Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 1,426 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 219,206
Pageviews Today: 361,084Threads Today: 116Posts Today: 2,105
05:18 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Palantir CEO warns it's investors Nuclear War is far closer then being reported by News

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 83305563
Italy
05/19/2022 03:05 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Palantir CEO warns it's investors Nuclear War is far closer then being reported by News
A limited nuclear exchange is a good way to cover vaccination injuries as fallout long term exposure is identical to spike protein injury
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 82703019
United States
05/19/2022 03:06 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Palantir CEO warns it's investors Nuclear War is far closer then being reported by News
n00k d00m. don't you think by now they have tech that stops all that stuff?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 77687325
United States
05/19/2022 03:10 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Palantir CEO warns it's investors Nuclear War is far closer then being reported by News
Since the conflict started two incidents nearly led to a nuclear exchange, the latest happened last week and led to the creation of a de-escalation line. The US/UK were planning to launch cruise missiles against targets around Azovstal to retaliate for a made up chemical attack.

The Russians somehow knew about it and warned them at the last minute that they would destroy the offending vehicles used to launch these attacks. This was going to be coordinated with the Azovites in order to facilitate a dashing escape attempt.

For now I think we're in the clear there is one thing that can happen in the near term with one of Russia's "allies" that would lead to nuclear war, but the US was genuinely surprised that Russia found out about the incoming attack and prevented it from occurring.

This is all from public sources and should be taken with a grain of salt as I may be off on the timing (Wednesday night 8-9pm) with a full nuclear exchange occurring Thursday afternoon central.

I for one believe that Russia is working with some higher power to facilitate a free future for mankind as opposed to the WEF tyranny that they are trying to implement. Russia will destroy the world to prevent Mankind from being enslaved by dark forces. Putin is starting to lose his patience with provocations from the West.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 80512805


bsflag

Waiting for Putin to come rescue you?

Thread: Putin Was One of Klaus Schwab's WEF YOUNG GLOBAL LEADERS

shill
Concorde Warrior F-BVFA

User ID: 83106904
France
05/19/2022 03:27 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Palantir CEO warns it's investors Nuclear War is far closer then being reported by News
Imagine if Paris got nuked
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 82346007


It is no longer the same Paris we used to know.
I was in the city yesterday. Had to go to a special hospital for burns.

Whole neighborhoods and transport system plagued by low class immigration, Africans and Maghreb, women not afraid to walk in their full clad religious garb from eyebrows to toes.

Hospitals waiting rooms being no different. They are just everywhere. Only the 6th and 7th districts are somewhat spared. The rest of the city is all plagued.

Idol1
I came. I saw. I Concorde.

For once you have tasted Concorde you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return.

"I would say today we can integrate all religions and races EXCEPT ISLAM."
Singapore's founding father Lee Kuan Y ew
George Kaplan

User ID: 60111820
United States
05/19/2022 03:31 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Palantir CEO warns it's investors Nuclear War is far closer then being reported by News
It seems that the United States has given a tremendous amount of weapons and money to Ukraine how about these other countries I have no idea what they've been doing but United States has been doing the most so you know that Putin is going to want payback and who is he going to pay back first United States there you go, He will probably start with very serious computer hacking on our systems and then if that doesn't meet his requirements then probably a nice good blast of EMP Numerous Times and if that doesn't work then the other stuff will be flying our way. This is the result of being helpful and giving everything we have and not helping our own people plus we have to stick our nose all the way up the you know what that's more important And Putin is definitely pissed off at the United States he's going to want Payback definitely. Christmas is not coming this year or any other . sorry










-
Media LIES,TRUTH DEAD,Voting RIGGED, Vaxes=DEATH,Free Speech DEAD!,Still NOT VAXED ,TRUMP WON!
[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]
George Kaplan
[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 49598504
United States
05/19/2022 03:40 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Palantir CEO warns it's investors Nuclear War is far closer then being reported by News
the sooner the better
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 82853604


Guess you don't have children. Or a brain.
 Quoting: Buck Fiden



Lets nuke them. It's been brewing for decades. It's time.

Nope. I was smart and didn't have children.

And I have stage 3 cancer.

Lets roll.




battleflag
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 82611326
Sweden
05/19/2022 03:50 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Palantir CEO warns it's investors Nuclear War is far closer then being reported by News
This is the world after the war:
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 82611326
Sweden
05/19/2022 03:52 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Palantir CEO warns it's investors Nuclear War is far closer then being reported by News
A desert, as prophesized in the Mad Max movies...
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 44940449
United States
05/19/2022 03:56 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Palantir CEO warns it's investors Nuclear War is far closer then being reported by News
Project blue beam a mushroom cloud

They control the world with fear

.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 26603675
Norway
05/19/2022 04:00 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Palantir CEO warns it's investors Nuclear War is far closer then being reported by News
...


Your children, everyone's children, have no more significance than cattle, or even lesser beings, like Ants.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 83303147


This statement shows how ignorant you truly are
 Quoting: Full Blown American


It's cute when people think their lives matter to the cosmos

epiclol
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 81919128


Fafo. I am the mother fing cosmos. And I care about myself and family. I care about all the others too...
And boy o boy do I have a fun plot twist coming at you faster than a curve ball thrown by nolan Ryan,and what's more is I've still got my paige and koufax surprises sitting in the dugouts waiting. ;)
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 80657166


Bob Uecker hit a Homerun off Sandy Koufax! Uecker iz da man!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 82731419
Greece
05/19/2022 04:04 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Palantir CEO warns it's investors Nuclear War is far closer then being reported by News
Yeah, I've seen a Greek doctor on a TV news show suggesting to the government to push for stocking up iodine pills to the pharmacies because even at a limited use of nuclear weapons, we are so close that the fallout could impact us significantly too. Putin might get desperate and use tactical nukes but I hope he won't use strategic nukes.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 73763518
United States
05/19/2022 04:10 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Palantir CEO warns it's investors Nuclear War is far closer then being reported by News
fake nukes.

They want to keep you in fear as they emotionally abuse you
 Quoting: i am kairos


-

Read Revelation in the Bible.., We are living it NOW.

-
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 83299189
United Kingdom
05/19/2022 04:23 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Palantir CEO warns it's investors Nuclear War is far closer then being reported by News
This company sells data Intel to governments.

CEO stated this to investors. Probably the one company to know what's really happening.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 78210922

The risk of the use of a Russian low yield "tactical nukes" is undoubtedly pretty real, particularly a "false flag" report on such. This will be used to trigger panic and ever more hatred Putin and Kremlin buddies.

However a large standard yield device in Ukraine would be a disaster for Russia as well as Europe. Russia, or North Korea, China, India, Pakistan or anyone else) popping one (or more) off anywhere else, to trigger a reaction is not going to happen without a much greater escalation. The news cycle is already getting tired finding new angles to cover the big bad Russia bad.

Blaming every disaster the West has brought on itself is beginning to wear thin. People are stupid, but not THAT STUPID. Energy (oil / gas) and food inflation had already started. Covid19 and the world's foolish reaction has not yet been pinned on Russia.

Cancel Culture may work for Social Media, Tech Giants, MSM, Governments etc. to make things and people not liked, "go away", but it DOESN'T HAPPEN IN THE REAL WORLD. Cancel Culture won't work on Russia, North Korea, Afghanistan, Syria, Palestine, Iraq. Libya, Iran or any other evil empire.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 79718384
United Kingdom
05/19/2022 04:26 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Palantir CEO warns it's investors Nuclear War is far closer then being reported by News
Palantir make the software for Five Eyes.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 82187268
United States
05/19/2022 04:28 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Palantir CEO warns it's investors Nuclear War is far closer then being reported by News
fake nukes.

They want to keep you in fear as they emotionally abuse you
 Quoting: i am kairos


Right
It’s called trauma bonding
They punish you (lockdown)
Then they love bomb you (money, freedom)
When you do this back and forth between the two
You get a bond
People aren’t brainwashed
They’re numb

People in relationships like this end up killing themselves over emotional and mental anguish (they don’t see the big picture)
Or they go insane

The bond has to be broken (no contact) to free oneself
Stockholm syndrome foundation is based on this cycle of abuse and love
Big Duke6

User ID: 83266394
Canada
05/19/2022 04:38 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Palantir CEO warns it's investors Nuclear War is far closer then being reported by News
Starting in 2016, Putin has spent billions to renovate the cold war fallout shelters, build new shelters to accommodate the larger population and began running full scale national defense drills.

True or false, it is clear from the Russian viewpoint nuclear war is survivable. The M.A.D. deterrent is limited not absolute as the US believes.

Palantir is right, risk of a nuclear exchange is much higher than what the public is lead to believe.



Russians Rush to Rebuild Bomb Shelters
[link to observer.com (secure)]
 Quoting: Remedial_Rebel


Well I'm sure a few holes in the ground were dug for those billions lulz
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 73112757
United States
05/19/2022 04:39 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Palantir CEO warns it's investors Nuclear War is far closer then being reported by News
Russia has subs on the east and west coasts of the USA. They utilize supersonic tech and would hit their targets in minutes. There is not any know tech that can stop supersonic missiles. So if the bombers and all the train launched, truck launched, underground launched ICBMs dont make it the subs will have more than 90 percent success.

Basically peace should be made instead of escalation. Russia and their 6000 nukes should be somewhat respected. Peace is a far better option than global thermonuclear war. Hell on earth is not a great option for the masses but even the bunker cowards will find their lives reduced to much death and suffering. Good Luck.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 80196051
Australia
05/19/2022 04:40 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Palantir CEO warns it's investors Nuclear War is far closer then being reported by News
Russia knows Ukraine by themselves did not sink Russian ship without assistance. Watch what happens next.
PoutineNazi

User ID: 83268617
Australia
05/19/2022 04:48 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Palantir CEO warns it's investors Nuclear War is far closer then being reported by News
the sooner the better
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 82853604


Stfu you pathetic little incel

Go shit eat some shit, German style

Miserable sack of shit, not everyone's lives suck like yours
PoutineNazi

User ID: 83268617
Australia
05/19/2022 04:49 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Palantir CEO warns it's investors Nuclear War is far closer then being reported by News
the sooner the better
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 82853604


Guess you don't have children. Or a brain.
 Quoting: Buck Fiden



Lets nuke them. It's been brewing for decades. It's time.

Nope. I was smart and didn't have children.

And I have stage 3 cancer.

Lets roll.




battleflag
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 49598504


You're a selfish little b1tch too
VegasRick

User ID: 81045925
United States
05/19/2022 04:55 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Palantir CEO warns it's investors Nuclear War is far closer then being reported by News
Did he have tears streaming down his face? I see he wrote this memo on the day his company lost 20% of it's market cap.

I bet that had something to do with his mood.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 83307205
United States
05/19/2022 04:57 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Palantir CEO warns it's investors Nuclear War is far closer then being reported by News
Since the conflict started two incidents nearly led to a nuclear exchange, the latest happened last week and led to the creation of a de-escalation line. The US/UK were planning to launch cruise missiles against targets around Azovstal to retaliate for a made up chemical attack.

The Russians somehow knew about it and warned them at the last minute that they would destroy the offending vehicles used to launch these attacks. This was going to be coordinated with the Azovites in order to facilitate a dashing escape attempt.

For now I think we're in the clear there is one thing that can happen in the near term with one of Russia's "allies" that would lead to nuclear war, but the US was genuinely surprised that Russia found out about the incoming attack and prevented it from occurring.

This is all from public sources and should be taken with a grain of salt as I may be off on the timing (Wednesday night 8-9pm) with a full nuclear exchange occurring Thursday afternoon central.

I for one believe that Russia is working with some higher power to facilitate a free future for mankind as opposed to the WEF tyranny that they are trying to implement. Russia will destroy the world to prevent Mankind from being enslaved by dark forces. Putin is starting to lose his patience with provocations from the West.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 80512805


I am totally OK with this.
Anything that avoids turning the planet over to Soros/Schwab/Obama is preferable.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 75968262
United States
05/19/2022 05:01 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Palantir CEO warns it's investors Nuclear War is far closer then being reported by News
After the Cold War, there were fewer mentions of nuclear weapons in the news and pop culture. Occasionally, they are reported on by news networks when North Korea tests a bomb, but discourse surrounding them in the 21st century has not really been continuous until now. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has renewed nuclear fears. It is obvious that nuclear weapons still matter. Any discussion of the grand strategy of great powers today cannot go on without “ ‘coming to terms with the nuclear question…’If there’s nuclear war, there’s no other agenda to talk about.’” America’s grand strategy, as well as that of Russia and NATO, relies on the theory of nuclear deterrence. Sometimes nuclear weapons can be used to compel, rather than deter. While the US strategy of inhibition, the theory of mutually of assured destruction, and treaties aimed at nuclear disarmament have aimed to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in international politics, new nuclear armaments, modernization programs in Russia and the United States, the eastward expansion of NATO, and Russia’s escalate to de-escalate nuclear doctrine have fomented a nebulous state of affairs where the unthinkable—using nuclear weapons, is conceivable.

As the most mature expression of brute force on the planet, nuclear weapons do not just grant states the ability to end World Wars, they virtually guarantee a state’s sovereignty and so far, have acted as a deterrent against military altercations between the world’s great powers.In 1961, long before TTAPS theory of nuclear winter became a part of the public consciousness, “American planners estimated that implementing their nuclear war plan, called the SIOP-62, would have in a matter of hours killed approximately 108 million people in the Soviet Union, well over half of the population, as well as 104 million Chinese and 2.6 million Poles,” and that’s just initial deaths. Deaths from radiation would also be high and famine instigated by environmental damage would exceed those who died in the opening moments of the nuclear exchange. The United States and the Soviet Union eventually recognized the absurdity of the arms race, each with arsenals of well over ten-thousand weapons, both powers had the ability to destroy the world several times over, so a nuclear wear would not just be catastrophic, but cataclysmic. World War II was horrific, but another global war would be one of terrifying annihilation. This led to several test ban and nuclear arms reduction treaties that “massively decreased their nuclear stockpiles,” but there are still questions as to whether reducing nuclear arms is always the “best policy for global peace and stability.”

While arms control treaties between the Soviet Union and the United States and strategies of inhibition have dramatically reduced the number of nuclear weapons on the planet by reversing vertical proliferation and abating horizontal proliferation, it can be argued that there are some instances where the action of getting rid of a state’s nuclear weapons is not always the best policy for maintaining peace on a regional level. For example, following the fall of the Soviet Union, nuclear weapons remained in the territories of former Soviet states such as Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine for several years. For several years, Ukraine had the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal. The Russian incursion into Crimea in 2014 and subsequent annexation of the region along with the full-scale invasion of the country starting in February 2022 calls into question the dogma of denuclearization. On December 5, 1994, Ukraine and Russia signed the “Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances.” “By mid-1996, all nuclear munitions had been transferred from Ukraine to Russia for dismantlement, and by 2001, all launch silos were decommissioned.” At the time, those were some people in DC who “were inclined to entertain the idea of a nuclear Ukraine,” but “US Secretary of State James Baker took a firm view that only Russia should succeed the Soviet Union as a nuclear state, lest the unraveled Soviet Union should become a ‘Yugoslavia with nukes’” While former Russian premiers may have respected the territorial integrity of Ukraine, Russia’s recent invasion shows the Budapest Memorandum means nothing to President Putin. In light of the fact that the Memorandum “imposed no immediate cost for its violation,” it is not surprising that Putin chose to go to war with Ukraine. “The political assurances it provided rested on the goodwill and self-restraint of the guarantors, an arrangement that can work between allies but not potential adversaries. The Crimean crisis” and the atrocities occurring in Ukraine at the hands of Putin’s army in 2022 show that “self-restraint dissipates when a guarantor becomes revisionist” in response to a changing geopolitical landscape that has negatively affected Putin’s perception of Russia’s strength relative to NATOs.

After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, “NATO expanded eastward, eventually taking in most of the European nations that had been in the Communist sphere. The Baltic republics of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, once parts of the Soviet Union, joined NATO, as did Poland, Romania, and others.” In 2008, the alliance announced that it had plans to eventually bring Ukraine into the fold. Before the Soviet Union’s collapse, Russia had a “front line 800 miles east from the Elbe.” Ukraine joining NATO would mean that the alliance would be right on Russia’s doorstep. Consequently, this expansion is seen by Putin as an intolerable threat to Russia. Almost a century of enmity between NATO and Russia and other reasons rooted in historical acts of massive violence and threats such as the Nazi’s invasion of the country and slaughtering of 10s of millions of people have almost certainly contributed to Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine continued rhetoric concerning not just demilitarizing Ukraine, but ‘denazififying’ it. Throughout the Cold War, there were several standoffs, such as the Cuban Missile and Berlin Crises that could have ended in a full-scale nuclear exchange between the United States, its allies, and the Soviet Union. While tensions between the two blocs have abated since the fall of the Soviet Union as evidenced by a lack of nuclear standoffs and brinksmanship, Putin has been carefully rebuilding Russia’s conventional military forces to ensure that it can use force to pursue its own interests, which includes toppling the government that was democratically elected in Ukraine and bringing the country back under Russian influence, despite the promise it made in the Budapest Memorandum to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine. As a conventional conflict, the war in Ukraine has been very deadly, though more so for Russian soldiers than it has been for Ukrainian soldiers and civilians. Unlike the fast and furious invasion and annexation of Crimea, Russia’s go at Ukraine this time has been, according to military analysts, “disorganized, uncoordinated, and sluggish.” Russian forces have faced tough resistance from the Ukrainian military and have started resorting to tactics that suggest Putin is desperate to end the war, but it seems that that will happen only if when Russian wins the conflict.

Throughout what is now still a relatively short conflict, nuclear weapons have loomed in the shadows. Putin reportedly ordered “Russia’s nuclear forces on a ‘special regime of combat duty alert,”, tested a new nuclear-capable missile that will replace the SS-18 and SS-19 missiles, and has warned NATO countries that direct interference in the conflict in Ukraine “‘will lead [them] to such consequences that [they] have never encountered in [their] entire history.’” Despite these threats to escalate the war to the nuclear level, many countries have supplied armaments to Ukraine and heavy-hitting economic sanctions have been imposed against Russia, however; none have directly intervened in the conflict by putting their own boots on the ground to stop the Russian advance. Even though the use of nuclear weapons by one nation against another is considered “unthinkable” due to the “moral problem” surrounding them; the “use of these weapons would be catastrophic” and “reflect a historic failure of policy and, in many cases, would amount to mass murder,” it may not be all that unthinkable for Putin. Unlike the United States and NATO, Russia has a massive stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons and a strategy called “escalate to de-escalate.” The term “does not formally appear in Russian military doctrine, but a combination of provocative actions, insinuations, and policy announcements have led US officials to apply this label to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s approach to nuclear strategy. In light of the invasion of Ukraine, this has renewed fears of a nuclear war in Europe. While nobody is expecting a “bolt from the blue” style strike from Russia using the full might of its nuclear arsenal against the United States and NATO, there have been worries that Russia would use tactical nuclear weapons against Ukraine to force a surrender. Tactical nuclear weapons are lower-yield weapons that differ from strategic nuclear weapons in that they would be used to “support conventional forces or operations.”

At the least, threatening their use should curtail NATOs involvement in the war, if the West considers Russia’s nuclear threats credible. Based on recent modifications to the U.S. nuclear arsenal it seems that they do consider the threat of Russia using tactical nuclear weapons to in a regional conflict to be a credible threat. The US manufacturing and deployment of the W76-2 variant of the W76 warhead starting in 2019 is “described as a capability to ‘help counter any mistaken perception of an exploitable ‘gap’ in U.S. regional deterrence capabilities’” According to the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), the W76-2 is justified “as a response to Russia allegedly lowering the threshold for first-use of its own tactical nuclear weapons in a limited regional conflict,” such as the one happening in Ukraine. Because of Putin’s “escalate to de-escalate,” or rather, “escalate-to-win” strategy, where he purportedly plans to use tactical nuclear weapons “if Russia failed in any conventional aggression against NATO,” the threat of a nuclear war, limited or full-scale, is still terrifyingly salient post-Cold war.

Since the world has never experienced a nuclear war, it is vague what would happen if Russia chose to employ tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine to bring a decisive end to the conflict, similar to what the United States did when it used atomic bombs to lay waste to Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end the war in the Pacific, make an invasion of Japan unnecessary, and demonstrate the power of atomic weapons to the world. Unlike then, atomic bombs were in limited reserve. Now the United States and Russia, which own “approximately 90 percent of all nuclear warheads,” “each have around 4,000 warheads in their military stockpiles.” NATO states Britain and France are estimated to have between 120 and 180 deployed nuclear warheads and thousands of the bombs deployed in the stockpiles of these states today are far more powerful than the bombs that were produced just after World War II. Many of the high-yield nuclear weapons that were produced starting in the 1950s have been dismantled since the end of the Cold War, but that is primarily due to modernization “[focusing] on advanced characteristics —accuracy, speed, stealth, and miniaturization—that could make nuclear weapons appear more usable in a crisis.” “The end of the Cold War suggested the possibility that traditional paradigms of nuclear deterrence” such as threatening the use of overpowered multi-megaton nuclear weapons, “had outlived their usefulness,” but that does not necessarily mean that the world is safer from nuclear war than it was then. In 1979, Colin Gray wrote a treatise entitled “Nuclear Strategy: the Case for a Theory of Victory.” In it, he argues the United States needed to articulate a “coherent strategy for employing tactical nuclear weapons” because the strategy that US war planners put into the public consciousness at the time “overly emphasized the message that nuclear war was mutual suicide, and this invited adversaries to doubt US resolve to carry through on threats of retaliation.” So he wanted a nuclear war plan that stressed victory. In other words, he wanted a plan that would stress that the United States would come out on top if it turned out that deterrence was a myth. Whether the United States has or ever will attain nuclear supremacy to the point that a nuclear war is a viable path to achieving various political ends is an interesting question. Gray had many detractors who still believed in the idea of mutually assured destruction and Gray himself probably did too but asserting your resolve to fight a nuclear war is a very important part of deterrence. In 1979, Gray warned that ‘“there could come to power in the Soviet Union a leader, or a group of collegial leaders, who would take an instrumental view of nuclear’” It seems that we have reached that moment now. While it seems unlikely that Russia will choose to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine, the idea of mutually assured destruction being treated with more skepticism, and rightly so. Even though it has managed to get a lot of support from the west, Ukraine is not a part of NATO, so NATO states are not obligated to come to their aid. If Russia does have a escalate to de-escalate nuclear doctrine, it could employ that doctrine without inviting nuclear retaliation as the consequences of a third world war would be dire for not just the combatants, but the entire planet if the war goes nuclear. On the other hand, it cannot be guaranteed that a limited nuclear volley would not escalate into a full-scale exchange. In 2019, Princeton’s Program on Science and Global Security created a virtual simulation that shows a “plausible scenario” for an escalating war between the United States and Russia. It was “motivated by the need to highlight the potentially catastrophic consequences of current US and Russian nuclear war plans. The nuclear conflagration it depicts starts out with a tactical “nuclear warning shot” fired by Russia from Kaliningrad against a NATO base in Poland. NATO responds with its small arsenal of 180 tactical nuclear weapons based in Europe, and then Russia responds with over 300 tactical nuclear weapons in retaliation. The war continues to escalate from there until it ends in its final phase with the targeting of each side’s biggest cities. In the end, over 90 million people are dead. Billions more are destined to die in the following years because of radiation-related ailments and famine. So, the question is whether this scenario is worth risking. Does Putin think that using nuclear weapons in Ukraine will lead to a global thermonuclear war? Will a limited nuclear war eventually entail doom for all or is Russia’s purported escalate to de-escalate strategy a legitimate nuclear doctrine in the sense that it can be employed, and the consequences contained regionally?

In 2020, Putin “signed a decree—the Basic Principles of the Russian Federations State Policy in the Domain of Nuclear Deterrence” that outlines two conditions that would need to be met for him to consider using nuclear weapons. The first is that it would use them to respond to a nuclear, biological, or chemical attack against itself or its allies and the second is a conventional act “of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is put under threat.’” He perceives the encroachment of NATO as an existential threat to Russia. In his speech on February 24, he explicitly stated that the United States “was creating a hostile ‘anti-Russia’ next to Russia and in Russia’s historic land. ‘For the United States and its allies, it is a policy of containing Russia, with obvious geopolitical dividends…For our country, it is a matter of life and death, a matter of our historical future as a nation. This is not an exaggeration; this is a fact. It is not only a very real threat to our interests but to the very existence of our state and to its sovereignty.” If the goal is to prevent a nuclear war, arming Ukraine in the fight against the Russians might not be a good idea. There is no evidence to suggest that Russia will change its mind about NATO’s westward expansion as an imminent threat to its existence. In spite of western sanctions, the war has pressed on. Putin is fully determined to achieve his goals in Ukraine, and other countries, such as Sweden and Finland, have seen that the security situation has changed dramatically. “Björn Fägersten…the leader of the European [program] at the Swedish Institute of International Affairs in Stockholm…believes most indicators now suggest that Sweden will decide to apply for membership in NATO either in May or June” and the Swedish foreign minister has said that he knows “more or less that [Finland] will apply for NATO membership.” In addition, he is aware that “if one of [the] countries join…tensions would increase.” Furthermore, they could further destabilize Europe, which has not seen a conflict on this scale since World War II, when the Soviets took heavy losses at the hands of the Germans. Putin may be paranoid, but his paranoia is not necessarily unwarranted. Before and during the invasion, NATO's reluctance to abate its eastward expansion either shows a great deal of confidence in knowledge about Russia’s nuclear doctrine, or it is purposefully inflaming Russian attitudes toward the west. The consequences of nuclear weapons use by Putin would almost certainly cause most of the world to turn its back on Russia and weaken it to the point where it is no longer able to support large scale invasions into countries like Ukraine, but regardless, it will still possess the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, including the world’s largest arsenal of tactical nuclear munitions. Becker contends that the foundation of tactical nuclear weapons use is “area denial. If an adversary crosses a specified line, it risks triggering a nuclear response.” The problem with area denial and Russian nuclear doctrine is what it considers to be its own land. Historically, Ukraine was a part of Russia. “The idea that nuclear weapons might be used to protect one’s homeland against foreign invasion has become relatively uncontroversial,” but is complicated by the “concept of a ‘near abroad.’” This term is used by Russia to “refer to the fourteen Soviet successor states other than Russia.” The fact that NATO has expanded to Russia’s border through the Baltic states—Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia—“challenges Russia’s claim to its near abroad” and brings into question whether NATO is willing to risk a nuclear war with Russia to defend those states if they were attacked. Is the United States willing to bring nuclear hellfire on itself to curb Russian expansion into eastern Europe? Will Russia use nuclear rhetoric peacefully to deter intervention by the west or use nuclear weapons forcefully to compel Ukraine to capitulate?

Only time will tell whether tactical nuclear weapons are used sparingly in the Russo-Ukraine War. If such an event does transpire, no one knows whether it will escalate into a global nuclear conflagration. Nuclear weapons have not been used since 1945. At that time, there was only one nuclear power. No one could punish the United States for using nuclear weapons against an enemy. The situation in Ukraine is precarious, as are relations between the west and Russia. A global nuclear war seems very unlikely but limited nuclear war a prescient possibility. The horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened almost eighty years ago and both cities have been rebuilt. No modern leader on the global stage has borne witness to an atmospheric nuclear test. The salience of their dark and terrifying grandeur, while not out of mind, can no longer act as a deterrent to nuclear use. We just have to trust that they will work as intended if they are ever deployed and look to history to relive the memories of World War II and the nuclear testing during the Cold War. All in all, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has altered the security situation in Europe. Under pressure, there is no telling what Putin might do. His perception of the war in Ukraine may be entirely different from the western perspective and his threatening nuclear rhetoric, a bluff. Two questions remain paramount. Is it possible to determine whether Putin’s escalate to de-escalate doctrine is real or contrived and is NATO willing to follow the same strategy?
 Quoting: Huntley


Nobody is fucking reading that wall of words
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 83266363
Norway
05/19/2022 05:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Palantir CEO warns it's investors Nuclear War is far closer then being reported by News
Russia needs to make a good plan of how to destroy most of NATO's capability to retaliate a nuclear attack. I know that S500 missiles are capable of striking satellites in space. Then they could strike US military GPS-satellites. And Russia recently launched a secret military satellite into space. It could be equipped with lasers capable of destroying incoming ICBMs. And I guess a massive EMP-attack also would render a lot of weapons-systems inoperable.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 77150025
Norway
05/19/2022 05:09 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Palantir CEO warns it's investors Nuclear War is far closer then being reported by News
...


This statement shows how ignorant you truly are
 Quoting: Full Blown American


It's cute when people think their lives matter to the cosmos

epiclol
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 81919128


Fafo. I am the mother fing cosmos. And I care about myself and family. I care about all the others too...
And boy o boy do I have a fun plot twist coming at you faster than a curve ball thrown by nolan Ryan,and what's more is I've still got my paige and koufax surprises sitting in the dugouts waiting. ;)
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 80657166


Bob Uecker hit a Homerun off Sandy Koufax! Uecker iz da man!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 26603675


Anonymous Coward
User ID: 35178472
United States
05/19/2022 05:11 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Palantir CEO warns it's investors Nuclear War is far closer then being reported by News
After the Cold War, there were fewer mentions of nuclear weapons in the news and pop culture. Occasionally, they are reported on by news networks when North Korea tests a bomb, but discourse surrounding them in the 21st century has not really been continuous until now. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has renewed nuclear fears. It is obvious that nuclear weapons still matter. Any discussion of the grand strategy of great powers today cannot go on without “ ‘coming to terms with the nuclear question…’If there’s nuclear war, there’s no other agenda to talk about.’” America’s grand strategy, as well as that of Russia and NATO, relies on the theory of nuclear deterrence. Sometimes nuclear weapons can be used to compel, rather than deter. While the US strategy of inhibition, the theory of mutually of assured destruction, and treaties aimed at nuclear disarmament have aimed to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in international politics, new nuclear armaments, modernization programs in Russia and the United States, the eastward expansion of NATO, and Russia’s escalate to de-escalate nuclear doctrine have fomented a nebulous state of affairs where the unthinkable—using nuclear weapons, is conceivable.

As the most mature expression of brute force on the planet, nuclear weapons do not just grant states the ability to end World Wars, they virtually guarantee a state’s sovereignty and so far, have acted as a deterrent against military altercations between the world’s great powers.In 1961, long before TTAPS theory of nuclear winter became a part of the public consciousness, “American planners estimated that implementing their nuclear war plan, called the SIOP-62, would have in a matter of hours killed approximately 108 million people in the Soviet Union, well over half of the population, as well as 104 million Chinese and 2.6 million Poles,” and that’s just initial deaths. Deaths from radiation would also be high and famine instigated by environmental damage would exceed those who died in the opening moments of the nuclear exchange. The United States and the Soviet Union eventually recognized the absurdity of the arms race, each with arsenals of well over ten-thousand weapons, both powers had the ability to destroy the world several times over, so a nuclear wear would not just be catastrophic, but cataclysmic. World War II was horrific, but another global war would be one of terrifying annihilation. This led to several test ban and nuclear arms reduction treaties that “massively decreased their nuclear stockpiles,” but there are still questions as to whether reducing nuclear arms is always the “best policy for global peace and stability.”

While arms control treaties between the Soviet Union and the United States and strategies of inhibition have dramatically reduced the number of nuclear weapons on the planet by reversing vertical proliferation and abating horizontal proliferation, it can be argued that there are some instances where the action of getting rid of a state’s nuclear weapons is not always the best policy for maintaining peace on a regional level. For example, following the fall of the Soviet Union, nuclear weapons remained in the territories of former Soviet states such as Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine for several years. For several years, Ukraine had the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal. The Russian incursion into Crimea in 2014 and subsequent annexation of the region along with the full-scale invasion of the country starting in February 2022 calls into question the dogma of denuclearization. On December 5, 1994, Ukraine and Russia signed the “Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances.” “By mid-1996, all nuclear munitions had been transferred from Ukraine to Russia for dismantlement, and by 2001, all launch silos were decommissioned.” At the time, those were some people in DC who “were inclined to entertain the idea of a nuclear Ukraine,” but “US Secretary of State James Baker took a firm view that only Russia should succeed the Soviet Union as a nuclear state, lest the unraveled Soviet Union should become a ‘Yugoslavia with nukes’” While former Russian premiers may have respected the territorial integrity of Ukraine, Russia’s recent invasion shows the Budapest Memorandum means nothing to President Putin. In light of the fact that the Memorandum “imposed no immediate cost for its violation,” it is not surprising that Putin chose to go to war with Ukraine. “The political assurances it provided rested on the goodwill and self-restraint of the guarantors, an arrangement that can work between allies but not potential adversaries. The Crimean crisis” and the atrocities occurring in Ukraine at the hands of Putin’s army in 2022 show that “self-restraint dissipates when a guarantor becomes revisionist” in response to a changing geopolitical landscape that has negatively affected Putin’s perception of Russia’s strength relative to NATOs.

After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, “NATO expanded eastward, eventually taking in most of the European nations that had been in the Communist sphere. The Baltic republics of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, once parts of the Soviet Union, joined NATO, as did Poland, Romania, and others.” In 2008, the alliance announced that it had plans to eventually bring Ukraine into the fold. Before the Soviet Union’s collapse, Russia had a “front line 800 miles east from the Elbe.” Ukraine joining NATO would mean that the alliance would be right on Russia’s doorstep. Consequently, this expansion is seen by Putin as an intolerable threat to Russia. Almost a century of enmity between NATO and Russia and other reasons rooted in historical acts of massive violence and threats such as the Nazi’s invasion of the country and slaughtering of 10s of millions of people have almost certainly contributed to Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine continued rhetoric concerning not just demilitarizing Ukraine, but ‘denazififying’ it. Throughout the Cold War, there were several standoffs, such as the Cuban Missile and Berlin Crises that could have ended in a full-scale nuclear exchange between the United States, its allies, and the Soviet Union. While tensions between the two blocs have abated since the fall of the Soviet Union as evidenced by a lack of nuclear standoffs and brinksmanship, Putin has been carefully rebuilding Russia’s conventional military forces to ensure that it can use force to pursue its own interests, which includes toppling the government that was democratically elected in Ukraine and bringing the country back under Russian influence, despite the promise it made in the Budapest Memorandum to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine. As a conventional conflict, the war in Ukraine has been very deadly, though more so for Russian soldiers than it has been for Ukrainian soldiers and civilians. Unlike the fast and furious invasion and annexation of Crimea, Russia’s go at Ukraine this time has been, according to military analysts, “disorganized, uncoordinated, and sluggish.” Russian forces have faced tough resistance from the Ukrainian military and have started resorting to tactics that suggest Putin is desperate to end the war, but it seems that that will happen only if when Russian wins the conflict.

Throughout what is now still a relatively short conflict, nuclear weapons have loomed in the shadows. Putin reportedly ordered “Russia’s nuclear forces on a ‘special regime of combat duty alert,”, tested a new nuclear-capable missile that will replace the SS-18 and SS-19 missiles, and has warned NATO countries that direct interference in the conflict in Ukraine “‘will lead [them] to such consequences that [they] have never encountered in [their] entire history.’” Despite these threats to escalate the war to the nuclear level, many countries have supplied armaments to Ukraine and heavy-hitting economic sanctions have been imposed against Russia, however; none have directly intervened in the conflict by putting their own boots on the ground to stop the Russian advance. Even though the use of nuclear weapons by one nation against another is considered “unthinkable” due to the “moral problem” surrounding them; the “use of these weapons would be catastrophic” and “reflect a historic failure of policy and, in many cases, would amount to mass murder,” it may not be all that unthinkable for Putin. Unlike the United States and NATO, Russia has a massive stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons and a strategy called “escalate to de-escalate.” The term “does not formally appear in Russian military doctrine, but a combination of provocative actions, insinuations, and policy announcements have led US officials to apply this label to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s approach to nuclear strategy. In light of the invasion of Ukraine, this has renewed fears of a nuclear war in Europe. While nobody is expecting a “bolt from the blue” style strike from Russia using the full might of its nuclear arsenal against the United States and NATO, there have been worries that Russia would use tactical nuclear weapons against Ukraine to force a surrender. Tactical nuclear weapons are lower-yield weapons that differ from strategic nuclear weapons in that they would be used to “support conventional forces or operations.”

At the least, threatening their use should curtail NATOs involvement in the war, if the West considers Russia’s nuclear threats credible. Based on recent modifications to the U.S. nuclear arsenal it seems that they do consider the threat of Russia using tactical nuclear weapons to in a regional conflict to be a credible threat. The US manufacturing and deployment of the W76-2 variant of the W76 warhead starting in 2019 is “described as a capability to ‘help counter any mistaken perception of an exploitable ‘gap’ in U.S. regional deterrence capabilities’” According to the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), the W76-2 is justified “as a response to Russia allegedly lowering the threshold for first-use of its own tactical nuclear weapons in a limited regional conflict,” such as the one happening in Ukraine. Because of Putin’s “escalate to de-escalate,” or rather, “escalate-to-win” strategy, where he purportedly plans to use tactical nuclear weapons “if Russia failed in any conventional aggression against NATO,” the threat of a nuclear war, limited or full-scale, is still terrifyingly salient post-Cold war.

Since the world has never experienced a nuclear war, it is vague what would happen if Russia chose to employ tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine to bring a decisive end to the conflict, similar to what the United States did when it used atomic bombs to lay waste to Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end the war in the Pacific, make an invasion of Japan unnecessary, and demonstrate the power of atomic weapons to the world. Unlike then, atomic bombs were in limited reserve. Now the United States and Russia, which own “approximately 90 percent of all nuclear warheads,” “each have around 4,000 warheads in their military stockpiles.” NATO states Britain and France are estimated to have between 120 and 180 deployed nuclear warheads and thousands of the bombs deployed in the stockpiles of these states today are far more powerful than the bombs that were produced just after World War II. Many of the high-yield nuclear weapons that were produced starting in the 1950s have been dismantled since the end of the Cold War, but that is primarily due to modernization “[focusing] on advanced characteristics —accuracy, speed, stealth, and miniaturization—that could make nuclear weapons appear more usable in a crisis.” “The end of the Cold War suggested the possibility that traditional paradigms of nuclear deterrence” such as threatening the use of overpowered multi-megaton nuclear weapons, “had outlived their usefulness,” but that does not necessarily mean that the world is safer from nuclear war than it was then. In 1979, Colin Gray wrote a treatise entitled “Nuclear Strategy: the Case for a Theory of Victory.” In it, he argues the United States needed to articulate a “coherent strategy for employing tactical nuclear weapons” because the strategy that US war planners put into the public consciousness at the time “overly emphasized the message that nuclear war was mutual suicide, and this invited adversaries to doubt US resolve to carry through on threats of retaliation.” So he wanted a nuclear war plan that stressed victory. In other words, he wanted a plan that would stress that the United States would come out on top if it turned out that deterrence was a myth. Whether the United States has or ever will attain nuclear supremacy to the point that a nuclear war is a viable path to achieving various political ends is an interesting question. Gray had many detractors who still believed in the idea of mutually assured destruction and Gray himself probably did too but asserting your resolve to fight a nuclear war is a very important part of deterrence. In 1979, Gray warned that ‘“there could come to power in the Soviet Union a leader, or a group of collegial leaders, who would take an instrumental view of nuclear’” It seems that we have reached that moment now. While it seems unlikely that Russia will choose to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine, the idea of mutually assured destruction being treated with more skepticism, and rightly so. Even though it has managed to get a lot of support from the west, Ukraine is not a part of NATO, so NATO states are not obligated to come to their aid. If Russia does have a escalate to de-escalate nuclear doctrine, it could employ that doctrine without inviting nuclear retaliation as the consequences of a third world war would be dire for not just the combatants, but the entire planet if the war goes nuclear. On the other hand, it cannot be guaranteed that a limited nuclear volley would not escalate into a full-scale exchange. In 2019, Princeton’s Program on Science and Global Security created a virtual simulation that shows a “plausible scenario” for an escalating war between the United States and Russia. It was “motivated by the need to highlight the potentially catastrophic consequences of current US and Russian nuclear war plans. The nuclear conflagration it depicts starts out with a tactical “nuclear warning shot” fired by Russia from Kaliningrad against a NATO base in Poland. NATO responds with its small arsenal of 180 tactical nuclear weapons based in Europe, and then Russia responds with over 300 tactical nuclear weapons in retaliation. The war continues to escalate from there until it ends in its final phase with the targeting of each side’s biggest cities. In the end, over 90 million people are dead. Billions more are destined to die in the following years because of radiation-related ailments and famine. So, the question is whether this scenario is worth risking. Does Putin think that using nuclear weapons in Ukraine will lead to a global thermonuclear war? Will a limited nuclear war eventually entail doom for all or is Russia’s purported escalate to de-escalate strategy a legitimate nuclear doctrine in the sense that it can be employed, and the consequences contained regionally?

In 2020, Putin “signed a decree—the Basic Principles of the Russian Federations State Policy in the Domain of Nuclear Deterrence” that outlines two conditions that would need to be met for him to consider using nuclear weapons. The first is that it would use them to respond to a nuclear, biological, or chemical attack against itself or its allies and the second is a conventional act “of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is put under threat.’” He perceives the encroachment of NATO as an existential threat to Russia. In his speech on February 24, he explicitly stated that the United States “was creating a hostile ‘anti-Russia’ next to Russia and in Russia’s historic land. ‘For the United States and its allies, it is a policy of containing Russia, with obvious geopolitical dividends…For our country, it is a matter of life and death, a matter of our historical future as a nation. This is not an exaggeration; this is a fact. It is not only a very real threat to our interests but to the very existence of our state and to its sovereignty.” If the goal is to prevent a nuclear war, arming Ukraine in the fight against the Russians might not be a good idea. There is no evidence to suggest that Russia will change its mind about NATO’s westward expansion as an imminent threat to its existence. In spite of western sanctions, the war has pressed on. Putin is fully determined to achieve his goals in Ukraine, and other countries, such as Sweden and Finland, have seen that the security situation has changed dramatically. “Björn Fägersten…the leader of the European [program] at the Swedish Institute of International Affairs in Stockholm…believes most indicators now suggest that Sweden will decide to apply for membership in NATO either in May or June” and the Swedish foreign minister has said that he knows “more or less that [Finland] will apply for NATO membership.” In addition, he is aware that “if one of [the] countries join…tensions would increase.” Furthermore, they could further destabilize Europe, which has not seen a conflict on this scale since World War II, when the Soviets took heavy losses at the hands of the Germans. Putin may be paranoid, but his paranoia is not necessarily unwarranted. Before and during the invasion, NATO's reluctance to abate its eastward expansion either shows a great deal of confidence in knowledge about Russia’s nuclear doctrine, or it is purposefully inflaming Russian attitudes toward the west. The consequences of nuclear weapons use by Putin would almost certainly cause most of the world to turn its back on Russia and weaken it to the point where it is no longer able to support large scale invasions into countries like Ukraine, but regardless, it will still possess the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, including the world’s largest arsenal of tactical nuclear munitions. Becker contends that the foundation of tactical nuclear weapons use is “area denial. If an adversary crosses a specified line, it risks triggering a nuclear response.” The problem with area denial and Russian nuclear doctrine is what it considers to be its own land. Historically, Ukraine was a part of Russia. “The idea that nuclear weapons might be used to protect one’s homeland against foreign invasion has become relatively uncontroversial,” but is complicated by the “concept of a ‘near abroad.’” This term is used by Russia to “refer to the fourteen Soviet successor states other than Russia.” The fact that NATO has expanded to Russia’s border through the Baltic states—Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia—“challenges Russia’s claim to its near abroad” and brings into question whether NATO is willing to risk a nuclear war with Russia to defend those states if they were attacked. Is the United States willing to bring nuclear hellfire on itself to curb Russian expansion into eastern Europe? Will Russia use nuclear rhetoric peacefully to deter intervention by the west or use nuclear weapons forcefully to compel Ukraine to capitulate?

Only time will tell whether tactical nuclear weapons are used sparingly in the Russo-Ukraine War. If such an event does transpire, no one knows whether it will escalate into a global nuclear conflagration. Nuclear weapons have not been used since 1945. At that time, there was only one nuclear power. No one could punish the United States for using nuclear weapons against an enemy. The situation in Ukraine is precarious, as are relations between the west and Russia. A global nuclear war seems very unlikely but limited nuclear war a prescient possibility. The horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened almost eighty years ago and both cities have been rebuilt. No modern leader on the global stage has borne witness to an atmospheric nuclear test. The salience of their dark and terrifying grandeur, while not out of mind, can no longer act as a deterrent to nuclear use. We just have to trust that they will work as intended if they are ever deployed and look to history to relive the memories of World War II and the nuclear testing during the Cold War. All in all, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has altered the security situation in Europe. Under pressure, there is no telling what Putin might do. His perception of the war in Ukraine may be entirely different from the western perspective and his threatening nuclear rhetoric, a bluff. Two questions remain paramount. Is it possible to determine whether Putin’s escalate to de-escalate doctrine is real or contrived and is NATO willing to follow the same strategy?
 Quoting: Huntley


Nobody is fucking reading that wall of words
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 75968262


That's cuz nobody wrote it
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 83306119
Italy
05/19/2022 05:12 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Palantir CEO warns it's investors Nuclear War is far closer then being reported by News
A limited nuclear exchange is a good way to cover vaccination injuries as fallout long term exposure is identical to spike protein injury
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 83305563


The trouble with complete and utter imbeciles commenting is that they display their ignorance in full glory.

No one gives a fuck about N America or N Europe or India or China because there's an event coming that will make them uninhabitable anyways.

The sub tropics and tropics is where we all moved to, picking places specifically.

On one cares if you live or die. You dont matter.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 83302614
Australia
05/19/2022 05:14 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Palantir CEO warns it's investors Nuclear War is far closer then being reported by News
the sooner the better
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 82853604


Guess you don't have children. Or a brain.
 Quoting: Buck Fiden


Your children, everyone's children, have no more significance than cattle, or even lesser beings, like Ants.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 83303147


Actually this is totally correct. They have NO meaning at all bar to you.. no different to the Cows baby you think nothing of killing as she cries for weeks.

Treat all with respect or know there will be no respect for yours.
SmoothSailing

User ID: 35509688
United States
05/19/2022 05:39 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Palantir CEO warns it's investors Nuclear War is far closer then being reported by News
Russia knows Ukraine by themselves did not sink Russian ship without assistance. Watch what happens next.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 80196051


Plus 40 Billion + and endless shipments of weapons. No need for the US to be involved. We are paying blackmail to keep money laundering and other secrets safe for criminals like Xiden, Pelosi, Kerry & Romney.
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear."
Marcus Tullius Cicero
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 43399126
United States
05/19/2022 05:47 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Palantir CEO warns it's investors Nuclear War is far closer then being reported by News
Imagine if Paris got nuked
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 82346007


Why Paris? They keep threatening UK





GLP