It's great seeing someone call someone else clueless, whilst being completely wrong themselves and having actually read the original post wrong
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
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.
Sadly the bully is winning this one because everyone except for Ukraine seems to be scared of the bully.
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:
I didn't misread anything, I explained why it was flawed.It's great seeing someone call someone else clueless, whilst being completely wrong themselves and having actually read the original post wrong
But all you're interested in is writing some smartass comments, so I'll ignore you from now on.
“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.
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).
This is correct.
It's great seeing someone call someone else clueless, whilst being completely wrong themselves and having actually read the original post wrong
@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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
You show you're willing to use a nuke?
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.
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.
Indeed but that's just signalling. I was more thinking whether it makes sense beyond scare tactics.
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.
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.
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.
It has been already used in Europe. Grozny was bombarded with vacuum bombs.
It's the utter destruction related to radiation that is the threat.
I think its just how the Russians (and probably Chinese) are -- following and executing a doctrine to the letter is the measurement of success regardless of the situation.
Totally different scale. The largest conventional bomb in the US armoury has a blast energy of the equivalent of 11 tons of TNT, the smallest nuclear warhead in its smallest configuration is 300 tons. The largest is over 1,000,000.
Trump would have been gaslight the rest of the world and would be singing off the same hymn sheet as the Russian media/gov't.
''The denazification of Ukraine is a good thing.''
'' Putin had to go in there because the Nazi Ukrainians were killing millions of his people. He had to.''
He would probably have got his own troops to go into Ukraine to support the Russians in a couple of years time.
We really don’t know. He also pressured European countries to spend more in defense which is a fundamentally good thing for NATO and a bad thing for Russia.
The is very little benefit in NATO getting involved at this point. The invasion is going terribly, the economy is being crippled, the whole world is turning against them, and all this against a third tier army. Let him die on his own sword. All NATO getting involved gives him is an excuse.
Reading the post-trump books, i doubt he even looked at it in geo-political terms. From my reading, he simply thought Europe was freeloading on the US. Much like how he made comments about shutting down X military bases around the world because "its too expensive".
There is no way he could have got a coalition together for this comprehensive sanctions package. He just wouldn't do it to start with --- and if the Europeans put one together the loophole will be the US and the US$.
Report in German news suggesting that Zelenski has survived another assasination attempt thanks to someone in the russian secret service who is against the war.
Could be propaganda, would be nice if it was true though.
Could be propaganda, would be nice if it was true though.
There is no benefit unless you apply modern psychology regarding the thought processes of psychopathic narcissists like Putin.
Essentially it goes like this:. Putin sees himself as Russia. Russia is him and everyone belongs to him in it including the Ukraine. This is part of the "allure" of narcissistics - if you're empathic you get swept up in the feeling of being part of his success and his world.
If Russia loses, Putin suffers. If Putin suffers then why does he care if Russia suffers - Russia is him. So if he's suffering, and Russia is suffering, why not make the world suffer in response, and inflict MAXIMUM suffering on everyone else. So thermonuclear war and the end of everything is an option for him to that end.
Last edited:
They are reckless, so that may be the story here. It's also possible that their initial intentions were/are to do enough to force the shutdown of the reactors. Disable key infrastructure without actually destroying it. Just a guess.
That was just part of his strategy to discredit NATO and pave the road to taking the US out of it, which he publicly stated was on the agenda for his 2nd term.
It is primarily about Putin himself showing the world and his people how strong he is.