TheVulture

Umbrella of what? They have about enough material to make ONE uranium warhead nuclear weapon. They have a missile program, but really no way to mount and deliver a U weapon on a missile. They have NO capability at all of creating a Pu warhead weapon, which would be required for missile delivery. A Pu warhead is significantly smaller. Their one and only method of possibly getting Pu was the Arak reactor and that was permanently reconfigured under the terms of the JCPOA to not be a source of Pu for a weapon. They could process enough U for a weapon, do a test, then have to start processing more U for another weapon, which will take some time, although not a year as under the terms of the JCPOA. But even so, should they do so, I would expect an immediate and violent response by the US and UK at a minimum, to cripple their nuclear infrastructure. A lot is buried and it wouldn't all be destroyed but certainly would be significantly set back.
Highly, highly unlikely. Russia is a party to the JCPOA. They have no interest in having a nuclear armed Iran that close to them or their former -stans, which is a big reason they were a party to the agreement in the first place. The Bushehr power reactor in Iran is under IAEA safeguards and part of that is that Russia provides all the fuel, and they receive the spent fuel back. Iran has no capacity to reprocess fuel to extract Pu even if they held on to the spent fuel, and even if they did have that capability, Pu from spent fuel from a PWR is wholly unsuitable for nuclear weapons use. (That's why the DoD has special purpose reactors to do that). They would have needed the spent fuel from the Arak reactor and that is no longer in play. Even though the US withdrew from the JCPOA (a supremely stupid act, IMO), many of its requirements still exist. 
Dave

Please, guys, it's bad enough this thread has been dallying with conspiracy theories about how Russia invaded Ukraine because of Canada or something. I don't think it illuminates much about what's happening in Ukraine right now to theorize about how a conflict happening thousands of kilometers away - one which has been happening for decades longer than either Russia or Ukraine existed in their current incarnations - is actually all masterminded by Putin in order to... elect Trump?! I love political thrillers and spy stories too, but sometimes stuff around the world just happens, it doesn't all need to be connected to a sinister grand plan. For sure everything that happens everywhere in the world is connected in some way or another because that's the nature of human civilization, but that's a less interesting insight than I hope for given the expertise of people on this thread.

Between who? And why?

In Ukraine, both sides have modern integrated air defence systems,  with MANPADS, short range air defences, and longer range systems all the way up to patriot / s-300 / s-400 systems with huge ranges over 100km. They have the operational depth to locate these systems 10s of kms from the front line to help protect and conceal them. They have integrated radar systems, an air force with interceptors, and (to an unknown degree) at least potential access to airborne and space based intelligence gathering systems.
In Israel, one of the sides has this (more or less), while hamas has no air defences beyond whatever manpads they've managed to smuggle in past the Israeli and Egyptian blockades, and a territory that is a few km wide at its widest point, and an opponent that started from a position of such military superiority for decades than any attempt to build a meaningful air defence system (in their tiny territory) would be detected and destroyed long before it was even marginally effective - assuming they could even find a route to get a significant system in theatre without it being intercepted. Hard to smuggle an s-300 through a small cross-border tunnel...

In Ukraine, both sides have modern integrated air defence systems,  with MANPADS, short range air defences, and longer range systems all the way up to patriot / s-300 / s-400 systems with huge ranges over 100km. They have the operational depth to locate these systems 10s of kms from the front line to help protect and conceal them. They have integrated radar systems, an air force with interceptors, and (to an unknown degree) at least potential access to airborne and space based intelligence gathering systems.
In Israel, one of the sides has this (more or less), while hamas has no air defences beyond whatever manpads they've managed to smuggle in past the Israeli and Egyptian blockades, and a territory that is a few km wide at its widest point, and an opponent that started from a position of such military superiority for decades than any attempt to build a meaningful air defence system (in their tiny territory) would be detected and destroyed long before it was even marginally effective - assuming they could even find a route to get a significant system in theatre without it being intercepted. Hard to smuggle an s-300 through a small cross-border tunnel...

In Ukraine, both sides have modern integrated air defence systems,  with MANPADS, short range air defences, and longer range systems all the way up to patriot / s-300 / s-400 systems with huge ranges over 100km. They have the operational depth to locate these systems 10s of kms from the front line to help protect and conceal them. They have integrated radar systems, an air force with interceptors, and (to an unknown degree) at least potential access to airborne and space based intelligence gathering systems.
In Israel, one of the sides has this (more or less), while hamas has no air defences beyond whatever manpads they've managed to smuggle in past the Israeli and Egyptian blockades, and a territory that is a few km wide at its widest point, and an opponent that started from a position of such military superiority for decades than any attempt to build a meaningful air defence system (in their tiny territory) would be detected and destroyed long before it was even marginally effective - assuming they could even find a route to get a significant system in theatre without it being intercepted. Hard to smuggle an s-300 through a small cross-border tunnel...

In Ukraine, both sides have modern integrated air defence systems,  with MANPADS, short range air defences, and longer range systems all the way up to patriot / s-300 / s-400 systems with huge ranges over 100km. They have the operational depth to locate these systems 10s of kms from the front line to help protect and conceal them. They have integrated radar systems, an air force with interceptors, and (to an unknown degree) at least potential access to airborne and space based intelligence gathering systems.
In Israel, one of the sides has this (more or less), while hamas has no air defences beyond whatever manpads they've managed to smuggle in past the Israeli and Egyptian blockades, and a territory that is a few km wide at its widest point, and an opponent that started from a position of such military superiority for decades than any attempt to build a meaningful air defence system (in their tiny territory) would be detected and destroyed long before it was even marginally effective - assuming they could even find a route to get a significant system in theatre without it being intercepted. Hard to smuggle an s-300 through a small cross-border tunnel...

In Ukraine, both sides have modern integrated air defence systems,  with MANPADS, short range air defences, and longer range systems all the way up to patriot / s-300 / s-400 systems with huge ranges over 100km. They have the operational depth to locate these systems 10s of kms from the front line to help protect and conceal them. They have integrated radar systems, an air force with interceptors, and (to an unknown degree) at least potential access to airborne and space based intelligence gathering systems.
In Israel, one of the sides has this (more or less), while hamas has no air defences beyond whatever manpads they've managed to smuggle in past the Israeli and Egyptian blockades, and a territory that is a few km wide at its widest point, and an opponent that started from a position of such military superiority for decades than any attempt to build a meaningful air defence system (in their tiny territory) would be detected and destroyed long before it was even marginally effective - assuming they could even find a route to get a significant system in theatre without it being intercepted. Hard to smuggle an s-300 through a small cross-border tunnel...

In Ukraine, both sides have modern integrated air defence systems,  with MANPADS, short range air defences, and longer range systems all the way up to patriot / s-300 / s-400 systems with huge ranges over 100km. They have the operational depth to locate these systems 10s of kms from the front line to help protect and conceal them. They have integrated radar systems, an air force with interceptors, and (to an unknown degree) at least potential access to airborne and space based intelligence gathering systems.
In Israel, one of the sides has this (more or less), while hamas has no air defences beyond whatever manpads they've managed to smuggle in past the Israeli and Egyptian blockades, and a territory that is a few km wide at its widest point, and an opponent that started from a position of such military superiority for decades than any attempt to build a meaningful air defence system (in their tiny territory) would be detected and destroyed long before it was even marginally effective - assuming they could even find a route to get a significant system in theatre without it being intercepted. Hard to smuggle an s-300 through a small cross-border tunnel...

Since no one else is listening to Steve about Israel....
I am pro-Israel.  And I am pro-Palestinian.  Meaning they both deserve to live & have a state & have rights.  In my crazy mind Palestinians and Jews are actually all....people.
The attack:  I hope the crazies had fun.  All that will come of this is Israel killing over 10x the number of people it lost, taking land, and becoming more entrenched in hatred.  Like the bus bombings of 20+ years ago, which utterly destroyed the Israeli peace movement.  While great fun for some imbecilic radicals who think they actually achieved something, it will do nothing but bring death, misery and more poverty to the people these idiots claim to represent.  And Netanyahu loooooooves this.  He gets to be big daddy protector now, and he'll pound the hell out of whatever he thinks he needs/wants to in response to this.

I honestly do not even see that link.  Israel does not need anymore western support to deal with Hamas. The IDF is the 15th largest military on the planet by budget and has about 650k thousand troops to pull on.  They are amongst the most modern equipped and trained land forces in the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Defense_Forces
Hamas military wing is a fraction of that:
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izz_ad-Din_al-Qassam_Brigades
An although getting some pretty deep pockets for a terror organization, is not in the same league with respect to conventional warfare.  
I am not sure what triggered this whole thing right now, but my money is on internal pressures not international events.
In fact Hamas timing is actually poor.  With the West being distracted and somewhat numb we probably will be less likely to care when the IDF start pounding the ever living crap out of Gaza, followed up by a brutal ground invasion.

I see that Shapps has now backed out of both of these ideas on the quiet. 
It's Conservative Party annual conference time in the UK, so this is now looking a lot like "announce loudly, gather the plaudits, slink off quietly" to try and boost his standing within his party.

I just finished listening to a long interview with Andrei Kozyrev, Russia’s first foreign minister from 1990-1996. He was pretty interesting to listen to. Two things that he said are interesting to mention:
He actually ordered his staff to search the archives from the previous years looking for any evidence for an agreement or treaty or even a discussion about an agreement or treaty with NATO to prevent or restrict its expansion.

No surprise to anyone here, there were none. At the time it was just not seen as a pressing issue to discuss. The story that one existed is made up out of whole cloth. But we knew that.

I know that's boring I just thought it was interesting hearing from an insider.
  He said the West is needlessly tying itself in knots over escalation. Not pushing hard and committing to promises risks escalation. Giving Ukraine what it needs does not. I'm not sure how perfect his analysis of that is but I have to respect his point at least some what.

He said we should not back Ukraine for as long as it takes to win but instead back them so they win as soon as possible! It was a super line. His point is that Putin wants the war to drag on and for Western support to waver. Instead we should get more weapons systems in their hands faster and push harder to give the Ukrainians everything they want and need to get this job done as quick as possible. You can listen to the interview here:
https://www.aei.org/podcast/the-insiders-perspective-with-minister-andrei-kozyrev/

I see that Shapps has now backed out of both of these ideas on the quiet. 
It's Conservative Party annual conference time in the UK, so this is now looking a lot like "announce loudly, gather the plaudits, slink off quietly" to try and boost his standing within his party.

I see that Shapps has now backed out of both of these ideas on the quiet. 
It's Conservative Party annual conference time in the UK, so this is now looking a lot like "announce loudly, gather the plaudits, slink off quietly" to try and boost his standing within his party.

I see that Shapps has now backed out of both of these ideas on the quiet. 
It's Conservative Party annual conference time in the UK, so this is now looking a lot like "announce loudly, gather the plaudits, slink off quietly" to try and boost his standing within his party.

UK Defence Minister Grant Shapps is discussing plans to send UK troops to set up training bases in Western Ukraine, rather than having Ukrainian troops come to the UK, and discussed with Zelensky how the Royal Navy could "play a role in defending commercial vessels from Russian attacks in the Black Sea"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/09/30/grant-shapps-to-send-uk-troops-to-ukraine/
 

UK Defence Minister Grant Shapps is discussing plans to send UK troops to set up training bases in Western Ukraine, rather than having Ukrainian troops come to the UK, and discussed with Zelensky how the Royal Navy could "play a role in defending commercial vessels from Russian attacks in the Black Sea"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/09/30/grant-shapps-to-send-uk-troops-to-ukraine/
 

UK Defence Minister Grant Shapps is discussing plans to send UK troops to set up training bases in Western Ukraine, rather than having Ukrainian troops come to the UK, and discussed with Zelensky how the Royal Navy could "play a role in defending commercial vessels from Russian attacks in the Black Sea"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/09/30/grant-shapps-to-send-uk-troops-to-ukraine/
 

UK Defence Minister Grant Shapps is discussing plans to send UK troops to set up training bases in Western Ukraine, rather than having Ukrainian troops come to the UK, and discussed with Zelensky how the Royal Navy could "play a role in defending commercial vessels from Russian attacks in the Black Sea"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/09/30/grant-shapps-to-send-uk-troops-to-ukraine/
 

I read the newsarticle Seedorf posted that somehow claimed new kind of evidence surfaced but everything in there was identical to the investigative report that was published in germany more in depth roughly a  month ago and was discussed here too. The german investigative report was very onesided and ignored a lot of evidence  that pointed in russian direction and it failed to plausibly establish how the Andromeda could do the northsteam sabotage.  The only  new "fact" in the dutch article was that traces of the explosive HMX was found at the site of sabotage. I am no forensic expert but there are different reasons I would be highly sceptical of this fact. But even if true. HMX would be one  of the most probable explosives that one would use for such a bombing by diver. And if the Andromeda was a false Flag, then it would be very easy for the perpetrator to plant the same kind of explosive that was used in the bombings.
You say the complexity of the operation was overestimated. Do you have any idea what kind of complexity is needed to do this kind of operation? I work in UXO,UXB, ERB disposal in the northsea, baltic sea and rivers. I work on specialised ships and with divers (most of them  with navy background) that do exactly this kind of work that would be needed for the northstream sabotage.
The complexity of this operation is a LOT more than just being able to do the dive. The equipment needed just to do the simple dive ignoring all of the  other specialised equipment: on the ships I work on this equipment is located in  containers that are half as big as the Andromeda. All those gastanks alone do take a lot of room. You need a lot more of those for a deep sea diving suit/ hard-hat than you would for a simple diving suit.
The first problem the divers  had to overcome is to find the pipelines and then the right locations for the bombing. This alone is a very big problem. To locate those you need a depth sonar or a submersible. Good luck instaling those on the Andromeda.  In those depths it is pitch black. Those divers have to work completely blind. They are trained to do so but they still need instruction  by those one the ship  with exactly this kind of equipment that the Andromeda lacks. And on top of that they did this on the same day at  three different locations. And they did the dive on a very instable plattform which means high chance of death.
Then there is the question of  the explosives. The theory that was presented in the investigative report was that only a small amount was used.  There exist seismic profiles of those explosions  and those hint  at  a  bigger amount of explosives used. It is not conclusive evidence but it points in another direction.
Not one of the divers I work with thinks its realistically possible to do the northstream sabotage from the  Andromeda in a short amount of time.
There is more  I could write but it is already late here I have to work very early tomorrow.
One thing I have to say. The reporting on northsteam really does remind me on the reporting in german media about MH17 after it happend. The media tried to be "neutral" but it was mostly pointing in ukrainian direction and sometimes it was just reciting russian propaganda. Even after Bellingcat could show exactly what BUK was used by which unit german media ignored this evidence. It was only after the dutch reports with conclusive evidence were published that the reporting did change.
 

Does that mean that the main command center and reserve command center of the BSF have both been hit in a few days? (reserve on 20th, HQ today). Combined with the USV attack on russian ships and the dry docks, they are really turning up the pressure on the black sea fleet.
Well, if it's vulnerable, and expensive to replace, then why not. And it helps drive home the point (along with the increasing attacks on Russian infrastructure) that this isn't a war happening "somewhere else" as far as the Russians view it, but something that is having increasingly large effects in Russia that were obviously way beyond what was originally advertised.
Not that the Russians as a whole are going to be swayed by this, on current evidence...

Oh very clever.  Ok let’s have it out on infantry vs tanks moving forward.  Infantry are extremely cheap.  Putting human life aside, Russia has demonstrated that infantry, though soft and squishy can be replaced in the tens of thousands.  Tanks are big expensive and hard to manufacture at scale.  Infantry as humans do need a lot of support - likely why we will see more unmanned.  But they also do not need a recovery vehicle that also weighs 40tons, nor do they burn tens of thousands of gallons of gas per day.  An infantry soldier can survive on a few kilos of support per day (food, water and ammo), a tank needs hundreds of kilos all on vulnerable trucks.  Infantry can be pushed to keep going, when 50tons decides to stop moving it is done.
This whole “infantry can die to” as a counter argument to the continued trajectory of obsolescence of heavy mech and armour is not only illogical it is deflecting.
Infantry can disperse, dig in and hide.  They are able to cross terrain impassable to tanks.  They break down but are easy to replace.  They can fight in built up areas.  They do not weigh 50 tons each and give off enough heat to be seen from space.  They are cheap, light and now armed with ISR, comms and weapons systems that can kill a tank out past 4km (and with NLOS tens of kms).
Infantry have completely different roles on the battlefield and we have yet to find technology to replace infantry…we may never.  So come on the board and bleat all you want about the life left in heavy armour but for the love of gawd can we put that stupid “infantry die too and we are not getting rid of them” argument in the ground?  As soon as we can produce thousands of fighting tanks per week out of a global civilian tank population of 8 billion you may have a point.

Only the infantry controls the terrain. The rest of arms (artillery, armored forces, engineers, the air force, and even the navy when it comes to projecting ground power) are only there to act in a coordinated manner with the objective of getting an infantryman to finally take the objective.
If there is not some type of infantry in the future, it will be because machines have replaced us and humanity has become extinct.

Infantry are hard to see, very hard to kill in a trench, and don't burn gallons of diesel every hour. 
Having said that I am sure we will eventually see drones replacing infantry too.