Russia's War Against Ukraine

[al_infierno]

^Does Hererra have any military experience or is he just an AK fanboi turned youtuber turned gun manufacturer?

Pretty sure it's the latter but I'm not certain.

[Con]

I wonder if the IRS would be as generous

https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraines-tax-office-captured-russian-tanks-not-personal-taxable-income-2022-3?IR=T&r=US&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=yahoo.com

[bobarossa]

yes but, Id rather have a contaminated area then a nuked city.  and if you get them in the boost or orbital phase that the material hopefully burns up on reentry.

You realize that doesn't destroy the radioactive material, it just puts it into the atmosphere.  Not sure how long it stays as a gas but may just precipitates out onto the ground over a wider area.

edit: and to my earlier comment on Soviet superiority, I was thinking more of 70's and early 80's. 

[MengJiao]

yes but, Id rather have a contaminated area then a nuked city.  and if you get them in the boost or orbital phase that the material hopefully burns up on reentry.

You realize that doesn't destroy the radioactive material, it just puts it into the atmosphere.  Not sure how long it stays as a gas but may just precipitates out onto the ground over a wider area.

edit: and to my earlier comment on Soviet superiority, I was thinking more of 70's and early 80's.

  Assuming the bomb doesn't go through its fission-fusion events, the bomb material is not nearly as radioactive as the fission-fusion products, which of course have much much shorter half-lives than the
bomb materials.  So assuming you somehow break up the weapon without having it do its fission-fusion thing, you're going to get much less radioactive material falling on you.

[Gusington]

Sobering editorial here:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/15/opinion/russia-ukraine-world-war-iii.html

[bobarossa]

yes but, Id rather have a contaminated area then a nuked city.  and if you get them in the boost or orbital phase that the material hopefully burns up on reentry.

You realize that doesn't destroy the radioactive material, it just puts it into the atmosphere.  Not sure how long it stays as a gas but may just precipitates out onto the ground over a wider area.

edit: and to my earlier comment on Soviet superiority, I was thinking more of 70's and early 80's.

  Assuming the bomb doesn't go through its fission-fusion events, the bomb material is not nearly as radioactive as the fission-fusion products, which of course have much much shorter half-lives than the
bomb materials.  So assuming you somehow break up the weapon without having it do its fission-fusion thing, you're going to get much less radioactive material falling on you.

Thanks for the clarification, I hadn't thought about that part.  If the interception disrupts the explosive element of the reaction, there will definately be less of an explosion although probably more spreading of the radioactive debris.  However, most of the radiation on a ground burst is from the interaction with the ground during the burst, so either way the interception goes (with or without a fission/fusion event) there will be much less radioactive debris to be spread.

[GDS_Starfury]

Sobering editorial here:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/15/opinion/russia-ukraine-world-war-iii.html

paywall 

[MengJiao]

Sobering editorial here:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/15/opinion/russia-ukraine-world-war-iii.html

  I don't know.  I find arguments that use the Nazi's (or more exactly the German Army) three weeks to overrun Poland somewhat unconvincing.  After all the Allies had already declared war and if they had
been totally ready to attack while the Germans were driving around Poland, it would have been curtains for the Third Reich.  I think we are in a much different world where analogies to WWII are not much
help.  For example, Putin's mental problem is not "Should I shoot some nukes and scare the West so I can win?" but "What am I trying to do exactly?"  Obviously, he can blow up the world if that is his aim, but is that a thing he wants to do?  Probably not.  So what is the thing he wants to do?  The aim is a demilitarized Ukraine and that seems to exclude any kind of guarantees for Ukraine, that he won't just attack them again, so he can't have that.  They could do everything he wants and he could just attack them again next time things are very muddy.  Shooting nukes to scare people isn't going to help and
where does he go if he scares people?  He's back at square one: his aim is a demilitarized Ukraine, but what's to stop him from just repeating his current actions?  Well nothing so he can't have a demiliarized Ukraine unless he stops scaring people and allows for some kind of defensive guarantees for the Ukraine.  His own actions have completely blocked him from ever getting what he wants in this case.
His best move is actually one he cannot possibly do: set up some kind of defensive alliance -- hey, that's NATO -- so anyway...nukes aren't going to help and he's gone far beyond any form of self-deterence in that his actions have made the solution he seeks absolutely impossible.  So the most sensible thing for NATO to do is to arm itself and let him stew.  There's no other option.

[GDS_Starfury]

china is so fucking pissed with putin right now. 
they were so proud to be modernizing the military and blah blah hypersonic bullshit.
its like NATO woke up and was like Cold War Part 2, ok we can do this.
weve already deployed the first generation of energy weapons on warships.  pretty sure a frikin laser is faster then mach 6.

[Con]

Interesting Analysis by a group that does good war research and papers
Summary the Russians could pull a big operational strategic upset off here as we focus on the Ukrainian tactical successes.  If the Russians encircle the bulk of the Ukrainian army and destroy it that will certainly change the dynamic.

https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/not-out-woods-yet-assessing-operational-situation-ukraine

[Gusington]

I've been reading more articles (mostly in the NYTimes) asserting that Putin sees himself as a Russian Orthodox 'savior of his people.' He's destroying Ukraine to 'save it from the decadence and immorality' of Western culture.

These articles further assert that because of Putin's religious pretending, Russian Orthodox clergy, and the Pope in Rome for that matter, have not officially denounced what he is doing. 

[GDS_Starfury]

really good article Con.

[GDS_Starfury]

These articles further assert that because of Putin's religious pretending, Russian Orthodox clergy, and the Pope in Rome for that matter, have not officially denounced what he is doing.

the Pope is dope yo.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/pope-toughest-comments-yet-calls-ukraine-invasion-armed-agression-2022-03-13/

[GDS_Starfury]

[ArizonaTank]

really good article Con.

+1