[Albert]

Take out Moscow and Russia would fall whereas an armed and independent populace would need to be defeated street by street, house by house.

That is what Napoleon thought as well.

[Political Interest]

Take out Moscow and the result will be a nuclear exchange.

History proves that Russia cannot be occupied. It is a historical law that the size of the country means any invader will soon be swollowed.

[Hong Wu]

Sounds unnecessary, I wouldn't trust Hillary with the nuclear codes but I am sure they will pay her enough to not push the button.

[anarchist23]

Don't worry.
The UK government has had trials of text messages alerting the UK population of an imminent nuclear attack. lol

Just to keep everything calm and civilised, Russian military analyst Pavel Felgenhauer said that nuclear war was now ‘likely’.
There are still a huge number of nuclear weapons in active service – the Arms Control Association estimates that Russia has 7,700 weapons in service, of which 4,500 are stockpiled, and 1548 are deployed on missiles and at air bases.
But what would actually happen?

1) We wouldn’t hear a ‘four-minute warning’
The four minute warning system, a national system of sirens which would have gone off during a nuclear attack was retired in 1992 – one of the reasons being that more people now have double glazing.
2) Instead, you will probably get a text message
The government has tested technology which would deliver a text message warning of disasters such as nuclear attacks.
The system, drawn up by the National Security Council, was tested in Glasgow and Yorkshire in 2013.
3) By the time you get the message, there may be little you can do
As yet, there is no technology which can stop an intercontinental ballistic missile – so the most many of us could hope for would be time to get indoors.
Even during the time of the ‘four minute’ warning, the warning would probably have offered just three minutes.
4) If you’re near the bomb, there won’t be much left of you
Witnesses of the Hiroshima attack said that people near the centre of the blast ‘vanished’.
William Burchett said, ‘Of thousands of others, nearer the centre of the explosion, there was no trace. They vanished. The theory in Hiroshima is that the atomic heat was so great that they burned instantly to ashes – except that there were no ashes.’
The bomb dropped on Hiroshima was a fraction of the size of the hydrogen warheads now used by Russia and the U.S.
5) Hydrogen bombs could devastate entire cities
The effects of the first atomic bomb
Nearly six million people dead, homes flattened and millions more poisoned by a huge plume of radioactive poison which would spread for 130 miles.
An app by Alex Wellerstein at the Stevens Institute of Technology, Nuke Map, shows what could happen if the largest Soviet hydrogen bomb ever detonated was dropped on London.
Destruction would spread from Horsham in the South to Luton in the north – and casualties would spiral after the initial blast killed and injured nearly 10 million people.
6) Large-scale nuclear war could devastate the entire world
In 1979, the U.S. Congress’s Office of Technology published a report called The Effects of War, which envisaged the impact of an all-out nuclear attack.
The consequences would be disastrous – with hundreds of millions of people dead, and more facing cancer and radiation sickness.
The OTA envisaged up to 80% of the population of the U.S. being killed immediately, with further casualties from radiation.
7) The first impacts wouldn’t be the worst part
A British government broadcast, recorded to be broadcast in the event of nuclear war, said, ‘This is the Wartime Broadcasting Service. This country has been attacked with nuclear weapons… Remember there is nothing to be gained by trying to get away. By leaving your homes you could be exposing yourself to greater danger.If you leave, you may find yourself without food, without water, without accommodation and without protection. Radioactive fall-out, which follows a nuclear explosion, is many times more dangerous if you are directly exposed to it in the open….’
Longstanding advice from various government agencies includes:
Seeking shelter (ideally below ground and surrounded by thick concrete)
Rationing supplies of food, water, fuel, medicine and clothing
Wearing hats and goggles and exposing as little skin to the air as possible
Following the news and evacuating if ordered
The environment would be devastated for decades afterwards?
‘Doomsday’ predictions of all life on Earth being exterminated are probably over-stating the impact of nuclear weapons – but it would have a huge impact on life on our planet.
A serious nuclear conflict would also leave the world far worse off than depicted in games such as Fallout 4, says science magazine Smithsonian.com.
Carbon thrown into the air would cause a huge drop in worldwide temperature, and could hit global rainfall and the growing seasons for crops.

Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2015/11/25/world-war ... z4MzmIafLv

[anarchist23]

A terrifying Russian television broadcast explicitly told civilians to find out where their nearest bomb shelter is and repeatedly asked viewers if they were ready for nuclear war.

One apocalyptic broadcast told viewers on Moscow's state-owned TV channel NTV: "If it should one day happen, every one of you should know where the nearest bomb shelter is. It’s best to find out now."

Now Russia strengthening ties with CHINA after Turkey alliance

Russia secretly undermining the West as support gathers for Putin

The enraged host, Evgeny Kiselyov, blasted America's "impudent behaviour" and spent two hours warning that a conflict could take "nuclear dimensions".

Aggressive posturing from Russia in recent weeks has seen the state force 40 million of its citizens to take part in a massive defence drill to prepare them for a nuclear holocaust.

Russia’s military announced it would run the country-wide drill in preparation of a large-scale war.

Tensions are mounting between Putin and Obama over the Syrian conflict

The governor of St Petersburg clarified what bread rations people could expect should Russia come under attack – 300 grams for 20 days.

The Kremlin also ordered nuclear capable missiles to be rolled into a base in mainland Europe, on an enclave near Poland called Kaliningrad.

It comes as Russia vowed to shoot down any American fighter planes that attack President Bashar al-Assad's forces in Syria?

Bombs have been raining down on Syrian civilians as Russia continues its bombardment

Verbal jousting between the US, Britain and Russia over the issue of the ongoing bombardment of civilians in Syria are reaching a peak, with the very real possibility of genuine armed conflict between the nations taking place over the city of Aleppo.

But one expert believes Putin's latest ramping-up of tensions is simply a tactic to prevent the US from interfering in Syria and to put the incoming American President on the back foot when they take office next year.

October 15th 2016
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/721 ... r-al-Assad

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

Its true I speak Russian and I hear all the time in the Russian media that they prefer Trump because Hillary will be like Obama or even worse

Of course, because Trump promised he would only honor NATO if other countries payed up. He wants to treat world security like a monetary transaction, same reason why Russia does anything.

Take out Moscow and Russia would fall whereas an armed and independent populace would need to be defeated street by street, house by house.

Yeah right. If Russia was going to take us over they would just use unrepentant terror. The Japanese thought this would work too until America dropped a nuke on us.

Sounds unnecessary, I wouldn't trust Hillary with the nuclear codes but I am sure they will pay her enough to not push the button.

If they're paying us not to launch nukes I am completely OK with that. Is that seriously supposed to be a dig on her? Sounds like she's forcing Putin to pay extortion.

[Hong Wu]

If they're paying us not to launch nukes I am completely OK with that. Is that seriously supposed to be a dig on her? Sounds like she's forcing Putin to pay extortion.

I think if I told you what I really think about this statement, it would just be deleted So I will just put it like this, using nuclear weapons to extort people would be wrong. Hillary supporters are supporting evil and I think the more informed ones have known it even before the leaks started going into high gear.

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

She is evil, but she's the normal kind of evil that we all are. Donald Trump is a special kind of evil who wants power for the sake of power and will sell our future up the river to do so. What does Donald Trump care about other people? He can't imagine a world where 14 million isn't considered a small loan and people don't write off a billion on their taxes. At least HRC came from a similar background as me and knows what it's like to be in a normal person's shoes. Donald Trump is a special kind of money grubber that doesn't care about working hard, just telling people what to do.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

Yeah right. If Russia was going to take us over they would just use unrepentant terror. The Japanese thought this would work too until America dropped a nuke on us

Japan surrendered to save themselves from the Red hordes that were amassing in China

[anarchist23]

Third World War would be ‘extremely lethal and fast’ US Army chiefs reveal as they discuss taking out Russia or China

AMERICAN military bosses have confessed that World War 3 is “almost guaranteed” and will be “extremely lethal and fast.”

Speaking at a ‘future-of-the-Army’ panel at the Association of the U.S. Army in Washington, generals and other leading figures laid out their depressing forecasts for upcoming conflicts.

Military bosses have warned against the threat of Russia and China
Smart weapons and artificial intelligence will dominate these ultra-violent wars between super-aggressive nation states.

According to a report by Defense One, Major General William Hix said: “A conventional conflict in the near future will be extremely lethal and fast, and we will not own the stopwatch.

“The speed of events are likely to strain our human abilities.

“The speed at which machines can make decisions in the far future is likely to challenge our ability to cope, demanding a new relationship between man and machine.”

Hix warned that the US is preparing for “violence on the scale that the U.S. Army has not seen since Korea” when over 30,000 American troops were slaughtered.

The General said that China and Russia are both developing huge militaries which are driven by new technologies.

Lt. General Joseph Anderson said America faces frightening threats “modern nation-states acting aggressively in militarised competition.”

He said: “Who does that sound like? Russia?”

Army Chief of Staff General Mark A. Milley added that war between nation states “is almost guaranteed”.

Miley warned that America’s enemies could end their superiority in the air which it has enjoyed since the Korean War in 1950 and stop its Naval forces through a mixture of anti-access and area-denial capabilities.

He said: “Land forces will have to enable sea forces.

“(The Army) is definitely going to have to dominate the air above our battle space.”

The strikingly honest military chief said America must prepare for advanced cyber warfare and fight guerrilla-style in complex urban settings.

Miley also cited a strengthened Russia, an increasingly dominate China, expanding smaller nation states and climate change as factors which could lead to instability.

He said: “While we’re ready now, we are being challenged.

“Our Army and our nation must be ready.”

Russia has recently conducted massive nuclear war exercises involving 40million people, built top secret bunkers for top brass and is said to have recalled diplomats families ‘to the motherland’ to prepare for World War III.

Speaking about future weapons, Katharina McFarland, acting assistant Army secretary for acquisition, logistics, and technology, revealed plans to make tanks and other military machines user-friendly.

Addressing the soldiers and other military personnel in the room, she said: “You travel all over the world, don’t you?

“You can pretty much get in a car anywhere and drive it.

“As an engineer, I think in terms of a simple interface — no matter what helicopter, you can get in and operate it.”

7th October 2016

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1921630/t ... -or-china/

[Propate]

Philippine Leader want to take part of this Pre-WW3 by supporting China's position and operating together in orther to get ready.this News article http://www.newsody.com/news/philippine-leader-open-to-war-games-with-china-russia/587756/%20.
But the problem is that we don't know if Russia's action is real or only pure propaganda which aiming to make world wide trubulence.

We don't know what the future is preparing for us but what we can do is just to wonder about this reality.

[Atlantis]

Do you think we live in a more volatile world compared to 50 years ago?

Absolutely, I have lived all through the cold war right at the interface between East and West, but it was never as dangerous as it is today.

I remember anti-war demonstrations against Nato nuclear rearmament nearly 40 years ago that brought 1 million people onto the street. Today Nato again renews its nuclear armament and people just don't care. People have become used to nuclear weapons and think nothing can happen.

The collapse of the bipolar world has led to greater instability and we still haven't reached a new equilibrium.

Both sides use proxy forces that can easily get out off control to trigger a wider conflagration.

Trump only cares about cunts and making the rich richer, he'll be more ready to strike a deal with Putin, just like Reagan who first joked about launching a nuclear attack on the Soviet Union ended up making a deal with the Soviets.

[anarchist23]

The rhetoric is being ratcheted up and tensions between the West and Russia are increasing. Is this the start of a Cold War?

A Russian aircraft carrier and other warships will soon head towards the UK.
The naval task force from Russia's Northern Fleet will proceed past the British Isles, down to Gibraltar, and through the Mediterranean Sea to join the Russian combat mission in war-torn Syria.
Why is Russia enhancing its naval presence off Syria now? The answer is part capability and part theatre.
Russia has already flexed its naval power during its operations in Syria, with warships firing cruise missiles at land targets from both the Caspian Sea and the Mediterranean. But naval involvement has never been a critical factor. Most of the targets hit could equally have been struck with aircraft either based in Syria or flying from bases in Russia itself.
To a large extent Russia's naval activity has been a display - a demonstration of Moscow's capabilities and the fact that it retains ambitions to play an overseas role.
Are we entering a new Cold War?
How Moscow's bombing campaign has paid off for Putin.
Russia's top spin doctor in nuclear warning.
The deployments also underscore Russia's continuing desire to retain its small naval base at Tartus, and provide useful experience for Russian vessels in conducting expeditionary operations.
This latest deployment again reflects all these factors.
Until now though, most of the Russian naval presence off Syria has come from its Black Sea fleet, vessels transiting the Bosphorus, deploying into the eastern Mediterranean, and then returning to the Black Sea. Earlier this month, for example, two Buyan-M missile-firing corvettes - the Serpukhov and the Zelyony Dol - left Sevastopol en route for the Mediterranean.
This latest deployment is of a different order, comprising some of the largest warships in the Russian fleet. Leading the task force is Russia's sole aircraft carrier - the Admiral Kuznetsov - escorted by six other vessels. Chief among them is the nuclear-powered battle cruiser - Pyotr Velikiy (Peter the Great) a Kirov-class warship and the largest surface combatant (excluding aircraft carriers) in the world.
With it are two anti-submarine destroyers of the Udaloy class - the Severomorsk and the Vice-Admiral Kulakov. There are also four support vessels. It is likely that the flotilla will be joined by Russian submarines as well, which would typically help protect the carrier.
The Admiral Kuznetsov battle group will join some 10 other Russian vessels already off Syria.
These vessels have a long journey from bases of the Russian Northern Fleet. Their exact route is unclear, but they will either pass through the English Channel or to the west of Ireland. It is likely that the Admiral Kuznetsov will conduct some flight operations en route, as its air group works up to combat readiness.
The Russian warships' progress is being carefully monitored by Nato aircraft and ships.
Tensions with the West are high. Diplomatic efforts to resolve the Syria crisis have so far failed. And there has been talk in Washington about exploring potential military options. Russian reinforcements help to consolidate its position and make Western military action probably unthinkable.
Russian air defences have been bolstered in Syria itself. And the additional Russian warships provide extra capabilities to counter air and submarine threats. The aircraft on board the carrier will also give Moscow more fire-power.
Plagued by problems
An added naval presence also serves to counter those in the West who have argued that a "no bomb" zone could be enforced by missiles fired from western warships in the Mediterranean. Russia is pre-emptively upping the naval stakes.
But the mighty presence of warships like the Admiral Kuznetsov and the Peter the Great is deceptive. These are rare outings for Russia's big ships. Indeed, this will be the aircraft carrier's first ever combat deployment. Both vessels have been plagued by problems. The 26-year-old Kuznetsov rarely goes anywhere without a naval tug just in case it breaks down.
It will also be the first combat test for its MIG-29K warplanes. Russian carrier-borne aircraft are launched not by catapult, as in the US Navy, but with a sort of ski ramp. This means they can carry less fuel and weaponry so it is likely that the Kuznetsov will have to cruise relatively close to the Syrian coast to mount air operations.
Any cynicism, though, should be muted. The fact that the Kuznetsov flotilla is on its way at all demonstrates that Russia is one of the few countries in the world that can deploy this kind of sea power.
When Russia entered the Syrian conflict there was a lot of speculation from Western experts that it would fall flat on its face, and that it simply did not have the capability to conduct this kind of expeditionary warfare.
Well, the Russians have proved those experts wrong.
They have shown that they are both innovative and capable. They have demonstrated their ability to strike with tactical aviation - long-range bombers, cruise missile-firing warships in the Caspian Sea and the Mediterranean - and to sustain a reasonable level of ground operations in support of the Syrian government forces too.
Their targeting policy and methods have provoked much criticism. But in terms of pure military capability, Russia's Syrian adventure has so far proved a success.

BBC