I mean, those children and the other civilians would not BE in a war zone had Russia not illegally invaded.
Russia just has to leave Ukraine, and the war goes away.
"With your shield, or on it"
Someone once said "We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender."Originally Posted by Silverblade-T-E
Hard to blame a people for resisting.
Silver is really into victim blaming - it's a delightful addition to his anti-Semitism. He conveniently ignores that the Ukrainians wouldn't BE in a combat zone if Russia had not invaded.
Yes, I called you an anti-Semite Silverblade - what else do you call someone who accuses a Ukrainian Jew of supporting Nazis?
Last edited by Ninetoes; March 20th, 2023 at 07:54 PM.
"With your shield, or on it"
That you call someone advocating for Ukrainian self determination and against an illegal, immoral war is rather telling.
"With your shield, or on it"
There is a very simplistic way to end this war. Putin accepts the L and completely removes his forces from Ukraine.
Putin's own stupidity has cost him dearly, His currency is garbage, his oligarchs are losing money or falling out windows, Tons of lives, a massive brain drain of people fled to avoid conscription. Before this idiotic invasion he had basically free reign of the EU energy markets from gas to oil.
Kazakhstan apparently seized a bunch of stuff at a portion of Baikonur Cosmodrome due to unpaid debts.
https://www.wired.com/story/russias-...n-big-trouble/
Today we sail
On the Solar Rail
For there's much we just don't know
So farewell with a kiss
Then it's fast for the mist
Till we're sleeping in the cold below
Russia now using almost 80 year old tanks to cover armor losses in UkraineMan that is just some 4D thinking on Russia's art - they are winning so hard that they have to bring out almost 80 year old tanks. Clear sign they are kicking assIt’s a deeply ominous sign for Russian tank crews that the Kremlin has begun pulling 70-year-old T-54 and T-55 tanks out of long-term storage—presumably in order to recondition them for front-line service in Ukraine, 40 years after the Soviet army retired the types.
The T-54 and its slightly more modern derivative, the T-55, aren’t quite World War II tanks, but they’re close. The T-54 first appeared in 1946. The T-55 arrived 12 years later.
Just 13 years after that, the 40-ton, four-person tanks with their 100-millimeter rifled guns, 200-millimeter steel armor, 500-horsepower engines in early models and crude optics already were obsolete compared to contemporary Western designs.
Riddle for folks - wanna guess what happens when a T55 gets hit with a 120 mm Sabot round? A hole in it and the 3 tanks behind it!
"With your shield, or on it"
A clear sign of Russia's manufacturing might.
EDIT: more proof of Russia's manufacturing might: Russia unable to meet arms delivery targets with India.
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/24/i...hnk/index.html
Last edited by Delores Mulva; March 24th, 2023 at 07:16 PM.
5D chess
"With your shield, or on it"
how many Ds of chess does Russia have left?, they are running out of boards and pieces.
Today we sail
On the Solar Rail
For there's much we just don't know
So farewell with a kiss
Then it's fast for the mist
Till we're sleeping in the cold below
Thankfully, this is highly unlikely.
Nuclear weapons require a ridiculous amount of very regular, very delicate, very expensive maintenance to stay functional.
They're also, while absolutely horrifying, not anywhere close to as deadly as movies and television have portrayed them for decades.
Hell, back in the 50's and 60's people would gather in vegas to drink atomic cocktails (that's equal parts vodka and brandy shaken with a small amount of sherry, strained, and mixed with dry champagne and an orange wedge) and watch mushroom clouds from the tests nearby.
220px-NNSA-NSO-787.jpg
At this point, the vast majority of nuclear weapons in the world are less likely to function properly than a scud missile in gulf war 1 and while the concept of one actually working is terrifying, it's not that much more terrifying than carpet bombing, shelling cities with tanks, or performing drone strikes.
For copyright purposes, all of my posts are covered under the "Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License"
http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/
Noone should sue or be sued ambiguously.
Well if their record of maintenance of tanks is any indication, their nukes will just blow up in the silo
"With your shield, or on it"
"With your shield, or on it"
Merrick
that is so full of crap I don't know where to start, sigh
You know those tests they did in the 1950s, you know "Civil Defence" blowing up buildings etc?
Did you notice they did them in a FLAT desert with a reflective surface, hm?
nearly all the heat energy was NOT absorbed into the complex 3d structure of a city, as a starter
real cities have tens of thousands of vehicles loaded with fuel, and while Hollywood way over blows (lol) the way fuel tanks blow, in some circumstances it DOES happen, like a thermonuclear weapon heat pulse then blast (which is red hot to start by the way) throwing vehicles THROUGH buildings
think about it please
they also did it as a publicity stunt: "See, we're perfectly safe folks!"
BULL FUCKING SHIT!
EMP direct localized or, space based continental area of effect, will trigger a vast amount of fires
home circuits are NOT rated to take 100kv to 500kilovolts! not even the substations can take that crap
so, fires will break out in many homes unless you disconnect your main breakers and get lucky (blowing transformers may short it out enough, voltages like that can jump 30 metre gaps by the way, the main power lines will VAPOURIZE)
streets will be blocked by cars damaged or abandoned, fire brigades will be screwed
another factor is that many military targets like airbases, will require a LOW airbursts, under 1000 metres
to produce maximum horizontal "Push" force for destruction of buildings and vehicles
this increases fallout
ICBMs and other really hardened targets will be hit by ground bursts, radiation from those is dire because so MANY nukes will go off plus risk of contamination from wrecked warheads
Worst of all is surface or subsurface bursts in salt or brackish water, i.e., naval/sub bases and approaches to those to take out subs and ships at dock or leaving, say the Salish Sea up near Vancouver, Seattle, Chesapeake bay etc
See US 1946 "Baker bomb" test Bikini, Operation Hurricane first UK nuke, and Castle Bravo disaster for why water bursts are so dirty
While a large nation like the USA, the distances will allow many people to avoid harmful effects, but those near urban areas are FUCKED
Oh and the Russian "Poseidon" weapons which Alikat claimed "they couldn't make!" why do fuckwits think only the US can build stuff, FFS! hey Bezos and NASA relied on Russian rockets because they make the best
Poseidon would do NOT make a "radioactive tsunami, no, its much worse, the fireball lifts all that filth from the initial detonation, and the nuclear reactor that powers it (and I bet they run a uranium tamper into it to trigger prompt criticalities ergo more fallout they don't need a cobalt jacket, fission products are WORSE)
neutrons from the event will convert atoms for a fair distance around into radioactive isotopes and get lifted in the millions of tons of super heated water now plasma, which in salt/brackish polluted industrial waters is VERY VERY BAD INDEED
fallout will likely be lethal to 600+ miles, again, go see Castle bravo, and make it much bigger , much dirtier
the tsunami cannot have the volume of a fault slip, so no it cannot wipe out entire oceans, but within 200km and way up rivers/valleys, oh yer fucked
map of likely effect of nuclear exchange on America
those who don't have water/food medicines etc are fucked
i have warned you all strange as you may think it I don't want you to suffer
effects of nuclear war on USA.jpg
Well the Russian missiles would actually have to work first, and given that they are using 70+ year old tanks - not betting heavily on that.
"With your shield, or on it"
Low level air burst showing the massively increased "Push" of the blast
I have major doubts on anything going nuclear. Putin loves to commit warcrimes and have civilians killed but he knows Moscow disappears if he plays the nuclear card.
Today we sail
On the Solar Rail
For there's much we just don't know
So farewell with a kiss
Then it's fast for the mist
Till we're sleeping in the cold below
I am starting to wonder if he cares.
"With your shield, or on it"
Wanna bet your FAMILY on that?
are you THAT stupid?
What the fuck was in the crayons you were eating in service, lead?!
Note who's got the only combat proven hypersonic cruise missiles: Russia
Anyone with a clue knows they make the best missiles, they have the best titanium and scandium alloy manufacturing systems
So, is Russia a useless incompetent ass backward nation who's stuff doesn't work and no one should be afraid of (yet NATO is going nuts and failing to stop)
or
is Putin a raging psycho and in that case why piss him off when he's got nukes?!
Both things can be true -
Russia's a paper tiger (I know your narrative has jumped from Russia wont invade to NATO is secretly forcing Russia to invade to whathefuckever drivel you are spouting today) Ukrainians are defending their country from the illegal Russian invasion
AND
Putin is a raging psychopath
"With your shield, or on it"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
