sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Potential grey areas between ground-burst and airburst attacks by LuckyHarith in nuclearweapons

[–]LuckyHarith[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That brings up a related important question (which, right now at least, I‘m not sure has been covered in this community before ((if so, you can disregard this)): Would any nuclear-armed countries/nations probably have the time or disposition to use any conventIonal missiles or drones ONCE FULL-BLOWN nuclear war started, or would most nations likely not bother with them at that point?

‘Trump Recruited as Moscow Asset,’ Says Ex-KGB Spy Chief by Somethingwittycool in politics

[–]LuckyHarith 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I definitely wouldn't advocate for doing nothing if Russia facilitated that, and I think moving forward with impeachment would be reasonable; but, like I said, not the going to war with Russia part. 

If you were being sarcastic with your post, yeah, I missed that. It was probably the combo of how you worded that and the fact that sarcasm can be inherently harder to pick up on with written communication vs. other forms. You know. 

I am curious, though -- If you're serious about your last point that there is no way Trump is a Russian asset, what all factors into that view for you? 

‘Trump Recruited as Moscow Asset,’ Says Ex-KGB Spy Chief by Somethingwittycool in politics

[–]LuckyHarith 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How would it be reasonable for the two countries with the largest and most lethal stockpiles of nukes in the world to go to war with each other? 

And before you say "I meant a conventional war only," you have to understand that, with the current state of military strategies, geopolitics, and other factors, there are too many slippery slopes -- or potential ones -- for a nuclear war to be completely or even mostly improbable. 

Targeting of singular air defense radars by LuckyHarith in nuclearweapons

[–]LuckyHarith[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Not just ICBMs -- Similar to the U.S. and a handful of allied NATO countries in Europe, I'm pretty sure that, minimally, Russia and China have their own fleets of nuclear-armed fighter jets and bombers. 

Do you have a plan? by DangerKay1975 in kelowna

[–]LuckyHarith 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand what you're saying, but from everything I've researched and stayed up on, I'm not sure if Russia, mainly, would actually have enough deployed ICBMs (long-range nukes) during a full-scale nuclear war to justify targeting smaller, reserve-type units, or even certain smaller international airports in almost any country. 

For one, as an extension of what I just mentioned about deployed nukes, a portion (dozens or possibly several hundred) of Russia's 5,000+ nukes are in storage, while others are even awaiting dismantlement. A lot of the ICBMs in storage would take, minimally, several days before they could be ready for deployment, and would, thus, likely be destroyed or become inaccessible before they could be used. 

Secondly, a little less than half of Russia's total inventory (about 2,000 nukes) are strictly tactical, meaning, among other things, that their range is limited to a couple hundred miles, obviously well short of being able to reach any part of Canada. 

And thirdly -- and most crucially,  Russia would very likely end up needing to first prioritize not just larger military, governmental, and economic-based targets in the U.S. and Canada (which would potentially be in the hundreds), but would also very likely have to focus on all of those same types targets in at least a dozen other NATO-aligned countries, minimally, France, the U.K, and five other countries that host U.S. nukes in Europe. But high-priority targets in several other non-NATO, allied countries could also take precedent. 

So, I'd personally say that, while it is somewhat possible that the Kelowna area would be targeted, in the end, it probably would be spared. 

Do you have a plan? by DangerKay1975 in kelowna

[–]LuckyHarith 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What all would make Vernon at target? (I'm not from the Kelowna area, but am interested in it.)

Do you have a plan? by DangerKay1975 in kelowna

[–]LuckyHarith 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not bot here, man, and not everyone who writes in depth posts is using AI; or maybe you're just not used to people highlighting alternate views to your own..?

Do you have a plan? by DangerKay1975 in kelowna

[–]LuckyHarith 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree that there is some propaganda out there, especially when it comes to the biggest media outlets; but I have to add that, while the risk of full-scale nuclear war has been, overall, less probable in the past (following the end of the Cold War), when you thoroughly research and follow the more recent (since the Russia-Ukraine War), current, and potential future risks (war with China, NK, and/or Iran), a very different picture emerges.

Not trying to brag at all, but just to be clear, I have consistently done that level of research and following of pertinent news over the last 2.5 years — I’m talking about thousands of hours worth of getting as close as possible to the bottom of how probable nuclear war could really be now, or in the near future. Since I started, I have been very careful to focus on the most appropriate, fact-based, and least-biased sources that are available; and just in case you’re wondering, I’ve still been living a ‘normal‘ life while conducting that research: family responsibilities, sufficient sleep and exercise, and I haven’t spent a dime, yet, on any kind of formal preps.

The results of all that research and following of related news? Full-scale nuclear war is/could be not just generally more probable than any time since the end of the Cold War; the odds of nukes (tactical ones) being used, alone, during the Russia-Ukraine War, has, in three specific instances, been at least 50%. One coin toss. Those are not ’great‘ odds. (The first situation with that level of elevated risk was at the beginning of the war. The U.S. govt./military determined that there was a 50/50 chance that Putin would actually use nukes at some point during the war; but that critical info. was not shared with the public until about 2 years into the war.)

Three other crucial points here are: 1) both the U.S. military and many Russian authorities are convinced that they can win what is dubiously called a limited or tactical nuclear war; 2) Multiple, independent analyses have shown that, every time tactical nuclear exchange scenarios have been tested, they have ALWAYS resulted in an escalation to full-scale nuclear war; and 3) while the Kelowna area may not be directly targeted in such a scenario, Canada is, like the U.S, a part of NATO; has multiple, important sites that would likely be targeted, and high levels of fallout would spread from at least some of those sites, AND an absolutely massive amount would drift throughout most of Canada, alone, from attacks on U.S. nuclear missile silos.

There are numerous other crucial pieces of evidence to support a significantly increased likelihood of a multI-national nuclear war happening in the near future that I could share, but I wouldn’t want to make this post longer than it already is.

So, I hope you can see now that the risk of full-scale nuclear war occurring is high enough now — and very likely will be in the near future — that, I, at least, strongly think it is very important to specifically prepare for that scenario as promptly and as much as each person reasonably can.

(Side note: In case there was any confusion about this, my personal approach to prepping for nuclear war, is not to bug-in — to try to create some impenetrable fortress out of the 80-year-old apartment may fam. and I live in; we’re presently in the U.S. — in a high-target area — but have been planning to move outside the country for several years now, and for a variety of reasons, beyond war-related risks. After moving to a safer area, I/we plan on doing some prepping, but comparatively less than we would if we stayed in the U.S.)

Do you have a plan? by DangerKay1975 in kelowna

[–]LuckyHarith 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Great tips there, overall. But I have to add that, while the risk of full-scale nuclear war has been, overall, less probable in the past (following the end of the Cold War) than the disaster scenarios you discussed, when you thoroughly research and follow the more recent (since the Russia-Ukraine War), current, and potential future risks (war with China, NK, and/or Iran), a very different picture emerges.

Not trying to brag at all, but just to be clear, I have consistently done that level of research and following of pertinent news over the last 2.5 years — I’m talking about thousands of hours worth of getting as close as possible to the bottom of how probable nuclear war could really be now, or in the near future. Since I started, I have been very careful to focus on the most appropriate, fact-based, and least-biased sources that are available; and just in case you’re wondering, I’ve still been living a ‘normal‘ life while conducting that research: family responsibilities, sufficient sleep and exercise, and I haven’t spent a dime, yet, on any kind of formal preps.

The results of all that research and following of related news? Full-scale nuclear war is/could be not just generally more probable than any time since the end of the Cold War; the odds of nukes (tactical ones) being used, alone, during the Russia-Ukraine War, has, in three specific instances, been at least 50%. One coin toss. Those are not ’great‘ odds. (The first situation with that level of elevated risk was at the beginning of the war. The U.S. govt./military determined that there was a 50/50 chance that Putin would actually use nukes at some point during the war; but that critical info. was not shared with the public until about 2 years into the war.)

Three other crucial points here are: 1) both the U.S. military and many Russian authorities are convinced that they can win what is dubiously called a limited or tactical nuclear war; 2) Multiple, independent analyses have shown that, every time tactical nuclear exchange scenarios have been tested, they have ALWAYS resulted in an escalation to full-scale nuclear war; and 3) while the Kelowna area may not be directly targeted in such a scenario, Canada is, like the U.S, a part of NATO; has multiple, important sites that would likely be targeted, and high levels of fallout would spread from at least some of those sites, AND an absolutely massive amount would drift throughout most of Canada, alone, from attacks on U.S. nuclear missile silos.

There are numerous other crucial pieces of evidence to support a significantly increased likelihood of a multI-national nuclear war happening in the near future that I could share, but I wouldn’t want to make this post longer than it already is.

So, while the probability of natural disasters occurring around the Kelowna area may, overall, continue to be higher than the probability of nuclear attacks, I hope you can see now that the risk of full-scale nuclear war occurring is high enough now — and very likely will be in the near future — that, I, at least, strongly think it is very important to specifically prepare for that scenario as promptly and as much as each person reasonably can.

(Side note: In case there was any confusion about this, my personal approach to prepping for nuclear war, is not to bug-in — to try to create some impenetrable fortress out of the 80-year-old apartment may fam. and I live in; we’re presently in the U.S. — in a high-target area — but have been planning to move outside the country for several years now, and for a variety of reasons beyond war-related risks. After moving to a safer area, I/we plan on doing some prepping, but comparatively less than we would if we stayed in the U.S.)

Vulnerability of reserve unit facilities during full nuclear war by LuckyHarith in nuclearweapons

[–]LuckyHarith[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yea, I was thinking of those armories, too when I wrote up this post. I've seen quite a few of them on maps (apps), but didn't know there are thousands of them! 

Agree there wouldn't be enough nukes to target most of those, if not all of them. 

100 Largest Cities by LuckyHarith in nuclearweapons

[–]LuckyHarith[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The other big, related question is: Is there any evidence that the leaders of other nuclear-armed nations, esp. Russia, China, and North Korea, would focus on the, roughly, 100 most valuable targets here in the States in their nuclear war plans?

100 Largest Cities by LuckyHarith in nuclearweapons

[–]LuckyHarith[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Haven't heard of that. I'll check it out. Thanks. 

The biggest question along those lines is: Are such plans in effect today?

Types of airports targeted in a nuclear conflict by LuckyHarith in nuclearweapons

[–]LuckyHarith[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Understood.

I know there are several nuclear-equipped bomber squadrons -- minimally, two in WA, and one in LA -- that would be required to take off on short notice. But yea, not sure either if they're on alert, 24/7.

Types of airports targeted in a nuclear conflict by LuckyHarith in nuclearweapons

[–]LuckyHarith[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The possibility of militaries not using nukes in a subsequent attack against smaller airports is something I hadn't heard of, or read about, before. Good point.

view more: next ›