Say that Russia was to deploy any kind of nuclear weapon then what will be the end result if any such weapon was to be intercepted? Say the target was Paris and the nuclear weapon was intercepted at the border of France and another country. Then the nuclear fallout could devastate both countries. As such, once any nuclear weapon comes into play you can forget about neutralizing them, Hence, it is well overdue that the West understand this and back off.
The “Coalition of the Willing Murderers” were well prepared to invade Iraq in 2003 on the basis of a “pre-emptive strike” because of the non-existing Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). The Russian Federation in my view would be justified to now use a pre-emptive strike against any and all countries that are supporting NAZI-Ukraine with its killings of Russians. So far politicians of the West have held they are in a save environment but if their parliaments are at the receiving end then well they might start singing a different song, that is if they still have the ability to do so.
At the low end of the yield scale are some ground-based missiles listed as having a yield of 1 x 10-100 kilotons. 10-100 is the potential range and maybe there's more than a 10-fold difference between 10 thousand tons of TNT equivalent and 100 thousand tons? For comparison, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs had 15 and 21 kiloton yields. So these Russian tactical warheads are similar or possibly much more powerful. ( By comparison, the Russian strategic arsenal per the Bulletin maxes out at 800 kilotons.) There's nothing small about the potential devastation at ground zero of the Russian "tactical" bombs, even at the low end, along with the possibility of uncontrollable fires resulting from the blast and its nuclear fireball. Scary for sure. I hope Genocide Joe and his band of armchair warriors got the message to back off from further provocations of Russia. Finally, the following site allows you to simulate the effects of a nuclear explosion of any size anywhere on the planet. Seems like more than idle speculation in the current days of crisis: https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
If the West were trying to test Russia, then clearly it has backfired on those who played the game. What this incident shows is that NATO is in disarray and not unified. Maybe that’s why the Yankees are ditching Ramstein and passing the buck onto NATO? Time for old Joe to concentrate on the election.
Stephen Bryen revealed his sources.
Say that Russia was to deploy any kind of nuclear weapon then what will be the end result if any such weapon was to be intercepted? Say the target was Paris and the nuclear weapon was intercepted at the border of France and another country. Then the nuclear fallout could devastate both countries. As such, once any nuclear weapon comes into play you can forget about neutralizing them, Hence, it is well overdue that the West understand this and back off.
The “Coalition of the Willing Murderers” were well prepared to invade Iraq in 2003 on the basis of a “pre-emptive strike” because of the non-existing Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). The Russian Federation in my view would be justified to now use a pre-emptive strike against any and all countries that are supporting NAZI-Ukraine with its killings of Russians. So far politicians of the West have held they are in a save environment but if their parliaments are at the receiving end then well they might start singing a different song, that is if they still have the ability to do so.
After listening to this podcast I looked up estimated yield data for Russian tactical nuclear weapons. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, a reliable source I believe, has posted their latest data here: https://thebulletin.org/premium/2024-03/russian-nuclear-weapons-2024/
At the low end of the yield scale are some ground-based missiles listed as having a yield of 1 x 10-100 kilotons. 10-100 is the potential range and maybe there's more than a 10-fold difference between 10 thousand tons of TNT equivalent and 100 thousand tons? For comparison, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs had 15 and 21 kiloton yields. So these Russian tactical warheads are similar or possibly much more powerful. ( By comparison, the Russian strategic arsenal per the Bulletin maxes out at 800 kilotons.) There's nothing small about the potential devastation at ground zero of the Russian "tactical" bombs, even at the low end, along with the possibility of uncontrollable fires resulting from the blast and its nuclear fireball. Scary for sure. I hope Genocide Joe and his band of armchair warriors got the message to back off from further provocations of Russia. Finally, the following site allows you to simulate the effects of a nuclear explosion of any size anywhere on the planet. Seems like more than idle speculation in the current days of crisis: https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
Great episode, for me it was very informative re Russia-s nuclear doctrine. I link to it and quote some passages in my latest:
https://lucabaptista.substack.com/p/tactical-nukes-are-still-nukes
If the West were trying to test Russia, then clearly it has backfired on those who played the game. What this incident shows is that NATO is in disarray and not unified. Maybe that’s why the Yankees are ditching Ramstein and passing the buck onto NATO? Time for old Joe to concentrate on the election.