<3
<3
WW2 can give you an answer to that.Originally Posted by rufuske
The Japanese fought so hard on the islands in the pacific.
US wasn't willing to go through the same on the Japanese mainland and wanted a quick end to the war.
Two, what is now considered tactical nukes, brought a quick surrender.
So there is precedence for using those in Ukraine, but I don't think Russia will get the desired outcome.
Why is it called earth, when it is mostly water???
Good luck
With how things are now it would have exactly opposite effect.WW2 can give you an answer to that.
The Japanese fought so hard on the islands in the pacific.
US wasn't willing to go through the same on the Japanese mainland and wanted a quick end to the war.
Two, what is now considered tactical nukes, brought a quick surrender.
So there is precedence for using those in Ukraine, but I don't think Russia will get the desired outcome.
If a nuke was going to be used for "end the war that we're all in" reasons, we're not close to all being in it yet.
To cut the speculations a bit short: https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
Pick the bomb of your choice, pick a spot on the map, see what it does. Fiddle with settings. Don't forget to enable fallout in the other settings - and do a surface explosion, otherwise there'll be no fallout.
Last edited by Joe Appleby; April 4 2022 at 12:33:47 PM.
nevar forget
I served my conscription in an AA unit. It's only purpose of existence was the fact that radar has the issues you described. In case of a war, we would have been the last AA defense close by the potential target, in case planes/helicopters managed to "sneak by" all radar by flying very low. That's why an AA unit consisted of two crews: the actual AA gun with its crew and a dedicated observer (with binoculars) crew 10km in front of the AA gun. That crew was supposed to pick up the low flying aircraft and report them back to the AA gun with direction and heading, so that the gun can do its job.Supposedly it was a couple helicopters flying low the whole way there and back, which a good air defense system should be able to pick up, but radar systems do struggle to differentiate aircraft from ground clutter. Many of the advances in radar tech over the last couple decades have been centered around how to focus a beam and only get a response from where you want it. Still, there are limits to resolution and a helicopter that's less than 50 feet from the ground is going to be tough to spot except by a Mk I eyeball.
Fun fact: we we're told - half serious, half joking, "If you spot a Hind, don't shoot - duck and cover!" as our 20mm shells apparently wouldn't do any real damage to its bottom armor plating, but when you shoot at it, you anger it and give away your (stationary) position...
The difference is: the U.S. did it based on a calculated decision. Presumably it'll save lives in the end by ending it quick. Sure, in hindsight this was an atrocity. But the U.S. got away with it, because the good guys used it on the bad guys.WW2 can give you an answer to that.
The Japanese fought so hard on the islands in the pacific.
US wasn't willing to go through the same on the Japanese mainland and wanted a quick end to the war.
Two, what is now considered tactical nukes, brought a quick surrender.
So there is precedence for using those in Ukraine, but I don't think Russia will get the desired outcome.
Now, looking how the Ukraine war is playing out for Russia, this time around nuclear weapons will be used out od desperation/frustration. And it's the bad guy potentially making use of it.
I don't quite get the commotion over nuclear weapons, which remain the single greatest military taboo, and excite the imagination as this thread demonstrates. It seems to me there would be no tactical or strategic purpose to it, so long as NATO doesn't intervene directly and Ukraine doesn't siege Moscow. For this scale of conflict I'd think chemical weapons would have much of the same benefits (demoralization, disruption of Ukraine's economy, weakening of entrenched military targets...), without actually leveling cities and with a much lower chance of escalation. There are after all precedents of using chemical weapons in complete impunity, such as the Soviet use of nerve gas in Afghanistan, or more recently in Syria even after Obama claimed it was a red line that would trigger an intervention that never materialized. This is all speculative of course and I don't claim to be an expert on such matters, but in spite of the atrocities that have emerged and heinous Russian rhetoric, we are still a meaningful step away from weapons of mass destruction, thankfully. I hope not to be proven wrong.The difference is: the U.S. did it based on a calculated decision. Presumably it'll save lives in the end by ending it quick. Sure, in hindsight this was an atrocity. But the U.S. got away with it, because the good guys used it on the bad guys.WW2 can give you an answer to that.
The Japanese fought so hard on the islands in the pacific.
US wasn't willing to go through the same on the Japanese mainland and wanted a quick end to the war.
Two, what is now considered tactical nukes, brought a quick surrender.
So there is precedence for using those in Ukraine, but I don't think Russia will get the desired outcome.
Now, looking how the Ukraine war is playing out for Russia, this time around nuclear weapons will be used out od desperation/frustration. And it's the bad guy potentially making use of it.
The irony of nuclear weapons is that they're absolutely useless for 99.999% of the time and cost an absolute fortune to maintain, thereby draining the country of military and economic resources that would be better used elsewhere.
https://wargaming.com/en/news/busine...ons-worldwide/Wargaming announces decision to leave Russia and Belarus
Over the past weeks, Wargaming has been conducting a strategic review of business operations worldwide. The company has decided it will not own or operate any businesses in Russia and Belarus and will leave both countries.
Effective March 31 the company transferred its live games business in Russia and Belarus to local management of Lesta Studio that is no longer affiliated with Wargaming. The company will not profit from this process either today or going forward. Much to the contrary we expect to suffer substantial losses as a direct result of this decision.
We will be completing the operational transition with all due speed while remaining in full compliance with all laws and ensuring the ongoing safety and support of our employees. During the transition period the live products will remain available in Russia and Belarus and will be operated by the new owner.
Wargaming has also started the process of closing its studio in Minsk, Belarus.
We will be providing as much severance and support as possible to our employees affected by the change.
Despite the magnitude of this decision, we as a company are confident in the future of our business and are committed to delivering quality games to our players.
Wait, I thought they were wholly Russian?
nevar forget
Let's support our genocidal leader from cozy Germoney.
Just to put Candy's bullshit into perspective: that has seen only negative press coverage, social media was disgusted (outside of Russian troll farms). However Russian-Germans/German-Russians form a rather considerable minority in Germany so such displays aren't a surprise.
While freedom of expression is still protected, using the Z to show support for the war is a crime. The police started investigating a few instances of that during that car rally. The statue for that is section 140 of the German penal code, which makes showing support or rewarding certain crimes a crime itself. Mind you, not all crimes, just specific ones like those listed in the section. In this case: section 13 of the Code of Crimes against International Law (war of aggression).
The basis for the German Code of Crimes against International Law is the Rome Statute of the ICC.
nevar forget
![Lowa [NSN]'s Avatar](image.php?s=274a87ed14ba52624d698425ef79fac7&u=1329&dateline=1364741468 "Lowa [NSN]'s Avatar")
A part of me is quite frankly starting to think enough is enough, free speech or not. The idea of force deporting people that supports that kind of stuff isnt such a bad one. If you like it so much you can just as well be there and support it from the front lines.
Just like I'm basically fully support taking away citizen ship and deporting/not taking anyone back that joined ISIS. If you chose to support the most vile creatures on earth you have forfeited any rights to be part of the rest of us.
I know its more complex than that but also, I'm not sure it should be. I like that G was quick with being harsh on using the Z tho, make a couple of hard examples real quick and we'll see what happens.
For Joe:
So Franziska Giffey, the mayor of Berlin, and the police authorized this shameful procession on the day of the massacre of civilians in Butcha because freedom of assembly.
And you are talking about negative press coverage. Sorry for hurting their feelings. ARE YOU OUT YOUR FUCKING MIND? And Germans are mildly disgusted. You works with children, how do you feel about this?, just not to post NSFW. And if our Russian minority can't/want follow and accept our laws and way of life they are free to go back to their wonderland and dream about Russian Empire, maybe they could also join the Russian army.
And because you like to talk about the laws, I can tell you the strongest legal basis for punishment would be "volksverhetzung" (incitement to racial or religious hatred) §130 StGB
(1) Whoever, in a manner likely to disturb the public peace,
incites hatred, violence or arbitrariness against a national, racial, religious or ethnic group, against parts of the population or against an individual on account of his membership of a aforementioned group or part of the population; or
attacks the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously disparaging or defaming a aforementioned group, part of the population or an individual because of his membership in aforementioned group or part of the population, shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of three months to five years.
Realistically though? It's not gonna happen. Germany tends to only apply this law to German people with national socialist tendencies. We've had Turkish people openly calling for the execution of Germans after Erdogan riled them up, we've had Arabs celebrating ISIS and Israelis asking to bombard Palestine civilians back into the stone age - and now we have Russians openly supporting genocide.
And I don't care if out of about 27.000 Russians living in Berlin, about 800 (if we count 2 per car) came to this "demonstration" that's about 3%. Silent majority doesn't matter. Afghanistan is a sad example.
yes but they also stop you being invaded in the first place, which makes all of the other things quite relative.
Look, people have done plenty of bad shit in the past, including the US and UK. Russia's actions are evil and indefensible, but freedom of expression and the right to protest are central to our political system. You can't start deporting people as a kneejerk reaction.
And this is why it's so difficult to silence fake news - it;s deliberately intertwined with real information to make attempts to silence it far too oppressive.Look, people have done plenty of bad shit in the past, including the US and UK. Russia's actions are evil and indefensible, but freedom of expression and the right to protest are central to our political system. You can't start deporting people as a kneejerk reaction.
I frankly do not believe that the Russian troops in Ukraine will fight that hard for Ukraine. Putin might try and order them to but there's a large gap between that and the actuality.WW2 can give you an answer to that.
The Japanese fought so hard on the islands in the pacific.
US wasn't willing to go through the same on the Japanese mainland and wanted a quick end to the war.
Two, what is now considered tactical nukes, brought a quick surrender.
So there is precedence for using those in Ukraine, but I don't think Russia will get the desired outcome.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks