Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

Status
Not open for further replies.
Orangeade said:
I thought cluster bombs were banned/ a very bad look? They have high rates of sticking around long after the war and end up killing a load of civilians etc? I remember we routinely chastised gaddafi and assad for using them?

Seems unfair on future Ukrainians that will live in fear of this.
Click to expand...

Lots of countries prohibit their use/ storage/ sale.

Countries that don't include the US, Russia, China, India, Brazil and Pakistan.

Funnily enough, Jens stoltenberg (NATO head, formerly Nowegian Prime Miniater) proposed the legislation on cluster munitions that led to the "ban".
 
SpellowHouse said:
I'm just going off the reports I read about it, in which scientists who followed up on Chernobyl.

Of course, no radiation is good radiation, but they were saying that, very surprisingly, estimates were way off on how many people would die.

Only the clean-up crews, subjected to high doses, were in any real danger.

As I mentioned before, this largely came down to "estimates" drawn up by the USA after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These estimates, for low doses, seem to be way off. The chances of developing a fatal cancer from a low dose seems to be far less than expected.

If you blow a reactor up, you just scatter fuel rods around. It's not that dangerous. It's only if the reactor has a meltdown, then it becomes seriously dangerous. And the only reason so many people received high doses, is because they didn't have the right gear and didn't have enough crew rotations. The West would not have done it the same way.

Mind, I am not saying everything would be fine. It wouldn't. Just it wouldn't be as catastrophic as the media would claim.
Click to expand...

It is still very very dangerous in the local area if you scatter radioactive material around from an explosion - the bulk of such material from Chernobyl was deposited within 20 miles - it was the meltdown and runaway burn off which made Chernobyl so bad on a widespread scale - it is difficult to replicate those conditions with any reactor not of the same, unmodified, design as at Chernobyl. There is also the factors that some radiation sources are short lived and other isotopes, etc. can be very dangerous for a very long time.

Any concentrations carried outside of the local area i.e. by water sources would also be very very bad.

There is a lot of hysteria around it and ZNPP is very unlikely to be an event remotely like Chernobyl but it could still be very bad with potential for non-negligible contribution to cancer rates, etc. in more widespread areas and local areas a patchwork of low through to extremely deadly areas due to the distribution of material.
 
Practically a conga of JSTARS and Sentries, etc. over Poland this morning, no idea why - usually don't see that unless there are missile launches or other activity which is more usually late at night.

EDIT: Dunno if related to the airborne command post up over Russia - possibly Putin on the move. (EDIT: Second one up).
 
Last edited:
Angilion said:
The person you're replying to explicitly referred to 8 people who died from exposure and who didn't enter the reactor building. That's very different to all deaths in the whole of Europe.

The number of deaths undoubtably caused by Chernobyl is 30. The number of deaths maybe caused by Chernobyl is...some amount. The UN's estimate is about 4000. The problem is that you can't really tell for sure. If someone dies 30 years later from cancer, was that cancer caused by Chernobyl? If average death rates are higher in a region, is that due to Chernobyl or some other factor? There are many other factors affecting average death rates in an area.
Click to expand...
Thank you for clarifying.
 
Busy morning out there for NATO and Russia:

8M5CmcV.png


Not sure if the MRTT is just there for refuelling (quite a few air tankers up) or putting some of its other capabilities to use.
 
Angilion said:
You're saying things that are obviously untrue, making obviously false accusations against people. Not just fabricating stuff but also going directly against what they actually said.

There are two possibilities:

i) You believe what you're saying, in which case you're delusional and hallucinating.
ii) You don't believe what you're saying, in which case you're lying.

It's one or the other.

What you're doing is demanding obedience to violent psychopathy (literally gaining pleasure from snuff videos, with the more suffering the more joy you get from watching it), with the force you're applying to compel obedience being false accusations. The only reason anyone doesn't have to obey you is that you don't have enough power or knowledge (e.g. you have no idea who I am, so you can't take much action against me) so your false accusations aren't harmful enough.
Click to expand...
They aren't snuff videos tho that's where YOUR obvious lie is exposed, using a false but emotive word IS propaganda, it's straight out of a Russian bot farm play book.

I don't care if you're being paid or just stupidly parroting your favourite internet dumb dumb.

now you're making stuff up nobodies getting joy from killing, least of all me, you're making up lies. What's with all the obey stuff, do you think I'm part of the matrix, lol.
 
Last edited:
mstdn.social

NOELREPORTS (@[email protected])

Attached: 1 video A Russian tank is being hit by FPV drones and is immobilized. This happened on the bridge over the Konka river close to Oleshky. It shows how Ukrainian forces can pin down Russian forces 3km from the bridgehead at the Antonivskyi bridge. 46.63564734287024, 32.722727396446096
mstdn.social mstdn.social

Looks like the Bridge North of Oleshky is still standing.
 
SpellowHouse said:
That's what makes it such a popcorn moment.

I have long said that Russia just might do something like this and use it as an excuse to get out of Ukraine. Putin needs an exit clause. Will he use this? And what if he does? There are rumours that NATO might use this as a reason to actually go in. What will happen if they do? It's all edge of the seat stuff.

As for radiation, it's seriously over-hyped. It's not as dangerous as everyone thinks. But sure will get the media hyped up.

This is better than any Bond movie!!
Click to expand...
Better than any Bond movie? Are you an idiot? The last thing anyone needs is a nuclear accident, deliberate or otherwise
 
Also don't think Putin would use a disaster at ZNPP as a get out of Ukraine clause - ultimately it is in his interests to turn into and keep Ukraine a failed state (not so much for China though) if he can't accomplish anything else - to that end I wouldn't be surprised if there was an incident at ZNPP but not followed by an exit of Russia.
 
Last edited:
SpellowHouse said:
If you blow a reactor up, you just scatter fuel rods around. It's not that dangerous. It's only if the reactor has a meltdown, then it becomes seriously dangerous. And the only reason so many people received high doses, is because they didn't have the right gear and didn't have enough crew rotations. The West would not have done it the same way.
Click to expand...

Your ignorance is showing. Blowing up a nuclear reactor that has been operating with its current fuel rods for a long period and scattering fragments of those fuel rods all around a large area is the worst case scenario for a nuclear accident. The reactor does not have to meltdown to cause a huge release of radiation. The fuel rods contain large amounts of short-lived highly radioactive fission products along with freshly made short-lived transuranic elements and other neutron-generated highly radioactive isotopes. The quantity of radiation and nature of that radiation (highly penetrating gamma rays) mean that even remote-controlled robots will quickly wear out and have to be replaced during a clean-up operation.

Regarding Chernobyl, the RBMK reactor the Soviets used was a death-trap with a known safety design flaw which they covered up for years. The West would not have used such a dangerous reactor in the first place. If having used fuel rod debris lying around is so harmless then why did they evacuate an area of 2,600 Km2 (1,000 square miles) around the reactor after the accident in 1986 which is still off-limits for human habitation?

For the Russians to deliberately engineer a nuclear reactor failure is unforgivable. A quick death is too good for Putin. He deserves the death of a thousand cuts.
 
SpellowHouse said:
I'm just going off the reports I read about it, in which scientists who followed up on Chernobyl.

Of course, no radiation is good radiation, but they were saying that, very surprisingly, estimates were way off on how many people would die.

Only the clean-up crews, subjected to high doses, were in any real danger.

As I mentioned before, this largely came down to "estimates" drawn up by the USA after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These estimates, for low doses, seem to be way off. The chances of developing a fatal cancer from a low dose seems to be far less than expected.

If you blow a reactor up, you just scatter fuel rods around. It's not that dangerous. It's only if the reactor has a meltdown, then it becomes seriously dangerous. And the only reason so many people received high doses, is because they didn't have the right gear and didn't have enough crew rotations. The West would not have done it the same way.

Mind, I am not saying everything would be fine. It wouldn't. Just it wouldn't be as catastrophic as the media would claim.
Click to expand...

Was a nuclear expert on the radio saying pretty much the same - if Putin blows the plant it won't be the disaster everyone is makng out it to be, and despite the size of the plant the effect would be prety much the same as chernobyl i.e there isn't going to be radiatin blowing into poland to trigger article 5 or anything. He got a bit technical but in essence he was saying it wouldn't really be "too" dangerous and would be a pretty stupid thing for Putin to do
 
Maple Leaf said:
Blowing up a nuclear reactor that has been operating with its current fuel rods for a long period and scattering fragments of those fuel rods all around a large area is the worst case scenario for a nuclear accident. The reactor does not have to meltdown to cause a huge release of radiation.
Click to expand...

Not quite the worst case scenario - it was that combined with the meltdown and runaway fire at Chernobyl that is largely responsible for spreading large amount of contaminated material over a wide area (1000s of miles) - the explosion deposited some material into the atmosphere but most was spread within 20 miles (EDIT: For completeness those fuel rod fragments, etc. scattered within a local area can still contaminate things which will then be carried into a wider area or themselves moved around by environmental conditions and so on).
 
Last edited:
Still haven't seen anything said of any animosity between Prigozhin and Putin, it was always Prigozhin having conflicting views with Shoigu. I think Putin and Prigozhin like and respect each other.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom