|
We have beaten the dam topic to death in this thread at least two distinct times ending with the same conclusion both times. Geospatial data did reveal seismic activity consistent with explosions.
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 16:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 22:11 |
|
Wickerman posted:We have beaten the dam topic to death in this thread at least two distinct times ending with the same conclusion both times. Geospatial data did reveal seismic activity consistent with explosions. Sounds like you are dam tired of this discussion
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 17:06
|
|
|
Please take your dam arguments to another dam thread
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 17:43
|
|
|
GD_American posted:Please take your dam arguments to another dam thread That’ll be spillover though 
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 17:50
|
|
|
Saukkis posted:It would still be too slow even with modern trackways. The big problem would be the single lane. An engineering tank carrying mats will reach the end of the road, roll out couple tens of meters of road, and then back out of the road all the way to the start so the next tank can do it's run. They would have to build two roads side-by-side to make it at all practical, that's at least couple thousand rolls of mat. I wouldn't dare to do that under easy drone surveillance. You can do a six lane corduroy just as fast as single lane. With modern industrial equipment and the generic availability of bulk timber why wouldn't you. Also you have your own counter battery artillery that out ranges theirs and you know the swamp not mined.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 18:09
|
|
|
Hekk posted:So that the first bit of debris lying around costs them a million dollar prop that they never have enough of? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 18:10
|
|
|
If the Russians did intentionally cause a radioactive leak at ZNPP and the radiation drifted into Poland and other NATO countries , would that be justification for NATO involvement in the conflict?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 18:23
|
|
|
Cimber posted:If the Russians did intentionally cause a radioactive leak at ZNPP and the radiation drifted into Poland and other NATO countries , would that be justification for NATO involvement in the conflict? Plausible if they actually admit that it is intentional. If we are 90% sure that it is intentional, but they insist that it was accidental/the Ukrainians, almost certainly not.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 18:28
|
|
|
VictualSquid posted:Plausible if they actually admit that it is intentional. There's no way it'll happen beyond being intentional, at this point everyone is well aware who is controlling the plant and the lengths that the Ukrainian operators and IAEA went to protect the plant.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 18:37
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:There's no way it'll happen beyond being intentional, at this point everyone is well aware who is controlling the plant and the lengths that the Ukrainian operators and IAEA went to protect the plant. Not that I want to see NATO dragged in because "This business will get out of control", but even if it was truly an accident I think Russia falls under the 'you break it you buy it' concept. They seized the plant, they are 100 percent responsible for its safety.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 18:39
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Not that I want to see NATO dragged in because "This business will get out of control", but even if it was truly an accident I think Russia falls under the 'you break it you buy it' concept. They seized the plant, they are 100 percent responsible for its safety. Sure they are 100% responsible, just like they are for the plants in actual Russia. But, I don't think anything that isn't openly admitted to being intentional will draw a direct military response, unless it happens several times. It will draw some other response, but no direct intervention.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 18:52
|
|
|
Can someone explain to me how NATO getting involved would be bad? Russia had no significant allies in this war, and the full might of a US backed NATO force would eliminate Russian forces in short order. I think the concern over CBRN weapons is real, but at the extreme end of realistic response. I am small Grunt brain, so me confused as to why NATO intervening- even as a peace keeping force- is a bad idea?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 18:58
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Not that I want to see NATO dragged in because "This business will get out of control", but even if it was truly an accident I think Russia falls under the 'you break it you buy it' concept. They seized the plant, they are 100 percent responsible for its safety. Yes but they DGAF about its safety.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 19:00
|
|
|
bulletsponge13 posted:Can someone explain to me how NATO getting involved would be bad? Russia had no significant allies in this war, and the full might of a US backed NATO force would eliminate Russian forces in short order. I think the concern over CBRN weapons is real, but at the extreme end of realistic response. Putin barely managed to contain a half assed coup attempt last weekend. What's he going to do when NATO completely destroys the Russian armed forces within 2 weeks?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 19:03
|
|
|
bulletsponge13 posted:Can someone explain to me how NATO getting involved would be bad? Russia had no significant allies in this war, and the full might of a US backed NATO force would eliminate Russian forces in short order. I think the concern over CBRN weapons is real, but at the extreme end of realistic response. Because the situation could rapidly escalate outside of Ukraine. Not trying to get into ClancyChat, but I could see this happening. US and allies launch a sudden cruise missile strike at Russian assets inside Ukraine, popping a bunch of ammo dumps, airfields or other high value targes. Russia retalliates by striking targets within Poland, Finland and other NATO forces in Europe. NATO then ups the game by employing fighter aircraft (A-10 go brrrrr!). At some point Russia might be desperate enough to use a few tactical nukes. If that happens well, buckle the gently caress up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 19:05
|
|
|
Cimber posted:If the Russians did intentionally cause a radioactive leak at ZNPP and the radiation drifted into Poland and other NATO countries , would that be justification for NATO involvement in the conflict? It would but NATO will never intervene even if Russia says "yeah we did it and gently caress you."
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 19:06
|
|
|
I assume "NATO intervention" isn't "Polish divisions finally get to avenge the fall of the PLC" but is more like "OK, rear end in a top hat, we're giving Ukraine 36 F-16s and we're going to stop giving a gently caress on whether they can hit your backlines with their missile grants." I also suspect the more consequential part would be China, because it seems as though Xi has been saying to Putin in a loud voice "YOU HEAR ME? NO loving NUKES!" and deliberately sabotaging a large nuclear power plant and releasing radiation is definitely a bullshit "I'm not touching you" adjacency. What would seem more likely is that Putin's people try to gently caress up ZNPP in a way that doesn't release radiation but does ruin the plant for use as a source of electricity. I don't know exactly what that would look like, but there's probably stuff you could do. The worry I would have here is that Putin's gang of idiots fucks that up and they do in fact accidentally release radioactive material.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 19:10
|
|
|
bulletsponge13 posted:Can someone explain to me how NATO getting involved would be bad? Russia had no significant allies in this war, and the full might of a US backed NATO force would eliminate Russian forces in short order. I think the concern over CBRN weapons is real, but at the extreme end of realistic response. It's 100% the threat of nuclear escalation. There is a fear that Russia will resort to nuclear weapons in the face of an existential threat. Ukraine taking back its territory is not in any way an existential threat to Russia no matter what Russian propaganda would have us believe (maybe if Crimea is retaken, but we're a long way off from that.) Russia's military getting rolled by NATO very well could be one, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 19:12
|
|
|
The idea that Russia could hit Poland or Finland is laughable. Theyve got nothing left in the tank. People are worried because Russias only card left to play is nukes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 19:19
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:The idea that Russia could hit Poland or Finland is laughable. Theyve got nothing left in the tank. People are worried because Russias only card left to play is nukes. drone or cruise missiles are what I am thinking.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 19:31
|
|
|
They don't have enough of those to prosecute their existing war. What could they possibly have left to use against NATO countries with proper IADS at full strength.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 19:33
|
|
|
bulletsponge13 posted:Can someone explain to me how NATO getting involved would be bad? Russia had no significant allies in this war, and the full might of a US backed NATO force would eliminate Russian forces in short order. I think the concern over CBRN weapons is real, but at the extreme end of realistic response. NATO is a defensive alliance. They don't just arbitrarily attack someone because they feel like it. "NATO imperialism" would become a real thing and not just a fantasy that Russia is projecting. Invoking Article 5 would require Russia to attack a member state, and then the alliance voting to respond. There isn't any other mechanism for their involvement.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 19:35
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:NATO is a defensive alliance. They don't just arbitrarily attack someone because they feel like it. "NATO imperialism" would become a real thing and not just a fantasy that Russia is projecting. I got peacekeeping confused. NATO =/= UN
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 19:40
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:They don't have enough of those to prosecute their existing war. What could they possibly have left to use against NATO countries with proper IADS at full strength. Which nato countries have a proper IADS at full strength? And especially the baltics?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 19:44
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I assume "NATO intervention" isn't "Polish divisions finally get to avenge the fall of the PLC" but is more like "OK, rear end in a top hat, we're giving Ukraine 36 F-16s and we're going to stop giving a gently caress on whether they can hit your backlines with their missile grants." I also suspect the more consequential part would be China, because it seems as though Xi has been saying to Putin in a loud voice "YOU HEAR ME? NO loving NUKES!" and deliberately sabotaging a large nuclear power plant and releasing radiation is definitely a bullshit "I'm not touching you" adjacency. Maybe I'm being a negative nancy, but I cannot possibly imagine Xi giving a gently caress as long as nothing Chinese gets irradiated by blowing up the ZNPP. Like they're perfectly happy being Russia's buddy through a massive genocidal invasion and a laundry list of war crimes, why would Chernobyl 2 matter to them? The only real consequence is likely to be even more guns for Ukraine, which would absolutely still be meaningful, but not NATO cruise missiles sinking the entire Black Sea fleet meaningful.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 19:45
|
|
|
iirc they can invoke Article 5 for an attack and then collectively decide to not attack, respond with something other than an attack, or do nothing.quote:The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. Russia might huck its last Soviet era missile at a trainyard in Belgium, have it careen off course and blow up in the Baltic, and NATO collectively goes  and just sends them a fine for illegal ocean dumping.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 19:49
|
|
|
The Russian Federation being a rotten husk of it's USSR peak, with an army that has been just wildly cretinous, is irrelevant to the the fact that they have enough nukes to end the world. Even if only a fraction of those work, and that's not a gamble a sane person would countenance, NATO and Russia actually going properly hot means a significantly higher than zero likelihood of us all dying in the spicey fire. This is how NATO getting directly involved would be bad. Beyond that there's not really much point engaging with the thought because it requires ignoring everything that has shaped and overshadowed East/West relations for the last 73 years, 8 months, and 6 days.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 19:54
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:Maybe I'm being a negative nancy, but I cannot possibly imagine Xi giving a gently caress as long as nothing Chinese gets irradiated by blowing up the ZNPP. Like they're perfectly happy being Russia's buddy through a massive genocidal invasion and a laundry list of war crimes, why would Chernobyl 2 matter to them? The only real consequence is likely to be even more guns for Ukraine, which would absolutely still be meaningful, but not NATO cruise missiles sinking the entire Black Sea fleet meaningful. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20002040/ was the best thing I could find, and to quote the abstract: quote:Radioactive contamination from the Chernobyl meltdown spread over 40% of Europe (including Austria, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, Romania, Great Britain, Germany, Italy, France, Greece, Iceland, Slovenia) and wide territories in Asia (including Turkey, Georgia, Armenia, Emirates, China), northern Africa, and North America. So they were affected, and while a ton would depend on the wind, it seems like it would be beyond idiotic for Xi to say "Yeah, don't use a nuclear weapon, but I'm actually completely fine with it if you cause a massive burst of nuclear contamination which may land on us." This assumes Xi is strictly okay with the prospect of loving up Ukraine to whatever extent Putin wants; and I imagine Xi, for instance, is not eager to see a massive spike in the commodity price of wheat for the foreign policy goal of "?? Russia can do whatever it wants??"
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 19:58
|
|
|
Nessus posted:So they were affected, and while a ton would depend on the wind, it seems like it would be beyond idiotic for Xi to say "Yeah, don't use a nuclear weapon, but I'm actually completely fine with it if you cause a massive burst of nuclear contamination which may land on us." This assumes Xi is strictly okay with the prospect of loving up Ukraine to whatever extent Putin wants; and I imagine Xi, for instance, is not eager to see a massive spike in the commodity price of wheat for the foreign policy goal of "?? Russia can do whatever it wants??" I think Xi's opposition to the use of nuclear weapons is that others might respond with nuclear weapons and thus start a general fuckfest of explosions that no one survives, not "you irradiated and war crimed a bunch of people that aren't a domestic issue for me." I mean, honestly, even if some of western China got irradiated... I really think Xi would just bill Putin for it or demand even better prices on Russian oil. What else are they going to do? Limit their domestic use of fossil fuels? Sudden fuel price rises are how you get angry people on the streets yelling for your head, because it hits a lot of the poor and economically pressured hardest.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 20:02
|
|
|
I still want my Clancy scenario of Xi succeeding Putin to happen, dammit
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 20:04
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:I really think Xi would just bill Putin for it or demand even better prices on Russian oil. What else are they going to do? Limit their domestic use of fossil fuels? Sudden fuel price rises are how you get angry people on the streets yelling for your head, because it hits a lot of the poor and economically pressured hardest. What if I were to tell you wheat was like fuel for humans.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 20:20
|
|
|
I think that in the game of global political maneuvering Xi is happier if Russia is stronger right now. How much should the west worry about Xi’s happiness? That’s is way above my pay grade but evidence seems to suggest that the US and EU will need some significant provocation to commit more than just material to Ukraine even if they no longer think Putin is scary.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 21:46
|
|
|
My read is that Xi likes the idea of keeping the principle that it's cool and good to enforce your old territorial claims, for obvious reasons. He probably also enjoys cheap gas and a market for Chinese military products, however modest he might be about that. While the long-termism of China is in my view greatly exaggerated, it may also be a case of seeing no way that this does NOT put China in a better position relative to Russia. Xi would also like to not loosen the restraints on nuclear weapons. This is possibly to some extent due to simple good old "nobody wins a nuclear war" reasoning, but probably also realpolitik: he would likely, at some point, like to do a certain military operation which would involve a dense fleet and troops landing in a confined area, such as a beach or other shore, which would be an excellent target for a nuclear weapon. I imagine Modi has similar motivations, although I know India produces a lot of wheat and there might be some calculus on the advantage if the price of wheat goes up and is going to stay there due to nuclear contamination of eastern Ukraine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 22:20
|
|
|
psydude posted:Putin barely managed to contain a half assed coup attempt last weekend. What's he going to do when NATO completely destroys the Russian armed forces within 2 weeks?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 22:53
|
|
|
Herman Merman posted:This is incredibly delusional and you should think before you post. Which part? Putin barely containing the coup, or NATO straight wrecking what's left of the Russian forces?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 23:21
|
|
|
I think the bad part about a shooting war between Russia and NATO is it drastically increases the chances someone opens up a batch of canned sunshine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 23:25
|
|
|
Comrade Blyatlov posted:Which part? Putin barely containing the coup, or NATO straight wrecking what's left of the Russian forces? a shooting war between NATO and Russia would wreck the Russian conventional forces with much of the population of the northern hemisphere as collateral damage
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 23:43
|
|
|
Yeah...seems to me the only way NATO fires the first actual bullet at Russia and it doesn't go nuclear within hours is if the military straight revolts all the way to the top, right away.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 23:43
|
|
|
Comrade Blyatlov posted:Which part? Putin barely containing the coup, or NATO straight wrecking what's left of the Russian forces? The part ignoring that it doesn't take two weeks to turn a major city into glass that glows in the dark.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2023 00:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 22:11 |
|
|
I think about this piece of fiction a lot https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ji44TM_bNM
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2023 01:03
|
|
