Wheat War I is going to be World War III

[Sithara007]

I don't think the nuclear war is predictable but I also don't think if US were to nuke Russia, Russia would nuke anywhere except US mainland. Not to mention that Russian nukes can reach US mainland a lot faster than the US nukes could reach Russian population since Russian population is mostly in the far west of Russia while their nukes are located in the far east close to America.

One advantage that the Russians are having is regarding air defense. S-400 and S-500 are much superior than the patriot air-defense systems that the Americans are having. In terms of ICBMs, I guess Satan 2 (RS-28 Sarmat) and Minuteman-III are equally capable.  

The reason why I posted that Russians would rather go for the American bases in Europe and Asia is that they are much more closer to Russia when compared to cities such as Los Angeles and San Francisco. Alaska may be close, but the total population is only around half a million. Same goes for Hawaii as well. Californian cities are more than 8,000 kms away.

[1714687640]

1714687640

[CapGelatik]

About on what scale the conflict will break out of course if a global economic crisis in general has occurred, then war will break out. War will occur when some countries are already weak against the economy, and people begin to starve, and civil wars begin to emerge.
The state party that started the attack on another country also measured the scale of the opponent's strength. They wouldn't attack brutally even if it was a small country. The greatest power of the state is in the hands of the people.

I think we will see a lot of protests (like the past couple of months in EU) but I don't think any civil wars take place though. The main war would break out between countries. Over the past couple of months we are seeing an increased amount of tensions between nations as well like the one between Greece and Turkey which are at the brink of war.
In fact we could see multiple centers of conflict each among multiple countries like multiple Balkan nations.
This could also be one of the reasons why some EU members are starting to form their own new smaller "European Union" like the one between France and England.

unless there is some deadly natural  disaster like flood or earthquake which sweep off the wheat - I am not sure there will be any crisis in today's world
It is the modern time and people rush for help where there is needed - these days Angelina Jolie is visiting flood affected areas of Pakistan and people are admiring her.

Actually, the crisis only occurs in areas that are in conflict because after all in such areas there is no food supply.
help is always there but I don't think it's enough,
problems keep popping up and let's see what happens

[pooya87]

The reason why I posted that Russians would rather go for the American bases in Europe and Asia is that they are much more closer to Russia when compared to cities such as Los Angeles and San Francisco. Alaska may be close, but the total population is only around half a million. Same goes for Hawaii as well. Californian cities are more than 8,000 kms away.

Maybe, but I still don't think nuking a military base would be the plan since they can be neutralized a lot easier and a lot cheaper (less consequence) specially those bases in West Asia considering that they are already in hostile territory and surrounded by forces who have their "guns" pointed at those bases as we speak...

[Sithara007]

Maybe, but I still don't think nuking a military base would be the plan since they can be neutralized a lot easier and a lot cheaper (less consequence) specially those bases in West Asia considering that they are already in hostile territory and surrounded by forces who have their "guns" pointed at those bases as we speak...

Russia has good relations with Saudi Arabia and some of the other GCC nations, so I think that the chances that they may target the bases in middle-east are very low. More likely, they may target the American bases in East Asia, such as those in South Korea and Japan. The advantage is that they have one of their most loyal allies in the region (DPRK). Anyway, I just hope that a nuclear war and a global conflict can be avoided at any cost. The current generation have no idea of the horrors that were perpetrated during the two world wars. We simply can't afford another world war. 

[be.open]

Maybe, but I still don't think nuking a military base would be the plan since they can be neutralized a lot easier and a lot cheaper (less consequence) specially those bases in West Asia considering that they are already in hostile territory and surrounded by forces who have their "guns" pointed at those bases as we speak...

Russia has good relations with Saudi Arabia and some of the other GCC nations, so I think that the chances that they may target the bases in middle-east are very low. More likely, they may target the American bases in East Asia, such as those in South Korea and Japan. The advantage is that they have one of their most loyal allies in the region (DPRK). Anyway, I just hope that a nuclear war and a global conflict can be avoided at any cost. The current generation have no idea of the horrors that were perpetrated during the two world wars. We simply can't afford another world war.  

I do not think that Russia will use tactical nuclear weapons at all in the current round of confrontation with Ukraine. Simply because it is fraught with great political risks and does not bring any benefits. A dozen or two conventional large-caliber high-explosive bombs of the FAB-3000 type can achieve an effect comparable to a nuclear strike on Nagasaki. If the target is well protected, you can use Dagger hypersonic missiles with a conventional warhead, 500 kg of TNT at a speed of Mach 5 will produce an impressive destructive effect. I just don't see the point in using tactical nuclear weapons.

Unfortunately, a strike by strategic nuclear weapons, both retaliatory and preventive, is much more likely. And it is unlikely that Satan or Sarmat will be involved, because of the need to take into account the wind rose in order to reduce the risk of radioactive contamination of their own territory. If the red line is crossed (and let's be honest - we don't even know exactly where it is), I think the decisive blow will be delivered by Poseidon, an underwater nuclear drone capable of causing a tsunami up to 100 meters high and destroying all life on the coast up to 500 km deep. And it will be either a simultaneous strike by two Poseidons on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the United States, or a single strike by Poseidon on the UK. Or either right away. New York, Washington, Los Angeles, San Francisco and London will be completely destroyed from such a strike. As a side effect, severe damage will be in all coastal cities of the globe.

[Sithara007]

^^^ Not much information is available for Poseidon. What I have heard is that it has a very low speed (~100 kmph) and need to cruise at lower deaths to use the stealth mode. Another concern is regarding the warhead. Rumors are that the war head has a yield of 2 megatons (compared to 50 megatons for the Tsar Bomba). Irrespective of the type of nuke being used, Mutual assured destruction (MAD) is assured in case of a nuclear war between the NATO and Russia. My concern is regarding the neutral countries and how they will be impacted in such a scenario.

[be.open]

^^^ Not much information is available for Poseidon. What I have heard is that it has a very low speed (~100 kmph) and need to cruise at lower deaths to use the stealth mode. Another concern is regarding the warhead. Rumors are that the war head has a yield of 2 megatons (compared to 50 megatons for the Tsar Bomba).

Poseidon is an autonomous underwater drone with its own nuclear reactor (that is, with unlimited range and duration) and a warhead with a capacity of up to 100 megatons, it is also called the "continent killer". "Very low speed of about 100 kmph" - this is quite good, considering that Poseidon does not fly, but swims under water.

Irrespective of the type of nuke being used, Mutual assured destruction (MAD) is assured in case of a nuclear war between the NATO and Russia. My concern is regarding the neutral countries and how they will be impacted in such a scenario.

The concept of mutually assured destruction, as you understand, is theoretical in nature and essentially speculative; it has never been (and I hope will not be) tested in practice. Russia has a Perimeter system (Dead Hand in NATO classification), the US probably also has something similar, although the details are unknown to me. How all these systems work in practice - no one knows.

[Ozero]

If there is a nuclear war resulting from the Russo-Ukrainian conflict, then the chronology will be something like this:

1. Russia using tactical nuclear weapons against Ukrainian troops in newly annexed regions of Ukraine (Donbass, Kherson and Zaporizhia)
2. Americans using tactical nuclear weapons against Russian troops in these regions
3. Russians responding by nuking American bases in EU, middle-east, Japan and Korea
4. All-out nuclear war between Russia and NATO

It is unlikely that a nuclear war will take place according to this scenario. First, Putin will not drop a nuclear bomb on the heads of his army in Ukraine. Also, by doing this, he will destroy the population of Donbass and the south of Ukraine, whom he came to protect and "liberate". In addition, he is unlikely to drop it in a densely populated region of Ukraine or on any major city. Because of such an act, even then the whole world will firmly unite against Russia and, above all, Putin himself. Putin is senile, but not a complete idiot. The use of nuclear weapons is likely to be demonstrative intimidating. Some analysts say that it could be, say, Snake Island.

Secondly, the United States has already stated that after Russia uses nuclear weapons in Ukraine, the Russian Black Sea Fleet will immediately be destroyed, followed by the Baltic Fleet. Then a pause will be made to assess the situation. But if NATO receives information that will indicate specific actions aimed at the use of nuclear weapons, then the alliance can activate a developed program that allows for 40 minutes to destroy any country with non-nuclear weapons, even such a large one as Russia. Putin is so intimidating the world with nuclear weapons that NATO can believe it and launch a preemptive strike, even if Russia's actions turn out to be only intimidating.

[Sithara007]

~~~
Secondly, the United States has already stated that after Russia uses nuclear weapons in Ukraine, the Russian Black Sea Fleet will immediately be destroyed, followed by the Baltic Fleet. Then a pause will be made to assess the situation. But if NATO receives information that will indicate specific actions aimed at the use of nuclear weapons, then the alliance can activate a developed program that allows for 40 minutes to destroy any country with non-nuclear weapons, even such a large one as Russia. Putin is so intimidating the world with nuclear weapons that NATO can believe it and launch a preemptive strike, even if Russia's actions turn out to be only intimidating.

So the Americans will destroy the Russian navy, and in return the Russians will sit back and watch? By the time Americans rain their nukes on the Baltic and Black Sea fleets, the Russian Pacific Fleet will nuke the cities on West Coast of the United States. Russia has thousands of nuclear weapons. Even if they can achieve a success rate of 1%, entire population of the United States will be wiped out from the surface of the earth. Anyway, I am not expecting anything big in the next couple of months. Russia is yet to exhaust all of its non-nuclear options.

[Ozero]

~~~
Secondly, the United States has already stated that after Russia uses nuclear weapons in Ukraine, the Russian Black Sea Fleet will immediately be destroyed, followed by the Baltic Fleet. Then a pause will be made to assess the situation. But if NATO receives information that will indicate specific actions aimed at the use of nuclear weapons, then the alliance can activate a developed program that allows for 40 minutes to destroy any country with non-nuclear weapons, even such a large one as Russia. Putin is so intimidating the world with nuclear weapons that NATO can believe it and launch a preemptive strike, even if Russia's actions turn out to be only intimidating.

So the Americans will destroy the Russian navy, and in return the Russians will sit back and watch? By the time Americans rain their nukes on the Baltic and Black Sea fleets, the Russian Pacific Fleet will nuke the cities on West Coast of the United States. Russia has thousands of nuclear weapons. Even if they can achieve a success rate of 1%, entire population of the United States will be wiped out from the surface of the earth. Anyway, I am not expecting anything big in the next couple of months. Russia is yet to exhaust all of its non-nuclear options.

In our world, it is very dangerous to simply threaten someone with a nuclear weapon. The world has long come to the conclusion that it has accumulated so many nuclear weapons that they can destroy the entire planet several times. Therefore, the correct conclusion was drawn that there would be no winners in a nuclear war. If a powerful nuclear bomb explodes at one end of the globe, its negative impact will manifest itself in all corners of our planet. It is also true that no one will sit idly by if anyone dares to threaten the use of nuclear weapons against any small or large neighboring or distant state. Because everyone will suffer from the consequences of nuclear explosions to varying degrees.

Putin attacked Ukraine and is trying to conquer its territory. Ukraine has the right to defend its sovereignty and is successfully defending itself. Already at this stage, the international community must take all measures to pacify the aggressor. If the aggressor also tries to threaten with nuclear weapons, and the threat of their use is real, a preventive strike by the international community must be delivered to eliminate such a threat. Otherwise, our civilization may perish. There is simply no other way. If in this case you give in to the aggressor, then he will go further and spread his criminal influence over the whole world, which is also unacceptable.

[DrBeer]

~~~
Secondly, the United States has already stated that after Russia uses nuclear weapons in Ukraine, the Russian Black Sea Fleet will immediately be destroyed, followed by the Baltic Fleet. Then a pause will be made to assess the situation. But if NATO receives information that will indicate specific actions aimed at the use of nuclear weapons, then the alliance can activate a developed program that allows for 40 minutes to destroy any country with non-nuclear weapons, even such a large one as Russia. Putin is so intimidating the world with nuclear weapons that NATO can believe it and launch a preemptive strike, even if Russia's actions turn out to be only intimidating.

So the Americans will destroy the Russian navy, and in return the Russians will sit back and watch? By the time Americans rain their nukes on the Baltic and Black Sea fleets, the Russian Pacific Fleet will nuke the cities on West Coast of the United States. Russia has thousands of nuclear weapons. Even if they can achieve a success rate of 1%, entire population of the United States will be wiped out from the surface of the earth. Anyway, I am not expecting anything big in the next couple of months. Russia is yet to exhaust all of its non-nuclear options.

In our world, it is very dangerous to simply threaten someone with a nuclear weapon. The world has long come to the conclusion that it has accumulated so many nuclear weapons that they can destroy the entire planet several times. Therefore, the correct conclusion was drawn that there would be no winners in a nuclear war. If a powerful nuclear bomb explodes at one end of the globe, its negative impact will manifest itself in all corners of our planet. It is also true that no one will sit idly by if anyone dares to threaten the use of nuclear weapons against any small or large neighboring or distant state. Because everyone will suffer from the consequences of nuclear explosions to varying degrees.

Putin attacked Ukraine and is trying to conquer its territory. Ukraine has the right to defend its sovereignty and is successfully defending itself. Already at this stage, the international community must take all measures to pacify the aggressor. If the aggressor also tries to threaten with nuclear weapons, and the threat of their use is real, a preventive strike by the international community must be delivered to eliminate such a threat. Otherwise, our civilization may perish. There is simply no other way. If in this case you give in to the aggressor, then he will go further and spread his criminal influence over the whole world, which is also unacceptable.

Shaking the "gray-haired flabby nuclear scrotum" is all that is left for "great Russia". Russia has essentially lost the conventional war. And they understand that the hour is not far off when the bald miserable Fuhrer on Red Square will be torn apart by his own subjects, and Russia will become a pariah country, and will soon cease to exist, torn from the inside. Therefore, the Kremlin has no choice but to "drive the show-off" and try to "take on the show-off" - which, in general, is in good agreement with the behavior of the "St. Petersburg gopnik." But both the bald man and his entourage are well aware that the myth of Russia's military power has been dispelled, of course there are nuclear weapons, but with a high probability most of the missiles will not fly far from the launch sites, while Putin and his entourage will be physically destroyed. I do not exclude, of course, that there will be an attempt, as if "accidentally" to make at least one strike with tactical nuclear warheads, but ... then the road to hell for all of Russia will be guaranteed and implemented as soon as possible. Whether the accomplices of the Kremlin distant dwarf will want to go to the next world with fortunes and a desire to live - that is the question. It is possible that we will see Putin in a cage, who will be transported through all of Ukraine to The Hague

[pooya87]

If a powerful nuclear bomb explodes at one end of the globe, its negative impact will manifest itself in all corners of our planet. It is also true that no one will sit idly by if anyone dares to threaten the use of nuclear weapons against any small or large neighboring or distant state. Because everyone will suffer from the consequences of nuclear explosions to varying degrees.

A nuclear war where 2 nuclear powers hit each other to mutual destruction is different from one nuclear power nuking another unarmed nation. In other words history suggests this part of your comment not correct. United States dropped 2 atomic bombs on 2 Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki wiping out their entire population. There was no negative impact elsewhere on the planet and only Japanese people suffered from this atrocity.

[Sithara007]

If a powerful nuclear bomb explodes at one end of the globe, its negative impact will manifest itself in all corners of our planet. It is also true that no one will sit idly by if anyone dares to threaten the use of nuclear weapons against any small or large neighboring or distant state. Because everyone will suffer from the consequences of nuclear explosions to varying degrees.

A nuclear war where 2 nuclear powers hit each other to mutual destruction is different from one nuclear power nuking another unarmed nation. In other words history suggests this part of your comment not correct. United States dropped 2 atomic bombs on 2 Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki wiping out their entire population. There was no negative impact elsewhere on the planet and only Japanese people suffered from this atrocity.

Uranium is used in nuclear weapons and the radiation dies out very quickly AFAIK. On the other hand, radiation from nuclear reactors last for more time, because most of it comes from Cesium and Iodine. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were rebuilt in very quick time, and both these cities have huge populations now (in case of Hiroshima, greater than 1 million). On the other hand, large parts of irradiated area within Chernobyl exclusion zone is still unfit for human inhabitation (in total measures thousands of square kilometers in Ukraine and Belarus).

[DrBeer]

If a powerful nuclear bomb explodes at one end of the globe, its negative impact will manifest itself in all corners of our planet. It is also true that no one will sit idly by if anyone dares to threaten the use of nuclear weapons against any small or large neighboring or distant state. Because everyone will suffer from the consequences of nuclear explosions to varying degrees.

A nuclear war where 2 nuclear powers hit each other to mutual destruction is different from one nuclear power nuking another unarmed nation. In other words history suggests this part of your comment not correct. United States dropped 2 atomic bombs on 2 Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki wiping out their entire population. There was no negative impact elsewhere on the planet and only Japanese people suffered from this atrocity.

Dear pooya87
Try not to idealize, but simply realistically assess the situation?
1. "Great Russia", which has "the second most powerful army in the world", attacked Ukraine, where, according to the miserable breed of the Fuhrer, there were "small groups of Nazis ( what's with the grandfather's head)", which are the same " Great Russia" was supposed to be destroyed in "a couple of weeks".
2. now "Great Russia" (+ list of fake statuses - see item 1) is begging for negotiations from Ukraine. At the same time, she already definitely lost the war (and not the "special operation for 3 weeks"), by conventional means, to Ukraine
3. And realizing that Ukraine "had in mind" Russia, she took the last measure - to threaten a NUCLEAR-FREE country with NUCLEAR WEAPONS!

Nothing bothers you?

But this is the first part, just the facts. The second part is even more difficult for Russia.
Your "wet rashist fantasies" that nuclear terror, even when using tactical nuclear weapons, will give you victory is a fake. Moreover, this is the path to the total destruction of Russia itself, because. the answer will follow immediately. And the use of STRATEGIC nuclear weapons will mean the guaranteed destruction of Russia not only as a state, but as a TERRITORY!

No, of course self-hypnosis about "greatness" and "analogue-shit" weapons is strong ... But in reality it doesn’t work There was such an expression "Pyrrhic victory", now there will be "Russian victory", which will mean a total loss, with official version of "victory"

[pooya87]

@DrBeer did you even read my comment?! I'm pointing out the only case in history where a nuclear armed nation nukes another unarmed nation and the effects or rather lack of it elsewhere. Where did it even talk about "Russian greatness" and all that other nonsense that you keep repeating in all your posts?!!!

[DrBeer]

@DrBeer did you even read my comment?! I'm pointing out the only case in history where a nuclear armed nation nukes another unarmed nation and the effects or rather lack of it elsewhere. Where did it even talk about "Russian greatness" and all that other nonsense that you keep repeating in all your posts?!!!

1. The stupid things you said about - one crazy grandfather constantly talks, who constantly rubs his nuclear testicles ... grandmother's testicles in front of the whole world
2. Concerning the fact resulted by you - NO remarks! That's exactly what it was! And let's not care about the worthless fact that Japan attacked China, the USA, the USSR, British Hong Kong, Thailand, British Malaya, the Dutch East Indies, Guam, Wake Island, the Gilbert Islands, Borneo and the Philippines ....
At the same time, they behaved ... how to more accurately convey their bastardity ... And, like today's rashists - violence, the killing of civilians, torture, rape ... True, the toilets did not steal ... Well, the Japanese knew in the 40s of the last century What is a toilet
And of course I agree that even against such a bastard regime, the use of nuclear weapons is not the right move.
But, again, you misrepresented something, somehow pretended that you don’t know reality Now the situation is different - the country is a global terrorist attacking a neighboring country that they themselves signed up to protect and respect its borders and ensure its inviolability. The terrorist country heroically declares a "2-3 week short operation to denify ()", which has been going on for 9 .. but months ... And the great army of the terrorist country, losing day by day, cowardly begins to threaten a NUCLEAR-FREE country, nuclear weapons. Be a man, don't be a liar, it's not always convenient, of course, but it's HONEST!

... and this is the second example of the threat of the use of nuclear weapons, only extremely vile, vile and cowardly

[pooya87]

And of course I agree that even against such a bastard regime, the use of nuclear weapons is not the right move.

Usage of any type of weapons of mass destruction against any country under any circumstances is wrong.
Whether it is Nukes that Russia is threatening others with or the biological WMDs that US has been manufacturing inside Ukraine (and elsewhere) and have been threatening the whole world with.

the country is a global terrorist attacking a neighboring country that they themselves signed up to protect and respect its borders and ensure its inviolability. The terrorist country heroically declares a "2-3 week short operation to denify ()", which has been going on for 9 .. but months ...

Your problem is that you don't want to believe that there is no difference between Russia and United States.
The "special operation" inside Afghanistan was also supposed to be very short and yet those "terrorists" got stuck in Afghanistan for 20 years while murdering civilians. The more they lost the more violent they got and destroyed more of that beautiful country. They even used the biggest non-nuclear bomb (eq. 11 tons TNT) there to cover up their weakness.

[cabron]

And of course I agree that even against such a bastard regime, the use of nuclear weapons is not the right move.

Usage of any type of weapons of mass destruction against any country under any circumstances is wrong.
Whether it is Nukes that Russia is threatening others with or the biological WMDs that US has been manufacturing inside Ukraine (and elsewhere) and have been threatening the whole world with.

the country is a global terrorist attacking a neighboring country that they themselves signed up to protect and respect its borders and ensure its inviolability. The terrorist country heroically declares a "2-3 week short operation to denify ()", which has been going on for 9 .. but months ...

Your problem is that you don't want to believe that there is no difference between Russia and United States.
The "special operation" inside Afghanistan was also supposed to be very short and yet those "terrorists" got stuck in Afghanistan for 20 years while murdering civilians. The more they lost the more violent they got and destroyed more of that beautiful country. They even used the biggest non-nuclear bomb (eq. 11 tons TNT) there to cover up their weakness.

Its what people heard from the media though. Once they heard it, its stick to their mind that Russia is a terrorist.  Same as generally the people think of Muslims because its been said over and over on the media. And mostly the tv viewers look at one side of the story not looking at history and who fueled the fight.

If the war between China and Taiwan also erupts, they'd also call China as terrorist.

[cabron]

Its what people heard from the media though. Once they heard it, its stick to their mind that Russia is a terrorist.  Same as generally the people think of Muslims because its been said over and over on the media. And mostly the tv viewers look at one side of the story not looking at history and who fueled the fight.

If the war between China and Taiwan also erupts, they'd also call China as terrorist.

have you heard that one country's freedom fighter is another country terrorist
So the fight is different and there is different meaning attached to it as well. Wheat war is not going to happen. This is for sure. I have my words - mark them

Who do you think is the freedom fighter between Russia and Ukraine?

In Afghanistan, the Talibans were also called terrorist until they won which they are now in control and now they are the government. So its just it, they are called terrorist until they win. If you consider the freedom of Ukraine then what about the freedom of Russia?

[pooya87]

Its what people heard from the media though. Once they heard it, its stick to their mind that Russia is a terrorist.

Although as I've told him before, using the term "terrorist" makes no sense about Russia but in a way his comments here make some sense considering that he claims to be from Ukraine. It's tough when another country is bombing your cities.

Wheat war is not going to happen. This is for sure. I have my words - mark them

It is marked because the "food war" is already happening.

In Afghanistan, the Talibans were also called terrorist until they won which they are now in control and now they are the government. So its just it, they are called terrorist until they win. If you consider the freedom of Ukraine then what about the freedom of Russia?

The more messed up thing is that sometimes they aren't terrorists until they start losing. Like ISIS or Da'esh! Initially while they were cutting heads off, US was calling them "freedom fighters" fighting Asad regime as opposition!!!
But then Iran started the war against these terrorists with the help of the Resistance and as their defeat became apparent, US started changing its position...