War

mooray said:
I sure wish Ukraine had at least a few nukes to hold over Russia's head like Russia is doing to the world.
Click to expand...
No. That would possibly cost them the moral high ground, and that is a great asset.

Nato has’em, and would come to Ukraine’s assistance if the Russians are dumb enough to use one. Nato may not need to respond in kind, thus ruining Russia in the court of history.
 
mooray said:
I sure wish Ukraine had at least a few nukes to hold over Russia's head like Russia is doing to the world.
Click to expand...
If required Ukraine could produce dirty conventional bombs and make Russian cities uninhabitable with fallout, they have nuclear reactors However that would put them in the shithouse internationally along with Russia, bad idea and only if they nuke Kyiv with a big one, though the shit would truly hit the fan then.
 
If you thought the exodus from Russia when they announced the draft was something, wait until you see the traffic streaming out of Moscow and St. Petersburg, if Vlad started waving nukes around in a serious way, as their populations panicked. If a nuke went off in Ukraine, I think the major Russian cities would empty into the surrounding countryside, as people tried to get the fuck outta dodge ASAP. The EMP might knock out the lights in Moscow a few hundred miles away FFS.
 
DIY-HP-LED said:
If you thought the exodus from Russia when they announced the draft was something, wait until you see the traffic streaming out of Moscow and St. Petersburg, if Vlad started waving nukes around in a serious way, as their populations panicked. If a nuke went off in Ukraine, I think the major Russian cities would empty into the surrounding countryside, as people tried to get the fuck outta dodge ASAP. The EMP might knock out the lights in Moscow a few hundred miles away FFS.
Click to expand...
Emp requires high yield at high altitude.
 
a good, thorough, wide-ranging update:
(source is Deutsche Welle out of Germany, I deem them solid)


Correspondent says Russia hasn’t actually decided *WHERE* the boundaries of it’s their “annexed” territory is, so…doesn’t that meansomething?
 
Last edited:
It wouldn't have to be done in the same douchey manner that Putin does it, heck, they wouldn't even need to be real. Just post a photo of what looks like a nuke being transported on a Ukrainian highway. Don't even say a word. Bonus points if it's a Hwasong.
 
cannabineer said:
Emp requires high yield at high altitude.
Click to expand...
Moscow is close Kyiv and their power grid is closer, high altitude causes much wider disruption depending on the type and power involved. Some of these low yeild/low fall out types they tout are probably neutron bombs, to avoid fall out means an airburst at fairly high altitude, depending on the weapon yeild.
 
cannabineer said:
Emp requires high yield at high altitude.
Click to expand...
I think southern Ukraine and Crimea would be the only viable targets for nukes, everything else except western Ukraine is too close to Russia because fall out would be an issue. So, for a test in say the black sea, it would be a choice of fallout or EMP blacking out the region and they don't want to piss Turkey off with either.
 
so pooh head has a sub with a nuke in it for a doomsday device.....wtf did he do, put a tsar in a sub or something......smh
 
How would you react to a promise that NATO would not be pushed around your country, then systematically it happens. It's a point someone made in the Joe Rogan Show last week. Not my views.
 
Week4@inCharge said:
How would you react to a promise that NATO would not be pushed around your country, then systematically it happens. It's a point someone made in the Joe Rogan Show last week. Not my views.
Click to expand...
If I was playing Dictator like Putin is?

I would use it as an excuse to snowflake and use those 'feels' sell to the people (who I have worked so hard to brainwash) that it's not 'my' fault that I am beating up on our neighbors.

This is basically like a abusive husband saying it is the wife's fault for thinking about leaving after he put her in a coma. It is a bullshit argument. There was no agreement on nations not being able to chose for themselves if they wanted to be NATO allies or not.
 
DIY-HP-LED said:
Moscow is close Kyiv and their power grid is closer, high altitude causes much wider disruption depending on the type and power involved. Some of these low yeild/low fall out types they tout are probably neutron bombs, to avoid fall out means an airburst at fairly high altitude, depending on the weapon yeild.
Click to expand...
The physics are different. Atmospheric tests in optical line of sight of Vegas did not harm their electronics. Admittedly, this was still the tube era.
 
From:

https://www.ft.com/content/4351d5b0-0888-4b47-9368-6bc4dfbccbf5 (free to read, no paywall)

1664903231923.png

Just listening to the news reports, one might think the war is nearly over. Well, maybe it is, if Russian soldiers just surrender en masse. But is that realistic? In any case, with all the ballyhoo about Ukraine's advances, when I look at the map, Ukraine hasn't made all that much progress. I'm just saying, this war isn't over. Not by a long shot. Ukraine's soldiers are amazing but still human. They aren't an inexhaustible resource. Ukraine has a long way to go before they can rest.
 
cannabineer said:
The physics are different. Atmospheric tests in optical line of sight of Vegas did not harm their electronics. Admittedly, this was still the tube era.
Click to expand...
I'm no expert, but they will hear about it in Moscow and St. Peterburg fast these days, even if they don't see the flash or feel the bang. The places will look like the rats running out of an old barn on fire when the news that Vlad is using nukes hits, the populations will panic.
 
DIY-HP-LED said:
Moscow is close Kyiv and their power grid is closer, high altitude causes much wider disruption depending on the type and power involved. Some of these low yeild/low fall out types they tout are probably neutron bombs, to avoid fall out means an airburst at fairly high altitude, depending on the weapon yeild.
Click to expand...
I remember reading an early piece about the neutron bomb back when it was first disclosed to the public; the thing that has really stuck with me over the years was that it was described as a low-damage weapon, re: infrastructure, which seemed to be one of the perceived advantages of of the weapon. What this means, of course, is that it’s an ANTIPERSONNEL WEAPON - it doesn’t blow things up, it just kills everybody in range.

interesting that I never heard another word or saw another line about the weapon since…’course, microfiche was as close as we came to an internet back then (oh, and the research librarians @ Library of Congress - I wonder if they still take public requests?)

As a tactical, battlefield weapon, it could be used to exterminate a population using the miltech on show in Ukraine right now. ‘Course, much has changed behind the scenes since that long-ago read - I’d imagine this has been in the skunk works, if it’s coming into the conversation now re: the “special military option”.

so…what’s your source, I want to see it
(Not intended as a challenge)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top