[John]

Following close on the heels of such amazing revelations as "Hitler was Jewish" and "The Jews are anti-Semitic" Russia is threatening to explode a super bomb in the sea and drown the British Isles under a radioactive tidal wave.
Now this might be a great plot for a Bond film (Putin stroking a white cat whilst plunging hapless lackeys into a shark filled pool) but it's just fantasy.
To generate a tidal wave that covers Britain would require energies well beyond a nuclear bomb. Most Russian bombs are about half a megaton. The biggest bomb ever was the Soviet Tsar Bomba which was about 50 megatons.
The dinosaur destroying meteor was equivalent of 30,000 megatons. To create the tidal wave Putin is on about would need something enormous - greater than 1,000 megatons. Oh, and the effects of that would also wipe out most of the northern hemisphere - including Russia. It's well beyond the capabilities of anybody to build, let alone the barbarian horde that Russia calls an army.

[rowlandwells]

one thing Ill say you've got a way with words John  and from what your saying I be believed it to be very true  I just have to ask myself when's  all this going to end with ten guns Putin

[John]

I think he's trying to scare us and impress his people who get nothing but propaganda which they believe to be truth. There are people here who will find his tidal wave threat frightening because they don't realise just how much energy would be needed.
Besides, any nuclear attack on the UK would result in the destruction of Russia, even if the USA kept out of it our submarines could do it alone. Something the Russian generals are well aware of.

[Longshanks]

I wonder what the escalation would be if Putin gets fed up with UK playing the big man and lobs a few conventional cruise at London.

[AndyRVTR]

I wonder what the escalation would be if Putin gets fed up with UK playing the big man and lobs a few conventional cruise at London.

I believe if that ever happened, ww3 would immediately start by way of nuclear attacks on Moscow.. a frightening thought!

[Lardman]

I'd be far more worried about none standard warfare like a biological or cyber. Destabilising a country is far more effective than dropping a couple of bombs.

[John]

I wonder what the escalation would be if Putin gets fed up with UK playing the big man and lobs a few conventional cruise at London.

If, by 'playing the big man' you mean coordinating and encouraging an international response to the unprovoked invasion of a country by a horde who's war crimes sicken right thinking people, then bring it on.
I realise it's fashionable to denigrate your own country for some but I wish they'd try to face reality.

In economic terms..

Top countries by GDP (worldbank)

    United States: $20.89 trillion
    China: $14.72 trillion
    Japan: $5.06 trillion
    Germany: $3.85 trillion
    United Kingdom: $2.67 trillion
    India: $2.66 trillion
    France: $2.63 trillion
    Italy: $1.89 trillion
    Canada: $1.64 trillion
    South Korea: $1.63 trillion
    Russia: $1.48 trillion
    Brazil: $1.44 trillion
    Australia: $1.32 trillion
    Spain: $1.28 trillion
    Indonesia: $1.05 trillion

The UK is the 5th largest economy in the world and the 2nd largest in Europe in terms of GDP Our per capita GDP is $39,229 against Russia's $9,972

In military terms

Whilst Russia has enough nuclear missiles to destroy us a 100 times over, we have enough to destroy them once. Once is enough to deter. The Russian forces have been exposed as corrupt, ill-disciplined, ill-equipped and inept. We may not have the numbers of China or the sheer resource of the USA but I reckon our forces are far superior to Russia.

[Subversive_plot]

I wonder what the escalation would be if Putin gets fed up with UK playing the big man and lobs a few conventional cruise at London.

I believe if that ever happened, ww3 would immediately start by way of nuclear attacks on Moscow.. a frightening thought!

I think it's highly unlikely that the UK or other western nations would be the first to go from conventional to nuclear arms.

The Russians are making a poor showing of fighting Ukraine. An attack on a NATO member nation would likely bring NATO fully into a war that Russia is already losing. Russia's targeting of civilians is evidence of how badly they are doing, in most places, against a motivated Ukrainian military.

Added later: The consequence of Putin's failed war against a smaller nation: the World now realizes that Russia is not the superpower that they pretend to be.

Dangerous, yes. Any country with vast numbers of nukes is dangerous. But the lack of leadership, discipline, preparedness, integrity, and the corruption, that indicates they are not truly a superpower. Only a bully.

[Subversive_plot]

Whilst Russia has enough nuclear missiles to destroy us a 100 times over, we have enough to destroy them once. Once is enough to deter.

Agree completely.

The career military in Russia must surely be aware that a nuclear strike of any kind against the west would be madness, and would bring total nuclear destruction upon Russia.

I wonder what contingencies the Russian military have up their sleeve in the event that Putin does order a nuclear strike?

[John]

I can't see Russia risking any sort of direct attack on NATO. Killing a couple of people with nerve agents or poison in England is one thing but a mass casualty situation would result in war. There can be no winners of a full scale WW3.
The real risky period is when the Ukrainians start to retake Crimea and the 'breakaway' states and Putin cannot hide the scale of the Russian defeat from the population.
The silly thing is the Russian people could have been enjoying the same standard of living as the west, if not better with their vast oil and gas reserves. But they've been spending it on the military and concentrating wealth in oligarchs rather than investing in their people.

[Subversive_plot]

The silly thing is the Russian people could have been enjoying the same standard of living as the west, if not better with their vast oil and gas reserves. But they've been spending it on the military and concentrating wealth in oligarchs rather than investing in their people.

It's almost like Russia has a historic past, with czars making all the money, and peasants getting nothing, or worse!   

[johnjsdb]

I wonder if all this tittle tatle helps anyone?

[RubyRed]

Wonder what he's got up his sleeve for the May celebrations next week.

[John]

I wonder if all this tittle tatle helps anyone?

That hardly adds to the discussion, does it?

[hasbeans]

The silly thing is the Russian people could have been enjoying the same standard of living as the west, if not better with their vast oil and gas reserves. But they've been spending it on the military and concentrating wealth in oligarchs rather than investing in their people.

It's almost like Russia has a historic past, with czars making all the money, and peasants getting nothing, or worse!   

Seems to me that both of these statements could be equally relevant when made about most countries.  Were czars really any worse than western royal lines, oligarchs worse than vulture capitalists.  Isn't Trident just as big a folly as Russian military spending given the state of the UK economy, wouldn't many Americans welcome a massive reduction in military spending in return for free healthcare?  Isn't the concentration of wealth as big a problem in the 'free' west as everywhere?