Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Belarus referendum approves proposal to renounce non-nuclear status

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 165 posts

Re: Belarus referendum approves proposal to renounce non-nuclear status

#121

Post by xoa »

vilius wrote: post #92
piokoch wrote: post #52

This is empty gesture, just a symbol of Belarus serfdom. Russian army was already free to enter Belarus using any convenient reason like military exercises so status quo hasn't really changed. Russia might keep nukes in Kaliningrad Oblast so from the security perspective nothing major had changed.

I would not be so quick to dismiss it. Belarus claims that it still is an independent country. If it uses a nuclear weapon then it cannot be treated as if Russians used it directly. At least in Russia it would be easier for propaganda to push the story that Lukashenko did it.

>If it uses a nuclear weapon then it cannot be treated as if Russians used it directly.

What!? Of course it can, and would be. This isn't a game. Nobody cares about tissue thin fig leaves when it comes to nukes. Belarus has zero ability to make its own. Any nukes it uses that came from Russia would be completely Russian responsibility. If it cooperated that might earn it a few nukes back amongst the thousands aimed at Russia but that's it.

Re: Belarus referendum approves proposal to renounce non-nuclear status

#123

Post by dncornholio »

hdivider wrote: post #99

One positive side effect: this result, in the context of an ongoing land war in Europe will finally help to rattle us Europeans out of our traditional resistance to defense and military investment. (I'm both British and German.) Stronger Europe -> stronger NATO -> more options for the Alliance, and for the US to prevent conflict in and out of Europe, since Europeans will shoulder more of the local deterrence burden.…

Resistance to defence and military investment should be intrinsic, it should always met with resistance. We don't need war for R&D.. We don't need war period.

Re: Belarus referendum approves proposal to renounce non-nuclear status

#124

Post by anticodon »

RealityVoid wrote: post #118
TheAlchemist wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I'm all in awe for Ukraine resistance, I wouldn't dismiss so quickly the Russian army. The loss of morale and teeth, is mostly social media stuff. I do hope it's true, but I wouldn't bet on it. They did encounter much stiffer resistance than they expected, but there are still hundreds of tanks and tens of thousands of troops around Kyiv. Now that the West is sending arms to Ukraine, there is an increasing proba…

While I am mildly skeptical as well... There sure are a lot of videos of tanks blown up and of wreckages and of immobile vehicles. And recently Putin removed the head of the armed forces. I doubt things are going as planned for the Russians.

Can you distinguish burned or blown up Ukrainian tank from Russian tank?

Not to mention that Spanish media even used footage from video game to "illustrate" the fake news about the war.

Re: Belarus referendum approves proposal to renounce non-nuclear status

#125

Post by baybal2 »

0x_rs wrote: post #111
baybal2 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find the whole corpus of Western military writing on USSR, and later as "generally unreliable." Just too much of fiction writers working in these think tanks to pump grants, and research funding. Even today, go and lookup a number of articles on something very trivial, say, "Russian general military doctrine," and your will get absolutely random, and bizarre assortment of opinions not agreeing on anything, despite…

But all sources I can see indicate Soviet weapons did indeed use PAL-equivalent security systems and there's no indication that Ukraine ever had a "fully functioning nuclear force". Some argue it would have taken a few years to acquire complete control of those within their borders had they not been handed over or destroyed. Excerpts from "The Soviet Nuclear Legacy", 1995: >Fourth, nuclear warheads and or delivery ve…

Prior to all of events in Ukraine, I actually been to the museum of strategic nuclear forces like 20 years ago. Guides there were actual ex-officers.

The launch sequence was very simple, but the procedure to "turning the missile on" was highly manual, despite some automation allegedly being there "but not usually working reliably."

Most of the gear in the silo was actually comms gear. There were no fancy computers in it, and missiles were programmed offline. The provision for "online" reprogramming was there, but the officer said "we never ever tried it, except on a simulator in the academy."

Officers were never told what targets were programmed into missiles, but he said that as targets were almost never updated in his near 14 years as a launch officer, he assumed these were cities, and not military targets.

His jobs as a launch officer was basically to do nothing, but sit and wait for a command using all comms gear in his disposal.

Once the missile is "switched on," and ready, the launch was done by 2 officers turning their keys without any extra ceremony.

The "codes" were employed, but only to check the authenticity of launch, or online targeting data.

Re: Belarus referendum approves proposal to renounce non-nuclear status

#126

Post by artem247 »

jansen555 wrote: post #20
dstick wrote: post #13

It seems that the only option left for Putin is the "nuclear" one (no pun intended) now that the whole world is seeing that the Russian army lost its morale, and its teeth. Old equipment, young soldiers that are harder to brainwash than in the old days. It is fascinating to see for the first time in the modern age what effect modern media consumption and the internet has on a local war. While it is undeniably true th…

Pollonium and thermobaric bombs easily come to my mind. Funding terrorism on steroid making Iranian look like absolute kindergartener are something I immediately think of after the previous 2 options. I can probably write a master thesis in an afternoon for possible options Putin can take. Imagine people doing this kind of think tank on daily basis for Putin. Remember when Soviet were dirt poor then they can match US…

[dead]

Re: Belarus referendum approves proposal to renounce non-nuclear status

#127

Post by maury91 »

cyberpunk wrote: post #106
vilius wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would not be so quick to dismiss it. Belarus claims that it still is an independent country. If it uses a nuclear weapon then it cannot be treated as if Russians used it directly. At least in Russia it would be easier for propaganda to push the story that Lukashenko did it.

.... Well, I didn't think about that side really. Goddamn. Are we really going there? Recon I should get in the car and head for the north already? ;)

For me is the opposite, time to head south and leave Vilnius, got Minsk at only 100mi from here

Re: Belarus referendum approves proposal to renounce non-nuclear status

#128

Post by dncornholio »

rad_gruchalski wrote: post #87
ausudhz wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source?

Vladimir Putin: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/23/us/politics/putin-ukraine... > Mr. Putin’s arguments occupied a third of his speech to the Russian people on Monday, when he made a series of bizarre charges that “Ukraine intends to create its own nuclear weapons, and this is not just bragging.” And if you don't trust NYT, just listen to his speech...

Anything Putin says is worthless

Re: Belarus referendum approves proposal to renounce non-nuclear status

#129

Post by posix_me_less »

secondcoming wrote: post #98
javier2 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same. While it is still a bit unclear to me at least why Russia sent their seemingly old gear without proper support and young conscripts in first, the terrible parachute attempts still stand out. When you want it to be over quickly, you have to send in the best soldiers with the best gear first to seal the deal? In addition to live NATO intelligence, it is clear to most europeans that US intelligence tried to warn a…

> While it is still a bit unclear to me at least why Russia sent their seemingly old gear without proper support and young conscripts in first To use them as cannon fodder to see what military capabilites Ukraine has been given by the West?

Yeah. Russians aren't stupid to send most of their punch in the beginning. Russian actions are perhaps of lower success than expected, but strategically they are correct. First there has to be the phase of measurement and taking out the most dangerous elements, preparing ground for the majority of troups. When roads are safe, the real invasion will come in.

Re: Belarus referendum approves proposal to renounce non-nuclear status

#130

Post by anticodon »

jansen555 wrote: post #20
dstick wrote: post #13

It seems that the only option left for Putin is the "nuclear" one (no pun intended) now that the whole world is seeing that the Russian army lost its morale, and its teeth. Old equipment, young soldiers that are harder to brainwash than in the old days. It is fascinating to see for the first time in the modern age what effect modern media consumption and the internet has on a local war. While it is undeniably true th…

Pollonium and thermobaric bombs easily come to my mind. Funding terrorism on steroid making Iranian look like absolute kindergartener are something I immediately think of after the previous 2 options. I can probably write a master thesis in an afternoon for possible options Putin can take. Imagine people doing this kind of think tank on daily basis for Putin. Remember when Soviet were dirt poor then they can match US…

Historically, all terrorism was created and funded by USA. USA subsists on chaos in other countries. There's no benefit for Russia in this fictional terrorism, also we don't have it in our cultural code.

For the US and UK it was always a preferred modus operandi: to make other people and nations fight for them. Like before WW II they explicitly stated that they would be happy to see both USSR and Germany mutually annihilate themselves, so that US can come to what is left and occupy the remnants.

Islamic terrorism is also a child of USA.

Post reply on HN