How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Battlefront.com]

14 hours ago, Fenris said:

Small trench line attack, at first I wasn't sure whether it was training but there's someone shooting back at them.  Vision appears to be from a foreigner.  Guys might be new, they seemed a little hesitant.  Would it be better to keep someone on the 50's doing over watch?  Need more grenades.  Hope they're ok.  Until this came up, it's been almost 2 weeks since anything has been posted on Butusov's channel.

 

I wanted to bring this back into our attention as it got "submerged" by all the Dnepr talk (yes, you are entitled to groan at the bad pun).

There's a number of interesting tidbits in here, including a way to completely overpack a Humvee! (see the one on the left).  If these guys had intended on attacking this trench, they sure didn't bring the right mix of weaponry to the battle.  Each soldier should have had at least 4 or more grenades.  The cameraman got right up close and then all he could do was pretty uselessly plow 5.56 rounds into sandbags and dirt.  The defender finally had the opportunity to toss out a grenade and that forced him to retreat (fortunately doesn't look like he or his wingman were hit).

I also have no idea why we weren't hearing vast amounts of full auto fire from the Humvees.  Whether they had 50cal or 7.62cal weapons, they should have been tearing up a storm.  I think they weren't because the gunners dismounted.

Steve

[Seminole]

2 hours ago, billbindc said:

Blowing it up destroyed that leverage and was a lawless act at complete loggerheads with the US and EU role of supporting the international order from which they both benefit. If there's a fantasy, it's imagining that either would so egregiously violate the rules of a game they created for themselves for so little benefit. 

Would you consider releasing a virus like Stuxnet to be ‘a lawless act at complete loggerheads with supporting the international order’?

 

The notion the U.S. won’t break laws where it sees a benefit in doing so is laughable.  The only ‘international order’ under consideration is keeping the US on top.  
 

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo boasted, “I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole. We had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment.”

[Ultradave]

4 hours ago, Kinophile said:

Hey man, we've been able to drivel on for many, many pages about tenuously related and stupidly contentious topics so please, feel free to info-dump on us!

I for one geek out on this stuff.

Well, one thing I was going to expand on was my comment about RBMK reactor designs being as they were partly (or maybe mostly) to be used not only for power but for weapons material. I started to but then stopped.

RBMKs have low U enrichment, easy access to swap out fuel, and therefore fuel is removed for reprocessing after short burn-up time. All of these things are necessary for Pu weapons fuel, and RBMKs have it all.

Pu-239 is created in fission, as a decay product from neutron absorption, and so is Pu-240 (absorbs another neutron from Pu-239). Pu-240 is not suitable for weapons warheads - too much spontaneous fission. So you want (ideally) pure Pu-239. This is not possible, because Pu, unlike U, cannot be enriched. It's physically impossible. It can't be chemically separated because it's all Pu. So your only choice is to NOT create much Pu-240. Short burn-up times accomplish this.

All of this is the reason that "normal" light water power reactors are not proliferation concerns. There was a lot of talk about Iran's Bushehr reactor in regards to proliferation. It's a LWR, with fuel provided by Russia and spent fuel given back to Russia. Even if Iran somehow reneged and kept the spent fuel, it would do no good. 1) they have no Pu reprocessing capability - it's a complex process and few countries have it, and 2) too much Pu-240 to make it useful and weapons material. Iran's Arak reactor was reconfigured to no longer be a possible source of Pu as part of the JCPOA.

Oh, wait. We stupidly withdrew from that agreement freeing Iran to do what they want. (I guess I'm diverging from my diverging here)

The US has and has in the past, specialized reactors run by the DOE for weapons production. No civilian power plant is involved in that in any way.

So there - geek out all you want. 

I love physics and especially nuclear physics. It's the way the universe works, and it's kind of cool that we can observe and determine it all not because we can see the particles and waves, but because we can detect the effects they have and determine the characteristics from that. Some of it is really mind-bending.  Like pair production in gamma radiation - direct conversion of waves into matter and back again. My favorite phenomena. Just hard to wrap your head around.

Dave

 

[sburke]

4 minutes ago, Ultradave said:

Like pair production in gamma radiation - direct conversion of waves into matter and back again. My favorite phenomena. Just hard to wrap your head around.

Dave

 

I used to be able to see those waves, but I stopped dosing when I was no longer going to Dead shows. 

[Seminole]

10 minutes ago, Ultradave said:

Iran's Arak reactor was reconfigured to no longer be a possible source of Pu as part of the JCPOA.

Oh, wait. We stupidly withdrew from that agreement freeing Iran to do what they want.

The U.S. withdrawal was subsequent to the unearthing of radioactive material (via Israeli spying) that Iran wouldn’t explain and actively tried to cover up (they bulldozed the site of the ‘carpet warehouse’ before allowing inspectors - wasn’t good enough).
You’re dropping relevant context that I assume not everyone knows.    
 

In November 2019, the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog urged Iran to explain uranium traces found at an undeclared site. Reuters reported that the site was a warehouse in Tehran’s Turquzabad district. What is known about the site? 

In his 2018 address to the U.N. General Assembly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu alleged that there was a “secret atomic warehouse for storing massive amounts of equipment and materiel from Iran’s secret nuclear weapons program” in the Turquzabad district of Tehran. He revealed a photo of the building in question and claimed that Iran stored “300 tons” of equipment at the site, including 15 kilograms of unspecified radioactive materials. Netanyahu said Israel shared intelligence about the site with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and urged it to investigate the warehouse.

The IAEA’s efforts to seek clarification from Iran about the site began in January 2019. Inspectors reportedly visited the warehouse in the spring and took environmental samples. Test results leaked in June indicated that uranium was found at the site, but the agency did not publicly confirm the presence of uranium until November.

On November 7, 2019, Acting-Director General Cornel Feruta convened a special meeting of the IAEA’s Board of Governors and reported that the agency “detected natural uranium particles of anthropogenic origin at a location in Iran not declared to the agency.” Diplomats present at the meeting confirmed to reporters that the samples were taken from Turquzabad and that the uranium detected was processed, but not enriched. The acting IAEA chief said that the composition of the particles indicated that they may have been produced through uranium conversion activities, according to U.S. Ambassador to the IAEA Jackie Wolcott.

What explanation has Iran offered? 

Iranian officials publicly denied that the warehouse was used to store materials and equipment from its nuclear program. Even after the IAEA’s disclosure, the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) said that the warehouse was owned by a private company and could have been used to store old equipment from Iran’s uranium mine. The AEOI said that particles of uranium could “fly anywhere.” Iran’s Foreign Ministry has also accused Israel of setting a “trap” at the site and called on the IAEA to “maintain its vigilance.”

Besides its public denials, Iran does not appear to be fully cooperating with the IAEA’s investigation into the site. In his address to the IAEA Board of Governors on November 21, Feruta said that the investigation “remains unresolved” and urged Iran to comply with the agency’s inquiries. Rafeal Grossi, who took over from Feruta in December, said that the IAEA continues to question Iran about the site. But as of December 3, the agency had “not received an entirely satisfactory reply.” 

[Battlefront.com]

24 minutes ago, Seminole said:

Would you consider releasing a virus like Stuxnet to be ‘a lawless act at complete loggerheads with supporting the international order’?

 

The notion the U.S. won’t break laws where it sees a benefit in doing so is laughable.  The only ‘international order’ under consideration is keeping the US on top.  
 

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo boasted, “I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole. We had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment.”

You made an unsubstantiated, illogical, and flawed point and were shown up for it.  And as you do every other time you get a logic smack down, you resort to the tried and true Whadaboutism tactic to distract from the fact that you are talking right out of your backside.

Either make a point you willing to stick to when challenged, debate based on acceptable parameters of debate, or get off this Forum.  I think  I've lost my patience with you, if you haven't figured it out.  For sure I've given you plenty of second chances already.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

8 minutes ago, Seminole said:

The U.S. withdrawal was subsequent to the unearthing of radioactive material (via Israeli spying) that Iran wouldn’t explain and actively tried to cover up (they bulldozed the site of the ‘carpet warehouse’ before allowing inspectors - wasn’t good enough).
You’re dropping relevant context that I assume not everyone knows.    

Get your timeline straight... Trump said on the campaign trail (2016) that he would withdraw from the Iran deal, which he did in 2018 for no reason other than "it was a bad deal".  And when the withdrawal was announced, no specific reason was given.

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/5/8/17328520/iran-nuclear-deal-trump-withdraw

As for the real reasons to withdraw, the BBC has a pretty good list:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43902372

As UltraDave said, withdrawal was idiotic if the intended outcome was to have Iran be less likely to have a nuclear weapon than without the deal.

Steve

[billbindc]

42 minutes ago, Seminole said:

Would you consider releasing a virus like Stuxnet to be ‘a lawless act at complete loggerheads with supporting the international order’?

 

The notion the U.S. won’t break laws where it sees a benefit in doing so is laughable.  The only ‘international order’ under consideration is keeping the US on top.  
 

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo boasted, “I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole. We had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment.”

It helps to read to the end. "for so little benefit" does a lot of work there. 

Edited June 6, 2023 by billbindc

[Kraft]

Do we know yet how many AMXs have been lost? Ive seen evidence of 3 maybe 4 but oryx/lostwarinua havent updated yet

[THH149]

54 minutes ago, Kraft said:

Do we know yet how many AMXs have been lost? Ive seen evidence of 3 maybe 4 but oryx/lostwarinua havent updated yet

I haven't heard anyone say more than 3, from the 37 Marine Brigade.

[Seminole]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

You made an unsubstantiated, illogical, and flawed point and were shown up for it. 

The pretense that the US doesn't break the law when it suits us?  I think that's an 'unsubstantiated, illogical, and flawed point'.

I disputed, with an example (Stuxnet), the notion that the US doesn't break laws in the furtherance of its ends.

Do you remember when the DOJ dropped their gun running case against Marc Turi, because his lawyers were going to show at trial he was just doing what the US admin wanted done (shipping arms from Libya to Syria), and they didn't want it coming out?

One shouldn't lose sight of how immoral some of the decision makers are.  To think they wouldn't break the law is a joke.

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

And as you do every other time you get a logic smack down, you resort to the tried and true Whadaboutism tactic to distract from the fact that you are talking right out of your backside.

What you're calling a 'whataboutism' is simply another example of the behavior being denied.

The point that the U.S. will break the law when it suits it has not been refuted, or smacked down.  It wasn't even addressed. 

Do you think it was legal to tap Merkel's phone?  Or do you think it didn't even happen?  Is the idea 'right out of my backside'?

That's not a 'whataboutism', it's just pointing to another example of us breaking the laws our leadership decides to break.  Logically, how better can I dispute this than with examples to the contrary?

[MikeyD]

Yeh, but what about the price of apples?

[FancyCat]

 

 

[billbindc]

22 minutes ago, Seminole said:

The pretense that the US doesn't break the law when it suits us?  I think that's an 'unsubstantiated, illogical, and flawed point'.

I disputed, with an example (Stuxnet), the notion that the US doesn't break laws in the furtherance of its ends.

Do you remember when the DOJ dropped their gun running case against Marc Turi, because his lawyers were going to show at trial he was just doing what the US admin wanted done (shipping arms from Libya to Syria), and they didn't want it coming out?

One shouldn't lose sight of how immoral some of the decision makers are.  To think they wouldn't break the law is a joke.

What you're calling a 'whataboutism' is simply another example of the behavior being denied.

The point that the U.S. will break the law when it suits it has not been refuted, or smacked down.  It wasn't even addressed. 

Do you think it was legal to tap Merkel's phone?  Or do you think it didn't even happen?  Is the idea 'right out of my backside'?

That's not a 'whataboutism', it's just pointing to another example of us breaking the laws our leadership decides to break.  Logically, how better can I dispute this than with examples to the contrary?

You are right in one respect. It's not 'whataboutism' since you are addressing a point about it that I did not make. 

Any thoughts on the likely operational effects of the dam burst?

[dan/california]

 

Quote

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/06/06/counteroffensive-ukraine-russia-dam-sabotage/

Administration officials were encouraged by better-than-expected progress Monday, as Ukrainian units pushed through heavily mined areas to advance between five and 10 kilometers in some areas of the long front. That raised hopes that Ukrainian forces can keep thrusting toward Mariupol, Melitopol and other Russian-held places along the coast — severing the land bridge.

 

About as much good news as we could hope for, the land bridge is only  ~100k wide.

[Offshoot]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

The defender finally had the opportunity to toss out a grenade and that forced him to retreat (fortunately doesn't look like he or his wingman were hit).

I'm pretty sure it was a friendly grenade (it comes from the right-hand side and the cameraman's reaction indicates it is). But I think this just underlines your point.

[Heirloom_Tomato]

2 hours ago, billbindc said:

Do not underestimate how badly this will be taken in New Delhi and Beijing…not to mention the rest of the world that depends on cheap wheat. They are going to be about as unhappy about this as they would about anything short of a reactor accident or a tactical nuke. Governments fall from high food prices. Dependable price trends get a shock…again. It seems clear to me that the Russians are panicking, that the regime is in disarray and that an air of desperation has set in…which is why they did this…but there’s no way they would not try to pass the buck.

I think this is part of the wider strategy behind blowing the dam. @Haiduk has posted twice in the past 24 hours the Russians are trying to blow up the ammonia pipeline. This pipeline provides ammonia for fertilizer. https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/how-un-plan-russian-ammonia-export-could-help-global-fertiliser-market-2022-09-14/

The reservoir currently draining through the blown dam provides the irrigation water to 80% of Ukraine's irrigated crop land. 

So if the fertilizer supply is impacted and prices for fertilizer go up, either the price for crops needs to increase to cover the extra expense or farmers will use less fertilizer and yields will decrease. Either way, the consumer will pay more for food. With the water supply for irrigation impacted until the dam can be repaired, the supply of food will go down and prices up. As @billbindc says, governments fall rather quickly when food prices get out of control. I think the Russians are hoping the rest of the world will put increasingly more pressure on Ukraine to accept a ceasefire to stabilize the price of food.

If you have a garden at home, or room for even a few plants, it is not too late to plant a few more rows or a couple of extra tomato plants. Every extra pound of food you can grow for yourself this season, will not only secure your food supply, it will free up food for those who can't grow their own.

[sburke]

27 minutes ago, Seminole said:

The pretense that the US doesn't break the law when it suits us?  I think that's an 'unsubstantiated, illogical, and flawed point'.

His point was, the existence of the pipeline was a leverage point to try and manage Russian behavior, ergo it wasn't in our interest to blow the pipeline.

Beyond that yeah, the US like every state engages in actions that go beyond the law.  

Okay are we done here?  Can we get back to Ukraine?

[Sojourner]

31 minutes ago, Seminole said:

The pretense that the US doesn't break the law when it suits us? 

FFS, give it a rest already.

Nobody here believes the US is lily-white and it has no bearing on the topic at hand which is the war in Ukraine.

[Seminole]

1 minute ago, sburke said:

His point was, the existence of the pipeline was a leverage point to try and manage Russian behavior, ergo it wasn't in our interest to blow the pipeline.

Can you point me to a single US pol or member of the security state suggesting the existence of the pipeline was in our interest?  It's easy to find a montage of the opposite, but I can't find anyone suggesting we should allow it to exist, much less use it as a carrot with the Russians (did anyone engage in the latter, or is that entirely a speculated position?).

The leverage was over Germany.  The pipeline was an incentive to Germany to see a deal made at Ukraine's expense.

[dan/california]

5 minutes ago, Heirloom_Tomato said:

I think this is part of the wider strategy behind blowing the dam. @Haiduk has posted twice in the past 24 hours the Russians are trying to blow up the ammonia pipeline. This pipeline provides ammonia for fertilizer. https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/how-un-plan-russian-ammonia-export-could-help-global-fertiliser-market-2022-09-14/

The reservoir currently draining through the blown dam provides the irrigation water to 80% of Ukraine's irrigated crop land. 

So if the fertilizer supply is impacted and prices for fertilizer go up, either the price for crops needs to increase to cover the extra expense or farmers will use less fertilizer and yields will decrease. Either way, the consumer will pay more for food. With the water supply for irrigation impacted until the dam can be repaired, the supply of food will go down and prices up. As @billbindc says, governments fall rather quickly when food prices get out of control. I think the Russians are hoping the rest of the world will put increasingly more pressure on Ukraine to accept a ceasefire to stabilize the price of food.

If you have a garden at home, or room for even a few plants, it is not too late to plant a few more rows or a couple of extra tomato plants. Every extra pound of food you can grow for yourself this season, will not only secure your food supply, it will free up food for those who can't grow their own.

This is good assessment of what Russia might be trying to do, but as you say it is a strategy born of blind panic. A lot of countries might decide that the best way to restore peace, and therefore agricultural production, in Ukraine is to get the Russians OUT, permanently.

[Seminole]

2 minutes ago, Sojourner said:

FFS, give it a rest already.

Nobody here believes the US is lily-white and it has no bearing on the topic at hand which is the war in Ukraine.

It was in the context of the Ukrainian war that this was offered as a reason the US couldn't have been involved in the pipeline's destruction: a lawless act at complete loggerheads with the US and EU role of supporting the international order 

I concur the idea the US is lily-white, and thus couldn't have been involved in the pipeline destruction, is naïve.

[sburke]

9 minutes ago, Seminole said:

Can you point me to a single US pol or member of the security state suggesting the existence of the pipeline was in our interest? 

are you seriously asking me to go find evidence for his point?  Sure, I was going to pick belly button lint, but I guess I could do this instead....

[Seminole]

16 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Any thoughts on the likely operational effects of the dam burst?

I think the Russians did it to try and better shield the lower, left side of the river and reduce what they're required to commit in that region.

If it puts the Crimean water supply at risk it seems like a particularly defeatist move, though.  I don't know why you'd do it if you thought you could actually hold the region.

I think it creates too many problems the Ukrainians must deal with long and short term to imagine it outweighs whatever short term benefits they could possibly see in it.  I really can't put together any good reasons for them to this and reduce uncertainty for their foe.

[Seminole]

2 minutes ago, sburke said:

are you seriously asking me to go find evidence for his point?  

I wasn't asking you to go hunt for it, but I thought you may already be aware of it from someone, anyone at all, that had suggested what the poster was positing.

I'm not aware of any myself, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.  Didn't mean any harm in asking.