Topic: Wheat War I is going to be World War III - page 3. (Read 6224 times)

It is unlikely that a nuclear war will take place according to this scenario. First, Putin will not drop a nuclear bomb on the heads of his army in Ukraine. Also, by doing this, he will destroy the population of Donbass and the south of Ukraine, whom he came to protect and "liberate". In addition, he is unlikely to drop it in a densely populated region of Ukraine or on any major city. Because of such an act, even then the whole world will firmly unite against Russia and, above all, Putin himself. Putin is senile, but not a complete idiot. The use of nuclear weapons is likely to be demonstrative intimidating. Some analysts say that it could be, say, Snake Island.

Secondly, the United States has already stated that after Russia uses nuclear weapons in Ukraine, the Russian Black Sea Fleet will immediately be destroyed, followed by the Baltic Fleet. Then a pause will be made to assess the situation. But if NATO receives information that will indicate specific actions aimed at the use of nuclear weapons, then the alliance can activate a developed program that allows for 40 minutes to destroy any country with non-nuclear weapons, even such a large one as Russia. Putin is so intimidating the world with nuclear weapons that NATO can believe it and launch a preemptive strike, even if Russia's actions turn out to be only intimidating.

Poseidon is an autonomous underwater drone with its own nuclear reactor (that is, with unlimited range and duration) and a warhead with a capacity of up to 100 megatons, it is also called the "continent killer". "Very low speed of about 100 kmph" - this is quite good, considering that Poseidon does not fly, but swims under water.
The concept of mutually assured destruction, as you understand, is theoretical in nature and essentially speculative; it has never been (and I hope will not be) tested in practice. Russia has a Perimeter system (Dead Hand in NATO classification), the US probably also has something similar, although the details are unknown to me. How all these systems work in practice - no one knows.

^^^ Not much information is available for Poseidon. What I have heard is that it has a very low speed (~100 kmph) and need to cruise at lower deaths to use the stealth mode. Another concern is regarding the warhead. Rumors are that the war head has a yield of 2 megatons (compared to 50 megatons for the Tsar Bomba). Irrespective of the type of nuke being used, Mutual assured destruction (MAD) is assured in case of a nuclear war between the NATO and Russia. My concern is regarding the neutral countries and how they will be impacted in such a scenario.

I do not think that Russia will use tactical nuclear weapons at all in the current round of confrontation with Ukraine. Simply because it is fraught with great political risks and does not bring any benefits. A dozen or two conventional large-caliber high-explosive bombs of the FAB-3000 type can achieve an effect comparable to a nuclear strike on Nagasaki. If the target is well protected, you can use Dagger hypersonic missiles with a conventional warhead, 500 kg of TNT at a speed of Mach 5 will produce an impressive destructive effect. I just don't see the point in using tactical nuclear weapons.

Unfortunately, a strike by strategic nuclear weapons, both retaliatory and preventive, is much more likely. And it is unlikely that Satan or Sarmat will be involved, because of the need to take into account the wind rose in order to reduce the risk of radioactive contamination of their own territory. If the red line is crossed (and let's be honest - we don't even know exactly where it is), I think the decisive blow will be delivered by Poseidon, an underwater nuclear drone capable of causing a tsunami up to 100 meters high and destroying all life on the coast up to 500 km deep. And it will be either a simultaneous strike by two Poseidons on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the United States, or a single strike by Poseidon on the UK. Or either right away. New York, Washington, Los Angeles, San Francisco and London will be completely destroyed from such a strike. As a side effect, severe damage will be in all coastal cities of the globe.

Russia has good relations with Saudi Arabia and some of the other GCC nations, so I think that the chances that they may target the bases in middle-east are very low. More likely, they may target the American bases in East Asia, such as those in South Korea and Japan. The advantage is that they have one of their most loyal allies in the region (DPRK). Anyway, I just hope that a nuclear war and a global conflict can be avoided at any cost. The current generation have no idea of the horrors that were perpetrated during the two world wars. We simply can't afford another world war. 

Maybe, but I still don't think nuking a military base would be the plan since they can be neutralized a lot easier and a lot cheaper (less consequence) specially those bases in West Asia considering that they are already in hostile territory and surrounded by forces who have their "guns" pointed at those bases as we speak...

Actually, the crisis only occurs in areas that are in conflict because after all in such areas there is no food supply.
help is always there but I don't think it's enough,
problems keep popping up and let's see what happens

One advantage that the Russians are having is regarding air defense. S-400 and S-500 are much superior than the patriot air-defense systems that the Americans are having. In terms of ICBMs, I guess Satan 2 (RS-28 Sarmat) and Minuteman-III are equally capable.  

The reason why I posted that Russians would rather go for the American bases in Europe and Asia is that they are much more closer to Russia when compared to cities such as Los Angeles and San Francisco. Alaska may be close, but the total population is only around half a million. Same goes for Hawaii as well. Californian cities are more than 8,000 kms away.

She is UNHCR ambassador. She was there imo, to attract more attention to that disaster. To make people care about that, and not just "another flood, someone would help them definitely, but not me". I think she was more like a walking commercial there. Sort of celebrities advertise stuff in their social media, and that stuff sales goes high. She visits flooded areas, people starts to make donations. I think it works like that.

I'm confused, how does that help anybody if a celebrity visits the aftereffects of a flood?!!! Is she helping people shovel stuff out of the way? Or is she bringing people money to help them rebuild?
Or is she just there for the cameras?

I don't think the nuclear war is predictable but I also don't think if US were to nuke Russia, Russia would nuke anywhere except US mainland. Not to mention that Russian nukes can reach US mainland a lot faster than the US nukes could reach Russian population since Russian population is mostly in the far west of Russia while their nukes are located in the far east close to America.

"Both sides" is a very misleading expression.
This is not a relationship of spouses, Russia is not a hysterical wife. This is a war, and Russia is an aggressor country, a terrorist country that violated all agreements and attacked Ukraine. Once again, Russia is an aggressor country. Which, having lost the economic and conventional war, now wants to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear country. In this case, it would be acceptable to launch preemptive, both tactical and strategic, nuclear strikes against decision-making centers in Russia, to ensure the destruction of the heads of the terrorist regime, in order to prevent a nuclear war. Today, in relation to Russia, after all the crimes that it has committed and which have already become known, it is possible not to apply any moral and ethical principles to it.

I repeat once again - the Russian regime, Russia as an entity - is a cancerous tumor in the body of the whole world. As you know, the fight against cancer is the total destruction of cancer cells, cancerous tumors and metastases. Otherwise, cancer (read Russia) will destroy the whole world.

If there is a nuclear war resulting from the Russo-Ukrainian conflict, then the chronology will be something like this:

1. Russia using tactical nuclear weapons against Ukrainian troops in newly annexed regions of Ukraine (Donbass, Kherson and Zaporizhia)
2. Americans using tactical nuclear weapons against Russian troops in these regions
3. Russians responding by nuking American bases in EU, middle-east, Japan and Korea
4. All-out nuclear war between Russia and NATO

I really hope that both sides will let go their ego and refrain from starting a nuclear war. But at this point, there is a significant probability of that happening. WW3 will wipeout a large fraction of the human race, if it ever realizes.

there are disasters. while there is flood in Pakistan, there are droughts in different parts of the world including in US. the worse is yet to come if Putin will really start a nuclear war, lets just count this as disaster as well because i bet no wheat will grow when that happens.

it does happen in my country where actresses visits an area devastated by typhoons. don't know how it could it help.

I think we will see a lot of protests (like the past couple of months in EU) but I don't think any civil wars take place though. The main war would break out between countries. Over the past couple of months we are seeing an increased amount of tensions between nations as well like the one between Greece and Turkey which are at the brink of war.
In fact we could see multiple centers of conflict each among multiple countries like multiple Balkan nations.
This could also be one of the reasons why some EU members are starting to form their own new smaller "European Union" like the one between France and England.

Actually this is a difficult question to answer, only the government can answer it, because overcoming the crisis is the government's responsibility. But we as a society of course can only increase food stocks from agricultural products. However, agriculture is also not able to increase maximum yields because of the reduced use of fertilizers. This is due to the increase in fertilizer prices. The crisis was also caused by the weak purchasing power of the people.

About on what scale the conflict will break out of course if a global economic crisis in general has occurred, then war will break out. War will occur when some countries are already weak against the economy, and people begin to starve, and civil wars begin to emerge.
The state party that started the attack on another country also measured the scale of the opponent's strength. They wouldn't attack brutally even if it was a small country. The greatest power of the state is in the hands of the people.

So this is expected - but how Europe wanted - "to sit with one ass on two chairs"? That doesn't happen. Now there will be less nyamka, and you need to buy sweaters, and without work, sit on welfare for a bit .. How else if you got in touch with the bastard regime, tied up your economy on the resources of this regime, and things look like terrorism is not terrorism, but "need to negotiate" ... Nothing, will be a good lesson for the future!

How terrible it would be if that happened and the energy was not renewable which could at any time run out,
Currently, the energy problem has become a global issue.
let's see what happens in the future and let's hope nothing terrible happens

Well it is the starving Europe that has been accumulating all the food they can get their hands on pretending that this accumulation is for the people of African! Read the opening post again, the Food War has been getting worse.

The news is also already over a month old where they made a laughable statement:
"the freed shipments will mean more grain on the world market and consequently lower prices".
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.60744052

---

The situation in Germany is getting worse

What is most ridiculous, the agreements on the "corridor for the sale of wheat to the starving inhabitants of Africa", as a result, gave only 2 results:
1. Removal of part of the sanctions from the world-terrorist country
2. Selling grain to anyone except "starving Africa"
Features of the modern world

I disagree. Fossil fuels are not running out any time soon and their importance is just as high as it ever was. For example in Iran it is estimated to have 300+ more years of fossil fuels for both domestic use and exports but in somewhere like US they estimate to have less than 5 years of fossil fuels left.

The crisis you see is mostly local and it is due to bad decisions and it is NOT because they didn't use renewable energies like the sun! But it is because they built their country based on what they didn't have!

Take Germany for example. They should have never become industrialized because they didn't have gas and other basic requirements in their industries themselves! In other words, for decades they kept building massive industries based on what they had to buy from abroad because they didn't have nowhere near as much of it as they needed!
The result was obvious and foreseeable: 30% of them are already claiming to be insolvent and are declaring bankruptcy while 60% of them claim they have so much problems that they too may become insolvent very soon. All because they can no longer import what their industries need.

Now imagine if Germany never built all those energy hungry industries and instead focused on what their own geography and resources allowed them to do. Today there would have not been any crisis in Germany!


P.S. This is not the same for food though because countries can survive and thrive without big factories but they can not do that without food independence which is not possible in a lot of geographies.