Should we be worried about war

[Seasidesand76]

Seen a lot in the news about Ukraine using USA missiles against Russia. I've been thinking more along the lines that it won't start a WW3 and will resolve at some point without the UK getting directly involved in war. But there seems to be more and more tension and threats of an all out war recently.

Should we be worried about WW3? I haven't been prepping or anything but does make me wonder if I should start getting a few days worth of food in case. At the same time I don't want to go down the prepper hole and start getting over the top.

I am not. Trump appears to believe that you can buy peace by giving dictators what they want. That has been tried many times in history. I can't think of a single time it has worked. Usually, it encourages them to want more. If Trump negotiates a peace with Putin that allows Putin to retain current gains, expect Putin to ignore it and try to take the rest of Ukraine after a while.

I mean if you are on the doorstep of the Russians you might want to be mindful that Putin is clearly running out of options and is in a sticky mess. I am not sure those in Barnstaple need to worry so much.

Oh they are effective alright. The Plutonium isotope in nuclear warheads has a shelf life of 24,100yrs and even then that means they are still half as powerful as they day they were made. Russia have plenty of long range missiles to insert nuclear warheads onto.

Don’t confuse restraint with weakness.

Yes tbh. I have been having dreams that it's about to kick off and I had the same before a few other big world events that ended up happening.

@SweetSakura

www.theguardian.com/stage/2024/nov/18/vladimir-shklyarov-russian-ballet-star-dies-aged-39-after-falling-from-building

We’re living in a more peaceful world now than we have for a long time. It’s just that the wars that are still going on are closer to home.

But anyone who grew up in the 80’s will remember the Cold War, and the countries who were at war then. Israel and Palestine have been at war pretty much for as long as any of us will remember. The iron curtain and the Berlin Wall fell in the 80’s, Russia were in Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran were at war, there were various wars raging across Africa.

The difference now is rolling news and social media to whip up a frenzy.

I am getting increasingly concerned at the US and U.K. engaging in clearly provocative sabre rattling and abusing Ukraine as a proxy for their militaries testing their weapons against Russia in combat conditions. The US has clearly supported Israel attacking Iran in retaliation for Iranian proxies attacking them. Russia could read the UN room and decide they can skip right to attacking the U.K. for using Ukraine as a proxy.

Russia is more likely to attack the U.K. to make a statement than to attack the US directly. We should stop being the US’ sidekick on this, imho. They aren’t going to save us, but they will be happy to sell us weapons to defend ourselves and make more $billions doing so.

Because stay at home mums just sit on the sofa watching soaps and twiddling their thumbs?

Your comment really says a lot about you.

But if Putin is removed it is unlikely that the next leader will be any and more likely that he will be worse.

@SummerFeverVenice

Oh they are effective alright. The Plutonium isotope in nuclear warheads has a shelf life of 24,100yrs and even then that means they are still half as powerful as they day they were made. Russia have plenty of long range missiles to insert nuclear warheads onto.

I don’t think Plutonium is the problem, it’s other materials such as Tritium (if that’s involved) and some of the other components, even simple stuff like batteries, that mean warheads often have to be serviced at regular intervals, often at depot level or further back.

If that is not done there’s a risk of them going fizz or not going off at all.

Russia were attacking the UK indirectly long before any of the events you mention, and they're not stupid enough to attack in a conventional military way. The odds of them doing that to us are exactly the same as to the US. Zero.

Yes, nothing to do with being a SAHM.

I am talking about a direct attack, yes, I thought I made that clear.

Attacking the U.K. directly would be “stupid” in what way? Our military is woefully inadequate to go toe to toe with Russia btw. The odds of attacking us are objectively much higher than the odds of attacking the US.

Especially with President (Defund NATO) Trump incoming.

More likely, Russia would attack and then EU and US would condemn the attack but then publicly tell us not to counter attack to avoid further escalation…

Agree- Mass migration due to overpopulation abs climate change will cause huge problems.

People should rein in procreation.

No one NEEDS more than one or two children.

Absolutely this .

They are plug and play for most part. You can swap out conventional war head for nuclear war head on most missiles. They haven’t had missiles prebuilt and in silos that then get serviced since the 90s.

You didn't, and it's a vital point to spell out given what Russia have been doing to us for a long time. The number of people who are blissfully unaware of that is as astonishing as it is depressing. But the reality is that if they wish to attack the UK more, they have less dangerous and more effective ways of doing it than direct military attack. That's why it would be so stupid.

The odds of Russia directly attacking us, as opposed to the more realistic and for them sensible approach of amping up the sort of thing they've been doing for years, are objectively zero. That's the same as the US.

@oakleaffy I think you'll find that in Europe we are heading towards a complete crisis in terms of demographics. Not enough people are having children so the idea that we need to rein in the birth rate is a fantasy

I did actually.
“Russia could read the UN room and decide they can skip right to attacking the U.K. ..” and “Russia is more likely to attack the U.K. to make a statement than to attack the US directly.”

You are muddying things by saying Russia have been “indirectly attacking” for years. Yeah, I know, and that is why a direct attack is becoming increasingly more likely, not less likely. The tool box is getting empty.

And honestly, what is left to amp up to when they’ve been doing everything but a direct attack for years and we keep on provocatively crossing every red line they issue through diplomatic channels?

Why on earth has this thread started asking if people are SAHMS? The chip on the shoulder on some none SAHMS is ridiculous and it is nasty to project that on to other people. I am not a SAHM but I realise they are caring for people, have complex lives too and may well be helping in lots of other ways in their local community. The hate towards them shod get absolutely no airtime on what should be a supportive, feminist, platform

The people around a new leader won't want their families incinerated in a nuclear holocaust either.

Stop acting like you have an inside track. It’s embarrassing.

No you didn't actually. Your post completely failed to acknowledge that they've been attacking the UK for years. That's why it needed to be pointed out.

And what's left to amp up is more cyberattacks, more targeted stuff on our own soil. This is what's actually realistic and what we need to be preparing for.

I wonder why you are so keen to keep saying Russia will attack the UK. Almost like you are trying to scare people. The problem is no one cares about Russia and their rag tag army any longer. They are incapable of defending themselves much less start any more wars this decade. If they want to incinerate themselves so be it.

More populous areas have many children that can’t be cared for properly.
Only have children ( one or two) that can be cared for responsibly.
It’s basic common sense.