Nuclear war would turn Canada into one of the worst places on the planet. And scientists fear we are inching closer

[shockedcanadian]

I am truly amazed.

What will people say if it occurs? If any of the geniuses who were indirectly responsible for this calamity survive, what will they say? Will they blame everyone else but themselves?

Nuclear war would turn Canada into one of the worst places on the planet. And scientists fear we are inching closer

The resulting nuclear winter could kill off 95 to 100 per cent of the population.

www.thestar.com

OTTAWA—In the unlikely, but unfortunately not impossible event of nuclear war, Canada would be one of the worst places on Earth to live.

Or rather, to die.

 

[Esdraelon]

Paywall

 

[BackAgain]

A full out nuclear war could turn all of earth into hell on earth.

 

[jwoodie]

I am truly amazed.

What will people say if it occurs? If any of the geniuses who were indirectly responsible for this calamity survive, what will they say? Will they blame everyone else but themselves?

Nuclear war would turn Canada into one of the worst places on the planet. And scientists fear we are inching closer

The resulting nuclear winter could kill off 95 to 100 per cent of the population.

www.thestar.com

OTTAWA—In the unlikely, but unfortunately not impossible event of nuclear war, Canada would be one of the worst places on Earth to live.

Or rather, to die.

An all-out nuclear war is very unlikely. However, the dilettantes who run foreign policy don't mind sacrificing hundreds of thousands of pawns in their games.

 

[MisterBeale]

Paywall

<snip>

<snip>

https://archive.ph/KY8w2

Russia Suspends New START and Increases Nuclear Risks

Putin’s suspension of New START furthers the demise of arms control, eliminating one of the few remaining forums for dialogue between Moscow and Washington at a time of rising nuclear risk. Furthermore, it signals Russia’s increasing reliance on nuclear weapons.

www.csis.org

Q1: Why did Russia suspend participation in New START?

A1: New START requires the United States and Russia to hold 18 on-site inspections per year. As of January, the United States and Russia had conducted 328 inspections under the treaty. Inspections were put on hold during the pandemic, but as international travel resumed, Russia continued to stall on restarting inspections. In August 2022, Russia paused inspections under New START, claiming the United States attempted to conduct an inspection without prior notice and that “existing realities” with the treaty created “unilateral advantages” for the United States. In late 2022, Russia announced it would postpone participation in the Bilateral Consultative Committee (BCC). The January 2023 State Department report concluded, “In refusing to permit the United States to conduct inspection activities on Russian territory, based on an invalid invocation of the ‘temporary exemption’ provision, Russia has failed to comply with its obligation to facilitate U.S. inspection activities, and denied the United States its right to conduct such inspection activities.”

There are short-term and long-term reasons for why Russia suspended participation in New START. In the short term, Russia was likely hoping to use New START as leverage against the United States to convince Washington to stop supplying military aid to Ukraine. The longer-term reasons are that Putin is relying on Russia’s strategic arsenal to backstop regional ambitions and is using arms control as another means of trying to shift blame to the West for the worsening geopolitical environment. Russia has been quick to accuse Washington of undermining New START. Senior Russian diplomat and New START negotiator Anatoly Antonov explained, "We have warned that arms control cannot be isolated from geopolitical realities. In the current circumstances we consider it unjustified, untimely and inappropriate to invite the US military to our strategic facilities.” Abandoning arms control is part of Putin’s modus operandi. Russia also suspended participation in the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty in 2007, and in 2014 was found to be in non-compliance with the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.

 

[MisterBeale]

An all-out nuclear war is very unlikely. However, the dilettantes who run foreign policy don't mind sacrificing hundreds of thousands of pawns in their games.

IMO. . . I believe it is more and more likely now that the international leaders have figured out that the pan-dimensional beings that created life on this rock, absolutely WILL NOT allow a full exchange. . . .

For years, they have always shut down accidental launches. . There is no reason to believe they won't abort this madness now.

 

[justoffal]

A full out nuclear war could turn all of earth into hell on earth.

Yep first we would burn to death. Then the temperature would plummet 50 to 75° for 20 years.

 

[jwoodie]

<snip>
View attachment 996677
<snip>
View attachment 996678

https://archive.ph/KY8w2

Russia Suspends New START and Increases Nuclear Risks

Putin’s suspension of New START furthers the demise of arms control, eliminating one of the few remaining forums for dialogue between Moscow and Washington at a time of rising nuclear risk. Furthermore, it signals Russia’s increasing reliance on nuclear weapons.

www.csis.org

Q1: Why did Russia suspend participation in New START?

A1: New START requires the United States and Russia to hold 18 on-site inspections per year. As of January, the United States and Russia had conducted 328 inspections under the treaty. Inspections were put on hold during the pandemic, but as international travel resumed, Russia continued to stall on restarting inspections. In August 2022, Russia paused inspections under New START, claiming the United States attempted to conduct an inspection without prior notice and that “existing realities” with the treaty created “unilateral advantages” for the United States. In late 2022, Russia announced it would postpone participation in the Bilateral Consultative Committee (BCC). The January 2023 State Department report concluded, “In refusing to permit the United States to conduct inspection activities on Russian territory, based on an invalid invocation of the ‘temporary exemption’ provision, Russia has failed to comply with its obligation to facilitate U.S. inspection activities, and denied the United States its right to conduct such inspection activities.”

There are short-term and long-term reasons for why Russia suspended participation in New START. In the short term, Russia was likely hoping to use New START as leverage against the United States to convince Washington to stop supplying military aid to Ukraine. The longer-term reasons are that Putin is relying on Russia’s strategic arsenal to backstop regional ambitions and is using arms control as another means of trying to shift blame to the West for the worsening geopolitical environment. Russia has been quick to accuse Washington of undermining New START. Senior Russian diplomat and New START negotiator Anatoly Antonov explained, "We have warned that arms control cannot be isolated from geopolitical realities. In the current circumstances we consider it unjustified, untimely and inappropriate to invite the US military to our strategic facilities.” Abandoning arms control is part of Putin’s modus operandi. Russia also suspended participation in the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty in 2007, and in 2014 was found to be in non-compliance with the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.

Any thoughts of your own?

 

[Donald H]

Which country is the most likely to use a nuclear weapon first. My opinion is stated in order of the most likely first:

1. The Zionist regime.

2. Russia.

3. Iran

4. Pakistan

5. America

I place America last because America's resolve is to avoid nuclear weapons and pursue it's program of aggression with conventional weapons.

 

[MisterBeale]

Any thoughts of your own?

Post #6

 

[jwoodie]

Post #6

Do you mean this word salad:

IMO. . . I believe it is more and more likely now that the international leaders have figured out that the pan-dimensional beings that created life on this rock, absolutely WILL NOT allow a full exchange. . . .

As you may recall, I posted (#4) that "An all-out nuclear war was very unlikely," which YOU labeled as "Fake News." Are you NOW trying to agree with me?

 

[Donald H]

IMO. . . I believe it is more and more likely now that the international leaders have figured out that the pan-dimensional beings that created life on this rock, absolutely WILL NOT allow a full exchange. . . .

For years, they have always shut down accidental launches. . There is no reason to believe they won't abort this madness now.

It's only interesting on the reason(s) why the US military created that scam. It's worth a thread of its own.

 

[Blaster]

Biden has gotten us involved in two wars in just 2 years in office.

 

[Donald H]

Biden has gotten us involved in two wars in just 2 years in office.

At the same time we are speaking of an assassination attempt on Trump by possibly the state.

Wouldn't it be likely that the state would have attempted a hit on Biden if he was opposed to the wars?

I think it's much more likely that the state and Biden agreed on the two wars.