reign? Support him? 

 

Is killing women and children ok? 

[herfiehandbag]

If Mr Putin tries a nuclear launch against Ukraine, the response, whilst devastating, may not initially involve nuclear weapons.

[KhunLA]

36 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

While I question a lot of US foreign policy, what would you suggest, regarding Putin and Ukraine? Give him free reign? Support him? 

 

Is killing women and children ok? 

TBH, don't know who to believe.  USA's fueled regime change of UA seemed to cause the problems.  Crimea first wanted out, or so I read, then Donbass, with their coal industry (huge % of UA GDP) had enough of the 'corrupt' installed govt, and were getting regularly bombed, women & children, for wanting out.  Or so I read.

 

It always seems to be about money, and what corrupt govt/regime controls it.  Cower & comply or die.

 

Was Putin right to go in, and stop that, I don't know, as MSM is anti RU & Putin.  But go to alternative news, and plenty of confirmation of UA being quite brutal to those, Donbas, that don't accept the new regime, since 2014.

 

Actually don't know, don't care one way or the other, as doesn't affect me at all.   That it caters to the western elites' grab for power & money, does confirm Putin's stance.  US & NATO countries have been trying to de-stabilize RU forever.   RU has asked NATO to stop expanding to their border, and ignored.  

 

Putin/RU going into UA is a no win for RU, so why, except to protect Russian that want out of UA control.  There's no profit for RU with war with UA.  UA's arms supply has been depleted, a while ago, and what little they had left, was used on Donbas and now against RU.  No longer a world supplier of arms as they were before the regime changes.  

 

What if RU put nukes in Canada & Mexico ?  Oh wait, they tried that in Cuba, and seems that wasn't allowed, and yet, RU whole western front if a launching point of nukes.

 

The news & politicians can't be trusted, so unless I see it with my own eyes, I don't believe any of it.

 

I remember when we were told the arms race was to keep peace.  Now wars seem to be started, to fuel the arms race for profits.  Screw the women & children caught in the middle.

 

Remember when UN was established to keep peace in the world.  Yet the 5 permanent members of the Security Council, are 5 of the top arms supplier of the world.

 

Want to stop wars, stop making arms.  

Simple solutions to simple problems.

[KhunLA]

Russian citizens don't want nothing to do with UA and the conflict.

 

That UA makes it illegal for draft age men to leave the country, screams most UA citizens don't agree with the war either, but yet, nobody is sitting down and seriously discussing ending it.

 

What's wrong with that picture ?

[Bkk Brian]

9 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

TBH, don't know who to believe.  USA's fueled regime change of UA seemed to cause the problems.  Crimea first wanted out, or so I read, then Donbass, with their coal industry (huge % of UA GDP) had enough of the 'corrupt' installed govt, and were getting regularly bombed, women & children, for wanting out.  Or so I read.

 

It always seems to be about money, and what corrupt govt/regime controls it.  Cower & comply or die.

 

Was Putin right to go in, and stop that, I don't know, as MSM is anti RU & Putin.  But go to alternative news, and plenty of confirmation of UA being quite brutal to those, Donbas, that don't accept the new regime, since 2014.

 

Actually don't know, don't care one way or the other, as doesn't affect me at all.   That it caters to the western elites' grab for power & money, does confirm Putin's stance.  US & NATO countries have been trying to de-stabilize RU forever.   RU has asked NATO to stop expanding to their border, and ignored.  

 

Putin/RU going into UA is a no win for RU, so why, except to protect Russian that want out of UA control.  There's no profit for RU with war with UA.  UA's arms supply has been depleted, a while ago, and what little they had left, was used on Donbas and now against RU.  No longer a world supplier of arms as they were before the regime changes.  

 

What if RU put nukes in Canada & Mexico ?  Oh wait, they tried that in Cuba, and seems that wasn't allowed, and yet, RU whole western front if a launching point of nukes.

 

The news & politicians can't be trusted, so unless I see it with my own eyes, I don't believe any of it.

 

I remember when we were told the arms race was to keep peace.  Now wars seem to be started, to fuel the arms race for profits.  Screw the women & children caught in the middle.

 

Remember when UN was established to keep peace in the world.  Yet the 5 permanent members of the Security Council, are 5 of the top arms supplier of the world.

 

Want to stop wars, stop making arms.  

Simple solutions to simple problems.

Reading Russian media then obviously you're going to get false figures. The UN is where those Russian outlets got that information on Donbas but the unfiltered actual information is this:

 

On January 27, 2022, the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights released its most recent estimate of the victims of the Donbass conflict from 2014 to December 31, 2021. The famous figure of 14,000 casualties, often quoted by pro-Russian comments, comes from this document. In fact, the U.N. estimate is between 14,200 and 14,400 victims. 

By no means were these victims all “killed by the Ukrainians.” According to the U.N., 10,900 victims were soldiers, of which 4,400 were Ukrainians and 6,500 pro-Russian combatants of or on behalf of the separatist pseudo-republics. Civilian victims were between 3,400 and 3,500. The latter were in turn not all victims of attacks and of drones and rockets launched by Ukraine against the pseudo-republics. In fact, a part died in the portions of the oblasts of Luhansk and Donetsk that remained under Ukrainian control during attacks by separatists.

The U.N. report also notes that 8.8% of all civilian victims come from a single incident, which happened on July 17, 2014, when Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur was shot by a missile.

[seedy]

2 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Want to stop wars, stop making arms.  

Simple solutions to simple problems.

If you think that is the answer, it is not just your post that is simple.

 

[Jingthing]

3 hours ago, KhunLA said:

TBH, don't know who to believe.  USA's fueled regime change of UA seemed to cause the problems.  Crimea first wanted out, or so I read, then Donbass, with their coal industry (huge % of UA GDP) had enough of the 'corrupt' installed govt, and were getting regularly bombed, women & children, for wanting out.  Or so I read.

 

It always seems to be about money, and what corrupt govt/regime controls it.  Cower & comply or die.

 

Was Putin right to go in, and stop that, I don't know, as MSM is anti RU & Putin.  But go to alternative news, and plenty of confirmation of UA being quite brutal to those, Donbas, that don't accept the new regime, since 2014.

 

Actually don't know, don't care one way or the other, as doesn't affect me at all.   That it caters to the western elites' grab for power & money, does confirm Putin's stance.  US & NATO countries have been trying to de-stabilize RU forever.   RU has asked NATO to stop expanding to their border, and ignored.  

 

Putin/RU going into UA is a no win for RU, so why, except to protect Russian that want out of UA control.  There's no profit for RU with war with UA.  UA's arms supply has been depleted, a while ago, and what little they had left, was used on Donbas and now against RU.  No longer a world supplier of arms as they were before the regime changes.  

 

What if RU put nukes in Canada & Mexico ?  Oh wait, they tried that in Cuba, and seems that wasn't allowed, and yet, RU whole western front if a launching point of nukes.

 

The news & politicians can't be trusted, so unless I see it with my own eyes, I don't believe any of it.

 

I remember when we were told the arms race was to keep peace.  Now wars seem to be started, to fuel the arms race for profits.  Screw the women & children caught in the middle.

 

Remember when UN was established to keep peace in the world.  Yet the 5 permanent members of the Security Council, are 5 of the top arms supplier of the world.

 

Want to stop wars, stop making arms.  

Simple solutions to simple problems.

You sure do read a lot of Kremlin propaganda. 

[Jingthing]

3 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

If Mr Putin tries a nuclear launch against Ukraine, the response, whilst devastating, may not initially involve nuclear weapons.

Not initially, but at that point the ball will be in Putin's court as far as devastating escalation, and a court ruled by Putin is a court you don't want the future of the earth to be subject to, 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

1 hour ago, seedy said:

If you think that is the answer, it is not just your post that is simple.

 

If it's not love then it's the bomb that will keep us together The Smiths 1987

[Fat is a type of crazy]

4 hours ago, KhunLA said:

TBH, don't know who to believe.  USA's fueled regime change of UA seemed to cause the problems.  Crimea first wanted out, or so I read, then Donbass, with their coal industry (huge % of UA GDP) had enough of the 'corrupt' installed govt, and were getting regularly bombed, women & children, for wanting out.  Or so I read.

 

It always seems to be about money, and what corrupt govt/regime controls it.  Cower & comply or die.

 

Was Putin right to go in, and stop that, I don't know, as MSM is anti RU & Putin.  But go to alternative news, and plenty of confirmation of UA being quite brutal to those, Donbas, that don't accept the new regime, since 2014.

 

Actually don't know, don't care one way or the other, as doesn't affect me at all.   That it caters to the western elites' grab for power & money, does confirm Putin's stance.  US & NATO countries have been trying to de-stabilize RU forever.   RU has asked NATO to stop expanding to their border, and ignored.  

 

Putin/RU going into UA is a no win for RU, so why, except to protect Russian that want out of UA control.  There's no profit for RU with war with UA.  UA's arms supply has been depleted, a while ago, and what little they had left, was used on Donbas and now against RU.  No longer a world supplier of arms as they were before the regime changes.  

 

What if RU put nukes in Canada & Mexico ?  Oh wait, they tried that in Cuba, and seems that wasn't allowed, and yet, RU whole western front if a launching point of nukes.

 

The news & politicians can't be trusted, so unless I see it with my own eyes, I don't believe any of it.

 

I remember when we were told the arms race was to keep peace.  Now wars seem to be started, to fuel the arms race for profits.  Screw the women & children caught in the middle.

 

Remember when UN was established to keep peace in the world.  Yet the 5 permanent members of the Security Council, are 5 of the top arms supplier of the world.

 

Want to stop wars, stop making arms.  

Simple solutions to simple problems.

Why is the mainstream media an anathema to some. The way they became mainstream is by gaining trust and building an audience so they didn't have to be some guy on a  c r a p p y   website.

There is a lot of distortion, influences and noise, but surely you can get something out of government websites -BBC, ABC Australia, Al Jazeera Qatar, or left leaning sites that are clearly bound by high standards - New York Times, Washington Post or the Guardian, or right leaning sites such as Washington Examiner, a range of Murdoch press - some in my opinion dodgy as hell but a point of view - and a range of non political media in the middle or either side. Take you pick. Have a look around. Better than some guy pulling a point of view out of nowhere or a government spokesperson clearly just mimmicking the words of the leader.  

[seedy]

Agree with the above. Read reputable sources, weigh the opinions, decide for yourself.

Quite easy to sort the wheat from the chaff - if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck - chances are it is a duck.

It is not that hard - examples Qanon, Israel, Iran - to see the inhabitants of Cloud Cuckoo land 555

 

[spidermike007]

4 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Why is the mainstream media an anathema to some. The way they became mainstream is by gaining trust and building an audience so they didn't have to be some guy on a  c r a p p y   website.

There is a lot of distortion, influences and noise, but surely you can get something out of government websites -BBC, ABC Australia, Al Jazeera Qatar, or left leaning sites that are clearly bound by high standards - New York Times, Washington Post or the Guardian, or right leaning sites such as Washington Examiner, a range of Murdoch press - some in my opinion dodgy as hell but a point of view - and a range of non political media in the middle or either side. Take you pick. Have a look around. Better than some guy pulling a point of view out of nowhere or a government spokesperson clearly just mimmicking the words of the leader.  

I do not find MSM repulsive. I watch and follow them a little bit, just to keep tabs on what is going on, but do not spend much time on the news these days. I think as long as you follow the MSM and are aware of the liberal (or of the conservative bias, in case of Fox, The National Review, The Federalist, Washington Times, and podcasts like the Blaze, Red state, etc.) slant, and point of view, they can be good sources of information. There are an awful lot of dodgy podcasts out there these days, and many millions who follow them, and believe them. Not much in the way of true investigative journalism anymore. RT actually used to do some. But, it was always Kremlin sponsored, always anti West, and one never knew if it could be trusted, especially considering it's very toxic sponsor. But, it was very entertaining.  

[Phulublub]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Not initially, but at that point the ball will be in Putin's court as far as devastating escalation, and a court ruled by Putin is a court you don't want the future of the earth to be subject to, 

The Earth will be just fine. The inhabitants, on the other hand....

 

Suggest a read of On the Beach by Neville Schute would give an indication not too far from the probable outcome.

 

PH

[Rhys]

Not to worry dude, Haysous, loves you..

[Jingthing]

9 minutes ago, Phulublub said:

The Earth will be just fine. The inhabitants, on the other hand....

 

Suggest a read of On the Beach by Neville Schute would give an indication not too far from the probable outcome.

 

PH

I admit to being humanity centric but happy days might be coming for cock-a-raaches (sic). 

[spidermike007]

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

I admit to being humanity centric but happy days might be coming for cock-a-raaches (sic). 

Just say NO to cockroach and insect rights! 

[BritManToo]

On 10/7/2022 at 9:28 PM, Jingthing said:

Well you went there.

Yes the Russians if they do would start small.

But the west would definitely respond strongly  even without nukes.

That would be the critical decision time for Putin that could start the end.

I doubt Putin has any way of delivering nukes to the USA, unless he uses DHL.

[internationalism]

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

I doubt Putin has any way of delivering nukes to the USA, unless he uses DHL.

yes, 2k of ballistic rockets from russia (just 30 minutes supersonic flight) and from some 60 submarines on oceans (that timing is shorter).

Up to 50 megatons each - some 3000x of the big boy from nagasaki. They are the hydrogen ones. 

Those rockets can't really be stopped, at least half will rich it's targets. They can be destroyed yet before being fired, but preemptive strike means full nuclear war.

Each town over 100k will get at least 1 bomb.

 

[Jingthing]

10 minutes ago, internationalism said:

yes, 2k of ballistic rockets from russia (just 30 minutes supersonic flight) and from some 60 submarines on oceans (that timing is shorter).

Up to 50 megatons each - some 3000x of the big boy from nagasaki. They are the hydrogen ones. 

Those rockets can't really be stopped, at least half will rich it's targets. They can be destroyed yet before being fired, but preemptive strike means full nuclear war.

Each town over 100k will get at least 1 bomb.

 

Basically if Russia OR the US lets them loose (the full attack), OR the other side mistakenly thinks that they did (refer to the Cuban missile crisis, so close) then the other side has no choice but to do the same. That's MAD but Putin seems to playing with fire suggesting we are in a post MAD world.

[Seppius]

I would go to the roof of my condo building with as much booze I could carry, and the best bud you can buy, maybe throw in some Xanax, then watch the show

[Jingthing]

41 minutes ago, Seppius said:

I would go to the roof of my condo building with as much booze I could carry, and the best bud you can buy, maybe throw in some Xanax, then watch the show

What show?

Missiles wouldn't be coming here.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

5 hours ago, Jingthing said:

What show?

Missiles wouldn't be coming here.

Maybe the decimation of society. Looting and pillaging. People fighting over scraps of food. Gangs of thais searching out farangs to blame. The government falling giving way to full blown chaos. Or the beauty of empty city streets like during covid. 

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Why is the mainstream media an anathema to some. The way they became mainstream is by gaining trust and building an audience so they didn't have to be some guy on a  c r a p p y   website.

There is a lot of distortion, influences and noise, but surely you can get something out of government websites -BBC, ABC Australia, Al Jazeera Qatar, or left leaning sites that are clearly bound by high standards - New York Times, Washington Post or the Guardian, or right leaning sites such as Washington Examiner, a range of Murdoch press - some in my opinion dodgy as hell but a point of view - and a range of non political media in the middle or either side. Take you pick. Have a look around. Better than some guy pulling a point of view out of nowhere or a government spokesperson clearly just mimmicking the words of the leader.  

Most of us have better things to do than read multiple news articles and then try to decide which is the more accurate.

Personally I went for what was available if it wasn't too boring, so Fox while in Thailand ( CNN wasn't available at at all on WETV ) and Al Jazira now.

Even if CNN was available I wouldn't watch it as waaaaaay too boring.

As for newspapers, never read them as use time for other things.

[thaibeachlovers]

9 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Basically if Russia OR the US lets them loose (the full attack), OR the other side mistakenly thinks that they did (refer to the Cuban missile crisis, so close) then the other side has no choice but to do the same. That's MAD but Putin seems to playing with fire suggesting we are in a post MAD world.

Perhaps he believes that as NATO/ USA/ Britain etc have no treaty with Ukraine, they won't destroy the world if he uses tactical nukes on Ukraine.

[Jingthing]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Perhaps he believes that as NATO/ USA/ Britain etc have no treaty with Ukraine, they won't destroy the world if he uses tactical nukes on Ukraine.

If there is a first strike full on Armageddon nuclear attack, the first strike will come from Russia so I really do find your comment totally absurd.

The only way it would come first from the USA is if there is a miscommunication and the USA mistakenly thinks Russia has launched. The chances of such a mistake are not trivial.

[Phulublub]

56 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

If there is a first strike full on Armageddon nuclear attack, the first strike will come from Russia so I really do find your comment totally absurd.

The only way it would come first from the USA is if there is a miscommunication and the USA mistakenly thinks Russia has launched. The chances of such a mistake are not trivial.

So after reading On The Beach, we should watch Dr Strangelove....

 

Many years ago... plan was to take as much booze as we could carry up to the top of Ben Lomond and watch the incoming.  Faslane and Coulport would have been high on the hit list.

 

PH

[MyFriend You]

On 10/7/2022 at 4:28 AM, Jingthing said:

Well you went there.

Yes the Russians if they do would start small.

But the west would definitely respond strongly  even without nukes.

That would be the critical decision time for Putin that could start the end.

I think Moscow would be a parking lot in a coupe days, it is not only the US that would respond.  Any sane person would realize we have most of his weapons caches locked on by conventional weapons by now..............myself, I hope the winds blow across the pacific ocean, and get sucked up thru the ozone layers into space.   If full nuclear, it's end game, almost no hope of planetary survival.  South America would be a better bet than Thailand though.   Peace

[KhunLA]

37 minutes ago, TunnelRat69 said:

I think Moscow would be a parking lot in a coupe days, it is not only the US that would respond.  Any sane person would realize we have most of his weapons caches locked on by conventional weapons by now..............myself, I hope the winds blow across the pacific ocean, and get sucked up thru the ozone layers into space.   If full nuclear, it's end game, almost no hope of planetary survival.  South America would be a better bet than Thailand though.   Peace

I'm not sure what preparedness any of those nations are with nukes.

 

Remember a couple of news blips years ago, USA's nuke sites were still using floppy disk and or still using Windows XP.

 

I believe nuke subs are the deterrent of the day.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

I'm not sure what preparedness any of those nations are with nukes.

 

Remember a couple of news blips years ago, USA's nuke sites were still using floppy disk and or still using Windows XP.

 

I believe nuke subs are the deterrent of the day.

And the Yanks still have Slim Whitman in reserve just in case!

 

 

 

[seedy]