Bloomberg News agency published a headline that read, ‘Live: Russia invades Ukraine’. It went up on its homepage around midnight Moscow time and stayed there for nearly half an hour, before it was removed and an apology for the mistake issued.
they want it bad
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
Russia might have finally told israel to quit it in Syria.
Reports that ECM is intermittently shutting down israeli GPS signals and causing havoc at Ben Gurion airport, and Russian troops are being deployed to Syrian government infrastructure that's been targeted before (specifically Latakia port facilities)
after Putin's meeting with Micron, he apparently made the comment (in response to a French reporter's question) that if the Ukraine were to attempt to retake the Crimea militarily, they would not like what happens next but would be too dead to do anything about it.
it seems a lot of people have interpreted it as a necrophilia joke
All of this is the game for Military Industrial Complex to frighten American Tax payers into giving more funding for new advance weapons to change out the last generation of them. keeping the war machine fueled for decades to come.
also, Russia is the only country to actually make a physical hydrogen bomb and capable of dropping it.
the one the US created (Ivy Mike or something like that) was 5 megatons and wasn't a bomb shell but a building 3 stories high, rigged with a nuke and set off ona ship 35 miles away from an atoll. leveling the atoll
the Russians made a 100 megaton but then chose to only use half the yield, which even then was 10 times the size but actually was a nuke in transit.
the US uses multi smaller nukes now that go off in an array. but many of them could be taken out allowing only a fraction of them to strike their targets. the longer that is waited, the more advance the Russians will have a dome of defense of their own. taking out the majority of warheads. Both hot and dummies.
that glide weapon system aka Star Wars could of put us ahead of the game when Reagan was in power but was shot down.
the USA is fucked. we're a sitting duck now. its not going to be so funny when the sirens start going off at 1-5am in the morning US time zone. or as stated before, during Superbowl event.
MIRVs are more practical than single large warheads.
nuclear weapons are more important for deterrence than actual strategic use; thermobarics and chemical weapons can be just as destructive but far more flexible. at a certain point blast yield starts to give diminishing returns
Originally posted by General Butt.Naked
Yeah but turning down the temperature on the rhetoric is probably important. Anyone i talk to seems to be under the impression that the USA still has military advantage over Russia/China. But from what Ive read, thats probably not accurate anymore. Technologically, economically, morale-wise, reputation-wise…we’re severely lacking.
Originally posted by aldra
Doubt it, Russia's pretty far ahead in both missile and anti-missile complexes but I'd doubt we'd ever see 100% interception so a nuclear exchange isn't 'winnable' for either side
Depoends on the theatre/circumstance - China's military isn't top-shelf but it's effective enough and they have a serious numbers advantage over everyone. We're likely to see Russia transferring hypersonic missile tech to them soon though which will make things interesting. They're able to effectively defend their mainland and claimed territories largely thanks to missile complexes like the DF21b, but don't have any real way to employ their overwhelming numbers outside of Asia - boots on the ground win wars but aren't much good if you can't get them to the front. That's the main thing the US military still has going for it - global supply lines and ability to rapidly deploy anywhere in the world.
Russia's military is arguably the most effective in the world at the moment (after the intense modernisation projects of the last 10 years), but their doctrine is explicitly to be able to fight within Russia's borders or within 2000km of them, so large international deployments are out of the question. Tartus/Syria was actually a very small deployment for how successful it's been. That said, the next theatre is likely going to be within Europe where they're potentially able to deploy orders of magnitude more fully-equipped soldiers and armored divisions than NATO can in any given time period, even with the US' supply lines. More importantly they've been concentrating on technologies that neutralise US advantages, but I won't go into that because the most important thing is that in a direct conflict with a 'peer' like Russia or China where their mainland is threatened, they will almost immediately escalate to nuclear because that's where their biggest advantage is - specifically the submarine part of the triad.
