Ukraine the bad guy?
- Thread starter Gideon300
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
https://nypost.com/2018/06/15/it-would-only-take-100-nuclear-weapons-to-destroy-society/
This is how many nukes it would take to destroy society
By James Rogers, Fox News
June 15, 2018 | 11:02am
New research argues that 100 nuclear weapons is the “pragmatic limit” for any country to have in its arsenal. Any aggressor nation unleashing more than 100 nuclear weapons could ultimately devastate its own society, scientists warn.
The study was published in the journal Safety on Thursday; it was co-authored by Michigan Technological University professor Joshua Pearce and David Denkenberger, assistant professor at Tennessee State University and director of Alliance to Feed the Earth in Disasters.
“The results found that 100 nuclear warheads is adequate for nuclear deterrence in the worst case scenario, while using more than 100 nuclear weapons by any aggressor nation (including the best positioned strategically to handle the unintended consequences) even with optimistic assumptions (including no retaliation) would cause unacceptable damage to their own society,” the scientists wrote.
There are approximately 15,000 nuclear weapons globally, according to the research, with the US and Russia accounting for nearly 90 percent of that total. With nine nuclear weaponized countries, the paper argues for a disarmament proposal that would reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the world to 900 or less.
“100 nuclear warheads is the pragmatic limit and use of government funds to maintain more than 100 nuclear weapons does not appear to be rational,” the paper argues.
The scientists discuss the devastating global environmental impact that would occur when a country deploys more than 100 nuclear weapons.
This “environmental blowback” would involve a significant drop in global temperatures as soot from nuclear blasts prevents sunlight from reaching Earth’s surface. This, combined with reduced precipitation, could severely impact food production, experts warn, potentially resulting in mass starvation.
“If the agricultural productivity reverts to preindustrial yields because of a nuclear strike, most countries would not be able to feed themselves,” the study says.
Researchers also cite conservative estimates that 34 million people would die if 100 nuclear bombs were unleashed on China, the world’s most populous nation.FILED UNDER DOOMSDAY , NUCLEAR WEAPONS , 6/15/18
This is how many nukes it would take to destroy society
By James Rogers, Fox News
June 15, 2018 | 11:02am
New research argues that 100 nuclear weapons is the “pragmatic limit” for any country to have in its arsenal. Any aggressor nation unleashing more than 100 nuclear weapons could ultimately devastate its own society, scientists warn.
The study was published in the journal Safety on Thursday; it was co-authored by Michigan Technological University professor Joshua Pearce and David Denkenberger, assistant professor at Tennessee State University and director of Alliance to Feed the Earth in Disasters.
“The results found that 100 nuclear warheads is adequate for nuclear deterrence in the worst case scenario, while using more than 100 nuclear weapons by any aggressor nation (including the best positioned strategically to handle the unintended consequences) even with optimistic assumptions (including no retaliation) would cause unacceptable damage to their own society,” the scientists wrote.
There are approximately 15,000 nuclear weapons globally, according to the research, with the US and Russia accounting for nearly 90 percent of that total. With nine nuclear weaponized countries, the paper argues for a disarmament proposal that would reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the world to 900 or less.
“100 nuclear warheads is the pragmatic limit and use of government funds to maintain more than 100 nuclear weapons does not appear to be rational,” the paper argues.
The scientists discuss the devastating global environmental impact that would occur when a country deploys more than 100 nuclear weapons.
This “environmental blowback” would involve a significant drop in global temperatures as soot from nuclear blasts prevents sunlight from reaching Earth’s surface. This, combined with reduced precipitation, could severely impact food production, experts warn, potentially resulting in mass starvation.
“If the agricultural productivity reverts to preindustrial yields because of a nuclear strike, most countries would not be able to feed themselves,” the study says.
Researchers also cite conservative estimates that 34 million people would die if 100 nuclear bombs were unleashed on China, the world’s most populous nation.FILED UNDER DOOMSDAY , NUCLEAR WEAPONS , 6/15/18
At any one time certain global grain and foodstuff agricultural production is stumped by "bad weather" meaning that a particular area usually producing food will not be able to. This comes from drought, late freezes, too much rain and etc. And it's usually an acceptable percentage.
A nuclear exchange will completely devastate an area and create a HUGE ecological catastrophe from the complete sterilization of an area. Not to mention the huge swath of land that becomes contaminated and poisons anything produced.
Contamination from Japan's nuclear reactors in fish and sea tides washed up along the USA's west coastline from Washington to Baja California.
A nuclear exchange will completely devastate an area and create a HUGE ecological catastrophe from the complete sterilization of an area. Not to mention the huge swath of land that becomes contaminated and poisons anything produced.
Contamination from Japan's nuclear reactors in fish and sea tides washed up along the USA's west coastline from Washington to Baja California.
-
1
- Show all
Yup. That is a big chunk of the puzzle for sure....
Putin needed to purge some top recalcitrant (and potentially traitorous) to military brass without suffering the consequences into an election year. Quite an elaborate ruse actually.
"This is not a coup by Prigozhin. This is an inner war between the St Petersburg gang of Putin and the Moscow gang of Gerasimov and Shoigu. This is the beginning of Putin‘s election campaign to become reelected on March 17, 2024. His lapdog Prigozhin is masquerading a coup to put the blame on Gerasimov and Shoigu for losing the war against Ukraine. Prigozhin can always be scapegoated if he fails like this has happened in the past."
Putin needed to purge some top recalcitrant (and potentially traitorous) to military brass without suffering the consequences into an election year. Quite an elaborate ruse actually.
"This is not a coup by Prigozhin. This is an inner war between the St Petersburg gang of Putin and the Moscow gang of Gerasimov and Shoigu. This is the beginning of Putin‘s election campaign to become reelected on March 17, 2024. His lapdog Prigozhin is masquerading a coup to put the blame on Gerasimov and Shoigu for losing the war against Ukraine. Prigozhin can always be scapegoated if he fails like this has happened in the past."
Winner winner chicken dinner......
Airborne Heel
@abnheel
1h
Any truth to rumors this was all a way to redeploy forces north of Belgograd and create new avenue of approach that Ukraine/NATO hasn’t foreseen?
The Virginia Gentleman
@TheVirginiaGen1
Yes, it was a primary goal, that and providing the theatre necessary for Putin/Prizoghin to remove Shoigu, Gerasimov and their cadre from the MOD in a manner that paints them as those responsible for prior failures/underperformance of Russian military during the SMO. They are who will be branded as having betrayed the effort.
Airborne Heel
@abnheel
1h
Any truth to rumors this was all a way to redeploy forces north of Belgograd and create new avenue of approach that Ukraine/NATO hasn’t foreseen?
The Virginia Gentleman
@TheVirginiaGen1
Yes, it was a primary goal, that and providing the theatre necessary for Putin/Prizoghin to remove Shoigu, Gerasimov and their cadre from the MOD in a manner that paints them as those responsible for prior failures/underperformance of Russian military during the SMO. They are who will be branded as having betrayed the effort.
Ruh-roh.....
Stealth redeployment to a new front near to Kyiv was supposedly part of the plan.
"PMC "Wagner" can launch an attack on Kyiv from Belarus British General Dannatt told Sky News that it was "quite possible" that Wagner PMC fighters could try to capture Kyiv from Belarus. According to the NATO general, "it smacks of a peace agreement" with the PMC fighters, who had previously staged a rebellion."
Stealth redeployment to a new front near to Kyiv was supposedly part of the plan.
"PMC "Wagner" can launch an attack on Kyiv from Belarus British General Dannatt told Sky News that it was "quite possible" that Wagner PMC fighters could try to capture Kyiv from Belarus. According to the NATO general, "it smacks of a peace agreement" with the PMC fighters, who had previously staged a rebellion."
