History in the Making: Russian Invasion

In reply to aircooled :

I agree that considering depleted uranium rounds nuclear armaments is dumb. Do you know what else is dumb, invading Ukraine (Russia did that), or hoping our enemy is bluffing when it comes to something as serious as nuclear weapons. We shouldnt apply our logic and rational to our enemy, who has shown us they arent constrained by them.

I do see that Russia has depleted uranium rounds, but I havent seen any reporting that they are actually using them in Ukraine (might have missed it though). Most of the stuff just says they have it also.

I don't think there is much "hoping they are bluffing" going on.  At this point, what Russia says is of almost no value in what they are actually saying, especially regarding nuclear weapons.  Reacting to their threats will only encourage them to ramp them up.  It's not about apply our logic to their thinking, (which I agree would be very wrong) it's about understanding how they "talk", which is remarkably similar to a middle school bully.

If we are talking about strategic nukes, well, that's a well know calculus.  Everyone knows everyone looses, and of course the reason no one will be "destroying" or even invading Russia.

If we are talking about Russia thinking they could use tactical nukes with little backlash, we can pretty much confirm they know that is not true, otherwise they would have already used them.

I can honestly say, any talk by Russia of using nukes gives me almost zero concern (both in the chance of use and of the result if they actually did).

If you want to freak out, you should read some of the official statements by the Chinese government about the US!  If you took those seriously, you would not leave your basement!  It's just how these types of governments talk.

US war planning documents can be fairly distressing as well, if one is inclined to be be distressed by such things. Do a little reading on SIOP-62, most of which has been declassified - it basically planned a massive counter-value nuclear laydown (one warhead for every city over 25,000 people) designed to turn the entire eastern bloc into a self-lighting glass-lined parking lot. And it included a preemptive strike option.

In reply to aircooled :

I would worry about tactical nuclear weapons like nuclear artillery. 

How much worse would the backlash be against Russia for using nuclear artillery? It would potentially shore up support in the west, but it could also have the opposite effect on the populace who could see it as an escalation of a war that had some small worry of nuclear ramifications come true.

What are we going to do sanction them more? Currently they have to worry about China's position more than ours. Although China is pushing "peace talks" they do get a benefit from what Russia is doing, either way it goes escalation or peace.

I do follow the Chinese government and what they say about the US, and its not all true, but it should be taken more serious when they tell us things like we aren't negotiating from a position of power.

In reply to Opti :

Nuclear artillery is a losing game for Russia.   
 Even if the west choose to ignore it ( which won't happen)   The fallout would harm Russia ( and China). 
  How much depends on the weather patterns in place when it starts. 
   Globally there would be some trace level spillover to the US and maybe even  Europe.   But trace amounts only. Similar to back when we were testing nuclear bombs in the 40's- 50's. 
     Later in the spring, early summer it could even reach northern Cities like Moscow.   
 Lobbing Missiles into Ukraine would have much the same effect with less probability of doing severe Damage to Ukraine.  
   Nuclear weapons won't go off if hit with a defensive missile like the patriot Missile system.   
        Unlike an explosive warhead, nuclear weapons need to go through a trigger sequence in order to detonate. 
     Properly protected personal go then go out, find the radioactive pieces and properly secure them.   
    However that would invite our subs to toss a few Nuc's at Putin.  While we are at it, maybe we should toss a couple at that annoying little knat in North Korea?  

In reply to Opti :

I think nuclear artillery is possibly the least of the worry here.  The amount of damage even a tactical nuclear missile is actually not as huge as some may expect (artillery obviously that much less).  Certainly great for taking out troop concentrations, but we are not talking about destroying a city (the destruction of Hiroshima and Nakazaki was 90% the fires that resulted in the almost all tightly packed wood buildings).

As Frenchy points out its more the fallout that is the issue, which can have very wide ranging effects (although realistically likely not that dangerous), which will piss a lot of countries/people off.  As noted this could also flow back to Russia, which will likely either not create a warning by the Russians or be somehow  blamed on the Ukrainians which won't make much sense if the attack is on Ukrainians.  So, maybe the real worry is the Russians attacking themselves as a false flag, which could likely be be easily disproven.

I just don't see the downsides / difficulties of them being worth it to them.

something something "pernicious nonsense"

I was listening and watching a You Tube video  about 'PMC Wagner begins decisive offensive 3/26/2023'.

About 35 seconds in I hear "on March 26th 2023 the musicians have carried out artillery preparations". 

Er, what?  I back the video up and listen again.  Yep.  Musicians.  Then I do a closed captioned repeat to see what it says.  Have a look.  You just have to love a good translation.

Never mind that the 26th of March is not past tense yet.

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

something something "pernicious nonsense"

Oh, that is a WT82 Blivit!  Of course a very low yield weapon intended to take out bomber formations.  "Ground zero" is a bit misleading of course. I have never seen that, but it makes sense they had to test it at some point (looks like am F94 Starfire launched it?) Probably pretty safe at ground level. Certainly no fallout.  Probably not fun to fly through the shockwave.

There was a high altitude higher yield test, Starfish Prime near Hawaii.  I think t hey only did that test once.... the more powerful than expected EMP created a bit of havoc in Hawaii.

In reply to aircooled :

I vaguely remember seeing a weather flow patterns around the Soviet Union ( which back then included Ukraine) 

  That's why I made the comment about fallout reaching Moscow.    But I can't seem to find anything regarding weather patterns  or I'm asking Google the question wrong.  
 Do you have anything?   

I once did a search on "weather patterns in Ukraine." It's seasonal. But Chernobyl hit the west more than Russia.

Yeah it's pretty varied, but generally is not towards Russia (mostly west and south blowing).  Chernobyl was in April which is heavily western blowing (eastern) winds.

http://wdc.org.ua/atlas/en/4080100.html#:~:text=In%20the%20north%2C%20east%2C%20and,the%20southwest%20%E2%80%93%20southerly%20and%20southeasterly.

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

something something "pernicious nonsense"

I still am fascinated at the whole nuclear testing era. I read a couple articles but can't really understand the mindset of that era. Was all this actually for science. I tell my kids about nuclear shelter signs still on the old school doors to certain rooms and as the words come out of my mouth they seem like fantasy.

I admit not that I have no clue how this Ukraine Russian War will pan out. I would think China would have stayed out of this but I think their man made islands strategy in international waters would be boltstered by keeping Russia's UN vote on their side.

"Nuclear artillery" lmao.

Videos of Russian's moving Katyusha rocket launchers on ZIS-5 trucks- these things are likely older than 1950. Direct Telegram link here.

Captured documents have Putin wanting "Total Cleansing" of Ukraine. NY Post article here. So far it's being backed up by other sources.

Frind of mine pointed out, and I quote "Tbf one of the most important aspects of the ICC verdict is it makes normalising relations with Russia pretty much impossible for any European state following the Rome Statute". Hm.

The Kyiv post has an article claiming that over 166 thousand Russian troops are now dead, with half a million wounded and states that the military is effectively "Combat ineffective". I would take it as propaganda any other time and just ignore it, but frankly we've seen in the last few days with Bakhmut reporting that Russia seems to be entering a defensive state now and the article also cites NATO intelligence. The article is here. I'll quote some notable bits:

Russia, on the other hand, appears to have first crossed the 50-percent level last October, when its initial invasion force and new troops added in the summer suffered catastrophic losses in Ukraine’s early resistance and counteroffensives in the Kharkiv and Kherson regions.

Plunging below that critical 50-percent threshold could explain why the Kremlin decided last fall to draft over 300,000 new troops. It could also explain why those draftees were so ineffective in rejuvenating Russia’s battlefield prospects. They were recruited into an already broken army whose earlier losses had shattered its capacity to readily reconstitute itself.

I think this, with supporting evidence like captured texts and calls over telegram of Russian conscripts seeing entire platoons blown apart horrifically, can be taken as true. It would also explain why Russian Troops are literally given a modicum of training and sent to the front, that they have the equivalent of this huge bleeding wound and they're just desperately trying to pack it to stem the bloodflow.

 Where are these missing Russian troops? Given Putin’s desperate war fortunes, it’s unlikely that many soldiers are left patrolling remote Yakutsk or the Mongolian border. Indeed, officials believe that Russia has deployed up to 97 percent of its army to Ukraine. 

This bit is notable, since Japan has signaled that it wants those islands taken in the final weeks of World War 2- there may literally be nothing to stop Japan from planting their flag, so to speak. With China restoring old Chinese names on the Russian border, I am beginning to wonder if this recent talk between Xi and Putin was more an attempt to keep status quo between them at a time when Russia is at it's weakest- For China, I could see internally them wanting to invade not only for resources for the nation, but also to finally give their military experience, but that's frankly just a dumb opinion from a civvie who has a pretty firm feeling that China will only do what benefits itself.

It is estimated the Ukrainians are strained to find troops also (probably not as bad as Russia).  Ukrainian looses are also almost certainly rather high with most to artillery (throw enough shells around it will be hard not to inflict casualties).  Of course they may need as many as they can find for something... that might be coming. 

Prigozhin (Wagner) recently did a little video (to try and get more help) about Ukrainian troop concentrations in the south and east.  He is super paranoid about an attack at Bakhmut. The Ukrainians have received a good amount of a equipment, it has to be somewhere. 

The Ukrainians apparently have reinforced their positions in Bakhmut, so a Russian victory there seems almost gone at this point.  They have even apparently taken some ground back north of Bakhmut (probably to more free up their supply lines).

As noted in the first post, the Russians have some idea where the Ukrainians are or will mass.  They were super sneaking with the Kharkiv offensive (lots of light fast units), but they will likely be rather aware of where the Ukrainians are concentrated.  

It will be interesting to see the rhetoric coming out of Russia as they wait for the hammer to fall.

Interesting note from Ukraine:

-----

• Ukrainian Deputy Defense Minister Hanna Malyar called for informational silence regarding a potential Ukrainian counteroffensive.[14]

We have a response to the supply of "nuclear" depleted uranium rounds to Ukraine:

Not sure how this actually changes anything.  Maybe to ensure there will be no invasion of Belarus?  That no one was planning.

Putin says Russia will station tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus

MOSCOW — Russian President Vladimir Putin announced plans on Saturday to station tactical nuclear weapons in neighboring Belarus, a warning to the West as it steps up military support for Ukraine.

Putin said the move was triggered by Britain's decision this past week to provide Ukraine with armor-piercing rounds containing depleted uranium....

https://www.npr.org/2023/03/25/1166089485/putin-russia-tactical-nuclear-weapons-belarus

The EU is not amused.  I am not sure what the current sanction status is of Belarus.  Do they have any at this point?

Josep Borrell: Belarus hosting Russian nuclear weapons would mean an irresponsible escalation and threat to European security. Belarus can still stop it, it is their choice. The EU stands ready to respond with further sanctions

GIRTHQUAKE said:

"Nuclear artillery" lmao.

Videos of Russian's moving Katyusha rocket launchers on ZIS-5 trucks- these things are likely older than 1950. Direct Telegram link here.

Captured documents have Putin wanting "Total Cleansing" of Ukraine. NY Post article here. So far it's being backed up by other sources.

Frind of mine pointed out, and I quote "Tbf one of the most important aspects of the ICC verdict is it makes normalising relations with Russia pretty much impossible for any European state following the Rome Statute". Hm.

The Kyiv post has an article claiming that over 166 thousand Russian troops are now dead, with half a million wounded and states that the military is effectively "Combat ineffective". I would take it as propaganda any other time and just ignore it, but frankly we've seen in the last few days with Bakhmut reporting that Russia seems to be entering a defensive state now and the article also cites NATO intelligence. The article is here. I'll quote some notable bits:

Russia, on the other hand, appears to have first crossed the 50-percent level last October, when its initial invasion force and new troops added in the summer suffered catastrophic losses in Ukraine’s early resistance and counteroffensives in the Kharkiv and Kherson regions.

Plunging below that critical 50-percent threshold could explain why the Kremlin decided last fall to draft over 300,000 new troops. It could also explain why those draftees were so ineffective in rejuvenating Russia’s battlefield prospects. They were recruited into an already broken army whose earlier losses had shattered its capacity to readily reconstitute itself.

I think this, with supporting evidence like captured texts and calls over telegram of Russian conscripts seeing entire platoons blown apart horrifically, can be taken as true. It would also explain why Russian Troops are literally given a modicum of training and sent to the front, that they have the equivalent of this huge bleeding wound and they're just desperately trying to pack it to stem the bloodflow.

 Where are these missing Russian troops? Given Putin’s desperate war fortunes, it’s unlikely that many soldiers are left patrolling remote Yakutsk or the Mongolian border. Indeed, officials believe that Russia has deployed up to 97 percent of its army to Ukraine. 

This bit is notable, since Japan has signaled that it wants those islands taken in the final weeks of World War 2- there may literally be nothing to stop Japan from planting their flag, so to speak. With China restoring old Chinese names on the Russian border, I am beginning to wonder if this recent talk between Xi and Putin was more an attempt to keep status quo between them at a time when Russia is at it's weakest- For China, I could see internally them wanting to invade not only for resources for the nation, but also to finally give their military experience, but that's frankly just a dumb opinion from a civvie who has a pretty firm feeling that China will only do what benefits itself.

You are absolutely correct when you say China will do what benefits China.
      Except China has historically taken the long view on everything.  
    China's prime concern is resources such as oil and fresh water.  
     North of China are just such resources as China needs.   8 million to 1 Billion 300 million Chinese. 
   China has plenty of reasons to take that land. Some of which was taken by threat from China.  The area once called Northern Manchuria was given to Russia back in 1860 and as recently as 1969 fought over between China and Russia  
   Russia has only 8 million  citizens in the entire area.  Lately even large Russian cities had only 50% of the population of were of Russian origins.  The rest made of Asians.  
      

Advan046 said:

I still am fascinated at the whole nuclear testing era. I read a couple articles but can't really understand the mindset of that era. Was all this actually for science. I tell my kids about nuclear shelter signs still on the old school doors to certain rooms and as the words come out of my mouth they seem like fantasy.

The nuclear testing era actually went through a few changes. It was a rapid evolution from 1946 to 1962, after which fear became the dominant characteristic. Prior to that, however, there were other points of view as well, especially early on. My personal favorite were the hotels in Las Vegas that sold tourism packages timed around test detonations at the Nevada Nuclear Test Site. The tests were always conducted around dawn, so guests were encouraged to stay up all night, watch the explosion from the pool or the rooftop bar, then hop a morning flight back home. These were apparently fairly popular.

Advan046 said:

I still am fascinated at the whole nuclear testing era. I read a couple articles but can't really understand the mindset of that era. Was all this actually for science....

The trend of course was to make bigger and bigger bombs (in as small a package as possible of course).  The only way to practically test these of course was lighting them off (which was sometimes a bit of an unplanned surprise!).  There obviously was not a large concern (knowledge) about radiation.  I think one of the big moments in US continental testing though is when Kodak (I think in Minnesota?) notices spots in their film... from the testing in Nevada(!) [insert 3 stooges Curly sound effect here] After that the moved to the south Pacific.

I think it is reasonable to say though that the testing was also half intimidation.  The bigger the bomb, the more impressive.  This eventually resulted in the (Russian) Tsar bomb, which was, to say the least, HUGE and resulted in concerns of actual planetary damage(!)  So basically, a giant, and destructive, wang swinging competition.  I suspect there was some national pride by the populaces of "ours is bigger then theirs"

Media: Leopard 2 tanks from Germany arrive in Ukraine. Ukraine has received the 18 Leopard 2 tanks pledged by Germany, der Spiegel reported on March 27. 40 Marder infantry fighting vehicles also arrived in what der Spiegel's sources said was a "large package" of weapons

In reply to aircooled :

We very much did know about the effects of radiation and fallout, from the deaths in the US nuclear program to the observation of effects at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  The immediate radiation effects were so thoroughly mapped at Hiroshima that we could tell the exact orientation of the bomb when it detonated by the shielding effect of its lifting eye.

China is Against Russia's plans to deploy Nuclear weapons in Belarus. I bet it'll be mostly lip service, but I hope there'll be more forceful language about it soon since it broadcasts nothing good or strong.

Advan046 said:

I still am fascinated at the whole nuclear testing era. I read a couple articles but can't really understand the mindset of that era. Was all this actually for science. I tell my kids about nuclear shelter signs still on the old school doors to certain rooms and as the words come out of my mouth they seem like fantasy.

You may like a book, "Command and Control - Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety" by Eric Schlosser. A good history of US weapons development and a focus on a disaster at a nuclear missile silo.

AAZCD-Jon (Forum Supporter) said:

Advan046 said:

I still am fascinated at the whole nuclear testing era. I read a couple articles but can't really understand the mindset of that era. Was all this actually for science. I tell my kids about nuclear shelter signs still on the old school doors to certain rooms and as the words come out of my mouth they seem like fantasy.

You may like a book, "Command and Control - Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety" by Eric Schlosser. A good history of US weapons development and a focus on a disaster at a nuclear missile silo.

+1, excellent book.  There's a documentary that PBS did on it as well.