Return PolishForums LIVE
  PolishForums Archive :
Archives - 2005-2009 / Life  % width 133

What should Poland and Poles do, after first day of nuclear war?


Crow 146 | 9,106  
13 Apr 2009 /  #1
Realy, what should Poles and official Poland do, after first day of eventual nuclear conflict between world powers? Let`s say, in this hipothetical situation, that Poland represent target for nuclear weapons of all kind... so, what you people of this forum say?

There are many possible situations- in case that Poland belong to NATO pact, in case that Poland isn`t part of NATO pact, in case that Poland represent part of eventual Slavic alliance, or we can imagine any other eventual situation,... whatever...

It is interesting to found out what should do Poles who in the moment of nuclear strike, aren`t at home in Poland but, in some other country... because of job, because of tourist traveling or what should do people who are of Polish origin and aren`t Polish citizens, permanently live in some other country?

What is with atomic shelters in Poland? Are those shelters safe?

After all, imagine all kind of possible situations which can happen to ordinary man/woman and explain your position.
szarlotka 8 | 2,209  
13 Apr 2009 /  #2
Most likely most people will be vapourised at that point so speculation is a wee bit pointless.
Torq  
13 Apr 2009 /  #3
How do you come up with ideas for threads, Crow?

Seriously, do they come to you in your dreams or visions,
or do you just sit at home in front of your TV and suddenly
get an idea for "What should you do on a first day of nuclear
war" thread?

No malice intended in my question, I'm just curious.
OP Crow 146 | 9,106  
13 Apr 2009 /  #4
Most likely most people will be vapourised at that point so speculation is a wee bit pointless.

you know that this isn`t the answer. You know, some and even many could survive innitial strike and even first day of nuclear conflict.... while there is life, there is hope.
NO 14 4 | 44  
13 Apr 2009 /  #5
We will all be thinking "oh s**t" what should we do now?
OP Crow 146 | 9,106  
13 Apr 2009 /  #6
How do you come up with ideas for threads, Crow?

Seriously, do they come to you in your dreams or visions,
or do you just sit at home in front of your TV and suddenly
get an idea for"What should you do on a first day of nuclear
war" ?

No malice intended in my question, I'm just curious.

if you survived NATO bombing, you would also have stronger imagination. With all those NATO airplanes above head, mind simple accelerate
wildrover 98 | 4,451  
13 Apr 2009 /  #7
Personally i would die slowly from internal bleeding , hair falling out bleeding gums , severe sickness and radiation burns....but hopefully i would be incinerated by the first blast and not suffer too much...
OP Crow 146 | 9,106  
13 Apr 2009 /  #8
hair falling out bleeding gums , severe sickness and radiation burns....

so, i supose you won`t need cosmetics anymore
Sokrates 8 | 3,346  
13 Apr 2009 /  #9
I'm going to launch a new world order project and settle post nuclear Serbia with Germans just to see Crow got nuts.
OP Crow 146 | 9,106  
13 Apr 2009 /  #10
Are you aware that for example Polishforums.com wouldn`t be functional in case of nuclear war?
wildrover 98 | 4,451  
13 Apr 2009 /  #11
Ha , probably won,t need anything....I think those who survive a nuclear war would be the unlucky ones....I was in the military , so i have a better idea than most people what a nuclear bomb can do to people , also i have been to Belarus , and seen the effect that radiation has on people.... I think i would prefer to be dead...
OP Crow 146 | 9,106  
13 Apr 2009 /  #12
post nuclear Serbia

heh, post nuclear Serbia would probably become skyland
Torq  
13 Apr 2009 /  #13
I'm going to launch a new world order project and settle post nuclear Serbia with Germans just to see Crow got nuts.

LOL

You've got a wild imagination too, Sokrates. What has triggered that in your
head? Was it bombing raid, as in Crow's case, or some other traumatic and
drastic experience (like watching Poland playing in the World Cup finals)?
NO 14 4 | 44  
13 Apr 2009 /  #14
Well i dont think that if there was a nuclear war i would want to check PF hehehe.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346  
13 Apr 2009 /  #15
Are you aware that for example Polishforums.com wouldn`t be functional in case of nuclear war?

Actually unless the server room would be hit or irradiated or cut power from yeah it would, all computers are proofed against EMP to a certain degree.
wildrover 98 | 4,451  
13 Apr 2009 /  #16
Oh my hair just fell out , my gums are bleeding , my skin is peeling off...but hey never mind , let me check my emails....
OP Crow 146 | 9,106  
13 Apr 2009 /  #17
Well i dont think that if there was a nuclear war i would want to check PF hehehe.

i completely understand you

Actually unless the server room would be hit or irradiated or cut power from yeah it would, all computers are proofed against EMP to a certain degree.

but, what about infrastructure in Poland? Transmision, signals, internet, etc?
Sokrates 8 | 3,346  
13 Apr 2009 /  #18
but, what about infrastructure in Poland? Transmision, signals, internet, etc?

Russia doesnt have enough missilies to spare for more than a few targets and the West has no reason to target us, much of Poland is agricultural and cities are very spread out so servers, power generation, communication and food supply should be ok, fallout will be a problem but that depends whats hit over our borders and how close.
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
13 Apr 2009 /  #19
How do you know this, Sokrates? What kind of figures are you reading? Russia may put numbers out there but you don't really know what they have, now do you?
Sokrates 8 | 3,346  
13 Apr 2009 /  #20
How do you know this, Sokrates? What kind of figures are you reading?

No figures, i'm seing what state the Baltic fleet is in including its nuclear assets, if such crucial equipment is left deteriorating than Russia has much less nuclear missilies operative than its total stock of missiles, their readiness to enter into START negotiations with US confirms that their nuclear stock is in pathetic shape.

Russia may put numbers out there but you don't really know what they have, now do you?

No not really but i know they dont have that much and i know they have a LOT of relevant targets in Europe and USA and none of them is Poland so apart from a random "**** you" missile they're not going to waste assets they could first strike or counterstrike with on whats basically an agricultural plain with cities.
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
13 Apr 2009 /  #21
Ever heard of bluffing? Lulling into a false sense of security? Russia is world chess champion btw. They excel in posturing. They have a lot of new technology but I can't reveal my sources on that one.

You don't really know what they have but you know they don't have much? That says it all really. Don't put your dislike for Russia in the way of rational judgement. Russia has more than enough to do the damage that it doesn't intend to do.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346  
13 Apr 2009 /  #22
Ever heard of bluffing? Lulling into a false sense of security? Russia is world chess champion btw. They excel in posturing. They have a lot of new technology but I can't reveal my sources on that one.

Letting your entire army and fleet deteriorate, not being able to feed your soldiers and being willing to limit your nukes because you cant pay the upkeep is a bluff?

You don't really know what they have but you know they don't have much?

I know they have trouble feeding their men, i know they withdraw crucial aircraft, i know that nuclear subs which are crucial to their strategy are rotting away at harbors and their numbers being continously cut down, thats signs enough.

Russia has more than enough to do the damage that it doesn't intend to do.

That is correct, it does not have enough to waste though and nuking Poland during an exchange where every warhead matters is a waste especially when you're limited and there's no reason to believe that Russia's military collapsing from feeding to nuclear sub upkeep can magically afford having enough nukes to happily spray on non-relevant targets.
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
13 Apr 2009 /  #23
Being willing to limit your nukes, ah, now that's different. Not the same as actually limiting them. Apparently Obama is endorsing complete eradication. See the pattern? Both are just talk, trust me on that. Years of work goes into submarine deployment and nuclear posturing. Remember that they had more of a nuclear stockpile than America.

It has been said that they had/have enough warheads to destroy the world 3 times over. Realistically, who would they target? They really don't have many enemies. Please, if you know better, please outline their enemies as I don't see them.
wildrover 98 | 4,451  
13 Apr 2009 /  #24
So its possible that many Missiles will fall on Poland , as they run out of fuel on their way to other targets....
pawian 177 | 14,561  
13 Apr 2009 /  #25
I'm going to launch a new world order project and settle post nuclear Serbia with Germans just to see Crow got nuts.

How about Crow counterstriking you by populating Poland with Jews to see you go nuts? I think you would go much nuttier than Crow... :):):)
Sokrates 8 | 3,346  
13 Apr 2009 /  #26
You're already here pawianstein and as you see i can accept that (your time will come Jewish bastard, your time will come).

So its possible that many Missiles will fall on Poland , as they run out of fuel on their way to other targets....

Or they get lost in the clouds or just decide Kraków is nice.

Being willing to limit your nukes, ah, now that's different

Last time Russia did it was because they overdid on nuclear stockpile and couldnt afford it, you dont just give away nukes because of good will and yes Russia wants to limit nukes for a simple reason, Russia cant afford its stockpile, US can, by limiting them only Russia gains since it gets parity.

Remember that they had more of a nuclear stockpile than America.

And less money than America, they cant afford it.

It has been said that they had/have enough warheads to destroy the world 3 times over.

It has been also said that hiding under a coat protects from radiation.
pawian 177 | 14,561  
13 Apr 2009 /  #27
Letting your entire army and fleet deteriorate, not being able to feed your soldiers and being willing to limit your nukes because you cant pay the upkeep is a bluff?
Seanus:
You don't really know what they have but you know they don't have much?

I know they have trouble feeding their men, i know they withdraw crucial aircraft, i know that nuclear subs which are crucial to their strategy are rotting away at harbors and their numbers being continously cut down, thats signs enough.

[i]As of January 2009, the Russian strategic forces included 634 strategic delivery platforms, which can carry up to 2825 nuclear warheads. The Strategic Rocket Forces have 385 operational missile systems of four types that can carry 1357 warheads. The strategic fleet includes 13 strategic missile submarines. Their 172 missiles can carry 612 nuclear warheads. Strategic aviation bomber force consists of 77 bombers that can carry up to 856 long-range cruise missiles.

russianforces.org

As you can see, Russia has nearly 3000 nuclear warheads. Even if some of them are non-operational, how many remaining ones are enough to inflict major damage?
RubasznyRumcajs 5 | 487  
13 Apr 2009 /  #28
I'm going to launch a new world order project and settle post nuclear Serbia with Germans just to see Crow got nuts.

buhaha, +1 ;)
pawian 177 | 14,561  
13 Apr 2009 /  #29
You're already here pawianstein and as you see i can accept that (your time will come Jewish bastard, your time will come).

With so many of us, Jews, populating Poland by Crow`s malicious joke, your private gas chamber will be useless.... :):):):)

It has been also said that hiding under a coat protects from radiation.

And drinking vodka.
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
13 Apr 2009 /  #30
You will always have rich businesspeople coming forward and maintaining the stockpiles, Sokrates. Nukes are bargaining chips. Iran will maybe pick some up ;) ;)

Archives - 2005-2009 / Life / What should Poland and Poles do, after first day of nuclear war?Archived