Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
3 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Well, I can agree on a tactical smaller bomb, but then it is just another potent bomb if ask me, and will be used for more fear mongering against russia. So which side do you think would win that propaganda war? Are russians so formed by the propaganda now, that they are willing to accept their leaders use it against their own people? Russians and Ukrainers is pr definition both in blood and cultural. Compared to many other countries, one of the more alike homogeneous same people just with a border betweern them that have been changiung for thousands of years. 

putin and some of his soldiers have no problem shooting Ukrainian civilians or bombing schools, hospitals and shopping malls.

 

Seem the blood has grown a little thin.

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

putin and some of his soldiers have no problem shooting Ukrainian civilians or bombing schools, hospitals and shopping malls.

 

Seem the blood has grown a little thin.

And for their home public, they just blaim Ukrainians army for using civilian shelters, for personnel, weapons and anti air defense. Part of the propaganda and manage to make doubt who is right and wrong. But a nuclear tactical is another thing, especially when he have been threatening to use one for a long time now. 

Edited by Hummin
Posted
18 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

putin was not dictator in 1982. He was a first tour KGB case officer. Things changed as he consolidated his power.

That does not change the command and control system!

 

It is a fallacy that there is a "Red Button" which a president/PM/Dictator can press and nukes are launched without any verification/authorization!

 

Have you served in an SSBN?

 

Do you know first hand how the authorization/targeting works?

 

 

  • Thumbs Up 1
Posted (edited)

Since Thailand is likely already negotiating major contracts with the dear Russian comrade ambassador for borscht, buckwheat, barley, poultry, cooking oil, dried fish, and sunflower seeds, we will all have plenty to eat here. 

Edited by spidermike007
Posted
8 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Since Thailand is likely already negotiating major contracts with the dear Russian comrade ambassador for borscht, buckwheat, barley, poultry, cooking oil, dried fish, and sunflower seeds, we will all have plenty to eat here. 

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 ... ????

  • Thumbs Up 1
Posted
4 minutes 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 ... ????

There is Europeen countries who benefit great  from the conflict as well. Norway with oil, gas and weapon systems for sale. 

Posted
23 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Since Thailand is likely already negotiating major contracts with the dear Russian comrade ambassador for borscht, buckwheat, barley, poultry, cooking oil, dried fish, and sunflower seeds, we will all have plenty to eat here. 

Is there anything being grown in the region ?

Posted
4 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Full nuclear war means nuclear winter here.

Obviously one or a few tactical nukes in the war region wouldn't be a fallout issue here.

The premise here is about full nuclear war MAD where Russia, Europe, and North America are wiped out.

Did a bit of online research, but did get widely differing results (some from 70 years ago!) This wshows some of the results

 

https://www.quora.com/How-many-nuclear-warheads-would-it-take-to-destroy-the-Earth

 

and this bit seemed the most rational:

 

Quote

It is thus entirely possible that, as considered in The Effects of a Global Thermonuclear War, the immediate deaths from a nuclear war would be greatly outnumbered by excess mortality from the above-mentioned causes over the following year. According to this projection, a global thermonuclear war involving the United States, the USSR and China would have killed about 400,000,000 people on the first day, 5 August 1988 (7.77 % of the world’s population of 5,150,000,000 at the time). 450,000,000 people or 9.47% of the world’s surviving population would have died from injuries, fallout, exposure, starvation and disease over the next two months, and about 1 billion people or 23.26% of the world’s surviving population would have died from these causes over a subsequent period of ca. 9 months, bringing the total death toll by 31 August 1989 to 1,850,000,000 out of 5,150,000,000 people, or 35.92 % of the world’s prewar population. Deaths in the aftermath of doomsday would have outnumbered doomsday deaths by a factor of almost 4 to 1.

Also, it seems fallout is overrated. A Northern hemisphere exchange would have limited effects on the Southern Hemisphere. By the time substantial fallout arrives in the southern hemisphere, most of the radiation would have decayed or been washed out. In the Northern hemisphere, most deaths would probably be due to famine, pestilence, cold and societal collapse.

 

So best advice in Thailand - move South of the equator if you can, if not, wrap up warm, get your own power system, and buy anything useful.  Biggest problem will be holding on to it.

  • Like 2
Posted
10 hours ago, Neeranam said:

He will not start a nuclear war. 

He is not a Psycho, don't believe what you read about him in the US propaganda media.

Why should the US be allowed to invade Iraq, and many other countries but Putin not allowed to invade 1 country?

It's OK for the UK to invade other countries, but not Russia?

 

 

 

 

Even by your standards , that response is remarkably glib and simplistic.

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, possum1931 said:

As far as I'm aware, Putin is not in the best of health, suppose his health worsens and he has not got long to live, can Russia start nuking countries on his say so only? Or does anyone else have the power to over rule him? I am sure if Biden decided to be the first to start nuking there are those who would over rule him.

Far as I'm concerned, the idea that one man could just push a button and start a nuclear war is a myth.

 

Having said that, I'm sure that in the event of a first strike by an opposing country, there are automatic systems that send a nuclear response, just in case the leadership did get taken out.

 

While fiction, the movie Crimson Tide makes a stab at showing what might happen on a nuclear missile sub in the event of communications being cut off during a major political event when America may ( or may not ) have been nuked.

Edited by thaibeachlovers
  • Love It 1
Posted
8 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Is there anything being grown in the region ?

IF, and very big IF, it happened, expect a massive amount of refugees in LOS. Likely they would need more food than could be supplied by Thailand alone. Same for other SEA countries.

Posted
14 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Why would workers even show up at banks and stores?

To be paid in worthless cash?

So there would be nationwide looting. Not sure if the government would shoot them or not. 

Martial law would apply, and the army would shoot rioters.

Posted
13 hours ago, possum1931 said:

Maybe that is what Jingthing is actually asking.  "Unless the nuclear fallout happens to travel into Thailand".  Will it? 

That depends entirely on the way the wind blows, and whether it was still a killer by the time it arrived.

Even if no fallout at all arrived, refugees will, by the millions. So, one way or another Thailand would be affected, but as I don't believe it will come to MAD, I don't expect any significant changes.

When the local council starts building fallout shelters and stockpiling food , I'll start to worry.

  • Like 1
Posted
12 hours ago, Neeranam said:

Why, its safer here. 

 

Incredible how the woke West could start a nuclear war by getting involved in a conflict which has nothing to do with them. 

Indeed.

IMO it's a continuation of the Great Game/ cold war.

Posted
11 hours ago, Walker88 said:

russia is not the US. putin has absolute authority to launch. The only safe  guard is if someone puts a bullet in his head. There is a time to be a Pollyanna and a time to be a Cassandra. This is the later.

 

The US would not escalate, but any use of a nuke would put everyone on edge. Mistakes happen. russians could view a wayward aircraft as an incoming attack, then launch their ICBMs. Obviously the US would respond in kind.

 

The key points that put this as a 15% chance of an extinction level event is that 1) putin is crazy, 2) he has absolute authority, and 3) any use of a nuke would make mistakes much more likely.

 

In 1982 russia almost launched their ICBMs because of a misread on a rocket test. One mid-level russian commander stopped it. Otherwise we'd already be extinct.

Some proof that Putin has absolute authority or it's just your opinion.

 

Both sides had their mistakes

 

https://livableworld.org/the-close-calls-how-false-alarms-triggered-fears-of-nuclear-war/

In the 1950s, a flock of Canadian geese activated the Distant Early Warning Line radar system.  The birds were mistakenly interpreted as a Soviet bomber attack.  In the 1960s, meteor showers and lunar radar reflections triggered the new Ballistic Missile Early Warning System radar, indicating to the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) that the Soviet Union had initiated a missile attack.

Posted
11 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Yep ... it's amazing anyone actually thinks any country w/nukes would use them.  It would be the end of themselves, economically, if not starting WWIII, which isn't profitable for anyone.

 

And profit is all that matters.  The MSM's push for nuclear war BS is profitable enough.  Defense contractors are racking in the $$$.  Doom & Gloom always sells.  Same people that control the MSM, control the politician, control & profit with the arms race.  SELL SELL SELL

 

Hard to believe people really are that stupid ... a nuke war ????

Agree.

I believe I posted way back at the start that the only people benefiting from a war in Ukraine would be the weapons manufacturers, and I have not changed my mind on that.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Posted
On 10/8/2022 at 2:28 PM, Walker88 said:

Around the world all russians will be fair game. They will be slaughtered en masse, whether they support the war or not. So many will be killed that law enforcement won't even bother to investigate; in fact, they will join in. Everywhere, including in Thailand, where there is ample stock of prey. Killing russians will become a fad.

Dream on. As long as they have baht, I doubt Thais will give a monkey's where any farang comes from. It's not their war- why would they care?

Posted
On 10/8/2022 at 3:15 PM, gearbox said:

You are probably in the best place, that's why the uber rich have many deluxe "end of the world" underground residences on the South Island. Maybe you can befriend some of them, they can use your local knowledge ????

Good to know where the goodies are located. My only concern would be that the gangs got there first.

Posted
On 10/8/2022 at 4:04 PM, daveAustin said:

Dunno if someone else posted as can't be bothered to read the thread in its entirety. If they go nuke, it would be game on--meaning the end of the war by conventional means. All Russian positions in Ukraine and the Baltic Sea will be flattened very quickly by US / NATO. They are being watched 24-7. It will be bang bang bang bang, over to you Putin. If he escalates from there, then all Russian positions within Russia and elsewhere will be done.

I doubt any European that survived will care about how much of Russia was "flattened".

Posted
On 10/8/2022 at 4:09 PM, daveAustin said:

But it is a very good question. What happens here? Thailand is probably one of the best places to be--not many enemies and well placed--albeit there'd be a run on the banks etc etc. I would personally get one's cash under one's mattress, fornicate like no tomorrow, drink lots and await the inevitable. Basically, if there is an exchange, it wouldn't be worth hanging around for too long. Anarchy.

On that I can agree.

Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

On that I can agree.

They figured out N-Z and Australia as the two safest and best places to live if a nuclear war would happen in Europe and Us. Easter islands and Antartica is also mentioned, but if I was thinking about it, and worried enough, I would head that direction where I might manage to get retirement. 

Edited by Hummin
Posted
Just now, Hummin said:

They figured out N-Z and Australia ascthe two best places to be. Easter islands and Antartica is also mentioned, but if I was thinking about it, and worried enough, I would head that direction where I might manage to get retirement. 

NZ and Australia perhaps, but Antarctica 5555555555555555555555

Anyone knows anything about that place knows that's ludicrous.

Nothing grows there and the animal life leaves during the winter ( except emperor penguins and apparently a few seals that live underwater- only surfacing to breath ).

For humans to survive, vast amounts of fuel and food have to be brought in every summer.

It would of course be possible to survive till the food and fuel ran out ( though wind and solar are a viable alternative, but would require massive investment in infrastucture, all of which has to be transported there either by air, or when the ice is broken by icebreakers. Certainly not going to happen in the next few months. ) Likewise, food could be grown using hydroponics, but again, would require massive infrastructure investment.

While I have no personal experience of the peninsula, it might be the only viable place as it's warmer than the rest, and the ice breaks out without icebreakers in summer, so resupply might be easier ( if there is anywhere to resupply from ).

Posted
16 hours ago, Jingthing said:

No way.

At the very  least the entire  country will be running on the banks, gold shops, food stores, gun shops, and any survival supply stores  There will be looting, probably martial law, and the beginning of breakdown of civilization. There will be a mass exodus from the cities. 

I met a girl who sang the blues
And I asked her for some happy news
But she just smiled and turned away
I went down to the sacred store
Where I'd heard the music years before
But the man there said the music wouldn't play
And in the streets, the children screamed
The lovers cried and the poets dreamed
But not a word was spoken
The church bells all were broken
And the three men I admire most
The Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost
They caught the last train for the coast
The day the music died
  • Like 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
Posted
3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 the Distant Early Warning Line radar system. 

We used to ride our skidoos to Lady Franklin to get drunk, watch porno and play pool.

Slept under the table !!! 555

  • Like 2

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...