|
The dirty bomb is actually the Putin-Trump piss tape. And before you ask, yes, it's reciprocal.   
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2022 03:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 12:56 |
|
|
Comstar posted:I’m phone posting but there are posts on Reddit saying Shoigo is calling the west to give dark hints that Ukraine is going to use a dirty bomb. Is there any reason to think these Reddit posts aren't total bullshit?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2022 07:58
|
|
|
A friend of mine who's wife works at the coffee shop in the Pentagon said she over heard two generals talking about how they heard from a friend who works in the secret service that heard on a secret wire-tap that Putin likes to take his coffee with half-and-half. Or was it oat milk. When I know you'll know.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2022 08:38
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Is there any reason to think these Reddit posts aren't total bullshit? You could check the news, I guess. https://www.politico.eu/article/ukrainw-russia-vladimir-putin-volodymyr-zelenskyy-defense-chief-claims-of-kyiv-dirty-bomb/
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2022 09:12
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/mfa_russia/status/1584564755272171522 Is it impossible for Russia to detonate a tactical nuclear weapon they purposefully sabotaged to make it look like Ukraine used a dirty weapon since it could be easily traced back to Russia?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2022 18:17
|
|
|
Willo567 posted:https://twitter.com/mfa_russia/status/1584564755272171522 No you see those perfidious Ukrainians stole the fissile material from russia, QED.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2022 18:19
|
|
|
Looks like those WC-135Rs are showing up just in time, eh?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2022 19:58
|
|
|
Willo567 posted:https://twitter.com/mfa_russia/status/1584564755272171522 Good question but I imagine no, nukes use refined plutonium, so a nuclear fizzle will leave behind both some of that plutonium and the very specific decay products from it. Ukraine doesn't have that plutonium because they don't make nuclear weapons. Trace amounts of it show up in used nuclear fuel from reactors, but it's a hell of a lot of work to concentrate that, which Ukraine doesn't do. So it's a smoking gun for "Russia did it" despite Ukraine having a massive nuclear energy industry. The "smart" option for Russia would be to steal some used fuel from the Zaporizhzhia plant and attach it to one of their Iranian drones then fly that over. Still incredibly stupid because all it will do is massively escalate reactions from the entire planet against Russia, including from China and India. But it would have the only chance of having even 0.01% reasonable deniability since it would be nuclear material Ukraine might have access to. If they do use their own actual nuke, even if they intentionally nerf the device, we should treat it as if they used one properly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2022 20:12
|
|
|
comedy option: they bought an untraceable nuke from North Korea. All their testing has been underground and they're a totally closed state for decades, it would be a real hard sell for me to believe we've managed to get samples of their isotope fingerprint. As we've seen over and over the Russian bar for plausible deniability is, uhhh, low, as evidenced by this several-kilometers long airliner they totally didn't shoot down: 
shame on an IGA fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Oct 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2022 21:08
|
|
|
Is it not concerning the Russian MoD is now openly tweeting about imminent usage of a dirty bomb? This, plus the phone calls to NATO yesterday, seems like a marked intensification of the rhetoric.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2022 21:39
|
|
|
City Slicker posted:Is it not concerning the Russian MoD is now openly tweeting about imminent usage of a dirty bomb? I forgot, but they made the same claims back in March: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-without-evidence-says-ukraine-making-nuclear-dirty-bomb-2022-03-06/?utm_source=reddit.com They are ratcheting up this focus and it is concerning given their much more precarious situation on the ground, but so far Russia's been rattling every nuclear sabre it can find since this all started. Until someone in NATO says they have reliable info about an imminent attack of some form, I think this will remain as rhetoric.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2022 22:02
|
|
|
Orthanc6 posted:Good question but I imagine no, nukes use refined plutonium, so a nuclear fizzle will leave behind both some of that plutonium and the very specific decay products from it. Ukraine doesn't have that plutonium because they don't make nuclear weapons. Trace amounts of it show up in used nuclear fuel from reactors, but it's a hell of a lot of work to concentrate that, which Ukraine doesn't do. So it's a smoking gun for "Russia did it" despite Ukraine having a massive nuclear energy industry. its funny that they are doing loving W invasion of iraq poo poo, almost a year in and while they are losing, your supposed to do that poo poo months before the invasion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2022 22:09
|
|
|
The russians are going to detonate an untracable dirty bomb, with radioactive material sourced from tens of thousands of smoke detectors. It's flawless
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2022 22:14
|
|
|
Outrail posted:The russians are going to detonate an untracable dirty bomb, with radioactive material sourced from tens of thousands of smoke detectors. It's flawless David "The Nuclear Boy Scout" Hahn  died in September of 2016, conveniently just before the election of Donald Trump. I wonder if Ukrainian forces have noticed missing smoke detectors in buildings they're regaining?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2022 00:03
|
|
|
Russia can count as well as anyone. They cannot hold their gains and probably can’t hold Crimeia either. The failure of the Iranian drones and missile attacks is the last straw. The conscripts wont save them either. The nuclear card is their only “winning” card left to play. And putin knows it now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2022 02:35
|
|
|
okay here's my prediction: Russia's gonna try and do a nuke attack, gently caress it up and detonate it in a Russian military base. It'll only partially work, and Russia will blame Ukraine for using a dirty bomb. Russia will then use this an excuse to use nukes and blow up another Russian base.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 04:47
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ivan_8848/status/1583042707726905344 Has anyone ever heard of this news station or is this some weird French fake? Are French people known for hoaxes?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 06:30
|
|
oliveoil posted:https://twitter.com/ivan_8848/status/1583042707726905344 Just...look at the recent tweets by the account you're posting.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 07:15
|
|
|
City Slicker posted:Is it not concerning the Russian MoD is now openly tweeting about imminent usage of a dirty bomb? Yeah, I’m worried they’re gonna set off a really low-yield nuclear bomb on Ukrainian territory and then claim that Ukraine did it as a false flag attack, maybe not so much for strategic reasons but to get their foot in the door on the use of nuclear weapons.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 07:36
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:Yeah, I’m worried they’re gonna set off a really low-yield nuclear bomb on Ukrainian territory and then claim that Ukraine did it as a false flag attack, maybe not so much for strategic reasons but to get their foot in the door on the use of nuclear weapons. And do what? Now, I think he will do it, because its the last card in his hand, but it won't work. "There, I have nuked Kyiv! Surrender"! "No". Ukraine will never surrender to Putin. No matter how many nuke's he uses.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 08:21
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:Yeah, I’m worried they’re gonna set off a really low-yield nuclear bomb on Ukrainian territory and then claim that Ukraine did it as a false flag attack, maybe not so much for strategic reasons but to get their foot in the door on the use of nuclear weapons. I realize we're both now thinking about this harder than Putin has or ever will, but from whom would Ukraine supposedly have obtained the bomb? The US?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 08:23
|
|
|
oliveoil posted:https://twitter.com/ivan_8848/status/1583042707726905344 It's a big news channel, but according to comments the clip is misleading, as she was describing what Russian propaganda was broadcasting, not talking about the situation on the ground, lol E: TV station's response: https://www.bfmtv.com/bfmtv-et-vous...2210210682.html quote:On social networks, conspiratorial accounts accuse BFMTV of "censorship" after the interruption of a duplex of our special correspondents in the Kherson region in Ukraine. It's really just a broken beam - a common technical problem in the field of war. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 09:00 on Oct 26, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 08:57
|
|
|
Comstar posted:Ukraine will never surrender to Putin. No matter how many nuke's he uses. I still think the probability is against Putin using any manner of nuclear weaponry in Ukraine, but to be fair, certainly for myself and from what I gather most others, the argument is generally that if Putin does decide to use nuclear weaponry, it will not be in service to any actual military goals in Ukraine. Like it would absolutely be done out of either spite or out of some sort of attempt to retain face and continue being seen as a fearsome and mighty leader who is not to be trifled with. I agree that there is no scenario in which detonating a nuclear weapon of any sort on Ukrainian soil serves Russia's military goals, but to be fair neither does literally anything else that they can, have been, or will do. Like "it would not be beneficial to Russia and would only make them a pariah in the eyes of the international community" is not a very compelling argument, in and of itself, against Russia using nukes because, well, that same argument can be applied not only to the war itself, but to nearly every single action Russia has taken since the war began. At basically every single turn Putin has decided to double down, cut off his own paths of de-escalation that could allow him to save face, and committed full throttle to causing as much human misery and suffering in Ukraine - and now even in many ways in Russia itself - as he can. Again, I don't think he's going to do it (although I also think it is within the realm of plausibility) but I don't think "it would accomplish no practical aims and only further alienate Russia from the global community" is a compelling rebuttal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 09:04
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:I realize we're both now thinking about this harder than Putin has or ever will, but from whom would Ukraine supposedly have obtained the bomb? The US? the Soviet Union stored nuclear weapons in Ukraine at one point. I don't know if it was strictly storage or if they had any kind of launch/assembly facilities, but it's possible that poo poo got left behind during the fall and missed/forgotten about during the Nunn-Lugar dismantling. I'm not saying it happened or even that it's likely (I have no idea), but that's the only possibility I see.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 15:46
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:the Soviet Union stored nuclear weapons in Ukraine at one point. I don't know if it was strictly storage or if they had any kind of launch/assembly facilities, but it's possible that poo poo got left behind during the fall and missed/forgotten about during the Nunn-Lugar dismantling. I'm not saying it happened or even that it's likely (I have no idea), but that's the only possibility I see. The joke here is that Ukraine got rid of their nukes in exchange for guarantees from both the "west" (the US and UK) and the "east" (Russia) that their sovereignty would be respected. Womp womp! Obviously the idea of a Ukrainian false flag whatever attack is a fever dream from the bargain bin Goebbelses working in the Kremlin, but for Ukraine even on paper to detonate a "low-yield nuke" would require them having one in the first place. I guess Kremlin saying they bought one from NATO or Israel is no more or less preposterous than saying Ukraine hid some in the 90's, or made one between 2014 and 2022  Point being, it's dumb and the UN would laugh in Russia's face.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 16:03
|
|
|
The argument would be for domestic consumption, not international consumption. And, we all thought the same thing in the beginning, because starting a war in Ukraine was objectively dumb and everyone knew it, but he did it anyway, so at this point there's no "that's too dumb to possibly happen" scenarios.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 18:07
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:The argument would be for domestic consumption, not international consumption. And, we all thought the same thing in the beginning, because starting a war in Ukraine was objectively dumb and everyone knew it, but he did it anyway, so at this point there's no "that's too dumb to possibly happen" scenarios. I guess, but to trot around the tired comparison, around January-February '45 Hitler's main "paladins" (Goebbels, Himmler, Speer, Göring) were plotting their lives beyond the demise of Adolf and the Third Reich. Putin might try to lash out in increasingly stupid ways, but it remains to be seen whether he's managed to make his immediate circle as assassination-reluctant as Hitler did. And to turn it on its head, if it is solely for domestic consumption (and isn't the trope that the Russian population is largely apathetic and/or inundated with propaganda already), would they need a "small nuke" or a dirty bomb, when their own media could just say Ukraine used one? The decadent West is full of lying homo-nazis, who are you going to believe here?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 18:52
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:I guess, but to trot around the tired comparison, around January-February '45 Hitler's main "paladins" (Goebbels, Himmler, Speer, Göring) were plotting their lives beyond the demise of Adolf and the Third Reich. Putin might try to lash out in increasingly stupid ways, but it remains to be seen whether he's managed to make his immediate circle as assassination-reluctant as Hitler did. The difference in level of reaction will be extremely different between saying something and doing it. Actually using a nuclear weapon has been declared an unacceptable line to cross. A dirty bomb might be treated like a chemical attack aimed at civilians, although IIRC NATO said that nuclear contamination crossing their borders would be considered an attack. It's possible that Putin's inner circle might be able to dissuade him, but I feel it's a lot more likely that they'll end up "disappearing" to a quiet beach in a tiny Pacific micro state before they attempt to act out against the guy who has a long history of chasing his opponents down well after they're not longer a threat, as a message to others.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 20:11
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:The difference in level of reaction will be extremely different between saying something and doing it. Actually using a nuclear weapon has been declared an unacceptable line to cross. A dirty bomb might be treated like a chemical attack aimed at civilians, although IIRC NATO said that nuclear contamination crossing their borders would be considered an attack. Right. If Vova just wants his domestic audience to think that Ukraine has unleashed Azov nazi isotopes in the struggle against the might of Russia, it would make a lot more sense (relatively speaking) to simply state it in their propaganda stream, not detonate a "low yield nuke" in Ukraine, which was the hypothetical that launched this particular conversation. (I keep putting "low yield nuke" not in scare quotes but to emphasize that this was the phrasing used in Sucrose's post. Dirty bombs are not low yield nukes!) The hypothetical about Putin's inner circle I was going for was the scenario where Vova says to commit some personal version of a nuclear stage exit. NATO diplomacy efforts in the past months have gone in some amount to informing lower levels of the Russian state apparatus that any use of nuclear weapons would be a big, international no-no, and I don't mean just ol'sleepy Joe going on teevee to say that. If NATO has successfully informed lower level operatives, whoever they might be, that this line of behaviour would result in major retaliation that has a reasonable chance of harming the welfare of said operatives, their families etc., then they'd have clear personal incentives to obstruct Putin, and this seems to me a function of the level of desperation all around. We can even assume that no one sufficiently high up the chain(s) of command has a vested interest in the existence of the Russian Federation as an entity, and this calculus isn't significantly altered. As you say, the counter-balance is whether Putin's security forces are seen as an immovable obstacle (which invited the comparison to the Reichsführer-SS), and obviously it's impossible to gauge from the outside whether the gangsters around Putin are capable of a concentrated effort to remove him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 20:36
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:The argument would be for domestic consumption, not international consumption. And, we all thought the same thing in the beginning, because starting a war in Ukraine was objectively dumb and everyone knew it, but he did it anyway, so at this point there's no "that's too dumb to possibly happen" scenarios. The assumption "attacking Ukraine was dumb, Putin is stupid, blah blah blah..." it's really getting old and boring: I think we all should wait for the real end of this war, see who can be considered the winner and only then judgin' what was smart or stupid to do. In my opinion, Putin saw himself in a position with his back on the wall and close to a corner: he had to decide to act in Ukraine waging war, or he could have done nothing and sooner or later Ukraine would have become the spearhead of the U.S.A. right on russian doorstep. He decided to choose to intervene since, as all people with a minimum knowledge of geopolitics knows, the presence of NATO in Ukraine was a big NO - NO for the russians, their red line to not cross, as they repeatedly said many times over the years. I don't know who will win, but I already know who will be the sure losers in the end, whatever the outcome: Ukraine and Europe. The first because it will be completely devastated by bombardments and the second because for the next decades Europe will be a divided and torn continent with all the hate that will (and even now already) poison the air between european coutries and Russia.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2022 18:18
|
|
|
Knightsoul posted:The assumption "attacking Ukraine was dumb, Putin is stupid, blah blah blah..." it's really getting old and boring: I think we all should wait for the real end of this war, see who can be considered the winner and only then judgin' what was smart or stupid to do. He clearly started this with the assumption that he can win in a week, there was no backup or plan B. He then kept going with dwindling forces until whole fronts started to collapse before changing anything. He would not have started the war if he knew how it would actually go. E: Imagine America threw another 100-200k people into Vietnam and kept the South from collapsing. It wouldn't have made the whole "domino theory" any less stupid. mobby_6kl fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Oct 29, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2022 18:34
|
|
|
Knightsoul posted:The assumption "attacking Ukraine was dumb, Putin is stupid, blah blah blah..." it's really getting old and boring: I think we all should wait for the real end of this war, see who can be considered the winner and only then judgin' what was smart or stupid to do. What do you believe would have happened say, over the course of the next 10-20 years if Russia had not launched this invasion, annihilated their own army, killed off or caused to flee some of the best and brightest of their future generations, and sanctioned themselves to hell and back? What was Russia trying to prevent, exactly? We on this board generally think this was nothing more than just simply an old fashioned medieval war of conquest where Russia wanted Ukraine and thought they could take it, with all this NATO poo poo just being pretense and excuses, but perhaps we are all wrong and biased.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2022 18:45
|
|
|
Knightsoul posted:The assumption "attacking Ukraine was dumb, Putin is stupid, blah blah blah..." it's really getting old and boring: I think we all should wait for the real end of this war, see who can be considered the winner and only then judgin' what was smart or stupid to do. NATO was already at Russia's borders with the Baltic states, and by invading Ukraine Russia has just assured that NATO will be even more at Russia's borders with Finland. While you could argue that the solidarity with sanctions and Ukraine support were surprising, Finland suddenly wanting to join NATO when they see Russia full on invade a country to take its territory is obviously expected. If Putin didn't see that coming he's the world's biggest idiot. And Russia has very clearly self-owned way more than this is gonna hurt Europe (other than Ukraine of course). Especially all the IT professionals fleeing is not gonna be something you easily undo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2022 18:51
|
|
|
Look, it's really simple. If I don't use my massive arsenal of thermo-nuclear bombs to blow up the Moon into smaller chunks, inevitably causing a good portion of them to fall back on Earth creating awesome tsunamis and a climate catastrophe to end technological civilization, how will the Moon know it crossed my red line? Think, man, think!
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2022 18:52
|
|
|
Are there still people pushing this nonsense it’s all NATO expansion’s fault? Sorry pal, but you’ve just been conned by Putin’s propaganda machine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2022 19:07
|
|
|
Knightsoul posted:The assumption "attacking Ukraine was dumb, Putin is stupid, blah blah blah..." it's really getting old and boring: I think we all should wait for the real end of this war, see who can be considered the winner and only then judgin' what was smart or stupid to do. If your next door neighbor says he's gonna come kick your rear end if you keep posting in the something awful forums, would you stop posting? Why not? And how is that hypothetical different than the scenario you have laid out?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2022 20:10
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:Look, it's really simple. If I don't use my massive arsenal of thermo-nuclear bombs to blow up the Moon into smaller chunks, inevitably causing a good portion of them to fall back on Earth creating awesome tsunamis and a climate catastrophe to end technological civilization, how will the Moon know it crossed my red line? Think, man, think! You can just smash cut to the far future and resolve all that moon explosion drama anyway with an entirely different cast of characters
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2022 22:21
|
|
|
shame on an IGA posted:If your next door neighbor says he's gonna come kick your rear end if you keep posting in the something awful forums, would you stop posting? Perhaps I would, they would be doing me a favor by making me take a hard look at myself and how bad my posts are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2022 04:12
|
|
|
Rigel posted:What do you believe would have happened say, over the course of the next 10-20 years if Russia had not launched this invasion, annihilated their own army, killed off or caused to flee some of the best and brightest of their future generations, and sanctioned themselves to hell and back? What was Russia trying to prevent, exactly? I've been asking that same question in the other parts of Internet. What would have been the most horrible consequence if Russia would not have started the invasion? It must have been something really terrible because Russia chose war.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 11:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 12:56 |
|
|
I’ve been lurking this thread and read the whole thing now, been thinking about it a lot. I wanna know goons, how worried should the average person be about nuclear war actually becoming a reality? The good news is I live in a city large enough that I’m pretty sure I would just be vaporized instantly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 12:06
|
|
