Win / Conspiracies
Conspiracies
Communities Topics Log In Sign Up
Sign In
Hot
All Posts
Settings
All
Profile
Saved
Upvoted
Hidden
Messages

Your Communities

General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
News
Changelogs

More Communities

frenworld
OhTwitter
MillionDollarExtreme
NoNewNormal
Ladies
Conspiracies
GreatAwakening
IP2Always
GameDev
ParallelSociety
Privacy Policy
Terms of Service
Content Policy
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES • All General AskWin Funny Technology Animals Sports Gaming DIY Health Positive Privacy
Conspiracies Conspiracy Theories & Facts
hot new rising top

Sign In or Create an Account

2
()
posted 3 years ago by GynaNumbaZero 3 years ago by GynaNumbaZero +5 / -3
14 comments share
14 comments share save hide report block hide replies
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (14)
sorted by:
▲ 2 ▼
– Ep0ch 2 points 3 years ago +2 / -0

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?

permalink parent save report block reply

GIFs

Conspiracies Wiki & Links

Conspiracies Book List

External Digital Book Libraries

Mod Logs

Honor Roll

Conspiracies.win: This is a forum for free thinking and for discussing issues which have captured your imagination. Please respect other views and opinions, and keep an open mind. Our goal is to create a fairer and more transparent world for a better future.

Community Rules: <click this link for a detailed explanation of the rules

Rule 1: Be respectful. Attack the argument, not the person.

Rule 2: Don't abuse the report function.

Rule 3: No excessive, unnecessary and/or bullying "meta" posts.

To prevent SPAM, posts from accounts younger than 4 days old, and/or with <50 points, wont appear in the feed until approved by a mod.

Disclaimer: Submissions/comments of exceptionally low quality, trolling, stalking, spam, and those submissions/comments determined to be intentionally misleading, calls to violence and/or abuse of other users here, may all be removed at moderator's discretion.

Moderators

  • Doggos
  • axolotl_peyotl
  • trinadin
  • PutinLovesCats
  • clemaneuverers
  • C
Message the Moderators

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy

2025.03.01 - qpl2q (status)

Copyright © 2024.

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy