Dunno at some point why are you paying for them? At what point have they offered any protection or deterrence? Nope. Fake and gay. Cost loads but sit there doing nothing else.
You're right Russia must be sacred of them. But why not turn the other half of the Ukraine into a shithole?
It makes an even nicer buffer if you salt the earth?
It wasn't about winning, it was about making some other deal. However. What deal is there. They took some regions and right away there's another bugle. In the meantime I guess nobody is winning. It's just this other tug of war. Keep pulling and something will give. No you. You. Ooff. Back n forth. While everybody else pays for it.
It already had fallout Chernoboyl. If I was a betting man those odds are still likely. Not dismissed. Or no odds.
Russia has undergone extensive fallout training, and is in the process of fallout training. It has also recently few years back prepped home population for it. It had drills in its major cities.
No, tactical nuke fallout is minimal. Dissipates quicker. But depending on that payload can be for longer. And depending on how many strikes used, or how big an area they cover.
I wouldn't necessarily worry about tactical nukes unless at ground zero or in their radius. Not that kind of nuke, like Hydrogen, Cobalt those city killers. City killers yea. ICBMs. That shit causes far wider fallout for miles some are huge blast and fallout radius, 50 miles, fallout in a 100. It can blow across for miles. It can hit the atmosphere.
Tacs not so much, far more localised, and dissipate rather quickly, because those readings go rapidly. But again I am quoting second hand sources. But forget isn't it like in a year or a few. Gone. With readings habitable potentially in months.
I am sure there's a source, my memoryhole. But wasn't this tested recently with them.
Nuke, no. It would be a gamble. Worst wouldn't be the fallout. But it would be that move there isn't any getting out of. Not because the other side calls. But because you've isolated your position. An International response, could swing allies back to an opponent. It's easier to condemn that action. Not necessarily war. Although it's also a possibility from them. Worse consequences towards your entire position. Not to mention your own population suddenly panicking.
A gamble, an option. But I wouldn't dismiss them. Easier using them to win. A probability the longer it takes to find peace, it's being rejected. It means they increase in probability.
Dunno at some point why are you paying for them? At what point have they offered any protection or deterrence? Nope. Fake and gay. Cost loads but sit there doing nothing else.
You're right Russia must be sacred of them. But why not turn the other half of the Ukraine into a shithole?
It makes an even nicer buffer if you salt the earth?
It wasn't about winning, it was about making some other deal. However. What deal is there. They took some regions and right away there's another bugle. In the meantime I guess nobody is winning. It's just this other tug of war. Keep pulling and something will give. No you. You. Ooff. Back n forth. While everybody else pays for it.
It already had fallout Chernoboyl. If I was a betting man those odds are still likely. Not dismissed. Or no odds.
Russia has undergone extensive fallout training, and is in the process of fallout training. It has also recently few years back prepped home population for it. It had drills in its major cities.
No, tactical nuke fallout is minimal. Dissipates quicker. But depending on that payload can be for longer. And depending on how many strikes used, or how big an area they cover.
I wouldn't necessarily worry about tactical nukes unless at ground zero or in their radius. Not that kind of nuke, like Hydrogen, Cobalt those city killers. City killers yea. ICBMs. That shit causes far wider fallout for miles some are huge blast and fallout radius, 50 miles, fallout in a 100. It can blow across for miles. It can hit the atmosphere.
Tacs not so much, far more localised, and dissipate rather quickly, because those readings go rapidly. But again I am quoting second hand sources. But forget isn't it like in a year or a few. Gone. With readings habitable potentially in months.
I am sure there's a source, my memoryhole. But wasn't this tested recently with them.
Nuke, no. It would be a gamble. Worst wouldn't be the fallout. But it would be that move there isn't any getting out of. Not because the other side calls. But because you've isolated your position. An International response, could swing allies back to an opponent. It's easier to condemn that action. Not necessarily war. Although it's also a possibility from them. Worse consequences towards your entire position. Not to mention your own population suddenly panicking.
A gamble, an option. But I wouldn't dismiss them. Easier using them to win. A probability the longer it takes to find peace, it's being rejected. It means they increase in probability.
But who knows?
Nukes aren't real.
It's easy to prove. If they were real, a rogue state like Israel would have used one by now.
And the midterms are right around the corner.
See what they are doing?
Distancing from President Armageddon.
PR and optics.
The retarded voter base won't see it as such.
Retards get voted in by retards.
George Carlin was absolutely correct!