DuatDweller on 20/11/2024 at 20:42
Russia wont nuke Ukraine or Europe, too close home, radioactivity would travel as far as to Russia.
Putin is Crazy not stupid.
demagogue on 20/11/2024 at 20:54
Since I studied this for our project on the Fukushima disaster, I know for sure Russian officials were negligent about Chernobyl even to the cost of harm to their own people. I wouldn't have any doubt that Putin would easily throw his own people under the bus with nuclear risk if it catered to his magical thinking about Russia's destiny or protected himself.
I think the reason why he won't contemplate it has more to do with keeping masses of Russians depoliticized and not pushing back against him or the costs of the war, in the same vein is bringing in North Korean slave soldiers to take some of the burden off of the population. I guess it still backs up your general claim, he's crazy (magical thinking) but not stupid (he's still strategic viz. his own position), but not in the way you're thinking I think (or the way Timothy Snyder or Vlad Vexler put it in their videos as I understand them; I defer to those who have more expertise than me).
lowenz on 20/11/2024 at 23:29
Quote Posted by DuatDweller
Russia wont nuke Ukraine or Europe, too close home, radioactivity would travel as far as to Russia.
Putin is Crazy not stupid.
Radioactivity of a nuclear warhead is nothing to worry about, the main problem is the total destruction and disruption by heat/shock wave. Radioactive dust has a really low density thanks to the massive winds generated by the pressure of the explosion.
Radioactivity is only a big problem with spent fuel bombs ("dirty bombs"), those are nasty as hell and, terrorists apart, nobody thinks to use them.
The main problem about russian ICMB is not the warhead, is the vector:
[video=youtube;g0RiYCk2V4g]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0RiYCk2V4g[/video]
Starker on 20/11/2024 at 23:54
Quote Posted by taffernicus
nuclear is worst, if they want a big boom arsenal perhaps they can construct a MOAB equivalent (it's still horrendous more or less)
i have a premonition that they would no longer be bluffing about this threat if the missile landed in their capital city, there will be a contest to see which side can quickly press the abort button or rapidly input the abort sequence on their missile launch control centre / computer terminal before regret sets in
but the more crucial thing is to find a peaceful solution
ATACMS are not that long range that they could reach Moscow from Ukraine. Also, Ukraine has been attacking Russian forces with HIMARS and other Western weapons for a long while. Not to mention they have been attacking everything in Russia with drones, including Moscow. The threats that Russia is going to use nukes are completely arbitrary -- when Ukraine's allies send anti-tank weapons, artillery, tanks, or planes, when Ukraine attacks targets in Russian annexed territory, when Ukraine attacks Russian forces beyond the border... The threats to use nukes when Ukraine uses long(er) range missiles in Russia is just the latest in a long string of hysterics Russia hopes will scare gullible and easily scared people in the West.
The very idea that Ukraine can only attack Russian forces on one side of an imaginary border, a border that Russia itself doesn't recognise, is laughable. The idea that only Russia can receive aid from its allies is laughable. Russia is the aggressor here and shouldn't be able to get to set any rules how Ukraine can defend itself. Any appeasement or giving in to Russia's nuclear blackmail is only going to prolong the war. Any ceasefire or freezing of the conflict is only postponing the war to a time where Russia is stronger and is able to inflict more damage to Ukraine.
There is in fact a peaceful solution to all of this. If Russia gets out of Ukraine, the war will stop immediately. The only reason the war is going on is because there are Russian forces in Ukrainian sovereign territory. As long as Russia occupies Ukrainian territory, commits atrocities against Ukrainian people, steals Ukrainian children, there can be no peace.
lowenz on 21/11/2024 at 00:30
Quote Posted by Starker
Russia hopes will scare gullible and easily scared people in the West.
We have plenty of them thanks to Russia subtle propaganda since 2010 and that's a real and big problem: they believe they're the intelligent ones not realizing how they're manipulated every day thanks to the social networks and bot accounts.
This is already a cultural disaster.
RippedPhreak on 21/11/2024 at 22:52
Quote:
The very idea that Ukraine can only attack Russian forces on one side of an imaginary border, a border that Russia itself doesn't recognise, is laughable. The idea that only Russia can receive aid from its allies is laughable. Russia is the aggressor here and shouldn't be able to get to set any rules how Ukraine can defend itself. Any appeasement or giving in to Russia's nuclear blackmail is only going to prolong the war. Any ceasefire or freezing of the conflict is only postponing the war to a time where Russia is stronger and is able to inflict more damage to Ukraine.
I see that you are quite willing to fight to the last Ukrainian. But is that really the smartest thing for Ukraine to do?
Anyway, the issue is not Ukraine fighting back. It's a question of how much US help was given on these ATACM missions. Sure, the US military didn't
technically launch the missile. The missile that they supplied, and crewed, and provided all necessary targeting data for. No no, the US crew merely built it, transported it there, assembled it, loaded it, and programmed the target. Some Ukrainian officer actually pushed the big red button, so the US totally wasn't involved!
At some point the amount of US involvement gets to where the Russians decide we are openly at war with them. What are the consequences from that? Has anyone in DC even thought about it? At all?
Tocky on 22/11/2024 at 02:17
Russia isn't going to attack the US now that it has its mole going back into the presidency. Don't worry though, he will find a way to give Ukraine to Russia somehow, have faith.
How about we leave it up to Ukraine when they stop fighting for their own territory?
bjack on 22/11/2024 at 02:30
Maybe weapons manufacturers are taking advantage of the situation and doing live field tests? Russia now seems to be able to knock out older US missiles. OK, good to know. And the new Russian MRBM missile seems to work. Can't get that data in simulation. It's a curious situation. All parties know this will end soon, so why not just take advantage of the lame duck period?
I think this missile volley is just corporate opportunism before, an albeit compromised, mutual peace occurs. If my nearby nuke submarine base is not nuked soon, I will report back in February to see if I am right or wrong. I think this will end by Jan 31, 2025. And it will end in some sort of peace, not fire and brimstone.
Starker on 22/11/2024 at 04:39
Quote Posted by RippedPhreak
I see that you are quite willing to fight to the last Ukrainian. But is that really the smartest thing for Ukraine to do?
I see that you are quite willing to accommodate torture and mass deportations of civilians, including the kidnapping and brainwashing of children.
I have lived under Russian occupation and I can say without a doubt that yes it is the smartest thing to do. As long as Ukraine can resist and defend their home, they should absolutely do that. Have you seen what Russia has done in the occupied territories? Have you seen what happens to captured Ukrainian POWs? Have you seen the terror attacks on Ukrainian cities? Ukrainians are not somehow safer by relying on Russia's mercy because Russia has not been showing any and is not going to.
