... a western arms backed invasion of the territories which vote in favor of joining - and becoming part of - the Russian motherland, how much of England would realistically become unliveable?
Would it be contained to the extreme south east or would the radiation leave places even as far away as the Midlands left unusable?
Thermonuclear bombs (thermonuclear fusion) do not generate high levels of contamination. So the entirety of England would be liveable, albeit with higher than normal radiation levels.
Thanks.
That's interesting. I can see that as being the potential end game in the current situation. Annex the Russian majority areas then a tactical strike on London if the west / Ukraine refuses to accept / respect the new borders.
At this point the stakes will be raised to a point of either moving forward with total annihilation of backing down. It's kind of surprising he didn't pull this move a lot sooner.
Why London????
shareGood question.
I just thought it would be his most likely target. It's not the European mainland and it's not American soil either. As per the post above, it would give Western powers a last chance to see he wouldn't back down, and avoid the total mutual annihilation any retaliatory strike would bring.
You do understand a nuke in London would result in the end of Russia right? It would be wiped out in retaliation. At least key cities, infrastructure and bases.
Whilst some people think Putin has the upper hand threatening nukes, in reality it's lose, lose for Russia.
If Putin does a show of power, escalate to de-escalate nuke somewhere remote in Ukraine or over the ocean, all he's doing is prove to the world how badly he's losing and making Russia more toxic than it already is. What few "friends" Russia has will slink off into the shadows. You think Winnie the Pooh will still want to remain buddies with a madman yeeting nukes all over the place? Hell no. It would push Russia further into a pariah state.
And so we consider full on nuclear war. Nope. Putin is too much of a narcissist. You think he wants to live the remainder of his life in some DUMB (Deep Underground Military Base). Get real. Have you seen his palace? He's probably the richest person on the planet. He wouldn't give that up.
What I see happening is the sham elections go in Russia's favour, because of course...Then we have Crimea all over again. Things are tolerated. We have sporadic fighting. Probably lots of stuff like false flags that kicked off the Chechen wars. This all goes on until Putin dies. In the immediate aftermath, Ukraine with help from the West sweep through the occupied areas and kick and kill all Russian occupancy. Let's face it, this is one man's war. Afraid of his legacy. No Russian wants to die for this bullshit. They'll have no incentive to stick around and get blown up. Meanwhile revolution in Russia will help matters as it gets back on track and tries to rejoin polite society after getting considerably demilitarized and de nazified in Ukraine.
Interesting post. You raises a few things I was considering...
You remember when Trump came to power and everyone was going crazy, saying "this guy's got his finger on the nuclear trigger, we're all doomed!". I was thinking then - what a load of nonsense, would any of the military top brass allow any nuclear device to by fired on his say so? Anyway, I wonder if Russia is much the same - I'm not sure if their military would follow the strike order...
If so though and London was the target, I'm not so sure that would be the "end of Russia". I mean, the UK didn't even have an operational battleship at one point recently if memory serves. I'm not sure whether the response would be instantaneous should London and the entire power base be instantly removed. At that point, would "allies" really make the next step which would be to assure everyone's destruction? I don't know...
I'd be pleased to see revolution in Russia. However seeing the size of the compliant police resistance to the recent protests makes me wonder if we have an angle on the mindset of at least a sizable proportion of that country.
Yup. All that Trump stuff was the ramblings of lunatics suffering from TDS still salty that Trump won. Of course Trump, nor any POTUS would have the power to fire off a nuke on a whim.
As for Russia, there was actually an incident in 1962 where the executive officer on board a Soviet nuclear armed submarine refused to agree with the captain and political officer to launch a nuclear torpedo at a US target (all three needed to be in agreement to launch). This action prevented a nuclear war.
UK doesn't need an operational battleship for nukes. They would be delivered by Vanguard-class submarines with Trident missiles. Such a submarine is on patrol 24/7. Plus, it wouldn't surprise me if there was other top secret stuff like underwater drones sitting dormant with nuclear capabilities.
And again, lets say Russia was able to strike London/somewhere in the UK and the UK's counterattack failed/fell short of proper decapitation of the Russian government. You think everyone would be like "oh well, anyway, can we buy some Russian gas please?" Russia would be beyond toxic at that point.
UK doesn't need an operational battleship for nukes. They would be delivered by Vanguard-class submarines with Trident missiles. Such a submarine is on patrol 24/7. Plus, it wouldn't surprise me if there was other top secret stuff like underwater drones sitting dormant with nuclear capabilities.
I think you underestimate the British Armed Forces. They're not to be fucked with. Royal Marines recently embarrassed US forces in a recent training exercise when they went up against each other. Sure, they might not have the funding the US does, or the sheer amount of deployable assets but they're more than capable. When you consider their fighting history, they've learnt a lot and have taught numerous other countries in war fighting. Pioneering modern special forces, counter terrorism etc.
Re. nuclear capable drones, there is/was some speculation in the International defence community that Russia had such vessels/stations. Just sitting there, nearish to targets, dormant on the seabed ready to be powered up to get a quick strike. Though with Russia's performance in Ukraine, perhaps it's a little far fetched they're capable of designing, deploying and maintaining a system like that.
It's not really a question of underestimating the personnel of the British Armed forces, rather the state of their funding and consequently their equipment.
That's where the battleships comment came from. How can we expect them to have a modern setup, capable of a technological lightening response, when they were defunded to a point were they had no operational battleship? I mean, it's incredible - the rule britannia navy without a battleship!
I guess there's the argument that a flagship battleship or a fleet of battleships is an outdated concept and perhaps irrelevant to modern war fighting. Sure, they look cool and good for propaganda etc but really, how practical are they in a modern war? Just look at the Moskva (put your scuba gear on). Boop. Aaaaaaand it's gone.
How much does a destroyer cost. USS Zumwalt is what, $4.4B. Seems like a waste when it seems modern conflicts will be fought with drones, infantry, artillery and mortars. That buys a lot of Bayraktars. I guess what I'm saying is, war evolves so fast, we can't be focused too much on the past. Sure, battleships pounding Utah, Omaha, Gold etc were vital in WWII but that's very unlikely to play out again.
When you look at British infantry, SOF etc, their level of training etc, a lacking naval force missing or underrepresented legacy elements just doesn't seem like that much of a concern really.
Very much what I was thinking and the parallels with other nations are the same such as Afghanistan or Iran or China etc. People don't want to live like that with sham elections and no freedoms. If anything a human mind likes it is freedom. Especially when it exists close by you can run off to or become yourselves. Sure, on the face of it, everyone will blast us and condemn us but give them a visa they will happily run off to come here. But in reality they want to just live and be happy. They will have diff norms and customs and want to protect their women in their own cultural way but they want freedom and a voice above all.
But because they are powerless everyone is waiting for some magical regime change or some spark someone else leads to just join in and "ride the wave" to speak.
Same in Russia. And if nukes are used, retaliation will basically ensure humanity is doomed. We need brains to work together to solve global climate crisis and help people like Pres. Biden, British PM, French President, German Chancellor etc. to take the world forward.
And if nukes are used, retaliation will basically ensure humanity is doomed. We need brains to work together to solve global climate crisis and help people like Pres. Biden, British PM, French President, German Chancellor etc. to take the world forward.
Great post.
shareHe's not going to nuke London - too much of it is owned by the Oligarchs and it's where they launder their money.
shareHe could nuke Paris, but would anyone notice (just kidding).
shareSeems a bit harsh but I suppose nuking London would be one way to level up the rest of the UK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJUhlRoBL8M
shareIt's a shame the entire membership of the UK Conservative (Tory) Party aren't concentrated in one area, we Brits could immediately get rid of the BIGGEST THORN in our side!
Then may I suggest the forthcoming Tory party conference. Be a shame to lose Birmingham but serves 'em right for having such a horrid railway station.
shareNah, we need all MPs in one place. Labour, greens, Lib dems. And the house of Lords. Get rid of them all and start over.
shareIf Putin really thinks about that and not only ruffles his feathers (again), he should start to sing for himself and for Russia:
"This is the end, my only friend, the end."
(The Doors)
EUROPE WILL LIVE FOREVER!!!!!
*HAND ON HEART*
If Putin was really serious about using nuclear weapons, he would fire a warning shot first, in an ocean or something, to tell the nations against Russia to back off. I really don't think Putin would be that crazy to wipe out a major world population, as the whole world would rallly against him and fire back, and I really, REALLY don't think that's what Putin WANTS.
Vald would never nuke London. If he were to release it would be a R-36. DT London would be gone.
share