Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar
- Thread starter areksnumbr1sxylady
- Start date
- Status
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 4,255
- Location
- North Sea
IIRC, nobody at the time knew South Africa had the bomb, so when they announced that they’d given them up, it was initially met with confusion.
US intelligence is claiming he has significant ammo stockpiles just lacking some heavier weapons. Probably suits Putin to have him there bogged down in Bakhmut grinding Ukraine's forces even at large losses for Wagner but Putin doesn't seem to be capitalising on that with increased mobilisation and pushing elsewhere, etc.
This is a huge thing. Literally changed the law. Didn't see it coming either tbh.US attorney general has approved sending seized Russian money to Ukraine
U.S. attorney general OKs transfer of forfeited funds from Russia oligarch for use in Ukraine
U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland has authorized the first transfer of forfeited Russian assets for use in Ukraine, he said on Wednesday.www.reuters.com
Suggest that the military knew exactly that SA had the bomb..
Can anyone substantiate this re
"The Washington Post writes the UK will send long-range missiles to Ukraine, with a range of 300 km U.S. officials who spoke to NatSec Daily say Biden hopes it will silence critics who want the US to send ATACMS to Ukraine, arguing they are off the hook thanks to the UK's plans."
Or is the WP the US' version of The Daily Mail..
"The Washington Post writes the UK will send long-range missiles to Ukraine, with a range of 300 km U.S. officials who spoke to NatSec Daily say Biden hopes it will silence critics who want the US to send ATACMS to Ukraine, arguing they are off the hook thanks to the UK's plans."
Or is the WP the US' version of The Daily Mail..
Last edited:
AFAIK it is referring to this: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/international-fund-for-ukraine-ifu
Unless someone has something basically ready to go just needs a bit of funding for final tweaks and production seems a bit useless to me as nominally it would take around 2.5 years at an expedited pace for contracts to be hammered out and development and testing, etc. before production even starts.
Last edited:
Nuke bomb does NOT equal nuclear reactor. (Unless they nuke the reactor)Says the guy who clearly can't remember Chernobyl
hiroshima - rebuilt in 2 years, population returned to pre bomb in 13 years. No lasting radiation..
bomb has 1kg of uranium..
reactor has 1000kg...
The only way that would work was if the warhead was literally on the core and even then it still wouldn't do much to the fuel, the problem is that it would create a massive cloud of radioactive isotopes (most of which won't survive very long) that could just as easily flow over Moscow or Putin's favourite hidey hole and I highly doubt Beijing would be remotely happy.
Way too many negatives for Russia especially since it would be obviously their fault.
Way too many negatives for Russia especially since it would be obviously their fault.
Last edited:
The thing with Chernobyl, which I see a lot of people miss, was the explosions and runaway burn off fuelled by material on site allowing a massive amount of toxic and radioactive material to be spread - pretty much any newer built reactor has been changed to prevent those scenarios happening like Chernobyl and nuclear bombs as you touched on don't work like that - many 100s of atmospheric nuclear tests have already occurred. Some nuclear bombs can have 100s of even 1000s of kg of stuff like uranium in them but what happens when they detonate gets hugely complicated and I'm certainly not an expert on it - but a lot of it ends up as short lived isotopes.
One of the bigger issues with nuclear bombs is if they are large enough and used in way and situation which causes massive firestorms, but that isn't so much about the radiation/fallout.
Last edited:
They did know , in 1977 the US, USSR and French governments all knew, and it was even in the media:
South Africa is about to test atomic bomb, France claims (1977)
Clipping found in Valley News published in Van Nuys, California on 8/23/1977. South Africa is about to test atomic bomb, France claims (1977)
www.newspapers.com
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 4,988
- Location
- South Wirral
Zelensky talking about counteroffensive:
www.bbc.co.uk
Zelensky says Ukraine needs more time for counter-offensive
Ukraine's president says in an interview his country would "lose a lot of people" if it attacks now.
www.bbc.co.uk
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 5,581
- Location
- London
Bigger nukes use a fission reaction to generate a fusion reaction and will not be using much more fissile material than small bomb. In castle bravo it was 400kg of lithium 6 yielding around 15megatons.
The issue is when you strap cobalt to the nuclear bomb then simply detonate it high in the atmosphere, irradiating an entire continent making most, if not all of that continent uninhabitable.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 3,873
Zelensky talking about counteroffensive:
Zelensky says Ukraine needs more time for counter-offensive
Ukraine's president says in an interview his country would "lose a lot of people" if it attacks now.
Clearly a reaction to the number of people expecting spoilers for the date of the counter offensive.
It's as if people treat this as entertainment, and think the plot should be simple and predictable.
The main problem with fusion is the supply of tritium. Its one of the questions being asked about the Soviet stockpile of weapons - have they replenished the tritium at all, because by now it would have decayed (1/2 life is 12 years). Its also why its stupidly expensive, about £30,000 per gram.
You can see by some of the posts here that for some, this is entertainment. Meanwhile, hundreds of people on both sides are dying every day.
I see India has saved themselves £4bn since the invasion through purchasing Russian oil. They have went from 2% imports of Russian oil to 20%
Kneejerk reaction but why should the UK continue to give aid to India, a country that not only will not condemn the invasion of Ukraine but actively supports it happening by purchasing vast amounts of Russia oil.
Kneejerk reaction but why should the UK continue to give aid to India, a country that not only will not condemn the invasion of Ukraine but actively supports it happening by purchasing vast amounts of Russia oil.
When at uni i wrote an essay about the myth of the `peoples war` and the blitz. Sadly exactly the same opinions happened then as it does now - unless you are under direct attack, no one cared. April 1941, one of the heaviest bombings of London, in Sheffield there was a miners strike (not sending coal to the south), in Eastbourne they were worried about drunken soldiers and in Blackpool it was the `season` and the best ice cream parlours.... in fact a lot of the press photos (milkman on his round, woman drinking tea) were all staged.
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 1,558
Is it really aid? Or is it bribes?
I think the government isn't as coy as it used to be, admitting it's more a democratic 'lubricant' than anything else. They've said it as much in the last few years.
Last edited:
- Status