Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Corvus]

Oil depot reportedly on fire in Bryansk, Russia, about 100 km from Ukrainian border.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Osinttech...79523284348928

[Dadwen]

Oil depot reportedly on fire in Bryansk, Russia, about 100 km from Ukrainian border.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Osinttech...79523284348928

And that's 4 *plus there was a dam in Russia that "failed" too wasn't there?


Sorry could not stop myself.....

[Corvus]

It appears there are two fires, one at a oil refinery and the second being the fuel depot at a military base.

[Corvus]

Speaking of fires, there is another one burning in Russia, that being a wildfire in Siberia. It has been burning a while but they can't bring it under control.

The reason? They use soldiers to fight forest fires normally, but they are all off in Ukraine dying.

https://www.independent.co.uk/climat...-b2063988.html

[PhaelixWW]

Speaking of fires, there is another one burning in Russia, that being a wildfire in Siberia. It has been burning a while but they can't bring it under control.

The reason? They use soldiers to fight forest fires normally, but they are all off in Ukraine dying.

https://www.independent.co.uk/climat...-b2063988.html

Also, they also use military planes to help fight fires, too. So they'd have to bring a bunch of them (that are not blown up already) back from the front to fight those wildfires.

[Ripster42]

There was large copper mine explosion in orenburg that killed 3 in southern russia, with varying claimed causes of effect, from gas explosion or planned blasting, to emergency blasting, whatever the fuck that is. If someone was trying to shut down the mine w/out killing people, they mostly succeeded: it supposedly exploded during a shift change.

[Edge-]

Speaking of fires, there is another one burning in Russia, that being a wildfire in Siberia. It has been burning a while but they can't bring it under control.

The reason? They use soldiers to fight forest fires normally, but they are all off in Ukraine dying.

https://www.independent.co.uk/climat...-b2063988.html

So...all of Russia appears to be on fire, basically. Not "literally" everything but like...a lot.

[PhaelixWW]

So...all of Russia appears to be on fire, basically. Not "literally" everything but like...a lot.

I mean, to be fair, Russia is a pretty big place. It stands to reason that there are tons of entirely random fires everyday that don't make international news because, well, there's not some larger narrative.

That being said, some of these fires are definitely sus.

[Finlandia WOAT]

Apparently the Oil depot that exploded included a pipeline to Germany.

Guess we're about to find out if Shalcker's promises of doom for a gas-less West were true

[Azadina]

Well, obviously the science is complex and it's not something that can be confirmed through experimentation, and a great deal would depend on where those nuclear weapons actually hit and the tonnage involved.

So, how many 15 kilotons fit in 50 megaton Tsar bomb? 3333?

Yup, loving this nuclear winter we're in.

[Breccia]

Oil depot reportedly on fire in Bryansk, Russia, about 100 km from Ukrainian border.

"That could be anyone's exploding depot!"

We don't have a lot about this yet, but, Russia has not just admitted the fire but admitted Ukraine helicopters were nearby. Of course, they didn't say anything about a relationship between the two.

[PhaelixWW]

Russia has not just admitted the fire but admitted Ukraine helicopters were nearby. Of course, they didn't say anything about a relationship between the two.

Well, no.

They said that Ukraine helicopters were in the Bryansk region, which borders Ukraine, and on Thursday.

The depot/refinery went up today (Monday in Russia) in Bryansk city, which is 100km from the border.

Saying "Ukraine helicopters were in our territory near the border on Thursday" has nothing to do with fires 100km in from the border on Monday. I seriously doubt that Ukrainian helicopters flew 100km into Russia to blow up a fuel depot/refinery. Ground troops sneaking in, maybe.


I mean, that's 4x the distance that helicopters flew into Russia to do a similar attack in Belgorod. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think that's feasible.



Espionage seems much more likely to me.

[Corvus]

Bryansk is closer to Moscow than Kyiv.

The second fire is at a depot of the rocket and artillery forces. That it and a oil refinery both went up really makes it look targeted even without previous fires.

[Kaleredar]

Bryansk is closer to Moscow than Kyiv.

The second fire is at a depot of the rocket and artillery forces. That it and a oil refinery both went up really makes it look targeted even without previous fires.

The Russia PR machine is stuck in a rough place here. If they admit it was Ukrainians, it means they admit that Ukraine possesses the power to strike back at them. If they admit it was Russians striking in protest, it means they admit there's internal dissent in Russia and that this war isn't as popular as they purport. If they admit it was due to lax building codes and failed maintenance of critical government wartime infrastructure, it means they admit a large-scale incompetence on those matters.

I wonder what dear ol' you-know-who's take would be on this... Though, of course, if they weren't on a forum vacation they'd probably never mention it and be stuck in an endless loop about how the rest of the world will forever be reliant upon Russian oil sources and about how that will bring the west low.

[Iphie]

I mean, to be fair, Russia is a pretty big place. It stands to reason that there are tons of entirely random fires everyday that don't make international news because, well, there's not some larger narrative.

That being said, some of these fires are definitely sus.

This is something I've said a couple of times as well, Russia is big, so how common are fires in older buildings and are we just noticing it because of the war. But as @Kaleredar says, this puts Russia in a pickle as none of the options for blame are really appetizing with incompetent builders and inspectors probably being the best option. Russians expect corruption after all.

[Forogil]

Firebombing vs nuclear firebombing.

Meaning?

The conventional Tokyo firebombing was as (or even more) devastating than the Hiroshima one.

- - - Updated - - -

Remember the Beirut explosion in 2020?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Beirut_explosion

Or even when the Twin Towers came down?

These sort of big explosions have chain reactions. They knock out infrastructure, collapse power lines, cause fires. You might be able to put out 1 or half a dozen fires...it's an entirely different thing when you're dealing with hundreds of fires, no power, no communications, hundreds of thousands of panic people. The problem with nukes is not the blast itself per say. It's everything that comes after.

Yes, they have local consequences, but I'm not fully convinced that they create the really large firestorms needed for a global winter - although I don't want to test it out.

Now some might ask what it has to do with Russian aggression against Ukraine.

What I see is that Soviet Russia previously had an unhealthy relation with some peace and nuclear disarmament movements - like World Peace Council (not to be confused with World Peace Congress), and I don't know how that influence has played out (remember that during the cold war it was seen as Russia had a conventional advantage and the west needed nukes as deterrence).

If you have any doubt about WPC's political stance:
https://wpc-in.org/statements/73-yea...on-nato-urgent
https://wpc-in.org/statements/stop-e...r-defend-peace

In this sense, it is necessary that NATO abandons its intention to expand further into Eastern Europe, namely through the integration of Ukraine, and to reduce its military means and forces along the borders of the Russian Federation.

[Specialka]

Meaning?

The conventional Tokyo firebombing was as (or even more) devastating than the Hiroshima one.

- - - Updated - - -


Yes, they have local consequences, but I'm not fully convinced that they create the really large firestorms needed for a global winter - although I don't want to test it out.

Now some might ask what it has to do with Russian aggression against Ukraine.

What I see is that Soviet Russia previously had an unhealthy relation with some peace and nuclear disarmament movements - like World Peace Council (not to be confused with World Peace Congress), and I don't know how that influence has played out (remember that during the cold war it was seen as Russia had a conventional advantage and the west needed nukes as deterrence).

If you have any doubt about WPC's political stance:
https://wpc-in.org/statements/73-yea...on-nato-urgent
https://wpc-in.org/statements/stop-e...r-defend-peace

Tokyo, as the time, was made of wood.

[Gabriel]

Well, obviously the science is complex and it's not something that can be confirmed through experimentation, and a great deal would depend on where those nuclear weapons actually hit and the tonnage involved.

But a recent study, for example, suggests that even 100 relatively small nukes localized between Pakistan and India could cause a global nuclear winter lasting decades.





Oh, absolutely. This research only makes it less likely, not more, that nuclear weapons will be used. Much to certain posters' chagrin, I'm sure.

- - - Updated - - -


Pulling a page from Trump's book, I see.

I hate this study so much, because it is constantly quoted by people who don't understand the scale of nuclear explosions at all. Nuclear explosions are big, yeah, but not that big.

That study says that those 100 nuclear weapons would throw 5 Tg of black carbon into the atmosphere, which would cause *spooky sounds* NUUUUUUUCLEAAAAaAaAaAaR WiiiIIIIIiinnTTTtteeeRRRR! *ghostly sounds*.

Annually, about 4565000 square km of forests and fields are burned by wildfires, releasing something like 200-1100 kg of soot (black carbon) per hectare into the atmosphere. That comes to a total of about 100-500 Tg of black carbon.

So no, nuclear war right now wouldn't wipe out humanity. Possibly hundreds of millions (maybe even billions) of people, but we'd be back to current population levels before the end of this century.

[PhaelixWW]

That study says that those 100 nuclear weapons would throw 5 Tg of black carbon into the atmosphere, which would cause *spooky sounds* NUUUUUUUCLEAAAAaAaAaAaR WiiiIIIIIiinnTTTtteeeRRRR! *ghostly sounds*.

Annually, about 4565000 square km of forests and fields are burned by wildfires, releasing something like 200-1100 kg of soot (black carbon) per hectare into the atmosphere. That comes to a total of about 100-500 Tg of black carbon.

Key difference. Most wildfire smoke doesn't make it to the stratosphere. In a nuclear blast, however:

Using the global climate model GISS ModelE (Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York), they calculated that nearly all the 5 Tg of smoke produced would rise to the stratosphere, where it would spread globally, reducing the global average temperature by 1.25°C for 3–4 years and by more than 0.5°C for a decade. This effect was longer lasting than that found in previous “nuclear winter” studies, because older models could not represent the rise of smoke into the stratosphere. Mills et al. [2008] then used a chemistry-climate model to calculate that the concurrent heating of the stratosphere by up to 100°C would produce global ozone loss on a scale unprecedented in human history, lasting for up to a decade.

And no, while the 100 small nukes in the study would cause a non-civilization-ending nuclear winter, it also represents much, much smaller nuclear weapons than are currently capable of being used.

[Vorkreist]

Also, they also use military planes to help fight fires, too. So they'd have to bring a bunch of them (that are not blown up already) back from the front to fight those wildfires.

Hardest choice Putin ever had. Put off the fires in his country or continue bombing civilians.