RAF fighter jets have escorted a 'nuke sniffer' spy plane over the Black
Sea amid fears Vladimir Putin may detonate a nuclear bomb in a warning to
the West.

Two RAF Typoons were scrambled to escort the Boeing RC-135 before sharply
turning on themselves and heading back to NATO-friendly territory.

The RC-135W 'soaks up' enemy signals and is also known as a 'nuke sniffer'
because of its capability to test the atmosphere for evidence of
radioactivity.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/20151522/raf-jets-escort-spy-plane-black-sea-nuke-fears/

The four-engine jets, called Rivet Joints, are used by Britain to conduct
electronic surveillance on enemy targets by monitoring signals from radars
and other systems.

The routine run took off from an air base in Romania and came with within
miles of the Russian-controlled coastline of Crimea today, according to
images shared online.

A Ministry of Defence spokesperson said: "UK fast jets frequently
accompany RAF aircraft both for training and operational purposes, this
activity is routinely reviewed.

"These flights are conducted in international airspace."

It comes amid heightened fears russia could use the Black Sea as ground
zero for a nuclear attack.

Putin may choose to launch a low-yield device over the Black Sea or test
fire a Poseidon drone off the US coast, experts warned.

Putin is “preparing to make key decisions from a bunker” after warning his
closest family to be ready to evacuate Moscow in a hurry, reports claim.

Fears of an imminent nuke test on the Ukraine border were raised earlier
this month after a train was seen carrying supplies.

Meanwhile NATO warned Russia has deployed its giant new Belgorod submarine
which can be armed with terrifying nuclear "doomsday drones".

Joseph Cirincione, a distinguished fellow at the Quincy Institute for
Responsible Statecraft in Washington DC, warned Russia could initially
fire nukes into the Black Sea as a "demonstration shot" before using
nuclear weapons on targets in Ukraine.

And in a worrying worst case scenario, Mr Cirincione said Putin could fire
at NATO targets or even the United States.

Mr Cirincione said: "The first possibility is you would use a nuclear
weapon in a demonstration shot, so you would fire something into the Black
Sea, for example.

"The purpose of this is to 'escalate to de-escalate' if the war is going
badly.

"If the Russians felt they were on the verge of defeat, they would fire
off a nuclear shot to indicate the seriousness of the situation, and to
cause the West to back off.

"If that were to happen, I would say the reaction would be shock and
horror - but it would not require a military response.

"You don't have to do anything there. I would say the US response would be
more diplomatic."

He said Putin could also unleash a "very low yield weapon" on a military
target in Ukraine.

Russia is known to have so-called tactical nukes, which can be launched
onto the battlefield by Iskander missiles.

They would kill thousands and cause major damage.

The expert went on: "The third possibility is that they use a serious
nuclear weapon - Hiroshima sized or more - and it strikes and it destroys
a city in Ukraine.

"At that point, that's where things get quite serious.

"I would immediately expect to see long-range military response from Nato.

"Not Nato forces on the ground, but long-range strikes, which we are
perfectly capable of doing.

"We could strike the launch site, for example, and definitely send a
message saying 'do not do this again'.

"That's what you're trying to do, trying to control the escalation."

But he insisted Nato would not fire a retaliatory nuclear weapon on Russia
under this scenario.

He said an all-out nuclear war was (only) possible if Putin targeted the
US.

### - tensions appear to be rapidly rising as a town/city, in what is now
'russian-claimed' territory, braces itself for some kinda concerted attack
by ukrainian forces, the concern being that this will be the first test of
russia's assertion to use whatever means necessary to protect/defend its
own territory including the use of nukes...

in a clue/hint as to the perhaps seriousness of the situation, the british
RAF plane seen flying in figure-of-eight formation is an aircraft
particularly equipped to detect private ground communications AND that of
radioactive particles high in the air as part of the uk's nuclear early
warning system...

all citizens in the town of kherson - where this battle is about to take
place - have been duly warned to immediately evacuate the area asap...

(chances are russian forces will just annihilate the ukraine forces as
usual, russia having so much more long range weapons/troops & aircraft to
potentially draw upon... the risk being what ukraine does (or then perhaps
does) in some kinda ultimately frustrated response that could well kick it
all up a notch as they obviously think they've got a chance to win this
for them to even launch this attack in the first place?

i.e., what does ukraine think/imagine it's got up its sleeve that's gonna
make any difference THIS time?? - the deployment of 'nuke-sniffers'
bearing testament to just how serious WE expect this confrontation to
perhaps be/become, so it's obviously been planned to be some big, perhaps
even decisive, battle...)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H77fRz1rybs (james brown)

"he's lost! in the wilderness
he's lost! in bitterness..."

On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 5:22:23 AM UTC-7, slider wrote:
> RAF fighter jets have escorted a 'nuke sniffer' spy plane over the Black
> Sea amid fears Vladimir Putin may detonate a nuclear bomb in a warning to
> the West.
>
> Two RAF Typoons were scrambled to escort the Boeing RC-135 before sharply
> turning on themselves and heading back to NATO-friendly territory.
>
> The RC-135W 'soaks up' enemy signals and is also known as a 'nuke sniffer'
> because of its capability to test the atmosphere for evidence of
> radioactivity.
>
> https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/20151522/raf-jets-escort-spy-plane-black-sea-nuke-fears/
>
> The four-engine jets, called Rivet Joints, are used by Britain to conduct
> electronic surveillance on enemy targets by monitoring signals from radars
> and other systems.
>
> The routine run took off from an air base in Romania and came with within
> miles of the Russian-controlled coastline of Crimea today, according to
> images shared online.
>
> A Ministry of Defence spokesperson said: "UK fast jets frequently
> accompany RAF aircraft both for training and operational purposes, this
> activity is routinely reviewed.
>
> "These flights are conducted in international airspace."
>
> It comes amid heightened fears russia could use the Black Sea as ground
> zero for a nuclear attack.
>
> Putin may choose to launch a low-yield device over the Black Sea or test
> fire a Poseidon drone off the US coast, experts warned.
>
> Putin is “preparing to make key decisions from a bunker” after warning his
> closest family to be ready to evacuate Moscow in a hurry, reports claim.
>
> Fears of an imminent nuke test on the Ukraine border were raised earlier
> this month after a train was seen carrying supplies.
>
> Meanwhile NATO warned Russia has deployed its giant new Belgorod submarine
> which can be armed with terrifying nuclear "doomsday drones".
>
> Joseph Cirincione, a distinguished fellow at the Quincy Institute for
> Responsible Statecraft in Washington DC, warned Russia could initially
> fire nukes into the Black Sea as a "demonstration shot" before using
> nuclear weapons on targets in Ukraine.
>
> And in a worrying worst case scenario, Mr Cirincione said Putin could fire
> at NATO targets or even the United States.
>
> Mr Cirincione said: "The first possibility is you would use a nuclear
> weapon in a demonstration shot, so you would fire something into the Black
> Sea, for example.
>
> "The purpose of this is to 'escalate to de-escalate' if the war is going
> badly.
>
> "If the Russians felt they were on the verge of defeat, they would fire
> off a nuclear shot to indicate the seriousness of the situation, and to
> cause the West to back off.
>
> "If that were to happen, I would say the reaction would be shock and
> horror - but it would not require a military response.
>
> "You don't have to do anything there. I would say the US response would be
> more diplomatic."
>
> He said Putin could also unleash a "very low yield weapon" on a military
> target in Ukraine.
>
> Russia is known to have so-called tactical nukes, which can be launched
> onto the battlefield by Iskander missiles.
>
> They would kill thousands and cause major damage.
>
> The expert went on: "The third possibility is that they use a serious
> nuclear weapon - Hiroshima sized or more - and it strikes and it destroys
> a city in Ukraine.
>
> "At that point, that's where things get quite serious.
>
> "I would immediately expect to see long-range military response from Nato..
>
> "Not Nato forces on the ground, but long-range strikes, which we are
> perfectly capable of doing.
>
> "We could strike the launch site, for example, and definitely send a
> message saying 'do not do this again'.
>
> "That's what you're trying to do, trying to control the escalation."
>
> But he insisted Nato would not fire a retaliatory nuclear weapon on Russia
> under this scenario.
>
> He said an all-out nuclear war was (only) possible if Putin targeted the
> US.
>
> ### - tensions appear to be rapidly rising as a town/city, in what is now
> 'russian-claimed' territory, braces itself for some kinda concerted attack
> by ukrainian forces, the concern being that this will be the first test of
> russia's assertion to use whatever means necessary to protect/defend its
> own territory including the use of nukes...
>
> in a clue/hint as to the perhaps seriousness of the situation, the british
> RAF plane seen flying in figure-of-eight formation is an aircraft
> particularly equipped to detect private ground communications AND that of
> radioactive particles high in the air as part of the uk's nuclear early
> warning system...
>
> all citizens in the town of kherson - where this battle is about to take
> place - have been duly warned to immediately evacuate the area asap...
>
> (chances are russian forces will just annihilate the ukraine forces as
> usual, russia having so much more long range weapons/troops & aircraft to
> potentially draw upon... the risk being what ukraine does (or then perhaps
> does) in some kinda ultimately frustrated response that could well kick it
> all up a notch as they obviously think they've got a chance to win this
> for them to even launch this attack in the first place?
>
> i.e., what does ukraine think/imagine it's got up its sleeve that's gonna
> make any difference THIS time?? - the deployment of 'nuke-sniffers'
> bearing testament to just how serious WE expect this confrontation to
> perhaps be/become, so it's obviously been planned to be some big, perhaps
> even decisive, battle...)
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H77fRz1rybs (james brown)
>
> "he's lost! in the wilderness
> he's lost! in bitterness..."
might be time for Ukraine to tap out.

Stone Talks About The Neighbors
https://youtu.be/D6Uux3nb9dQ

They are upping the fear porn ratio.
A lot of articles about re engineering Covid-19 to an 80% kill ratio.

Robin Trower - Bridge Of Sighs
https://youtu.be/0tLsFsGxLmE

> might be time for Ukraine to tap out.

### - a tiny chihuahua hurling itself at the ankles of a giant hasn't even
gots a chance.

they should stop now before it gets ugly...

> They are upping the fear porn ratio.
> A lot of articles about re engineering Covid-19 to an 80% kill ratio.

### - (the voice of utter cynicism) covid fell flat to reduce the global
population? so they's going for plan b: nuclear war in europe)

>> might be time for Ukraine to tap out.
>
> - a tiny chihuahua hurling itself at the ankles of a giant hasn't even
> gots a chance.
>
> they should stop now before it gets ugly...

### - been doin' some critical thinkin' re all this (which auto-rules
thang out heh...) and unfortunately for them, even with all the extra
weapons, ukraine can't possibly win this war without the west becoming
'directly' involved in some way or another, and for THAT to happen there'd
HAVE to be some kinda serious trigger point? some kinda horrible event
that wholly justifies their actions!

OUR problem thus being that IF a nuke (say a small one) 'does' occur in
ukraine; it'll certainly be 'blamed' on russia alright, only we wont know
WHO the fuck actually did it??

else russia has effectively already WON this damn war just by annexing
those extra 4 regions (5 including crimea) and retreating behind them,
which now looks to have been their plan all along... (i.e., back in Feb.
the original debate was about: were they only gonna invade/capture the
southern regions involved or take ALL of ukraine, moi arguing at the time
that they'd prolly have to take it all or continue fighting an endless war
along those borders afterwards etc, only apparently i was wrong!)

so what happens NOW then + why all this talk about nukes etc when there's
no actual NEED whatsoever for russia to use 'em?? - coz ukraine now
basically returns to where they were 'before' the invasion began, only now
those 5 areas of dispute have become permanent fixtures (at least as far
as russia's concerned) and ALL ukraine can DO without ACTUAL assistance
from the west, is to fight little battles along those same front lines
that they can't possibly ever win!!!

i.e., russia isn't stupid enough to do anything that would 'actually'
bring nato into it (at least not on purpose) and b'coz by withdrawing to
behind those newly annexed areas they've already fully achieved their
original goal! the fight now only being to keep ukraine from regaining
them! something they can easily do/maintain, just as they did before!!!

the RISK now being that ukraine (and the west) wont/can't possibly settle
for that and will thus do summat to change/alter the whole equation, which
for them is currently one of total loss! (the loss of those 5 annexed
areas for ukraine that they can never win back, and the massive investment
the west has made in sending all those weapons & finance if now it all
comes to nada!)

and b'coz the ONLY one fighting/attacking now IS ukraine in trying to
retrieve those 5 annexed areas! russia merely defending them, as before,
only now with slightly more justification from their pov... and there's
nada ukraine can really DO about it on their own!

do the math folks!

the NEXT move (on the board) is the west's OR it ALL ends in the current
stalemate! (the same damn stalemate as before!)

and imho/observation we've seemingly come/gone too far to back down now??

thus an 'incredibly dangerous' moment in human history!

so place yer bets! - even's money: war with russia - 20/1: the current
stalemate persists (coz how can they (the west) just leave it there after
paying such a heavy price in damaged economies etc & face...)

there's also a 100/1 shot up for grabs heh: humanity gets suddenly 'sane'
(riiiight...) and everyone seeing the danger instead returns to the
negotiating table to now more equitably redraw the map(s) of the world to
'include' russia AND china + with everyone ceasing their world-domination
shit in-favour of sharing... hallelujah!

(well it ain't 100/1 for nada lol, sanity prevailing being the longest
shot of all in wallyworld :)))

On Saturday, October 22, 2022 at 1:52:45 AM UTC-7, slider wrote:
> >> might be time for Ukraine to tap out.
> >
> > - a tiny chihuahua hurling itself at the ankles of a giant hasn't even
> > gots a chance.
> >
> > they should stop now before it gets ugly...
> ### - been doin' some critical thinkin' re all this (which auto-rules
> thang out heh...) and unfortunately for them, even with all the extra
> weapons, ukraine can't possibly win this war without the west becoming
> 'directly' involved in some way or another, and for THAT to happen there'd
> HAVE to be some kinda serious trigger point? some kinda horrible event
> that wholly justifies their actions!
>
> OUR problem thus being that IF a nuke (say a small one) 'does' occur in
> ukraine; it'll certainly be 'blamed' on russia alright, only we wont know
> WHO the fuck actually did it??
>
> else russia has effectively already WON this damn war just by annexing
> those extra 4 regions (5 including crimea) and retreating behind them,
> which now looks to have been their plan all along... (i.e., back in Feb.
> the original debate was about: were they only gonna invade/capture the
> southern regions involved or take ALL of ukraine, moi arguing at the time
> that they'd prolly have to take it all or continue fighting an endless war
> along those borders afterwards etc, only apparently i was wrong!)
>
> so what happens NOW then + why all this talk about nukes etc when there's
> no actual NEED whatsoever for russia to use 'em?? - coz ukraine now
> basically returns to where they were 'before' the invasion began, only now
> those 5 areas of dispute have become permanent fixtures (at least as far
> as russia's concerned) and ALL ukraine can DO without ACTUAL assistance
> from the west, is to fight little battles along those same front lines
> that they can't possibly ever win!!!
>
> i.e., russia isn't stupid enough to do anything that would 'actually'
> bring nato into it (at least not on purpose) and b'coz by withdrawing to
> behind those newly annexed areas they've already fully achieved their
> original goal! the fight now only being to keep ukraine from regaining
> them! something they can easily do/maintain, just as they did before!!!
>
> the RISK now being that ukraine (and the west) wont/can't possibly settle
> for that and will thus do summat to change/alter the whole equation, which
> for them is currently one of total loss! (the loss of those 5 annexed
> areas for ukraine that they can never win back, and the massive investment
> the west has made in sending all those weapons & finance if now it all
> comes to nada!)
>
> and b'coz the ONLY one fighting/attacking now IS ukraine in trying to
> retrieve those 5 annexed areas! russia merely defending them, as before,
> only now with slightly more justification from their pov... and there's
> nada ukraine can really DO about it on their own!
>
> do the math folks!
>
> the NEXT move (on the board) is the west's OR it ALL ends in the current
> stalemate! (the same damn stalemate as before!)
>
> and imho/observation we've seemingly come/gone too far to back down now??
>
> thus an 'incredibly dangerous' moment in human history!
>
> so place yer bets! - even's money: war with russia - 20/1: the current
> stalemate persists (coz how can they (the west) just leave it there after
> paying such a heavy price in damaged economies etc & face...)
>
> there's also a 100/1 shot up for grabs heh: humanity gets suddenly 'sane'
> (riiiight...) and everyone seeing the danger instead returns to the
> negotiating table to now more equitably redraw the map(s) of the world to
> 'include' russia AND china + with everyone ceasing their world-domination
> shit in-favour of sharing... hallelujah!
>
> (well it ain't 100/1 for nada lol, sanity prevailing being the longest
> shot of all in wallyworld :)))
it's always been a free-for-all done here on Earth.
knuckleheads never figure in the cost of consequences.
they will pay.

>> (well it ain't 100/1 for nada lol, sanity prevailing being the longest
>> shot of all in wallyworld :)))

> it's always been a free-for-all done here on Earth.
> knuckleheads never figure in the cost of consequences.
> they will pay.

### - ahhh sure they haven't gots a hope in hell this lot...

it's a very sad story? the whole history of humanity: a train wreck in
slow-mo sheesh!

sanity/sobriety coming to 'this' lot being the equivalent of everything
suddenly coming to a halt right in the middle of a chimpanzee's tea party
just as the whole thing is descending into utter chaos and them all
switching to reading Art books & poetry instead lol... it's asking an
awful lot??

that said, slider solemnly places a tenner on the 100/1 shot, even knowing
that's it's hopeless...

or nearly hopeless then, seein' as it DID in fact WIN @ 100/1 in s.africa
that time heh...

it 'could' happen, there's always a chance, it's just not very fuckin'
likely ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56w8Ut4axsM

(this dude actually made 'em all stop and look up for about 5 cosmic
minutes before he was quickly bundled off-stage by the powers that be haha)

On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 15:48:03 -0700 (PDT), chris rodgers
<allreadydun@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 5:22:23 AM UTC-7, slider wrote:
>> RAF fighter jets have escorted a 'nuke sniffer' spy plane over the Black
>> Sea amid fears Vladimir Putin may detonate a nuclear bomb in a warning to
>> the West.
>>
>> Two RAF Typoons were scrambled to escort the Boeing RC-135 before sharply
>> turning on themselves and heading back to NATO-friendly territory.
>>
>> The RC-135W 'soaks up' enemy signals and is also known as a 'nuke sniffer'
>> because of its capability to test the atmosphere for evidence of
>> radioactivity.
>>
>> https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/20151522/raf-jets-escort-spy-plane-black-sea-nuke-fears/
>>
>> The four-engine jets, called Rivet Joints, are used by Britain to conduct
>> electronic surveillance on enemy targets by monitoring signals from radars
>> and other systems.
>>
>> The routine run took off from an air base in Romania and came with within
>> miles of the Russian-controlled coastline of Crimea today, according to
>> images shared online.
>>
>> A Ministry of Defence spokesperson said: "UK fast jets frequently
>> accompany RAF aircraft both for training and operational purposes, this
>> activity is routinely reviewed.
>>
>> "These flights are conducted in international airspace."
>>
>> It comes amid heightened fears russia could use the Black Sea as ground
>> zero for a nuclear attack.
>>
>> Putin may choose to launch a low-yield device over the Black Sea or test
>> fire a Poseidon drone off the US coast, experts warned.
>>
>> Putin is “preparing to make key decisions from a bunker” after warning his
>> closest family to be ready to evacuate Moscow in a hurry, reports claim.
>>
>> Fears of an imminent nuke test on the Ukraine border were raised earlier
>> this month after a train was seen carrying supplies.
>>
>> Meanwhile NATO warned Russia has deployed its giant new Belgorod submarine
>> which can be armed with terrifying nuclear "doomsday drones".
>>
>> Joseph Cirincione, a distinguished fellow at the Quincy Institute for
>> Responsible Statecraft in Washington DC, warned Russia could initially
>> fire nukes into the Black Sea as a "demonstration shot" before using
>> nuclear weapons on targets in Ukraine.
>>
>> And in a worrying worst case scenario, Mr Cirincione said Putin could fire
>> at NATO targets or even the United States.
>>
>> Mr Cirincione said: "The first possibility is you would use a nuclear
>> weapon in a demonstration shot, so you would fire something into the Black
>> Sea, for example.
>>
>> "The purpose of this is to 'escalate to de-escalate' if the war is going
>> badly.
>>
>> "If the Russians felt they were on the verge of defeat, they would fire
>> off a nuclear shot to indicate the seriousness of the situation, and to
>> cause the West to back off.
>>
>> "If that were to happen, I would say the reaction would be shock and
>> horror - but it would not require a military response.
>>
>> "You don't have to do anything there. I would say the US response would be
>> more diplomatic."
>>
>> He said Putin could also unleash a "very low yield weapon" on a military
>> target in Ukraine.
>>
>> Russia is known to have so-called tactical nukes, which can be launched
>> onto the battlefield by Iskander missiles.
>>
>> They would kill thousands and cause major damage.
>>
>> The expert went on: "The third possibility is that they use a serious
>> nuclear weapon - Hiroshima sized or more - and it strikes and it destroys
>> a city in Ukraine.
>>
>> "At that point, that's where things get quite serious.
>>
>> "I would immediately expect to see long-range military response from Nato.
>>
>> "Not Nato forces on the ground, but long-range strikes, which we are
>> perfectly capable of doing.
>>
>> "We could strike the launch site, for example, and definitely send a
>> message saying 'do not do this again'.
>>
>> "That's what you're trying to do, trying to control the escalation."
>>
>> But he insisted Nato would not fire a retaliatory nuclear weapon on Russia
>> under this scenario.
>>
>> He said an all-out nuclear war was (only) possible if Putin targeted the
>> US.
>>
>> ### - tensions appear to be rapidly rising as a town/city, in what is now
>> 'russian-claimed' territory, braces itself for some kinda concerted attack
>> by ukrainian forces, the concern being that this will be the first test of
>> russia's assertion to use whatever means necessary to protect/defend its
>> own territory including the use of nukes...
>>
>> in a clue/hint as to the perhaps seriousness of the situation, the british
>> RAF plane seen flying in figure-of-eight formation is an aircraft
>> particularly equipped to detect private ground communications AND that of
>> radioactive particles high in the air as part of the uk's nuclear early
>> warning system...
>>
>> all citizens in the town of kherson - where this battle is about to take
>> place - have been duly warned to immediately evacuate the area asap...
>>
>> (chances are russian forces will just annihilate the ukraine forces as
>> usual, russia having so much more long range weapons/troops & aircraft to
>> potentially draw upon... the risk being what ukraine does (or then perhaps
>> does) in some kinda ultimately frustrated response that could well kick it
>> all up a notch as they obviously think they've got a chance to win this
>> for them to even launch this attack in the first place?
>>
>> i.e., what does ukraine think/imagine it's got up its sleeve that's gonna
>> make any difference THIS time?? - the deployment of 'nuke-sniffers'
>> bearing testament to just how serious WE expect this confrontation to
>> perhaps be/become, so it's obviously been planned to be some big, perhaps
>> even decisive, battle...)
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H77fRz1rybs (james brown)
>>
>> "he's lost! in the wilderness
>> he's lost! in bitterness..."
>might be time for Ukraine to tap out.

You really should go and fuck yourself, you old cunt. How about YOU
tap out, yeah?
Ukrainians have more balls than you could ever imagine, fighting those
barbarian slav dogs AND giving them a hiding to boot.

Your problem is, you have no courage mate. How about you go suck
Trumps orange cock & have a poppy nap...

On Mon, 24 Oct 2022 10:43:33 +0100, o'Mahoney <libertidad@south.south.com>
wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 15:48:03 -0700 (PDT), chris rodgers
> <allreadydun@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 5:22:23 AM UTC-7, slider wrote:
>>> RAF fighter jets have escorted a 'nuke sniffer' spy plane over the
>>> Black
>>> Sea amid fears Vladimir Putin may detonate a nuclear bomb in a warning
>>> to
>>> the West.
>>>
>>> Two RAF Typoons were scrambled to escort the Boeing RC-135 before
>>> sharply
>>> turning on themselves and heading back to NATO-friendly territory.
>>>
>>> The RC-135W 'soaks up' enemy signals and is also known as a 'nuke
>>> sniffer'
>>> because of its capability to test the atmosphere for evidence of
>>> radioactivity.
>>>
>>> https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/20151522/raf-jets-escort-spy-plane-black-sea-nuke-fears/
>>>
>>> The four-engine jets, called Rivet Joints, are used by Britain to
>>> conduct
>>> electronic surveillance on enemy targets by monitoring signals from
>>> radars
>>> and other systems.
>>>
>>> The routine run took off from an air base in Romania and came with
>>> within
>>> miles of the Russian-controlled coastline of Crimea today, according to
>>> images shared online.
>>>
>>> A Ministry of Defence spokesperson said: "UK fast jets frequently
>>> accompany RAF aircraft both for training and operational purposes, this
>>> activity is routinely reviewed.
>>>
>>> "These flights are conducted in international airspace."
>>>
>>> It comes amid heightened fears russia could use the Black Sea as ground
>>> zero for a nuclear attack.
>>>
>>> Putin may choose to launch a low-yield device over the Black Sea or
>>> test
>>> fire a Poseidon drone off the US coast, experts warned.
>>>
>>> Putin is “preparing to make key decisions from a bunker” after warning
>>> his
>>> closest family to be ready to evacuate Moscow in a hurry, reports
>>> claim.
>>>
>>> Fears of an imminent nuke test on the Ukraine border were raised
>>> earlier
>>> this month after a train was seen carrying supplies.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile NATO warned Russia has deployed its giant new Belgorod
>>> submarine
>>> which can be armed with terrifying nuclear "doomsday drones".
>>>
>>> Joseph Cirincione, a distinguished fellow at the Quincy Institute for
>>> Responsible Statecraft in Washington DC, warned Russia could initially
>>> fire nukes into the Black Sea as a "demonstration shot" before using
>>> nuclear weapons on targets in Ukraine.
>>>
>>> And in a worrying worst case scenario, Mr Cirincione said Putin could
>>> fire
>>> at NATO targets or even the United States.
>>>
>>> Mr Cirincione said: "The first possibility is you would use a nuclear
>>> weapon in a demonstration shot, so you would fire something into the
>>> Black
>>> Sea, for example.
>>>
>>> "The purpose of this is to 'escalate to de-escalate' if the war is
>>> going
>>> badly.
>>>
>>> "If the Russians felt they were on the verge of defeat, they would fire
>>> off a nuclear shot to indicate the seriousness of the situation, and to
>>> cause the West to back off.
>>>
>>> "If that were to happen, I would say the reaction would be shock and
>>> horror - but it would not require a military response.
>>>
>>> "You don't have to do anything there. I would say the US response
>>> would be
>>> more diplomatic."
>>>
>>> He said Putin could also unleash a "very low yield weapon" on a
>>> military
>>> target in Ukraine.
>>>
>>> Russia is known to have so-called tactical nukes, which can be launched
>>> onto the battlefield by Iskander missiles.
>>>
>>> They would kill thousands and cause major damage.
>>>
>>> The expert went on: "The third possibility is that they use a serious
>>> nuclear weapon - Hiroshima sized or more - and it strikes and it
>>> destroys
>>> a city in Ukraine.
>>>
>>> "At that point, that's where things get quite serious.
>>>
>>> "I would immediately expect to see long-range military response from
>>> Nato.
>>>
>>> "Not Nato forces on the ground, but long-range strikes, which we are
>>> perfectly capable of doing.
>>>
>>> "We could strike the launch site, for example, and definitely send a
>>> message saying 'do not do this again'.
>>>
>>> "That's what you're trying to do, trying to control the escalation."
>>>
>>> But he insisted Nato would not fire a retaliatory nuclear weapon on
>>> Russia
>>> under this scenario.
>>>
>>> He said an all-out nuclear war was (only) possible if Putin targeted
>>> the
>>> US.
>>>
>>> ### - tensions appear to be rapidly rising as a town/city, in what is
>>> now
>>> 'russian-claimed' territory, braces itself for some kinda concerted
>>> attack
>>> by ukrainian forces, the concern being that this will be the first
>>> test of
>>> russia's assertion to use whatever means necessary to protect/defend
>>> its
>>> own territory including the use of nukes...
>>>
>>> in a clue/hint as to the perhaps seriousness of the situation, the
>>> british
>>> RAF plane seen flying in figure-of-eight formation is an aircraft
>>> particularly equipped to detect private ground communications AND that
>>> of
>>> radioactive particles high in the air as part of the uk's nuclear early
>>> warning system...
>>>
>>> all citizens in the town of kherson - where this battle is about to
>>> take
>>> place - have been duly warned to immediately evacuate the area asap....
>>>
>>> (chances are russian forces will just annihilate the ukraine forces as
>>> usual, russia having so much more long range weapons/troops & aircraft
>>> to
>>> potentially draw upon... the risk being what ukraine does (or then
>>> perhaps
>>> does) in some kinda ultimately frustrated response that could well
>>> kick it
>>> all up a notch as they obviously think they've got a chance to win this
>>> for them to even launch this attack in the first place?
>>>
>>> i.e., what does ukraine think/imagine it's got up its sleeve that's
>>> gonna
>>> make any difference THIS time?? - the deployment of 'nuke-sniffers'
>>> bearing testament to just how serious WE expect this confrontation to
>>> perhaps be/become, so it's obviously been planned to be some big,
>>> perhaps
>>> even decisive, battle...)
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H77fRz1rybs (james brown)
>>>
>>> "he's lost! in the wilderness
>>> he's lost! in bitterness..."
>> might be time for Ukraine to tap out.
>
> You really should go and fuck yourself, you old cunt. How about YOU
> tap out, yeah?
> Ukrainians have more balls than you could ever imagine, fighting those
> barbarian slav dogs AND giving them a hiding to boot.
>
> Your problem is, you have no courage mate. How about you go suck
> Trumps orange cock & have a poppy nap...

### - lol you're an idiot thang, and so 'literal' that the 'subtlety' of
the conversation he and i are having is completely beyond your
understanding/ken (which btw is nothing even remotely like what you're
suggesting)

being entirely literal (and i mean entirely lol) you take everything
literally, there's only black & white for you, and, as a result, you often
miss the whole point completely because very standard human things like
sarcasm, irony & satire (to name just a few from that whole spectrum)
aren't at all in your vocabulary, so you misunderstand and end up looking
like a complete moron every time talking shit while everyone else stands
there scratching their heads wondering wtf he's going-on about now ffs
haha :)))