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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
Its interesting the nuclear winter "model" has been coming up for deeper and deeper criticism in recent years, so much so that "Since 2023, the U.S. National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine has established an Independent Study on Potential Environmental Effects of Nuclear War. The aim is to evaluate all research on nuclear winter, and the final report will be issued in 2024."

One of the big "advantages" of climate change is that there is vastly more known now (although probably still a fraction of what we could find out), and far better climate modelling is now available than when the first views of the nuclear winter were calculated.

For sure however, it wouldn't really be a very nice time to be alive.

Should also be stated that modern nukes produce far less radiation, but it would still suck to be alive for those that survived.

en.wikipedia.org

Nuclear winter - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...

Firestorm drones.. cruise missile with a cluster set of small drones that seek out roof tops of buildings.
 
Ukraine Intelligence: A prisoner exchange was planned for today, but did not take place.

Below is a statement from Ukraine’s Main Intelligence Directorate:

According to the Russian side, the cancellation of the exchange happened as a result of the downing of the Russian Il-76 plane, which was allegedly transporting Ukrainian prisoners. Currently, we do not have reliable and comprehensive information about who exactly was on board the plane and how many. For its part, Ukraine has fulfilled all agreements for the preparation of the exchange. The Russian captured servicemen were delivered in time to the designated exchange point, where they were kept safe.

According to the agreements, the Russian side had to ensure the safety of our defenders. At the same time, the Ukrainian side was not informed about the need to ensure the safety of the airspace in the area of the city of Belgorod in a certain period of time, as was repeatedly done in the past. Ukraine was not informed about the number of vehicles, routes and forms of delivery of prisoners.

It is known that prisoners are delivered by air, rail and road transport. This may indicate deliberate actions by Russia aimed at creating a threat to the life and safety of prisoners. Landing a transport aircraft in a 30-kilometer war zone cannot be safe and must be discussed by both sides in any case, because otherwise it puts the entire exchange process at risk. Based on this, we may be talking about planned and deliberate actions of the Russian Federation with the aim of destabilizing the situation in Ukraine and weakening international support for our state.
 
it's a provocation for sure. Who transports ammunition and enemy POWs together, huh zuh unless they are human shields you can use to get sympathy when you are shot down. And if it's true and the Russians didn't notify the Ukrainians that the plan would be flying into Ukraine for a prisoner transfer then it's a double provocation
 
Last edited:
NickK said:
Radiation mutation would pretty much remove life. The genetic pool in any bunker population would be too small to continue life.
Click to expand...
Radiation fallout isn't actually the biggest danger with a large scale nuclear exchange, it's the nuclear winter. It's been explained previously in this thread but basically the reduction in sunlight would cause temperatures to drop and all the crops in first world countries would fail and they would be unable to be regrown until next year, that essentially wipes out most of the third world because if the first world is starving then the will be no food aid. Then you have the issue of mass rioting/anarchy/looting in first/second world countries.

This realisation was partially the reason both sides started scaling down nuclear stockpiles in the 80's. Because it became clear that it was impossible to avoid MAD by hitting the enemy faster than they could respond as in order to achieve a first strike victory against another superpower you need an attack large enough to trigger MAD by itself, if it isn't then they will be able to respond (and trigger MAD).
 
Roar87 said:
The US claimed it was unsuccessful but that was in February, then it entered service in September.
Click to expand...
So we can pretty much say with certainty then that the test failed and that it did not enter service in September :P

Roar87 said:
An ICBM is essentially just a low earth orbit rocket, Russia has demonstrated they're capable of putting rockets into orbit since the 1960s
Click to expand...
Correction, the USSR demonstrated that capability as early as the 1960s.

The reason Russia has had such trouble with Sarmat is because it's their first attempt at a home grown ICBM, as the USSR used to get them built by Ukraine. This is also the reason Russia have had such a nightmare refurbishing the Admiral Kuznetsov, because Ukraine built all the aircraft carriers and so not only did Russia not have any experienced shipbuilders to task with repairing it but they didn't even have a dry dock big enough to put it in prior to 2022 (when they knocked two together).
 
17,000 Infantry, 4000 tankers and 5000 Artillerymen. Thats all the UK has as ground fighting strength. Add in that the rapid deployment last year to Europe, around 100 CR2`s actually worked, and many Warriors and other armoured troop movers brokee down. Yup UK is a defence only force now and in poor shape
 
Roar87 said:
In a full on nuclear war the death toll is estimated at 5 billion humans after the nuclear winter caused most of the planet not killed in the initial exchange to starve to death. This would set the human race back several hundred years, any technological progress would simply stop for the foreseeable future, it would likely be centuries until our civilisation had fully recovered. It would make World War 2 look like a meaningless skirmish in comparison. These are the sort of consequences we're balancing when handling this conflict.
Click to expand...

Most of the nuclear winter scenarios are unlikely or based on the peak of Cold War build up of big old dirty multi-megaton atom bombs and don't reflect current arsenals.

Not that the outcome would be pleasant as the major targets include most of the critical infrastructure of countries involved.

Most people are going to die of disease and the collapse of society rather than the impact of nuclear winter on crop production or radiation.
 
Rroff said:
Most of the nuclear winter scenarios are unlikely or based on the peak of Cold War build up of big old dirty multi-megaton atom bombs and don't reflect current arsenals.

Not that the outcome would be pleasant as the major targets include most of the critical infrastructure of countries involved.

Most people are going to die of disease and the collapse of society rather than the impact of nuclear winter on crop production or radiation.
Click to expand...
I’m also not sure they will be used in such a blanket way. Likely more targeted at military infrastructure so the other party concedes defeat.
 
HungryHippos said:
Whilst our army is kind of small, we have nukes. We shouldn't really need a large force.

I imagine that Ukraine will be considering how it can acquire nukes again after this war is over.
Click to expand...

Russia has nuclear weapons and currently Ukraine is openly attacking their infrastructure deep inside their borders. Nukes only matter if you're willing to use them. The UK would only use ours, like Russia, if someone were to use them against us or our state was at risk of collapse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom