How really close is the world to REAL nuclear war?

[BADecker]

How real is the threat of nuclear war? Scott Ritter, former upper brass in Iraq.


Scott Ritter discusses the lack of coverage by the Mainstream Media about the threat of nuclear war


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3PCkmCeQAk&t=128s
WATCH THE VIDEO!
...

[1715009496]

1715009496

[1715009496]

1715009496

[1715009496]

1715009496

[1715009496]

1715009496

[Hispo]

One has to wonder whether this world is closer to a nuclear confrontation than it was during the Cold War and the time of the Red Scare in the United States.

We probably are, but media is not what it used to be during those years, they have learn not to be as realistic/fatalistic as they used to be back then by introducing the ideas of complete destruction into the minds of the regular citizens. So, far fewer people is interested on having a nuclear-proof bunker in their basement.

The mainstream media may believe that the more they talk about nuclear extinction, they closest people will push themselves to it or take it as a fact. I am not sure whether that is true or not. The only thing in this matter I take as a fact is News and information media not being completely about important facts anyone but new version of the opium for the masses, regardless of their political position. Left or right.

[BADecker]

^^^ And not only that, but the Russian command system has been built and integrated so that if they go to war with nukes, the whole military goes to war, all at the same time. Are we (the US and Nato) that interconnected?

[paxmao]

Well far away, the nuclear scalation is there as a deterrent. Putin know, Biden knows, Kim Jon-il knows. If escalating to non-conventional warfare had any advantage to Putin, he would have already done so when tanks were sent, then when Patriots were sent and then when mid-range missiles were sent, but the fact is that there is nothing to gain going nuclear for anyone.

[BADecker]

Well far away, the nuclear scalation is there as a deterrent. Putin know, Biden knows, Kim Jon-il knows. If escalating to non-conventional warfare had any advantage to Putin, he would have already done so when tanks were sent, then when Patriots were sent and then when mid-range missiles were sent, but the fact is that there is nothing to gain going nuclear for anyone.

The point isn't that all these leaders know about nuclear devastation. The point is how close to being pushed into using nukes is any leader right now?

For example. When US leaders break their agreement to not expand Nato, but then do it anyway... and at he great expense of Russia dismantling the USSR in trade, Putin is being stretched beyond his breaking point to NOT use nukes.

[Gyfts]

Never heard of Scott Ritter. I am reading he's a sex offender with some military background.

See Tucker Carlson's interview with Colonel Douglas Macgregor: https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1693761723230990509

The Russian military is depleted and if this turns into a 10 year plus war of attrition, there remains incentive by Russia to deploy nuclear weapons at some point. Putin is maniacal to do so as it's military has rather embarrassed itself as of late.

NATO won't be getting involved regardless of what happens but for further military aid. They will not deploy nukes of their own by all accounts.

[Stepstowealth]

I always pray and hope against war because it is not a situation that you should hope to witness. Nuclear war is very terrible, many lives will be lost and properties destroyed. If it results to a nuclear war, the environment will also be destroyed and completely rendered uninhabitable.

I do not want war, and I am part of the people who hope for world peace to continue.

[paxmao]

Well far away, the nuclear scalation is there as a deterrent. Putin know, Biden knows, Kim Jon-il knows. If escalating to non-conventional warfare had any advantage to Putin, he would have already done so when tanks were sent, then when Patriots were sent and then when mid-range missiles were sent, but the fact is that there is nothing to gain going nuclear for anyone.

The point isn't that all these leaders know about nuclear devastation. The point is how close to being pushed into using nukes is any leader right now?

...

Again, zero. Nuclear escalation does not solve any of those "leaders" problems, it simply end them, their government, their dominions,... So that is precisely the opposite of what they would do to gain anything.

Nuclear forces are only a deterrent, the only risk is terrorism or use by integrists, but the effect is the same: destruction of the user.

Please, go see a movie called War Games, from the 80's, the explanation it will even reach your infantile sub-brain.

[DeathAngel]

Tensions and conflicts exist but the world is actively working towards disarmament & peaceful resolutions. International efforts, treaties & diplomatic dialogues continue to promote nuclear non proliferation and de-escalation. It's crucial for nations to prioritise dialogue, cooperation & the pursuit of a safer world for everyone.

[aoluain]

Well far away, the nuclear scalation is there as a deterrent. Putin know, Biden knows, Kim Jon-il knows. If escalating to non-conventional warfare had any advantage to Putin, he would have already done so when tanks were sent, then when Patriots were sent and then when mid-range missiles were sent, but the fact is that there is nothing to gain going nuclear for anyone.

The point isn't that all these leaders know about nuclear devastation. The point is how close to being pushed into using nukes is any leader right now?

...

Again, zero. Nuclear escalation does not solve any of those "leaders" problems, it simply end them, their government, their dominions,... So that is precisely the opposite of what they would do to gain anything.

Nuclear forces are only a deterrent, the only risk is terrorism or use by integrists, but the effect is the same: destruction of the user.

Please, go see a movie called War Games, from the 80's, the explanation it will even reach your infantile sub-brain.

That movie is a blast from the past for sure, I remember it and absolutely loved it.

I agree that Nuclear escalation doesnt resolve any dispute or advance any side from
stalemate or looming loss, there will be no winners, everyone knows this, the
only "advantage" is performing the first strike - thereafter its total destruction.

Is the mainstream media not reporting on this because they have been told not to?
or that the general consensus is that it simply wont happen?

[montaga]

Who cares about a nuclear war when humans no longer of greater value than animals.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1695701140216647825

[BADecker]

Who cares about a nuclear war when humans no longer of greater value than animals.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1695701140216647825

What is worse? Not warning the people? - OR - Advertising for the One-Worlders?

[OgNasty]

I personally don’t think we’re very close to nuclear war, but I also think it’s important to know that in the future nuclear war won’t be as destructive as in the past. Technology with weapons have come a long way and the nuclear weapons of the future won’t have the same radioactive footprint for decades like the weapons of the past.

[BADecker]

Nuclear war is a hard one to guess. Ukraine is done for, except if somebody gives them troops. If the troops come from the US, will that increase the danger of nuclear war? Or will it only extend the fighting on the ground?

Personally, with the mindset of Americans as it is, I don't think the US will send troops. The war is almost over, even if the US sends some more war equipment.


UK Telegraph; Ukraine running out of men. NATO, all resources towards Melitopol


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4wxl0AJYRs
WATCH THE VIDEO!
...

[promise444c5]

Well in my opinion I will say we are neither close nor far from  it,we all know  the weight of threat In nuclear war so even it later come to the extent  of using or waging a nuclear war individual (adjective many  as group ) will have to think twice  or even thrice  before taking action as the negative outcome might be far than the positive which also a negative for the opposition  in the worst case no one might even benefit.  But with the way things are going if everyone tends to pick sides later on ,then there is possibility of waging a nuclear towards from both sides,hopefully it doesn't get to that extent.

[Hispo]

I personally don’t think we’re very close to nuclear war, but I also think it’s important to know that in the future nuclear war won’t be as destructive as in the past. Technology with weapons have come a long way and the nuclear weapons of the future won’t have the same radioactive footprint for decades like the weapons of the past.

You are right but also you are partially wrong when you comment on the destructive capability of nuclear weapons nowadays.  The first nuclear weapons had a design flaw and left behind a considerable amount of radioactive fallout over the enemy's ground. Now nuclear weapons have the option to use hydrogen as fuel; the biggest example being the Tzar bomb developed by the soviet Union, for scientific reasons. Those destructive devices leave almost no fallout, but their destructive power is immense, so I feel it would be inaccurate to say in the future nuclear weaponry will less dangerous. In reality, they would be able to sweep an entire nation and its people in matter of hours.

Another reason to advocate for peace and against nuclear proliferation around the world.  

[BADecker]

I wonder if this is the Satan that is going to be thrown into Hell forever.


Russia’s nuclear-capable Satan II ICBM goes on active combat duty for the first time


https://www.naturalnews.com/2023-09-06-russia-satan-2-icbm-on-combat-duty.html
Russia announced on Friday, Sept. 1, that it had put its nuclear-capable RS-28 Sarmat "Satan II" intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) system on combat duty for the first time.

Russian President Vladimir Putin once described the Satan II as "invincible" and will make the nation's enemies think twice. (Related: Nuclear-armed nations are expanding and modernizing their nuclear arsenals in anticipation of a potential global power conflict.)

Yuri Borisov, current head of Russia's space agency, Roscosmos, announced the deployment of the Satan II missiles, but refused to divulge any other details such as where they were stationed.

Russia first started threatening to use the Satan II ICBMs against Ukraine in the first months of the special military operation in Ukraine in 2022. Putin said the Satan II would "reliably ensure the security of Russia from external threats and make those who, in the heat of aggressive rhetoric, try to threaten our country, think twice."

At around the same time, the Kremlin claimed that it had successfully tested the Satan II ICBM and then noted that it should be ready for combat deployment by the end of 2022.

In February, another Satan II warhead was tested while President Joe Biden visited Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Kyiv. The test was apparently unsuccessful, but following the test Putin announced that the new ICBMs would go on combat duty in Russia this year.

Satan II can strike targets almost anywhere in the world
...

[Pingrapole]

It is true that there is a threat of nuclear war, but it is far-fetched because there has never been a situation in the world where nuclear weapons would have to be used There are many reasons why experts think that a war of escalation is likely to happen And the world has seen how terrible nuclear war is, so those who will use nuclear weapons also know how terrible it can be and how expensive it is, so no country will want to use nuclear weapons now A lot can be said but in reality everything is possible but when the newly developing nuclear weapons can fully develop nuclear weapons then maybe this war will happen because those who have so far Since you are not using it, you may not do it very soon. If a war continues, some states have different threats. Russia sometimes threatens to use nuclear deterrence at some point, but maybe they won't.it is  part of world politics When any country goes to use nuclear weapons, other countries will not sit back, so those who will use them have fear and those who will be used have the means, so they say it will be used If not, I don't think so, but the way the global situation is going may be of use very soon
Finally, I want to say that the world has seen such a terrible war before in 1945, so we don't want to look ahead because when a country is attacked by a nuclear attack, the neighboring countries will not sit back, then the whole world will go to war And World War III will create conditions that will affect the world for hundreds of years, so we don't want world peace.

[franky1]

badecker continuously worrys about russia..

but here is the thing. if they had the rockets and missiles to hurt america and europe. they would have used their so called super power tech on ukraine..
russian have been weak when it comes to ukraine which reveals how weak russia are in reality

..
another food for thought
when super powers pretend they have missile monitoring stations that can pick up missiles of just 1 metre in length from thousands of miles away.. if this were ever true then no aeroplane of hundreds of metres would ever go missing.

many countries do not have the strength or tech they promote to have.

[teosanru]

How real is the threat of nuclear war? Scott Ritter, former upper brass in Iraq.


Scott Ritter discusses the lack of coverage by the Mainstream Media about the threat of nuclear war


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3PCkmCeQAk&t=128s
WATCH THE VIDEO!
...

Right now I feel too far. Not because we don't have a lot of i
Conflicts around the world but because every county knows what could be the probable effect of a nuclear weapon being exploded and how far can that war go. So I feel almost all the global leaders are wise enough to understand the impact of such a thing.

[BADecker]

^^^ Trump and the vast majority of Americans disagree with the doings of Biden and his team. If they had realized what Biden was going to do before he was elected, they would have fought harder to keep him from being elected.

The point? Nobody really knows what the other guy will do. Nobody knows who will be the first to send the nukes flying. They all are gambling that the other guy won't do it.

If you are going to lose, there isn't any reason not to go the whole way with what you can do. When Russia KNOWS they are going to lose the war, there is no reason to NOT do whatever they can do... like a cornered rat fights its hardest at the end.

The US and Nato know this about Russia. So, they will ultimately capitulate Ukraine to the Russians. That doesn't mean that they will stop trying to defeat Russia. It just means that this idea of theirs failed, and that they will have to try something else.

What other thing could they try? The could let everybody absolutely know, through their controlled media, that Russia was going to let the nukes fly... even though Russia wasn't going to. Then, they could let the nukes fly against Russia, first, and blame the Russians.

Do you even trust any of them?

[Macoach]

At this moment, nobody desires a war, despite the ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia. While this situation is concerning, it's unlikely to escalate into a global war. Many countries maintain peaceful relations, and the true battles are being fought on the mental and economic fronts. The United Nations is actively involved in addressing these challenges.