Recent comments in /f/Connecticut

AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_j9h3fy8 wrote

Reply to comment by FallGuysStats in Now that Putin has suspended nuclear arms treaty should we be concerned in CT? by IndicationOver

>They do care about their citizens.

Omg, you've been in a coma for the last year and just woke up. Let me fill you in on what's been happening to fighting age men in Russia and how little the oligarchs in charge of the country care about the people in it. Lol. What a joke.

>There would be consequences for their use which is why they cannot use them.

What are these great consequences that would punish Russia for using nukes, but not deter them from using in the first place?

>Us nuking multiple of their cities is not "great for them".

No of course it's not great. I meant the sarcastic kind of great. Again, because more than they care about a few cities, they care about their position as a world power. If they use them, they obviously think it will lead to a better position for Russia, despite what would happen to a few of their cities.

>There is zero chance we can prevent them from launching and I give it around a 2% chance to shoot down any incoming nuke. They are mirvs with decoys built to saturate defenses.

You don't know the limits of our defensive systems and I don't either. That's why I said I assume.

>Once again, none of this can be used because of MAD. Even if Putin gives the orders I highly doubt they would be followed as it's MADness.

Perimeter is automatic (that means it doesn't need an order).

−1

FallGuysStats t1_j9h00aw wrote

Reply to comment by AhbabaOooMaoMao in Now that Putin has suspended nuclear arms treaty should we be concerned in CT? by IndicationOver

There are so many wrong takes that it's hard to respond to this but I will try.

They do care about their citizens.

There would be consequences for their use which is why they cannot use them.

Us nuking multiple of their cities is not "great for them".

There is zero chance we can prevent them from launching and I give it around a 2% chance to shoot down any incoming nuke. They are mirvs with decoys built to saturate defenses.

Once again, none of this can be used because of MAD. Even if Putin gives the orders I highly doubt they would be followed as it's MADness.

9

tilario t1_j9gyy9q wrote

Reply to Moving from the UK to work in New London, Where's the best place's to look at moving to? by UNCERTAIN_BUCKET

if you're a water person, i'd expand your search into westerly, ri. the rhode island beaches are better than connecticut and it faces the open ocean so you get actual waves. westerly is about 20 minutes from new london and is a decent size town with bars and restaurants.

otherwise, this area of connecticut gets rural pretty quick as you head inland. if living on a bit of land in the woods is your thing, you've got that as an option as well.

1

AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_j9gyehe wrote

Reply to comment by FallGuysStats in Now that Putin has suspended nuclear arms treaty should we be concerned in CT? by IndicationOver

No matter of suicide.

Russia can use a limited number of nukes without fear of nuclear reprisal, in my opinion, because Russia doesn't care if tens of millions of its citizens die, so they get some tactical nuclear first strikes as freebies.

The reprisal by the west is the matter of suicide. Russia has the Perimeter dead hand deterrent system, by which a full scale nuclear attack on Russia, whether retaliatory or first-strike, triggers an automated full scale response.

So if Russia nukes Kiev to reverse the tide in Ukraine, and the west responds by nuking a couple Russian cities, that's great for Russia because they get to keep Ukraine and they brought the west to heel. If the west retaliates, it will only be a limited strike, which, again, Russia will readily accept, if it gets it something as prized as Ukraine.

There is zero chance Russia launches a first strike against the continental US. Russia likes to say it has the world's most advanced nuclear delivery system, with its hypersonic nuclear cluster bombs, but that's useless against the US unless Russia could get all our subs in one fell swoop, too, which it can't.

I assume the US has cyber warfare and space weaponry at its disposal that could prevent Russia from launching or that could neutralize incoming missiles, hypersonic or not. Obviously such capabilities are top secret and I'm only speculating.

−3

IdiotFlyFisherman t1_j9gvsan wrote

Reply to Moving from the UK to work in New London, Where's the best place's to look at moving to? by UNCERTAIN_BUCKET

I'd recommend Stonington, particularly pawcatuck. That's the area I live in. Mystic is great but is very, very crowded in the summer. Pawcatuck is right next to Westerly, Rhode Island which has a great downtown and is way less busy than Mystic. Stonington Borough is a very nice, old school new England neighborhood with some lovely restaurants but the age group there is a bit (ok a lot) older than you. There is quicker access to beaches from Stonington/pawcatuck than towns west. Not sure what your outdoorsy interests are but it's a great area for fishing, there is good hiking close by, and judging by the number of cyclists I'd say that's a great option too.

7