The Kiss Your Arse Goodbye Thread

[Humberto]

Trying to cover his crimes as they usually do.

 

[dylanredefined]

What is a battlefield nuclear weapon supposed to be?
A fucking nasty indiscriminate dirty bomb dipped in Fairy Liquid?
Surely any nuke is going to mess things up in the place it lands for hundreds and hundreds of years?

They were normally designed to drop on huge tank armies attacking you. Hence USSR hated them and NATO was keen on them.

and now you're breaking the OSA by telling us that Brighton is not the central hub for our nukes.

Loose lips...

Yes,but an artisanal organic deterrent is no use if no one knows about it

 

[maomao]

They were normally designed to drop on huge tank armies attacking you. Hence USSR hated them and NATO was keen on them

That's how it kicked off in Threads.

 

[Ax^]

ATM the west has very few battlefield nukes and Russia got quite a few still kicking about

 

[Magnus McGinty]

ach away. It's science fiction.

I'd be much more worried if the Russians were loudly saying they weren't going to use nuclear bombs.

Yeah, most things they’ve done they denied. Plus Trident is probably currently positioned somewhere in the Black Sea.

 

[dylanredefined]

ATM the west has very few battlefield nukes and Russia got quite a few still kicking about

Its the only thing that will stop the Ukrainian offensive when it kicks off

 

[farmerbarleymow]

Yeah, most things they’ve done they denied. Plus Trident is probably currently positioned somewhere in the Black Sea.

I've always liked that one of the boats is called HMS Vengeance. Quite fitting given what it's designed to do.

 

[xenon]

I've always liked that one of the boats is called HMS Vengeance. Quite fitting given what it's designed to do.

I wondered the other night, what the crew do after delivering the final blow from a dead nation. Head to New Zealand as refugees maybe.

 

[The39thStep]

Bold headline from the Wall Street Journal

The U.S. Should Show It Can Win a Nuclear War​

Opinion | The U.S. Should Show It Can Win a Nuclear War

Washington might study Cold War-era practices that had a major effect on Soviet policy making.

www.wsj.com

 

[agricola]

Bold headline from the Wall Street Journal

The U.S. Should Show It Can Win a Nuclear War​

Opinion | The U.S. Should Show It Can Win a Nuclear War

Washington might study Cold War-era practices that had a major effect on Soviet policy making.

www.wsj.com

they keep up that theme of being idiotically wrong with the photo-caption:

Wonder Land: Virtually the whole world has committed to repelling Vladimir Putin's invasion in a kind of spontaneous, crowd-funded alternative to the Armageddon tripwire.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Any paywall crackers about?

 

[cupid_stunt]

Any paywall crackers about?

Here you go - archive.ph

 

[The39thStep]

Any paywall crackers about?

Soz I cant get that paywall thing to work for some reason

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Here you go - archive.ph

Ta.

 

[likesfish]

do you want a link to threads if you want something cheery Farmers

I'm a traffic warden that is are fav fantasy film wardens get guns .
you'd still get some tosser trying to argue "it's a tank loading bay for our brave boys fighting the Volgon hordes your not a tank sir please move"

 

[Dom Traynor]

I wondered the other night, what the crew do after delivering the final blow from a dead nation. Head to New Zealand as refugees maybe.

I'm not sure the occupying forces from China would welcome them.

 

[RD2003]

Forgetting the apocalypse: why our nuclear fears faded – and why that’s dangerous

The long read: The horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki made the whole world afraid of the atomic bomb – even those who might launch one. Today that fear has mostly passed out of living memory, and with it we may have lost a crucial safeguard

www.theguardian.com

The horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki made the whole world afraid of the atomic bomb – even those who might launch one. Today that fear has mostly passed out of living memory, and with it we may have lost a crucial safeguard, Daniel Immerwahr, associate professor of history at Northwestern University, writes.


The fear – the pervasive, enduring fear – that characterised the cold war is hard to appreciate today. It wasn’t only powerless city-dwellers who were terrified (“select and fortify a room in which to shelter”, the UK government grimly advised). Leaders themselves were shaken. It was “insane”, US president John F Kennedy felt, that “two men, sitting on the opposite sides of the world, should be able to decide to bring an end to civilisation”. Yet everyone knowingly lived with that insanity for decades. It was as if, wrote the historian Paul Boyer, “the Bomb” were “one of those categories of Being, like Space and Time, that, according to Kant, are built into of the very structure of our minds, giving shape and meaning to all our perceptions”.

Boyer remembered the unsettling news of the Hiroshima bombing, which occurred the week of his 10th birthday and shaped the rest of his childhood. Today, someone remembering the bomb that well would have to be 86 at least. The memory of nuclear war, once vivid, is quietly vanishing. The signs on the fallout shelters – those that remain – are rusted, and most of the world’s population can’t even recall an above-ground nuclear test (the last was in 1980). The bomb no longer gives “shape and meaning to all our perceptions”; until recently, many thought of it only rarely. It has been tempting to see nuclear war as a bygone terror that no longer terrifies, like polio.

 

[RD2003]

'Hell' and the urge to escalation to a more widespread hell.

Ordinary Ukrainians, and, slowly but surely, the rest of us, have been shunted into the embrace of a gang of neo-liberals and their international allies, who imagine (or cynically maintain) that there really is a fight to the finish going on between 'democracy' and authoritarianism, as if these are not going to be, in the face of the multifaceted and inescapable infernos the world is facing, shifting categories, and there can actually be a final triumph of one over the other.


Oleksandra Ustinova, a member of the Ukrainian parliament, spoke to reporters in Washington DC today and said the crisis on the battlefield was now “far worse” than it was at the start of the war, CNN reports.

Ustinova said “it is hell” on the frontlines, the news network reported: “We keep losing many more men now than it was at the beginning of the war.” She was speaking at a German Marshall Fund roundtable.

She also called on the US to supply fighter jets and air defense systems, saying, according to CNN:

If we had howitzers two months ago, Mariupol would not happen because they wouldn’t be able to surround like they did, to surround the city and literally destroy it ... For us, time means lives, thousands of lives. We’ve been hearing that it has been unprecedented how fast everything is moving and how fast the decisions are taking. But there has never been a war since World War Two like that. And unfortunately, we keep asking here to take the decisions faster.”

 

[Ax^]

.

 

[RD2003]

Ronnie Hawkins and the Hawks covered this, didn't they? If not, they should have done.

 

[RD2003]

An idiotic western response to Russia since 1989-1991, including the embracing of the oligarchs, who arose partly out of western advice to free up the market and effectively destroy the Russian state, and whom we are now supposed to suddenly be outraged about, has led us to the brink of the first use of nuclear weapons since 1945. And when it happens, it changes everything for all of us, for ever.



Russian president Vladimir Putin is likely to annex the occupied parts of southern and eastern Ukraine into Russia “in the coming months”, according to Katherine Lawlor and Mason Clark, analysts at the Institute for the Study of War, warning that the move could then be used to threaten Ukraine and its allies with nuclear attack.

After annexation,

He [Putin] will likely then state, directly or obliquely, that Russian doctrine permitting the use of nuclear weapons to defend Russian territory applies to those newly annexed territories.
Such actions would threaten Ukraine and its partners with nuclear attack if Ukrainian counteroffensives to liberate Russian-occupied territory continue. Putin may believe that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would restore Russian deterrence after his disastrous invasion shattered Russia’s conventional deterrent capabilities.
Putin’s timeline for annexation is likely contingent on the extent to which he understands the degraded state of the Russian military in Ukraine.
The Russian military has not yet achieved Putin’s stated territorial objectives of securing all of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts and is unlikely to do so.
If Putin understands his military weakness, he will likely rush annexation and introduce the nuclear deterrent quickly in an attempt to retain control of the Ukrainian territory that Russia currently occupies.
If Putin believes that Russian forces are capable of additional advances, he will likely delay the annexation in hopes of covering more territory with it.
In that case, his poor leadership and Ukrainian counteroffensives could drive the Russian military toward a state of collapse.
Putin could also attempt to maintain Russian attacks while mobilizing additional forces. He might delay announcing annexation for far longer in this case, waiting until reinforcements could arrive to gain more territory to annex.

Ukraine and its allies therefore “likely have a narrow window of opportunity to support a Ukrainian counteroffensive into occupied Ukrainian territory before the Kremlin annexes that territory,”Lawlor and Clark write.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/l...083b856379a4f8#block-627efc6f8f083b856379a4f8

 

[RD2003]

Probably correct, I fear. This is why the Minsk agreement should have been pursued much more vigorously.

Russian president Vladimir Putin is likely to annex the occupied parts of southern and eastern Ukraine into Russia “in the coming months”, according to Katherine Lawlor and Mason Clark, analysts at the Institute for the Study of War, warning that the move could then be used to threaten Ukraine and its allies with nuclear attack.

After annexation,

He [Putin] will likely then state, directly or obliquely, that Russian doctrine permitting the use of nuclear weapons to defend Russian territory applies to those newly annexed territories.
Such actions would threaten Ukraine and its partners with nuclear attack if Ukrainian counteroffensives to liberate Russian-occupied territory continue. Putin may believe that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would restore Russian deterrence after his disastrous invasion shattered Russia’s conventional deterrent capabilities.
Putin’s timeline for annexation is likely contingent on the extent to which he understands the degraded state of the Russian military in Ukraine.
The Russian military has not yet achieved Putin’s stated territorial objectives of securing all of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts and is unlikely to do so.
If Putin understands his military weakness, he will likely rush annexation and introduce the nuclear deterrent quickly in an attempt to retain control of the Ukrainian territory that Russia currently occupies.
If Putin believes that Russian forces are capable of additional advances, he will likely delay the annexation in hopes of covering more territory with it.
In that case, his poor leadership and Ukrainian counteroffensives could drive the Russian military toward a state of collapse.
Putin could also attempt to maintain Russian attacks while mobilizing additional forces. He might delay announcing annexation for far longer in this case, waiting until reinforcements could arrive to gain more territory to annex.

Ukraine and its allies therefore “likely have a narrow window of opportunity to support a Ukrainian counteroffensive into occupied Ukrainian territory before the Kremlin annexes that territory,”Lawlor and Clark write.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/l...083b856379a4f8#block-627efc6f8f083b856379a4f8

 

[campanula]

Hope it happens on a pick-up day and bang the lot.

 

[Ax^]

Ronnie Hawkins and the Hawks covered this, didn't they? If not, they should have done.

bad drunk me

 

[RD2003]

US voices 'concerns about escalation' as west steps up long-range weaponry to Ukraine​

Western countries led by the United States have provided Ukraine with long-range weaponry, including M777 howitzers from Washington and Harpoon anti-ship missiles from Denmark.

Washington is even considering providing Kyiv with a rocket system that can have a range of hundreds of kilometres, and has held discussions with Kyiv about the danger of escalation if it strikes deep inside Russia, US and diplomatic officials told Reuters.

We have concerns about escalation and yet still do not want to put geographic limits or tie their hands too much with the stuff we’re giving them,” one US official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity.

 

[RD2003]

Exclusive: U.S. and Ukraine discuss danger of escalation as new arms extend Kyiv's reach

As the United States and its allies provide Ukraine with increasingly sophisticated arms, Washington has held discussions with Kyiv about the danger of escalation if it strikes deep inside Russia, U.S. and diplomatic officials tell Reuters.

www.reuters.com

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned the West that supplying weapons to Ukraine capable of hitting Russian territory would be "a serious step towards unacceptable escalation," according to remarks published on the Russian foreign ministry website on Thursday.


"We should reiterate, as we do in all cases, that these weapons should be used responsibly," said Crow, a veteran Army Ranger who sits on the Armed Services Committee and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in Congress.

"But I'm less concerned about the issue of escalation than making sure that Ukrainians can win now and push back the Russian forces."

The first U.S. official said Ukraine had plenty of targets to hit inside Ukraine, and that was the goal of obtaining longer-range weaponry from Western allies.

Douglas Lute, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO and retired Army lieutenant general, agreed Ukraine has enough Russian targets inside Ukraine to worry about.

But he acknowledged the risk for escalation and political division inside NATO should Ukraine strike deep inside Russia.

"It would spark a divisive debate inside the alliance. And, of course, the alliance doesn't want that. And neither does Ukraine," Lute told Reuters.

One remaining question is whether Ukraine could change its strategy if the war takes a turn for the worse, perhaps using U.S.-provided weaponry in ways not originally intended.

"There could be scenarios where the Ukrainians are backed into such a corner that they feel they have to escalate further, but we haven't seen that yet," the second U.S. official said.

 

[Ax^]

did the russian threaten to Nuke everyone again

 

[gosub]

did the russian threaten to Nuke everyone again

It's a Friday.

 

[RD2003]

did the russian threaten to Nuke everyone again

Not sure, but the articles linked to suggest that the threat of escalation is being taken seriously by all sides.

Reading between the lines, it seems to me that divisions are growing between the Ukrainians and at least some of their backers, as well as within NATO.

 

[Ax^]

of course you do