551–560 of 894 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the clear line in the sand. Putin's not going to cross that line, he doesn't gain anything from it.
> Putin's not going to cross that line, he doesn't gain anything from it. He doesn't really gain anything by nuking everyone if they help Ukraine either, but that's the threat regardless.
In this case pressure to keep the west from becoming directly involved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn’t one major problem with nuclear is that it’s hard to shut down when you don’t need it? Hopefully they understand that
They're easy to shut down, but when the reactor is first turned off the core is full of unstable isotopes that are byproducts of the fission reaction. Those isotopes continue decaying even with the reactor "off" until the become stable, and they put out enough heat to cause a meltdown on their own. This means the reactor needs active cooling for a couple of weeks until it reaches a safe state. That's what happened at…
EDIT: I would also like to ask if you can recommend some source where curious layman with no knowledge of physics could learn a bit more about this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no “demonstration nuke”. If Putin sets off a nuke it’s doomsday. The time between Russia being the second country to use nuclear weapons and our current concept of countries becoming totally irrelevant would be measured in minutes. Having said this he might still do it.
The rest of the world isn’t going to say “whelp, I guess it’s time to kick off the extinction of our species” and do a full set of city strikes over a tactical nuke being used. That would be absurd.
You say that nobody will went crazy when a tactic nuke will be used against RF army. Right?
Can you draw the line, please? When this war between two nuclear states will be nuclear, if even use of tactical nuke is not enough for you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is war between two nuclear states, so nuclear weapon will be used eventually. Ukraine is not a nuclear state as it does not have nuclear weapons.
Quoted post unavailable.
Nobody wants to start WW3 over Ukraine, except maybe Putin who has been left with very few options and doesn't care much about the lives of others, including his fellow Russians. The way he sees it is that he's liberating Ukraine from "nazis" and that the US has orchestrated a coup in 2014 replacing his puppet Yanukovych with their own. He has also signalled that he's ready to use the nuclear arsnal to deter anyone who interferes. What the West can do without potentially triggering WW3 is to economically cripple Russia, supply Ukraine with small arms, personnel carried anti tank and anti airplane weapons, ammo and possibly mercenaries. Any direct engagement between NATO and Russia could potentially trigger WW3 and nuclear warfare.
What you are doing is making unsubstantiated claims that Ukraine might be developing nuclear weapons. The very same false claims were in fact voiced by the Kremlin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No he isn’t, then he’d be at war with at least 3 other nuclear powers. You know Poland is both EU and NATO right? He has a difficult time winning the war already, he’d never be able to win if he pulls in more countries.
In the meantime I fear he is indeed that crazy. He repeatedly stated that his goal is to wipe out Ukraine at any costs. He is a like a little child that doesn't get his way and then blindly hits at everything in his reach.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm pretty sure he means the Ukrainians inside the nuclear plant, not Ukrainians in general.
Operators of nuclear plant are civilians. They are not part of force. Civilians can be captured, they cannot surrender, because nobody asks them to do that. I never heard that police or army asks somebody unarmed to surrender.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's truly remarkable how the Russian flavor of misinformation sounds just like a pathological liar making up wild bullshit that nobody could possibly take seriously. IIRC, the correct term is disinformation, and I believe the idea (at least sometimes) is more akin to "jamming" than any kind of persuasion (e.g. encourage passivity because it's too much effort to sort out the truth from the lies).
The Russian "Firehose of Falsehood" Propaganda Model -- Why It Might Work and Options to Counter It https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html
Completely off-topic, but what a strangley formatted document. The pages of the PDF are 9x8 in.
Nope. We are not surrendered and have no plan to do that. Tell that to your Russian friends.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Operators of nuclear plant are civilians. They are not part of force. Civilians can be captured, they cannot surrender, because nobody asks them to do that. I never heard that police or army asks somebody unarmed to surrender.
Really? You have never heard anyone ever describe regular citizens surrendering to the invader? I feel like you are arguing a technicality here - if you are faced with people with guns of course you'd say "I surrender" even if technically that's not what you're doing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anything can go wrong AFTER takeover. Russians can convert power plant into nuclear landmine and blow up it on retreat. This is war between two nuclear states, so nuclear weapon will be used eventually.
-Unless the Russian forces have way better connections than we give them credit for, they can not control which way the wind blows. At the moment, the winds come from the southeast, so a lot of the fallout would end up in Russia.