How would a nuclear war between Russia and the US affect you?

[ViaCrucis]

Best case scenario I'll be a ghoul with a cool hat walking around the wasteland with a dog fighting giant scorpions.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Aaron112]

How would a nuclear war between Russia and the US affect you?

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
And this will be the plague with which LORD JEHOVAH strikes all the nations which fight against Jerusalem: their flesh shall melt when standing on their feet and their eyes shall melt in their sockets and their tongue shall melt in their mouths

 

[Truth7t7]

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
And this will be the plague with which LORD JEHOVAH strikes all the nations which fight against Jerusalem: their flesh shall melt when standing on their feet and their eyes shall melt in their sockets and their tongue shall melt in their mouths

I Strongly Disagree, it Will Be Fire And Brimstone, Was There A Nuclear Bomb That Destroyed Sodom & Gomorrah "No"

Luke 17:29-30KJV
29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

 

[helmut]

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
And this will be the plague with which LORD JEHOVAH …

I'm sure there is no »Jehova« in the Aramaic Bible. So why it is in the »Aramaic Bible in Plain English«?

their flesh shall melt when standing on their feet and their eyes shall melt in their sockets and their tongue shall melt in their mouths

This can be found in normal Bibles (from the Hebraic), too.

Yes, it sounds like an atomic bomb (exploding probably in Syria?).

 

[Aaron112]

I'm sure there is no »Jehova« in the Aramaic Bible. So why it is in the »Aramaic Bible in Plain English«?

It appears likely , for now, to remain unknown; or at least unposted.

 

[Aaron112]

I Strongly Disagree

What exactly do you disagree with in what you quoted ?
The Bible ???

 

[helmut]

It appears likely , for now, to remain unknown; or at least unposted.

English is not my mother tongue. I'm not sure what you want to say. Can you elaborate the statement to make it clear to me? What is »it«?

 

[Aaron112]

English is not my mother tongue. I'm not sure what you want to say. Can you elaborate the statement to make it clear to me? What is »it«?

For something , anything, why "it" is in one Bible one way and in another Bible another way, and not in yet another Bible.

Thus requiring as always Trusting God Totally and always seeking God for Truth and for Understanding and for Wisdom. i.e. don't place trust in man/mankind/science

 

[helmut]

For something , anything, why "it" is in one Bible one way and in another Bible another way, and not in yet another Bible.

Thus requiring as always Trusting God Totally and always seeking God for Truth and for Understanding and for Wisdom. i.e. don't place trust in man/mankind/science

I feel misunderstood.

In the Hebrew Bible, there is the tetragrammaton YHVH (or YHWH, transcription varies), In mostly appears in a form which seems to read as yehovah (the J comes from a time when I and J were not disginguished, in modern German, the J is still pronounced like consonantal y), but Jews read it as 'ªdona-y (I inserted a hyphen to avoid a pronunciation as in say), i.e. Lord. There is also the Form yehovih (e.g. in Gen 15:2), pronounced 'elohim (i=English ee), i.e. God.

In the Aramaic Bible, there is no tetragrammaton, hence no »Jehovah«. So a version called »Aramaic Bible in Plain English« does either not contain any Jehovah instance, or it is not what the name suggests.

My point was not trust in science (though we should not trust every critic of science, either), it was about a rather odd Bible edition.

 

[Truth7t7]

What exactly do you disagree with in what you quoted ?
The Bible ???

You suggest a "Nuclear Bomb" the Bible states "Fire and Brimstone" from God out of heaven, yes man will be consumed but it won't be a "Nuclear Bomb" which is the topic of this thread

I Strongly Disagree, it Will Be Fire And Brimstone, Was There A Nuclear Bomb That Destroyed Sodom & Gomorrah "No"

Luke 17:29-30KJV
29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

 

[bbbbbbb]

You suggest a "Nuclear Bomb" the Bible states "Fire and Brimstone" from God out of heaven, yes man will be consumed but it won't be a "Nuclear Bomb" which is the topic of this thread

I Strongly Disagree, it Will Be Fire And Brimstone, Was There A Nuclear Bomb That Destroyed Sodom & Gomorrah "No"

Luke 17:29-30KJV
29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

Actually, as is well-documented, it was space aliens who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

[helmut]

Actually, as is well-documented, it was space aliens who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.

It was an asteriod.

 

[Biblicist]

How would a nuclear war between Russia and the US affect you?

Simulation and Explanation Youtube 4:08

Since the introduction of STRATEGIC nuclear weapons in 1945, discussions of nuclear war have traditionally focused on global annihilation due to the massive number of intercontinental weapons that the major powers hold.

In recent years, there has been a significant increase in the development and deployment of TACTICAL hypersonic nuclear weapons. These weapons are designed for battlefield applications and are intended to target large army and naval battle groups. Unlike traditional STRATEGIC nuclear weapons, TACTICAL weapons are not specifically designed to destroy cities but rather to neutralize military, naval and air threats.

In the past, it was widely believed that a global nuclear war using STRATEGIC missiles was unlikely since there would be no clear winner. However, with the development of smaller and more portable tactical nuclear weapons, we now face the potential for localized nuclear damage, rather than a global one.

At this point of time, the only super-power that has successfully developed and implemented the necessary air-land-sea and sub-sea delivery systems for these hypersonic TACTICAL weapons has been Russia, where China could be close to implementing some.

The US, Britain, and France are lagging behind in the development of tactical hypersonic weapons and their delivery systems. This implies that NATO is unlikely to initiate a local nuclear conflict with Russia. However, these countries will eventually develop such weapons, which could lead to localized nuclear conflicts in the future.

So, for maybe the next decade I do not expect to see even localised nuclear conflicts.

 

[Tuur]

Since the introduction of STRATEGIC nuclear weapons in 1945, discussions of nuclear war have traditionally focused on global annihilation due to the massive number of intercontinental weapons that the major powers hold.

In recent years, there has been a significant increase in the development and deployment of TACTICAL hypersonic nuclear weapons. These weapons are designed for battlefield applications and are intended to target large army and naval battle groups. Unlike traditional STRATEGIC nuclear weapons, TACTICAL weapons are not specifically designed to destroy cities but rather to neutralize military, naval and air threats.

In the past, it was widely believed that a global nuclear war using STRATEGIC missiles was unlikely since there would be no clear winner. However, with the development of smaller and more portable tactical nuclear weapons, we now face the potential for localized nuclear damage, rather than a global one.

At this point of time, the only super-power that has successfully developed and implemented the necessary air-land-sea and sub-sea delivery systems for these hypersonic TACTICAL weapons has been Russia, where China could be close to implementing some.

The US, Britain, and France are lagging behind in the development of tactical hypersonic weapons and their delivery systems. This implies that NATO is unlikely to initiate a local nuclear conflict with Russia. However, these countries will eventually develop such weapons, which could lead to localized nuclear conflicts in the future.

So, for maybe the next decade I do not expect to see even localised nuclear conflicts.

The existence of tactical nuke (anyone remember the Davy Crockett and Atomic Annie?) does not predispose a full exchange nuclear war. The deployment of any nuke has the very real risk of full-scale nuclear war. That was the point of MAD. If anything, it makes it more likely, especially if those on the receiving end have no deployable tactical nukes. And a nation like the US or Russia has options other than land based, which means if someone attacked with hypersonic missiles, there would still be enough intact to give the attacker a Bad Day.

 

[Biblicist]

Since the introduction of STRATEGIC nuclear weapons in 1945, discussions of nuclear war have traditionally focused on global annihilation due to the massive number of intercontinental weapons that the major powers hold.

In recent years, there has been a significant increase in the development and deployment of TACTICAL hypersonic nuclear weapons. These weapons are designed for battlefield applications and are intended to target large army and naval battle groups. Unlike traditional STRATEGIC nuclear weapons, TACTICAL weapons are not specifically designed to destroy cities but rather to neutralize military, naval and air threats.

In the past, it was widely believed that a global nuclear war using STRATEGIC missiles was unlikely since there would be no clear winner. However, with the development of smaller and more portable tactical nuclear weapons, we now face the potential for localized nuclear damage, rather than a global one.

At this point of time, the only super-power that has successfully developed and implemented the necessary air-land-sea and sub-sea delivery systems for these hypersonic TACTICAL weapons has been Russia, where China could be close to implementing some.

The US, Britain, and France are lagging behind in the development of tactical hypersonic weapons and their delivery systems. This implies that NATO is unlikely to initiate a local nuclear conflict with Russia. However, these countries will eventually develop such weapons, which could lead to localized nuclear conflicts in the future.

So, for maybe the next decade I do not expect to see even localised nuclear conflicts.

Having viewed some US Senate enquiries that address the things that we are discussing, I am of the growing opinion that I doubt whether our so-called government and military experts possess any real superior knowledge above what even a serious amateur observer has regarding the potential outcome of a first strike by either NATO or Russia, specifically one that is based on a strategic (battlefield) as against the traditional form of ballistic (global) threat.

Even though our generation has had around 80 years to consider the devastation that would be the result of a global ballistic attack, being that US/NATO forces currently do not have any hypersonic nuclear delivery systems, nor do they have any defences against such technologies, being that Russia has now developed and embraced this type of technology, the question can now be asked that in the event of a first stealth strike by Russia which employs their Avangard hypersonic missiles and their Poseidon nuclear torpedoes, would the US be prepared to accept the damage that these delivery systems were to create if they realised that Russia was holding back with their Ballistic weapons?

But of course, the US appears to be maybe a decade or two behind Russia with developing and implementing their own hypersonic weapons and with the systems that can detect and destroy incoming enemy hypersonic weapons, once they do develop these technologies then the current window we are pondering about will then change dramatically.

 

[Truth7t7]

So, for maybe the next decade I do not expect to see even localised nuclear conflicts.

Tell that to Russia's Putin who has American and British missiles attacking Russian soil presently, while France has deployed the French Foreign Legion

The world's on the brink of nuclear war, just as Putin continues to warn the west, his nuclear arsenal has been moved in Belarus, his submarines are around the globe and ready to launch

 

[helmut]

Tell that to Russia's Putin who has American and British missiles attacking Russian soil presently

No, the missiles from the West do not attack Russian soil, but Russian soldiers and their Fascists supporting forces on Ukrainian soil (including Crimea, Donetsk etc., of course).

Most Countries that give missiles to Ukraine demand that, and the Ukraine keeps the promise to use the missiles only in Ukraine.

while France has deployed the French Foreign Legion

Link to the news which told that?

The world's on the brink of nuclear war, just as Putin continues to warn the west

Putins threats since 2022, with the effect that the help for the Ukraine has been delayed.

, his nuclear arsenal has been moved in Belarus, his submarines are around the globe and ready to launch

He is not that mad that he will launch an attack. For a full-size attack will cause effects that will destroy Russia, and a non-full-size attack will allow a counter-attack, that will destroy Russia.

But he knows such threats worked.

 

[Biblicist]

Tell that to Russia's Putin who has American and British missiles attacking Russian soil presently, while France has deployed the French Foreign Legion

The world's on the brink of nuclear war, just as Putin continues to warn the west, his nuclear arsenal has been moved in Belarus, his submarines are around the globe and ready to launch

At this point in time, maybe for a decade, Russia far outguns US/NATO forces when it comes to low-yield battlefield-grade nuclear weapons, which can not only be used against army groups but also against carrier battle groups. Due to the implementation by Russia of their Poseidon nuclear torpedoes, for major global conflicts, this has essentially made the 13 US carrier battle groups redundant as they have no defence against such weapons.

But of course, as the various leaders within the EU seem to be pushing for a military conflict with Russia, when the US does finally develop their own hypersonic low-yield nuclear weapons, then if the US is eventually pushed into a conflict by their political warhawks, then maybe we could see a localised nuclear incident, but at what price would they pay for such foolishness.

 

[Truth7t7]

No, the missiles from the West do not attack Russian soil, but Russian soldiers and their Fascists supporting forces on Ukrainian soil (including Crimea, Donetsk etc., of course).

Most Countries that give missiles to Ukraine demand that, and the Ukraine keeps the promise to use the missiles only in Ukraine.

BBC​

Kyiv can use British weapons inside Russia - Cameron​

7 days ago
Paul Kirby, BBC News
Share

Ukrainian Presidential Press Office/PA Wire
Lord Cameron met Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky in Kyiv on Thursday

UK Foreign Secretary Lord Cameron has said it is up to Ukraine to decide how to use British weapons and insisted it has the right to strike targets on Russian territory.

Reuters​

Russia warns Britain it could strike back after Cameron remark on Ukraine​

May 6, 2024

MOSCOW/LONDON, May 6 (Reuters) - Russia warned Britain on Monday that if British weapons were used by Ukraine to strike Russian territory then Moscow could hit back at British military installations and equipment both inside Ukraine and elsewhere.

Russia said British Ambassador Nigel Casey was summoned to the foreign ministry for a formal protest after Foreign Secretary David Cameron said last week that Ukraine had the right to use British weapons to strike Russia.

 

[helmut]

But of course, as the various leaders within the EU seem to be pushing for a military conflict with Russia

Who does? to the contrary, despite some rhetoric, most countries, including Germany, hesitate to answer to the Russian aggression according to international law, give rather symbolic military help to the Ukraine (but rather money).

, when the US does finally develop their own hypersonic low-yield nuclear weapons, then if the US is eventually pushed into a conflict by their political warhawks, then maybe we could see a localised nuclear incident, but at what price would they pay for such foolishness.

You do not even mention that Russia started a full-fledged war, after years of de-facto war against Ukraine with some fascist proxies in Eastern Ukraine.

The real warhawk is Putin.