Safest country during WWIII?

[still kicking]

On 3/5/2024 at 10:37 AM, Thailand said:

Extreme but Uranus may be a consideration!

Antartica sounds OK to me

[bradiston]

11 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

A full European invasion???   Mate - take it easy - you'll have a heart attack. 

Well, everybody's talking about WWIII, which I think is highly inappropriate. Russia has no military allies, except maybe North Korea. China's not interested. Japan and South Korea are totally western aligned, and could launch attacks in the east of Russia. Can't see any African or south American states getting involved. With the whole of Europe and the US, Japan, South Korea, Australia, new Zealand , Canada, Turkey's NATO so wouldn't have much choice, then various central Asian states who've had enough of post soviet domination, that's a lot of fire power. India? Forget it! And as for nuclear, I never believed Putin's threats. MAD.

 

Hardly a world war. I can't see Putin taking on that lot. His army's and armaments almost exhausted. Now would be a good time to kick his butt to hell.

Edited March 8 by bradiston

[Fortean1]

The surviving email nodes should keep us in contact with each other.  America's DARPA began using a network that kept governments offices, university science labs, and other facilities in touch even with a WW III scenario.  I agree that ground zero would be best.

[swissie]

On 3/7/2024 at 3:04 PM, johng said:

Russia wants to secure its western border  they have taken almost 20% of Ukraine in the Donbas and Crimea regions to that end, there is absolutely no sign they want to advance any further west let alone all the way to Calais.

For hundreds of years, the Russian Tsars knew that Europe was well equipped to resist Russian expansionist dreams. Same during the rule of the Red-Tsars during the cold war.

- Today, Europe is practically defensless, compared to before. Todays Tsar will be tempted to march on, once the Ukraine is "neutralised". Vladimir knowing that European "nuclear defenses" will never be activated. Why not?

Because western philosophy has it: Better to learn Russian than turn Europe into a uninhabitable waistland for the next 3000 years. Tsar Vladimir knows it.   Over the last 1000 years, never were the chances favoring Russian Expansionism westward better than today.

[swissie]

1 hour ago, bradiston said:

Well, everybody's talking about WWIII, which I think is highly inappropriate. Russia has no military allies, except maybe North Korea. China's not interested. Japan and South Korea are totally western aligned, and could launch attacks in the east of Russia. Can't see any African or south American states getting involved. With the whole of Europe and the US, Japan, South Korea, Australia, new Zealand , Canada, Turkey's NATO so wouldn't have much choice, then various central Asian states who've had enough of post soviet domination, that's a lot of fire power. India? Forget it! And as for nuclear, I never believed Putin's threats. MAD.

 

Hardly a world war. I can't see Putin taking on that lot. His army's and armaments almost exhausted. Now would be a good time to kick his butt to hell.

Most of the above countries will not rush to the defence of Europe. "Putins armaments almost exhausted"? Stay away from Social Media Newssources. If anyone is running out of armaments it's the Ukraine.

[swissie]

9 hours ago, Hummin said:

Strategic land grabs, do not underestimate his reasons to show every allie and possible futeres allies how weak the west is, and also test our alliances. I do not believe his goal is to take over former soviet countries, but strategic pieces for sure. Turkey and Hungary is our week countries in our alliance, Georgia and quite a few others could be at risk, since many of those countries have internal problems, and it is just a matter who is winning the next elections. 

 

Everyonene predicted a short war, and here we are. How strong he is in Russia we really do mot know, but he is still in lead surrounded with strong support from other strong politician's. It doesnt look like his position is threatened. 

 

What is the real numbers on the losses of russian  soldiers? 350 000? 400 000? And 1,2 million wounded, other sources operates with 40 000 killed and 400 000 wounded. Nobody knows, and it doesnt seem to stop the russians yet. 

 

400 000 is a high number and hard to believe is possible. 

Why is it, that some Western Newssources "know" about Russian losses? But not "knowing" about Ukrainian losses? The Ukrainian losses are a well kept secret.

[bradiston]

17 minutes ago, swissie said:

Most of the above countries will not rush to the defence of Europe. "Putins armaments almost exhausted"? Stay away from Social Media Newssources. If anyone is running out of armaments it's the Ukraine.

It's not just the defence of Europe. You want to live under a putinesque regime? No, nor do I. He can't have many years left. Maybe 5? Then what? Sure, Ukraine's running low on armaments. Not the point. Russia takes on virtually the whole world? I don't think so. The threat would be enough. Send him packing. He's not going to drop any bomb. He's got his billions stashed. What does he care? Can't take them with him. Same with Kim. He's only interested in maintaining his family's control of North Korea. If it gets blown to kingdom come, so does that.

Edited March 8 by bradiston

[Hummin]

1 minute ago, swissie said:

Why is it, that some Western Newssources "know" about Russian losses? But not "knowing" about Ukrainian losses? The Ukrainian losses are a well kept secret.

Upated this week to 42k 

 

Last update was 31k I believe from Zelenskyj himself. 

[bradiston]

Just now, swissie said:

Why is it, that some Western Newssources "know" about Russian losses? But not "knowing" about Ukrainian losses? The Ukrainian losses are a well kept secret.

No they're not.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War

 

Everybody has their own widely differing estimates. But it seems both sides have suffered huge losses, anywhere from 300,000 to 450,000.

[swissie]

21 minutes ago, bradiston said:

It's not just the defence of Europe. You want to live under a putinesque regime? No, not do I. He can't have many years left. Maybe 5? Then what? Sure, Ukraine's running low on armaments. Not the point. Russia takes on virtually the whole world? I don't think so. The threat would be enough. Send him packing. He's not going to drop any bomb. He's got his billions stashed. What does he care? Can't take them with him. Same with Kim. He's only interested in maintaining his family's control of North Korea. If it gets blown to kingdom come, so does that.

Fine, money and power.

But to go down in History is the main driving force for "Dictators" once enough money and power have been accumulated.

Our children stlill learn in classrooms about Napoleon , Julius Ceasar and Alexander the Great.

Once money and power are achieved, immortality is the last aim. Putin is on that track. Having instructed Kindergarden Teachers in Russia to convey to the toddlers, that Russia will be great again.

This "great again" narrative sounds familiar to me, from the other side of the world.

[TroubleandGrumpy]

11 hours ago, bradiston said:

Well, everybody's talking about WWIII, which I think is highly inappropriate. Russia has no military allies, except maybe North Korea. China's not interested. Japan and South Korea are totally western aligned, and could launch attacks in the east of Russia. Can't see any African or south American states getting involved. With the whole of Europe and the US, Japan, South Korea, Australia, new Zealand , Canada, Turkey's NATO so wouldn't have much choice, then various central Asian states who've had enough of post soviet domination, that's a lot of fire power. India? Forget it! And as for nuclear, I never believed Putin's threats. MAD.

 

Hardly a world war. I can't see Putin taking on that lot. His army's and armaments almost exhausted. Now would be a good time to kick his butt to hell.

I have to say that is utterly wrong. Russia, China, India, Iran, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan have formed a broad trade and security alliance. Within that are alliances like BRICS with Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates. Russia and China have been leading the way with trade and security alliances with the non-western countries for decades, because of the USA-NATO-EU lead 'western' trade and security alliances.  Not only does Russia have all of its previous advantages, but it is also a lot closer to China than it has ever been in the past. China will never accept a western invasion/takeover of Russia - no more than than they would in Nth Korea.  If Russia and China and all its allies joined their military forces together, it would be more than capable of taking on USA - on their home soils. 

[TroubleandGrumpy]

9 hours ago, swissie said:

For hundreds of years, the Russian Tsars knew that Europe was well equipped to resist Russian expansionist dreams. Same during the rule of the Red-Tsars during the cold war.

- Today, Europe is practically defensless, compared to before. Todays Tsar will be tempted to march on, once the Ukraine is "neutralised". Vladimir knowing that European "nuclear defenses" will never be activated. Why not?

Because western philosophy has it: Better to learn Russian than turn Europe into a uninhabitable waistland for the next 3000 years. Tsar Vladimir knows it.   Over the last 1000 years, never were the chances favoring Russian Expansionism westward better than today.

Good points. I hope it never happens. Russia has made it very clear that they are after/liberating Eastern Ukraine which is predominantly Russian enthnic people. IMO they should have acted in 2014 after the overthrow of the elected Ukraine President - but they just took back Crimea and then supported the Eastern Regions attempting to remain independent of an EU-USA lead Western Ukraine. 

[Henryford]

On 3/7/2024 at 4:13 PM, johng said:

You realise that if they sent troops that would mean a declaration of war against Russia and hence WWIII ?

Russia has said it reserves the right to use nukes if it's territory is threatened ( same as all other nuclear bomb wielding nations)

 

But Russia thinks "it's territory" includes half of Europe.

[bradiston]

4 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

I have to say that is utterly wrong. Russia, China, India, Iran, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan have formed a broad trade and security alliance. Within that are alliances like BRICS with Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates. Russia and China have been leading the way with trade and security alliances with the non-western countries for decades, because of the USA-NATO-EU lead 'western' trade and security alliances.  Not only does Russia have all of its previous advantages, but it is also a lot closer to China than it has ever been in the past. China will never accept a western invasion/takeover of Russia - no more than than they would in Nth Korea.  If Russia and China and all its allies joined their military forces together, it would be more than capable of taking on USA - on their home soils. 

I disagree. None of those alliances include military support. BRICS is just a trade agreement. Russia's on its own. Their actions in Ukraine are and were unilateral and unsupported. Russia has great mineral wealth so all those countries pay lip service for cheap oil etc. It's an utterly corrupt kleptocracy.

 

And does anybody really understand why Putin invaded? The result, after 2 years of appalling bloodshed and destruction, is pretty much as it was. Except now Ukraine for sure will join NATO and Europe. It's cost trillions, taking into account the world wide impact. Sheer lunacy.

Edited March 9 by bradiston

[TroubleandGrumpy]

19 hours ago, bradiston said:

I disagree. None of those alliances include military support. BRICS is just a trade agreement. Russia's on its own. Their actions in Ukraine are and were unilateral and unsupported. Russia has great mineral wealth so all those countries pay lip service for cheap oil etc. It's an utterly corrupt kleptocracy.

 

And does anybody really understand why Putin invaded? The result, after 2 years of appalling bloodshed and destruction, is pretty much as it was. Except now Ukraine for sure will join NATO and Europe. It's cost trillions, taking into account the world wide impact. Sheer lunacy.

Again I have to say that you are wrong. Very wrong.  But I do understand the anti-Russian hatred and where it comes from. May I ask you to think about all the countries that USA has invaded/liberated/bombed since WW2 and all the wasted lives and money that went with that. Are you able to see rationaly what things that have happened - because if you are a slave to the propaganda (which most lefties are because they are trying to be/do good), then you will not know things like, that Obama dromped more bombs than any POTUS before or since. The Bushes both had their wars, causing loss of lives and money (unless you made money from the wars). Trump dislikes them all and they hate him - he is portrayed one way by the mainstream propaganda (Dems and many GOPs), but he is very much notat all what the propaganda says.  Is Trump perfect - absolutely not.  Same for Russia. They are not as bad as the propaganda portray.

Edited March 10 by TroubleandGrumpy

[TroubleandGrumpy]

23 hours ago, Henryford said:

 

But Russia thinks "it's territory" includes half of Europe.

Total fabrication.  Russia is not Germany.  What Russia did was to keep parts of eastern europe during WW2 that were liberated from the Nazis. They did that for geopolitical reasons - to keep a buffer zone between themselves and the western alliance countries. Not right - but it was very understandable at that time if you have any understanding of history.  Patton wanted to keep going and liberate eastern Europe from the communists, but the politicians said no. That was the biggest mistake ever made on a worldwide basis IMO.  Once Russia got the bomb, then liberating eatern europe by force was never going to happen.  Russia has been shrinking since WW2, but it has never in the past wanted to take over Europe - unlike German (twice). Russia wants to keep buffer zones between itself and the ever expanding Western Europe/NATO supported by USA.  Look at the history books and see what has been actually happening - not the propaganda.

[bradiston]

7 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

Again I have to say that you are wrong. Very wrong.  But I do understand the anti-Russian hatred and where it comes from. May I ask you to think about all the countries that USA has invaded/liberated/bombed since WW2 and all the wasted lives and money that went with that. Are you able to see rationaly what things that have happened - because if you are a slave to the propaganda (which most lefties are because they are trying to be/do good), then you will not know things like, that Obama dromped more bombs than any POTUS before or since. The Bushes both had their wars, causing loss of lives and money (unless you made money from the wars). Trump dislikes them all and they hate him - he is portrayed one way by the mainstream propaganda (Dems and many GOPs), but he is very much notat all what the propaganda says.  Is Trump perfect - absolutely not.  Same for Russia. They are not as bad as the propaganda portray.

Look, I'm sick of the "what about the US". It's irrelevant. It's Putin. He's wrong. End of. If you can't see that it's pointless arguing.

[Hummin]

7 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

Again I have to say that you are wrong. Very wrong.  But I do understand the anti-Russian hatred and where it comes from. May I ask you to think about all the countries that USA has invaded/liberated/bombed since WW2 and all the wasted lives and money that went with that. Are you able to see rationaly what things that have happened - because if you are a slave to the propaganda (which most lefties are because they are trying to be/do good), then you will not know things like, that Obama dromped more bombs than any POTUS before or since. The Bushes both had their wars, causing loss of lives and money (unless you made money from the wars). Trump dislikes them all and they hate him - he is portrayed one way by the mainstream propaganda (Dems and many GOPs), but he is very much notat all what the propaganda says.  Is Trump perfect - absolutely not.  Same for Russia. They are not as bad as the propaganda portray.

I do agree partly, but you are wrong about they are not as bad as propaganda says! 

 

They bomb and terrifies innocent civilians, their soldiers do war crimes! 

 

In every war there is aar crimes, no matter which side they are on, and I guess russian soldiers are more likely to perform war crimes since they operate among civilians on foreign soil. 

[bradiston]

7 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

Total fabrication.  Russia is not Germany.  What Russia did was to keep parts of eastern europe during WW2 that were liberated from the Nazis. They did that for geopolitical reasons - to keep a buffer zone between themselves and the western alliance countries. Not right - but it was very understandable at that time if you have any understanding of history.  Patton wanted to keep going and liberate eastern Europe from the communists, but the politicians said no. That was the biggest mistake ever made on a worldwide basis IMO.  Once Russia got the bomb, then liberating eatern europe by force was never going to happen.  Russia has been shrinking since WW2, but it has never in the past wanted to take over Europe - unlike German (twice). Russia wants to keep buffer zones between itself and the ever expanding Western Europe/NATO supported by USA.  Look at the history books and see what has been actually happening - not the propaganda.

What Russia did was to invade Poland alongside Hitler under the guise of the Molotov/Ribbentrop non aggression pact. It was only because Hitler got it into his insane head to invade Russia later on that Russia even ended up fighting against him. Russia didn't liberate eastern European countries from Nazism. They occupied them and merged them with the Soviet Union. Churchill and Roosevelt sold out eastern Europe to Stalin, and it stayed that way until 1991 when the Berlin wall came tumbling down and with it, the USSR. Twice Russia reinvaded eastern Europe, in 1956 in Hungary and in 1968 in Prague. And remember Lech Walesa and the struggle for liberation from the hated soviets? The Stasi in East Germany? Ceaucescu in Romania? The utterly corrupt puppet central Asian states? You have no idea.

Edited March 10 by bradiston

[TroubleandGrumpy]

56 minutes ago, bradiston said:

Look, I'm sick of the "what about the US". It's irrelevant. It's Putin. He's wrong. End of. If you can't see that it's pointless arguing.

So you agree USA is also wrong? You agree that they are both wrong? If that is true, then we are in agreement - but it came across as if you were saying Putrin/Russia is bad and USA is all good and never did the same and more of it. 

[TroubleandGrumpy]

44 minutes ago, bradiston said:

What Russia did was to invade Poland alongside Hitler under the guise of the Molotov/Ribbentrop non aggression pact. It was only because Hitler got it into his insane head to invade Russia later on that Russia even ended up fighting against him. Russia didn't liberate eastern European countries from Nazism. They occupied them and merged them with the Soviet Union. Churchill and Roosevelt sold out eastern Europe to Stalin, and it stayed that way until 1991 when the Berlin wall came tumbling down and with it, the USSR. Twice Russia reinvaded eastern Europe, in 1956 in Hungary and in 1968 in Prague. And remember Lech Walesa and the struggle for liberation from the hated soviets? The Stasi in East Germany? Ceaucescu in Romania? The utterly corrupt puppet central Asian states? You have no idea.

The only thing I was agree with in all that is ..........  You have no idea.  That is all cut and past anti-Russia hate and rhetoric written by people no even alive during WW2. 

[Hummin]

6 minutes ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

So you agree USA is also wrong? You agree that they are both wrong? If that is true, then we are in agreement - but it came across as if you were saying Putrin/Russia is bad and USA is all good and never did the same and more of it. 

It is us against them for any price, the more desperat, the more un orthodox methods

Edited March 10 by Hummin

[TroubleandGrumpy]

52 minutes ago, Hummin said:

I do agree partly, but you are wrong about they are not as bad as propaganda says! 

 

They bomb and terrifies innocent civilians, their soldiers do war crimes! 

 

In every war there is aar crimes, no matter which side they are on, and I guess russian soldiers are more likely to perform war crimes since they operate among civilians on foreign soil. 

I agree - both sides in any war commit crimes - but it all depends on how you see things and the views of the day.

Killing millions of people in Germany and Japan through bombing campaigns was considered OK - but is certainly not now.

 

[fondue zoo]

On 3/5/2024 at 12:52 PM, thaibeachlovers said:

Human nature in the raw is not pleasant.

 

yeah, what's that saying?  Civilisation is only three meals deep.

[Hummin]

8 minutes ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

I agree - both sides in any war commit crimes - but it all depends on how you see things and the views of the day.

Killing millions of people in Germany and Japan through bombing campaigns was considered OK - but is certainly not now.

 

Bombed to giving in, terrified so people see no meaning in this continuing, create doubt, apathy, 

 

Genocide is the most successful weapon throughout time to silence and end the enemy.

 

What Putin want to achive by this, not so sure.

 

Israel follow their eye for an eye in ten folds

Edited March 10 by Hummin

[xtrnuno41]

What would be the point of staying alive? The bombs are a "little" bigger then the first ones.

If the bombs dont kill you first hand, you will go down on radiation, no food, no water , nothing anymore.

Maybe big clouds blocking sunlight and there you go.

Really dont care for staying up and running with nothing and dying slow on mentioned effects.

If you want, go sit in the middle of Russia, less chance they bomb there.

[Hummin]

2 minutes ago, xtrnuno41 said:

What would be the point of staying alive? The bombs are a "little" bigger then the first ones.

If the bombs dont kill you first hand, you will go down on radiation, no food, no water , nothing anymore.

Maybe big clouds blocking sunlight and there you go.

Really dont care for staying up and running with nothing and dying slow on mentioned effects.

If you want, go sit in the middle of Russia, less chance they bomb there.

For some survival is the greatest thing. Without people with that purpose/genes, we wouldnt been here now having this debate 

[xtrnuno41]

42 minutes ago, Hummin said:

For some survival is the greatest thing. Without people with that purpose/genes, we wouldnt been here now having this debate 

Makes no sense at all. If some want to continue, I dont care, be my guest. Now lots of dumbasses trying to destroy.

You think it would go better afterwards? Even not in a million years.

Prove? Well if it is. See, god created a flood , so all people died (on a hand full) and what did it lead too? The system we are now. Im not religious at all but know the stupid stories.

You want to be a "survivor" after the nucleair holocaust, fine by me. I will try to catch coming down 

[Hummin]

6 minutes ago, xtrnuno41 said:

Makes no sense at all. If some want to continue, I dont care, be my guest. Now lots of dumbasses trying to destroy.

You think it would go better afterwards? Even not in a million years.

Prove? Well if it is. See, god created a flood , so all people died (on a hand full) and what did it lead too? The system we are now. Im not religious at all but know the stupid stories.

You want to be a "survivor" after the nucleair holocaust, fine by me. I will try to catch coming down 

I didnt mention what I would do, but I have said before, if im only taken up space and of no use, Im done gone! 

[xtrnuno41]

12 minutes ago, Hummin said:

I didnt mention what I would do, but I have said before, if im only taken up space and of no use, Im done gone! 

I said , I would catch one, but they never say where it is coming down. So better stay put, it just takes seconds to be blown away.

If they put on in the middle of "my country", it will be all gone and some surrounding states as well.