Using nuclear weapons on Ukraine is simply a stupid choice

I often hear claims that Putin might consider using nuclear weapons against Ukraine. However, from a strategic and tactical perspective, this would be an stupid decision

1) Strategic

Strategic nuclear weapons, designed for large-scale destruction, are typically used against major industrial cities to destroy military factories and infrastructure. In Ukraine's case, its military production largely occurs outside the country. Using a strategic nuke on a populated city would result in massive civilian casualties, alienate Putin's remaining allies, and offer minimal advantage in the ongoing conflict. Additionally, deploying such a weapon near NATO borders risks irradiating neighboring countries like Poland, potentially triggering NATO’s Article 5

2) Tactical

Tactical nuclear weapons have a much lower yield and could theoretically be used closer to Russia's borders without irradiating areas like Belgorod or Crimea. These weapons are most effective against large concentrations of enemy forces positioned well behind the frontlines (around 30 km or more). However, the current conflict involves relatively low-density, stretched defensive lines, making tactical nukes less effective. Moreover, irradiating areas would complicate troop movements, requiring cumbersome hazmat equipment, while Ukrainian drones could continue to operate over these areas unimpeded

Using tactical nukes might create temporary breaches in defensive networks and cause moderate (couple of thousands) Ukrainian casualties. Still, it would not guarantee large territorial gains

Employing either strategic or tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine would not only fail to provide significant military benefits but would also have severe geopolitical repercussions. It would likely result in the loss of Russia's remaining allies, with China potentially becoming hostile. Additionally, NATO would be compelled to respond, at the very least, with conventional missile strikes on Russian assets

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    what's the point of using nukes, again?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Just a dick measuring competition.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        *egg

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      So that the eggs will be in the ass, and everything will be known.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Give a Russian eggs and he will measure them and raise the eyebrow and tell you that he understands everything now.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It would be the ultimate seething cope

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      To not use them, but in a way that you will use them, so somehow you will use them in a way you will not.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      1) Putin said he would use them and the world laughed and said he wouldn't. Not using nukes means he's a little b***h that had his bluff called. Using them means that oh shit he isn't fricking around.
      2) Just to prove the west wouldn't fricking do anything if he did. He could drop a dozen all over Ukraine and the only thing that would happen is more sanctions and leaders getting on twitter scolding him like they would a dog.
      3) Would drastically speed up some kind of armistice because once people find out that Putin is legit fricking crazy and that the saviors of the world aren't going to do anything they will be calling for an end to this whole shitshow.

      Logically using nukes makes sense. I don't think he actually has any working ones or if he does he probably doesn't want to risk them blowing up literally in his face.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        This is only logical if you assume that the west will literally do nothing in response. You’re considering only one decision in a vacuum, and not the outcomes of doing nothing and doing something for the other side. He also just doesn’t have working ones anyways if his recent test failures are anything to go by.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >2) Just to prove the west wouldn't fricking do anything if he did.
        He hasn't because even he's not moronic enough to think that they won't, especially after seeing the measures the West have already put in place up to this point.
        The moment Russia signals to the world they're ok with using NOOKS as an instrument of aggression is the moment the world removes Russia from Ukraine (at the absolute LEAST).
        Not even countries like China are ok with breaking the nuclear taboo and even if they wouldn't NOOK Russia immediately in a case of preemptive self-defense, I don't see them doing anything when the US decides to delete any and every zigger in Ukraine. The last thing China wants is a world that becomes ok with nuking your political adversaries.
        Russia isn't interested in losing what few states that are willing to do business with it by trying to flip the table on a war they think they can already win conventionally.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >He hasn't because even he's not moronic enough to think that they won't
          What do you think the western leaders would do? Throw nukes at Russia and risk a global nuclear exchange over a no nothing non-nato country? That's not happening. Put US troops on the ground in the Ukraine? We are coming off a 2 decade long pointless war so that's not happening. What do you really think would happen?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            you are fricking stupid
            there is no option that doesn't involve overwhelming response to a nuclear first strike in an offensive land grab war. it would completely destroy any semblance of geopolitical order if that shit was just let go, would signal the start of a massive worldwide nuclear buildup, it would destroy trust between countries, it would mean they will DO IT AGAIN FOR SURE
            if you DON'T respond you are fricking yourself completely and utterly.
            there's no "risking a global nuclear exchange" because once the first nuke has been thrown it has already started

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >if you DON'T respond
              >you
              See that's the thing, anon. Ukraine isn't a part of NATO. It's not apart of our continent. It's definitely not apart of our country. We have absolutely no obligation to do anything for them. The fact that you sit there and unironically believe we would retaliate with nukes or even soldiers is baffling. The people in power would never get elected again if they did something so foolish. I can see if Russia nuked France or Germany or some other place that we would put down a stronger hand, but Ukraine? Fricking Ukraine?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >We have absolutely no obligation to do anything for them.
                Forget about those security guarantees, didn'tcha, zigger Black person?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >US hasn't broken promises in the past
                holy shit

                Its irrelevant, you dont get to fail an invasion and then nuke. Its horrible precedent that cant be allowed. Nuke is nuke, baljeet.

                >you dont get to fail an invasion and then nuke
                That's the glorious part! You do! Because no one is going to do anything about it. Because it's political suicide. If you think we are launching a nuclear strike on Russia because they went and blew up some asset with a nuke you need to get off of /k/ for a bit because these Ukraine threads have rotted your brain.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Ok, see how it goes then, fas rape baby. Nuclear taboo exists for a reason, even china sees that. This is of course, assuming that it doesnt get loaded on a khinzal, clapped like the others by a patriot from the 90's, and suddenly ukies are a nuclear state again.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >US hasn't broken promises in the past
                Lost the plot after a single reply already, /misc/troon? This was in reply to your "no obligation" claim. Try to keep up with your lil' pea-brain.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Its irrelevant, you dont get to fail an invasion and then nuke. Its horrible precedent that cant be allowed. Nuke is nuke, baljeet.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                yes, ukraine, because it's not about the country or the immediate outcome. if an international actor nuked fricking kiribati in micronesia the response would go the same way, because it's not about the actual outcome but about precedent and breaking the nuclear taboo. Every country in the planet would go "well shit, I better get nukes since the big guys aren't moving a finger to stop other people from nuking, I need to enact MAD myself against my bumfrick neighbor". And then nukes proliferate, and then you have a ton of countries with nukes and the knowledge that nobody will lift a hand if they blow their neighbor to kingdom come. And that's not mentioning the entire perception and status quo angle.
                Once the first nuke has been thrown the large players MUST respond. It's not a question because nobody wants to live in a planet where nukes used in offensive wars are acceptable. Even if by some moronic miracle the US did nothing europe certainly would in force.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Ukraine isn't a part of NATO. It's not apart of our continent. It's definitely not apart of our country.
                India isn't in NATO either, though, so I don't see your point

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >We have absolutely no obligation to do anything for them.
                Who "we", Jorgiy Smithovich?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >but Ukraine? Fricking Ukraine?
                Yes, also Ukraine. Stop spouting bullshit about "just a wittle nook won't upset ewewybuddy >_<" nonsense, no one is buying it and it's very simple: nukes get used by Russia, then nukes get used ON Russia. You stupid Vatnik.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Let me explain this to you, you fricking moronic Black person
            The world has collectively decided using nukes is a hard no under any circumstances. In a world where subhumans like the pakis and the chinks and probably soon the iranians hold nukes, that is the only policy that can possibly prevent escalation to strategic nuclear exchange. If you use nukes to resolve your dogshit little border policing action, then you are now a rogue state and you'll be fricking crushed by any means up to and including saturating nuking of yourself.
            The US understands this. China understands this. Russia understands this.
            The only people who don't are those with below 80 IQ, such as yourself.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        See

        https://i.imgur.com/eFjsfz4.jpeg

        One other thing many people seem to ignore is that russia's allies, mainly china and iran, actively stand to lose from the normalisation of nuclear weapons usage - if ukraine was nuked, you would see Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan immediately begin to develop their own nuclear weapons and would probably have them finished within a matter of years or even months. For iran, normalisation of nuclear weapons use would make it a lot easier for israel to justify glassing Tehran the next time hezbollah or hamas chimps out on behalf of the IRGC. In either case, nobody, least of all russia's friends, would tolerate russia's nuclear weapons use. I'd honestly find some kind of bizarro timeline where china, india and israel nuke russia over russian nuclear weapons use in ukraine more believable than one where the west does at this stage tbh

        If russia nukes ukraine, even in the made up fantasy-land frickaroo timeline where the west does nothing in response to putin using nooks (because in reality, NATO would probably glass russia for it), china, india and iran alone would be VERY fricking pissed and at the very least completely isolate themselves from russia economically and politically.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          NATO wouldn't glass Russia if Russia used a nuke against Ukraine, it would just force Russia to become a rogue state even worse off than North Korea. NATO has many more cards to play against Russia, but each one it uses makes Russia more like to say "frick it" up until the point Putin is overthrown and replaced.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            some other anon mentioned it but it's commonly accepted the west has a tacit agreement with russia that any nuclear weapon use in ukraine will result in something akin to the destruction of all of russia's air force, or all of russia' navy, or a major conventional strike against russian military assets in ukraine or elsewhere.

            My personal theory for how the use of nuclear weapons by russia would go is something along the lines of
            >putin nukes a few major battlefield locations
            >NATO forces bomb the shit out of crimea and major russian installations in ukraine
            >china, india and iran cut all ties with russia and place it under a true oil embargo
            >russia collapses economically nearly overnight; putin is overthrown by his oligarchs, and china/india/iran/the US manipulate the ensuing chaos to make sure whoever the oligarchs put in charge next will behave themselves

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >it's commonly accepted

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Do you seriously think that the pentagon hasn't wargamed the absolute shit out of this specific scenario? They're so autistic that they've unironically strategised how to deal with such ludicrous scenarios as zombie apocalypses (of different types) and alien invasions. But you think the west would be totally unprepared, and have no response, for such an unthinkable scenario as russians nooking? After three years of war?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, they have wargamed this scenario, and using nuclear weapons in retaliation for something that doesn't affect NATO territory while you have many many many many many many many other options to retaliate with (like, for example, denying access to the Baltic via the Danish Straits and the Gulf of Finland, which by itself would frick over Russia massively) would be the height of not only stupidity but ignorance of geopolitics. Only the ignorant imagine the usage of nuclear weapons requiring to the exclusion of all else nuclear weapons in kind. NATO would actually be at war with Russia over something that still doesn't involve them, why would they want that? The entire point of NATO is for that NOT to happen. That's why we're in Ukraine, so that the conflict is there and not in NATO territory.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                who said anything about responding with nuclear weapons anon?

                NATO could bring russia's army, air force, navy, and government to its' knees using solely conventional means. One billion cruise missiles for the cruise missile god. Just see iraq's buttfricking sessions (1 and 2) for reference.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >who said anything about responding with nuclear weapons anon?
                Here

                See [...]
                If russia nukes ukraine, even in the made up fantasy-land frickaroo timeline where the west does nothing in response to putin using nooks (because in reality, NATO would probably glass russia for it), china, india and iran alone would be VERY fricking pissed and at the very least completely isolate themselves from russia economically and politically.

                "Glass" means nuclear weapons.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                why are you under the childish assumption that only you will send missiles and you won't get missiles back at you?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Why is russia under the delusion that it can nuke ukraine and get no retaliation thrown at it?

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Let me fix that for you

              >putin nukes a few major battlefield locations
              >NATO launches a massive preemptive nuclear strike on Russia

              Why might you ask?

              Any response short of that gives the Russians the operational freedom to launch a First Strike on NATO, which would condemn tens of millions of people to fiery deaths even if only a fraction of their ICBMs actually worked. Now, a preemptive strike on Russia would obviously be met with a Second Strike, but because of the technological disparity and the high level of readiness of NATO (especially American) nuclear forces, this Second Strike would be nowhere near as effective as a First one.

              Instead of 50 million dead Americans and the total destruction of virtually every major city (which would effectively result in the end of America as a country), we can whittle that down to 5 million dead Americans and the partial destruction of maybe the ten largest cities plus Washington DC. A terrible price to pay to be sure, but one that won't necessarily result in complete civilization collapse.

              Dr. Strangelove put it more succinctly

              ?si=PO62FXvpd84_jj4u&t=104

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >(which would effectively result in the end of America as a country)
                Doubt. The American system of governance was specifically made such that everybody currently sitting in a major branch of office could be replaced even if the physical structures for gathering are razed (like what happened during the War of 1812.)
                The majority of the educated population doesn't even live in the cities anymore, they're hives for utterly replaceable white collar workers.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >wtf is a "madman at X" scenario?
            Launching full strike at russia after its going full moron (see

            Many people also forget that Ukraine has one of the best AA in the world and a single non-ICBM nuke would be downed with more than 80% probability. Therefore, russia will have to launch multiple nukes at once to guarantee a hit.
            So we are not in a scenario with a single low yield blast, we are in a scenario with mass bombardment out of blue.

            ) is our only chance to exist during the next 5 years after the first strike. You are free too hate it, but game theory doesn't care about your feelings.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Did everyone forget that US/UK intel was predicting the invasion of Ukraine back in like Dec 2021 and had it down to the week in Feb 2022?

        Theres an extremely high chance that US/UK would know a nuclear attack was imminent and pre-emptively respond, perhaps with a No Fly Zone, which could spoil the plan. Or worse, they work to and succesfully shoot down the launch platform(s) or intercept the delivery system. Very embarassing.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Invasion deterrence. That's about it, really.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      put japan in its place

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Which the murkens wouldn't have dared if Japan had nukes too.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      There literally isn't one
      For seventy years strategists and planners have searched for a way to use near weapons on the battlefield that will leave the user better off than thier targetvand to this very day no one has managed to find one

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Tactical nukes? You can blow holes in the enemy frontline, majorly frick up infrastructure and logistics, and make chair force suck dick. However, you need a military competent enough to follow through with such a gamer move; and Russia can barely waddle up to the Ukrainian defenses in golf carts, let alone the radiation shielded tanks and APCs it used to field.
      Strategic nukes? Basically useless because the whole world would want you dead if you used them in a first strike.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >what's the point of using nukes
      On the plus side, it *will* create a no-man's land buffer zone ...

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      To achieve /k/inography

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      In the Vietnam war they did a study and found it had limited use for things like blowing up bridges, rail stations, ports and industrial centers.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      it’s the suicide button you push out of spite

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      To really, really make your opponent hurt a lot. The greatest use of nukes is the THREAT of their use, not their actual use. Let's be clear here, if Russia did not have nukes, they absolutely would have been invaded by a coalition of NATO countries and Putin would be dead right now. The reason he is not is because his country is a nuclear-armed country, it bestows on them a permanence and a level of care by world powers to ensure that bad actors don't gain hold of them.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That's anyone's guess, but another deterrent is the instability it would cause in the area. If you think Irak and Afghanistan were unmanageable after being decapitated, imagine what policing the entire Russian territory would be like.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          > imagine what policing the entire Russian territory would be like
          the moronic take is that China will conquer most of it or it'll be given to China on a platter. What could possibly go wrong?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yet another headache that needs to be prevented, and more rising tensions with another local power.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      For actual defensive purposes they're a great idea. If you legitimately have no interest in invading anyone, why not just get nukes and operate a barebones military while making clear that you will nuke anyone who so much as throws a rock into your borders? This is probably a viable strategy for poorgay countries without nutty irredentist delusions.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      To kill a lot of people and destroy a lot of civilian buildings

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      None, if you actually want to gain an advantage.
      They are a tool for diplomacy and deterrence, if you use them proactively you get fricked, if you have to use them defensively you are already fricked.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        > if you use them proactively you get fricked
        the only time they were used, Japan got fricked and surrendered.
        what are you smoking?
        > o-only USA may use them!
        No. And the funny part is that USA can't stop other countries from using them either with anything other than "we nook!". the muricans are the real vatniks all along. they hold the entire world at gunpoint after WW2 while larping as "world police" (obviously, they're terrible at that).

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >USA
          >they
          Pottery.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          We can bomb any shithole to a stoneage using conventional forces. Ask Iraq.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Iraq didn't have ant WMDs, tho.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              It would be eliminated during the first hours of war.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >USA can't stop other countries from using them
          >nukes militarily used by USA: 2
          >nukes militarily used by other countries: 0
          We obviously can.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            that's why you had the Pentagon in smoke at 9/11.
            And nobody wants to get nuked by moronic murican, so there's that. But nothing lasts forever and the more countries get nukes, the more chance increases that someone will use them. then we'll see if murica was bluffing its way all these years.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Sneed.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                yeah, yeah. everyone (allies and enemies, "neutrals" too) gets it that murika is full of shit but they have the most guns.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >full of shit
                We don't have to worry about it while we are better than our enemies.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                words of truth.
                so the real question is: are you still better than your enemies, and for how long?
                Russia still has more nukes. China still has more population (and almost matches USA's GDP). India is a wildcard. Europe is not as reliable ally as you'd want.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >are you still better than your enemies
                Ask mail brides and H1B holders
                >how long?
                Enough to win this war.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous
            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              That's why nuclear power using nukes in an aggressive war = nuclear proliferation = total nuclear war in 5 years. And that's why any madman in X will get 4 Minutemans on his head in 30 minutes after smashing the red button. And that's why the button is still untouched - you can't win when you are dead.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                that's what you say. but can you really afford it?
                Imagine Norks get mental and USA glasses them for good. What next? Every nuclear country aims several dozens of warheads at USA just in case? I mean, Russia and China are obviously doing it already, but Pakistan and India will join them as well (France will consider it, too).

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Pakistan and India will join them as well
                Maaaaam could you pleas redeem your rocket? I was joking my love.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Also for nuking Ukrainian troops near the front, nuking what you claim to be your own national territory, effectively turning it into an hellscape for decades, in order to liberate it from Banderists might look pretty bad to the pro Russian locals or people back home.
    Also the mobiks and their officers might be quiet hard to convince to go trough an irradiated area.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Ivan does not fear no radiation
      Remember the Red Forest trenches?

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >...irradiating areas would complicate [Russian] troop movements, requiring cumbersome hazmat equipment...
    *ahem*

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Man those guys mustve died real bad

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Nyet, tovarish, all soldiers who were deploy to Zona return under their own power during good will gesture. Do not ask to where they are redeploy, is secret.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        all saved by Belle Delphine's bathwater

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Nyet, tovarish, all soldiers who were deploy to Zona return under their own power during good will gesture. Do not ask to where they are redeploy, is secret.

        I genuinly believe that they did, in fact, suffer no radiation caused problems (although they may have raised risk of cancer).
        The dose was simply too low, radiation is imho overhyped, because you need a shitton of it to do actual damage.
        According to this, equivalent dose of soil sample from red forest is about 200uSv/h ( https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0263600 ,I didnt find anything more in depth, but metal claw left from cleanup has 330 uSv/h so it sounds right - http://www.chernobylgallery.com/chernobyl-disaster/radiation-levels/ ) which sounds like a lot, and it is compared to ambient radiation, but it is equivalent to 2 chest X-rays every hour or to staying some 2km from fukushima. You would need to stay in that trench for 5000 hours (208 days) to get radiation sickness (not account for your body repairing itself and lowering dose over time). The fact that they were in trench doesnt do much. Dangerous is only thin layer of top soil, so they can actually lower their dose by putting dirt between them and environment. It was still kinda moronic to do tho.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          They aerosolized it by digging in it and running vehicles over it. This is also just the tip of the iceberg, who knows what other moronation bored soldiers got up to

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I am

            https://i.imgur.com/qn1GQ5Q.png

            [...]
            I genuinly believe that they did, in fact, suffer no radiation caused problems (although they may have raised risk of cancer).
            The dose was simply too low, radiation is imho overhyped, because you need a shitton of it to do actual damage.
            According to this, equivalent dose of soil sample from red forest is about 200uSv/h ( https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0263600 ,I didnt find anything more in depth, but metal claw left from cleanup has 330 uSv/h so it sounds right - http://www.chernobylgallery.com/chernobyl-disaster/radiation-levels/ ) which sounds like a lot, and it is compared to ambient radiation, but it is equivalent to 2 chest X-rays every hour or to staying some 2km from fukushima. You would need to stay in that trench for 5000 hours (208 days) to get radiation sickness (not account for your body repairing itself and lowering dose over time). The fact that they were in trench doesnt do much. Dangerous is only thin layer of top soil, so they can actually lower their dose by putting dirt between them and environment. It was still kinda moronic to do tho.

            and your point is true, Caesium-137 and Strontium-90 have beta decays that are dangerous pretty much only on ingestion/inspiration. However, my data came from study that studied soil-dwelling organisms that quite literally eat dirt and don't have thick skin ( read tl;dr of study at https://www.ceh.ac.uk/current-chernobyl-radiation-levels-do-not-directly-impact-soil-organisms ), so my point does not change, because the ambient dose is equivalent to that which you get by ingesting said sample. Chernobyl was irradiated as frick when it exploded, but now its quite safe actually.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          This does not take into account that they would have aerosolised a frickton of the radiation via digging it up; they also would have, I have zero doubt, collected wood from the forest to use in fires; the smoke from this wood would contain concentrated isotopes collected by the wood's tree's roots. In either case, what goes from a non-lethal dose from purely external exposure goes shitwire the moment it gets into your lungs. Not to mention the stalker-esque cosmic horror artifacts I'm sure lie plentiful in those woods...

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            oh and also if they used that wood to smoke or cook any food, any contact between the smoke and the food would potentially make that food very dangerous to ingest. I definitely agree with you though that chernobyl is massively overhyped, I would personally feel completely comfortable having a wander around as long as I had a guide and a geiger counter just in case.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              This does not take into account that they would have aerosolised a frickton of the radiation via digging it up; they also would have, I have zero doubt, collected wood from the forest to use in fires; the smoke from this wood would contain concentrated isotopes collected by the wood's tree's roots. In either case, what goes from a non-lethal dose from purely external exposure goes shitwire the moment it gets into your lungs. Not to mention the stalker-esque cosmic horror artifacts I'm sure lie plentiful in those woods...

              I am [...] and your point is true, Caesium-137 and Strontium-90 have beta decays that are dangerous pretty much only on ingestion/inspiration. However, my data came from study that studied soil-dwelling organisms that quite literally eat dirt and don't have thick skin ( read tl;dr of study at https://www.ceh.ac.uk/current-chernobyl-radiation-levels-do-not-directly-impact-soil-organisms ), so my point does not change, because the ambient dose is equivalent to that which you get by ingesting said sample. Chernobyl was irradiated as frick when it exploded, but now its quite safe actually.

              https://i.imgur.com/qn1GQ5Q.png

              [...]
              I genuinly believe that they did, in fact, suffer no radiation caused problems (although they may have raised risk of cancer).
              The dose was simply too low, radiation is imho overhyped, because you need a shitton of it to do actual damage.
              According to this, equivalent dose of soil sample from red forest is about 200uSv/h ( https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0263600 ,I didnt find anything more in depth, but metal claw left from cleanup has 330 uSv/h so it sounds right - http://www.chernobylgallery.com/chernobyl-disaster/radiation-levels/ ) which sounds like a lot, and it is compared to ambient radiation, but it is equivalent to 2 chest X-rays every hour or to staying some 2km from fukushima. You would need to stay in that trench for 5000 hours (208 days) to get radiation sickness (not account for your body repairing itself and lowering dose over time). The fact that they were in trench doesnt do much. Dangerous is only thin layer of top soil, so they can actually lower their dose by putting dirt between them and environment. It was still kinda moronic to do tho.

              What's on? They are all dead man. It was news back in February. They all have died lol

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Oh my. Yeah this was reported on several outlets first by Ukrainians watching the areas and Russian soldiers back in February
                They all died. Everyone who dug in or lived in those trenches in the red Forrest died. Bringing it up in here gets you bans.

                I would like to have source for this,
                I have read this :https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/unprotected-russian-soldiers-disturbed-radioactive-dust-chernobyls-red-forest-2022-03-28/, and also this https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/01/russians-fled-chernobyl-with-radiation-sickness-says-ukraine-as-iaea-investigates and https://www.newsweek.com/russian-soldiers-struck-radiation-sickness-after-digging-chernobyl-1797649 , but have found not report of such incident from IAEA, and I am quite sure they would put out one because it would be fatal radiation linked incident.
                Both Ukraine and Energoatom had vested interest in making russians frick out of Chernobyl, so i would like some more official report than. uhh, Newsweek reading twitter out loud.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Google Russian red Forest deaths set it for February. There you go. They all are died. Someone is trying to dox me.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Once again, I get some rumors from diplomats (The independent) or "Elevated cancer risk" (Popular mechanics). Wiki gives me picrel, citing the reported death to newsweek. So it is absolutely possible that some moron (singular) got hold off some irradiated shit or went to piss on elephant foot, however I don't consider
                > Google Russian red Forest deaths
                a source.
                However, I got https://www.kyivpost.com/post/31734 , which links to a telegram post about ambulance minivans arriving to radiation treatment center. Sure, that could be something. Or nothing happened and it was some sort of annual check up. Or random telegram account made up some shit. Like come on, we live in 2024, have some standards for believing things on internet.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Or you know what could be the reason of line of army ambulance minibuses speeding to center of radiation medicine? Could it be maybe the fact THAT IT IS NEXT TO A GIANT HOSPITAL FOR ARMY VETERANS AND NEAREST ONE TO UKRAINE IN THAT. And it was in that era of war when Russia actually cared for its injured, lol, lmao, those were the times.
                https://www.google.com/maps/place/Gospital'+Invalidov+Otechestvennoi+Voiny+Klinicheskii+Gomel'Skii+Oblastnoi/@52.3524904,31.0357266,1411m

                I mean, slava ukraini but kyivpost is godawful source.

                https://www.kyivpost.com/post/31734

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I have no idea how radioactive is the wood, but I doubt it is worse then the rest of soil around. More dangerous than radiation could be in this case heavy metal poisioning.
            Also please read

            I am [...] and your point is true, Caesium-137 and Strontium-90 have beta decays that are dangerous pretty much only on ingestion/inspiration. However, my data came from study that studied soil-dwelling organisms that quite literally eat dirt and don't have thick skin ( read tl;dr of study at https://www.ceh.ac.uk/current-chernobyl-radiation-levels-do-not-directly-impact-soil-organisms ), so my point does not change, because the ambient dose is equivalent to that which you get by ingesting said sample. Chernobyl was irradiated as frick when it exploded, but now its quite safe actually.

            .

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              it depends on the type of plant, many species in fact are quite good at concentrating large amounts of heavy metals inside themselves.
              this is why if you ever go berrypicking like some sort of hipster, be wary that the forest you're walking in hasn't grown on an old landfill or silt dump.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, but those plants also die when they ingest beta emittors. And quite honestly, I think you are a bit paranoid about berries, here in some industrial town in india, a lot of them would fit inside EU food safety standards (only garlic and potatoes are toxic as frick) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363097944_Heavy_Metal_Accumulation_in_Fruits_and_Vegetables_and_Human_Health_Risk_Assessment_Findings_From_Maharashtra_India . I myself am more worried about documented cases of people who ate blueberries in the woods that got eggs of Echinococcus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echinococcus_multilocularis) on them (probably traces of fox shit). These frickers create cysts in brain that can kill you and are hard to diagnose.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >people who ate blueberries in the woods that got eggs of Echinococcus on them (probably traces of fox shit)
                people who eat berries low enough to be shat or pissed on by even larger animals are stupid
                if you're picking berries anywhere below waist height you're tempting fate, not surprising.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Here in India
                Lmao no wonder you don't understand ionizing radiation. How's the weather benchod?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Didn't one of the ziggers pick up a cesium container.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You're just silly.
          The body doesn't just "repair itself" from radiation poisoning, ionizing radiation is exactly fricking up the bodies ability to regenerate healthy cells.
          Also you're reading the data wrong: they get 200/h, that means their bodies is dosed with 200 microsivert the first hour, then 200 more the next, that's 400 cumulated. Rinse and repeat until you understand which dose they actually are exposed with.
          Not even accounting that they don't just stand around getting passive radiation, they inhaled dust, rubbed dirt on their skin, swallowed radiated particles.
          Those frickers were dead within days

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You can feel the disbelief of the drone operator through that panorama lmao

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >that slow pan to the containment shield and then back to the trenches as if to say "you've gotta be shitting me"
      lmao

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >cumbersome hazmat equipment
      you need to give them hazmat suits blyat??

      >a nuclear winter
      myth
      > And there's no shot the U.S. France or UK launch nukes in response to a Ukrainian city being destroyed.
      true yet there is every response inhibition removed to going full on conventional solution. Public statements how the goal is ukraine to win this war, unlimited and unrestricted use of western weapon systems followed with a no fly zone over ukraine. This includes decimating vatnik air assets trying to lob shit into ukraine from puccian airspace

      It will not stop until ukraine flag is once again shining over sevastopol and monke is in a back alley with a dagger up his ass

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      None of those guys have to worry about radiation.
      They are all probably dead already.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    He's been ook-nooking since the 1st month of the 2022 invasion
    He knows its a death sentence for him and has been told by his only real allies (China and India) that if he goes rogue-state with nuke strikes then they'll be obligated to kill his arse dead as well because he's gone mad. You simply cannot frick around with a nuclear weapon in warfare because that means you're ready to fire them off any anyone else and you need to be killed.

    On some pleasant news
    >BANK RUN
    >Get yo roubles out before they close all the banks physically and online

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >You simply cannot frick around with a nuclear weapon in warfare because that means you're ready to fire them off any anyone else and you need to be killed.
      this

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >You simply cannot frick around with a nuclear weapon in warfare because that means you're ready to fire them off any anyone else and you need to be killed.
      It's more than that fwiw. Obviously, nobody wants to be nuked but in particular advanced big nuclear powers do not want to be nuked since they represent large unified civilizations. Critical to preventing that is keeping the magic circle small and part of the same set of powers "who have something to lose", since that allows deterrence. If any rando fanatic could get one, they'd absolutely 100% definitely be used sooner because they wouldn't fear any retaliation.

      So non-proliferation is super super fricking important to nuclear powers. But we're a long LONG time from 1945, the fundamental computation and physics and engineering is no longer a "multiple percent of America's GDP for years" thing at all. Tons of powers could pursue it. Or pursue super nasty bioweapons or some other shit for MAD. So to maintain non-proliferation, yeah some threats and force, but mostly they key is that most non-nuclear countries don't think they need them. Simple as. Because they think the nuclear powers will contain each other, and use them defensively or not at all.

      But if Russia can use nukes offensively in a war of conquest they started, and nothing happens, then now everybody needs their own deterrent. The NPT would be dead letter immediately. Horrible shit would spread all over the world, including to shittier powers who are less stable, which would inevitably mean leaks.

      None of the big powers can afford to let that happen. Definitely not China and India either, who are plenty hostile to muslims as well and have plenty of possible avenues to be attacked. Overwhelming response is the only response in the national self-interest, and instantly because now Russia might use them any time.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You think Putin could leave presents for Beijing and the Three Gorges Dam if China were to turn on him?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That's sort of the fun part of nuclear powered frick frick games, no one quite knows exactly how its going to turn out. Lots of variables there like how many got set off, on whom, the personality and temperament of the other nuclear parties involved and just what kind of reciprocating strike you get in return.
        So its a real gamblers game
        But you're not walking away from the table and someone will cap your arse for cheating and ruining a nice game for everyone else. Maybe its a limited strike, they light up the whole country or there's just no fricking survivors for anyone involved. If someone had done it, we'd have a better idea but they haven't because no one's that fricking stupid enough to try their hand. What is peculiar about Putin though, being old and crap living through the cold war era, is that he makes a lot of threats. The USSR, USA and everyone else were pretty quiet about doing that, sure they'd dick wag about being big guys with the nukes but its was pretty rare that anyone would directly threaten in anyone's general direction. Not only was it bad form but you also escalated tensions WAY past reasonable limits and a lot of back chatter got thrown about like "is this c**t legit or some kind of mad homosexual on a rampage trying to kill us all?"
        >That's sort of the problem with threats, you make them, people are crystal clear about what you mean and if you don't actually mean it, doesn't mean shit.
        >If you rarely or barely ever make threats, well that opens up another grey area of 'maybe' they aren't fricking around and we should be a bit more careful

        Ultimately to the millenials and zoomers that didn't grow up with this shit, just remember that right down the bottom of the basic decision is a human being. They've got kids, a life, partner they value and are quite quintessentially allergic to dying in a fire with those they care about, as is everyone else involved in the mechanism of launch

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    That is exactly why they're going to do it, it'll catch the Ukrainians totally off guard.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Russia is too scared to nuke Ukraine. The US already told vlad that if they do that it's game over for every Russian asset in Ukraine.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    There's no cost for Russia anymore preventing them from launching nukes deep behind enemy lines. Russia barely has any allies as it is, a few million Ukrainian civilians is irrelevant to an expansionist China or secluded NK. The EU is currently planning on spending their seized assets for Ukrainian defense spending. They're already frozen out of the Western financial capitals. And there's no shot the U.S. France or UK launch nukes in response to a Ukrainian city being destroyed.

    Granted, this would be counter productive to securing a lasting peace/victory against Ukraine, but if push comes to shove we've already removed pretty much every off-ramp for preventing a nuclear winter

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I mean. He could always just leave Ukraine.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        He'd risk being dethroned
        This war killed a lot of people, he really needs to be able to say it wasn't all for nothing
        Maybe if he can take Crimea in the peace deal, but even then he'd forfeit land he claimed was Russian...

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Russians are incredibly submissive. He can give away Crimea and Voronezh in a peace deal and russians will celebrate it for real.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        thats THE!!!!!!!!!!! Ukraine to you chuddy

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The EU is currently planning on spending their seized assets for Ukrainian defense spending.
      No. You should spend three minutes in a search engine and get informed on the topic before you vomit the stupid out into public again.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        wow ok G7 not the EU, same difference, just with the U.S. backing the decision. Doesn't change the analysis
        >https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/13/g7-leaders-strike-deal-on-using-russian-assets-to-back-50b-loan-to-ukraine-00163146

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    That’s just some moron who’s trying to meme the FSB into the ultimate acceleration

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Let's give nuclear war a chance.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >t. flyover homosexual

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >t. urban cattle

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >We don't need you dude my friend's got a farm with like TEN acres

            You'll starve and die like everyone else moron, the frick is it with Americans hating Americans more than anyone else Jesus Christ

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >the frick is it with Americans hating Americans more than anyone else Jesus Christ
              Not him, but, that's his line mate.

              https://i.imgur.com/TdGyAXd.png

              Topjej
              Also check'em double dubs

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Man, I have to get out of Toledo

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >removing nuclear weapons from their storage areas would be immediately detectable by satellite because of the radiation the warheads give off.
    While there are some very good instruments around for detecting radiation, picking out the miniscule amount these warheads emit from all the background radiation all the way up in fricking orbit seems like a rather tall order. Is this a capacity that is actually publicly known, or is it just what you think should be the case?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Is this a capacity that is actually publicly known, or is it just what you think should be the case?

      They can slightly elevated radiation levels being emitted by Starlink's satellites, I don't think a nuclear weapon be that hard.

      https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2023/08/aa46374-23/aa46374-23.html

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        At that point you will have so many false positives that it becomes useless again.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >They can slightly elevated radiation levels
        Apparently this is news to you, but ionizing radiation is not "between 110 and 188 MHz". But at leats this answers my question, right out of your arse it came.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      there is no such capability and there won't be due to physical limitations. nuclear weapons are detectable only from close range. when the military says it will be able to detect operations with nuclear weapons it will be solely though IMINT, SIGINT, espionage and intentional signaling by the enemy

      >Is this a capacity that is actually publicly known, or is it just what you think should be the case?

      They can slightly elevated radiation levels being emitted by Starlink's satellites, I don't think a nuclear weapon be that hard.

      https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2023/08/aa46374-23/aa46374-23.html

      electromagnetic radiation is much easier to detect

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I was recently thinking about detecting nuclear reactions via neutrinos. It's certainly possible to detect running reactors (e.g. nuclear subs) by this method. It's not easy, but it seems the USA and the Chinese working on it. Problem is that nuclear weapons are not very reactive until the moment they go off. But there's still some activity due nuclear decay and spontaneous fission, so in theory they might produce a small amount of anti-neutrinos within a certain range of energy. I don't know how practical it would be to build the necessary detectors with enough sensitivity and how hard it would be to filter out all the background noise, but in theory it might be possible.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          it is theoretically possible but not practical, neutrino experiments run barely above the noise floor even though they are sited very close to nuclear powerplants. a submarine reactor in comparison is on the order of 0.2GW

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Is this a capacity that is actually publicly known, or is it just what you think should be the case?
      its a myth by nook doomers. They like to overblow everything regarding nooks. From its effects to how every single small warhead going off is a hair trigger response to full on retaliation

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Also nukes are easy to detect when they are strapped to ICBM cause it is very easy to see several hot as frick accelerating plumes when you have IR sensors on your early warning satellite (or some weird EM reflectance they give on OTH radars)

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    [...]

    Man, this mentally ill wienersucker has been on here for like 20 years.
    Probably a jannie too

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I respect it

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    When the war first broke out the US communicated to the Kremlin that the deployment of nuclear weapons of any kind during the war would see the US get directly involved in the conflict with the explicit goal of removing all Russian personnel and assets from Ukraine's internationally recognized territory, including Crimea.

    The Kremlin completely flushed decades of influence building down the toilet when they launched the war so nuclear saber rattling is all the have left as a diplomatic tool, you can use it as a barometer for when they start to lose confidence - when they feel the war is going well the threats go silent but when battlefield conditions worsen they start screeching louder and more frequently.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >see Anne Frank poster
    >any one of same fricking <10 pics
    >nod in agreement with post
    >report anyway for avatarhomosexualry
    I cannot be the only one

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I never report anyone even if it's some hateful shit. Snitches get stitches.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, i'm the same way. Shitting on ziggers and vatniks is good, but there's really no need to be an attention whoring homosexual while you're going about it.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Nook in the current century is the shortcut to becoming a pariah even among your close friends, as nobody would want to associate themselves with a rogue state. This is not WWII and the nukes don't offer much beyond psychological damage and speedrunning the Geneva checklist. Soviet shitters like Putin care about their image more than the lives of any serf.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >nuke ukraine because you violated the Budapest Memorandum
    >forget same memorandum gave Ukraine protection under several nuclear umbrellas including the US and China
    >you live in the timeline where Russia gets nuked by China

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >you live in the timeline where Russia gets nuked by China
      Or in the timeline where China betrays Ukraine, saying "well, actually, the conditions were..."

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Chinks are backstabbers without honor yes, but you misunderstand why they wouldn't want to normalize using nuclear weapons / nuclear proliferation. And if they don't react then it sends a signal to America that they can nuke a commie invasion of Taiwan. Or that Taiwan, Japan and Korea suddenly have legitimate reasons to get nukes because someone actually used them in war. There's also literally nothing to gain for China by letting something like that slip, when they can instead reclaim Outer Manchuria and grab as much of Siberia as they want with it. The CCP is drooling to get their hands on Baikal to drain it for use in drought-stricken northern China.

        tl;dr China has a world of reason to go against Russia if they nook

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Thanks, chatgpt

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    One other thing many people seem to ignore is that russia's allies, mainly china and iran, actively stand to lose from the normalisation of nuclear weapons usage - if ukraine was nuked, you would see Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan immediately begin to develop their own nuclear weapons and would probably have them finished within a matter of years or even months. For iran, normalisation of nuclear weapons use would make it a lot easier for israel to justify glassing Tehran the next time hezbollah or hamas chimps out on behalf of the IRGC. In either case, nobody, least of all russia's friends, would tolerate russia's nuclear weapons use. I'd honestly find some kind of bizarro timeline where china, india and israel nuke russia over russian nuclear weapons use in ukraine more believable than one where the west does at this stage tbh

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >against large concentrations of enemy forces positioned well behind the frontlines (...) 30km
    that's not really well behind the frontlines. NATO abandoned this concept in late 50s and WP in late 60s because of how stupid it was, widespread fallout attrited your units, impeded logistics too much and you couldn't really do real time targeting few hundred km behind the frontline where it would be safe. since then tactical nuclear weapons were meant to be used only against high value targets like airfields, air defense batteries, enemy nuclear weapons, C3 nodes, logistics chokepoints, ports etc.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If he uses a nuke, he will nuke Belgorod as a show of force and claim it was inside Russia, so do not retaliate.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >lets throw away everything and make sure we turn the whole country against us because putin blew up an airport in ukraine with a nuke

    yall really need to get the frick off of /k/ and talk to actuaal people because most people have a line they are willing to go to in orrder to help others and politicians know this.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You need to be more subtle, dude, this is way too blatant.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    they can always blow the remaining nuclear plants in Ukraine and call it a day.
    or the hydro centrals on Dnieper and turn Kyiv into a swamp.
    they don't need to go nuclear unless the West REALLY wants WW3. And the only country in the West that could possibly want that is USA because everyone else is not overjoyed to become land of glass.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >they don't need to go nuclear unless the West REALLY wants WW3.
      Explain this logic please

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        when the F16 fail to do anything of note, the West could decide to keep "not-escalating" with something else. And at certain point all that "non-escalation" will turn into Cold War 2, nuclear winter edition. And everyone will be very surprised how that could happen.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Cold War 2, nuclear winter edition
          So Russia is going to frick itself over and freeze itself after it accidentally nukes Belgorod?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            yeah, assuming their nukes work
            we can always frick about and find out. what do we have to lose?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Why do you keep framing the west as the aggressor when Russia nukes Ukraine after their failed invasion? It's pretty sussy fr fr

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Because Russia was a good boy, they didn’t do nothing. They was going to church and shit.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                what do you mean, "framing the west"? the west is always the aggressor. it's "preemptive aggression", "defensive aggression", "protective aggression", "war on communism", "war on terrorism", "war on aggression". when was the last time USA mainland was attacked? and somehow they're always the victim. the only time Article 5 was used was to protect USA from big bad Osama, kek.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Scenario: Russia nukes Ukraine after the failed invasion
                You:
                >the west is always the aggressor. it's "preemptive aggression", "defensive aggression", "protective aggression", "war on communism", "war on terrorism", "war on aggression". when was the last time USA mainland was attacked? and somehow they're always the victim. the only time Article 5 was used was to protect USA from big bad Osama, kek.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                circular reasoning
                If Russia nukes Ukraine, sux for Ukraine
                If the West nukes Russia, sux for the entire planet, including the West itself
                > b-but it's Russia's fault
                yes, and? that will warm you in the nuclear shelter, if you manage to get inside one (you won't)?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It's Russia's fault for
                1. failing to be a regional power and successfully conquer their dirt poor neighbor
                2. needlessly escalated said failure to ensure the entire world suffers

                If anything, i am further convinced NATO and China should commit to a nuclear decapitation strike on Russia to prevent this outcome.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                > NATO and China
                in what universe China will do jack shit to please NATO?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >please NATO
                China pleases china. A broken husk of Russia right for the fricking pleases China. Especially when it makes them look like the powerful global leader they want to be

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I see, you're the delusional type.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                China has a nuclear defense treaty with Ukraine; if Ukraine is attacked with nuclear weapons, China is obligated to defend them. I get you're a fifth columnist my-team-your-team moron who believes in the Vranyo/dedovschina worldview of serfdom and vassalage is all, but not everything regarding Ukraine conflict relates to NATO. Sure, it's very possible China won't do much but "thoughts and prayers" type of schtick, but they will lost face the less they do; and for them, with Muscovite control over central Asia declining so blatantly, China needs to look like a reliable partner to solidify their influence and control of Asia, which is their primary strategic goal.

                Which the murkens wouldn't have dared if Japan had nukes too.

                What delivery systems would they have had? US was only able to nuke Japan because they were in a position to do conventional bombing of the home islands (and ironically, the conventional firebombing of Tokyo was more horrific than the atomics). Japan had no logistical systems to heavily bomb the United States, especially not with a huge clunky atomic weapon of the era.

                https://i.imgur.com/QTPzLk8.jpeg

                So how we holding up, /k/opers? Good to see stalwart wartime leaders plunging forward into the ukraine, huh? I'm relaxed, knowing the bong pajeet, the kraut puppet, the latest frog midget and a dementia patient are on the job. And if the rubes disagree, we can just do like the cokehead midget in the ukraine, and cancel those pesky elections.

                We need more wunderwaffen though. The Abrahams are working spectacularly. How about more 3rd generation fighters?

                Using /k/ in any word except /k/ommando needs to be an automatic permanent ban. Not reading the rest of your post.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                > t. /k/oper

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >gets btfo
                >y-youre a k-koper
                better go get whatever the new script is lmao

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                > t. whiny /k/oper

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >still the only response to getting btfo

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                > /k/oper still whining

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >still the only response to getting btfo

                Don't reply to parrots.

                >China has a nuclear defense treaty with Ukraine;
                lol. lmao. Next you are going to tell us about the fine details of the peace treaty documents to sign with puccia after the war. Since they both are so well known to honor the papers they sign

                chinks are low key russhitias "allies" (for now) and the situation is a win-win for them anyway. If puccia presists they are a useful idiot to cause havoc in europe and draw attention away from the pacific while fleecing them of bottom barrel resource prices. If they implode they are fat pig to slaughtered for siberian clay. Depending on which scenario happens means if changs will ever honor any piece of toilet paper they signed with ukranians

                Yes, I even pointed out China will do the minimal but they must do something or lose face; also considering they are in competition for influence and dominance in central Asia, if the Chinese show to be unreliable to small geopolitical players, it hurts the position they are so well set up for in the Muscovite collapse.

                Please correct me.

                NTA but it should be "why are you not afraid of" (or could be "why aren't you"). "Do" is a verb of action, "are" is a verb of being.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >China has a nuclear defense treaty with Ukraine;
                lol. lmao. Next you are going to tell us about the fine details of the peace treaty documents to sign with puccia after the war. Since they both are so well known to honor the papers they sign

                chinks are low key russhitias "allies" (for now) and the situation is a win-win for them anyway. If puccia presists they are a useful idiot to cause havoc in europe and draw attention away from the pacific while fleecing them of bottom barrel resource prices. If they implode they are fat pig to slaughtered for siberian clay. Depending on which scenario happens means if changs will ever honor any piece of toilet paper they signed with ukranians

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The guy in the Nutcracker mask makes this photo 10 times better.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Using /k/ in any word except /k/ommando needs to be an automatic permanent ban.
                /k/ounterpoint: /k/ino.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Acceptable.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Cold War 2, nuclear winter edition
          >Russia collapses again after failing to conquer a neighbor
          >west sends billions in food aide
          >nukes get launched?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >blow nuclear power plants
      >and call it a day
      Russia declared a terrorist state and removed from the UN altogether
      >"A Member of the United Nations, which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter, may be expelled from the Organisation by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council," Article 6 of the UN Charter.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        oh noes, not the UN. anything but UN.
        You're joking, right? When did those useless twats amounted to anything?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          ask the North Koreans and the Serbs one of these days

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            both of them hate USA and don't give a frick about UN. what about it?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >recommendation of the Security Council
        except that russia is a permanent member of that council and they have to rule unanimously

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Why can't Russia just be expelled?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            idk. but it's why no shit gets done. cause US and russia are always blocking anything that hurts the other

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            In terms of pure logic, the security council charter can only be changed by the security council. And Russia won't vote to lose their own veto.
            So you'd have to essentially abolish the security council and make the 'stability council' or some shit, but then the problem is the optics.
            The security council is designed so you can't have one bloc (for example, all the non-shitholer nations of the west) completely dominating the UN's agenda where it conflicts with corrupt shithole countries like China, Russia and their allies. If you get frustrated and just tear down the established structures and reorganise everything to exclude Russia, then you've made it clear that the UN is an organ of the West and all the little irrelevant shitholes will check out.

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Say that putin is dumb enough to use tactical nukes. Would that dictate a western intervention or possible Ukrainian demand to purchase nukes?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It would depend, and any crisis that would result from a nuclear strike would play out over the course of anywhere from a few days to months. People think that any nuke going off anywhere in the world = instant nuclear armageddon as the US throws nukes at China, Iran, and North Korea like a crazy person. The reality is a nuke going off in, say, Kiev would result in Poland immediately going on high alert, the US and NATO diplomats sending frantic Discord pings at Russia, and how Russia chooses to respond is where things go from there. Even a nuke could result in "nothing ever happens", as if Russia is sufficiently sanctioned and diplomatically isolated then it effectively has nothing left to lose from using nuclear weapons. This is why the US State Department (stupidly) tries to delay escalation and not send Ukraine what it needs, as it wants Putin to have an "off ramp". What it fails to realize is this is already a war of annihilation - either Russia disintegrates politically, or Ukraine is annexed (in whole or in part). There is no "off ramp", just how much Putin is willing to lose in this conflict.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The arrival F-16s actually opens the door to a third option no one's probably considered yet.

      Nuclear sharing.

      Basically, if the Russians deploy a nuclear weapon against the Ukrainians, then the United States could provide the UAF with a B-61 nuclear bomb pre-dialed to the same yield of whatever the Russians used, and then Ukraine could conduct a retaliatory nuclear strike of its own (presumably from a list of pre-approved targets) without further American involvement.

      We already have agreements like this with Turkey, the Netherlands, Germany, and Belgium and keep readily available stockpiles of bombs on site for the purpose.

      Really, it actually solves a lot of the problems presented by the various proposed retaliatory measures.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You dudes need to get off the internet and touch some fricking grass.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Anon you are on the same shitty anime image website as the rest of us please stop using instagrammer memes like you aren't also obsessed with sitting online all day.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I unironically have Goosebumps from the challenges that were faced by our glowies and the managed complexity of the introduced solutions. US operates on a level of Indian Gods.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    That's a lot of words just to say "turning large parts of Ukraine and possibly russia into chernobyl 2.0 doesn't make sense in the long term when the goal is to capture it". then again they fought like a whole year for the flattened ruins of bahkmut so what do I know about the morons in charge anymore

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine Puting the largest country in the world at risk because it cannot win the war against an ex-province.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Many people also forget that Ukraine has one of the best AA in the world and a single non-ICBM nuke would be downed with more than 80% probability. Therefore, russia will have to launch multiple nukes at once to guarantee a hit.
    So we are not in a scenario with a single low yield blast, we are in a scenario with mass bombardment out of blue.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      ukraine doesn't have shit. overloading their AA network takes less than 50 shaheeds and some cruise missiles.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Still a tough task for Russia, considering Ukraine was exporting electricity the last winter.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          > was
          not anymore. they lost 9+ gigawatts power last couple of months

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            They lost even more in 2022 - 2023 with weaker AA and still managed to restore the generation. A couple of hours without electricity is a nothingburger, militarily speaking.

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Doesn’t the use of tactical nuclear weapons also require Russia to have proper equipment to advance through the radiation contaminated area? There’s not really any point in bombing Ukrainian troop concentrations if they can’t move through past them. Because I highly doubt Russia in 2024 has the capability to equip any meaningful amount of soldiers to do this.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      you see, that's why it's called "tactical". You don't bomb the entire 1200 kilometer front, you only bomb a few parts of it then move through the openings that can't get supported because there are glassy irradiated craters in between. get it?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I honestly believe they'd gladly send their troops through a nuclear hellscape.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Wont lethal levels of radiation kill you in, unironically, 2 weeks?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          2 weeks is more than enough to reach Paris anon

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I honestly believe they'd gladly send their troops through a nuclear hellscape.

      Considering they marched through the Red Forest, knowingly, do you think they'd care?

  26. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Putin might consider using nuclear weapons against Ukraine. However, from a strategic and tactical perspective, this would be an stupid decision
    Oh, fugg. monke really is going to ook ook nook chimpout.

    It was nice knowing all you fricks. God speed.

  27. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I don’t get why anyone would think this is a good idea. What’s the advantage of causing all countries bordering you to start their own nuclear weapons programs?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >all countries bordering you
      all countries period
      every country with a civilian nuclear program will immediately start processing the spent fuel rods to extract plutonium

  28. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    All you morons DO understand that vatnikstan can be wiped out without using nukes to retaliate, right ..? Limited "tactical nukes" dropped in Ukraine does not mean ten thousand nukes will immediately be launched from the rest of the world. Several world leaders (including Biden) have already stated as much. There is enough conventional weaponry to ash every vatBlack person asset around the world. It will be open season on everything & anyone r*ussian no matter where they happen to be in the world by anyone who wants to rack up a body count. I can see governments refusing to do so officially, but individuals and organizations taking things in to their own hands, the rage, fear, and loathing would be so intense.

    However, IF monke does the chimpout and starts lobbing big nukes (or LOTS of little nukes) around Ukraine &/or at the rest of the world &/or starts bombing nuclear reactors, THEN I can see a larger nuclear response from the rest of the world.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >There is enough conventional weaponry to ash every vatBlack person assed around the world
      Whad did you do to me, /k/?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You can still Bene Gesserit your Way back. Just practice a bit and the Golden Path will be yours, too.

  29. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Russia will never use nukes because that is a death sentence beyond merely getting obliterated by the US and NATO. That decision would set a precedent and other countries, China, NK and India in particular would freak out. By that same logic the US could perform a nuclear strike against China and NK, China could nuke India, and India could nuke China. All of that under this or that justification. Furthermore, China and India are theoretical Russian allies, more accurately they're using Russia's boundless stupidity and incompetence to leech resources from them and fleece them for money. Both countries also trade with the West and everyone else, to this or that degree. A Russian nuclear strike would inevitably lead to an absolute isolation of Russia and ANY allies that take its side, meaning that any sort of trade with Russia or China would become impossible and sanctioned to the absolute degree, which absolutely would hurt the West and our economies but it would be just as lethal to both of them. Russia nuking Ukraine (without taking WAR into account) would frick up any and all economic interests and concerns of virtually everyone, especially Russia's two greatest allies. Allies who are the stronger partners in the relationship, and in China's case an ally that is stronger by multiple orders of magnitude. If Ukraine got nuked the Chinese might as well just assume a humanitarian posture towards Ukraine and the West and decide to intervene militarily against Russia and seize Siberia - and the West would approve of it because at that point we'd be incandescent with rage and Russian obliteration would become the ONLY issue worth discussing.

    Putin's and Russia's nook screeching is on par with that of North Korea. It is empty posturing, the last attempt at grasping at relevance and something to scare ancient boomers with. It will not happen, not just because of the West but because of the East. And even if they do, they will die due to both.

  30. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >stupid decision

    Wouldn't be the first one.

  31. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    People
    >Making logical assumptions based on common sense and all sorts of war doctrines
    MONKE
    >BANAN! BOOM!

  32. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Allegedly and I would like to stress that word, Russians were considering using some smaller nukes when Ukies breached their lines around Lyman in 2022 and it wasn't clear where will frontline stabilise.
    I can imagine that in this case using nukes with limited payload relatively deep inside enemy's territory to stop them from advancing due to both tecnical problems and sheer shock might've worked.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >might've worked
      For about 48 hours. And then vatnikstan would have ceased to exist in any meaningful way for the remainder of time.

      > search string "pyrrhic tactical move"

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Afaik US said in case like this they will erase any Russian presence in Ukriane using conventional weapons. I doubt they will just launch everything saved for the doomsaday.

  33. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Ukies would LOVE if Russia dropped a nuke on them since the West would step in and end the war entirely in their favour, and Russia would be a total pariah under international blockade.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The real reason Russia won't use nukes is because China told them not to. The only things worth using a tactical nuke on are breakthroughs, beach heads, and fleets. Guess what there would be a lot of if China invaded Taiwan? You can bet your ass Taiwan would say it's acceptable to use them within its territory, too. All the US needs is for Russia to set the precedent.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        > use them within its territory
        an actual unhinged moron. "let's nuke our own island to show those other chinks who's the boss". Holy negative IQ.
        > All the US needs is for Russia to set the precedent
        there IS a precedent, shithead. WW2, Japan vs USA, Japan refuses to surrender, USA nukes it, Japan surrenders.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          No? Because Japan was the aggressor and the US didn't annex it.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes? Because this isn't kindergarten and it doesn't matter who is aggressor and who's not.
            What matters is how big nukes are used and to what result. 20 megaton bomb in the middle of Kyiv will split Ukraine in two, quite literally. And the West could rule the western part as they please.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              We don't want to rule Ukraine. We want it whole and sovereign. It serves little purpose to turn them into a fiefdom considering their skill set. They will be valuable allies to add to the arsenal. Tell Putin we gratefully accept them, we will need them. Now I will break you.
              T. American

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                > We don't want to rule Ukraine
                of course you don't. no, sir.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Shut the frick already

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Putins whole family (if you can call group of friends of his mistresses and some illegitimate children that) is high in russian banking and mining sector.

                Also get ratioed by Reuters - https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN2A42N2/
                Oh, you don't believe these massmedia, well, then you are a dimwit homosexual unless you give me something that disproves fact-based claimes by reuters.

                >Verification not required

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Quints of Q-tard getting ratioed

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Czeched

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                pentagramic quints
                /pol/acks btfo

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                May the dark lord grant you +5 vatnik invader slaying fellow traveller

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >cites reuters
                >quints of antichrist

                Coincidence?

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Kiev isn't going to be nuked. It's the literal birthplace of the Russian civilization. That's the whole point of Putin's history lesson monolog he gave to Carlson. They want to rule the place, not glass it.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          See

          No? Because Japan was the aggressor and the US didn't annex it.

          But also there was only one nuclear state, so its kind of irrelevant

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >there IS a precedent, shithead. WW2, Japan vs USA, Japan refuses to surrender, USA nukes it, Japan surrenders.
          And you think they would have tried that if Japan had nukes?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          this was before anyone else had nukes, you're a fricking moron.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >The only things worth using a tactical nuke
        Literally no such thing, all usage of nuclear weapons is a strategical overhaul. Period.
        >Oh but it's just a little nuke
        Doesn't fricking matter. Especially since they'd be using them in an attempt to unfrick their war of aggression, clearly signaling to the whole word that the only real way to protect you from nukes is your own weapons of mass destruction.

        Nukes are nothing short of scaremongering from the russians, same with their pathetic "rassia stronk" larp with their laughable naval exercise that russians are hailing as a great show of force as if it'd be something to be afraid of and John Johnsson from oklahoma oblast says this is a cuban missile crisis etc.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          picrel

  34. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    So how we holding up, /k/opers? Good to see stalwart wartime leaders plunging forward into the ukraine, huh? I'm relaxed, knowing the bong pajeet, the kraut puppet, the latest frog midget and a dementia patient are on the job. And if the rubes disagree, we can just do like the cokehead midget in the ukraine, and cancel those pesky elections.

    We need more wunderwaffen though. The Abrahams are working spectacularly. How about more 3rd generation fighters?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Two more weeks and you win?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Truly europe will be rudderless without the masterful leadership of Rishi Sunak and Olaf Scholz.

      Meanwhile Kier Starmer literally said a few days ago he'd happily nuke Russia if they start shit with NATO and that he's continuing military support for Ukraine.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >continuing military support for Ukraine
        So you're saying the bongs have something to continue from? Who knew?

        You're right though. Lib/Lab/Con are 3 cheeks of the same deformed backside.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I hope Sunak the foreigner falls off a cliff

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      France, UK and US all have elections this year. Pretty sure the right wingers just swept in EU elections, so no clue if that changes which eurocrats get replaced.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I'm hoping for nationalist sweeps to throw the brownskins out tbh

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Neither of them is at war with russia. Zelenskyy is*~~*~~)

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Oh noez, surely those deals they signed turning the rouble to rubble and using russian foreign assets to fund ukraine and obligating nato to keep giving ukies stuff is all moot now 🙁 ukies doomed in 3 days like they were 850ish days ago

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This post has convinced me that (You) are calm and in good spirits and totally not seething at all.
      How long do you think it will take for the Ruble to hit 120 to the $USD this time?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        about two weeks, give or take

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >How long do you think it will take for the Ruble to hit 120 to the $USD this time?
        51 minutes

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The difference is that we change these fricking losers as easily as we change our shoes
      I'd like to see what would happen if monke was suddenly oustered. In fact I'm saving a bottle of scotch for the day he dies in a window accident and vatnigs start murdering each other in the streets.

  35. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If globohomosexual sends a massed force into the Ukraine, it is subject to be nuked. That's the only scenario I could see nukes used here.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Russia won't do shit. It's completely cucked after 2 years of humiliation.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Of course they will. It's in their doctrine, same as everybody else. Mass against them and your mass gets nuked. Simples.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          No. Russia has lost.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Source?

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Source is every moment of this war - sorry, three day "Special Military Operation".

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Reality

              Russian losses last 24 hours and totals personnel is Russians killed and does not include wounded

              14.06.2024
              Tanks — 7936 (+8)
              Armored fighting vehicle — 15234 (+26)
              Artillery systems — 13818 (+48)
              MLRS — 1101 (+2)
              Anti-aircraft warfare — 849 (+3)
              Planes — 359
              Helicopters — 326
              UAV — 11097 (+22)
              Cruise missiles — 2286 (+1)
              Ships (boats) — 28
              Submarines — 1
              Trucks and Fuel Tankers — 18854 (+60)
              Special equipment — 2310 (+16)
              Military personnel — aprx. 524060 people (+1250)

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Artillery systems — 13818 (+48)
                68.83% destroyed including reserves

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Not much fun being a truck driver lately either, those drones seem to be attracted to them like bees to flowers

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Source?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous
              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >proofs
                Pretty sure those are oryx, which is a bare minimum count as it needs photographic evidence

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >oryx
                So, source is globohomo. Got it.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >don’t believe your lying eyes

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Cope.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >durrrrrrrr globohomo
                just fricking die.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Consult

                Putins whole family (if you can call group of friends of his mistresses and some illegitimate children that) is high in russian banking and mining sector.

                Also get ratioed by Reuters - https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN2A42N2/
                Oh, you don't believe these massmedia, well, then you are a dimwit homosexual unless you give me something that disproves fact-based claimes by reuters.

                >Verification not required

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                the last of zigger artillery will meet its end by the third anniversary of the war. Unless monke begs rocketman Kim for his D-30s lol

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Ruble attaching to yuan instead of Hong Kong dollars

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                What is this "dollar" you speak of?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                yes, that is every civilised country

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I can see my town on the pic.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >a.k.a. countries with potable tap water.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Hong Kong dollars, the one that China uses for international trade. The one without an expiration, that one.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No, sorry, at least half of chink trade is carried out using their own currency. That will continue to rise.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >international trade
                China doesn't use the yuan internationally because it's shit. They use RMB.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                What the frick am I reading

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Least schizophrenic economist.

                China uses two different currencies. Only for internal matters, and one for trading internationally. They are literally not the same currency.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                no, RMB is the currency name. the last country to operate like this was the soviet union with its (useless) transferable ruble to handle transactions with vassal states. china never had a currency like that although they are trying very hard to force shitholes like russia or african colonies to start using digital RMB for the same purposes

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No, they actually have two different currencies.
                https://www.worldfirst.com/uk/global-business-expansion/doing-business-with-china/why-does-china-have-two-currencies/

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                > USA doesn't use the dollar internationally because it's shit.
                > They use USD.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Least schizophrenic economist.

  36. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Moreover, irradiating areas would complicate troop movements, requiring cumbersome hazmat equipment
    this is Russia we're talking about.
    as long as the radiation doesn't kill them immediately they won't bother with protection.

  37. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Oh my. Yeah this was reported on several outlets first by Ukrainians watching the areas and Russian soldiers back in February
    They all died. Everyone who dug in or lived in those trenches in the red Forrest died. Bringing it up in here gets you bans.

  38. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The distinction between tactical and strategic nukes is purely doctrinal. A 15 kT nuke is perfectly capable of killing a city and there's nothing stopping you from using ICBMs on enemy divisions in the field.

    A nuke is a nuke, using one under any circumstance is unacceptable escalation for western planners

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >A nuke is a nuke, using one under any circumstance is unacceptable escalation for western planners
      Huh? The West has had a first strike doctrine since, well, forever, but formally since the 50's or so. Any massed force was getting nuked. The Sovs whined but then adopted the same thing. The russians will nuke a foreign massed force in ukie, no doubt.

  39. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    we nucleary nuke you and that would be the end of your aggression against us

  40. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Monke is dumb enough to do it out of spite.

  41. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why don't you afraid of nukes, you should y'know.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Why don't you afraid of nukes, you should y'know.
      At least try to learn the language

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Please correct me.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      nah

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >please be afraid of mighty puccia

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous
  42. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Ziggers fail to understand that we know their NOOK threats aren't credible because if they were, Moscow would be a radioactive glass desert by now

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Ziggers fail to understand that we know their NOOK threats aren't credible because if they were, Moscow would be a radioactive glass desert by now

  43. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Personally, I would have dropped a nuke on Kiev in 2014, just for the lulz. NATO wouldn't have done shit.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >NATO wouldn't have done shit.
      How's that mindset been working out for you?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Good thing Dalit opinions don't matter then.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >I can do it in my dream so my opinion is le heckin valid
      piss off leave

  44. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >this would be an stupid decision
    That only makes it more likely to happen considering it is Pidorland we're talking about.

  45. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why should I fear death? If I am, then death is not. If Death is, then I am not.
    and besides that your boy who cried nuke is getting old, real 75 years of Damoclesian bs old.
    the us should have spend the latter half of the 40s entirety of the 50s nuking the ussr.

  46. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This is all about Russia needing those gas/oil fields in ukraine to not break long term supply deal promises made to china.
    >nooks
    lmao. Nobody is ever going to use nukes "in anger'

  47. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >starting nuclear war because you lost to Ukraine
    That's why I support the complete denuclearization and balkanization of russia.

  48. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Imaging resorting to using nukes because you can't win your sissy fight against a country the size of texas

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That's right next door to you.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I dont live in West Virginia nice try Pussyia

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          What are you talking about? I'm showing the logistical difference between an actual superpower prosecuting wars away from their capital and Muscovite scum who fail at a war on their next door neighbor. Why couldn't you just use a wojak avatar so I'd immediately know you're moronic and could ignore you, but you didn't so there is the bit of doubt that makes me want to let you know what you seem to be misunderstanding with that image.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            United States has only attacked absolute poorest 3rd world shitholes in last 50 years (vietnam, iraq, afghanistan) and they ended up losing 2 out 3 of those wars.

            Also, no one is saying Russia is comparable to a country a that is 4-20 times richer depending on how you count. Why are you trying to desperately prove 20 is better than 5

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Iraq was 5th military in the world in 1991.
              Afghanistan was a decisive US military victory in a same way WW2 was a decisive Soviet military victory.
              US "won" Vietnam in a better way than Russia is "winning" SMO now.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah Iraq was stronger than half of europe, japan, china, koreas and a bunch of other countries that had 3-5x its population. For sure. Grab yourself a medal

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              > no one is saying Russia is comparable to a country a that is 4-20 times richer depending on how you count
              Actually, some people are saying that. And it gets muricans rightfully mad. They won the Cold War, after all. Murican hegemony should last forever, right? Right?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Right.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                > lust provoking cute anime girl
                Japan won the cultural war, didn't it.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Hentai is a hell of a psyop.

  49. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >I often hear claims that Putin might consider using nuclear weapons against Ukraine. However, from a strategic and tactical perspective, this would be an stupid decision
    Thats a moronic take. No one is using nuclear weapons. Cringely made strawman just like 3 day operation or what if russia attacked entire nato and world then we would win. People who took about those are shills
    /thread

  50. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nukes
    Are
    Fake
    And
    Gay

  51. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Nuke the land you're trying to steal
    idk seems like a bad idea

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *