Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with a girl who said Putin is preparing to make decisions about launching a tactical nuclear strike while hidden in a bunker outside Moscow   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line
    More: Awkward  
•       •       •

1533 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Oct 2022 at 8:20 AM (9 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



104 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2022-10-04 7:59:18 AM  
Go for it. You think people won't trade with Russia now? *Full belly laugh* Yeah, I'm sure if you "win" the Ukraine war by irradiating the country most of the world sympathizes with and supports that people will just be stumbling over themselves to resume trade with a clearly untrustworthy, violent, dangerous bully that will literally nuke you without provocation.

Good luck with that.
 
2022-10-04 8:01:27 AM  
Without provocation? Didn't you see Ukraine over there growing wheat to make crackers to eat like she owns the place?
 
2022-10-04 8:09:55 AM  
Fast forward 10 years: The UN is monitoring the first elections in NATO-administered Russia.
 
2022-10-04 8:20:46 AM  
Already debunked.
 
2022-10-04 8:23:50 AM  
It's Daily Fail so I now doubt the existence of Russia, Putin, Nukes, and Bunkers.
 
2022-10-04 8:24:30 AM  
Given the state of their conventional military I expect that their tactical nukes are mostly scrap lumber
 
2022-10-04 8:25:31 AM  
1) I am sure the US knows where his bunkers are

2) I am sure we don't need nukes to reduce his bunker to rubble.


See also
i.dailymail.co.ukView Full Size
 
2022-10-04 8:26:05 AM  
Russian troops are currently fighting with weapons that need a 3-week marinade in WD-40 to keep from blowing up in their hands. But we're still running with the narrative that Russian nukes didn't fall victim to 30 years of theft, corruption, and neglect?
 
2022-10-04 8:26:58 AM  
Shiat, that's where tRump was during the protests -- hiding in a bunker outside (well outside) of Moscow.
 
2022-10-04 8:27:15 AM  

thealgorerhythm: Given the state of their conventional military I expect that their tactical nukes are mostly scrap lumber


Generals sold the good ones in '93 for Girbaud jeans and Al B. Sure CDs.
 
2022-10-04 8:27:30 AM  
What a coincidence! The exact same person told me she knows *for a fact* there are cat litter boxes in all school bathrooms now. QED
 
2022-10-04 8:27:49 AM  
"No senators are on the bunker list, it was claimed."

Currently devastated....

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-10-04 8:28:08 AM  

thealgorerhythm: Given the state of their conventional military I expect that their tactical nukes are mostly scrap lumber


I don't disagree but when you have (had?) a bazillion of them that presumably worked back in ussr days ... at least a couple might still kind of work

The question is whether anyone knows which. He could try to send over a few hundred and it would be really really bad if even one works

Sure, the aftermath would also be bad for Putin probably but it's at least a variant case of MAD
 
2022-10-04 8:28:25 AM  
I thought that the Putinbunker was supposed to be in the Ural mountains?
 
2022-10-04 8:28:46 AM  

thealgorerhythm: Given the state of their conventional military I expect that their tactical nukes are mostly scrap lumber


I really gotta wonder if the Russians kept up with the maintenance on them mobile launchers of theirs.
They are expensive to run.
 
2022-10-04 8:29:12 AM  

SpectroBoy: 1) I am sure the US knows where his bunkers are


No way. He'll be like Saddam, living the dream:

i.kym-cdn.comView Full Size
 
2022-10-04 8:29:53 AM  
I strongly suspect there are constant back channel communications to the highest levels of the Russian military letting them know in no uncertain terms exactly what happens to their families if nukes start flying.
 
2022-10-04 8:30:06 AM  

stoli n coke: Russian troops are currently fighting with weapons that need a 3-week marinade in WD-40 to keep from blowing up in their hands. But we're still running with the narrative that Russian nukes didn't fall victim to 30 years of theft, corruption, and neglect?


The common reply to this is that only a small percentage of them need to work for Putin to still have nuclear strike capability.

I hope we never find out.
 
2022-10-04 8:31:38 AM  
... dude also got elephantiasis of the nutsack from the vax.
 
2022-10-04 8:31:47 AM  

SpectroBoy: 1) I am sure the US knows where his bunkers are

2) I am sure we don't need nukes to reduce his bunker to rubble.


See also
[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x540]


I just officially renamed the BLU to the "Big Badda BLU"....

/5th element.
 
2022-10-04 8:32:12 AM  

gilgigamesh: I strongly suspect there are constant back channel communications to the highest levels of the Russian military letting them know in no uncertain terms exactly what happens to their families if nukes start flying.


Dear Sergei:

Family replaced with potato. Is potato.
 
2022-10-04 8:33:08 AM  
Where would he launch it at, though?

Hitting any civilian target would curdle international relations far worse than currently.  I imagine even most of his current allies, except maybe North Korea, would abandon him.

Hitting the front line, or even a target close to the front line, would screw up his own troops, both with EMP and fallout.  And would be almost as bad as hiatting a civilian city, PR wise.

So that would leave infrastructure targets like dams, or military and naval bases.  But I can't think of one in Ukraine that the Ukrainians couldn't keep conducting the war without.
 
2022-10-04 8:33:34 AM  
I am sure Comrad Tucker will save Putin from his own self humiliation
 
2022-10-04 8:34:21 AM  
At some point countries with the ability may see the wisdom in taking out this pathetic clown.
 
2022-10-04 8:35:22 AM  

SpectroBoy: stoli n coke: Russian troops are currently fighting with weapons that need a 3-week marinade in WD-40 to keep from blowing up in their hands. But we're still running with the narrative that Russian nukes didn't fall victim to 30 years of theft, corruption, and neglect?

The common reply to this is that only a small percentage of them need to work for Putin to still have nuclear strike capability.

I hope we never find out.


When it comes to nuclear war, it's all or nothing. Either you obliterate your enemies completely or they will definitely destroy you. There's no such thing as a 'limited' nuclear war. Not between the US and Russia. We've both been prepping for that conflict and we know the rules of the game.

So if Vlad can't destroy all of his enemies with nukes, then he won't use them. Because even Vlad doesn't want to destroy the world. Ruling over irradiated ashes isn't a victory. Not even on Putin's terms.
 
2022-10-04 8:36:18 AM  
Putin is reported to be mulling over using tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine as his invasion falls apart and his army gets routed by the Ukrainian army

Then why does the image above the caption show a strategic nuclear weapon blasting off? Not the most helpful thing to say below the picture.
 
2022-10-04 8:37:22 AM  
If they did use a nuke, I bet Taiwan would start exploring options on what to do if a neighboring country decided to resort to nuclear weapons when invading.
 
2022-10-04 8:37:25 AM  

SpectroBoy: 1) I am sure the US knows where his bunkers are

2) I am sure we don't need nukes to reduce his bunker to rubble.


See also
[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x540]


I don't think Ukraine has any aircraft that could deliver that weapon, so it would have to be a US heavy bomber.  Of course, if Russia starts popping off nukes there will probably be a LOT of US heavy bombers headed for Russia.
 
2022-10-04 8:38:23 AM  

SpectroBoy: stoli n coke: Russian troops are currently fighting with weapons that need a 3-week marinade in WD-40 to keep from blowing up in their hands. But we're still running with the narrative that Russian nukes didn't fall victim to 30 years of theft, corruption, and neglect?

The common reply to this is that only a small percentage of them need to work for Putin to still have nuclear strike capability.

I hope we never find out.


That's something I've wondered about.  I know very little of how the nukes actually work beyond "big bada boom".  If one fails at launch, could it nuke the launch site?  Could the rocket fuel exploding trigger the nuclear payload, or would a fiery explosion disable whatever sort of trigger mechanism there is?  Would it depend on the kind of nuke?

Right now I'm only a little more worried about Russian nukes than I am about a volcano in the northwest US erupting, coating my city in dust.
 
2022-10-04 8:39:38 AM  
Lonestar vs Dark Helmet
Youtube RI0i_tL-8aU
 
2022-10-04 8:40:19 AM  

kittyhas1000legs: SpectroBoy: stoli n coke: Russian troops are currently fighting with weapons that need a 3-week marinade in WD-40 to keep from blowing up in their hands. But we're still running with the narrative that Russian nukes didn't fall victim to 30 years of theft, corruption, and neglect?

The common reply to this is that only a small percentage of them need to work for Putin to still have nuclear strike capability.

I hope we never find out.

That's something I've wondered about.  I know very little of how the nukes actually work beyond "big bada boom".  If one fails at launch, could it nuke the launch site?  Could the rocket fuel exploding trigger the nuclear payload, or would a fiery explosion disable whatever sort of trigger mechanism there is?  Would it depend on the kind of nuke?

Right now I'm only a little more worried about Russian nukes than I am about a volcano in the northwest US erupting, coating my city in dust.


If you're talking about Rainier you should be more worried about pyroclastic flow.
 
2022-10-04 8:40:40 AM  

SpectroBoy: It's Daily Fail so I now doubt the existence of Russia, Putin, Nukes, and Bunkers.


It's the Daily Fail, so I now doubt the existence of existence.  Whoa.
 
2022-10-04 8:41:33 AM  

kittyhas1000legs: SpectroBoy: stoli n coke: Russian troops are currently fighting with weapons that need a 3-week marinade in WD-40 to keep from blowing up in their hands. But we're still running with the narrative that Russian nukes didn't fall victim to 30 years of theft, corruption, and neglect?

The common reply to this is that only a small percentage of them need to work for Putin to still have nuclear strike capability.

I hope we never find out.

That's something I've wondered about.  I know very little of how the nukes actually work beyond "big bada boom".  If one fails at launch, could it nuke the launch site?  Could the rocket fuel exploding trigger the nuclear payload, or would a fiery explosion disable whatever sort of trigger mechanism there is?  Would it depend on the kind of nuke?

Right now I'm only a little more worried about Russian nukes than I am about a volcano in the northwest US erupting, coating my city in dust.


A very specific and carefully timed sequence of events has to happen for a nuclear blast to happen.
If anything goes wrong, you don't get a "nuclear" explosion. You could still get an ugly, expensive and very toxic mess tho if a missile fails to launch.
 
2022-10-04 8:41:42 AM  

incendi: Without provocation? Didn't you see Ukraine over there growing wheat to make crackers to eat like she owns the place?


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-10-04 8:43:03 AM  

montreal_medic: thealgorerhythm: Given the state of their conventional military I expect that their tactical nukes are mostly scrap lumber

I don't disagree but when you have (had?) a bazillion of them that presumably worked back in ussr days ... at least a couple might still kind of work

The question is whether anyone knows which. He could try to send over a few hundred and it would be really really bad if even one works

Sure, the aftermath would also be bad for Putin probably but it's at least a variant case of MAD


There's a lot of points of failure in the launch chains. Will the crews obey the order, can the missile and/or launch platform even fire, can the missiles find their targets, will they blow up when they get there, will said detonation actually be nuclear? Of 1.5K missiles that are said to be in a ready state, I'm guessing no more than 100, probably closer to 30.

Just remember that we forced one of the most fanatical armies in history to surrender with 2. This still has the potential to get extremely nasty.
 
2022-10-04 8:46:02 AM  

Weaver95: Already debunked.


Then they must've removed Putin from the bunk..er. De..bunking him... debunk. Get it?
 
2022-10-04 8:46:57 AM  
64.media.tumblr.comView Full Size
 
2022-10-04 8:47:10 AM  

SpectroBoy: stoli n coke: Russian troops are currently fighting with weapons that need a 3-week marinade in WD-40 to keep from blowing up in their hands. But we're still running with the narrative that Russian nukes didn't fall victim to 30 years of theft, corruption, and neglect?

The common reply to this is that only a small percentage of them need to work for Putin to still have nuclear strike capability.

I hope we never find out.


We have a bit of a problem in that Russia's obvious failure to field a military has changed many people's calculations from "mutually assured destruction" to an "assured/potential destruction" split. Russia most likely doss not doubt our capability but rather our will, so this probably actually increases pressure on Russia to actually use one and try to thread the needle on getting a non-response*. They've pruned their deck of trump cards down to espionage, energy, and nukes, and the first two, while they enjoyed some success, are faltering a bit now. These are pretty dicey times for the world.


*I think that would fail, but future history is unpredictable
 
2022-10-04 8:48:22 AM  

Dhusk: Where would he launch it at, though?

Hitting any civilian target would curdle international relations far worse than currently.  I imagine even most of his current allies, except maybe North Korea, would abandon him.

Hitting the front line, or even a target close to the front line, would screw up his own troops, both with EMP and fallout.  And would be almost as bad as hiatting a civilian city, PR wise.

So that would leave infrastructure targets like dams, or military and naval bases.  But I can't think of one in Ukraine that the Ukrainians couldn't keep conducting the war without.


Meh.  I don't think Longshanks cares much about his draftees...

y.yarn.coView Full Size
 
2022-10-04 8:48:38 AM  
Iosat is on order. Hopefully WWIII can wait until my Amazon delivery arrives.

Putin is a psychopath. He will use nukes. I am thinking a lot of them.
 
2022-10-04 8:49:14 AM  

kittyhas1000legs: SpectroBoy: stoli n coke: Russian troops are currently fighting with weapons that need a 3-week marinade in WD-40 to keep from blowing up in their hands. But we're still running with the narrative that Russian nukes didn't fall victim to 30 years of theft, corruption, and neglect?

The common reply to this is that only a small percentage of them need to work for Putin to still have nuclear strike capability.

I hope we never find out.

That's something I've wondered about.  I know very little of how the nukes actually work beyond "big bada boom".  If one fails at launch, could it nuke the launch site?  Could the rocket fuel exploding trigger the nuclear payload, or would a fiery explosion disable whatever sort of trigger mechanism there is?  Would it depend on the kind of nuke?

Right now I'm only a little more worried about Russian nukes than I am about a volcano in the northwest US erupting, coating my city in dust.


A failed launch is unlikely to result in a *nuclear detonation*, but can quite happily make a large, dirty radioactive boom with lots of dirty radioactive & poisonous smoke.
 
2022-10-04 8:49:35 AM  

fredirc: If you're talking about Rainier you should be more worried about pyroclastic flow.


It's 350+ miles away, so that shouldn't really be an issue.  I'd be more worried about air quality, water, and how to help out people fleeing eastward from WA.

If Putin decided to drop a nuke in Ukraine, I imagine it'd pretty quickly turn into a free-for-all nuclear hellscape after we drop a bunch of bombs on Russia (conventional or nuke), then they claim it's an existential threat and nuke us, then the rest of the nuclear powers get in on the action because hey, everyone else gets to play with their toys.
 
2022-10-04 8:50:37 AM  

kittyhas1000legs: SpectroBoy: stoli n coke: Russian troops are currently fighting with weapons that need a 3-week marinade in WD-40 to keep from blowing up in their hands. But we're still running with the narrative that Russian nukes didn't fall victim to 30 years of theft, corruption, and neglect?

The common reply to this is that only a small percentage of them need to work for Putin to still have nuclear strike capability.

I hope we never find out.

That's something I've wondered about.  I know very little of how the nukes actually work beyond "big bada boom".  If one fails at launch, could it nuke the launch site?  Could the rocket fuel exploding trigger the nuclear payload, or would a fiery explosion disable whatever sort of trigger mechanism there is?  Would it depend on the kind of nuke?

Right now I'm only a little more worried about Russian nukes than I am about a volcano in the northwest US erupting, coating my city in dust.


Nukes are like C4: if there's no blasting cap there's no boom, even you light the stuff on fire. In the case of nukes, the precision required in the firing process is pretty absurd. However, part of a nuclear payload is conventional explosives, which are part of the detonation process (I don't know how). So even a nuke that doesn't trigger the fission process could cause problems via radiation, but not nearly as bad as an actual dirty bomb or a proper nuke.
 
2022-10-04 8:50:46 AM  
I'm sure at least some of them are functional, but considering the state of the rest of their military stockpile, I don't think it will make it out of the silo. Of course if it doesn't, they'll blame the west and then kill everyone including themselves by "retaliating."
 
2022-10-04 8:50:57 AM  
My best friend's girlfriend? She used ta be mine.
 
2022-10-04 8:53:13 AM  

kittyhas1000legs: fredirc: If you're talking about Rainier you should be more worried about pyroclastic flow.

It's 350+ miles away, so that shouldn't really be an issue.  I'd be more worried about air quality, water, and how to help out people fleeing eastward from WA.

If Putin decided to drop a nuke in Ukraine, I imagine it'd pretty quickly turn into a free-for-all nuclear hellscape after we drop a bunch of bombs on Russia (conventional or nuke), then they claim it's an existential threat and nuke us, then the rest of the nuclear powers get in on the action because hey, everyone else gets to play with their toys.


*checks profile* Ahh, yeah, you're far enough away. I shoulda checked before replying.
 
2022-10-04 8:54:29 AM  

Weaver95: A very specific and carefully timed sequence of events has to happen for a nuclear blast to happen.
If anything goes wrong, you don't get a "nuclear" explosion. You could still get an ugly, expensive and very toxic mess tho if a missile fails to launch.


Kinda what I'd figured.  So it'd kind of be a big "dirty bomb" like we were told was going to hit every American city once the sleeper cells are activated and oh God I've gone cross-eyed.
 
2022-10-04 8:59:56 AM  
He won't do it.  Putin blowing smoke as usual.
 
2022-10-04 9:13:30 AM  
Oh come on, he retreats to a bunker and starts ordering nukes fired he will be killed, definitely.
 
2022-10-04 9:15:57 AM  

incendi: Without provocation? Didn't you see Ukraine over there growing wheat to make crackers to eat like she owns the place?


Farking Ukrainians, defending themselves 'n shiat.  Who do they think they are?

When Russia wants to beat you, you take your beating or... they're going to threaten to beat you.
 
Displayed 50 of 104 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.