- cross-posted to:
- ukraine@sopuli.xyz
You must log in or # to comment.
Instilling fear to gain more control, classic weak dictator.
I hope his senile ass is crossing the line to the point that the people of Russia are more afraid to leave him alive. That said, I had hoped that point was also several years ago, so I’m ashamedly not very optimistic right now.
Russia amps up nuclear theatre. FTFY
Putin does this because it works. His whole motif is deception. We’re too naive to properly deal with that scumbag.
- Use tactical nukes in Ukraine
- get sanctioned out of existence/bombed back to the Paleolithic era
- ???
- Profit
He won’t just fling nukes to Ukraine. If he’s going to do that he’s going for much more. He also doesn’t care if 95% of the world suffer from the nuclear fallout
Given the effectiveness of the ruzzian orc army and preparedness of NATO to meet their threats, I wouldn’t be surprised if most, not all the silos were hit before they could even launch.
“Nuclear fallout” in modern nukes is isolated to the area they hit. As such, modern nukes aren’t going to irradiate the atmosphere that would lead to a Fallout video-game style world.
What they will do is kill a f*** ton of people and thermally destroy a specific area REALLY hard. If you’re in the blast radius, you won’t even know it. You’ll be dead from the shockwave so fast you’ll have literally less than a second of confusion before you get turned into meat mist.
And who says Russia will use “modern” nukes?
We’ve already seen rusty museum pieces on the front line in this conflict.
Modern nukes are also more damaging and explosive. I’d imagine if Russia wanted to go full agro, they’d use the biggest ass bomb they can muster.
But you’re right…they might not use H bombs and opt for A bombs instead.
Is that true? :o I thought the way nukes irradiated the atmosphere was through all the dust and shit thrown up during the explosion being blown around by wind currents? Has that changed with new nukes?
I have serious doubts about how “clean” even a modern nuke is but modern weapons are supposedly more efficient and therefore cleaner than WW2 equivalents. The other factor is where the bomb is detonated.
At ground level, it irradiates and throws up more material than if it is detonated high up in the air in an air burst configuration.
In any case, any kind of nuke crosses a diplomatic line that would bring a world of hurt against Putin which is not worth the tactical win. His nukes are way more useful as a saber to rattle to scare off Western countries from supporting Ukraine too effectively out of fear of escalation.
I could only see Putin use nukes in a desperate last-ditch defense against invaders at Moscow’s gates.
More worried about this triggering an ice age and subsequent global failure of what crops remain.
It’ll counteract the global warming! /s
when you say modern nukes, do you mean simply H-bombs/thermonuclear/fusion bombs?
That and also bombs designed to detonate near the surface with an initially downward explosive force.
I believe the idea is:
- Mention nukes and grab everyone’s attention
- Run social media campaign (“oh noes, <insert undesirable politician or ideology> is leading us into war with nuclear power, they bad”)
- Have bought politicians and lobbyists push to reduce sanctions or block additional sanctions
- Profit.
.
But increasingly, I see step 2 fail and people simply hate the guy more for his destructive megalomania, as they should.
This man has shown us what he intends to do, for years!
People who have devoted their careers to understanding this man will tell you.
What will he do?
IIRC, analysts say he is of the position that, “The world will only exist where Russia continues to be a ‘Superpower Nation’”. Or WTTE.
Ok thanks. He has to know that China is more of a threat to Russian hegemony than Europe or America. Because climate change is gonna exacerbate problems on his eastern borders.
He’s already well on the way to being a lapdog for Shanghai. He’s destroyed any semblance of political power Russia had, popped the balloon of military competence, is relying on them for stockpiles to continue to wage a war that Russia has already lost (even if they take the land, they’ve lost more than they can ever take [personnel, materiel, intelligence], and the Ukrainian people suffer for it), and encouraged NATO to grow more in a year than it had in decades.
Russia cozying up to China has already eaten into Russian hegemony before you even get to climate change effects.
Removed by mod
i don’t think the nukes are where the drills take place, that would be quite stupid
Removed by mod
It also wouldn’t be very smart to shoot at potentially armed nukes, tbh.
It’s actually pretty difficult to detonate a nuke by shooting at it, if that’s what you’re getting at.
A certain set of things has to happen in a very specific order with tight timings (milliseconds) in order for it to actually explode.
Hence all the incidents in the US of accidentally dropped nukes on domestic territory and no boom boom.
Nukes need high explosives. The most modern ones use extremely stable explosives but some of the Cold War era accidents in the US often did go boom but not BOOOOOOOM.
Still bad exploding weapons-grade radioactive material. Thankfully not as bad as a nuclear explosion.
Pardon me sir, but I did say “boom boom” which is roughly equivalent to one “BOOOOOOOM”, assuming we’re using the metric system.
If we’re you’re using imperial boom scale, then frankly you disgust me.
Sending a fissile bullet into a fissile shell to activate a hydrogen payload is certainly a delicate mechanism, but to take so much as a 1% chance of detonating a nuclear warhead that otherwise wouldn’t have gone off, escalating nuclear war across the entire earth, is a bad idea and you will never convince me otherwise.
Its not 1%.
It’s not even 0.01%
You could try it once a second for the rest of your life, and it still wouldn’t go off.
You’d just damage it at the most. Maybe trigger a safety system which will need to be reset before it can be armed again.
Nobody is saying it’s a good idea, it’s just a complete non issue.
Bullshit, keep telling yourself that.
Oh, okay then. Yeah sure, I made it up. It’s a 90% chance and we’ve just been exceptionally lucky.
What I don’t get is why anything these guys are saying makes the news. It’s changing every day, and it’s always a lie. They know it, everyone else knows it, it doesn’t make any sense to write about it.
Fear is the word
I thought bird is the word
Sounds like some perfect targets for ATACMs with cluster munitions. Liven up those drills for the orks.
If he nukes Ukraine he’s not going to be able to use it
Can we use up one of those rods from god from the Reagan era? Maybe then he’ll at least have contributed to one good deed
Never put em in space, as far as I know.
Picture this, except long and curved.
Peyronie Disease is a serious condition.
Before testing, you’ll likely receive a shot directly into the penis that helps it become erect.
😰
Just the thought of that gets me there…nobody? Just me?
Me, but only because I just used a needle to inject boner meds in my cock
Just do it already.
And the west will take another year to respond.
What, exactly, would your response be?
There need to be clear consequences for breaking the taboo before he does it, otherwise he’ll do it.
He has shown how little he cares for what others think of his breaking of taboos.
Again, what would your response be? How exactly do you punish a nuclear nation?
I’m not sure and I think there are people with more expertise who will come up with better solutions but I do feel like a tactical nuke is his trump card so I expect him to play it if things go worse for him given their comparatively low yield and very high shock value.
I think if a response was laid out to him in advance he might be less likely to cross that line. As it stands he can more or less choose to use a tactical nuke on Ukrainian soil knowing that much hand wringing will follow.
One example might be to say that Ukraine will be given a tactical nuke for use at their discretion on the battlefield for each one he uses. It would certainly cause pause for thought whether or not it was even followed through on.
If you think a nuke being dropped won’t warrant an immediate military response, you’re a moron.
I don’t think there’s any need for the name calling. I was engaging with you in good faith despite the differing viewpoints.
Yes, I believe a small yield tactical nuke in the kiloton range, possibly in the arse end of nowhere, would not elicit an immediate military response because they haven’t said up front the response it would elicit. The West has shown itself to be absolutely afraid of escalation which other potential adversaries are taking careful note of.
Putin is desperate to hold on to power and this war that has cost untold number of Russian lives is the first thing that has shown any sign of potentially costing him that power. So sure, I think a 30KT tactical nuke in the arse end of nowhere to change the conversation could happen.
If NATO had been clear about the response if he does I believe he’d be less likely to do it, but they haven’t and it stinks of not wanting to upset him along with every other weak arsed decision they’ve made out of a misplaced fear to not antagonise him.
Since you’ve been asking me what the response would be, what do you think the response would be by the West to a small yield tactical nuke in the arse end of nowhere?
