Ukraine

[Sly]

It wouldn’t surprise me if they’ve been making biological weapons in deepest, darkest Siberia in an underground lab. 

Edited 20 October 2022 by Sly

[leicsmac]

6 hours ago, Sly said:

It wouldn’t surprise me if they’ve been making biological weapons in deepest, darkest Siberia in an underground lab. 

May I ask why?

[MPH]

Two local  men in Finland have taken it upon themselves to paint the parking space reserved for the Russian consular general Blue and yellow. Government have refused to intervene.

[Sly]

5 hours ago, leicsmac said:

May I ask why?

Out of the eyes of the world. 
 

To try and stay one step ahead of the curve in terms of military arsenal. 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Sly said:

Out of the eyes of the world. 
 

To try and stay one step ahead of the curve in terms of military arsenal. 

Can see the motivation, can't see the logic behind making a weapon one can never use, not when he has a more than adequate stock of those anyway.

Edited 21 October 2022 by leicsmac

[Sly]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Can see the motivation, can't see the logic behind making a weapon one can never use, not when he has more than adequate stock of those exist anyway.

I don’t think we can ever be at a point you can assume you’ll never use them.
 

The issue is, if you never make them and you’d require them, then you’d be on the back foot. 
 

At some point, be it tomorrow, 100 years or 10,000 years, war “might” occur that requires them. 

[Captain...]

3 hours ago, Sly said:

I don’t think we can ever be at a point you can assume you’ll never use them.
 

The issue is, if you never make them and you’d require them, then you’d be on the back foot. 
 

At some point, be it tomorrow, 100 years or 10,000 years, war “might” occur that requires them. 

It's the old having a gun in your house for defense makes you a lot more likely to get shot paradox. Having nukes means that should anyone attack they are going to do so in such a co-ordinated and devastating way you will not be able to retaliate.

[Sly]

34 minutes ago, Captain... said:

It's the old having a gun in your house for defense makes you a lot more likely to get shot paradox. Having nukes means that should anyone attack they are going to do so in such a co-ordinated and devastating way you will not be able to retaliate.

I agree

[leicsmac]

6 hours ago, Sly said:

I don’t think we can ever be at a point you can assume you’ll never use them.
 

The issue is, if you never make them and you’d require them, then you’d be on the back foot. 
 

At some point, be it tomorrow, 100 years or 10,000 years, war “might” occur that requires them. 

Allow me to fully explain my reasoning here:

 

Biological weapons are possibly even "worse" than nuclear weapons in terms of the possibility that one being used will result in a catastrophic outcome for all humanity, not just the ones deploying them. This is because once one is used, even with all the best engineering on the planet, rules of evolution dictate that it will mutate into a form both unknown and unanticipated by those who designed it. Such a mutation could very easily destroy not only the enemy, but anyone nearby and even the original creators of it too, even if they have a cure for the original strain.

 

Such weapons are, by their very nature, uncontrollable.

 

As such, I cannot envisage a circumstance where a nation would feel that using them would be a matter of necessity - unless there was some kind of alien invasion and we needed a War of the Worlds style solution, perhaps. If there is another more realistic circumstance for using them that you've thought of, I'd be happy to entertain it.

[Blarmy]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Allow me to fully explain my reasoning here:

 

Biological weapons are possibly even "worse" than nuclear weapons in terms of the possibility that one being used will result in a catastrophic outcome for all humanity, not just the ones deploying them. This is because once one is used, even with all the best engineering on the planet, rules of evolution dictate that it will mutate into a form both unknown and unanticipated by those who designed it. Such a mutation could very easily destroy not only the enemy, but anyone nearby and even the original creators of it too, even if they have a cure for the original strain.

 

Such weapons are, by their very nature, uncontrollable.

 

As such, I cannot envisage a circumstance where a nation would feel that using them would be a matter of necessity - unless there was some kind of alien invasion and we needed a War of the Worlds style solution, perhaps. If there is another more realistic circumstance for using them that you've thought of, I'd be happy to entertain it.

And yet, nuclear weapons exist. You keep pointing out that one nuclear weapon being fired guarantees the destruction of the human race, surely it’s not too much of a leap to entertain the idea that a country might develop biological weapons in secret?

 

It’s not like we don’t have any precedence for egomaniacs doing things that they shouldn’t do.

[Sly]

3 hours ago, Blarmy said:

And yet, nuclear weapons exist. You keep pointing out that one nuclear weapon being fired guarantees the destruction of the human race, surely it’s not too much of a leap to entertain the idea that a country might develop biological weapons in secret?

 

It’s not like we don’t have any precedence for egomaniacs doing things that they shouldn’t do.

Exactly.

 

Also, I did think alien invasion earlier but thought that declaring we might develop them for such an event might sound a little far fetched. 
 

I personally would rather live in a world, where no weapons exist. However like you’ve stated it’s not a big jump to go from Nuclear to Biological. Neither should ever be used, however you could never rule it out, as someone will, at some stage. 

[leicsmac]

7 hours ago, Blarmy said:

And yet, nuclear weapons exist. You keep pointing out that one nuclear weapon being fired guarantees the destruction of the human race, surely it’s not too much of a leap to entertain the idea that a country might develop biological weapons in secret?

 

It’s not like we don’t have any precedence for egomaniacs doing things that they shouldn’t do.

 

3 hours ago, Sly said:

Exactly.

 

Also, I did think alien invasion earlier but thought that declaring we might develop them for such an event might sound a little far fetched. 
 

I personally would rather live in a world, where no weapons exist. However like you’ve stated it’s not a big jump to go from Nuclear to Biological. Neither should ever be used, however you could never rule it out, as someone will, at some stage. 

Fair points, both of you.

 

Perhaps I'm simply attributing too much logic to such people when I express the point that when you already have enough world-destroying weapons that can never be used because they'll do exactly that as a credible deterrent, there's not much utility in making another. Such folks often aren't driven by rationality, even when their cause is pretty obvious self-interest (as I believe it to be with Putin).

 

I maintain making such weapons would be pointless for a guy like him as I still can't see the overall utility, but I can see why they'd get developed anyway.

 

NB. Apologies for referring to nuclear escalation so much but it is a point of fact that bears repeating. Is there a situation where the big boys (that's to say, the US, Russia or China) just use one weapon or a few weapons against each other and then call it a day? I can't think of one. And one small point of order - I don't think humanity would be rendered extinct or destroyed by such an exchange, just placed in vastly reduced circumstances.

[fox_favourite]

Interesting take on the Russian propaganda and the messages the the population is getting:

 

 

[SpacedX]

11 hours ago, Sly said:

Also, I did think alien invasion earlier but thought that declaring we might develop them for such an event might sound a little far fetched. 

If any such sufficiently advanced civilisation had the requisite technology or the will to traverse the vast reaches of interstellar or intergalactic space to occupy our planet, a response with nuclear weaponry would rather be like hunting elephants with a pea shooter. 

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, Line-X said:

If any such sufficiently advanced civilisation had the requisite technology or the will to traverse the vast reaches of interstellar or intergalactic space to occupy our planet, a response with nuclear weaponry would rather be like hunting elephants with a pea shooter. 

Pretty much.

 

A biological weapon, however, may well stand a greater chance of success because it would be of a form much more likely to be unfamiliar to them and therefore less able to defend against.

 

Of course, this is all conjecture.

[SpacedX]

28 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Pretty much.

 

A biological weapon, however, may well stand a greater chance of success because it would be of a form much more likely to be unfamiliar to them and therefore less able to defend against.

 

Of course, this is all conjecture.

Assuming that they were biological (living organisms) themselves. 

[leicsmac]

13 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Assuming that they were biological (living organisms) themselves. 

Certainly. Smart money is that we'd be Solyent Green.

[Sly]

9 hours ago, leicsmac said:

 

 

 

 

 

NB. Apologies for referring to nuclear escalation so much but it is a point of fact that bears repeating. Is there a situation where the big boys (that's to say, the US, Russia or China) just use one weapon or a few weapons against each other and then call it a day? I can't think of one. And one small point of order - I don't think humanity would be rendered extinct or destroyed by such an exchange, just placed in vastly reduced circumstances.

I think humanity would survive nuclear escalation. However what the Earth would look like coming out of it would’ve quite different. 
 

I don’t see a situation where only a few are used unfortunately. 
 

The only reason I could see someone like Putin using them, would be for notoriety. Would Hitler have used them in WW2? To my knowledge, the Uranverein project wasn’t successful in making a bomb. I could well have seen him using them if he’d got them. Maybe even Bin Laden, or Stalin would have used them if they’d have have access. 
 

History has had some evil dictators and at some point, someone will surpass Hitler, Stalin, Mao ZeEong, Khan etc 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Sly said:

I think humanity would survive nuclear escalation. However what the Earth would look like coming out of it would’ve quite different. 
 

I don’t see a situation where only a few are used unfortunately. 
 

The only reason I could see someone like Putin using them, would be for notoriety. Would Hitler have used them in WW2? To my knowledge, the Uranverein project wasn’t successful in making a bomb. I could well have seen him using them if he’d got them. Maybe even Bin Laden, or Stalin would have used them if they’d have have access. 
 

History has had some evil dictators and at some point, someone will surpass Hitler, Stalin, Mao ZeEong, Khan etc 

Stalin did have access to them for around four years, but didn't use them.

 

But yes, there will likely be another figure who causes more damage than history's greatest hits... but then it could also just be the apathy and lack of action of the human race at large that results in a historical level of tragedy too, given current circumstances.

 

Perhaps even, the latter leading to the former.

[blabyboy]

Last week's Cyber podcast discussed this very subject on Nuclear war 101 and who actually might use them.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://open.spotify.com/show/3smcGJaAF6F7sioqFDQjzn&ved=2ahUKEwijqMLY5_P6AhXqTkEAHQ9eByYQFnoECEwQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3Nt6waEQ5KG959wSZiaCOH

Edited 22 October 2022 by blabyboy

[Captain...]

2 hours ago, Sly said:

I think humanity would survive nuclear escalation. However what the Earth would look like coming out of it would’ve quite different. 
 

I don’t see a situation where only a few are used unfortunately. 
 

The only reason I could see someone like Putin using them, would be for notoriety. Would Hitler have used them in WW2? To my knowledge, the Uranverein project wasn’t successful in making a bomb. I could well have seen him using them if he’d got them. Maybe even Bin Laden, or Stalin would have used them if they’d have have access. 
 

History has had some evil dictators and at some point, someone will surpass Hitler, Stalin, Mao ZeEong, Khan etc 

The only reason they have been used in the past was just so the US could flex their muscles. Japan were a beaten force. I do wonder what would have happened if they'd never have been used in WW2. Would we have the same understanding of the consequences and created treaties controlling their use or would the next minor conflict involving a nuclear state have escalated to the point of using nukes. Think of nukes being used in Vietnam.

[Sly]

7 minutes ago, Captain... said:

The only reason they have been used in the past was just so the US could flex their muscles. Japan were a beaten force. I do wonder what would have happened if they'd never have been used in WW2. Would we have the same understanding of the consequences and created treaties controlling their use or would the next minor conflict involving a nuclear state have escalated to the point of using nukes. Think of nukes being used in Vietnam.

Great point actually. 

[Blarmy]

The weird thing with nukes is that they stop those with them overtly fighting each other, but also prevent those with them intervening when someone else with them attacks someone who doesn’t.  They’re a license to be a c**t.  

[leicsmac]

13 hours ago, Captain... said:

The only reason they have been used in the past was just so the US could flex their muscles. Japan were a beaten force. I do wonder what would have happened if they'd never have been used in WW2. Would we have the same understanding of the consequences and created treaties controlling their use or would the next minor conflict involving a nuclear state have escalated to the point of using nukes. Think of nukes being used in Vietnam.

There's always been a lively debate about whether the atomic bombings were justified, both numerically and morally. Personally, I sit on the fence on that one because both sides make pretty compelling arguments.

 

On the second paragraph, the lack of understanding regarding nuclear weapons in the early days was absurd and frankly terrifying. For example, there were orders stating that bombs should be used to clear the beachhead for Operation Downfall (the invasion of Japan) and that troops could advance on an area that had been bombed 48 hours after it had been hit! Imagine what that would have done to the invasion force...

 

I think it's certainly possible that if they hadn't been used in Japan, they would have been used elsewhere, but I'm also of the opinion that the moment they were used in any situation, treaties regulating their use in the same way we have now would have arisen, simply because of how dreadful they are. Perhaps its a small mercy that it took the use of two such weapons, not more in a wider conflict, to bring humanity to that conclusion.

 

9 hours ago, Blarmy said:

The weird thing with nukes is that they stop those with them overtly fighting each other, but also prevent those with them intervening when someone else with them attacks someone who doesn’t.  They’re a license to be a c**t.  

Yep. The five permanent members of the UN Security Council are there specifically because they were the first to get their hands on the Bomb. And since that came about, there has been a litany of cvntery...Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Vietnam, Cambodia, Afghanistan (twice!), Iraq, Ukraine. All examples of those with them choosing to fvck with those who don't for mostly base purposes, and there's many more.

 

Thing is though, there's no easy solution to this problem. The spectre of MAD is a necessity to prevent far wider war (what a judgement of how asinine a species we are) and there's no easy way to preserve that while making sure the countries further down the ladder don't get messed with.

[fox_favourite]

There are reports of another Russian fighter plane crashing in Russia…

 

Two in a week…..