• 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!

Tactical Nukes

noonereal said:
I believe I said that.

What is your contention?
Click to expand...

No you didn’t say that:

You: “How powerful are strategic nukes? Well, these are unimaginably strong. At 50 miles from detonation expect burns and to be ripped apart by flying glass as all windows will blow out.”

No modern strategic warheads are burning people and ripping them apart with flying glass at 50 miles.
 
SNOWFLAKE said:
Or to answer any question.
Click to expand...

No, I’ve gotten him to answer questions before.

It was like pulling teeth to get in to admit that in the run up to WW2 he would have done all the same things America did. Of course admitting that didn’t stop him from still condemning America.
 
Questerr said:
No you didn’t say that:

You: “How powerful are strategic nukes? Well, these are unimaginably strong. At 50 miles from detonation expect burns and to be ripped apart by flying glass as all windows will blow out.”

No modern strategic warheads are burning people and ripping them apart with flying glass at 50 miles.
Click to expand...

Tsar would cause major damage at 150 miles! Instantly vaporize a 30 mile radius.

?????????????
 
Questerr said:
No, I’ve gotten him to answer questions before.

It was like pulling teeth to get in to admit that in the run up to WW2 he would have done all the same things America did. Of course admitting that didn’t stop him from still condemning America.
Click to expand...

The lie in the sand NEVER was Ukraine. You are way off.
 
Questerr said:
Okay, but consider that Tsar Bomba was 100 times stronger than modern strategic nukes. Your claim in the OP is flat wrong.
Click to expand...

Your posts are uneducated on this subject. My opening post was spot on. You cannot provide citation to dispute it.

Stick to facts, lose the emotion. You will be better served.
 
Questerr said:
Right now it’s Russian militarism and nuclear weapons threatening the earth.

And yet you condemn the US?

Your entire philosophy boils down to “The US is bad and therefore anyone who opposes the US must be good”.
Click to expand...

Chuckle.
 
noonereal said:
Your posts are uneducated on this subject. My opening post was spot on. You cannot provide citation to dispute it.

Stick to facts, lose the emotion. You will be better served.
Click to expand...

The average yield of a modern strategic nuke is 500 kilotons.

Tsar Bomba was somewhere between 50 and 58 MEGATONS.

Modern strategic nukes are quite literally 100 times weaker than the Tsar Bomba. You numbers in the OP are pure exaggeration.
 
Antiwar said:
Chuckle.
Click to expand...

Your ideology is absurdly laughable, I agree.

If only you had a single bone in your body that lived in practical reality maybe you’d be able to come up with some solutions that might actual work or even be possible.
 
Questerr said:
Your ideology is absurdly laughable, I agree.

If only you had a single bone in your body that lived in practical reality maybe you’d be able to come up with some solutions that might actual work or even be possible.
Click to expand...

^ Conservative claptrap.
 
noonereal said:
Tactical nukes seem to get a lot of attention these day and for the record Putin will use them if Ukraine does not capitulate and he can't win with conventional forces which it seems he can't.

So, just how powerful are tactical nukes? These are no mere bunker buster bombs kicked up a notch. A tactical nuke has the same strength as the bomb we dropped on Hiroshima. Enough to destroy a medium sized city.

How powerful are strategic nukes? Well, these are unimaginably strong. At 50 miles from detonation expect burns and to be ripped apart by flying glass as all windows will blow out. Inside 50 miles, the closer you get, the worse it gets. Winds will start out at 500 mph from teh blast site. (fade the further out you are of course)
Best to be at ground zero.

So what say you? Still feeling hard line toward Putin over Ukraine, a non NATO member?
Click to expand...
LOL If you mean do I feel like surrendering to Putin because he has more nukes than we do then no. If he uses them Russia will be gone and he knows that.
 
noonereal said:
Tactical nukes seem to get a lot of attention these day and for the record Putin will use them if Ukraine does not capitulate and he can't win with conventional forces which it seems he can't.

So, just how powerful are tactical nukes? These are no mere bunker buster bombs kicked up a notch. A tactical nuke has the same strength as the bomb we dropped on Hiroshima. Enough to destroy a medium sized city.

How powerful are strategic nukes? Well, these are unimaginably strong. At 50 miles from detonation expect burns and to be ripped apart by flying glass as all windows will blow out. Inside 50 miles, the closer you get, the worse it gets. Winds will start out at 500 mph from teh blast site. (fade the further out you are of course)
Best to be at ground zero.

So what say you? Still feeling hard line toward Putin over Ukraine, a non NATO member?
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
iguanaman said:
LOL If you mean do I feel like surrendering to Putin because he has more nukes than we do then no. If he uses them Russia will be gone and he knows that.
Click to expand...

Surrendering to Russia? Are you in Ukraine?
 
Antiwar said:
^ Conservative claptrap.
Click to expand...

How exactly would your international justice system stop Putin’s Ukraine from invading Ukraine again?

Other than by waving your hand and saying “it just would”?
 
noonereal said:
Did I advocate kowtowing? Of course not.
But this wild west mentality needs to stop.
I repeat, Ukraine is not in NATO and Eastern Europe is not in our sphere of influence.

I wish some postera here could be objective and pragmatic is all.
Click to expand...
Ukraine is a sovereign democracy like we are. Surrendering to Russia because they have nukes has been ruled out long ago. Putin can't nuke anyone unless Russia is nuked first. That is Russian law and his Generals will follow that law. Make no mistake surrendering to Putin would mean the end of us too.
 
iguanaman said:
Ukraine is a sovereign democracy like we are.
Click to expand...
Ukraine is not a sovereign country. It has been a client state of Washington for eight years now.
Surrendering to Russia because they have nukes has been ruled out long ago. He can't nuke anyone unless Russia is nuked first. That is Russian law and his Generals will follow that law.
Click to expand...
You don't know what the hell you're talking about.
 
iguanaman said:
Ukraine is a sovereign democracy like we are. Surrendering to Russia because they have nukes has been ruled out long ago. Putin can't nuke anyone unless Russia is nuked first. That is Russian law and his Generals will follow that law. Make no mistake surrendering to Putin would mean the end of us too.
Click to expand...

Russia can't even take Ukraine and you're quaking in your boots.
 
Questerr said:
The average yield of a modern strategic nuke is 500 kilotons.

Tsar Bomba was somewhere between 50 and 58 MEGATONS.

Modern strategic nukes are quite literally 100 times weaker than the Tsar Bomba. You numbers in the OP are pure exaggeration.
Click to expand...

Fact is, we don't know for sure but we suspect Russian nukes to be between 500 and 800 kilotons so you are basically correct, we hope.
This does not contradict my opening post in any way. I know these numbers and what they do where.

Like I said, I personally have over 30 seconds to get to my basement after the flash. My windows are likely to blow out.

If a 50,000 kiliton Tsar is used, well, then I am in a bit of trouble. Likely on fire.
 
noonereal said:
Fact is, we don't know for sure but we suspect Russian nukes to be between 500 and 800 kilotons so you are basically correct, we hope.
This does not contradict my opening post in any way. I know these numbers and what they do where.

Like I said, I personally have over 30 seconds to get to my basement after the flash. My windows are likely to blow out.

If a 50,000 kiliton Tsar is used, well, then I am in a bit of trouble. Likely on fire.
Click to expand...

But the US will have shown P**** who's boss.
 
iguanaman said:
LOL If you mean do I feel like surrendering to Putin because he has more nukes than we do then no. If he uses them Russia will be gone and he knows that.
Click to expand...

Gone? Really? You believe this?

Guess what. There is a school of though that should he use them the best response is to unite the world against him and not strike back militarily.

If this can indeed be pulled off, it is a far better strategy than the moronic, "we'll blow Russia off the map" school yard crap.
 
Antiwar said:
Russia can't even take Ukraine and you're quaking in your boots.
Click to expand...

and yet he can't be defeated because he has chemicals and nukes

Isn't that the conundrum?

THINK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom