U.S. Altered Himars Rocket Launchers to Keep Ukraine From Firing Missiles Into Russia

1) The rates of cancer and cancer deaths among those who worked on "The Conqueror" were about the same as those of other Americans in the 1950s.

2) Nuclear Winter has been thoroughly debunked and was long ago. Even its creator "Carl Sagan" admitted that the evidence did not support the concept. Mentioned in one of Sagan's biographies.

 

Would you like to bet on that with your life?
Carl Sagan should stick with astronomy. What do you suppose will happen to that cloud of dust and radioactive particles in the photo (Hiroshima)? https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2016/05/hiroshima-before-and-after-the-atomic-bombing/482526/

 

1) Yes
2) Sagan was one of the primary proponents of "nuclear winter" in the first place.
3) Same thing that has happened to countless dust and soot clouds in the past. It will be rained out.

 

Very selfish attitude.

Meh.

Radioactive/acid rain, oh the joy of life, or in reality, surviving/wanting to die and pissed off you never got to see your maker in the initial flash. Nothing good comes from nuclear war.

 

Regarding point two above Sagan certainly overestimated the impacts of a full scale nuclear war on climate but that said the general scientific consensus (for whatever that's worth) is still that a large scale nuclear would have adverse impacts on climate and especially in the longer term on the ozone layer. While the initial climatic effects of smoke and soot etc would, as you say rapidly decline over the first year or two to the point where their impact becomes marginal the effects of on ozone production and hence the ozone layer are theoretically more severe and long lasting, taking more than a decade to correct.

So I'd rather not put the modelling concerned to the test.

 

So you can't dispute anything I posted
Got it
Thanks

 

So when the situation gets tough, you cave in, hey?
I have proved my point, you need to accept it and move on.

 

How do you figure?

 

I gave you the chance to dispute what I posted.
You disputed nothing.
So move on now. We need the data space for those who have a clue what they are talking about
Thanks

 

So, what part of this post do you find extremely difficult to comprehend? Dispute! What part of the following isn't a dispute? You can read English, right?

MAYBE YOU COULDN'T SEE IT, BECAUSE IT WASN'T HIGHLIGHTED.

Yeah, the easy way out of an argument, make it out that I can't hold one. Do you consider it's you that can't argue? Running away with the following statement.

It appears you're the one that needs to move on. As you make false accusations to cover for your own inadequacies. Toodles.

 

You're willing to take a bet (nuclear war/detonation/fallout) that will not only take you out but millions around you.

 

Why would it? I do not live in a target area nor do I live downwind of a target area.

 

Coming from the poster who whines about he can't find information on Igor Sutyagin, needed to have information cited on cruise missiles because he couldn't find it, demanded information be cited on most of what I posted, then quotes Sun Tzu like it has anything to do with the topic, you seem to be all over the map without a single post that disputes anything I posted.
I gave you direct information that you could select items to dispute, and you ran from that.

Now you can't even determine how the sites you provided could be different when they are all different dates?
If you even bothered to look at dates of claims you provided you might be able to tell (well most people can, that doesn't mean you) my information was as of the 10th on November

MY CLAIM
November 10
5917 Armored combat vehicles
2840 Tanks
1927 Artillery units
281 Aircraft
264 Helicopters
16 ships and boats

YOUR CLAIM
The only two sites you provided that have any value are for December 12
https://uawar.net/stats
December 12
5928 Armored combat vehicle
2966 Tanks
1929 Artillery units
281 Aircraft
264 Helicopters
15 boats

https://index.minfin.com.ua/en/russian-invading/casualties/ (IDENTICAL TO UAWAR.NET STATS) For December 12
December 12
5928 Armored combat vehicle
2966 Tanks
1929 Artillery units
281 Aircraft
264 Helicopters
15 boats

So the difference between what you provided for December and what I provided for November were ONLY
11 more Armed combat vehicles, 74 more tanks, and 2 more Artillery units.
So I appreciate you verifying my post being accurate as you did it without the slightest knowledge of what you were providing.
Hilarious

Your link for https://www.businessinsider.com/the-russian-militarys-heavy-losses-from-ukraine-in-charts-2022-3 is from March
Proving yet again your inability to verify information

Your link https://www.grid.news/story/global/...ounting-russian-casualties-in-the-fog-of-war/ is from August
Proving yet again your inability to verify or provide any accurate information

Your link https://www.rt.com/russia/563213-ukraine-donbass-military-losses/?ysclid=lbk0845pus691902405 is from September
Proving yet again your inability to verify or provide any accurate information

Your link https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/04...ster-873-tanks-destroyed-21800-dead-soliders/ is from April
Proving yet again your inability to verify or provide any accurate information


So an intelligent researcher would have made the reasonable calculation that as time moves forward, more systems would be destroyed. And if they provided links to sites with dates prior to my post then less systems would be destroyed. But not you

Is there anything else I can embarrass you on or will that do it for ya

 

What was that?

 

I guess its information way above your pay grade. Don't know what to tell ya.

 

No, what you posted was a waste of time. What was provided proved to me only one thing, can you guess what that might be? A clue, what kind of person you are. I guess that is above your pay grade, hey?

 

You got caught using old links trying to compare their numbers with the current information I provided. Then tried claiming why none of my links I provided were accurate because your links had different numbers on them.

But at the end of the day we found you were using data from April, March, August, and September to compare with numbers from November.

This shows you either have no ability to research (which has been proven a few times now) or you knowingly provided false information.
Your post speak for themselves. So go lick the egg off your face and move on. Everyone can see your post and how you tried to manipulate the conversation
because you didn't posses the ability to dispute anything. You just sling BS on the wall then get mad when you get caught.
Its funny to watch though.

Then on top of which, when you are called out with actual data, you magically can't read it.

Bubye

 

Ah, that's beside the point. Now variables are being added. Initially, it was just about making a bet about surviving nuclear fallout, wasn't it?

 

CYA .I..

 

Hurts to get caught, huh. Maybe educate yourself on what you provide so you don't wind up looking like you do.
Just a thought

 

I would still make that bet.

I take it you are afraid to.

 

No, lesson learnt not to commit to too many things at once.

 

No, not afraid. More pissed off than anything.
My understanding is life is a game. We struggle through life to make it the best that we can. Well, I'm at that point where I'm at the best that I can be in life, only to have it stripped away by kids in a sandbox saying their nukes biggest. But que sera sera, no not scared. I know what is in the great beyond. But that's for another time.

 

Great, so now that we have verfied the equipment Russia has lost in less than a year fighting with Ukraine, was their anything else you wanted to dispute.
1. The bulk of their bombers are prop driven cold war era aircraft.
2. Their existing ICBMs (excluding those lone wolf single warhead systems on vehicles) are all liquid fueled.
3. They chose that platform (just like China) because they can carry up to a dozen warheads long range.
4. And there is no technology on the planet that will fuel a cruise missile 5500 miles.
5. The Russian army has lots of soldiers deserting and thousands upon thousands leaving Russia to avoid mandatory service
6. Russia does not represent the power of the old soviet union.

 

Yeah, the following.

What of it, they fly, and drop bombs, is that their intent?

Why an obsession with them being "liquid-fuelled"?

Obviously, not any that you're willing to accept. The Burevestnik cruise missile. Maybe you need to be updated.
"While conventional cruise missiles are limited in range, nuclear-powered Burevestnik cruise missiles can travel unlimited distances." https://eurasiantimes.com/russias-nuclear-powered-burevestnik-cruise-missile-flying-chernobyl/

You state this, can you cite anything 'credible' that suggests this? For the moment, it's conjecture.

Maybe not, there's a new kid on the block if you hadn't noticed.