You realised I challenged that stat because Thames Water released that report. Now you're squirming, as per.
Anyone that believes the russian nukes have been kept maintained in a state of readiness is living in cloud cuckoo land. They cost a fortune to maintain, and it's odds on most of the money allocated for that has been syphoned off. I can't recall the exact figures, but it costs the US more to maintain their smaller arsenal than it Russia spends on it's armed forces in total. The most dangerous place to be would be anywhere near where they're launched from.
Doubt he's stupid enough to do that, but who knows. He's been trashing his country's population, arsenal, standing and economy for years.
They only 'released' the now outdated report after an FoI request. But that's **** all to do with anything other than your desperate stupidity and ignorance.
Oh aye, local inquiries are the way forward and no mistake. What on earth could go wrong with them marking their own homework?
Erm, you never 'pulled me up' you just posted your usual gibberish. However, as you are claiming to be a clued up expert, feel free to post your more accurate figures. If, as I suspect you will, you claim nobody knows, have a think about what that itself says.
All these illegal immigrants are living off the grid in the most expensive city in the UK. And they're probably all on benefits. And working too. And taking all the housing. Thames Water knows.
So, it's all fine and dandy in London, yes? No strain on housing, hospitals, schools, prisons, welfare etc.? I've been worrying about nothing. Bloody Thames Water.
That's privatisation for you. Russia have developed 2 Nuclear capable ICBM, one described as having unlimited range and the Intermediate Range Nuclear Capable Oreshnik which they tested on Kiev in November Even Iran have the capability to deliver Nukes if not the nukes themselves Need to stop watching Hollywood's takes on Russia and take it seriously.
You've been saying Russia was going to take over Ukraine and Europe was next. I've consistently said Russia had no intention of doing so and couldn't man an occupation, citing historic occupations and modern occupations that have failed. I used Georgia as an example of their intentions. You need to read what people say and not just listen to your feelings.
Some of the 'weapons' Russia tries to display are incapable of launching. Some of the other nations claiming nuclear capability can't get the sums right to make the inter-continental ones operable.
Perhaps, but they won't be sure which one, and firing them singularly is a sure fired way of having their own Country destroyed, as it would trigger an immediate response with no real way of being sure their own missile had any effect until it's too late. There really isn't any meaningful way of firing a warning shot beyond chest puffing on manoeuvres.
