The Brink has been reached.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

He sounds a bit lacking in detail?

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

The Tsar Bomba explosion had a yield of about 50 megatons.

If Russia detonated anything as powerful as that anywhere near Ukraine they would be as likely to shoot themselves in the foot given the fallout such a yield would produce and depending on the prevailing wind patterns.

a reply to: andy06shake

He said the nuke didn't kill anyone so how does it start WW3?

originally posted by: gortex

originally posted by: UKTruth
Thankfully Starmer has been over ruled and the US and NATO have backed down.

Do you have a source for that ?

I don't see why NATO would allow Putin to call the shots , he's allowed to get ballistic missiles from Iran but Ukraine can't get them from their allies ?

www.msn.com...

They blinked.

a reply to: andy06shake

Like I said, it's probably a hoax, but it doesn't say anything about the nuke detonating near Ukraine. Whether real or fake, I think it's still a useful message for understanding just how devastating nuclear war can be. The conflict in Ukraine is certainly not worth engulfing the world in nuclear fire. But if we keep going on this current path that's exactly how things will turn out.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Thats a good question.

Suppose it could be of the EMP sorts and detonated in the upper atmosphere.

Even then at 50 megatons, planes are going to fall from the sky.

And people are going to die down to a variety of different reasons.

Down to the significant and widespread effects on all unshielded electronics and the power grid.

a reply to: UKTruth

Guess it's a decision for all members at the General Assembly , I wouldn't rule it out though.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Detonating 50-megaton fusion devices anywhere on the globe is a bad idea ChaoticOrder.

It's one of the reasons the Russians never bothered to pursue the likes of the Tsar Bomba.

Because it amounted to severe overkill down to the immense destructive capacity.

Which meant it exceeded practical military applications.

a reply to: andy06shake

But if you want to make a powerful statement without necessarily killing anyone it seems like a good way of going about it.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: UKTruth

Guess it's a decision for all members at the General Assembly , I wouldn't rule it out though.

Yes its a delay - and i would not expect them to ever make a formal decision not to.
Zelensky is screaming about the delay - the less people listen to that little tyrant, the better.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I dont think Russia has nuclear ordnance stockpiled with that sort of yield in this day of age.

Again it was not a very practical device in the first place.

As to powerful statements.

It would make Russia the world pariah more than anything else by my guess.

And scream desperation in spades.

a reply to: andy06shake

Here's the thing, that person could have made up any story, yet I feel like the version of events they portrayed do feel realistic, because Russia would probably take very extreme measures to bring about their victory, but the moment they kill people using nukes, is a definite line in the sand we cannot come back from. So they would likely try detonating a large nuke high in the atmosphere or in a isolated location in order to demonstrate their strength. And there's also a good chance the rest of the world would react to such an action by legitimately nuking and killing large numbers of people (and then thinking they are somehow on the right side of history), sparking a full blown nuclear war.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

There have been plenty of nuclear above ground tests that haven't kicked off WW3.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

I think we both know that testing a nuclear device within ones own territory is very different to detonating a nuke as an offensive show of strength during a war.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Yes, of course. But the bloke said no one was killed?

I believe it's going to come down to this

Will a War save the democrats or will it not. If Putin starts sending missiles at the US, will it cause martial law to go into effect before the Election.

a reply to: Ravenwatcher

If that happens your election will be the least of your worries!

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Have you seen what just one Russian RS-28 Sarmat ICBM plus its accompanying weapons payload could do?

Their strength is not really in question.

But using nuclear weapons would not get Putin anything aside from the favour returned in kind.

NATO has that man personally targeted at all times and he knows fine well what happens next.

Which would probably involve wiping the likes of Moscow and St Petersburg off the map via SLBMs strike.

a reply to: andy06shake

The Soviet union persued higher yield devices during the cold War because their guidance systems were not as good as ours.

They pretty much just rolled with the notion that with bigger bombs they only needed to get close enough.

The Tsar Bomba was going to be a 100 mega-ton device but they scaled it down to 50 for the test.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Like I said, he could have made up anything, so why say something that many people such as yourself will question? I don't think it really matters if no one was killed, the mere act of detonating such a large nuke as a direct threat to the EU and western world, could easily inspire a pre-emptive attack, leading to a real nuclear war. Not sure why that is so hard for you to understand.