# Russian threat to Canadian cities



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Russia routinely flies military aircraft near Canadian & US airspace and is capable of using cruise missiles to hit targets in Canada.

Is there any resource, perhaps from the Cold War days, of the most likely Canadian targets? For example are BC and AB at higher risk due to proximity to Alaska? There's CFB Edmonton and a major fighter jet base in northern Alberta.

Basically I am wondering, if this expands into into an actual Russia vs NATO war, which regions of Canada to avoid due to heightened risk of nuclear strike, or even conventional missiles.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

You missed ICBMs and hypersonic cruise missiles. The targets would be large cities and using atomic weapons, I think. The delivery systems that could reach Edmonton or Ottawa from outside North America would be pretty expensive and of limited availability. They're not going to launch an expensive weapon with a bunch of leaflets in it, or to target a condo block or meat packing plant.

They could, I suppose, surface a sub offshore and start lobbing short range missiles at Vancouver or Saint John, but they'd be targeted pretty quickly. I expect the Auroras are on alert for such a possibility.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Just look at what they targeted in Ukraine

If you live in BC I would be more worried about the next Tsunami or something. For many reasons its good to have a bug out bag packed. If you can carry it hiking/camping for 3 days and survive off of what's in the pack you know it's good. Biggest concern I see with BC is there are limited roads and chokepoints if everyone suddenly wanted to get out at the same time.

Here's a spreadsheet I've been testing and refining for many years. You don't need all of this



> Every Day CarryPockets1CommunicationiPhone1KeychainGerber Dime1KnifeSpyderco Manix 2 Lightweight1LightOlight S2RII1WalletTrayvax1PenFisher space pen1WatchApple1ParacordSurvival braceletEvery Day Pack125L PackKelty Peregrin1CommunicationYaesu dual band handheld tbd1First aidAdventure medical kit1Water1L reusable bottle1Emergency ShelterMylar1KnifeSpyderco Dragonfly 2 H11MultitoolGerber1TabletiPad tbd1Power bankAnker 10000mAh1GlovesMechanix1Neck tubeOR1Bluetooth headsetAirpods Pro1Document holder1NotepadRite-in-the-rain1PenFisher space pen1MarkerSharpie twin tipOvernight Pack135L PackKelty MAP 35001Communication1First AidAdventure medical kit2Water3L1ShelterBivy, pad, sleeping bag1Grooming kitPhilips OneBlade1Shower kit/deoderantNomadic Travel kit2Tooth brush/paste/flossMiswak stick1TowelMicrofiber1Wet wipesBug Out Bag170L PackHyperlite Mountain Gear 44001CommunicationACR ResQLink1First AidAdventure medical kit3Water1L Smart water bottles1Power BankAnker 20000mAh1HammockWarbonnet Blackbird1Top quiltWarbonnet Diamondback1UnderquiltWarbonnet Wooki1TarpWarbonnet Edge2CordDyneema1Ultralight stoveBRS 3000 T Titanium1Wood stoveBushbuddy/twig stove tbd1Alcohol stoveDIY alcohol stove tbd1PotsLixada Titanium 650ml1UtensilTitanium1GrillPurcell Trench Packer1Trekking PolesBlack Diamond Alpine Carbon Cork1KnifeMorakniv1MultitoolGerber Dime1Pocket whetstoneWhetstone tbd1OpticsVortex Solo 8x251Folding sawBahco laplander1AxeGerber hatchet/hammer1TrowelTitaniumMobile/Vehicle1Duffle bag1Multifuel StoveMSR Whisperlite International1Coffee/teaBialetti1Sleeping pad1Workout kitTRX TacticalClothing3UnderwearIcebreaker1Base layerIcebreaker2Toque/HatIcebreaker3SocksDarn Tough1T ShirtUnder Armour Tech 2.01Long Sleeve Zip UpUnder Armour Tech 2.02Face shield/tubeOR Echo1Hard shellOR Helium1Mid layerOR Helium1Hiking pants/shortsOR Ferrosi1GaitersDirty Girl1Bug netOR1Boots1Sandals/Flipflops1LaundryMesh bagExpendables3Nitrile gloves1Insect repellant3M Ultrathon1Sunscreen/SPF lip balmSport water resistant10Tie wraps10Zip locks3Chem sticks1Paracord


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

gardner said:


> They could, I suppose, surface a sub offshore and start lobbing short range missiles at Vancouver or Saint John, but they'd be targeted pretty quickly. I expect the Auroras are on alert for such a possibility.


Everyone forgets Hudson Bay 

Submarine-launched ballistic missiles have some range


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

A couple of weeks ago, I drove through Prince Albert, Saskatchewan to discover it had been bombed by Russia. Later, someone mentioned it's always been like that so it was a false alarm.

I'm pretty sure the guy who figured out that putting blue lights in public restrooms would discourage addicts from shooting up was from PA.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

The reason I ask about this, is that the most likely targets are probably not obvious; it's not like the Russians would start nuking our big cities... I doubt that's going to happen. One has to consider the capabilities of their lesser (but more common) weapons.

Instead, they could aim missiles at our military assets, installations, or some strategic targets. And those cruise missiles can likely go pretty far.

I'm just wondering what the analysis points to.



gardner said:


> You missed ICBMs and hypersonic cruise missiles. The targets would be large cities and using atomic weapons, I think.


This is really the extreme "tail end" case. If they go to this, then we're in full scale global nuclear war and nowhere is safe.

Instead it seems far more likely there would be more strategic targets, using more common weapons.


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

To be serious for a moment, I recall a conversation from the 1980s in which a military enthusiast mentioned the US had an ICBM base close enough to every major Canadian city to pretty much wipe us out with fallout, should the Russians target American ICBM installations.

I believe contemplating the ways in which we might die is not an effective use of our life energy. It would make more sense to focus on things we have some control over.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

TomB16 said:


> I believe contemplating the ways in which we might die is not an effective use of our life energy. It would make more sense to focus on things we have some control over.


I disagree, I think it's worthwhile.

Imagine you lived in Ukraine, or say in Syria when the war started there. Obviously due to geography, there are certain parts which are in higher danger.

It absolutely makes sense to understand where the danger lies, and improve one's odds by moving away from them. If one lived in Ukraine for example, with the growing Russian threat, it would have been sensible to move farther away from the eastern borders and closer to the European side. Those who did this had an easier time fleeing to safety (e.g. Poland).

Hope everyone realizes... not everyone dies in war. Quite a few people live. It's kind of dumb to just throw up your hands and say "we'll all die anyway" as that isn't true.

This is similar to positioning your investments. You need a model or framework to identify the dangers, and then one can make decisions to help mitigate those risks.


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

james4beach said:


> Hope everyone realizes... not everyone dies in war. Quite a few people live. It's kind of dumb to just throw up your hands and say "we'll all die anyway" as that isn't true.


Your hypothesis is incorrect. Everyone dies in a nuclear war. Perhaps not right away but before long.

As for Russians coming in with aircraft, tanks, cruise missiles tipped with conventional weapons,.... that strikes me an infinitesimal possibility. It's not that it could never happen. My point is that Russia will conquer Europe first.

For this reason, I shall remain at a personal defcon level of 5.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

I met a Ukrainian couple camping in northern BC a few years ago

We were texting before the invasion I told them to pack their camping gear in case they need to big out. They were a bit hesitant at first but they eventually got out before most people. They're much more comfortable now than if they didn't prepare a bit in case

Just look at all the cars and people lined up at the border. Think what you would want in that car if you had mere hours to pack.


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

For what it's worth, I currently consider the USA to be a more imminent threat to the Canadian way of life than Russia.

They literally have open sedition and Merrick Garland is doing jack squat about it. Slow playing it is exactly the same as doing nothing. We will be drowning in the next election cycle 24 months from now and the DOJ can't make coffee in that time period.

Democracies require law and order so I place the odds of USA becoming a banana republic at over 50%.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Where do you plan on going ? What do you plan on eating when the crops are all contaminated? What to drink when the water is contaminated ?

There would be so many unburied dead bodies that disease would spread rapidly among survivors and there would be no healthcare or medicines.

A full out nuclear war would cause massive radioactive fallout. The people who died instantly from the blast would be the lucky ones.

The likely targets.....Montreal, Toronto, Niagara Falls (energy generation), Ontario nuclear plants, Edmonton and Fort McMurray (oil and gas) Calgary and Vancouver.....and possibly others. Russia has thousands of nukes to use.....no sense saving them for later.

Maybe you could live in the forest of northern Ontario or in rural Saskatchewan, but it would be a lawless Mad Max movie of mob survival.

Sometimes living is worse than death.

As for me, I will sit right here drinking coffee and hope the closest nuke burst right over my house......quick and painless is the preferred exit.


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

From russian Far East and from russian subs they can strike any city town in Canada, no big deal. If nato were to interfere they could threaten to use nukes, the USA not go start a nuclear war over Canada.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

Ukrainiandude said:


> From russian Far East and from russian subs they can strike any city town in Canada


Agreed. But the kind of weapons that can do that cost billions and they only have a few scores, maybe up to a couple hundred usable units. Nobody is going to scramble a $billion rocket with a $2bil warhead on it to go after Winnipeg, unless they've already scored hits on 200 larger cities in NA.

The kind of thing the Russians are using in Ukraine cost $5k up to maybe $20K a shot and can be launched by the 100s but mainly from 25KM up to maybe 100KM away, from a ship, tank/truck/mobile launcher or helicopter/fighter/drone.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

TomB16 said:


> For what it's worth, I currently consider the USA to be a more imminent threat to the Canadian way of life than Russia.
> 
> They literally have open sedition and Merrick Garland is doing jack squat about it. Slow playing it is exactly the same as doing nothing. We will be drowning in the next election cycle 24 months from now and the DOJ can't make coffee in that time period.
> 
> Democracies require law and order so I place the odds of USA becoming a banana republic at over 50%.


Canada has much higher chance of becoming banana republic than US do. We are much further along in the process.
At least over there supreme court is actually holding up when it comes to protecting the constitution.
Canada has weakest constitution in entire developed world, so democracy is constantly in danger. And now that we have authoritarian as a PM, with no legal protection from democracy, we are under much higher threat here than they are down south.


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

gardner said:


> Agreed. But the kind of weapons that can do that cost billions and they only have a few scores, maybe up to a couple hundred usable units. Nobody is going to scramble a $billion rocket with a $2bil warhead on it to go after Winnipeg, unless they've already scored hits on 200 larger cities in NA.
> 
> The kind of thing the Russians are using in Ukraine cost $5k up to maybe $20K a shot and can be launched by the 100s but mainly from 25KM up to maybe 100KM away, from a ship, tank/truck/mobile launcher or helicopter/fighter/drone.


You can’t be serious. Do you really you think russian sub with 16 missiles each carrying 10 warheads are going to do cost assessment before the salvo? Some russian subs have similar cruising missiles and ballistic missiles used to strike Ukraine. 
Russia isn’t interested in the usa cities, and might be interested in canadian because canada has no air defence. 
And the USA isn’t going to start the nuclear war over Canada.
but I do see one benefit of this attack, the RE market might correct.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

TomB16 said:


> Your hypothesis is incorrect. Everyone dies in a nuclear war. Perhaps not right away but before long.


But it doesn't have to be a nuclear attack. They could launch a missile attack into Canada, non-nuclear, and still cause lots of damage.

I just want to understand what parts of our country are in danger. Russians attacks on Canada may be "in play" if NATO becomes more involved.

Again, forget about the nukes. I mean other bombs and missiles. For example Russia could launch one of these to take out some strategic target in Canada. I do think it's something we should think about:









NORAD commander warns Canadian officials about the threat posed by hypersonic missiles | RCI


Gen. Glen VanHerck says the emergence of hypersonic weapons is making his mission very challenging




ici.radio-canada.ca







Ukrainiandude said:


> And the USA isn’t going to start the nuclear war over Canada.


Yes exactly. The Russians could fire missiles into Canada, and the USA is unlikely to do much about it. They certainly aren't going to start a global nuclear war over a few missiles hitting some parts of Canada.

And as you point out, Canada is an easier target.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Think about air defense for a moment, what @Ukrainiandude is talking about.

I've spent a lot of time in both Portland / Seattle and also San Diego. You know one thing you hear every once in a while in those parts? Fighter jets.

The fighter jets are always active. There was once a hijacked (actually stolen) plane near Seattle, the fighters took off from Portland and intercepted it within a few minutes.

So if the Russians are looking to make a point by doing an air attack on North America... who do you think they are going after? It aint going to be the USA.


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

james4beach said:


> They could launch a missile attack into Canada, non-nuclear, and still cause lots of damage.


Or they could use low yield nukes on Toronto and Vancouver. The USA will voice deep concerns and condemnation of the action. That would do.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Seriously........as soon as the US detected missile launches from Russia, bombers in flight, or submarines and surface ships firing off missiles towards North America, they would launch a retaliatory attack. The Russians would be targeting US missile silos, ships, submarines, and US aircraft carriers and military bases first. It would be impossible to determine if a Russian launched ICBM was heading for Toronto or New York City....Vancouver or Seattle.....and the Americans wouldn't wait for the bombs to fall before they put their full defensive capabilities into effect and launched a retaliatory response.

There is no such thing as a "limited" nuclear war. The prospect of destruction would be so grave that a country must respond in full to have any chance of survival and they only have minutes to complete all the necessary process steps to do so.

To even discuss such a scenario as possible is naive and dangerous as it makes nuclear war appear "winnable". There would be no winners........just losers.

Consider how powerful nuclear weapons are today compared to those that totally destroyed the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Hiroshima ------ 15 kt
Nagasaki---------23 kt.
US Trident missile.......455 kt.
Russian ICBM------800 kt.









Infographic: Nuclear weapons in 1945 and 2020 in comparison


This chart shows the estimated yield of nuclear weapons in kilotons, TNT equivalent.




www.statista.com





_While Canada has not joined the U.S. anti-ballistic missile defence program, he says it would be "utterly implausible" that the Americans would not intercept any missile aimed at North America.

"The Americans are not going to wait around to determine the trajectory of the missile to the point that they are confident that it is going to hit Canada and not the United States before they try to intercept the damn thing," Sens said.

"They're going to want as many shots as they can, and they're going to want to try as early as they can."_



https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nuclear-attack-canada-1.4491924


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

sags said:


> To even discuss such a scenario as possible is naive and dangerous as it makes nuclear war appear "winnable". There would be no winners........just losers.


I'm not talking about this at all. I'm talking about the Russians perhaps flying a jet into our air space, launching a non-nuclear missile at a Canadian target.

It would really make a point, show their strength, and I doubt the Americans would do much in response.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Why would Russia do that ?

It would invite a retaliatory response from Canada, perhaps bombing the Russian Arctic military base.

It would escalate to war pretty quickly to involve the Americans and NATO.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

james4beach said:


> It would really make a point, show their strength, and I doubt the Americans would do much in response.


Why would Canada not invoke article 5 in such a case? The Americans put up the article 5 bat-signal over much less. I believe that attacking any NATO nation would be suicide and could well spell the end of civilization. Mutually assured destruction is still a thing.


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

gardner said:


> Why would Canada not invoke article 5 in such a case? The Americans put up the article 5 bat-signal over much less. I believe that attacking any NATO nation would be suicide and could well spell the end of civilization. Mutually assured destruction is still a thing.


No one is going to start a nuclear war over Toronto.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The largest armies in the world are China, India, US, North Korea, and then Russia.

Russia couldn't win a conventional war. They have a poorly trained military and out dated poorly maintained equipment.

Nuclear war is the only threat that Russia has. If it wasn't for the nuclear threat.......NATO would be pounding Russia into the ground right now.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

sags said:


> Seriously........as soon as the US detected missile launches from Russia, bombers in flight, or submarines and surface ships firing off missiles towards North America, they would launch a retaliatory attack.


Space based sensors detect missile launches from Russia, submarines and ships regularly. North warning system detects bombers in flight near Canada regularly

Russia does a lot of missile testing and training. If you draw a line from Plesetsk to Kamchatka it is directly towards Alaska. See Kura Missile Test Range

They also do a lot of bomber training. It's regularly in open source news such as the CBC



sags said:


> The Russians would be targeting US missile silos, ships, submarines, and US aircraft carriers and military bases first. It would be impossible to determine if a Russian launched ICBM was heading for Toronto or New York City....Vancouver or Seattle.....and the Americans wouldn't wait for the bombs to fall before they put their full defensive capabilities into effect and launched a retaliatory response.


sags doesn't understand the very basics of ballistic missile trajectories, early warning and mid-course detection or how missile defense works

US launch facilities are hardened. I'm not sure what a missile is supposed to do to a submarine? Is this reference a recent hollywood movie or something I missed?

NORAD can definitely tell where a ballistic missile is going using the mid-course surveillance and some basic math. Space based infrared sensors queue them to the launch



sags said:


> There is no such thing as a "limited" nuclear war. The prospect of destruction would be so grave that a country must respond in full and they only have minutes to complete all the necessary steps to do so.
> 
> To even discuss such a scenario as possible is dangerous as it makes nuclear war appear "winnable". There would be no winners........just losers.


sags is watching too much hollywood and letting the meds talk here.

Have you ever driven across Canada? It's a massive country. People in Ukraine didn't all die on day one and many people survive all kinds of conflicts. I've seen it

sags please stay in your lane or I will continue to point out your nonsense


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I hope you shared your wide breath of knowledge with the Pentagon, since you know so much more than they do.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

How a small nuclear war would transform the entire planet


As geopolitical tensions rise in nuclear-armed states, scientists are modelling the global impact of nuclear war.




www.nature.com


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

US-Russia have more strategic level communication than you are led to believe

US and Russia defense industries both profit and expand while they co-exist 

India-Pakistan all bets are off


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

m3s said:


> US and Russia defense industries both profit and expand while they co-exist


That's a very good point. Don't forget that Europe has a huge war industry as well.

France, Germany, Spain have major business interests in war and conflict. For the industries involved, all of this is a pretty good time.

And all those industries exert significant pressure on politicians in Europe, US and Russia.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Ukrainiandude said:


> No one is going to start a nuclear war over Toronto.


I think you don't understand how America thinks. If Russia used nuclear weaponry on a NATO member, particularly North American, the US would respond in kind. If they used conventional weapons on a Canadian city, Canada would invoke Article 5 and Russia would be made to deeply regret the aggression. The US can't be seen to be permissive toward aggression toward their allies.


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

andrewf said:


> The US can't be seen to be permissive toward aggression toward their allies.


Do you really believe this?
In July 2012, following the entry into force of the SPA, the United States designated Afghanistan a Major Non-NATO Ally.


----------



## Retired Peasant (Apr 22, 2013)

james4beach said:


> I'm not talking about this at all. I'm talking about the Russians perhaps flying a jet into our air space, launching a non-nuclear missile at a Canadian target.


Maybe nuclear power plants. JMO, but I think you worry (about too many things) far too much.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

james4beach said:


> I'm not talking about this at all. I'm talking about the Russians perhaps flying a jet into our air space, launching a non-nuclear missile at a Canadian target.


I remember in public school they use to have emergency duck and cover drills in our schools. 
The big sirens would blare their warning and we would all get under our desks to protect ourselves from the nuclear bomb. 










Civil defense use to have air raid bunkers, but they also encouraged people to build shelters in their basements made out of sand bags and concrete blocks like in the picture below.









All you youngsters are novices at this stuff. Us old guys have prior training in these matters and know how to protect ourselves. I should start getting under my desk again to sharpen up my skills.

ltr


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I remember those days well.

Russia was THE enemy, who might bomb us at any time. There was a certain level of fear and uncertainty in the air.

My dad started digging a bomb shelter in the back yard. He dug a hole in the backyard and then gave up on it and filled it back in again.

Then the Cuban missile crisis came along and people were glued to the news. Kennedy faced down the Russians with a US blockade of Russian ships bringing missiles to Cuba.

Putin knows the history and it grates on him. He remembers Russia backing down from Kennedy, and the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

I think a good part of Putin's "insanity" is based on these historical grievances percolating in his brain for a long time.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

My wife's father and grandparents emigrated from Poland to start a family farm in Saskatchewan

The whole area is families from that area of the world who came because Canada offered them land to farm.

I asked her father one time about the "old country" and he waved his hand and didn't want to talk about it.

I said to my wife the other day that she was Polish, and she said "nope, I am Canadian".

My roots are in England and Belgium......but any connection was lost after my grandparents passed away.

People look at their ancestral roots in different ways it seems. I think families that maintain the language feel a closer connection.

A buddy was born in Canada but his parents were both born in Italy. They all speak fluent Italian and maintain strong connections with Italian customs.

I like the diversification of Canada and the cultural benefits that immgrants bring......but prefer they leave any old grievances back home.

People of Ukrainian or Russian backgrounds shouldn't be subject to some of the nonsense that has happened......like vandalism etc.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Here is a link to a fun little "old school" game.

Play level one and then listen to the sound track that starts at level 2. It reminds of the warnings we used to hear on the radio and tv.



https://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/366341


----------



## Covariance (Oct 20, 2020)

james4beach said:


> Russia routinely flies military aircraft near Canadian & US airspace and is capable of using cruise missiles to hit targets in Canada.
> 
> Is there any resource, perhaps from the Cold War days, of the most likely Canadian targets? For example are BC and AB at higher risk due to proximity to Alaska? There's CFB Edmonton and a major fighter jet base in northern Alberta.
> 
> Basically I am wondering, if this expands into into an actual Russia vs NATO war, which regions of Canada to avoid due to heightened risk of nuclear strike, or even conventional missiles.


Depends on their objective. Probably easier to start there and chose from one of these possible objectives and then draw up candidates; a. Remove will or capability to fight them in general. b. Remove, deny defensive capability that US is dependent on for North American defence. c. Prepare for and facilitate an occupation to obtain a resource of value.


----------



## Tostig (Nov 18, 2020)

Once a country with nuclear arms launches arms against another country with nuclear arms, it's a no-win situation for both sides. MAD is supposed to assure that world-ending capabilities will deter all sides from first strike. But after that's gone, a limited war is wishful thinking as nobody with nuclear capability will accept defeat.

And it doesn't matter if any Canadian city is a target or not. The fallout from NYC, Chicago, etc will give us all a slow death.

And a final thing to consider is how long can people expect to hide out in their bomb shelters before going outside again? Real-life tells us that a lot of fully armed people can withstand at most 2 months before they stormed the Michigan State Legislative Building on April 30, 2020. And then there are those who can't wear cloth or medical masks. Imagine being fully dressing in hazmat and radiation suits indefinitely.


----------



## Fisherman30 (Dec 5, 2018)

I think people probably underestimate NORAD's missile defence systems.


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

Gentlemen. Paranoia is a disability.

Any one of us could be dead before tomorrow. We could all die at the same time in a mushroom cloud. The Octomom might decide to mate again.

There is simply nothing any of us can do about global politics and war. I'm going to maintain partner relationships with the companies I partially own. Perhaps I will step out for a nice dinner. But first, I will call my Mom to see how she is feeling.

"A coward dies a thousand times before his death, but the valiant taste of death but once." - W. Shakespeare


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

sags said:


> My wife's father and grandparents emigrated from Poland to start a family farm in Saskatchewan


What part of Saskatchewan? Near Estevan? I have Polish relatives in that area.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Her family farm was near Eatonia, Saskatcfhewan..........the "Prairie Oasis".

I used to really enjoy going to her farm for a month vacation in the summer.

The pace was so slow.........you could fall asleep standing up.


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

That is 3.5 hours away from Lafleche where my great grandparents had a homestead. On the bright side, they were only 5 minutes apart by hypersonic Russian ICBM.


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

Fisherman30 said:


> I think people probably underestimate NORAD's missile defence systems.


Simple answer. It wont help against cruising missiles. It won’t much help against a salvo of 16 missiles each 10 warheads.


----------



## Fisherman30 (Dec 5, 2018)

Ukrainiandude said:


> Simple answer. It wont help against cruising missiles. It won’t much help against a salvo of 16 missiles each 10 warheads.


How do you know? I don't think the USAF is disclosing what kind of technology they have to take out missiles. They have laser guided phalynx guns mounted on ships that can shoot down incoming cruise missiles. Who knows what other kind of stuff they have? There's also aircraft mounted laser countermeasures that blast the missile with a high powered laser to take down the missile. And these are just some of the things the public is aware of.


----------



## Fisherman30 (Dec 5, 2018)

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense - Wikipedia







en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Fisherman30 said:


> How do you know? I don't think the USAF is disclosing what kind of technology they have to take out missiles. They have laser guided phalynx guns mounted on ships that can shoot down incoming cruise missiles. Who knows what other kind of stuff they have? There's also aircraft mounted laser countermeasures that blast the missile with a high powered laser to take down the missile. And these are just some of the things the public is aware of.


The thing is, our Northern border is very big, and very hard to service.


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

Fisherman30 said:


> USAF is disclosing what kind of technology they have to take out missiles. They have laser guided phalynx guns mounted on ships





Fisherman30 said:


> Terminal High Altitude Area Defense - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How many Canadian cities got laser guided guns defences? 
How many THAAD Canada have? 
The answer is zero, none.


----------



## Saintor (May 18, 2019)

MrMatt said:


> The thing is, our Northern border is very big, and very hard to service.


Probably correct. Norad is full of old stuff and can't do much against hypersonic missiles that won't be detected in time. I don't think that hypersonic won't be aimed at Canadian cities, more likely at major US cities or strategic sites. Russia is known to have 5500+ nuclear heads.... I would be surprised that two of them would not be allocated to Toronto(or Ottawa) and Montreal... BUT I challenge that those criminal & crazy Russians would be able to launch all the heads at the same time.... so we Canadians, should be hit way after some others. My main house is about 20km from MTL, if I was alone, I would consider selling it immediately and moving 100s of km away.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

The military experts themselves say that many kinds of missiles can't be intercepted in a timely fashion. This stuff isn't magic, it has limited capabilities.

I'll say it again, I doubt Russia would nuke us, but they certainly could lob missiles at a target in Canada. This is within the realm of possibilities. No it's not the end of the world and no, we aren't all going to die.

The Russians aren't going to bomb Toronto, but they certainly could hit a fuel depo, or a military area, or perhaps take out vital roads or railways. That's why I started the thread, to ask what the targets might be.

I think it's a mistake to immediately dismiss this kind of thing. War does happen, and preparation can pay off. Something I'm sure @m3s would agree with.

War is scary, and legitimately so. I think it's smart to be prepared. One shouldn't put their head in the sand and pretend bad things will never happen.


----------



## Saintor (May 18, 2019)

james4beach said:


> The Russians aren't going to bomb Toronto,


Why not? TSX is all about Toronto and it is among the top strategical Canadian cities...


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

james4beach said:


> I doubt Russia would nuke us, but they certainly could lob missiles at a target in Canada.


If they thought they could go after a NATO country, it would be Estonia or Latvia. They would do it with jeeps, trucks and tanks. There is no possible way it would make any sense for them to do anything at all to Canada, except shoot down the two planes we send to Latvia.

Why would it make sense to divert even a single hand-grenade to assaulting Canada when their "beef" in any sense they have one, is with their neighbouring former satellites? Hitting Canada would be a random and anti-strategic move -- they could attack -- I don't know -- Portugal, probably to just as great effect.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Agreed--there is nothing to be gained by attacking Canada. I don't see Russia diverting much resources from targeting the US to instead target Canada.


----------



## twa2w (Mar 5, 2016)

What I am going to write is from memory.
Russia has about 6,000 nuclear weapons. I am not sure how up to date much of the soviet nuclear weapons are in terms of electronics and guidance. 
Both Russia and China have hypersonic missiles. The hypersonic missiles are new and modern with up to date tech - unknown as to how many they have.
The USA does not and defenses against those missiles are limited. Putin knows this as does Biden. Hence Putin posturing about wiping out the USA if the USA pushes too hard. Biden knows Putin is crazy and could start a nuclear war using his new hypersonic technology and the USA would not be able to do much.

Interesting factoid: After the cold war when some documents from the Soviets became public, Edmonton(Hardesty) was about number 19 on the list of priority targets in North America and I believe Calgary was about 23 or 25. This is largely due to the oil and gas. They were the top Canadian cities on the list by far. Destroy fuel storage, shipping and refining and conventional armies are useless as they can't move.

Interesting fact: During the Cuban missile crisis that there was a false alarm of nuclear war and a Soviet sub fleet in the area was set to fire. Apparently they have a three person launch authority (the captain, the political officer and the flotilla commander) and the commander of the sub refused the launch. Vasilli Arkhipov if you want to look that up.


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

twa2w said:


> hypersonic missiles


So many controversial information about those, that I would not count on them.


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

andrewf said:


> Agreed--there is nothing to be gained by attacking Canada. I don't see Russia diverting much resources from targeting the US to instead target Canada.


If you think russian leadership is logical, I must disappoint you.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

gardner said:


> If they thought they could go after a NATO country, it would be Estonia or Latvia. They would do it with jeeps, trucks and tanks. There is no possible way it would make any sense for them to do anything at all to Canada, except shoot down the two planes we send to Latvia.
> 
> Why would it make sense to divert even a single hand-grenade to assaulting Canada when their "beef" in any sense they have one, is with their neighbouring former satellites? Hitting Canada would be a random and anti-strategic move -- they could attack -- I don't know -- Portugal, probably to just as great effect.


OK, this is a very good point.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

twa2w said:


> nteresting factoid: After the cold war when some documents from the Soviets became public, Edmonton(Hardesty) was about number 19 on the list of priority targets in North America and I believe Calgary was about 23 or 25. This is largely due to the oil and gas. They were the top Canadian cities on the list by far. Destroy fuel storage, shipping and refining and conventional armies are useless as they can't move.


Thanks, that's the kind of thing I was curious about. I'm wondering what the lists show today... I would imagine that our energy resources are still a top target of foreign adversaries.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Agreed--there is nothing to be gained by attacking Canada. I don't see Russia diverting much resources from targeting the US to instead target Canada.


Nuking Canada no.
Simply taking large chunks of the arctic yes.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

I am not thrilled at all to be going to work up at the oilsands mines again shortly (with covid restrictions gone)...

Our oil sands mines are all in one spot, super far north, far enough from the city (maybe), to be a good target. And now we're screwing with Putin's oil, maybe he'll screw with ours... Hope he's not reading this thread. Don't get any ideas, Mister. 

Hopefully that NORAD stuff works, whatever it does...


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

Saintor said:


> Probably correct. Norad is full of old stuff and can't do much against hypersonic missiles that won't be detected in time. I don't think that hypersonic won't be aimed at Canadian cities, more likely at major US cities or strategic sites. Russia is known to have 5500+ nuclear heads.... I would be surprised that two of them would not be allocated to Toronto(or Ottawa) and Montreal... BUT I challenge that those criminal & crazy Russians would be able to launch all the heads at the same time.... so we Canadians, should be hit way after some others. My main house is about 20km from MTL, if I was alone, I would consider selling it immediately and moving 100s of km away.


If Russia were to launch 5500 missiles, they would have significant failures. Assuming those ICBMs are 99.9% reliable, they would have 5 failures.

I also doubt speculation on American defense technology is accurate. I'm not saying I know anything about American defenses but I certainly wouldn't trust information scraped from a magazine or YouTube video.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Any "expert" I have ever heard said the same thing.

The US defense system is robust and would eliminate many of the threats, but it isn't 100% effective. Some missiles would get through the defense systems.

One complicating problem is the ability to launch thousands of unarmed missiles as "decoys" which will attract and degrade the defense systems.

They would likely be part of the first launches to tie up the defenses and would be immediately followed by successive waves or armed missiles.

Weapons are always being invented and counter actions are invented to negate them. Just the way it is.


----------



## Bobcajun (May 15, 2018)

If you were wondering where strikes might not happen, you would be something like a number of Germans who have decided to move to, of all places, Cape Breton Island. They are there because they think there is no target of interest in the surrounding area. We live in a strange world!








Report: Right-wing German extremists are buying up land in Cape Breton - Halifax Examiner


Germany’s largest weekly magazine Der Spiegel is reporting that a right-wing network of prominent Germans, including Eva Herman, a well-known former news presenter on German television, is setting up a colony of far-right radicals and ideologues in Canada, and they’ve been buying land in their...




www.halifaxexaminer.ca


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Do you live in Bobcaygan ?

We used to rent a cottage on Buckhorn Lake years ago and loved the area and town.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

peterk said:


> I am not thrilled at all to be going to work up at the oilsands mines again shortly (with covid restrictions gone)...
> 
> Our oil sands mines are all in one spot, super far north, far enough from the city (maybe), to be a good target. And now we're screwing with Putin's oil, maybe he'll screw with ours... Hope he's not reading this thread. Don't get any ideas, Mister.
> 
> Hopefully that NORAD stuff works, whatever it does...


Well you're going to make a lot of money, and become super rich... it's not all bad.

In the past, the US has seen Russian cyber attacks on oil & gas operations. The Russians were able to infect some of the computer systems involved. It showed the reach of the Kremlin all the way to laptops of oil & gas engineers working at physical sites.

Unfortunately I believe there is very poor preparedness on the cyber defense side in Canada. This means places like Suncor, all the oil sands companies, also of course CN and CP. These cyber attacks may be more likely than physical attacks.


----------



## Bobcajun (May 15, 2018)

sags said:


> Do you live in Bobcaygan ?
> 
> We used to rent a cottage on Buckhorn Lake years ago and loved the area and town.


No, I don't. I am a Cajun.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Nuking Canada no.
> Simply taking large chunks of the arctic yes.


That would trigger Article 5.


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

andrewf said:


> That would trigger Article 5.


The USA will voice deep concerns and condemn the actions, but unlikely to start WWIII over Canada. Rather expel Canada as a freeloader out of NATO. By kicking Canada out from it will lose nothing.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Only if the US is comfortable with all their international alliances dissolving and losing the ability to contain China and Russia. If the US won't honour Article 5, then NATO is meaningless.


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

andrewf said:


> Only if the US is comfortable with all their international alliances dissolving and losing the ability to contain China and Russia. If the US won't honour Article 5, then NATO is meaningless.


NATO is stands for No Action Talks Only. It’s meaningless.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Ukrainiandude said:


> NATO is stands for No Action Talks Only. It’s meaningless.


It's a defensive organization, not offensive. It's a purely defensive alliance of countries: if one country is attacked, the entire alliance defends it.

Ukraine was not a NATO member country, so nobody in the alliance was attacked.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> That would trigger Article 5.


Since the US doesn't recognize Canadas arctic claims, and we have no military forces there I would question that they'd agree that there was an attack.

At the very least we need to put some boats & subs up there.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Better to sign a treaty of joint ownership of the Arctic with the US. Each nation could split the resource revenues.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Since the US doesn't recognize Canadas arctic claims, and we have no military forces there I would question that they'd agree that there was an attack.
> 
> At the very least we need to put some boats & subs up there.


I think the US recognizes our territorial claims over land, they dispute our territorial waters through the Arctic (they prefer not to ask permission to transit the NW Passage).


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> I think the US recognizes our territorial claims over land, they dispute our territorial waters through the Arctic (they prefer not to ask permission to transit the NW Passage).


They're clearly internal waters between nearby islands. 
The fact that they're not recognized by the dominant NATO member is problematic.



sags said:


> Better to sign a treaty of joint ownership of the Arctic with the US. Each nation could split the resource revenues.


yeah, I don't see how that would work, and I don't support giving away parts of our country to buy peace, letting Crimea slip away didn't seem to help the Ukraine.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Sometimes 50% of something is better than 100% of nothing.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Sometimes 50% of something is better than 100% of nothing.


I'm sure that's what Ukraine was thinking when they let Russia take part of their country less than a decade ago.. maybe if we let them have this part... they'll leave us alone.

Why don't you go ask them if appeasement is a good strategy?


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

james4beach said:


> It's a defensive organization, not offensive. It's a purely defensive alliance of countries: if one country is attacked, the entire alliance defends it.


Yugoslavia attacked NATO?
why NATO bombed the hell out of Yugoslavia?
The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) carried out an aerial bombing campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War.

Why can’t “defensive” nato bomb russian forces in Ukraine? 
You see how hypocritical western countries are.


----------



## Saintor (May 18, 2019)

Ukrainiandude said:


> You see how hypocritical western countries are.


So go complain to the eastern ones.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Ukrainiandude said:


> Yugoslavia attacked NATO?
> why NATO bombed the hell out of Yugoslavia?
> The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) carried out an aerial bombing campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War.


Yes this is true, NATO did bomb Yugoslavia. You make a very good point about inconsistency by NATO.

And it has been criticized as not being consistent with the intention of NATO so it's not like everyone thought it was a great idea:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_of_the_NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Don't forget NATO's special military intervention to de-Gaddafi Libya

American and British naval forces fired over 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles, while the French Air Force, British Royal Air Force, and Royal Canadian Air Force undertook sorties across Libya and a naval blockade by Coalition forces. French jets launched air strikes against Libyan Army tanks and vehicles. The intervention did not employ foreign ground troops.


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

No nuclear war yet. James can relax. 








Vladimir Putin hiding lover Alina Kabaeva and their kids in Switzerland


The Russian leader’s champion gymnast mistress is allegedly holed up in a high-security chalet with their four children, sources tell Page Six.




pagesix.com




*Vladimir Putin hiding lover Alina Kabaeva and their kids in Switzerland*


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Ukrainiandude said:


> Yugoslavia attacked NATO?
> why NATO bombed the hell out of Yugoslavia?
> The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) carried out an aerial bombing campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War.
> 
> ...


Because they aren't going to cause WW3 for a non-member.


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

andrewf said:


> Because they aren't going to cause WW3 for a non-member.


Why do think they are going to cause WW3 for a member? 
And second I don’t think russian generals are stupid enough to use nukes over Ukraine. No nukes will be used unless Moscow is nuked. 
Vietnam war, did not cause nuclear war. 
I think it is just a lame excuse, western elites don’t mind Ukrainians and russians die.
Trump would have done something already. That’s the reason russia waited.


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

andrewf said:


> Because they aren't going to cause WW3 for a non-member.


First Yankees tricked Ukraine into giving up its nukes, and now giving bullshit. Do want to help? Fine. Give Ukraine its nukes back. Ukraine can protect itself with their help.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Ukrainiandude said:


> Trump would have done something already. That’s the reason russia waited.


Man do you live on another planet. Trump was terrified of Putin... he looked up to him like a papa figure.

Even worse, Trump directly screwed your country. Congress approved military aide for Ukraine in 2019. But Trump held back the weapons while he pressured Zelenskiy to come up with dirt on the Biden family.

In fact it's why Trump was impeached the first time. Abuse of power. *And illegally withholding military support for Ukraine while they were trying to fight the Russians.*

What on earth attracts you to this piece of sh*t? I would understand if it was just an ideology or something, but this guy actually screwed Ukraine, and was very friendly with Putin.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Do I also have to remind everyone that the Russians interfered in the 2016 election. The Kremlin directly supported Trump for president.

This isn't even something that's debated. It was the position published by all US intelligence agencies in the aftermath of the election. The Kremlin loves Trump; they have determined that he is best for their agenda. This is published by the US Senate Intelligence committee (PDF file).

So yeah, if you want a Kremlin-friendly US Government, you definitely want Trump in charge.


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

james4beach said:


> Trump was terrified of Putin.


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

james4beach said:


> So yeah, if you want a Kremlin-friendly US Government, you definitely want Trump in charge.


Obama was in office when putin took Crimea, and started separating Donbas. 
Binden is in office putin invades Ukraine full scale. 
Coincidence? I don’t think so. 
Remember how Syria used chemical weapons on kids, trumps daughter got tears, and guess what hundred tomawaks were sent.
russia bombed Ukrainian children hospital, and guess what? Biden sent Kamala to Poland. 
putin can Read people.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

Ukrainiandude said:


> putin can Read people.


Yep, people make the mistake of thinking that it wouldn't have mattered to Putin if Trump was in office, but they miss the fact that everyone is afraid of someone who is unhinged or a bit crazy, and that pretty much describes Trump. It's basically the same reason we're afraid of Putin starting a nuclear war if we intervene in the Ukraine situation - because he appears unhinged - we can't predict what he'll do. Leader like Biden or Obama are completely predictable.


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

james4beach said:


> Trump was terrified of Putin... he looked up to him like a papa figure.
> Even worse, Trump directly screwed your country. Congress approved military aide for Ukraine in 2019. But Trump held back the weapons while he pressured Zelenskiy to come up with dirt on the Biden family.


 What an epic coward. Return Ukraine, its nukes, and go after russian warship. 
*The Ukraine MiG-29 Fiasco Gets Worse*
*Biden personally vetoed the delivery of jets for fear of provoking Putin.








Opinion | The Ukraine MiG-29 Fiasco Gets Worse


Biden personally vetoed the delivery of jets for fear of provoking Putin.




www.wsj.com




*


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Hmm....bomb Moscow and then what ?

I would think if you are going to take that step you might want to launch a full scale nuclear attack before Russia responds with one of their own.

If Trump was unhinged and Putin is unhinged.........that wouldn't be good.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Still......I think there is a good chance NATO and the US will get drawn into Putin's war and some people will get what they think they want.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

Ukrainiandude said:


> Ukraine MiG-29 Fiasco


I'm not sure I'm surprised the deal is not working out, partly because it seems overly complicated. Logistically, the way to hand over the planes is for a handful of Ukrainian pilots and technicians go to Poland, paint over the Polish AF insignias with Ukrainian ones, update the IFF systems, check the planes out and fly them back to a safe base in Ukraine.

But the proposed deal had the planes being sent to the Americans at a German airbase for some reason I can't fathom. I don't see why the Americans would even be involved to be in a position to have much real say-so about the scheme. There's more to the behind-the-scenes horse-trading than meets the eye.

It's possible that the planes have some NATO IFF or radar/targeting systems fitted that the Americans or Germans have some say in. I saw speculation that it was General Dynamics blocking the deal because they were meant to be selling F-16s into the deal and would lose out. This I find a bit far-fetched.


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

How about this future experience? Replace Paris with Toronto. 



__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=685596062640441


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

sags said:


> Still......I think there is a good chance NATO and the US will get drawn into Putin's war and some people will get what they think they want.


Boy oh boy. The US and Russia actually in a hot war, shooting at each other. Let's pray this doesn't happen.

Some are saying that this is the most dangerous geopolitical situation since the Cold War.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

gardner said:


> I'm not sure I'm surprised the deal is not working out, partly because it seems overly complicated. Logistically, the way to hand over the planes is for a handful of Ukrainian pilots and technicians go to Poland, paint over the Polish AF insignias with Ukrainian ones, update the IFF systems, check the planes out and fly them back to a safe base in Ukraine.
> 
> But the proposed deal had the planes being sent to the Americans at a German airbase for some reason I can't fathom. I don't see why the Americans would even be involved to be in a position to have much real say-so about the scheme. There's more to the behind-the-scenes horse-trading than meets the eye.
> 
> It's possible that the planes have some NATO IFF or radar/targeting systems fitted that the Americans or Germans have some say in. I saw speculation that it was General Dynamics blocking the deal because they were meant to be selling F-16s into the deal and would lose out. This I find a bit far-fetched.


Well, it comes down to 2 things:

US doesn't want to be seen as involved in conflict
It wants Poland to be the ones seen to be involved in conflict instead

Poland doesn't want to be seen as involved in conflict (they are Russia's neighbors), so they wanted to give jets to US for US to act like a middle-man. Russia is much less likely to retaliate against US than against Poland


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

An assassination of Putin from within Russia would be the best solution.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> An assassination of Putin from within Russia would be the best solution.


Because new leadership taking over a nuclear power in the middle of a hot war of a nation that is undergoing economic collapse is a good idea?

You're assuming that Putin is as bad as it gets, I'd suggest that we might not like the new guy. 
There is the possibility that the new guy is "more evil"
There is the possibility that the new leadership is contested, then you have a bunch of infighting.. also bad.
Maybe the new leader isn't as strong, and can't force the needed direction to make things better, Russia/Ukraine is a humanitarian crisis in 6 months irrespective of the outcome of the war.

FYI, post assisination leadership doesn't have a very good history of making things better.

Best outcome is Putin pulls back in a way that allows him to save face to his people, and hope for an orderly transition to the new regime.


----------



## fstamand (Mar 24, 2015)

Unless his close representatives plan a coup, and takes over to try to save face.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Russian state media is now saying on television the war must end or the government will face social unrest due to the sanctions.

The pressure is mounting on Putin to retreat and try to claim some sort of victory.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

sags said:


> Russian state media is now saying on television the war must end or the government will face social unrest due to the sanctions.


That's pretty interesting, do you have a reliable source for that? It sounds strange that the Kremlin-controlled media would be saying that.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

There are reports and video evidence that Iran fired ballistic missile(s) at the US consulate and/or Kurdish media building in Erbil


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1502774247051177984


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

Agreed. Doesn't sound right.

Be careful not to be fooled by the onslaught of fake news. YouTube is chummed up with an endless barrage of crap, including articles on how the US has stepped in, etc.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

TomB16 said:


> Agreed. Doesn't sound right.
> 
> Be careful not to be fooled by the onslaught of fake news. YouTube is chummed up with an endless barrage of crap, including articles on how the US has stepped in, etc.


YouTube can be a real menace to society. I am careful to not click on any Russia or Ukraine piece on Youtube, just to make sure mine stays with the good stuff (comedy, science, stock market bullshit)

I think there's powerful propaganda happening at the moment from many parties, all at once! A real mess on social media.


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

The YouTube algorithms are ruthless. If you watch a single video on retirement finance, you will be exposed to every get-rich-quick rip-off scheme in their advertising arsenal. I used to watch the Yahoo Finance stream and now I get endless Bitcoin, earn $1M per minute from home, get-in-on-the-ground-floor type nuisance adverts.

Also, if you click on "Don't recommend channel", it will continue to recommend the channel in the case of infomercials and other crap that is generally undesirable. It may work for actual content produced by people of a non-parasitic nature but I can't kill some of this garbage.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

TomB16 said:


> The YouTube algorithms are ruthless


Yeah the best thing is to never click certain topics. Don't even show YouTube that you're curious.

Another great trick is to occasionally click on a video with an attractive woman. Once you do this, YouTube will randomly suggest videos with nice looking ladies even if it has no relevance to anything. Just kind of becomes a nice surprise. Same with cute animal videos.

The other day, I was watching finance pieces, and then out of nowhere YouTube suggests a video with a cute lamb that wants attention. The algorithm for the win!


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

If anyone needs a break from war, here's that video.


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

That little guy looks cute and delicious!



james4beach said:


> Basically I am wondering, if this expands into into an actual Russia vs NATO war, which regions of Canada to avoid due to heightened risk of nuclear strike, or even conventional missiles.


I just finished watching "On the Beach". It's a classic Eva Gardner and Gregory Peck film. Holy prince of darkness, Batman. It made me think of this post.

As I recall, you are "on a break".

Have you considered spending some time in south east Asia? Some place like a Vietnam ocean city?

You could live an amazing life on less than half of what it will cost you in Canada, probably a third of what you spend in Vancouver, and let me remind you that Asian women are gorgeous.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Even Russia’s Kremlin-backed media is going off message and beginning to question Putin’s war on Ukraine


Russia’s own propaganda machines are turning against Putin as the Kremlin struggles to contain the reality of his war on Ukraine




fortune.com


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

The situation in Mariupol (Ukrainian port city).

"In 24 hours, the city was bombarded 22 times. About 100 air bombs have already been dropped on it. 2187 Mariupol residents have already died from the attacks".

now imagine this is Halifax. How would you feel about it?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

TomB16 said:


> As I recall, you are "on a break".
> 
> Have you considered spending some time in south east Asia? Some place like a Vietnam ocean city?


Well I still have enough work to do, so I'm going to stay in Canada for now. I'm really enjoying where I live right now, it's probably the best living arrangement and location I've had in 10+ years so I definitely want to stick with this for now.


----------

