A tactical nuke I agree could be localised. It could be used in the Ukraine. Those odds are particularly high. Higher because Ukraine has already had nuclear fallout. Chernobyl. Now they're fighting a nuclear power. But are still quite diminished, because who gains on use. Russia could gain an advantage to try and force surrender, and if Ukraine continues to attack it with Western armaments. But it will be that move that could backfire, popularity, support, allies, or even its own public, and in any regions joining Russia. No. I don't rule them out. But they're a game changer. A game changer that could also prompt Nato, to what extent remains, debatable, but they will call for all those international responses. It could perhaps lead to a truce. But internationally they're not recognising any break off regions. It will cause a public outcry, inciting.
So no. It will drag on for longer. Until they edge into becoming prompted, and it could be if Russia fails, losing ground, or if its military operations are substantially defeated, becoming further pressed into their usage by an aggressive Ukrainian army. Who let's face it, still aren't a match, despite them gaining more arms and equipment.
The odds are they haven't yet. Those odds remain lower percentage. However they gain as this conflict continues. It is against a nuclear power, that can use them, and will if pressed.
But you're providing a hypothetical. It isn't a fact. It's a theory. That Solar Flare. And to what extent. No idea. Except the Sun is coming. I mean it suggests the worst. But it is controversial. It's a theory. It hasn't been established or proved outside of adding speculation. Yes an asteroid could hit, and the Sun can nova. But it hasn't yet. Another 2 more weeks. In its scenario there is no provision for it. It happens. It will. They're as prepared for it today as they will be. They won't break protocol. It is speculation. Any preparation remains under protocol. It isn't inciting the public into a what if. There will continue to be its what if. It's the sun after all. It is suggesting an immediate cycle. Speculation. A concern perhaps. But will follow any protocol. There is no other preparation. You would be absurd to suggest 8 billion people hibernate underground until it could or might. They won't be saved in its erratically claimed event.
Agreed that any use of nukes would be a response to western escalation, but on Ukrainian soil would be a self-hit too.
As for the solar flare and associated phenomena, there appears to be a fair amount of evidence it recurs every 12K years. Currently, it appears the nearby stars and even our local planets are experiencing unusual activity. An interesting observation is that over the past few years, mainstream science seem to have shifted around to confirming many of the catastrophe cycle claims. (i.e. "past pole shifts seem to be associated with great extinctions")
It's still a theory the solar flare, it has to be big enough and a direct hit. And further the amount of damage is absolutely debatable. How much of the planet is hit, where, what damage. Theoretical. You're citing every 12k years, nope. That isn't factual at all. There have been supervolcanoes in that time period. And supposedly cosmic impact, meteor, comet.
The Sun is in a cycle currently, but some of this cycle has been documented in the last 12k years with both periods of warming and cooling occurring.
You've got a theory. Where solar activity and alignment are causing concerns. But I'm not completely buying that link at all. Another 2 more weeks.
More immediately back to nukes. Unpredictable apart from Russia could lose a lot more support, both at home and abroad. But if Russia are only looking to win and if they are pressed, they are a definitive option not to be so easily dismissed. Why would it draw a direct nuclear war? It wouldn't. In fact it would be much easier to condemn Russia internationally, if they are localised to the current conflict. But as they have gone off, yes there is a risk it could draw Nato further into it. They might support the Ukraine even more directly, because any international response would call to send investigators, decying war crimes. Although who knows. At this stage the odds of their usage only increases. Because Russia has acquired territory under attack, and it will defend it under its sovereignty. It is a nuclear power and it has that option, an increasing consideration when under attack.
Well yes, you should understand the theory before completing your purchase. There's info in the playlist that lays it out, with the evidence that's claimed to support it. Maybe kook science, maybe not.
Seems far more reasonable, if not likely(?), that the next escalation tier would be direct strikes against the decision center in Kiev to simply behead the enemy. Nukes might be considered for say, a large incursion of NATO forces from the west. That would get a lot of attention.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kmgaxrrjog
It's going to happen one way or another.
A debatable solar flare. Isn't a unclear war.
A tactical nuke I agree could be localised. It could be used in the Ukraine. Those odds are particularly high. Higher because Ukraine has already had nuclear fallout. Chernobyl. Now they're fighting a nuclear power. But are still quite diminished, because who gains on use. Russia could gain an advantage to try and force surrender, and if Ukraine continues to attack it with Western armaments. But it will be that move that could backfire, popularity, support, allies, or even its own public, and in any regions joining Russia. No. I don't rule them out. But they're a game changer. A game changer that could also prompt Nato, to what extent remains, debatable, but they will call for all those international responses. It could perhaps lead to a truce. But internationally they're not recognising any break off regions. It will cause a public outcry, inciting.
So no. It will drag on for longer. Until they edge into becoming prompted, and it could be if Russia fails, losing ground, or if its military operations are substantially defeated, becoming further pressed into their usage by an aggressive Ukrainian army. Who let's face it, still aren't a match, despite them gaining more arms and equipment.
The odds are they haven't yet. Those odds remain lower percentage. However they gain as this conflict continues. It is against a nuclear power, that can use them, and will if pressed.
But you're providing a hypothetical. It isn't a fact. It's a theory. That Solar Flare. And to what extent. No idea. Except the Sun is coming. I mean it suggests the worst. But it is controversial. It's a theory. It hasn't been established or proved outside of adding speculation. Yes an asteroid could hit, and the Sun can nova. But it hasn't yet. Another 2 more weeks. In its scenario there is no provision for it. It happens. It will. They're as prepared for it today as they will be. They won't break protocol. It is speculation. Any preparation remains under protocol. It isn't inciting the public into a what if. There will continue to be its what if. It's the sun after all. It is suggesting an immediate cycle. Speculation. A concern perhaps. But will follow any protocol. There is no other preparation. You would be absurd to suggest 8 billion people hibernate underground until it could or might. They won't be saved in its erratically claimed event.
Agreed that any use of nukes would be a response to western escalation, but on Ukrainian soil would be a self-hit too.
As for the solar flare and associated phenomena, there appears to be a fair amount of evidence it recurs every 12K years. Currently, it appears the nearby stars and even our local planets are experiencing unusual activity. An interesting observation is that over the past few years, mainstream science seem to have shifted around to confirming many of the catastrophe cycle claims. (i.e. "past pole shifts seem to be associated with great extinctions")
It's still a theory the solar flare, it has to be big enough and a direct hit. And further the amount of damage is absolutely debatable. How much of the planet is hit, where, what damage. Theoretical. You're citing every 12k years, nope. That isn't factual at all. There have been supervolcanoes in that time period. And supposedly cosmic impact, meteor, comet.
The Sun is in a cycle currently, but some of this cycle has been documented in the last 12k years with both periods of warming and cooling occurring.
You've got a theory. Where solar activity and alignment are causing concerns. But I'm not completely buying that link at all. Another 2 more weeks.
More immediately back to nukes. Unpredictable apart from Russia could lose a lot more support, both at home and abroad. But if Russia are only looking to win and if they are pressed, they are a definitive option not to be so easily dismissed. Why would it draw a direct nuclear war? It wouldn't. In fact it would be much easier to condemn Russia internationally, if they are localised to the current conflict. But as they have gone off, yes there is a risk it could draw Nato further into it. They might support the Ukraine even more directly, because any international response would call to send investigators, decying war crimes. Although who knows. At this stage the odds of their usage only increases. Because Russia has acquired territory under attack, and it will defend it under its sovereignty. It is a nuclear power and it has that option, an increasing consideration when under attack.
Well yes, you should understand the theory before completing your purchase. There's info in the playlist that lays it out, with the evidence that's claimed to support it. Maybe kook science, maybe not.
Seems far more reasonable, if not likely(?), that the next escalation tier would be direct strikes against the decision center in Kiev to simply behead the enemy. Nukes might be considered for say, a large incursion of NATO forces from the west. That would get a lot of attention.