• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The Russian Invasion of the Ukraine.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reports now seem to indicate that the Israeli killed (Roman Brodsky) was killed by Ukraine forces mistaken him for Chechen soldier and state that previous reports of him being killed by Russians is false.

There is confirmation from his friends on what happened, but I can't find confirmation from Ukraine about this.

It does seem odd that they would shoot a person trying to leave the country...

I suppose it could be a terribly tragic mistake or it could be they weren't really soldiers?
Who knows at this point.


Either way, as I said, Israel isn't going to go to war with Russia over this.
Anyone who thought otherwise is living in a fantasy.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Without hijacking the thread too much.

I hate it when countries like Japan and Canada, most of Europe, probably a few others, are called non-nuclear powers.

I mean they are, but only the sense that a man with a gun in one hand and a clip of bullets in the other doesn't have a loaded gun.

If you have a domestic nuclear power program and any type of weapons system more advanced then horseback cavalry you're a nuclear power.
Click to expand...

I get what you're driving at, but definitions count. The NPT allows for the peaceful use of nuclear power. The NPT has nuclear weapon states. There are non-NPT nuclear weapon possessors.

In general, my guess is people use the term 'country X is a nuclear power', if they meet some vaguely defined threshold like having Y number of warheads readily available (which Canada, Germany, et al. Certainly do not).
 
Jimbo07 said:
I get what you're driving at, but definitions count. The NPT allows for the peaceful use of nuclear power. The NPT has nuclear weapon states. There are non-NPT nuclear weapon possessors.

In general, my guess is people use the term 'country X is a nuclear power', if they meet some vaguely defined threshold like having Y number of warheads readily available (which Canada, Germany, et al. Certainly do not).
Click to expand...

Russia does have a history of their people violently overthrowing their government. Well, just once I guess.

ETA: I meant to reply to this, not the above quote:

SuburbanTurkey said:
Russian ruble seems to be in free fall.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/28/business/russia-ruble-banks-sanctions/index.html

The sanctions certainly seem to have the Russian market in a panic. I'm skeptical how much the intense poverty that is going to hit the average Russian is going to sway Putin's decision making.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Imagine my surprise when I learned that "anti radiation pills" weren't a sick joke, but actually a sober and practical remedy.
Click to expand...

In an all-out nuclear exchange, it seems that iodine pills won't keep you safe from all the other ways you're going to get sick from radiation poisoning.

Maybe - I guess? - if you're far enough away from a the blast, you wouldn't be exposed to radiation except that which would wind up just giving you thyroid cancer. That will limit the effectiveness of iodine pill to and exchange of just a few (!) nukes, right?

That, in turn, relies on some self-restraint from the nuclear country that would already be gone when the very first nuke exploded.
 
Paul2 said:
In an all-out nuclear exchange, it seems that iodine pills won't keep you safe from all the other ways you're going to get sick from radiation poisoning.

Maybe - I guess? - if you're far enough away from a the blast, you wouldn't be exposed to radiation except that which would wind up just giving you thyroid cancer. That will limit the effectiveness of iodine pill to and exchange of just a few (!) nukes, right?

That, in turn, relies on some self-restraint from the nuclear country that would already be gone when the very first nuke exploded.
Click to expand...

There has to be a silver lining for people who no longer have a thyroid like my husband...
 
Paul2 said:
In an all-out nuclear exchange, it seems that iodine pills won't keep you safe from all the other ways you're going to get sick from radiation poisoning.

Maybe - I guess? - if you're far enough away from a the blast, you wouldn't be exposed to radiation except that which would wind up just giving you thyroid cancer. That will limit the effectiveness of iodine pill to and exchange of just a few (!) nukes, right?

That, in turn, relies on some self-restraint from the nuclear country that would already be gone when the very first nuke exploded.
Click to expand...

Mutually Assured Destruction isn't the only possible game in town. There's also Nuclear Utilization Target Selection doctrine.

Obviously a mass ICBM launch aimed at completely destroying the enemy's nuclear deterrent, as a precursor to destroying the enemy as a sovereign nation, would and should trigger a retaliatory strike of equal or greater magnitude. That's MAD, and that's the mutual deterrent that keeps the West from just ending Russia entirely, and vice versa.

But limited use of precision low-yield nukes to decisively end an enemy advance in a single airstrike should not trigger a mutally-destructive exchange of ICBMs. Russia would rather live to fight another day, then end the world just because its entire Ukrainian occupation force and supply train ended up in a radioactive crater.

And that scenario is where iodine pills would be extremely beneficial.
 
Last edited:
GrandMasterFox said:
Reports now seem to indicate that the Israeli killed (Roman Brodsky) was killed by Ukraine forces mistaken him for Chechen soldier and state that previous reports of him being killed by Russians is false.

There is confirmation from his friends on what happened, but I can't find confirmation from Ukraine about this.

It does seem odd that they would shoot a person trying to leave the country...

I suppose it could be a terribly tragic mistake or it could be they weren't really soldiers?
Who knows at this point.


Either way, as I said, Israel isn't going to go to war with Russia over this.
Anyone who thought otherwise is living in a fantasy.
Click to expand...

Are we talking about two different incidents here?
Or just fog of war?
 
theprestige said:
Mutually Assured Destruction isn't the only possible game in town. There's also Nuclear Utilization Target Selection doctrine.

Obviously a mass ICBM launch aimed at completely destroying the enemy's nuclear deterrent, as an obvious precursor to destroying the enemy as a sovereign nation, would and should trigger a retaliatory strike of equal or greater magnitude. That's MAD, and that's the mutual deterrent that keeps the West from just ending Russia entirely, and vice versa.

But limited use of precision low-yield nukes to decisively end an enemy advance in a single airstrike should not trigger a mutally-destructive exchange of ICBMs. Russia would rather live to fight another day, then end the world just because its entire Ukrainian occupation force and supply train ended up in a radioactive crater.
And that scenario is where iodine pills would be extremely beneficial.
Click to expand...

Very true. Russia, as in the Russian people in general, would certainly rather live than retaliate against a tactical nuclear strike on foreign soil. However, we do not know if Putin will react rationally. We also don't know if the people down the command chain will refuse an order for a nuclear retaliation. For that matter, we also don't know if Putin wouldn't use WMD's first anyways.
 
theprestige said:
Mutually Assured Destruction isn't the only possible game in town. There's also Nuclear Utilization Target Selection doctrine.

Obviously a mass ICBM launch aimed at completely destroying the enemy's nuclear deterrent, as a precursor to destroying the enemy as a sovereign nation, would and should trigger a retaliatory strike of equal or greater magnitude. That's MAD, and that's the mutual deterrent that keeps the West from just ending Russia entirely, and vice versa.

But limited use of precision low-yield nukes to decisively end an enemy advance in a single airstrike should not trigger a mutally-destructive exchange of ICBMs. Russia would rather live to fight another day, then end the world just because its entire Ukrainian occupation force and supply train ended up in a radioactive crater.

And that scenario is where iodine pills would be extremely beneficial.
Click to expand...
Understood, but how does response and counter-response and that type of escalation not get out of hand? Will the West let Russia set off a low-yield nuke with no low yield nuclear response in return? That was the self-restraint I mentioned.
 
lobosrul5 said:
Very true. Russia, as in the Russian people in general, would certainly rather live than retaliate against a tactical nuclear strike on foreign soil. However, we do not know if Putin will react rationally. We also don't know if the people down the command chain will refuse an order for a nuclear retaliation. For that matter, we also don't know if Putin wouldn't use WMD's first anyways.
Click to expand...

I just said this in another thread but Putin did use WMD's..Nerve gas in Syria.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom