Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Cthulhu 2020]

So I kind of got my head out of the whole Ukraine thing for a week. Yes, privileged westerner able to do that blah blah blah. What I want to know is, is there a 7 day summary of what's happened? How many more war crimes has Russia committed in that time? 100?

[Iphie]

So I kind of got my head out of the whole Ukraine thing for a week. Yes, privileged westerner able to do that blah blah blah. What I want to know is, is there a 7 day summary of what's happened? How many more war crimes has Russia committed in that time? 100?

Not much more warcrimes have been reported as far as I know, some new mass graves found one which may contain 9000 bodies in Mariupol. (but a lot of Russians have died as well so who knows if those have been mixed in to cover up their deaths.) Some rumours about fake independence referenda and forced conscription of Ukrainians in the occupied territories.

I think that's a short summary, maybe others can add.

As for getting out, do what you need to stay sane, I do the same thing, strictly limit my news intake and try to stay away from the forum for a couple of days (I fail at the last thing.)

[kaid]

Looks like Macron won. Nice. You guys think puttler will finally call him for once?

Funny thing is La Pen trying to spin nearly a 20 point loss as some kind of victory.

[PhaelixWW]

Kill off a lot or even most, I can see that, kill off every human on the planet, that I have trouble seeing. As for Nuclear Winter itself, any idea how many nuclear detonations it would take to spark such an event?

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.

In fact, that study found that a "limited, regional nuclear war" using 100 "small nuclear weapons" — such as the bomb dropped on Hiroshima — could cause a decades-long nuclear winter.

In the researchers' scenario, the aftereffects of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan alone would eliminate between 20% and 50% of the ozone layer that protects us from the sun's radiation over populated areas. At the same time, surface temperatures would become colder than they've been for at least 1,000 years.

Those combined effects "could trigger a global nuclear famine," according to the paper.

In that scenario, the researchers estimated the effects of using 100 15-kiloton bombs, which are considered small by modern standards.

It's worth noting that the bombs in the researchers' scenario — as powerful as the Little Boy dropped on Hiroshima, enough to devastate a city — are far less powerful than many weapons that exist today. The strength of North Korea's nuclear arsenal is unknown, though the latest weapon it tested was estimated to be in the range of 20 to 30 kilotons. The US and Russia each possess weapons 1,000 times as powerful as these.

But Russian officials would more likely shoot Putin themselves before signing onto that fate. While Russian officials and soldiers have no issues with killing and raping civilians, they will have much harder issues when those civilians are their own families.

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 - - -

Funny thing is La Pen trying to spin nearly a 20 point loss as some kind of victory.

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

[Fugus]

@PhaelixWW

Thank you for the info, much appreciated. Didn't know much and the only thing I ever heard about it was from one of those batshit survivalist websites quoting like 5 detonations being enough and I knew that was massively low balling it.

[PhaelixWW]

So I kind of got my head out of the whole Ukraine thing for a week. Yes, privileged westerner able to do that blah blah blah. What I want to know is, is there a 7 day summary of what's happened? How many more war crimes has Russia committed in that time? 100?

Russia still hasn't made much advancement. More shelling/bombing. They finally admitted that 1 soldier died on the Moskva. And they announced that their plan was to gain control of the entire south of Ukraine to form a land bridge from Russia through DPR/LPR, past Crimea, and all the way to Transnistria.

[Arrashi]

Funny thing is La Pen trying to spin nearly a 20 point loss as some kind of victory.

Just like her russian benefactors. I guess its the same mindset.

[Flarelaine]

Funny thing is La Pen trying to spin nearly a 20 point loss as some kind of victory.

It is a victory. In the past few presidential elections in France, whichever Le Pen was running was not not able to meaningfully increase their vote share in the second round. Now she went from 23% to 42%.

[Specialka]

Funny thing is La Pen trying to spin nearly a 20 point loss as some kind of victory.

It is unfortunately. She did better than in 2017.

[Poopymonster]

Russia still hasn't made much advancement. More shelling/bombing. They finally admitted that 1 soldier died on the Moskva. And they announced that their plan was to gain control of the entire south of Ukraine to form a land bridge from Russia through DPR/LPR, past Crimea, and all the way to Transnistria.

That sounds like the place Repubclunts believe the trans community comes from.

[Arrashi]

Not sure if it was posted before but its interesting. Sounds like somebody will need to write "Never again" on blackboard at least 10000 times for being naughty boy.

[Makabreska]

Funny thing is La Pen trying to spin nearly a 20 point loss as some kind of victory.

I mean, each election she keeps getting closer and closer.

[Zaydin]

I mean, each election she keeps getting closer and closer.

I kept seeing articles speculating that this might be the last time she ran for President if she lost.

[Barzotti]

It is a victory. In the past few presidential elections in France, whichever Le Pen was running was not not able to meaningfully increase their vote share in the second round. Now she went from 23% to 42%.

Actually, she went from 34% in 2017 to 42%.

[Forogil]

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.
...
It's worth noting that the bombs in the researchers' scenario — as powerful as the Little Boy dropped on Hiroshima, enough to devastate a city — are far less powerful than many weapons that exist today.

Hm... That summary seems odd - and even if I hope we don't have it tested I'm not convinced.

A 15kt explosion can destroy some cities, but they are discussing hitting the mega-cities in India and Pakistan and one 15kt wouldn't suffice to destroy them, and Toon & al (who did the analysis behind that part of the article) even state that the mega-cities would be abandoned due to fall-out, which suggest they weren't directly devastated.
Similarly if such a device detonated above the middle of central park in NY the 3rd degree burn zone would end just before the short sides of the park.

However, India only has about 5 mega-cities (some say 3) - which would allow 50/5=10 per mega-city (using multiple smaller war-heads is generally seen as more effective).

And the nuclear winter is due to an effect that is less clear: smoke getting up in the high atmosphere. That smoke is generated by fire-storms and we haven't really tested how such fire-storms work, and it may depend a lot on the type of buildings etc. That means that if 100 similar nukes explode elsewhere the effect may be different, and hopefully no-one is insane enough to randomly nuke a few cities to test that.

And if people aren't focused on just killing civilians they will instead hit military targets that likely would limit the fire-storms.

That unknown is a real issue: Carl Sagan, who was one of the first scientist warning of the dangers of nuclear winter, thought that the Kuwaiti oil fires during the war with Iraq would create a nuclear winter (it didn't); so predictions have been wrong before.

[Mihalik]

I kept seeing articles speculating that this might be the last time she ran for President if she lost.

Wishful thinking. It might have been her last time had her margins dropped. But they really didn't.

- - - Updated - - -

However, India only has about 5 mega-cities (some say 3) - which would allow 50/5=10 per mega-city (using multiple smaller war-heads is generally seen as more effective).

And the nuclear winter is due to an effect that is less clear: smoke getting up in the high atmosphere. That smoke is generated by fire-storms and we haven't really tested how such fire-storms work, and it may depend a lot on the type of buildings etc. That means that if 100 similar nukes explode elsewhere the effect may be different, and hopefully no-one is insane enough to randomly nuke a few cities to test that.

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.

[Fuiking]

Hm... That summary seems odd - and even if I hope we don't have it tested I'm not convinced.

A 15kt explosion can destroy some cities, but they are discussing hitting the mega-cities in India and Pakistan and one 15kt wouldn't suffice to destroy them, and Toon & al (who did the analysis behind that part of the article) even state that the mega-cities would be abandoned due to fall-out, which suggest they weren't directly devastated.
Similarly if such a device detonated above the middle of central park in NY the 3rd degree burn zone would end just before the short sides of the park.

However, India only has about 5 mega-cities (some say 3) - which would allow 50/5=10 per mega-city (using multiple smaller war-heads is generally seen as more effective).

And the nuclear winter is due to an effect that is less clear: smoke getting up in the high atmosphere. That smoke is generated by fire-storms and we haven't really tested how such fire-storms work, and it may depend a lot on the type of buildings etc. That means that if 100 similar nukes explode elsewhere the effect may be different, and hopefully no-one is insane enough to randomly nuke a few cities to test that.

And if people aren't focused on just killing civilians they will instead hit military targets that likely would limit the fire-storms.

That unknown is a real issue: Carl Sagan, who was one of the first scientist warning of the dangers of nuclear winter, thought that the Kuwaiti oil fires during the war with Iraq would create a nuclear winter (it didn't); so predictions have been wrong before.

The total annihilation of german towns and cities by way of firebombs in the late stage of the world war 2 didnt do that either. However one might argue that time period it was colder then it was before..

[Poopymonster]

The total annihilation of german towns and cities by way of firebombs in the late stage of the world war 2 didnt do that either. However one might argue that time period it was colder then it was before..

/tinfoil hat

I knew it! The military has been advancing global warming so their weaponry would be more effective against the lizard people trying to groom our children to be straight when they come up through all the fracking wells that punched through to the flat hollow earth!
/s

[Gaidax]

I mean, each election she keeps getting closer and closer.

Macron, though, is practically a vomit inducing opportunist candidate. Next elections there may be a more charismatic and palatable option, so Le Pen may slide back to previous numbers.

[kaid]

Macron, though, is practically a vomit inducing opportunist candidate. Next elections there may be a more charismatic and palatable option, so Le Pen may slide back to previous numbers.

This was my thought. If you can barely pull 40% being the only other option as a protest vote then you were pretty unpalatable and if any better candidate becomes available they likely swing a huge chunk of that.