Mopologist William Schryver Continues His Descent Into Madness

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 8980
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: Mopologist William Schryver Continues His Descent Into Madness

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

Chap wrote:
Wed Sep 28, 2022 8:00 am
honorentheos wrote:
Wed Sep 28, 2022 2:27 am
If/when the so-called tactical nuke is deployed within Ukraine (there being no such thing as a "tactical" nuke, as the use of nuclear weapons is always a strategic decision...), the world will see how we all respond to the threat of potential nuclear escalation.
I don't think we need to wait to see: NATO is certain to have had plans for how, under a variety of circumstance, to respond to Russian use of smaller-scale nuclear weapons designed for battlefield use rather than city obliteration.

We have been told openly that Russia has been informed privately and in detail of what the response will be to Russian use of a smaller-scale nuclear weapon in Ukraine. Quite rightly, NATO has not stated publicly what this response will be. But rumours reported in some sources tell us that this response will be non-nuclear, and will involve massive use of missile weapons with conventional warheads to destroy large parts of Russia's military command structure, and to sink its Black Sea fleet.
And then what? I shudder to think about it - once “Russia proper” has been attacked who knows what these guys are willing to do. These are people who level cities as a punitive measure for not surrendering. These are people who truly believe the ‘hohols’ are subhuman Nazis, and that Ukraine had no right to exist as a state in the first place. Regardless, I certainly hope our conveyed response is enough of a reality check for the Putinistas to find a way to save face.

I guess the reason why I’m nervous is because the Russians who are in control have done such a good job at ‘othering’ the world that many of them simply don’t care about the fallout, as it were. We’re talking about a people so brazen and delusional that they’ll count empty ballots, literally in front of a camera, literally holding up empty ballots in front of a camera on live television, to show the world the people of Donetsk and Luhansk voted for independence. They’re so ridiculous that they don’t even bother to pretend to care about democracy when they’re pretending to care about democracy while on live television. It’s all theater for a deeply brainwashed and terrified population back home getting drunk on Russia Today propaganda (and the like).

Perhaps there are some rational actors involved who’ll figure this out, and see us through without a nuclear weapon being used. I’d be more than happy to look back in a year or two and think I was being silly worrying about it. I just can’t see the “golden bridge” right now. How can we help Russia exit this thing so they can convey to their population they successfully accomplished their mission while cutting their losses? I don’t know.

- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
honorentheos
God
Posts: 3762
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am

Re: Mopologist William Schryver Continues His Descent Into Madness

Post by honorentheos »

Chap wrote:
Wed Sep 28, 2022 8:00 am
We have been told openly that Russia has been informed privately and in detail of what the response will be to Russian use of a smaller-scale nuclear weapon in Ukraine. Quite rightly, NATO has not stated publicly what this response will be. But rumours reported in some sources tell us that this response will be non-nuclear, and will involve massive use of missile weapons with conventional warheads to destroy large parts of Russia's military command structure, and to sink its Black Sea fleet.
Which would be an attack on Russian forces and effectively a declaration of war. It's our response if used against a NATO ally, but against Ukraine? I'd be interested in seeing sources on this because if that does not give you pause, you may not be considering the ramifications of what that actually means.
honorentheos
God
Posts: 3762
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am

Re: Mopologist William Schryver Continues His Descent Into Madness

Post by honorentheos »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Wed Sep 28, 2022 10:24 am
I’d be more than happy to look back in a year or two and think I was being silly worrying about it.
You and me, both. But when Congress is tagging budget for dealing with the consequences of nuclear weapon use in Ukraine? I don't think we can afford to be dismissive of the possibility given our even limited perspective. Someone somewhere is getting briefs leading them to think we need to be ready for that contingency sooner than later.
I just can’t see the “golden bridge” right now. How can we help Russia exit this thing so they can convey to their population they successfully accomplished their mission while cutting their losses? I don’t know.

- Doc
I don't know that there is a way for Putin to save face. I think the evidence and general belief is he will use tactical nukes to bring Ukraine to the negotiations table and accept the annexation of the DPR/LPR and Crimea in order to prevent full scale nuclear war. It's difficult to predict how the international community would honestly react in that situation. We should keep in mind US support of Ukraine could effectively dwindle if Republicans take control of Congress in January. Italy just elected a Nationalist far-right government, and the public across Europe may not be as willing to endure economic hardships with nukes and winter on the table.

I suspect our current approach is supporting the corrosion of the narrative you point out that props up the Putin regime. Going back to the videos from Kotkin discussed down in the Spirit Paradise forum a while back, that idea may be the most realistic solution for removing the threat of a nuclear-willing Putin. But that is difficult for reasons you illuminated.
Chap
God
Posts: 2308
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:42 am
Location: On the imaginary axis

Re: Mopologist William Schryver Continues His Descent Into Madness

Post by Chap »

This article in Atlantic is a few months old, but sets out an interesting and substantive series of discussions on the question of possible reactions to Russian use of nuclear weapons.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... se/661315/

The question before western leaders at present is what possible response communicated privately to Russia by way of warning will sound like something the west might actually be willing to do, while still being severe enough to deter the Russians from use of a nuclear weapon.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
Chap
God
Posts: 2308
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:42 am
Location: On the imaginary axis

Re: Mopologist William Schryver Continues His Descent Into Madness

Post by Chap »

By the way, how is WS reacting to the present situation of likely imminent annexation?
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
User avatar
DrW
Priest
Posts: 297
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 9:25 pm

Re: Mopologist William Schryver Continues His Descent Into Madness

Post by DrW »

The discussion here has turned to tactical nuclear weapons. This post is in counterpoint to the claim that there are no such things. A statement regarding tactical nukes made by Secretary of Defense General James Mattis, and echoed by honorentheos, is quoted below. While one can agree with this viewpoint in terms of the possible political effects of their use, it is still a fact that, by definition, there are low-yield nuclear weapons designated as tactical or battlefield nukes - as described in this post.
SecDef James Mattis wrote: US secretary of defense James Mattis declared in 2018 “I don’t think there’s any such thing as a ‘tactical nuclear weapon.’ Any nuclear weapon used at any time is a strategic game changer.”
The US has approximately 100 of them. These are under US control and mainly deployed with our allies in western Europe (the Fulda Gap is still there). The Russians have a lot more.

As mentioned upthread, low-yield nukes (say under 10 kt.* or so) were developed as tactical defensive weapons during the early years of the cold war. Their original intended use was to delay or stop a massed armor attack from the Warsaw Pact across the central European plain via the Fulda gap.

As an example, one of the lowest yield of these on the American side was known as the Davy Crocket (image below). It could be set up and fired by a two-man crew and has a maximum yield of 0.02 kt. *. It is no longer in US inventory.

Image

It is generally recognized that low-yield or tactical nukes are defensive weapons for use on the battlefield. Tactical nukes can be fielded in the form of bombs, missile warheads, artillery shells, or mines. (For a time in the late 1960s, our USMC artillery unit was equipped with mobile 8-inch howitzers that were nuclear-capable.)

Nuclear 8-inch artillery rounds are no longer in inventory. They were deemed more trouble to manufacture, support, justify to the public, and use than they are actually worth in battle. These beasts (image below) have pretty much been phased out in favor of the slightly smaller bore 155 mm (6.1 inch) howitzers. Nuclear rounds for the 155 were phased out in 1992. Again, they just are not worth it in a modern military. To maintain reliability, nuclear warheads must be serviced periodically by sending the to a facility near Amarillo Texas, where they are partially disassembled, inspected, and have their nuclear material replaced. This process is not inexpensive.

Image

As mentioned, the Russians still have a lot of tactical nukes - pretty much in keeping with their failure to modernize their military. When used as an offensive weapon, artillery is meant to clear or diminish enemy strength in the disputed area so that friendly infantry can move in, clean up, and hold the new territory. Problem is that the residual radiation from even a small nuclear blast takes time to subside. If it requires (lots of) special protective equipment to move into and occupy an area recently cleared with tactical nukes, what's the point?

As described in more detail in the article linked below for those interested, tactical nuclear weapons are not the nuclear winter-inducing, civilization-ending weapons that some seem to think. As an example, the explosion of improperly stored nitrate fertilizer in Beirut harbor in 2020 (image below) was equivalent to about 600 tons of TNT (0.6kt), which would be in the range of tactical nukes. Had it been a nuke, the smoke and dust you see in the image would be radioactive. What invading force would want to decontaminate and clean up such a mess before they could use their newly gained territory?

Image

The chart below shows the mass to explosive yield ratio of atomic (nuclear) and hydrogen (thermonuclear) weapons. Little Man and Fat Boy were the two bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, respectively, in WW II. The yield of Fat Boy was 21 kt. Weapons currently in inventory are designated with red and yellow circles on the chart.

Image

As a quick review of the effects of low-yield nuclear weapons, the LD-50 (50% of the exposed will die) for direct radiation exposure from a 1 kt. blast is one-half mile. At the high end of the tactical nuke range, the radiation LD-50 for a 10 kt. blast is about 3/4 of a mile**. The effective blast radius and subsequent fall-out for a given yield depend, to an extent, on the altitude of the detonation. Fat Boy (21 kt) at about 2X the yield of a high-end tactical weapon, was detonated at 1,800 feet and had a blast radius of about one mile. The graphic below shows a comparison of low-yield nuclear weapon effects.

Image

Of historical interest is the now-famous image below showing the detonation of the first atomic bomb - the 25 kt Trinity Test in New Mexico in 1945. The spikes extending from the bottom of the initial fireball are from the vaporization of the guy wires supporting the tower on which the device (the Gadget) was mounted.

Image

Shown below is the aftermath of the Trinity explosion. The steel stubs in the ground are what is left of the metal tower structure on which the bomb was mounted. Unlike conventional chemical explosions that would have left a twisted rusted skeleton of the tower, the nuclear explosion simply vaporized it.

Notice the appearance of the soil and the fact that the ground is flat, level, and devoid of any features except shallow cracks out to the slight berm several hundred meters from ground zero. The sandy soil under the tower was melted by the blast and formed a new mineral known, quite fittingly, as "Trinitite".

Image

Standing in the center of the image is General Leslie Groves, the Army Officer who managed the Manhatten project. There is a city park named after him in Richland Washington, the town most associated with the Hanford Atomic Works where nuclear materials for the bombs used in WW II were made. Robert Oppenheimer, generally recognized as the technical father of the atomic bomb, was also at ground zero the day that picture was taken. He is standing next to Groves and is recognizable by his signature headwear hiding his face.

Here is a link to an excellent European article on tactical nuclear weapons. The image above is used in that article.

https://taketonews.com/the-danger-power ... r-weapons/
_________________________

*The explosive force, or yield, of a nuclear weapon is expressed in terms of thousands of tons of TNT equivalent or kilotons (kt.)

** The blast radius and radiation LD-50 do not scale linearly with yield. Electromagnetic field strength, radiation intensity, or power, fall off at a rate of 1/r^2 where r is the distance from the detonation.
"Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous." (David Hume)
"Errors in science are learning opportunities and are corrected when better data become available." (DrW)
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Mopologist William Schryver Continues His Descent Into Madness

Post by Kishkumen »

To maintain reliability, nuclear warheads must be serviced periodically by sending the to a facility near Amarillo Texas, where they are partially disassembled, inspected, and have their nuclear material replaced. This process is not inexpensive.
Based on everything you have written in this amazingly enlightening thread, DrW, I would be very surprised if the Putin kleptocracy actually kept their tactical nukes in decent repair.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
honorentheos
God
Posts: 3762
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am

Re: Mopologist William Schryver Continues His Descent Into Madness

Post by honorentheos »

DrW wrote:
Wed Sep 28, 2022 2:34 pm
The discussion here has turned to tactical nuclear weapons. This post is in counterpoint to the claim that there are no such things. A statement regarding tactical nukes made by Secretary of Defense General James Mattis, and echoed by honorentheos, is quoted below. While one can agree with this viewpoint in terms of the possible political effects of their use, it is still a fact that, by definition, there are low-yield nuclear weapons designated as tactical or battlefield nukes - as described in this post.
The use of a nuke in Ukraine will be for strategic reasons, not to gain a tactical advantage on the battlefield.

Anyway, sources on the US retaliating directly against Russian forces of one is deployed in Ukraine?
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 8980
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: Mopologist William Schryver Continues His Descent Into Madness

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

Kishkumen wrote:
Wed Sep 28, 2022 2:49 pm
To maintain reliability, nuclear warheads must be serviced periodically by sending the to a facility near Amarillo Texas, where they are partially disassembled, inspected, and have their nuclear material replaced. This process is not inexpensive.
Based on everything you have written in this amazingly enlightening thread, DrW, I would be very surprised if the Putin kleptocracy actually kept their tactical nukes in decent repair.
For sure. What keeps me thinking about the scenario is if you have thousands of poorly maintained ‘nuclear things’ all you need is for a handful to work under their escalation criteria. I don’t think the Russians, if after signaling they’re going to launch a strike, would do it on “foreign soil”. In keeping with their “existential threat” BS, I’d guess Crimea would be where they employ one or two, for whatever reason they generate in the moment. I suppose the Donetsk or Luhansk regions could work, but their “referendum” sham is such a see-through con job I don’t believe the Russians believe the world believes those provinces are theirs, so a strike in those regions seems less likely if the Russians believe they need legal justification.

This one sucks. I don’t see how this ends well for anyone. Anyone got a golden bridge for sale, because dayum.

- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
User avatar
DrW
Priest
Posts: 297
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 9:25 pm

Re: Mopologist William Schryver Continues His Descent Into Madness

Post by DrW »

Kishkumen wrote:
Wed Sep 28, 2022 2:49 pm
To maintain reliability, nuclear warheads must be serviced periodically by sending the to a facility near Amarillo Texas, where they are partially disassembled, inspected, and have their nuclear material replaced. This process is not inexpensive.
Based on everything you have written in this amazingly enlightening thread, DrW, I would be very surprised if the Putin kleptocracy actually kept their tactical nukes in decent repair.
Agreed.

To get an idea of how significant this issue could be, please compare the image of the US equipment storage depot in the bottom image on page 23 of this thread to the image of the Russian tank storage facility immediately above it.

The Russian tanks are mainly T-64s or older. The T-64s were introduced in the 1960s. They are in various stages of disrepair and even disassembly (okay, catabolization). It is unlikely that any of these tanks could even be started, let alone be repaired, equipped, and sent to battle in less than several months. The tubes on the ground in front of the near field column on the left are cannon barrels, called gun tubes. These are only good for so many rounds and then need to be replaced. Note that most of the tanks do not even have gun tubes. Okay, this image may be a bad example, but the T-64s in the image directly above that don't look much better.

The American tanks in the bottom image are M1 Abrams, introduced in the 1980s and continually upgraded. In storage, they are maintained and most could be deployed within days, if needed, with minimal inspection and service. The US has similarly maintained depots storing Abrams M1 A2 tanks and other mobile equipment in Kuwait and elsewhere.

You are right, their nukes may not be much better. In any case, no one wants to find out.
"Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous." (David Hume)
"Errors in science are learning opportunities and are corrected when better data become available." (DrW)
Post Reply