How would a nuclear war between Russia and the US affect you?
I Strongly Disagree, it Will Be Fire And Brimstone, Was There A Nuclear Bomb That Destroyed Sodom & Gomorrah "No"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'm sure there is no »Jehova« in the Aramaic Bible. So why it is in the »Aramaic Bible in Plain English«?Aramaic Bible in Plain English
And this will be the plague with which LORD JEHOVAH …
This can be found in normal Bibles (from the Hebraic), too.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
It appears likely , for now, to remain unknown; or at least unposted.I'm sure there is no »Jehova« in the Aramaic Bible. So why it is in the »Aramaic Bible in Plain English«?
For something , anything, why "it" is in one Bible one way and in another Bible another way, and not in yet another Bible.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«?
I feel misunderstood.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
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 threadWhat exactly do you disagree with in what you quoted ?
The Bible ???
Actually, as is well-documented, it was space aliens who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.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.
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.How would a nuclear war between Russia and the US affect you?
Simulation and Explanation Youtube 4:08
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.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.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.
Tell that to Russia's Putin who has American and British missiles attacking Russian soil presently, while France has deployed the French Foreign LegionSo, for maybe the next decade I do not expect to see even localised nuclear conflicts.
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).Tell that to Russia's Putin who has American and British missiles attacking Russian soil presently
Link to the news which told that?while France has deployed the French Foreign Legion
Putins threats since 2022, with the effect that the help for the Ukraine has been delayed.The world's on the brink of nuclear war, just as Putin continues to warn the west
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., 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.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
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.
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).But of course, as the various leaders within the EU seem to be pushing for a military conflict with Russia
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., 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.