Possible for Ukraine to beat back Russia?

[Encroaching Death]

Originally Posted by Jibartik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I wonder if they are going to find sooooo many mass graves in the russian territories they just liberated.

Gonna be a dark time [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm pretty sure they've already found some in Izium.

But who knows. Ukraine is also capable of pushing propaganda.

[Horza]

Originally Posted by Jibartik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I wonder if they are going to find sooooo many mass graves in the russian territories they just liberated.

Gonna be a dark time [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

lol how is Jib still simping for Putin?

[Danth]

Originally Posted by Jibartik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Im almost more scared of a world where we have wars but are 'rational enough' to lose them without using the nukes.

Susprises me a bit as well, but maybe not for the same reason. Rather I understand that smaller-yield tactical nuclear weapons are not some sort of world-ending monster, heck not necessarily even leave unmanageable radioactive contamination, so there's little practical reason NOT to use them where they'd be effective. They're kept in reserve almost entirely due to public and political pressures and due to stigma. Hence the surprise: Governments, including ours, are so frequently immoral and unethical and dismissive of public opinion that I'm moderately surprised the public gets its way on that one when it gets its way on so little else.

On the other end of it, city-destroying weapons yielding hundreds of kilotons or megaton+ are inappropriate for a conflict like in Ukraine where the participants do actually want to keep and use the areas involved. No sense conquering something if you level it and leave it a barren ruin. Note also that prevailing wind conditions mean a lot of fallout from high-yield weapons (especially if used for groundbursts, like you would when cratering runways) would also land back on Russia itself, making that an even more unattractive prospect even if political factors weren't in consideration.

Danth

[Jibartik]

Originally Posted by Horza [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

lol how is Jib still simping for Putin?

accusing putin of mass murder is simping for putin?

god you are an idiot.

[Reiwa]

Originally Posted by Danth [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Susprises me a bit as well, but maybe not for the same reason. Rather I understand that smaller-yield tactical nuclear weapons are not some sort of world-ending monster, heck not necessarily even leave unmanageable radioactive contamination, so there's little practical reason NOT to use them where they'd be effective. They're kept in reserve almost entirely due to public and political pressures and due to stigma. Hence the surprise: Governments, including ours, are so frequently immoral and unethical and dismissive of public opinion that I'm moderately surprised the public gets its way on that one when it gets its way on so little else.

On the other end of it, city-destroying weapons yielding hundreds of kilotons or megaton+ are inappropriate for a conflict like in Ukraine where the participants do actually want to keep and use the areas involved. No sense conquering something if you level it and leave it a barren ruin. Note also that prevailing wind conditions mean a lot of fallout from high-yield weapons (especially if used for groundbursts, like you would when cratering runways) would also land back on Russia itself, making that an even more unattractive prospect even if political factors weren't in consideration.

Danth

Neutron bombs to keep the infrastructure? Is my science right? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Danth]

Originally Posted by Reiwa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Neutron bombs to keep the infrastructure? Is my science right? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don't know if anyone fields them, and even if someone does it's not likely going to be in the numbers needed to depopulate entire regions. Their lethal radius from radiation is not going to be huge in a regional sense, and there's still a bomb there so you can only scale one up so far before blast damage/etc renders it moot. Nobody's ever really figured out a good use for them. With respect to the Ukraine conflict specifically, one of Russia's aims was in incorporating areas with large ethnic russian populations, so in theory they have motivation to keep civilian casualties to a minimum.

Danth

[Jibartik]

Wait, why dont they use neutron bombs? Are those just from anime and not real?

Or is it because usually all the wars are Americans attacking countries with no electricity?

[Encroaching Death]

But we're the good guys.

You don't want to be a....threat to democracy, do you?

[Danth]

Originally Posted by Jibartik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Wait, why dont they use neutron bombs? Are those just from anime and not real?

Whatever you're seeing in popular media is probably more or less a sci-fi take on such weapons that I would guess over-states their effectiveness for dramatic reasons.

In reality they were kind of a dead-end tech. They're not used because they're of very limited value: There's still a bomb and blast radius, so you still blow up whatever's at ground zero, and you can only scale one up so large (and not THAT large) before the blast radius rivals or exceeds any useful radiation lethality radius. If you air burst to limit local damage and fallout, which you probably would, then your ground-level lethal radius is even smaller. Not actually all that much use for such a thing in real-world conditions.

[Jibartik]

Originally Posted by Danth [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Whatever you're seeing in popular media is probably more or less a sci-fi take on such weapons that I would guess over-states their effectiveness for dramatic reasons.

In reality they were kind of a dead-end tech. They're not used because they're of very limited value: There's still a bomb and blast radius, so you still blow up whatever's at ground zero, and you can only scale one up so large (and not THAT large) before the blast radius rivals or exceeds any useful radiation lethality radius. If you air burst to limit local damage and fallout, which you probably would, then your ground-level lethal radius is even smaller. Not actually all that much use for such a thing in real-world conditions.

It's gonna turn out the only thing that was real is aliens.