- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
@no1marauder saidIf we did, you'd call us murderers and Nazis.
How come you Euros can't defend yourselves from big, bad Russia?
@no1marauder saidBecause of their nuclear arsenal what Europe should do is rapidly expand its nuclear capability then we could wave you guys bye bye
How come you Euros can't defend yourselves from big, bad Russia? The EU has ten times the GDP and twice the population it does. https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2022/03/comparing-russia-and-the-european-union-gdp-and-population/
The nuclear proliferation treaty is no longer fit for purpose when one of the main nuclear powers can invade a peaceful country and the other main nuclear power stands around with its thumb up its rear end gazing at its own dysfunctional naval.
Russia is no match for the rest of Europe in the conventional arena, apart from its longer range artillery it’s barely a match for Ukraine.
@kevcvs57 saidFrance has about 300 nuclear warheads (https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn04079/) and the UK over 200 (https://warontherocks.com/2021/04/u-k-nuclear-weapons-beyond-the-numbers/).
Because of their nuclear arsenal what Europe should do is rapidly expand its nuclear capability then we could wave you guys bye bye
The nuclear proliferation treaty is no longer fit for purpose when one of the main nuclear powers can invade a peaceful country and the other main nuclear power stands around with its thumb up its rear end gazing at its own dysfunctional naval. ...[text shortened]... pe in the conventional arena, apart from its longer range artillery it’s barely a match for Ukraine.
That's more than enough to devastate Russia.
@no1marauder saidAny nuke used is devastating, but 300 nukes would not bring Russia to it's knees.
France has about 300 nuclear warheads (https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn04079/) and the UK over 200 (https://warontherocks.com/2021/04/u-k-nuclear-weapons-beyond-the-numbers/).
That's more than enough to devastate Russia.
People like to exaggerate things like that.
@metal-brain saidThen you don't understand how powerful one nuke is. Modern nukes put the A-bomb to shame.
Any nuke used is devastating, but 300 nukes would not bring Russia to it's knees.
People like to exaggerate things like that.
@no1marauder saidNo one should have to rely on France or anyone else for a nuclear umbrella every nation should have its own. Do you think Poland should rely on the UK or France embroil themselves in a nuclear exchange with Russia if they used nukes on Poland. I’d like to think they would but if were polish I’d be looking to get my own nukes right about now and Russia has destroyed any possible defence of the non proliferation treaty by threatening to use them if they faced too much resistance in Ukraine, they may still use them if they find themselves on the back foot again.
France has about 300 nuclear warheads (https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn04079/) and the UK over 200 (https://warontherocks.com/2021/04/u-k-nuclear-weapons-beyond-the-numbers/).
That's more than enough to devastate Russia.
No the treaty is a joke that worked during the Cold War but is not fit for the more multi polar reality we are heading toward.
Do you think this war would be happening if Ukraine kept their nukes?
@metal-brain saidStfu you little fascist Russian pig.
https://rumble.com/v182l8p-do-all-ukrainians-have-swastika-tattoos.html
1 edit
@kevcvs57 saidYou think every nation should have a nuclear arsenal sufficient to destroy Russia?
No one should have to rely on France or anyone else for a nuclear umbrella every nation should have its own. Do you think Poland should rely on the UK or France embroil themselves in a nuclear exchange with Russia if they used nukes on Poland. I’d like to think they would but if were polish I’d be looking to get my own nukes right about now and Russia has destroyed any possi ...[text shortened]... ality we are heading toward.
Do you think this war would be happening if Ukraine kept their nukes?
You really are crazy.
Should Iran have a sufficient nuclear arsenal to deter the United States?
1 edit
@no1marauder said“ You think every nation should have a nuclear arsenal sufficient to destroy Russia?”
You think every nation should have a nuclear arsenal sufficient to destroy Russia?
You really are crazy.
Should Iran have a sufficient nuclear arsenal to deter the United States?
No don’t be alarmist, but every nation should have enough nuclear weapons to put an aggressor off using them, or conventional forces against them. Why shouldn’t Iran have nuclear weapons, Israel has them, India and Pakistan have them and you will not find a more volatile arena than the subcontinent.
Have you considered that you may be really pompous and arrogant, who are you or we to tell other nations that they cannot have nuclear weapons when we have.
Do you think Iraq would have been invaded by Bush Jnr and Blair if Saddam actually did have weapons of mass destruction.
@kevcvs57 saidI think if a lot more nations had nuclear weapons, they would have used them and caused millions or perhaps many more deaths the amount of which would dwarf any deterrence.
“ You think every nation should have a nuclear arsenal sufficient to destroy Russia?”
No don’t be alarmist, but every nation should have enough nuclear weapons to put an aggressor off using them, or conventional forces against them. Why shouldn’t Iran have nuclear weapons, Israel has them, India and Pakistan have them and you will not find a more volatile arena than the sub ...[text shortened]... uld have been invaded by Bush Jnr and Blair if Saddam actually did have weapons of mass destruction.
I believe the NNPT was a good idea and would have worked out fine IF the nuclear powers had accepted the reciprocal duty of reducing their arsenals.
@no1marauder saidIt doesn’t work because the nuclear powers have no way of, or no will to police each other.
I think if a lot more nations had nuclear weapons, they would have used them and caused millions or perhaps many more deaths the amount of which would dwarf any deterrence.
I believe the NNPT was a good idea and would have worked out fine IF the nuclear powers had accepted the reciprocal duty of reducing their arsenals.
It has caused the world to be held in aspic, apart from China the same nuclear powers that dominated the globe in the 1950s still dominate the world today and it’s not because they’ve had the better of the ideas or the best business models.
The proof that the possession of nuclear weapons is a guarantee of peace, in terms of a full on war, is the Indian sub continent, the animosity between these two neighbouring cousins is legendary, they have also been waging a proxy war on each other in Kashmir but something is stopping them from escalating and the obvious element is the fact that they both have nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons are largely responsible for NATO and the Soviet Union not having a full on hot war.
Who are these maniacs that you believe will decide to cause the deaths of millions of their own people and the total destruction of the infrastructure by using nuclear weapons or even risking it by starting a conventional war.
The other and better option would be for the nuclear powers to hand all their ordinance into the control of the United Nations or bilaterally disarm themselves completely but I cannot ever see that happening.
@vivify saidI do, but even a more powerful nuke does not damage the whole country from the physical destruction alone. It is the radiation that is the worst part of it, but most of that will blow away in the wind after a few days. Then those that are far enough away from the blast will survive and carry on.
Then you don't understand how powerful one nuke is. Modern nukes put the A-bomb to shame.
MAD is an exaggeration. If it wasn't they would have stopped building nukes by now and they are building more than ever.
@kevcvs57 saidYou are actually starting to make sense.
“ You think every nation should have a nuclear arsenal sufficient to destroy Russia?”
No don’t be alarmist, but every nation should have enough nuclear weapons to put an aggressor off using them, or conventional forces against them. Why shouldn’t Iran have nuclear weapons, Israel has them, India and Pakistan have them and you will not find a more volatile arena than the sub ...[text shortened]... uld have been invaded by Bush Jnr and Blair if Saddam actually did have weapons of mass destruction.
What did you do with the real kevcvs57?
@Metal-Brain
You talk about nuclear war as if it would boil down to a couple of bombings. What do you think would happen if say NYC got nuked? Not sure what your game is here but a disaster like that would lead to HUNDREDS if not thousands of bombs launched.
And the radiation would not just go away in the breeze, ALL the breezes would be full of radiation besides the actual bomb sites uninhabitable for centuries if not more.
Sounds to me like you are just aiding and abetting the idea the PUTIN is the one making the nuclear threats and you being a good little Putin apologist if not an actual Putin asset and want to make it sound like it is the rest of the world at fault and your hero Putin is just a misunderstood dude who should be given whatever country he wants so he can rebuild the Soviet empire like you desire also.