JayJay
448
If only I knew how to get in on the paid shill business.
I bet itās lucrative!
GWH
449
Iād say you currently make more than Bill at it.
2 Likes
JayJay
450
Nah heās a master.
I suck at it because Inteip up and accidentally tell the truth too much.
you keep sucking up russian propaganda and regurgitating it as if its gospel. Russia violated the minsk agreements. The Ukranian people threw the russian puppet out in 2014, not the US. I do not buy the russian propaganda about the protest. I do not accept leftist universities āanalysisā about videoās. You do, good for you. Keep hating America!
I highly suggest this video on nuclear war itās the best I found besides on Ted Talks. No politics in the video just what happens if you have the time it goes into detail about what is nuclear war, what happens, how many and all the types of nuclear weapons as well as the big question how to survive is that even possible.
Nemesis
454
Threads on Amazon Prime is an excellent dramatization of a nuclear attack on Sheffield in the UK.
It looks a bit dated but still a sobering and thought provoking piece on nuclear war.
As a kid it gave me nightmares and still today its unsettling to watch.
I know a year prior to original broadcast The Day After aired in the US. Not sure how that compares as I have not actually seen it.
GWH
455
Itās pretty decent. Free online, google it. Thereāre no heroes, just aftermath.
JayJay
456
The Day After didnāt even come close to matching the unrelenting grimness of the aftermath of a nuclear war the way Threads did.
The Day After ended a few months after the attacks and never mentioned nuclear winter.
Threads went until 13 years after, showed nuclear winter, the destruction of the ozone layer, unrelenting radiation, and the complete breakdown of civilization (to the point where even the language was goneā¦kids who were babies and born after the attack spoke in a grunting broken Englishā¦all that was necessary because their days were spent working, eating and sleeping in utter ruin and squalor).
I see no reason for tens of billions of dollars from American taxpayers for efforts to expand the NATO/EU empire eastward. The result has been the senseless deaths of tens of thousands of Ukrainians. There also is a significant risk that that the conflict will ignite a global nuclear war.
There was no āeffortā to expand NATO. Ukraine applied, thats their right. The ukranians donāt see their fight against Russian agression as āsenselessā, they see the russian invasion as senseless. They have that right too. You on the other hand pretend to speak for Ukranian people, when youāre just a mouthpeice for russian propaganda.
Axxowiz
460
The video posted a few threads up is horrifying about nuclear war basically the analogy is itās all over.
They even said compared to some missiles today which are 800 kilotons the Hiroshima bomb was 15 kilotons and would be equivalent to a modern day tactical nuke compared to the monster nukes both the US and Russia have.
UPDATES:
The White House has formally rejected Bidenās campaign pledge to abandon first use of nuclear weapons. Instead it is saying that it will use nuclear weapons to counter conventional threats.
The United States would only consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of itself or its allies. . . The United States will continue to rely on nuclear weapons to deter all kinds of strategic attack . . .
Meanwhile neo-con pundits are promoting dreams about the US successfully fighting WW3 against Russia and China.
https://twitter.com/caitoz/status/1585762136323522561
The Pentagon recently admitted that American troops are in Ukraine. The pretext is onsite weapons inspections.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/us-military-now-onsite-weapons-inspections-ukraine-92443144
According to one analyst, US forces in Ukraine are most likely advance forces to scope out locations for an upcoming deployment. The US has already stationed large number of troops on the Romanian and Polish side of the Ukrainian border.
Should the US be deploying troops into Ukraine?
During the Cold War, the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact had a huge advantage in conventional forces in Europe. The US strategy to defeat a Soviet invasion of western Europe was to use tactical nuclear weapons against Soviet forces. For example here is an analysis from 1981:
There are 19,500 tanks in the Soviet-controlled forces of the Warsaw Pact aimed at Western Europe. Of these, 12,500 are Soviet tanks in Soviet units. NATO has 7,000 tanks on its side facing the 19,500. . . NATO military leaders have long worried as much about those massed Soviet tanks as about any other weapon in the Soviet arsenal. Suppose that Moscow did someday launch a massive tank attack westward? Its tanks could be stopped by going at once to nuclear weapons.
Neutron bomb: why it worries the russians - CSMonitor.com
Is it in the vital interest of the US to prevent a Russian victory on the battlefield in Ukraine?
Should the US use nuclear weapons to prevent a Russian victory? Are we heading towards WW3?
2 minutes to midnight is so passe
But itās a middling Iron Maiden song
The last time Germany openly fought a war with Russia it did not end well for Germany, and that was before nuclear weapons.
What could go wrong now?
Weirdly enough Iām a huge fan of that song.
But I get that Iām a minority in the Iron Maiden fan base.
1 Like
