acrashb

And a funny from DarthPutin:
 

For those still thinking about Nuke, apparently Colin Powell did so during the Gulf War and was appalled by the number of tactical nukes required to be effective.  So anything by Putin is likely to be symbolic.
 
 

And a funny from DarthPutin:
 

And a funny from DarthPutin:
 

Mid terms are still not certain, yet.  A lot can happen in a month. Even then, the Senate, both parties, is very pro UKR. A republican Congress can get its knickers in a twist all it wants,  but the Senate will stay the course. 

Collecting them as part of Russian victory conditions.

And now for some Russo-Ukraine war humour.  How not to carry your stolen macbook:
2022 Darwin Award: Steel Macbook Armor (darwinawards.com)
 

For those scoffing at Russia preparing defences prompted by the Tweet showing a linear obstacle being created, I might suggest that many would say something along the lines of "they've had months to prepare defences but didn't bother ... how amateurish" had they not done so - in fact there are a bunch of posts to this effect on this thread regarding ground that Ukrainian forces have recently liberated.  Integrated obstacles are a key element of any deliberate defence and are as relevant in the 21st Century as they have been since the advent of warfare as I'm sure @The_Capt will pitch in and confirm.  If this debate is to remain informed, we need to beware the confirmation bias that is evident from this criticism of Russia preparing defences as well as other related influences.  Objective and informed analysis should be our watchwords.

When viewed from space Elon musk’s ego causes a minor eclipse of Zelensky’s balls, but only briefly. 

Elon Musk denied the report from VICE. The thing is VICE is reporting that Ian Bremmer stated this, including that he spoke to Elon Musk who informed him about talking to Putin. So guess it's a question of who's lying.

I break it down this this way: 
1. Is he still trying to win? (Yes)
2. Does a NATO entry help him win? (No)
3. If NATO enters and he loses, does that let him off the hook domestically? (No)
4. If he wanted NATO in would he have done so already? (Yes)
5. Would it be easy to bring NATO in? (Very)
Until the answer to questions 1 or 2 start to change, you can bet he's not looking for NATO entry.

About bloody time - and not just for Germany.
 
I will remind all of us of ISW's summary from October 6, only a few days ago:

"As ISW reported yesterday, Russian forces do not appear to be focusing these [Iranian] drones on asymmetric nodes near the battlefield. They have used many drones against civilian targets in rear areas, likely hoping to generate nonlinear effects through terror. Such efforts are not succeeding."
If these missile and drone strikes will not achieve their goals, as ISW says (and I agree), then why do they happen?  Culture.

If a culture thinks that brutality succeeds, then things are seen through that lens.  I've seen it at some corporations, where effectiveness metrics are replaced by "how tough do we want to be".  It ain't about tough, it's about does it work. 

Russian military culture, which of course mirrors the larger culture, is about "how brutal do we want to be", as evidenced in all of their recent wars and in WWII, where my Romanian friend(s) describe their family's experiences with Russian soldiery as "savage". 
 

It wasn't accidental, Churchill, had to get the pressure off Fighter Commands airfields, whatever the bill. Perhaps the last time A Western leader made a decision that hard.

IRIS-T SLM almost in Ukraine:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ukraine-situation-report-german-iris-t-slm-air-defense-system-arriving-in-days
I haven't seen anyone bring this up yet but these revenge attacks remind me of The Battle of Britain when Britain accidently bombed a German city instead of a military target.  Germany started attacking British cities and quit focusing on British military targets.  This allowed Britain to win this particular battle.  History seems to repeat itself.
 

And one more, this is how hot the train fire was:
https://streamable.com/0tow6w
Melting steel is 'really' hot (I'll leave it to others to google).  Steel rebar loses its strength well below melting point.  Ergo the bridge is damaged, and may not last very long.

About bloody time - and not just for Germany.
 
I will remind all of us of ISW's summary from October 6, only a few days ago:

"As ISW reported yesterday, Russian forces do not appear to be focusing these [Iranian] drones on asymmetric nodes near the battlefield. They have used many drones against civilian targets in rear areas, likely hoping to generate nonlinear effects through terror. Such efforts are not succeeding."
If these missile and drone strikes will not achieve their goals, as ISW says (and I agree), then why do they happen?  Culture.

If a culture thinks that brutality succeeds, then things are seen through that lens.  I've seen it at some corporations, where effectiveness metrics are replaced by "how tough do we want to be".  It ain't about tough, it's about does it work. 

Russian military culture, which of course mirrors the larger culture, is about "how brutal do we want to be", as evidenced in all of their recent wars and in WWII, where my Romanian friend(s) describe their family's experiences with Russian soldiery as "savage". 
 

it is enough in the sense of restoring the territorial integrity of Ukraine.  I think however Russia needs to be treated as the pariah state it is.  To restore relations to the west, Russia needs to pay reparations and war crimes trials.  Until that happens the west should continue to isolate Russia economically and politically.

It doesn’t have to be nearly that hot to lose strength.  Even ~200 C you have to derate it by about 10%, and about 50% by 500 C, depending on the steel.  So you can relax out the prestress at temps much lower than where it gets soft.

No need to google
Steel will get soft (or forgeable) at around 1150 - 1250 °C. Melting begins at around 1400 °C. That amount of heat has surely gotten into the rebars, especially since it burned quite long. The structural integrity of this bridge is toast.

And one more, this is how hot the train fire was:
https://streamable.com/0tow6w
Melting steel is 'really' hot (I'll leave it to others to google).  Steel rebar loses its strength well below melting point.  Ergo the bridge is damaged, and may not last very long.

In something like this it isn't necessarily about what alternative pick you want but what your actionable alternatives are. Yes the rail would be a preferred target but it depends on what assets you have in place where and what their capabilities are. If you have assets with the means and capability to use the truck and don't have suitable infiltration to mine a rail car you have to go with the truck. So it probably is a case of going with what they had, either missile or truck.
It's a lot like smuggling drugs in the US. The vast, vast majority is moving from south to north and west to east. Every now and then one will get popped out of sync. When your connection is in Chicago and not Seattle, you have to get your dope from where you can. You'd really rather buy it out of Seattle (rail) as it is of higher grade and costs less but your only connection is Chicago (truck) so you get what you can from where you can.

And that was just a fertilizer bomb (ammonium Nitrate), a truck full of weapons grade explosives could easily take down a bridge.  For what it's worth, it looks like either a missile or a truck bomb, one or the other.

Either with us or without us .... congratulations on winning comedy hour with a false dichotomy.  I support a Ukrainian victory, I have a flushable toilet and know how to use it, so I tick the civilization box if that is the measure by which civilization has been judged occasionally in this thread.  I am not and never have suggested that Ukraine should cease existing, and I am not taking the Russian side.  So "hypocritically" shall I take a dump on the floor for expressing this view?

All you need is a massive amount of ammonium nitrate, and as Oliver Alexander noted, this would be consistent with all the bits of burning material raining down after the explosion.  A unitary HE warhead would consume all the explosive material instantly. Incidentally, this is also why the collapsed parts of the span at the explosion site are less scorched.  The horizontal surfaces around it accumulated more of the burning material that was showering down.
I mean Timothy McVeigh managed the same almost entirely on his own. I think the SBU could pull it off.

Apologies to Gary Larson