Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-24

[PTK]

Cruise missiles are capable of carrying nuclear bombs.
Have no cruise missiles been used so far?

 

[TopCat]

You were happy enough weighing in on behalf of the cynical flyboy.

Who what etc

 

[littlebabyjesus]

What are your thoughts on the use of ballistic missiles by Russia against Ukraine today, eh?

This war is profoundly depressing. The recent escalation is profoundly worrying.

And still it will drag on and on and on until everyone reaches exhaustion.

What are your thoughts on ways to end the bloodshed?

 

[tim]

1 - my opposition to the war and everything the Russia state is doing in Ukraine is clear.

2 - I'm not one of the the ones throwing their arms up in the air of this decision.

3 - go fuck yourself

It's not your arms that will be flying off into the air as a result of this decision.

 

[emanymton]

The Russian invasion, based on the premise that they'd either be welcomed, or the Ukrainians would fold within a week, suggests that the wider Russian body politic is quite good at believing what it wants to believe.

Well yes they gambled and lost then. Doesn't necessarily mean they would gamble again, but if course they might. I assume they would test the waters with something small anyway just push the boundary and see what happens.

Guess we will find out in a few months.

 

[PTK]

There's no so much a doubt about the missiles launching - although Russia has spectacularly failed a few tests trying to show off during the Special Military Operation - it's more that warheads require constant and expensive upkeep to be in a useful state. Missiles are easy, and they've managed to bollocks that up a few times of late. Nuclear warheads are much harder.

It's theatre. Even Russia can't afford to lob IRBMs to destroy hospitals and houses on a regular basis. It's just to say that they can always get through if they have to, and I'm not sure that was actually in doubt.

The tritium, super-heavy hydrogen, in a thermonulcear ("H") bomb needs topping up every so often. It decays, and without it there cannot be successful fusion. However, I assume that not all nuclear bombs in the arsenal are fusion bombs. Furthermore, the fission part of a thermonuclear bomb should still work. The explosion would be a lot less powerful, but it could still destroy a large part of a city.

 

[Chz]

The tritium, super-heavy hydrogen, in a thermonulcear ("H") bomb needs topping up every so often. It decays, and without it there cannot be successful fusion. However, I assume that not all nuclear bombs in the arsenal are fusion bombs. Furthermore, the fission part of a thermonuclear bomb should still work. The explosion would be a lot less powerful, but it could still destroy a large part of a city.

No, the way a thermonuclear device works you'd end up with quite a small blast. The whole point is to minimise the amount of fissionable material. It makes for a lighter weapon, it makes for a "clean" (obviously the term is relative) blast, it means less expensive enrichment. This is why even smaller output weapons are h-bombs.

I still wouldn't choose to be under a fizzled one, not the least because it's going to be dirty as fuck, but it's not going to flatten even a small city.

Eta: Basically there's a primary and a tertiary fission event. The primary is very small - just enough to initiate fusion - but if fusion fails because your tritium has sat for 20 years then the sizeable tertiary reaction just becomes a dirty bomb.

 

[The39thStep]

Donald Trump will not invoke article 5 of NATO if Russian bombs start "accidentally" landing on the Polish side of the Ukrainian border. I would be shitting my pants if I lived in the Baltics.

kebabking

I'm not sure buy the explanation that two NATO members decided to escalate and challenge a red line in enabling the Ukrainians to use their longer range missile on attacks on Russia in full knowledge that NATO will effectively be dead in less than two months. There will have been several risk assessments and contingency plans drawn up by NATO , the EU , groups of states and not least the US military themselves.

 

[kebabking]

kebabking

I'm not sure buy the explanation that two NATO members decided to escalate and challenge a red line in enabling the Ukrainians to use their longer range missile on attacks on Russia in full knowledge that NATO will effectively be dead in less than two months. There will have been several risk assessments and contingency plans drawn up by NATO , the EU , groups of states and not least the US military themselves.

I'll be honest and say that my exposure to decision makers and 'option framers' throughout NATO states in the last three years has taught me that when it comes to Ukraine and Russia, denial and delusion are as rampant as they are in the Kremlin...

A lot of the decision-making has been as utterly divorced from reality as looking out of your window at good force 8 storm with temperatures hovering around freezing, blizzard's as far as the eye can't see, and walking out in to the garden to blow up the paddling pool so your kids can have a splash in their swimming costumes.

Not just a difference of opinion, but a 'what the fuck are you seeing?'...

 

[Flavour]

This war is profoundly depressing. The recent escalation is profoundly worrying.

And still it will drag on and on and on until everyone reaches exhaustion.

What are your thoughts on ways to end the bloodshed?

The bloodshed can only be ended two ways.
1) overthrow of putin and the Russian government
2) negotiated settlement in which Ukraine gives up donetsk, luhansk, crimea and more in return for a temporary peace.

1) is unlikely to happen so we'll get 2), and the variable on the table is how much Ukraine must accept ceding. The more territory they are successfully able to defend militarily, the better, in that respect.

The other barrier to peace will be zelensky himself but I can see him being overthrown much more easily than I can putin. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if zelensky is killed or arrested in order for the Ukrainian military to be able to surrender.

 

[DownwardDog]

“Muddy arse crack”. So European security chiefs should only help protect countries you think have agreeable climates and leisure facilities from Putin’s thugs, abandoning anywhere you don’t fancy visiting?

No. I don't think "European security chiefs" should protect any countries other than their own and the Russian Federation is zero military threat to EU/NATO.

 

[Ming]

Does Putin actually believe anyone serious thinks he'll start throwing nukes?

No. Because they know he won't.

So who's the sabre rattling for?

Is it boredom? Ennui? Trolling between friends?

 

[Humberto]

I guess you've got to ask what the repurcussions would be if Russia nuked Kiev. They've game played all this in the Pentagon.

There are many devastating maneuvers short of a nuclear strike Russia could play against the UK in particular and Europe. But that's why they are playing and have played.

Nothing slightly belligerent, short-sighted or uninformed here will matter fuck all.

 

[editor]

Incredibly depressing that we're now talking about the possible impact of nuclear weapons on cities and civilians, all because of that fucking bloodthirsty criminal Putin.

 

[krtek a houby]

Recommend visiting Hiroshima peace museum to get a feel for the horrific enormity of the effects of an atomic bomb.

How can countries allow themselves to be on the brink of such inhumanity, again?