Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

I doubt the US Government/NATO care that much about the Ukrainians - but they care more about them compared to brown people

But, in this, a third country is getting fecked, but the main enemy Russia is becoming weaker on the global stage and its economy ruined...it's a win for US/NATO.

Might be me being very cynical, but there you go.
 
pauldyson1uk said:
There is no mandate in NATO rules ( for want of a better word ) to enforce a no fly zone , no NATO member has been affected and until that happens , their hands a pretty much tied.
I have mentioned this before , just think US and UK fighters enforcing a no fly zone, the Russians will challenge it, if the Russian jet was shot down, well we all know what would happen, this is what Putin wants, its must not happen.
Click to expand...
You're kidding if you think Putin wants Nuclear war. His entire game is based on using nukes as a threat because no one wants it. It's good he's 70 because as far as putin is concerned, the world sitting back and letting Ukrainians die is just further reinforcement that he's right and he'll do this again in few yrs to another nation if he's alive
 
Mike Smalling said:
I can’t figure out what the motive is in shelling the nuclear plant.

Are they trying to bait NATO to join the fight, and what would they gain from that? Or are they simply just that stupid?

Seems completely irrational, which is scary.
Click to expand...

Well, by doing so, he knows how far he can push the west I'd say, and unfortunately, it looks like he can push some more.
 
BBC staff getting out of Russia. This is the guy who tweets all the Russian state-owned TV channels.

 
Varun said:
You're kidding if you think Putin wants Nuclear war. His entire game is based on using nukes as a threat because no one wants it. It's good he's 70 because as far as putin is concerned, the world sitting back and letting Ukrainians die is just further reinforcement that he's right and he'll do this again in few yrs to another nation if he's alive
Click to expand...

I think it is probable he would use nuclear weapons on foreign targets if targeted by NATO. I do not think it would become full blown nuclear war.

Listening to NYT The Daily from yesterday, their expert seems to be fairly certain when the word 'nukes' are mentioned it is not in relation to full blown nuclear war with huge strategic warheads flying over our heads but most likely tactical nukes being aimed at specific targets. Extremely tragic but different from MAD.
 
Mike Smalling said:
I can’t figure out what the motive is in shelling the nuclear plant.

Are they trying to bait NATO to join the fight, and what would they gain from that? Or are they simply just that stupid?

Seems completely irrational, which is scary.
Click to expand...

Based on some of this sort of stuff, it strikes me that it could be a backup plan for Putin.If he can’t get everything he demands, he at least flattens a lot of Ukraine, so they no longer look like the shining light of development in his doorstep that he fears.

The longer and harder the recovery is for Ukraine, the better (for Putin). No more looking across the border and seeing a prospering and peaceful democracy, but rather a war torn wasteland.
 
Sarni said:
I think it is probable he would use nuclear weapons on foreign targets if targeted by NATO. I do not think it would become full blown nuclear war.

Listening to NYT The Daily from yesterday, their expert seems to be fairly certain when the word 'nukes' are mentioned it is not in relation to full blown nuclear war with huge strategic warheads flying over our heads but most likely tactical nukes being aimed at specific targets. Extremely tragic but different from MAD.
Click to expand...
Yep. It's going to be Hiroshima x 50. But hopefully not more than that.
 
Rightnr said:
I am sorry, you are absolutely clueless on this.

The Chernobyl increase in radiation was purely because of the tanks moving through the territory and causing the top soil which covers the radioactive layer which has been covered with that top soil. This is 35 years after the disaster, so the elevated levels are caused purely by disrupting the work of the brave men who gave away their life to save millions.

Now for this, the reactors need to be cooled otherwise there's a real risk of a Chernobyl-style explosion. This power plant is also next to the Dnipro river as well as the Black sea. And one thing is for certain, radiation does respect boundaries.
Click to expand...
It's great seeing someone call someone else clueless, whilst being completely wrong themselves and having actually read the original post wrong :lol:
 
Sarni said:
I think it is probable he would use nuclear weapons on foreign targets if targeted by NATO. I do not think it would become full blown nuclear war.

Listening to NYT The Daily from yesterday, their expert seems to be fairly certain when the word 'nukes' are mentioned it is not in relation to full blown nuclear war with huge strategic warheads flying over our heads but most likely tactical nukes being aimed at specific targets. Extremely tragic but different from MAD.
Click to expand...
He won't use nukes just because NATO intervened to stop the destruction of a European country. He wants to live too. Even if he throws few tactical nukes, all it'll take for him to die would be a tactical nuke on Moscow. We're long past this stage anyway because there's been so much bloodshed already that everyone knows NATO isn't getting involved but still, if he can invade any non NATO nation just by threatening nukes, humanity is more fecked than we think and I have a very low bar for it anyway.
 
Varun said:
He won't use nukes just because NATO intervened to stop the destruction of a European country. He wants to live too. Even if he throws few tactical nukes, all it'll take for him to die would be a tactical nuke on Moscow. We're long past this stage anyway because there's been so much bloodshed already that everyone knows NATO isn't getting involved but still, if he can invade any non NATO nation just by threatening nukes, humanity is more fecked than we think and I have a very low bar for it anyway.
Click to expand...


Sadly the bully is winning this one because everyone except for Ukraine seems to be scared of the bully.
 
fergieisold said:
I think that's quite unlikely.

The question I'd like to know is what are the smallest nuclear bombs the US and Russia have? Everyone goes on about the biggest, but no way that would be the go to option.
Click to expand...
Some of the bombs that they have are supposed to be targeting military facilities so small range. So called tactical nukes. They have enough strategic nukes to wipe out the world.
 
Last edited:
Conor said:
It's great seeing someone call someone else clueless, whilst being completely wrong themselves and having actually read the original post wrong :lol:
Click to expand...
I didn't misread anything, I explained why it was flawed.

But all you're interested in is writing some smartass comments, so I'll ignore you from now on.
 
fergieisold said:
I think that's quite unlikely.

The question I'd like to know is what are the smallest nuclear bombs the US and Russia have? Everyone goes on about the biggest, but no way that would be the go to option.
Click to expand...

“Tactical” nukes are still 5x larger than Hiroshima (like 100kt - Little Boy and Fat Man were 21kt).

There’s nothing small about tactical, it’s just that they’re usually aimed at “tactical” targets rather than strategic nuclear bombs that target cities.

They are smaller than strategic, which are significantly more powerful than the WW2 bombs.

Putin drops any nuke, it’ll be met with a proportionate response regardless if it’s in NATO or not.
 
Some truly horrible scenes of a failed Russian attack near Gostomel surfacing on Twitter. Not posting here as it’s graphic - still seems the Russian army are happy to send in small groups of armoured vehicles and watch them get completely destroyed judging by the wreckage. Just pointless loss of life.
 
fergieisold said:
I think that's quite unlikely.

The question I'd like to know is what are the smallest nuclear bombs the US and Russia have? Everyone goes on about the biggest, but no way that would be the go to option.
Click to expand...
I think they are some really small tactical nukes, around 0.3kT. That is roughly 50 times smaller than the ones used in Japan and as large as the largest thermobaric bomb ever used (MOAB).
 
Revan said:
I think they are some really small tactical nukes, around 0.3kT. That is roughly 50 times smaller than the ones used in Japan and as large as the largest thermobaric bomb ever used (MOAB).
Click to expand...

This is correct.
 
Pintu said:
The economic crisis has led to uprisings in other countries and regimes have fallen there. The crisis in Russia is about to hit very hard. It is not an insane fantasy to imagine a scenario like that.
Click to expand...
The last time the price of wheat jumped a similar amount.

The Arab spring happened....
 
Conor said:
It's great seeing someone call someone else clueless, whilst being completely wrong themselves and having actually read the original post wrong :lol:
Click to expand...
:lol:

@Rightnr has been pretty clueless about a few things to be honest.
 
Anyone listening to this lunatic one eyed Rambo on newstalk Ireland who is going over to fight?
 
What's the point of a tactical nuke? Or rather why use a nuke than the next thing down i.e. thermobaric bombs (if I'm not mistaken).

Are even tactical nukes bigger then the biggest non-nuke weapon or is the radiation 'bonus' from a nuke that's seen as 'benefiical' when employing nukes?
 
Rightnr said:
What's the point of a tactical nuke? Or rather why use a nuke than the next thing down i.e. thermobaric bombs (if I'm not mistaken).

Are even tactical nukes bigger then the biggest non-nuke weapon or is the radiation 'bonus' from a nuke that's seen as 'benefiical' when employing nukes?
Click to expand...
They were developed initially from the US during the Cold War cause Soviet Army in Europe was larger and apparently better. So the idea of them is to use in battlefield where it seems that the other army is having the advantage. Also, there were not thermobaric weapons who were as strong as the smallest tactical nukes (now there are).

Then both the US and USSR went nuts and made tens of thousands of them. Most of them have been disassembled but some still remain.

It needs to be said that some tactical nukes are very large. While the smallest are 0.3kT, the largest can be up to hundred kT, so 5-6 times as large as those used in Japan.

Both the US and Russia has as official policy that if the other party uses a tactical nuke, they will fully retaliate with strategic nukes. I hope we do not have to see if this is a bluff or not.
 
Revan said:
I think they are some really small tactical nukes, around 0.3kT. That is roughly 50 times smaller than the ones used in Japan and as large as the largest thermobaric bomb ever used (MOAB).
Click to expand...
Sarni said:
This is correct.
Click to expand...

That's interesting - as we (as far as I'm aware) haven't even started down the thermobaric bomb route just yet any threat of nuclear is just that - a threat to thwart any attempt by the west to intervene.

Is there any advantage to using these small nukes vs something like thermobaric bombs (or conventional weapons) in terms of range or the ability to evade anti missile systems?
 
Moby said:
Any place where I can go through the daily summary of key events without any chatter?
Click to expand...

Let us know if you find such a thing.

I think it is just a case of following specific twitter accounts. There is liveuamap.com attempts to keep a live map of the situation by linking social media posts to locations.
 
Rightnr said:
What's the point of a tactical nuke? Or rather why use a nuke than the next thing down i.e. thermobaric bombs (if I'm not mistaken).

Are even tactical nukes bigger then the biggest non-nuke weapon or is the radiation 'bonus' from a nuke that's seen as 'benefiical' when employing nukes?
Click to expand...

You show you're willing to use a nuke?
 
fergieisold said:
That's interesting - as we (as far as I'm aware) haven't even started down the thermobaric bomb route just yet any threat of nuclear is just that - a threat to thwart any attempt by the west to intervene.

Is there any advantage to using these small nukes vs something like thermobaric bombs (or conventional weapons) in terms of range or the ability to evade anti missile systems?
Click to expand...
Well, they are much smaller than thermobaric ones so easier to deploy. I think that MOAB was a ton or so, while a tactical nuke that is as destructive would be just a few kg, and can be easily thrown even by artillery or small missiles.

I think that we will see thermobaric weapons used soon. Russia used them in Grozny and Aleppo, the US used them in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. So I think Russia will escalate to them before thinking to use nukes.
 
TwoSheds said:
You show you're willing to use a nuke?
Click to expand...
But then you lose any control of how this goes and ends.

There is also no return after this. I am pretty confident that if the war ends soon, the sanctions will start to get removed soon after that. If they start using nukes, things get far more complicated even if the US does not throw nukes in Russia.

And if Russia starts throwing nukes in NATO countries, I think we can start seeing a tit for tat immediately, even if there is no full escalation to throwing thousands of nukes toward each other.
 
Revan said:
But then you lose any control of how this goes and ends.

There is also no return after this. I am pretty confident that if the war ends soon, the sanctions will start to get removed soon after that. If they start using nukes, things get far more complicated even if the US does not throw nukes in Russia.

And if Russia starts throwing nukes in NATO countries, I think we can start seeing a tit for tat immediately, even if there is no full escalation to throwing thousands of nukes toward each other.
Click to expand...

You're no less in control than before, it still relies on the line your enemy draws which if they've any sense wouldn't be a teeny tiny nuke.
 
Rightnr said:
Indeed but that's just signalling. I was more thinking whether it makes sense beyond scare tactics.
Click to expand...

Well nukes give you an EMP and radiation like you said. It's possible there's a small "advantage".
 
I just can't see the benefit of Russia using nukes when NATO combined could retaliate and destroy Russia with nukes.

Would Putin devestate Ukraine with nukes or would he try to launch an attack on London, New York, Berlin etc?

Whatever the case I could only see it being the end of Russia as a habitable place.
 
Rightnr said:
What's the point of a tactical nuke? Or rather why use a nuke than the next thing down i.e. thermobaric bombs (if I'm not mistaken).

Are even tactical nukes bigger then the biggest non-nuke weapon or is the radiation 'bonus' from a nuke that's seen as 'benefiical' when employing nukes?
Click to expand...

It's the utter destruction related to radiation that is the threat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.