Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This also illustrates that Ukraine, will not possessing nuclear weapons, does have nuclear material. In response to a tac nuke, Ukraine could theoretically smuggle in and set off dirty bombs in Moscow.
That would, for sure, set off WW3, including some tactical nukes going off — or worse.
This is why blindly cheering Ukraine on and supplying it with endless military support should not bring on cheer but run the blood cold.
Some posters brought up the possibility of the bridge blow up being a false flag. Whether it is or is not, between that and the Nord Streams getting blown up and the situation at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, it’s basically a laundry list of things the Russians can use to justify a strike back, ‘not bluffing’ style.
All the nuclear power plant crises/blackmail over the course of this war really highlight the hazards of nuclear power. It’s not necessarily a threat from within, or even an environmental issue. The far greater threat is human depravity and insanity.
That would, for sure, set off WW3, including some tactical nukes going off — or worse.
I mentioned it in RESPONSE to tac nukes going off. The nukes would have already gone off. The question is, would Ukraine just be the punching bag that gets nuked or would they respond in a way that causes serious and permanent damage to Russia. So far they have pretty much played defense and fought the war in Ukraine aside from a few border episodes.
More than half of Ukraine’s power generation is via nuclear.
The key word is over half. So if you knockout the other 50% , you have a real crisis on your hands. The EU was freaking out over the possibility of a 5-10% deficit due to margins being so low. 50% deficit would throw the EU back to the middle ages, maybe more so for Ukraine.
And I did think about the nuclear powerplants like Chernobyl and zaporizhzhia, but all the Russians need to do is knock out all power to those plants, forcing the Ukrainians to run those plants on Diesel or else face a catastrophic meltdown the likes of which would make Chernobyl seem like child's play. Keeping diesel powering those plants would take away diesel from their military and panic the world.
I don't seriously think NATO will start nuclear war over this. They will bluff that they will, but launching volleys at Russia will only seal Europe's destruction here.
Anyways, this is a very easy way for Russia to escalate without using Nukes.
I mentioned it in RESPONSE to tac nukes going off. The nukes would have already gone off. The question is, would Ukraine just be the punching bag that gets nuked or would they respond in a way that causes serious and permanent damage to Russia. So far they have pretty much played defense and fought the war in Ukraine aside from a few border episodes.
Ukrainians wouldn’t need to go setting off dirty bombs in Moscow if the Russians set off a few tactical nukes, which I assume would have been detonated in Ukraine first. Ukraine is already the punching bag, and the first tactical nuke is most likely to be set off there. There would be a swift and forceful international response to any tactical nukes getting dropped on Ukraine.
I was thinking that Ukraine may already have many fantasies of dirty bombs in Moscow. How would you feel about Moscow if you were Ukrainian, and how would you feel about that ever-cautious NATO not being decisive enough for you? Zelensky has called on a preemptive strike already, what is taking us so long?
The key word is over half. So if you knockout the other 50% , you have a real crisis on your hands. The EU was freaking out over the possibility of a 5-10% deficit due to margins being so low. 50% deficit would throw the EU back to the middle ages, maybe more so for Ukraine.
And I did think about the nuclear powerplants like Chernobyl and zaporizhzhia, but all the Russians need to do is knock out all power to those plants, forcing the Ukrainians to run those plants on Diesel or else face a catastrophic meltdown the likes of which would make Chernobyl seem like child's play. Keeping diesel powering those plants would take away diesel from their military and panic the world.
I don't seriously think NATO will start nuclear war over this. They will bluff that they will, but launching volleys at Russia will only seal Europe's destruction here.
Anyways, this is a very easy way for Russia to escalate without using Nukes.
And there’s your tactical nuke without having to launch a single missile.
And there’s your tactical nuke without having to launch a single missile.
Not necessarily, Ukraine could keep them up on diesel. But they and the world be held hostage until Russia stopped targeting the power infrastructure to these plants. It could be an easy move to force Ukraine to accept the annexed territories. Once Russia let's up, power can be restored, and risk of meltdown averted.
Of course, it's a significant escalatory step, one that Russia now seems unwilling to engage in. But it's on the table. There is no good response from the West, nuking Russia even if successful without Russia getting off their nukes [highly unlikely] will still render much of Europe uninhabitable.
Not necessarily, Ukraine could keep them up on diesel. But they and the world be held hostage until Russia stopped targeting the power infrastructure to these plants. It could be an easy move to force Ukraine to accept the annexed territories. Once Russia let's up, power can be restored, and risk of meltdown averted.
Of course, it's a significant escalatory step, one that Russia now seems unwilling to engage in. But it's on the table. There is no good response from the West, nuking Russia even if successful without Russia getting off their nukes [highly unlikely] will still render much of Europe uninhabitable.
The response is to provide Ukraine long range missiles that can knock out Russian electrical infrastructure.
Ukrainians wouldn’t need to go setting off dirty bombs in Moscow if the Russians set off a few tactical nukes, which I assume would have been detonated in Ukraine first. Ukraine is already the punching bag, and the first tactical nuke is most likely to be set off there. There would be a swift and forceful international response to any tactical nukes getting dropped on Ukraine.
Sure, so long as there is a forceful response but they might do something like that if the world response is more bark than bite.
Russia is a very large and vast country, even if we had the balls to do something like that, it would bankrupt us.
Though almost all of the ‘important stuff’ is west of the Ural Mountains.
Does it really matter for strategic purposes if the lights are still on in Magadan?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
