• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If Putin decides to use nukes who will he target!??

Lursa said:
Minor releases from nuclear facilities all have downstream contaminations of concern (water or atmospheric)...using an actual nuke would be disastrous and the radiation wouldnt be 'contained' to only that target. It doesnt have to contaminate the whole country...but it could...and probably would to some extent.
Click to expand...

Except it wouldn’t. We did atmospheric nuclear tests for years. The effects of one or two nukes are not that catastrophic in terms of fallout.
 
Anything's possible, but I don't see any upside to any target anywhere. It all just speeds up what is already going to be a brutal period for the Russian people, even if everyone just went home today.

We should probably just publicly announce that we consider Ukraine to be under our nuclear umbrella, because we said so. It wouldn't surprise me if such an understanding has already been established quietly.
 
If Vlad actually does have terminal cancer, he might become nuclear aggressive once he lies in his death bed. His handlers will tell him: "Yes! we've launched nuclear warheads upon the United States Sir. Would you like to see it on TV?" Right before they smother him with a pillow.
 
Questerr said:
Except it wouldn’t. We did atmospheric nuclear tests for years. The effects of one or two nukes are not that catastrophic in terms of fallout.
Click to expand...

Who's 'we' and I'd love to see your sources?

And not being 'catastrophic' doesnt exclude 'significant' regional death and long-term health affects and land no longer usable for the foreseeable future. Chernobyl wasnt 'catastrophic.'
 
Questerr said:
THAAD isn’t silo launched, there are none stationed in Alaska, and the Ground Based Midcourse Defense system is only capable of intercepting missiles in the midcourse phase (hence the name) which any missiles targeted on Alaska would be in their terminal phase by then.
Click to expand...
You are right about not being silo launched. However, my company built silos for THAAD (Theater High Altitude Area Defense) in Alaska, figure that out for yourself. The system is designed to intercept exoatmospheric, so it doesn't "wait" until the target is its terminal phase to intercept. If the Russians were foolish enough to shoot one at Alaska it won't make it through, and that would be the last shot they will take.
 
Lursa said:
Who's 'we' and I'd love to see your sources?

And not being 'catastrophic' doesnt exclude 'significant' regional death and long-term health affects and land no longer usable for the foreseeable future. Chernobyl wasnt 'catastrophic.'
Click to expand...

Chernobyl WAS catastrophic, but it also involved magnitudes more nuclear material than is in any nuclear weapon.

You really need a source for there being years of atmospheric nuclear testing? Pray tell, is all of Nevada contaminated and unihabitable?
 
smallvoice said:
You are right about not being silo launched. However, my company built silos for THAAD (Theater High Altitude Area Defense) in Alaska, figure that out for yourself. The system is designed to intercept exoatmospheric, so it doesn't "wait" until the target is its terminal phase to intercept. If the Russians were foolish enough to shoot one at Alaska it won't make it through, and that would be the last shot they will take.
Click to expand...

It would make it through. Your company might have built silos for GMD, but it definitely didn't build silos for THAAD, in Alaska or anywhere else.

And GMD won't stop a warhead aimed at Alaska.
 
Questerr said:
Chernobyl WAS catastrophic, but it also involved magnitudes more nuclear material than is in any nuclear weapon.
Click to expand...

Only for the facility itself. It was not catastrophic on a radiation release level. That was not catastrophic.

Questerr said:
You really need a source for there being years of atmospheric nuclear testing? Pray tell, is all of Nevada contaminated and unihabitable?
Click to expand...

And yes I do require sources, thank you. As for Nevada...you cant seriously be implying that the initial tests done there, with atomic, not even hydrogen bombs, is remotely comparable to yield today?
 
Lursa said:
Only for the facility itself. It was not catastrophic on a radiation release level. That was not catastrophic.



And yes I do require sources, thank you. As for Nevada...you cant seriously be implying that the initial tests done there, with atomic, not even hydrogen bombs, is remotely comparable to yield today?
Click to expand...

Bro, you seriously know NOTHING about Chernobyl. The facility was ON FIRE. Radioactive material was carried into the atmosphere by the smoke and continue to erupt from the site for days. 30,000 Roentgen of radiation, the equivalent to the Hiroshima bomb, every single day until the fire was put out.

And yes, I can directly compare bombs tested at the Nevada Test Range with modern bombs in terms of yield. Modern tactical nukes (the kind that Russia would use in Ukraine) have exactly that kind of yield: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_Test_Site
 
Questerr said:
Bro, you seriously know NOTHING about Chernobyl. The facility was ON FIRE. Radioactive material was carried into the atmosphere by the smoke and continue to erupt from the site for days. 30,000 Roentgen of radiation, the equivalent to the Hiroshima bomb, every single day until the fire was put out.
Click to expand...

I'm a woman. I said the damage to the facility was catastrophic. And you just kinda proved my point using the Hiroshima (atomic) bomb as an example.

Questerr said:
And yes, I can directly compare bombs tested at the Nevada Test Range with modern bombs in terms of yield. Modern tactical nukes (the kind that Russia would use in Ukraine) have exactly that kind of yield: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_Test_Site
Click to expand...

Now, please share your sources on the atmospheric studies.
 
Lursa said:
I'm a woman. I said the damage to the facility was catastrophic. And you just kinda proved my point using the Hiroshima (atomic) bomb as an example.



Now, please share your sources on the atmospheric studies.
Click to expand...

The Hiroshima bomb detonated once. Chernobyl kept "detonating" for a couple weeks and its nuclear material release was composed of far dirtier and dangerous elements. Do you think the smoke from the fire only stayed in the facility? Do you not know about the existence of wind?

Click the links under the link I sent. Multiple atmospheric tests occurred in Nevada in the 50-60 Kiloton range, easily equal to or greater than the yield of modern tactical nukes. So I ask again: is all of Nevada contaminated and uninhabitable?
 
Questerr said:
It would make it through. Your company might have built silos for GMD, but it definitely didn't build silos for THAAD, in Alaska or anywhere else.

And GMD won't stop a warhead aimed at Alaska.
Click to expand...
Sorry to burst your bubble but it was THAAD, and in Alaska. And THAAD certainly will.
 
smallvoice said:
Sorry to burst your bubble but it was THAAD, and in Alaska. And THAAD certainly will.
Click to expand...

So you’re company installed launch silos for a missile that doesn’t launch from silos? You’re going to stand by that claim?
 
mrjurrs said:
They won't nuke us imo.
Click to expand...

No, probably not.
But an irradiated EU will kill us anyway, at least CIVILIZATION anyway.
Societal collapse everywhere and it will plunge US into a bloody confrontation the likes of which
we've never seen here.

And in any case, I can't imagine this government standing on ceremony if he does nuke Ukraine.
That IS a clear signal that he does not intend to stop with JUST Ukraine.

It's a signal to the entire world that he intends to destroy EVERYTHING.
When he talks of Russia he thinks in terms of Russia owning the planet, so apply that lens to the following statement of his:



"What is the point of the world if Russia is not in it?" (PUTIN)

Well, of COURSE Russia WOULD be in it but as far as he is concerned, if Russia isn't controlling the world,
it's NOT "in it" thus he's basically saying "If we can't have our way, might as well blow up the world."

There is no other way to spin such a statement...this is a madman.
 
lwf said:
I doubt he would, but if he does it would probably be a small tactical nuke in Ukraine. Something escalatory, but unlikely to rise to the level of provoking a nuclear response from NATO.
Click to expand...

I guarantee you anything producing ionizing radiation WILL force our hand, and NATO's.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lwf
bongsaway said:
If putin uses a tactical nuke against ukraine, we're going to war with russia.
Click to expand...
Yup, if he so much as detonates a tactical nuke firecracker, it's on.
For one thing, there's no way you will convince anyone but Susan Collins and Tulsi Gabbard that he's learned his lesson.
 
Questerr said:
Except it wouldn’t. We did atmospheric nuclear tests for years. The effects of one or two nukes are not that catastrophic in terms of fallout.
Click to expand...

Not sure you're aware of how 99% of those shots were designed.
Russia tested FULL size ordnance. Most of the time, we did NOT.

Nuke tests.jpg
 
Lursa said:
Minor releases from nuclear facilities all have downstream contaminations of concern (water or atmospheric)...using an actual nuke would be disastrous and the radiation wouldnt be 'contained' to only that target. It doesnt have to contaminate the whole country...but it could...and probably would to some extent.
Click to expand...

A couple of nuclear detonations couldn't come close to doing that. Just as the 50 megaton Tsar Bomba did not contaminate all of Novae Zemyla.
 
Questerr said:
The Hiroshima bomb detonated once. Chernobyl kept "detonating" for a couple weeks and its nuclear material release was composed of far dirtier and dangerous elements. Do you think the smoke from the fire only stayed in the facility? Do you not know about the existence of wind?

Click the links under the link I sent. Multiple atmospheric tests occurred in Nevada in the 50-60 Kiloton range, easily equal to or greater than the yield of modern tactical nukes. So I ask again: is all of Nevada contaminated and uninhabitable?
Click to expand...

I asked you for links to the atmospheric studies...not Wikipedia. And if you think the atmospheric conditions in NV are similar to those all over the globe, including Ukraine, wow. As well as the radioactivity that would get into rivers and the Black Sea and Sea of Azov, etc?

You also dont seem to understand that Chernobyl didnt explode IN the upper atmosphere. It's radiation was released much differently.
 
Dayton3 said:
A couple of nuclear detonations couldn't come close to doing that. Just as the 50 megaton Tsar Bomba did not contaminate all of Novae Zemyla.
Click to expand...

Your pool of knowledge has been faulty almost 100% of the time in our discussions so I'm not bothering.
 
WIGDViking said:
Weill he contaminate the Ukrainian with radiation as he is trying to conquer it???

Or will he retaliate against the countries that have supported them,

I’m worried the military bases in Alaska could be a target…
Click to expand...
He would probably nuke Ukraine first and then wait to see what the West's reaction will be.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Not sure you're aware of how 99% of those shots were designed.
Russia tested FULL size ordnance. Most of the time, we did NOT.

View attachment 67386971
Click to expand...

Multiple atmospheric tests occurred at the Nevada Test Range in the 50-60KT range. That’s easily equal to or greater than the yield of modern tactical nukes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom