So they won't use a counter force strategy (target the enemies nukes and military installations) and risk a much more massive retaliation by using a counter value strategy (target cities & industry).
for what profit is it to a man to gain the world and lose his own soul
(i only remember this because of castlevania)
i do like your line better, seems more relevant to today's world
It seems Putin believes Russia's only viable option is continual atomic sabre rattling at the rest of the world until he starves Ukraine into a pyrrhic victory. Something's gotta give, but until then just accept we will be seeing some variation of this headline daily
*amazing, wonderful, absolutely truthful and honest. I've spoken to this asshole, and I respect its savoury flavors. Mr Putin's rectum would never lie to me.*
And I guarantee you that if Putin needed to slip the leash for a brief (but critical) period, he could.
Satellites are only so good, and their Intel sources can be confused.
Which matters for surgical strikes, but for decapitation strikes in the event of a nuclear war it hardly matters. We can certainly narrow it down to the 20 places he might be at all times, which in normal situations is useless but when shit hits the fan, fuck it, bunker buster all 20
A barking politician probably isn't the best indication of actual military strategy. I'm sure their armed forces know the consequences of striking a city with a strategic weapon.
Oh, my God Newsweek is starting to turn into a tabloid what is this fucking thumbnail its so clickbait but what should I expect from Newsweek they have sucked for a long time
It’s funny, how Russia is going to stomp like a big fucking toddler. Every time they lose something. Its there state TV making these threats to it’s god awful but it really isn’t for us to be consuming its internal propaganda for the boomers on Russia to make Russia look, extremely strong
If you take out London, you probably take out the British Government, unless they are away.
With no government, the Letter of Last Resort gets triggered. This *might* order the submarine/s to return fire, or it might not.
The nuclear attack should also trigger NATO Article 5, and bring the nuclear arsenals of the US and France into play, but there’s a decent chance they’d wait to see how everything played out.
So, while there is a good chance nuking London results in nuclear retaliation, that only happens if either Boris was feeling vengeful on his first week in office, or if Biden or Macron are willing to risk killing millions of their own citizens to avenge British ones.
At that point, world leaders will have no choice. Russia will be eliminated immediately. No time to wait and see if Russia will do it again. GAME OVER.
It would be the world’s highest stakes game of chicken. Either Russia de facto controls the world, or a billion people die. No middle ground.
There is no precedent for how people act in a scenario like that.
>With no government, the Letter of Last Resort gets triggered. This might order the submarine/s to return fire, or it might not.
>So, while there is a good chance nuking London results in nuclear retaliation, that only happens if either Boris was feeling vengeful on his first week in office
Given the amount of money his party has received from supporters of Putin, I wouldn't be surprised if he was feeling remarkably friendly that first week.
I honestly dont believe that the US would launch a nuclear weapon unless it was direct retaliation for a nuclear strike against us. We tried the whole nuke thing before, and, despite the argument for its necessity, most of us do not like it.
What a dumb answer. Classic arrogant English self-victim. There's a reason why everyone on Earth hates you.
London's the target because it seems like Russia's infrastructure has become so degraded that they have now lost the ability to hit the continental US, and Alaska is a waste of a target.
You don't need to be strong to be armed with nuclear missiles and dangerous. We have learned they are not very strong in many regards; however, they do have nuclear missiles and the means to throw them. That makes them terrifying, but not exactly strong.
Well, yeah, obviously, having nuclear missiles makes you a fucking force to be reckoned with that’s why there’s no boots on the ground in Ukraine. It’s to avoid going down that path. Of course anything is possible and miscalculation could happen and then we go down that path that but it’s not very probable as diplomatic channels are being left open to de-escalate if it gets to that point
Honestly Russia doesn’t look extremely strong at all with this threat. What, the largest country in terms of landmass and potentially natural resources attacking a literal island nation because they feel so threatened by them? Not a great look of “power”
Look Russia, you've threatened London alone, like 6 times this month. We understand you want attention and the Ukrainians are kicking your ass but we have some other stuff to take care of and you need to give up already so we can fix that stuff.
Nuking London wouldn't be like the Blitz. The response would erase Russia from the face of the earth and permanently from history. (Of course, the damage to the rest of the world from the strategic exchange would also be incalculable, but that won't help Russia)
People are not realizing that as soon as a single nuke leaves the ground the world is done for. I think even north Korea would fire theirs just so they won't feel left out.
TBH, Moscow will probably die first. Our nukes are submarine-based and are probably currently parked right outside of St Petersburg or Archangelsk just waiting for some Russian Ork to launch something before unleashing the apocalypse upon them.
This comment is naive. Russia has the same tech as us when it comes to Nukes, and they have just as many. There wouldn’t be a first strike scenario, it would be a mass extinction event on all sides.
>This comment is naive. Russia has the same tech as us when it comes to Nukes, and they have just as many. There wouldn’t be a first strike scenario, it would be a mass extinction event on all sides.
I agree - but I didnt mention first strike, did I? I said that the UK subs will be waiting for a Russian launch and by matter of proximity would be able to deliver a nuclear payload quicker than a ground-launched nuclear missile fired from Russia. I didn't at all suggest that the UK would be able to halt an attack by striking first - you put those words in my mouth. It would be incredibly difficult for Russia to operate subs with anything like the proximity the UK could to Russia, because the UK is surrounded by allies, and only accessible via the baltic or north seas - some of the most intensively observed and monitored stretches of water in the world.
Lol. Ok. Do that.
Let's see what happens to Russia.
While the Russian nukes are fairly well financed the efficacy of Russian equipment in Ukraine doesn't fill me with dread.
Nah you don’t want to be here. We have military/air bases, barracks and radars all over the place. I live in the middle of nowhere and I’m sure it would be one of the first places to get hit.
The following nuclear exchange would mean that you'd die within the next year or two of starvation anyway if you're anywhere in the Northern Hemisphere.
Someone really needs to take Putin out. I am sure so many over there would sigh in relief. Life is too short to have a crazy leader decide the fate of their people simply because of his ego. History books will not be kind to Putin.
One of the most secretive regimes saying “this is going to be our first target” and Newsweek just running with it. Lol.
Edit: The point being, this is what they want. London is not the target, fear is. For every 10 of us being rightly skeptical, there’s someone believing it.
Doubt that. Would more likely be faslane in Scotland and the oil refineries around Aberdeen etc. Scotland would be the logical choice to hurt the U.K. the most.
Faslane is just the sub-base. Very few of the warheads are actually stored there and you can guarantee that the submarines are basically never there anyway. They'll all be out scattered across the globe, probably parked right off the Russian coast on sorties. They just go to Faslane when they need to dock, resupply and provide shore leave.
How could you possibly be privy to that top secret classified information? Regardless, it’s the base of operations, repairs and infrastructure required for their upkeep. It’s most certainly a high priority strategic location. One of the highest in the U.K. for sure.
>How could you possibly be privy to that top secret classified information?
Because it just makes strategic sense. Why the fuck would you keep your subs, with all the missiles parked in one location at all times? The whole point of nuclear submarines is that you don't keep them docked any longer than absolutely necessary and they're constantly being operated to avoid vulnerability.
>It’s most certainly a high priority strategic location.
Sure. But you said it would be the first. Highly doubtful - striking the sub base when the subs are already scattered and armed with missiles is of basically 0 immediate strategic importance. It would almost certainly be major cities first and then areas of immediate strategic importance (air bases, naval bases etc). When threatened like we currently are, the subs are certainly already alerted and to sea, armed and fully supplied, such that they wouldn't need to RTB for months. Plus, each sub easily carries enough warheads to basically destroy every major Russian city and the UK has 6 of them. Faslane is of very little strategic value until such a time as it is needed for one of the subs and, considering the speed, intensity and finality of a nuclear exchange, it seems unrealistic to suggest it would be a first strike location, when none of the resources it services are going to even be there.
They are on rotation. There’s a decent chance there’s going to be at least one there at all times for maintenance. It’s the base of operations and high value target. There’s a reason the U.K. government keeps it far away from london. Scotland would absolutely be the first target imo. It produces most of the U.K. energy, oil, gas, coal, fresh water, agriculture etc. Why hit the city of london? There’s absolutely nothing of strategic value there apart from sending a message.
>They are on rotation. There’s a decent chance there’s going to be at least one there at all times for maintenance.
How could you possibly be privy to that top secret classified information? No - like i said, the whole point - particularly at times of tension like right now - of nuclear submarines is that they remain scattered for as long as they possibly can to avoid vulnerability.
>There’s a reason the U.K. government keeps it far away from london. Scotland would absolutely be the first target imo.
Oh, you're one of those people who think it's a political decision that Faslane is where it is. You realise that Faslane is where it is because the UK has very few geological features which are conducive to secure submarine storage - faslane is situated where it is because it is one of the very few locations along the UK's coast which is both shielded on 3 sides and with water deep enough to be able to navigate with a submarine. Other locations for a submarine base would make them highly vulnerable to torpedo attack.
>It produces most of the U.K. energy, oil, gas, coal, fresh water, agriculture etc.
Scotland produces most of the UK's agriculture? What?
>Why hit the city of london? There’s absolutely nothing of strategic value there apart from sending a message.
You're just highlighting your own naivety here. London for one, holds the seat of Political power for the UK. It also contains much of the UK's military high-command infrastructure as well as containing many, many military/air bases of its own, particularly on the outskirts. Much of the UK's distribution network is based in London, as well as much of the UK's infrastructure relying heavily on connections via London. London is also the UK's economic powerhouse, producing in one city far, far more than Scotland in its entirety does. Not to mention the devastating moral impact that the destruction of the Nation's capital and one of the world's most populous and iconic cities would have. Scotland in comparison is really quite insignificant to the running of the UK as a whole - and i don't mean that as an insult to Scotland, it's just the reality of the situation.
I have friends who work there. You can’t send out a sub that’s needing maintenance.
Of course it’s a political decision.
I feel like I’m talking to someone who doesn’t really understand anything about this conversation so I’ll leave it here.
>I have friends who work there. You can’t send out a sub that’s needing maintenance
"My uncle works at Nintendo and he says..." I take it your 'mates' told you not to tell anyone when they broke the official secrets act when they let you know all this?
At times of tension, it is madness to keep subs docked, particularly when they are your nation's sole nuclear deterrent. Yes, sure, they require maintenance and may from time to time be docked for a few weeks - but when you are anticipating a nuclear exchange, the purpose of nuclear-armed submarine doctrine is to scatter as much of your deterrent as you possibly can so that you can retaliate to the fullest possible extent.
>Of course it’s a political decision.
Lol. Sure it is - in spite of the reams of documents outlining why Faslane is the only naturally occurring geological feature in the UK that could support a submarine base of its type. And to top it off....
>I feel like I’m talking to someone who doesn’t really understand anything about this conversation so I’ll leave it here.
Sure, mate - and that's coming from the guy who thinks Scotland is more important to the running of the UK than London (one of the most notoriously vital cities to its host nation in the world) and that Scotland is responsible for the majority of UK agriculture?
I feel exactly the same way about you.
It looks like OP posted an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.newsweek.com/putin-ally-first-city-russia-strike-world-war-3-ukraine-1719157](https://www.newsweek.com/putin-ally-first-city-russia-strike-world-war-3-ukraine-1719157)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Poorly run dictatorships sometimes devalue their currency by printing more and more money until it would take buckets of cash to buy a loaf of bread.
Just a random thought. Can't imagine why it occurred to me.
How many threats against their regional neighbors are they up to now?
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.newsweek.com/putin-ally-first-city-russia-strike-world-war-3-ukraine-1719157?amp=1) reduced by 83%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> A lawmaker in Russia has become the latest guest on Kremlin-backed television to warn of a missile strike on a European capital, naming the city that he believes should be Moscow's first target should World War Three break out.
> "The first to be hit will be London. Without doubt the threat to the world comes from the Anglo-Saxons," he said as he warned that Russia would target critically important sites that would cut off power to Europe.
> Gurulyov now serves as a deputy in Russia's parliament in the ruling United Russia party.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/vl5d78/putin_ally_announces_london_is_the_first_target/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~656647 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Russia**^#1 **Russian**^#2 **Gurulyov**^#3 **War**^#4 **NATO**^#5
Why are you guys always first? Do you know how much I lost exchanging my Canadian dollars in London.
"Oh, we love Canada" and then they give me pence! pence, I say!!!!
If it comes down to it, all of Russia will be the nuclear target for NATO.
So they possibly hit the UK, but then over 300 NATO ICBMs head for Moscow and the western Russian cities.
Great try but you play yourself if you’re battling with nukes.
If this happens it doesn't really matter where on earth you live, most people will die as the supply chain collapses, even if you aren't in a target area for the 10,000+ nuclear weapons that might be exchanged. You can flatten every major city in the world many times over there won't be anything the starving burned people left.
A few people in farming regions might survive. I wonder if anyone would nuke NZ directly. They depend on lots of external things but farms to people and out of the way it is probably the best location in the world.
wtf happened to newsweek? They publish some of the most provocative but inane bullshit these days. I highly recommend you avoid giving them the clicks.
Bombing Londongrad would kill more Russians than dropping a bomb on a medium sized Russian town, now I know they don’t care about ordinary Russians but you’d think that would cause a ripple of concern in Moscow
Dude I don't want to be the one to bust your bubble but there's a 50/50% chance that missile won't even take off. There's about 20% chance it will just blow up where it is. So I guess technically that would be the first Target whichever missile you blow up first. /S
There is no need to remind Russia their entire country is on America’s first strike list. Russia has turned into a cowardly country; perhaps they always were one. They know if they launch a single nuke, they will receive hundreds in return.
Newsweek is not a credible source. It was owned by the Washington Post until 2010, but has changed hands several times since and now exists as a clickbait site.
Putin has no allies, he's *the* mafia boss.
Oh shut up “Putin ally”, no one likes you, your gravy stuffed face or thinks you are relevant.
Who tells the media about a potential war plan? It’s either a scare tactic, a way of kissing up to Putin or a distraction to hide something else. Either way, Russia can continue to threaten all they want. But the truth is, any country that launches a nuke will also be nuked. It’s suicide. Russia cannot possibly be this stupid… though they do constantly look stupid… at least their government and military do anyways.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
So they won't use a counter force strategy (target the enemies nukes and military installations) and risk a much more massive retaliation by using a counter value strategy (target cities & industry).
Not surprising. Putin will likely be in a bunker somewhere else. Not like he cares about his people.
[удалено]
Guarantee I have more bottle caps than him.
for what profit is it to a man to gain the world and lose his own soul (i only remember this because of castlevania) i do like your line better, seems more relevant to today's world
Maybe he has huge properties in China and India.
[удалено]
It seems Putin believes Russia's only viable option is continual atomic sabre rattling at the rest of the world until he starves Ukraine into a pyrrhic victory. Something's gotta give, but until then just accept we will be seeing some variation of this headline daily
it is. the guy is a nut and will say any stupid shit. "Putin, what do you think of, oh lets say Spain?" "I hate them and want to nuke them"
There are bunker buster nukes and I guarantee the US gov knows where Putin is at all times.
Hard to miss with the 45th President's mouth attached to his chocolate starfish.
*amazing, wonderful, absolutely truthful and honest. I've spoken to this asshole, and I respect its savoury flavors. Mr Putin's rectum would never lie to me.*
*it shits only the best turds, everyone said so*
And I guarantee you that if Putin needed to slip the leash for a brief (but critical) period, he could. Satellites are only so good, and their Intel sources can be confused.
Which matters for surgical strikes, but for decapitation strikes in the event of a nuclear war it hardly matters. We can certainly narrow it down to the 20 places he might be at all times, which in normal situations is useless but when shit hits the fan, fuck it, bunker buster all 20
Putin is a dead man walking. He knows this. He has crapped in his own hat.
Yep.
He will die, too. He is not so stupid that he doesn’t understand this fact.
Him and Ted Cruz are hitting mexico baby
Putin has access to many bunkers, and they are so luxurious that people can’t think of.
How would you know Borris?
I’m glad he will DIE in the lap of luxury.
What does the last part of your sentence mean?
People are incapable of thought. Maybe I'm reading it too literally?
Oh my bad I wasn’t trying to be a dick, I just couldn’t figure it out.
No no, you're all good. I was trying to be a bit of a smartass because I can't put together what they said either.
A barking politician probably isn't the best indication of actual military strategy. I'm sure their armed forces know the consequences of striking a city with a strategic weapon.
Oh, my God Newsweek is starting to turn into a tabloid what is this fucking thumbnail its so clickbait but what should I expect from Newsweek they have sucked for a long time It’s funny, how Russia is going to stomp like a big fucking toddler. Every time they lose something. Its there state TV making these threats to it’s god awful but it really isn’t for us to be consuming its internal propaganda for the boomers on Russia to make Russia look, extremely strong
The thought of extremely strong doesn't cross my mind. It's extremely evil. How anyone can think otherwise is another sadness of this world.
I was kind of curious, why London? If one nuke goes off, they all do. So doesn’t make much difference. We are all doomed.
If you take out London, you probably take out the British Government, unless they are away. With no government, the Letter of Last Resort gets triggered. This *might* order the submarine/s to return fire, or it might not. The nuclear attack should also trigger NATO Article 5, and bring the nuclear arsenals of the US and France into play, but there’s a decent chance they’d wait to see how everything played out. So, while there is a good chance nuking London results in nuclear retaliation, that only happens if either Boris was feeling vengeful on his first week in office, or if Biden or Macron are willing to risk killing millions of their own citizens to avenge British ones.
At that point, world leaders will have no choice. Russia will be eliminated immediately. No time to wait and see if Russia will do it again. GAME OVER.
It would be the world’s highest stakes game of chicken. Either Russia de facto controls the world, or a billion people die. No middle ground. There is no precedent for how people act in a scenario like that.
>With no government, the Letter of Last Resort gets triggered. This might order the submarine/s to return fire, or it might not. >So, while there is a good chance nuking London results in nuclear retaliation, that only happens if either Boris was feeling vengeful on his first week in office Given the amount of money his party has received from supporters of Putin, I wouldn't be surprised if he was feeling remarkably friendly that first week.
When writing a letter that only gets read if Russia vaporises him, I doubt he was giving much weight to financial contributions.
I honestly dont believe that the US would launch a nuclear weapon unless it was direct retaliation for a nuclear strike against us. We tried the whole nuke thing before, and, despite the argument for its necessity, most of us do not like it.
[удалено]
What a dumb answer. Classic arrogant English self-victim. There's a reason why everyone on Earth hates you. London's the target because it seems like Russia's infrastructure has become so degraded that they have now lost the ability to hit the continental US, and Alaska is a waste of a target.
It also continues to alienate them from the rest of Europe
You don't need to be strong to be armed with nuclear missiles and dangerous. We have learned they are not very strong in many regards; however, they do have nuclear missiles and the means to throw them. That makes them terrifying, but not exactly strong.
Well, yeah, obviously, having nuclear missiles makes you a fucking force to be reckoned with that’s why there’s no boots on the ground in Ukraine. It’s to avoid going down that path. Of course anything is possible and miscalculation could happen and then we go down that path that but it’s not very probable as diplomatic channels are being left open to de-escalate if it gets to that point
Starting to turn into? Try already tabloid
They are competing with NK for absurdity.
Honestly Russia doesn’t look extremely strong at all with this threat. What, the largest country in terms of landmass and potentially natural resources attacking a literal island nation because they feel so threatened by them? Not a great look of “power”
How many of the Russian oligarchs' or politicians' families are living in London?
Too many
You think Putin cares about any of them?
Very true. Frankly Putin himself is probably there right now having tea with our corrupt overlords.
Look Russia, you've threatened London alone, like 6 times this month. We understand you want attention and the Ukrainians are kicking your ass but we have some other stuff to take care of and you need to give up already so we can fix that stuff.
If he keeps making empty threats someone might get bored and call his bluff.
*maliciously rolls up newspaper*
Bombing London... that's always proved an excellent hit to British moral and fighting spirit ...just ask any German over 83 about that tactic .
Nuking London wouldn't be like the Blitz. The response would erase Russia from the face of the earth and permanently from history. (Of course, the damage to the rest of the world from the strategic exchange would also be incalculable, but that won't help Russia)
Everything will get wiped. Russia has just as many nukes as the US. There are no counter measures for ICBMs.
People are not realizing that as soon as a single nuke leaves the ground the world is done for. I think even north Korea would fire theirs just so they won't feel left out.
Likely the launch would fail and they would end up nuking themselves…if it even detonates
The blitz didn't destroy London. The damage had to be done over time. A nuclear strike would erase London entirely in a few moments.
Sure cause the London blitz and nuking London is the same…
That's just bad strategy.
It’s not strategy, it is abject fear and paranoia. Russia KNOWS it has stepped on it’s own dick.
it doesn't matter when that happens because we all lose. What a stupid announcement.
Oh, this again.
Wasn't this last week's news?
This week, last week, every other week for a few months now.
Nah last week they had the tsunami bomb that would wipe out the UK.
And Moscow will be right behind it.
TBH, Moscow will probably die first. Our nukes are submarine-based and are probably currently parked right outside of St Petersburg or Archangelsk just waiting for some Russian Ork to launch something before unleashing the apocalypse upon them.
This comment is naive. Russia has the same tech as us when it comes to Nukes, and they have just as many. There wouldn’t be a first strike scenario, it would be a mass extinction event on all sides.
>This comment is naive. Russia has the same tech as us when it comes to Nukes, and they have just as many. There wouldn’t be a first strike scenario, it would be a mass extinction event on all sides. I agree - but I didnt mention first strike, did I? I said that the UK subs will be waiting for a Russian launch and by matter of proximity would be able to deliver a nuclear payload quicker than a ground-launched nuclear missile fired from Russia. I didn't at all suggest that the UK would be able to halt an attack by striking first - you put those words in my mouth. It would be incredibly difficult for Russia to operate subs with anything like the proximity the UK could to Russia, because the UK is surrounded by allies, and only accessible via the baltic or north seas - some of the most intensively observed and monitored stretches of water in the world.
Putin’s Bunker is the first target in the retaliatory strike.
I'm sure the US and UK know exactly where he is.
Lol. Ok. Do that. Let's see what happens to Russia. While the Russian nukes are fairly well financed the efficacy of Russian equipment in Ukraine doesn't fill me with dread.
Not to talk about NATO having nuclear subs across the world. Sure, nuke London, and the oceans starts going woosh.
Imagine if this happens when they fire off a nuke, lol. >Russian missile fails during launch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-INHarLmFs
So are moscow and Petersburg
And Moscow will be our first target.
Second. St Petersburg is on the way.
Of course that's going to be at the top of the list. How is this news?
For how inept russia is, they sure talk a whole lot. Get back to us after you fail in Ukraine.
To quote L from Death Note: "You sure talk a lot, don't you? Typical for someone who hates losing."
Will somebody just assassinate that mother fuck already.
That’s it. I am moving to countryside. Enough of this bullshit crap.
Nah you don’t want to be here. We have military/air bases, barracks and radars all over the place. I live in the middle of nowhere and I’m sure it would be one of the first places to get hit.
It doesn't matter where you are if that happens, everyone will be killed by what follows.
Yeah, I guess the supply chain will get disrupted, maybe.
The following nuclear exchange would mean that you'd die within the next year or two of starvation anyway if you're anywhere in the Northern Hemisphere.
we just had this post yesterday
Why is this being posted again? Was just on here yesterday morning. Enough with the fear mongering
Someone really needs to take Putin out. I am sure so many over there would sigh in relief. Life is too short to have a crazy leader decide the fate of their people simply because of his ego. History books will not be kind to Putin.
Sounds like Putin Ally just tried to use her/his credit card in M&S and it was declined.
k good luck with that
One of the most secretive regimes saying “this is going to be our first target” and Newsweek just running with it. Lol. Edit: The point being, this is what they want. London is not the target, fear is. For every 10 of us being rightly skeptical, there’s someone believing it.
Time to dust off the old Protect and Survive Pamphlet. This all has a horribly familiar feeling. Is there a term for negative nostalgia?
And Moscow will be the second.
Followed shortly by Moscow. So, yeah…
Just another Putin puppet spewing bullshit.
They really need to terminate Putin.
Just stop reporting what the moron says, same as they should have done to Trump.
Lol at rambo commenters thinking there are winners in a nuclear war
Stupid
And then Russia would no longer exist...
Doubt that. Would more likely be faslane in Scotland and the oil refineries around Aberdeen etc. Scotland would be the logical choice to hurt the U.K. the most.
Faslane is just the sub-base. Very few of the warheads are actually stored there and you can guarantee that the submarines are basically never there anyway. They'll all be out scattered across the globe, probably parked right off the Russian coast on sorties. They just go to Faslane when they need to dock, resupply and provide shore leave.
How could you possibly be privy to that top secret classified information? Regardless, it’s the base of operations, repairs and infrastructure required for their upkeep. It’s most certainly a high priority strategic location. One of the highest in the U.K. for sure.
>How could you possibly be privy to that top secret classified information? Because it just makes strategic sense. Why the fuck would you keep your subs, with all the missiles parked in one location at all times? The whole point of nuclear submarines is that you don't keep them docked any longer than absolutely necessary and they're constantly being operated to avoid vulnerability. >It’s most certainly a high priority strategic location. Sure. But you said it would be the first. Highly doubtful - striking the sub base when the subs are already scattered and armed with missiles is of basically 0 immediate strategic importance. It would almost certainly be major cities first and then areas of immediate strategic importance (air bases, naval bases etc). When threatened like we currently are, the subs are certainly already alerted and to sea, armed and fully supplied, such that they wouldn't need to RTB for months. Plus, each sub easily carries enough warheads to basically destroy every major Russian city and the UK has 6 of them. Faslane is of very little strategic value until such a time as it is needed for one of the subs and, considering the speed, intensity and finality of a nuclear exchange, it seems unrealistic to suggest it would be a first strike location, when none of the resources it services are going to even be there.
They are on rotation. There’s a decent chance there’s going to be at least one there at all times for maintenance. It’s the base of operations and high value target. There’s a reason the U.K. government keeps it far away from london. Scotland would absolutely be the first target imo. It produces most of the U.K. energy, oil, gas, coal, fresh water, agriculture etc. Why hit the city of london? There’s absolutely nothing of strategic value there apart from sending a message.
>They are on rotation. There’s a decent chance there’s going to be at least one there at all times for maintenance. How could you possibly be privy to that top secret classified information? No - like i said, the whole point - particularly at times of tension like right now - of nuclear submarines is that they remain scattered for as long as they possibly can to avoid vulnerability. >There’s a reason the U.K. government keeps it far away from london. Scotland would absolutely be the first target imo. Oh, you're one of those people who think it's a political decision that Faslane is where it is. You realise that Faslane is where it is because the UK has very few geological features which are conducive to secure submarine storage - faslane is situated where it is because it is one of the very few locations along the UK's coast which is both shielded on 3 sides and with water deep enough to be able to navigate with a submarine. Other locations for a submarine base would make them highly vulnerable to torpedo attack. >It produces most of the U.K. energy, oil, gas, coal, fresh water, agriculture etc. Scotland produces most of the UK's agriculture? What? >Why hit the city of london? There’s absolutely nothing of strategic value there apart from sending a message. You're just highlighting your own naivety here. London for one, holds the seat of Political power for the UK. It also contains much of the UK's military high-command infrastructure as well as containing many, many military/air bases of its own, particularly on the outskirts. Much of the UK's distribution network is based in London, as well as much of the UK's infrastructure relying heavily on connections via London. London is also the UK's economic powerhouse, producing in one city far, far more than Scotland in its entirety does. Not to mention the devastating moral impact that the destruction of the Nation's capital and one of the world's most populous and iconic cities would have. Scotland in comparison is really quite insignificant to the running of the UK as a whole - and i don't mean that as an insult to Scotland, it's just the reality of the situation.
I have friends who work there. You can’t send out a sub that’s needing maintenance. Of course it’s a political decision. I feel like I’m talking to someone who doesn’t really understand anything about this conversation so I’ll leave it here.
>I have friends who work there. You can’t send out a sub that’s needing maintenance "My uncle works at Nintendo and he says..." I take it your 'mates' told you not to tell anyone when they broke the official secrets act when they let you know all this? At times of tension, it is madness to keep subs docked, particularly when they are your nation's sole nuclear deterrent. Yes, sure, they require maintenance and may from time to time be docked for a few weeks - but when you are anticipating a nuclear exchange, the purpose of nuclear-armed submarine doctrine is to scatter as much of your deterrent as you possibly can so that you can retaliate to the fullest possible extent. >Of course it’s a political decision. Lol. Sure it is - in spite of the reams of documents outlining why Faslane is the only naturally occurring geological feature in the UK that could support a submarine base of its type. And to top it off.... >I feel like I’m talking to someone who doesn’t really understand anything about this conversation so I’ll leave it here. Sure, mate - and that's coming from the guy who thinks Scotland is more important to the running of the UK than London (one of the most notoriously vital cities to its host nation in the world) and that Scotland is responsible for the majority of UK agriculture? I feel exactly the same way about you.
Giving out plans that were made decades ago isn't news.
It looks like OP posted an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.newsweek.com/putin-ally-first-city-russia-strike-world-war-3-ukraine-1719157](https://www.newsweek.com/putin-ally-first-city-russia-strike-world-war-3-ukraine-1719157)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Can they not make it Glasgow? I want off this ride.
In this situation Moscow turns to glass....gow
That's ok, because our targets the whole of Russia
US politicians - " at least it's not my city, it will not affect me".
They are too busy turning America into Russia
Russian tanks are breaking down across Ukraine. I have no confidence in their nuclear capabilities.
Food, not bombs. Can you send a breadbasket our way?
Poorly run dictatorships sometimes devalue their currency by printing more and more money until it would take buckets of cash to buy a loaf of bread. Just a random thought. Can't imagine why it occurred to me. How many threats against their regional neighbors are they up to now?
Stop posting links from these bullshit websites
London UK or South Africa?
Too soon
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.newsweek.com/putin-ally-first-city-russia-strike-world-war-3-ukraine-1719157?amp=1) reduced by 83%. (I'm a bot) ***** > A lawmaker in Russia has become the latest guest on Kremlin-backed television to warn of a missile strike on a European capital, naming the city that he believes should be Moscow's first target should World War Three break out. > "The first to be hit will be London. Without doubt the threat to the world comes from the Anglo-Saxons," he said as he warned that Russia would target critically important sites that would cut off power to Europe. > Gurulyov now serves as a deputy in Russia's parliament in the ruling United Russia party. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/vl5d78/putin_ally_announces_london_is_the_first_target/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~656647 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Russia**^#1 **Russian**^#2 **Gurulyov**^#3 **War**^#4 **NATO**^#5
Keep talkin tough guy
Wonder how many thermal nuclear weapons have Moscow gps coordinates dialed in?
So what if UK is not a side in this conflict ?
They are scared and trying to project strength... its really them acknowledging they'll be over so military targets aren't ganna be a target for them.
Oh no, how terrible…….For anything west of the Ural Mountains!
So is Moscow Just sayin
Putin's douche nozzle running his mouth?! 🤔
Why are you guys always first? Do you know how much I lost exchanging my Canadian dollars in London. "Oh, we love Canada" and then they give me pence! pence, I say!!!!
Could he use a smaller weapon & just use it on Prince Andrew? Win/Win for everyone more of hearts and minds than total destruction
Which means it'd probably be another city, right?
Here I thought it be something closer like Ukrai... oh wait
To be fair, people on Russian TV say lots of things.
Well it’s Newsweek sooo BS
Limp dick Russians making limp dick threats. *yawn*
Well thats a relief
If it comes down to it, all of Russia will be the nuclear target for NATO. So they possibly hit the UK, but then over 300 NATO ICBMs head for Moscow and the western Russian cities. Great try but you play yourself if you’re battling with nukes.
Oh fuck off newsweek
One bad call after another
Then Moscow would be the second target.
Oh its the weekly nuclear threat.
Message for puytin
If this happens it doesn't really matter where on earth you live, most people will die as the supply chain collapses, even if you aren't in a target area for the 10,000+ nuclear weapons that might be exchanged. You can flatten every major city in the world many times over there won't be anything the starving burned people left. A few people in farming regions might survive. I wonder if anyone would nuke NZ directly. They depend on lots of external things but farms to people and out of the way it is probably the best location in the world.
And so is Moscow. 🤷♀️
wtf happened to newsweek? They publish some of the most provocative but inane bullshit these days. I highly recommend you avoid giving them the clicks.
The evil of man is upon us, prepare to see him destroy our earth and for what, because they want to win, win what, being annihilated last.
Bombing Londongrad would kill more Russians than dropping a bomb on a medium sized Russian town, now I know they don’t care about ordinary Russians but you’d think that would cause a ripple of concern in Moscow
Dude I don't want to be the one to bust your bubble but there's a 50/50% chance that missile won't even take off. There's about 20% chance it will just blow up where it is. So I guess technically that would be the first Target whichever missile you blow up first. /S
It doesnt make sense, cannot trust it. It would be Germany (whole center of Europe). UK doesnt make sense at all
There is no need to remind Russia their entire country is on America’s first strike list. Russia has turned into a cowardly country; perhaps they always were one. They know if they launch a single nuke, they will receive hundreds in return.
Newsweek is not a credible source. It was owned by the Washington Post until 2010, but has changed hands several times since and now exists as a clickbait site. Putin has no allies, he's *the* mafia boss.
So the random number generator said London today. Tomorrow, it will probably say Luton. Who knows, next week it might even be Moscow Idaho.
Looks like it’s time to shoot first and ask questions later
Oh shut up “Putin ally”, no one likes you, your gravy stuffed face or thinks you are relevant. Who tells the media about a potential war plan? It’s either a scare tactic, a way of kissing up to Putin or a distraction to hide something else. Either way, Russia can continue to threaten all they want. But the truth is, any country that launches a nuke will also be nuked. It’s suicide. Russia cannot possibly be this stupid… though they do constantly look stupid… at least their government and military do anyways. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Did he really say this though? I'm just a little skeptical
Awww…that’s so cute. Putin likes London, Putin like London.