Quote from: RoneKiln on October 02, 2022, 11:09:38 PMAs scary as nukes can be, I am more concerned of a precedent being set that threatening with nukes lets a bully conquer their neighbors.

If that precedent gets set, things will get much worse in a lot of the world.

There already are precedents without nukes. Both Crimea and Transnistria have essentially been under Russian rule since years without anyone acting on it, which might have led Russia to believe they can simply claim some of the eastern states.

There are enough examples that show if the aggressor is important enough either politically or economically nothing will happen, no nuclear weapons needed.

There is a news story going around that a Russian nuclear specialist team is on it's way towards Ukraine.
It's not a very reliable source though and I can't find anything on the bigger news channels so far. Neither do they say what they mean by nuclear specialist team, my guess would be for the power plant if the news are correct.

Quote from: 12_Gauge_Chimp on October 03, 2022, 12:46:28 PMGiven the poor condition Russia's tanks and other equipment has been shown to be in, I kind of wonder now if their nukes all say "ACME" on the side.

They have all been routinely examined by a professional.

Quote from: Mr. E. Monkey on October 03, 2022, 04:21:39 PM

Quote from: 12_Gauge_Chimp on October 03, 2022, 12:46:28 PMGiven the poor condition Russia's tanks and other equipment has been shown to be in, I kind of wonder now if their nukes all say "ACME" on the side.

They have all been routinely examined by a professional.

Ah yes, the great Russian nuclear expert Wiley Coyotevich.

Expert: If Putin uses nukes, U.S. could wipe out Russian forces in Ukraine

https://www.yahoo.com/news/expert-if-putin-uses-nukes-us-could-wipe-out-russian-forces-in-ukraine-211607717.html

Why is using nuclear weapons the line?  They've rained phosphorus on residential areas and used internationally banned incendiaries already (also on residential areas).  They have committed literal war crimes.  We're going to let all that slide.  But nuclear weapons?  Oh no you don't, that's the line.  

Quote from: Anianna on October 03, 2022, 11:20:36 PMWhy is using nuclear weapons the line?  They've rained phosphorus on residential areas and used internationally banned incendiaries already (also on residential areas).  They have committed literal war crimes.  We're going to let all that slide.  But nuclear weapons?  Oh no you don't, that's the line. 

Has the world really let it slide? Haven't we pumped billions into Ukraine, enacted severe economic sanctions on Russia, and invested incredible amounts of manpower training Ukrainians and providing Intel and logistical support?

I know arguments can be made over whether enough support has been given to Ukraine, but what's been done isn't small. 

I think the use of nukes is more like a cliff at the end of a steep slope. You can take a heck of a beating tumbling down that slope, but launch nukes and there's the cliff.

Using civilians as targets in war regardless of the weapon used is against international treaties. It is something everyone condemns. Yet it happens all too often in every conflict.

I am not minimizing these acts in Ukraine or anywhere else, just recognizing the fact that they  happen.

That IMO is the difference. They happen frequently; too frequently.

Chemical weapons have likewise been used as have bioweapons.

However other than the 2 nukes used in ww2 nukes have never ben used. IMO that is the difference. People are universally afraid of nukes and thier use is likely to cause panic worldwide with the resulting inevitable shit storm.

 

Quote from: Mr. E. Monkey on October 03, 2022, 12:09:25 PM

Quote from: tirls on October 02, 2022, 09:46:47 AMRussia does have more nuclear warheads than the combined NATO so theoretically they could do a lot of harm.

In theory, yes.

In reality, those warheads are expensive to maintain, and fortunately, Russia has demonstrated that they have an abysmal record of maintaining their equipment or their budget. 


An older op-ed from Brookings.edu (1997) provided the following info:

QuoteIn fact, total U.S. nuclear weapons spending in 1997 will exceed $34 billion, about 13 percent of the defense budget. Of that amount, nearly $26 billion goes toward operating, maintaining, modernizing, and controlling our existing arsenal of nearly 10,400 warheads and bombs, 575 ICBMs, 408 submarine-launched ballistic missiles, 102 bombers and 17 ballistic missile submarines. These costs alone consume 10 percent of all military spending, 2½ times more than Messrs. Scowcroft and Kanter's figure. The remaining 3 percent? more than $8 billion? includes nuclear waste management and environmental remediation, nuclear weapons safeguard and security measures, a portion of the naval nuclear propulsion program, nuclear weapons dismantlement, arms control verification, non-proliferation programs and ballistic missile defense research.

Russia's defense budget in 2013 was $88.35B, and has been trending downward ever since, to $61.71B in 2020.


Likely around half of their total military budget would need to go into maintaining their nuclear arsenal, but from what we've seen of their military in Ukraine so far, much of it seems to have padded pockets, rather than maintaining equipment.  And that's the stuff that they might reasonably expect to actually need to use.

I expect that their functioning nuclear arsenal is a tiny fraction of what they have on paper, but I still hope we never have to find out!

Should the prospect of hundreds, maybe thousands of improperly stored and maintained nuclear devices scare us more than the prospect of a few of them being used intentionally?

I know a decaying nuke won't abruptly blow up from mishandling, but I imagine it's got to be some sort of environmental hazard. Especially when there may be thousands of them.

Quote from: RoneKiln on October 04, 2022, 09:01:59 AMShould the prospect of hundreds, maybe thousands of improperly stored and maintained nuclear devices scare us more than the prospect of a few of them being used intentionally?

There's that, but also considering what we know of their budget expenditures, how sure are we that some of those materials haven't similarly "walked off?"

For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure the environmental impact of a poorly maintained, decaying nuke is going to be fairly localized.  But that is a lot of localized...locales.  I think a fire in one of those silos or bunkers would probably be the worst case, short of actually launching them, or finding a warhead in a shipping container somewhere.

[/gloomanddoom] 

Quote from: RoneKiln on October 04, 2022, 12:34:52 AM

Quote from: Anianna on October 03, 2022, 11:20:36 PMWhy is using nuclear weapons the line?  They've rained phosphorus on residential areas and used internationally banned incendiaries already (also on residential areas).  They have committed literal war crimes.  We're going to let all that slide.  But nuclear weapons?  Oh no you don't, that's the line. 

Has the world really let it slide? Haven't we pumped billions into Ukraine, enacted severe economic sanctions on Russia, and invested incredible amounts of manpower training Ukrainians and providing Intel and logistical support?

I know arguments can be made over whether enough support has been given to Ukraine, but what's been done isn't small.

I think the use of nukes is more like a cliff at the end of a steep slope. You can take a heck of a beating tumbling down that slope, but launch nukes and there's the cliff.

In relation to "we can kick Russia's butt if they use nukes", yea, we are letting everything else slide.  Why is nukes, in particular, the cliff?  Why couldn't we kick Russia's butt directly when they bombed residential neighborhoods, or hospitals,  or a freaking shelter where civilians went to huddle in fear?  Why couldn't we kick their butts when they used internationally banned weapons (again, on civilians)?  Why couldn't we kick their butts when they rained down phosphorus (yet again, on residential areas)?

What makes nuclear weapons, in particular,  the line that must not be crossed?  We'll wag our collective finger at all other atrocities,  but for that one and only that one, we pull out the ass-kicking boots. 

Quote from: Anianna on October 04, 2022, 11:17:18 PM

Quote from: RoneKiln on October 04, 2022, 12:34:52 AM

Quote from: Anianna on October 03, 2022, 11:20:36 PMWhy is using nuclear weapons the line?  They've rained phosphorus on residential areas and used internationally banned incendiaries already (also on residential areas).  They have committed literal war crimes.  We're going to let all that slide.  But nuclear weapons?  Oh no you don't, that's the line. 

Has the world really let it slide? Haven't we pumped billions into Ukraine, enacted severe economic sanctions on Russia, and invested incredible amounts of manpower training Ukrainians and providing Intel and logistical support?

I know arguments can be made over whether enough support has been given to Ukraine, but what's been done isn't small.

I think the use of nukes is more like a cliff at the end of a steep slope. You can take a heck of a beating tumbling down that slope, but launch nukes and there's the cliff.

In relation to "we can kick Russia's butt if they use nukes", yea, we are letting everything else slide.  Why is nukes, in particular, the cliff?  Why couldn't we kick Russia's butt directly when they bombed residential neighborhoods, or hospitals,  or a freaking shelter where civilians went to huddle in fear?  Why couldn't we kick their butts when they used internationally banned weapons (again, on civilians)?  Why couldn't we kick their butts when they rained down phosphorus (yet again, on residential areas)?

What makes nuclear weapons, in particular,  the line that must not be crossed?  We'll wag our collective finger at all other atrocities,  but for that one and only that one, we pull out the ass-kicking boots. 

Because all those other things stay in a particular area and do not threaten areas outside of that.  Nukes, and nuclear fallout, affect every nation the winds carry it across, and those effects can last for generations.

Anybody have verification of this? Is ww3 about to start?




https://youtu.be/SqPMgBreBn8

Quote from: Anianna on October 04, 2022, 11:17:18 PM

Quote from: RoneKiln on October 04, 2022, 12:34:52 AM

Quote from: Anianna on October 03, 2022, 11:20:36 PMWhy is using nuclear weapons the line?  They've rained phosphorus on residential areas and used internationally banned incendiaries already (also on residential areas).  They have committed literal war crimes.  We're going to let all that slide.  But nuclear weapons?  Oh no you don't, that's the line. 

Has the world really let it slide? Haven't we pumped billions into Ukraine, enacted severe economic sanctions on Russia, and invested incredible amounts of manpower training Ukrainians and providing Intel and logistical support?

I know arguments can be made over whether enough support has been given to Ukraine, but what's been done isn't small.

I think the use of nukes is more like a cliff at the end of a steep slope. You can take a heck of a beating tumbling down that slope, but launch nukes and there's the cliff.

In relation to "we can kick Russia's butt if they use nukes", yea, we are letting everything else slide.  Why is nukes, in particular, the cliff?  Why couldn't we kick Russia's butt directly when they bombed residential neighborhoods, or hospitals,  or a freaking shelter where civilians went to huddle in fear?  Why couldn't we kick their butts when they used internationally banned weapons (again, on civilians)?  Why couldn't we kick their butts when they rained down phosphorus (yet again, on residential areas)?

What makes nuclear weapons, in particular,  the line that must not be crossed?  We'll wag our collective finger at all other atrocities,  but for that one and only that one, we pull out the ass-kicking boots. 

I think the fear of nukes is why we've held back. For the reasons NT2C said. As horrific as everything in Ukraine is, there's a whole new level of horror when weapons able to wipe US and Western European cities off the map get deployed. 

I suspect that if nukes weren't a fear holding us back, we'd have already provided air support that would have stopped the invasion months ago. If nukes get deployed, the only thing holding us back is already in play, and therefore not holding us back anymore.

Quote from: flybynight on October 05, 2022, 09:58:31 PMAnybody have verification of this? Is ww3 about to start?




https://youtu.be/SqPMgBreBn8

I cannot find any other source of this occurring other than this

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-ukraine-laser-weapon-peresvet-light-1749202

Which ends with

FACT CHECK BY NEWSWEEK
Unverified: The claim could be true or false, but there is at the time of publication insufficient publicly-available evidence to prove so either way. The claim should be treated with caution and skepticism until more evidence becomes available to make a conclusive determination.

Ancient Chinese curse: "may you live in interesting times."

Here we are ~1800 years later.

The Crimea Bridge, Russia's only land link between the the Crimean Penninsula and the Russian mainland, seems to have been partially destroyed.  It's also a major supply route for Russian forces fighting in the south of Ukraine and, depending on the extent of the damage, may impact their ability to fight Ukraine's counter offensive in that region. 

While no official claim of responsibility has yet been made, Russian sources are blaming it on those pesky "Ukrainian vandals" and their "bloody hands".  Who, they claim, haven't built anything of value in the past 23 years, so they have nothing better to do than destroy glorious Russian infrastructure.  (Apparently a fledgling democratic state doesn't count as a valid Ukrainian creation).

Source: Deutche Welle (German public news service)

I'm seeing reports of arrests of high-ranking military officers in Moscow.  I had previously seen reports and speculation that Putin's threats to use nuclear weapons might trigger a military coup.  Looks like Putin is worried about that too.  This could very well trigger action by others though so there may be some interesting changes in Russian leadership happening.

"The Romanian Government and the Ministry of Health will start the campaign to inform the population on how to administer and store potassium iodide tablets"

 

"Pennsylvania Department of Health announced Friday that it will offer free potassium iodide (KI) tablets to certain members of the public on Thursday, Sept. 15.

The pills will be offered to Pennsylvanians who are within 10 miles of the state's four active nuclear power plants as part of routine preventive efforts in case of a future emergency.

The facilities are Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Beaver Valley Power Station, Limerick Generating Station, and Susquehanna Steam Electric Station.

The tablets will be offered to anyone who lives or works within 10 miles of these power plants."



"Finand Ministry of Health has given a suggestion to buy iodine capsuls for people under 40."



"Kyiv gives out potassium iodine pills to evacuation centres in preparation for nuclear attack on Ukraine's capital"



"Monday and Tuesday russia started bombing all over Ukraine. Yesterday in Kyiev there have been at least 80 bombs."

This happened yesterday. I live in one of the mentioned areas but I didn't see the phenomenon

https://yle.fi/news/3-12654458