Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

WW3 anybody?

21 posts in this topic

Anybody else following the clusterfuck in Ukraine? 

The rhetoric seems to be getting more and more nuke´-y and more and more troops are gathering on the border. 

Russia trying to tell everybody not to worry, everything is just dandy, not going to invade. Just don´t cross the red line, NATO, aka America is all GRRR-WOOF, screw your red line and itching for a fight.

Thing is the checks and balances that were set up during the cold war no longer exist after being dismantled by the NeoCons. 

One good thing about it If war were to break out. Corvid would be out of the news.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

War.

looks like it‘s going to happen. Russia is all: „What, us? Noooo! We not gonna invade Ukraine.“

The Americans hoping to be able to claim the Russkis will do a false flag. They should know how it works after the gulf of Tonkin. Next week will be make or break for peace.

But I’ not holding my breath, anybody else got the the popcorn out?

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/12/2021, 22:35:35, slammer said:

One good thing about it If war were to break out. Covid would be out of the news.

 

 

 

Have to agree with you on that!

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EU and US fucked up Ukraine in the 1990's. They told Ukraine they would protect her if she relinquished her nukes. Ukraine did what it had to do and now EU and US don't protect her.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MikeMelga said:

EU and US fucked up Ukraine in the 1990's. They told Ukraine they would protect her if she relinquished her nukes. Ukraine did what it had to do and now EU and US don't protect her.

I‘m just wondering if Ukraine gave up all the nukes?

Afterall they were the third largest nuclear power on the planet for a while. Easy to „mislay“ a nuke or two.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Creative accounting ?  

 

Wonder what else they could have done with the money.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russia is getting rather pro active though, Ukraine, backing the President of Belarus, sending in troops to Kazakhstan. Thing is NATO is in no position to do very much after years of downsizing and Europe being fairly reliant on Russian Gas. It won't be like `38 where appeasement was carried out to prevent war, it'll be appeasement to give the west time to rebuild its defences and find alternatives to Russian energy.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, French bean said:

It won't be like `38 where appeasement was carried out to prevent war, it'll be appeasement to give the west time to rebuild its defences and find alternatives to Russian energy.

 

Actually there are those that say that appeasement `38 was exactly to give time to rearm.  Back in 1938 the UK RAF was almost only equipped with biplanes - not that the Gloster Gladiator was a bad fligher aircraft (witness defence of Malta).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, HEM said:

 

Actually there are those that say that appeasement `38 was exactly to give time to rearm.  Back in 1938 the UK RAF was almost only equipped with biplanes - not that the Gloster Gladiator was a bad fligher aircraft (witness defence of Malta).

What you say is true but as with everything to do with History there are always differing points of view based on the interpretation of all the evidence. The French most certainly didn't want war, they were having a change of Gov't every few months and Britain could not go it alone. Churchill was virtually alone in warning of the Nazi threat but Chamberlain did use the time to rearm. I think after his meeting in Munich he realised that war was coming no matter what.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MikeMelga said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine

 

You need to maintain them, it's not so easy to "mislay" a nuke or two.

Mislay as in "Whoopsie, we still had a few in the pantry" as for maintaining them after the collapse of the UdSSR there were a lot of hungry nuke scientists on the streets. And at the end of the day all you need is the fissile material and a barrel of ANFO and boom one dirty bomb.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MikeMelga said:

Dirty bombs only piss off people, they don't win wars.

Very effective as a terror weapon though. But don´t you think that the Ukraine has scientists and engineers who could indeed build a working bomb from leftover devices. Or even scratchbuild a device?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you need the:

  • highly enriched fuel
  • trigger mechanism
  • deployment means (airplane, missile, etc)

The deployment means is the easiest to do. Trigger mechanism is a complicated thing, but if they still have blueprints, they could do it.

Problem is the highly enriched fuel. If they don't have it, they need to make it in special nuclear reactors. This takes a lot of time.

If they have it, it's being maintained for 30 years. If that's true, then they could have also maintained a full nuke.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRR a large chunk of the old Soviet Navy was transferred to the Ukraine which included nuclear subs now rusting away somewhere. Would they be a source of components incl. enriched uranium?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MikeMelga said:

Decomissioned subs have their warheads removed. Same with nuclear fuel from reactor.

 

Everywhere?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fraufruit said:

Everywhere?

If you don't remove the warheads, one of them is going to blow sooner or later. Just to give you an idea on how dangerous a highly enriched core is, if you simply drop a wrench from half a meter on top of a uranium enriched core, you can start a sustained chain reaction. This has happened before.

The reactor is even more critical. If the design is not designed to passively cut off reactions, it will eventually go the same way as Fukoshima, when maintenance is removed.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bear in mind that an unexpected explosion would most likely NOT produce the typical mushroom. It would be a much smaller exposion, if any at all, but releasing uranium/plutonium dust in the atmosphere and lots of radiation.

As an example, read about the "Demon core".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core

 

This incredible core went supercritical twice and didn't blew up. One of them because one guy dropped a screwdriver!! On the other one, they accidently dropped a brick on top!

 

It's possible that NK had several of this accidents, but without any "mushroom" nor enough radiation to be detected from satellites.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0