Don't mess with nuclear Russia, Putin says

It's is not appropriate...because? ???
I think we've dealt with more controversial issues than this one in the Bar. Is anyone being offended by discussing statements that I can only assume were reported reasonably accurately?
 
because this is secret projects forum. I spent 30-100 hours of my life on some projects to present here some pictures. When I ask you for a help on WS-202 it is probably out of your range because there are some "simpler" themes.
 
"Wanna try to loose a friend? Try to learn his political views."
"Wanna try to loose your job for government contractor? Openly discuss your political views at the forum your security officer or other employees are likely reading too."
There are plenty other forums to discuss politics.
 
Triton said:
sublight is back said:
Did he really need to play the nuke card?

I wish we had made a deal with Yeltsin to buy all their nukes and facilities, no matter how much money they wanted.....
Click to expand...

The Russian Federation was, and is, a sovereign country.
Click to expand...

They were in the kind of shape at the collapse where they might have taken a deal like that if the money was right. Even if it cost a trillion, it would have been worth every penny.
 
sublight is back said:
They were in the kind of shape at the collapse where they might have taken a deal like that if the money was right. Even if it cost a trillion, it would have been worth every penny.
Click to expand...

Not if history is any indicator. They'd have likely just used the money to make new nukes and laughed at our stupidity all the while. Kinda like they did.
 
sferrin said:
sublight is back said:
They were in the kind of shape at the collapse where they might have taken a deal like that if the money was right. Even if it cost a trillion, it would have been worth every penny.
Click to expand...

Not if history is any indicator. They'd have likely just used the money to make new nukes and laughed at our stupidity all the while. Kinda like they did.
Click to expand...

How many nukes were in Belarus/Kazakhstan/Ukraine? We could have purchased those and the money would not have gone to Russia. Instead all of those nukes went back to Russia.
 
sublight is back said:
sferrin said:
sublight is back said:
They were in the kind of shape at the collapse where they might have taken a deal like that if the money was right. Even if it cost a trillion, it would have been worth every penny.
Click to expand...

Not if history is any indicator. They'd have likely just used the money to make new nukes and laughed at our stupidity all the while. Kinda like they did.
Click to expand...

How many nukes were in Belarus/Kazakhstan/Ukraine? We could have purchased those and the money would not have gone to Russia. Instead all of those nukes went back to Russia.
Click to expand...

A more useful purchase would have been to outbid China for the floating casino. I can't believe we were so stupid as to pass that up.
 
flateric said:
"Wanna try to loose a friend? Try to learn his political views."
"Wanna try to loose your job for government contractor? Openly discuss your political views at the forum your security officer or other employees are likely reading too."
There are plenty other forums to discuss politics.
Click to expand...


I'd even go as far and say that by definition all topics on this forum are about politics one way or another. The reason the 'things' we discuss exist in the first place is politics.


Most of the topics we discuss here are of a military nature (heck, there's even a topic on the development of nuclear weapons). Let's not kid each other, these planes and weapons are designed for war. However nice they look, they are killing machines.


Now a member comes along, sharing his fear on what Putin may or may not have meant regarding the use of those weapons - and now all of a sudden this isn't the right forum?


Isn't that peculiar ...
 
sublight is back said:
Did he really need to play the nuke card?

I wish we had made a deal with Yeltsin to buy all their nukes and facilities, no matter how much money they wanted.....
Click to expand...


Did you know that 15% of the fuel used in U.S. nuclear energy plants stems from former Russian warheads? So in effect that scheme (buying nukes) has been put into practice already.


Having said that, a remark like that is rather spooky.
 
m1lkman said:
flateric said:
"Wanna try to loose a friend? Try to learn his political views."
"Wanna try to loose your job for government contractor? Openly discuss your political views at the forum your security officer or other employees are likely reading too."
There are plenty other forums to discuss politics.
Click to expand...


I'd even go as far and say that by definition all topics on this forum are about politics one way or another. The reason the 'things' we discuss exist in the first place is politics.


Most of the topics we discuss here are of a military nature (heck, there's even a topic on the development of nuclear weapons). Let's not kid each other, these planes and weapons are designed for war. However nice they look, they are killing machines.


Now a member comes along, sharing his fear on what Putin may or may not have meant regarding the use of those weapons - and now all of a sudden this isn't the right forum?


Isn't that peculiar ...
Click to expand...

Oh boy. . . ::)
 
Why is fusion taking so damn long? we need a paradigm change and cheap energy!! B)

But more to the topic it is a little worrisome that Russian Bear is even reminding the West it has "bad-ass" nukes.

How does that help Russia's position?

Imagine how anxiety inducing it would be if the US made a habit of telling the world: "Don't interfere with our interests, and stay in line behind us cuz we still got some damn good nukes."

How likely is it that Ukraine conflict could lead to nukes being used by either side in a limited way?
 
kcran567 said:
Why is fusion taking so damn long?
Click to expand...

Physics. Fusion powerplants aren't unavailable because of some dark conspiracy, but because the physics and engineering have so far evaded the efforts to nail them down.

That said: we've had fusion for over sixty years. And there's every reason to believe that fusion powerplants based on detonating H-bombs and capturing their energy could be made practical and economical. But go ahead and *try* to get just such a powerplant approved.

How likely is it that Ukraine conflict could lead to nukes being used by either side in a limited way?
Click to expand...

I would have said "almost none," but that was before some chuckleheaded separatists got hold of reasonably advanced anti-aircraft missiles and brought down a jetliner for giggles. Let them get hold of a suitcase nuke... shrug.

Still, seems unlikely. But who can tell. Always in motion is the future...
 
Orionblamblam said:
How likely is it that Ukraine conflict could lead to nukes being used by either side in a limited way?
Click to expand...

I would have said "almost none," but that was before some chuckleheaded separatists got hold of reasonably advanced anti-aircraft missiles and brought down a jetliner for giggles. Let them get hold of a suitcase nuke... shrug.

Still, seems unlikely. But who can tell. Always in motion is the future...
Click to expand...


Agreed, though I must admit that from this side of the pond (the Netherlands) it's a threat we are giving more serious consideration. For a child of the Cold War that's not something I'm particularly happy with.
 
Orionblamblam said:
kcran567 said:
Why is fusion taking so damn long?
Click to expand...

Physics. Fusion powerplants aren't unavailable because of some dark conspiracy, but because the physics and engineering have so far evaded the efforts to nail them down.
Click to expand...


I'd also venture that there's no military application (yet (that I know of)). What I mean by that is that Fusion technology today reminds me of the state of nuclear technology pre-WW2. It took a war to really progress things forward.
 
kcran567 said:
How does that help Russia's position?
Click to expand...


It doesn't. Then again, this remark was probably aimed at the national audience. Strong language by Putin is one of the reasons for his high approval rate in the Russian Federation.


Still an uncomfortable remark, because it does show how the 'west' is perceived by Russia...
 
m1lkman said:
I'd also venture that there's no military application (yet (that I know of)).
Click to expand...

Sure there is. A practical source of abundant cheap electricity without the nuclear waste, risk of meltdown, ambient radiation or risk of trouble if the reactor takes a cruise missile would probably make the US Navy giddy. Imagine if *every* ship in the Navy was nuclear powered. If destroyers had so much spare electricity that they could readily pack railguns. If refueling a sub or an aircraft carrier was not a job for a drydock, but a seaplane with tanks of liquid deuterium and tritium, or maybe even processing the nuclear fuel directly from seawater.
 
Nuclear fuel from seawater would be quite a thing. Wasn't there claims of making some type of hydrocarbon from seawater electrolysis breakthrough for the Navy? There was a thread somewhere.

Orionblamblam and M1lkman I agree. At least in the Cold War there was some stability, but with these separatists and fringe groups and sub-groups, and ever-newer groups it is unstable as to who is going to attempt something really dangerous, or even proxy groups to carry out some goal. Let's all hope things don't get too out of hand, y'know?
 
Orionblamblam said:
m1lkman said:
I'd also venture that there's no military application (yet (that I know of)).
Click to expand...

Sure there is. A practical source of abundant cheap electricity without the nuclear waste, risk of meltdown, ambient radiation or risk of trouble if the reactor takes a cruise missile would probably make the US Navy giddy. Imagine if *every* ship in the Navy was nuclear powered. If destroyers had so much spare electricity that they could readily pack railguns. If refueling a sub or an aircraft carrier was not a job for a drydock, but a seaplane with tanks of liquid deuterium and tritium, or maybe even processing the nuclear fuel directly from seawater.
Click to expand...


You're right of course, they are all valid applications. But I was thinking more along the lines of a new 'killer app' (no pun intended) that would let the world hold it's breath.
 
m1lkman said:
But I was thinking more along the lines of a new 'killer app' (no pun intended) that would let the world hold it's breath.
Click to expand...

I can think of one. Let's assume a few things, for the sake of argument:
1) A practical, seriously powerful nuclear fusion reactor can be built with more-or-less todays technology
2) The US had leadership that wanted the US to be successful and powerful

OK. So let's say that the US develops nuclear fusion. Perhaps the Skunk Works pulls it off in Area 51.There is now a fusion reactor the size and weight of a main battle tank that can put out enough juice to power a good sized city. What to do with it?

Step one would be to Tell Nobody.
Step two would be to mass produce them.
Step three would be to load a *lot* of them onto a crude oil supertanker, enough so that the tanker sat low in the water
Step four would be to sail it to, say, Saudi Arabia
Step five would be to sail *another* tanker at the same time, this time full of nothing but desalination systems
Step six: dock the two together. Fire up the reactors. Fire up the desal plant. Desalinate water at a blistering pace, and use the excess electricity to run stupidly powerful pumps to shoot the purified water in an arc well into Arabia.
Step seven: announce the arrival of nuclear fusion. Now practical, now commercial, available at easy terms for any budget. Announce the intention to buy up the worlds supply of existing oil tankers and convert them into floating desal/powerplants. Let it be made perfectly clear that you're going to be the magnanimous one and buy the tankers at a fair price because obviously there will soon be no need for *oil* tankers. Announce this in such a way as to make it clear that you aren't just *certain* that oil tankers will soon be superfluous, you're going to *see* *to* *it*that that's the outcome.
Step eight. Cry minimal crocodile tears about the fate of oil economies the world over. Tell the world that you'll be happy to help them in their forthcoming times of financial ruin... so long as they behave.

Cheap nuclear fusion would be *massively* powerful as a strategic weapon, even if it's never used to blow up a city, power a railgun, charge up a laser.
 
kcran567 said:
Why is fusion taking so damn long? we need a paradigm change and cheap energy!! B)
Click to expand...

We have had fusion power now for billions of years. We can access it now, today, cheaply and cleanly. It's called renewable energy and most forms rely upon the sun for their source, in one way or another.

All we need do is stop waiting for the myth of nuclear powered fusion.

But more to the topic it is a little worrisome that Russian Bear is even reminding the West it has "bad-ass" nukes.

How does that help Russia's position?

Imagine how anxiety inducing it would be if the US made a habit of telling the world: "Don't interfere with our interests, and stay in line behind us cuz we still got some damn good nukes."

How likely is it that Ukraine conflict could lead to nukes being used by either side in a limited way?
Click to expand...

You're assuming that Putin is making this statement for foreign consumption. In reality, it is for his domestic supporters, to remind them that Russia is "great", when it's feeling the ramifications of it's actions as sanctions bite into it's economy.
 
Justo Miranda said:
Fracking is the key word
Click to expand...


tee heee tee. If Europe takes the same line on it as the UK probably will , it'll be so tied-up in red tape, you'll be waiting a while.

Chris
 
Orionblamblam said:
m1lkman said:
But I was thinking more along the lines of a new 'killer app' (no pun intended) that would let the world hold it's breath.
Click to expand...

I can think of one. Let's assume a few things, for the sake of argument:
1) A practical, seriously powerful nuclear fusion reactor can be built with more-or-less todays technology
2) The US had leadership that wanted the US to be successful and powerful

OK. So let's say that the US develops nuclear fusion. Perhaps the Skunk Works pulls it off in Area 51.There is now a fusion reactor the size and weight of a main battle tank that can put out enough juice to power a good sized city. What to do with it?

Step one would be to Tell Nobody.
Step two would be to mass produce them.
Step three would be to load a *lot* of them onto a crude oil supertanker, enough so that the tanker sat low in the water
Step four would be to sail it to, say, Saudi Arabia
Step five would be to sail *another* tanker at the same time, this time full of nothing but desalination systems
Step six: dock the two together. Fire up the reactors. Fire up the desal plant. Desalinate water at a blistering pace, and use the excess electricity to run stupidly powerful pumps to shoot the purified water in an arc well into Arabia.
Step seven: announce the arrival of nuclear fusion. Now practical, now commercial, available at easy terms for any budget. Announce the intention to buy up the worlds supply of existing oil tankers and convert them into floating desal/powerplants. Let it be made perfectly clear that you're going to be the magnanimous one and buy the tankers at a fair price because obviously there will soon be no need for *oil* tankers. Announce this in such a way as to make it clear that you aren't just *certain* that oil tankers will soon be superfluous, you're going to *see* *to* *it*that that's the outcome.
Step eight. Cry minimal crocodile tears about the fate of oil economies the world over. Tell the world that you'll be happy to help them in their forthcoming times of financial ruin... so long as they behave.

Cheap nuclear fusion would be *massively* powerful as a strategic weapon, even if it's never used to blow up a city, power a railgun, charge up a laser.
Click to expand...


Cool! A positive killer app for a change!
 
CJGibson said:
Justo Miranda said:
Fracking is the key word
Click to expand...


tee heee tee. If Europe takes the same line on it as the UK probably will , it'll be so tied-up in red tape, you'll be waiting a while.

Chris
Click to expand...


Yep, and for good reason. Pouring toxic substances in the substrate also ruins the freshwater. Gas is fine, but let's use the hydrogen that Orionblamblam's fusion reactors can cheaply produce (if we then need hydrogen at all).
 
kcran567 said:
But more to the topic it is a little worrisome that Russian Bear is even reminding the West it has "bad-ass" nukes.

How does that help Russia's position?
Click to expand...
It helps Putin's strong guy image at home.
I believe USA presidents have long ago discovered that foreign politics can be a great tool in internal politics.

Surely the recent spate of Russian aircraft "straying" into neighboring countries' airspace can be turned into a positive thing in Russian internal politics too.
 
"Thank God, I think no one is thinking of unleashing a large-scale conflict with Russia. I want to remind you that Russia is one of the leading nuclear powers."

...could just be reassuring the ignorant and paranoid who expect anther Great Patriotic War and do not understand Mutually Assured Destruction. It is important to realise that (however untrue) most countries view themselves as the victims of aggression more than as aggressors, and most individuals fear more for their own safety than for the abstracts of international politics.

On the other hand - announcements in the press regarding new missile programs, gloating about new re-entry vehicles that can bypass interception systems and some of Putin's statements while in Crimea (if I recall correctly) are posturing with nukes. So, I don't disagree that there is ridiculous gloating around the nuclear card - but I don't think this quote is the best example.

I wish people would actually use appropriate examples rather than spinning inappropriate ones - especially when there are appropriate examples one google away.
 
m1lkman said:
Yep, and for good reason. Pouring toxic substances in the substrate also ruins the freshwater. Gas is fine, but let's use the hydrogen that Orionblamblam's fusion reactors can cheaply produce (if we then need hydrogen at all).
Click to expand...

Hydrogen is a terrible fuel, especially if you have an energy surplus. If you have practical fusion, then rather than turning out hydrogen, expend a little extra juice to crank out heavier hydrocarbon fuels that can be simply swapped in for current gasoline, avgas, diesel. Because I can't retrofit my car for a cryogenic hydrogenic tank. Nor can a jetliner readily be so converted.
 
flateric said:
"Wanna try to loose a friend? Try to learn his political views."
Click to expand...

As Timov Mollari pointed out, the secret to a successful marriage is a lack of communications. And as virtually all aspects of culture and history have pointed out, the secret to *popularity* is outright lying.
 
Avimimus said:
"Thank God, I think no one is thinking of unleashing a large-scale conflict with Russia. I want to remind you that Russia is one of the leading nuclear powers."

...could just be reassuring the ignorant and paranoid who expect anther Great Patriotic War and do not understand Mutually Assured Destruction.
Click to expand...

One of the big post-Cold War revelations (to me at least) was just how *little* the Soviet leadership and Soviet strategic planners subscribed
to the US promulgated theory of deterrents and MAD.
 
marauder2048 said:
Avimimus said:
"Thank God, I think no one is thinking of unleashing a large-scale conflict with Russia. I want to remind you that Russia is one of the leading nuclear powers."

...could just be reassuring the ignorant and paranoid who expect anther Great Patriotic War and do not understand Mutually Assured Destruction.
Click to expand...

One of the big post-Cold War revelations (to me at least) was just how *little* the Soviet leadership and Soviet strategic planners subscribed
to the US promulgated theory of deterrents and MAD.
Click to expand...

All one has to do to win a nuclear war is be willing to take more pain than the other guy. Here's something to think about: who do you think would be willing to accept more pain, Putin, the Chinese government, or your average US politician? I'd wager either of those countries could nuke Hawaii, tell us to sit on our hands or New York gets it and the politicians, after much hand wringing, "nuance", and general cowardice, would do nothing. Maybe somebody would fire off a harsh memo.
 
sferrin said:
All one has to do to win a nuclear war is be willing to take more pain than the other guy. Here's something to think about: who do you think would be willing to accept more pain, Putin, the Chinese government, or your average US politician? I'd wager either of those countries could nuke Hawaii, tell us to sit on our hands or New York gets it and the politicians, after much hand wringing, "nuance", and general cowardice, would do nothing. Maybe somebody would fire off a harsh memo.
Click to expand...

Sure, that's the logic that led the Narns to victory at Ragesh III. But we all know what happened after that...

Any US President who allowed such an attack to go un-answered would not be President for long.

Imagine Shadow Battlecrabs with USAF insignia going after whoever nuked Hawaii. Morden for President 2016!
 
sferrin said:
All one has to do to win a nuclear war is be willing to take more pain than the other guy. Here's something to think about: who do you think would be willing to accept more pain, Putin, the Chinese government, or your average US politician? I'd wager either of those countries could nuke Hawaii, tell us to sit on our hands or New York gets it and the politicians, after much hand wringing, "nuance", and general cowardice, would do nothing. Maybe somebody would fire off a harsh memo.
Click to expand...

I fear you're right and it's all the more plausible since we have no Launch-On-Warning/Launch-Under-Attack posture or policy;various senior officials have stated that we'd wait for actual nuclear detonation before doing something.

But sometimes, cynically and despondently, I wonder if a decapitation attack which would wipe out most of the present US political class and their paymasters might have salutary results.
 
Orionblamblam said:
sferrin said:
All one has to do to win a nuclear war is be willing to take more pain than the other guy. Here's something to think about: who do you think would be willing to accept more pain, Putin, the Chinese government, or your average US politician? I'd wager either of those countries could nuke Hawaii, tell us to sit on our hands or New York gets it and the politicians, after much hand wringing, "nuance", and general cowardice, would do nothing. Maybe somebody would fire off a harsh memo.
Click to expand...

Sure, that's the logic that led the Narns to victory at Ragesh III. But we all know what happened after that...

Any US President who allowed such an attack to go un-answered would not be President for long.

Imagine Shadow Battlecrabs with USAF insignia going after whoever nuked Hawaii. Morden for President 2016!
Click to expand...

"Mass drivers! They have been outlawed by every civilized planet!"

"These are uncivilized times!"
 
marauder2048 said:
"Mass drivers! They have been outlawed by every civilized planet!"

"These are uncivilized times!"
Click to expand...

Ah, someone begins to comprehend the genius of my conception. There are reasons why I support the conquest of space. Not least of these is that people get pissy when you start popping off nukes, but if you drop rocks on 'em from 220,000 miles up? Not nearly the same level of whining about the environment. Rocks are, after all, all natural. And the carbonaceous chondrites are even organic!

Now, mate this with the fusion reactor, and imagine the possibilities: a mass driver located somewhere in the Rockies so powerful that it can hurl a thousand-ton rock so far into the sky that it takes, say, 12 hours to fall back down. BAM! Someone decides to nuke Hawaii, we don't nuke 'em back. We simply start dropping rock on them and don't stop until the GoPro vids that pop up on YouTube get old and boring.
 
sferrin said:
All one has to do to win a nuclear war is be willing to take more pain than the other guy. Here's something to think about: who do you think would be willing to accept more pain, Putin, the Chinese government, or your average US politician? I'd wager either of those countries could nuke Hawaii, tell us to sit on our hands or New York gets it and the politicians, after much hand wringing, "nuance", and general cowardice, would do nothing. Maybe somebody would fire off a harsh memo.
Click to expand...


[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Maybe in 1962... today, thank to just-in-time delivery and loss of local skills/infrastructure related to food and production most cities would start dying within a few days of fuel and food shipments being cut off (usually less than a week). So, if a nuclear war disrupted infrastructure and disorganized relief efforts across an entire country for even a few days it could lead to collapse of many of the larger population centers.

...and that is overlooking the direct effects of nuclear weapons.

Also, speaking of indirect effects, some more recent studies were suggesting that a regional nuclear exchange (i.e. Pakistan vs. India) could lead to several years of global crop failures. Even mild nuclear 'winter' type effects may have serious consequences for civilisations (especially civilisation which has grown soft on a agricultural revolution which has produced such surpluses that we don't feel we have to store food).

[/font]
marauder2048 said:
Avimimus said:

"Thank God, I think no one is thinking of unleashing a large-scale conflict with Russia. I want to remind you that Russia is one of the leading nuclear powers."

...could just be reassuring the ignorant and paranoid who expect anther Great Patriotic War and do not understand Mutually Assured Destruction.
Click to expand...


One of the big post-Cold War revelations (to me at least) was just how *little* the Soviet leadership and Soviet strategic planners subscribed
to the US promulgated theory of deterrents and MAD.
Click to expand...



Do you have some references for this? It'd be fascinating to read more about.


I've heard that many Soviet commanders (military, not political) were pretty weary and feared the prospects of conventional warfare after 1945 (whereas, a lot fewer Americans had seen service or the effects of fighting a defensive war).

 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom