Yesterday’s work, was a bit of a shock, because I suddenly realised that I had been focussing on the wrong things in terms of surviving a nuclear war. So, this article challenges my whole assumption of a “nuclear war”.
My simple conclusion is that a “nuclear war” is a propaganda lie. It is just a war, with bigger weapons, So, anything one would do to prepare to survive a war applies to a nuclear war. The big difference is a nuclear war is a propaganda weapon which means it behaves in a different way in the minds of politicians and public.
There is a basic assumption when researching “how to survive a nuclear war” which needs challenging. And, that is the assumption such a war would be nuclear. For obvious reasons I excluded a non-nuclear war, but in the light of modern precision strike equipment that was a mistake.
I’ve also not specified an opponent, because, that opponent could as easily be the US, France, Israel or the Russian Federation. The crazies have taken over the EU … those crazies could easily create a war with the UK. Bidem could very easily have gone to war with the UK, it only needed a democratically elected government “not approved” by Bidem and the brain dead regime could have taken us into nuclear war (the US never forgave the UK for being the UK).
It is well known how the US would behave: to target civilian centres and kill the maximum people. Because that is how the US prosecute all wars: kill the maximum people in order to terrorise the country into submission. The Israelis are just a more evil form of the US.
It is well known to anyone watching the Russians (which means not well known to most in the UK), that the Russians do not target civilians. Instead they will hit legitimate military targets.
The French … seeing the insanity in the EU, it doesn’t take a genius to know that a UK EU war could start over anything. It doesn’t take a genius to know that when you have mad people running the EU, it could quickly escalate to threats and then actual nuclear war. It doesn’t take a genius to know there will be little military or other logic to a French attack on the UK.
And, let’s not forget ….. Starmer could very easily go to war if he is told to do so. So, the UK could very easily provoke a war with any other nuclear power.
However, out of all the potential attackers, the one who are least likely to fire nuclear weapons are the Russians. Because they actually have the ability to do most of what a nuclear strike could achieve using non-nuclear weapons. Largely because nuclear weapons are pretty useless. The only reason to use them, if there is an area with numerous military targets, or there is a target that needs the biggest weapons to bust a bunker.
So, if the Russians did attack the UK, I don’t foresee many nukes being used. Indeed, so few nukes are really needed, that they may use other means to achieve the same end. Which is the same military result as a nuclear war, but without using nukes.
So, why do the Russians have nukes?
Mainly to deter the US from attacking Russia. And, if the US did attack Russia, Russia will respond by attacking US cities. Not because the Russians want or need to attack cities, but, because the only way to deter the US who will attack Russian cities to terrorise them, is to be prepared and ready to attack US cities.
I’ve no doubt all US presidents would murder billions of people. There is not one of them who hasn’t clapped and laughed as they murder innocent civilians in numerous wars, mainly targetting civilians because they are inherently a terrorist government using terror tactics like “shock and awe”. So, there is absolutely no reason to believe the US government would hesitate to destroy Russia … except for the threat they would counter and retaliate.
All the crap in films showing US presidents hesitating to push a button … I don’t believe it in the slightest. That is propaganda for the gullible, The problem would be trying to get them to spend even a microsecond thinking about it before gladly joking as they “push the button” to kill billions. That is clearly shown by their behaviour deliberately murdering & ethnically cleansing Palestinians and hitting an obvious religious gathering of Houthis and joking about their murder. They enjoy killing.
“By their actions we know their character”. The US continually shows it targets civilians, From Hiroshima to Gaza, it sees civilians as a legitimate target of its terror campaigns.
In contrast, there is not a shred of evidence for the Russians targetting civilians in Ukraine. The only targets I know about, are individuals, who the Russians seem to believe were a threat to them. They were taken out. Not by blowing up half the populace, as the US would have done, but by an assassination targetted to one individual. I don’t know why they were taken out, but seeing how the UK establishment behaved when it was able to attack Russia, I believe the Russians had good reason for what they did (but do not agree with it never-the-less)
The only reason the Russians have nukes, is to deter the US, who would have destroyed Russia long ago if it had not had the nukes.
So Russia would hit the US with nukes. It has to, because it must carry out its threat otherwise it isn’t a threat but an empty gesture. And, the Russians aren’t in to empty gestures.
But, would the Russians hit the UK? They certainly have cause to hate Starmer and Johnson and all those who caused so many Russians to die resisting the Nato aggression. But, I do not believe the Russians do vengeance military attacks. They will hit the UK tit for tat. But not by a US style killing of civilians, nor even killing of military. They would only hit the UK with nukes, if there was a military need to hit the UK with nukes.
Guessing Russian Capability and Tactics
If the Russians did decide to attack the UK, then there’s a whole back story leading up to that which is key to understanding their tactics. But, there are so many ways that could happen, I can’t assess them all.
But just as key to understanding their tactics is understanding their capabilities. And, there is no way in the world they are going to make those known. All we know is what we can currently see. Russia is easily winning in Ukraine, without disclosing its most advanced weaponry. So, we don’t know what that is, or even if it is.
What I do know, is that the Russians have run rings around UK and US “intelligence”. They have played them like a puppeteer, getting them to believe just what the Russians wanted them to believe. Partly that is because the Russians know the US intelligence psychology … which makes them really easy to manipulate. They use the US’ character flaw: arrogance and belief in their own superiority. But I also strongly suspect the Russians have very extensive spy networks. But those working for the Russians, probably think they are doing something else, like “saving the planet” or “waging class war” or “working for Israel”.
The big problems working out Russian tactics are
- The Russians are by far and away the best tacticians on the planet.
- The Russians are by far and away the best at keeping secret their own military capabilities.
- I’m not sure, that I even want to suggest what the Russians would do, because the US not knowing what the Russians would do, is the only thing keeping the US from starting WWIII.
It’s what happens not how
From the point of view of an individual in the UK, how they get to a position of losing all their power, comms, and government isn’t important, only that that is a potential scenario. Nor does it matter how many nukes may be sent, nor where they hit, only that they divide up the country into small autonomous regions.
The biggest distinction, is between no-nukes and nukes, because a nuke leaves a trail of radioactive fallout which creates a barrier that divides. Without nukes, those barriers do not exist. But Britain could still be split up. Big roads like the M6 may be impassable at key bridges. Railways taken out. Airports unusable.
Hitting Government
In Ukraine, the Russians, despite the clear opportunity to do so, have not taken out Zelensky. But, that is because Zelensky is such an idiot I’ve often believed he is working for the Russians. The same was also true of Hitler. It is claimed, apparently with good reason, that he was incompetent as a military leader and as such an asset to the allies
However, from a military point of view, it saves resources to have the entire country surrender as one unit. So, keeping an effective government capable of surrendering is quite a useful thing to do.
But, there is also the fact that leaders do not like to take out other leaders, in the hope that they will not target them. Because there is nothing leaders dislike more, than to have to suffer the same risk of death as the people they send like lambs to slaughter to die.
However, the Russian aim, if it were to attack the UK, would be to disable it militarily. And, one easy way to do that, is to destroy all the top military .. and if there are spare missiles, to take out government as well. So, the government is a legitimate military target. And, if the Russians intended to make an example of the UK, to deter the US/Israel, then taking out the UK government & intelligence services would certainly send a shiver down the deep state running the US.
But, there is some part of the UK government or perhaps the Israeli lobby controlled part … but there is some part that hates Russia with a vehemence, not just as a fad this year, but for centuries. And, whatever is the root cause of that hatred, is going to be taken out. So, if Russia went to war with the UK, that centre of hatred isn’t going to survive. Of course, the root cause, may not be in the UK!
Conclusion
Whether the war includes nuclear or not, doesn’t massively affect how an individual would cope with such a war. But, being “nuclear” has a huge propaganda element. What it has come to mean, is a war that is ended by a single strike. That is a US concept … they like “big” terrorising events and they like to do everything in a few seconds and they like to kill lots of civilians in the biggest show possible.
Russia, is happy to wage war slowly minimising Russian casualties, and if possible reducing wider civilian deaths. Because avoiding civilian deaths is a propaganda tool and as much a weapon of war as any other.
But, I also have no doubt the Russians would kill the entire US population, if that is what is required to prevent the destruction of Russia. And, it will use terror tactics like the US and therefore nukes, if that is what is required. The big difference: the US goes for terror tactics first, the Russians do not.
