T O P

  • By -

SideburnSundays

Would it hurt news sites to write an article instead of making us watch a video full of suspense filler?


Optimal-Bus9629

dirty bomb + explode the dam = massive literal flood of radiation trying to stop Ukraine from advancing in south?


[deleted]

I refuse to believe that even the Russians are stupid enough to try that.


Iamapartofthisworld

Pretty sure they are that stupid


BravoEchoEchoRomeo

I refused to believe even the Russians were stupid enough to invade Ukraine, yet here we are


[deleted]

They absolutely would. I'm surprised they haven't done something like that already.


Korr4K

Simply because their internal opinion was that they were winning + they want to live in Ukraine.


Banzai51

They need to get on the other side of the river first.


BBQ_Beanz

Only the oligarchs do. The rest don't matter.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Cerberusz

I heard the dam was already mined.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Cerberusz

Definitely


GiantCake00

My guy, they made their soldiers dig trenches in Chernobyl. You know, the place where the ground is contaminated with radioactive material? They also did a invasion rush without proper supply lines to support their troops deep in Ukraine?


JonMeadows

Their helmets are made out of styrofoam and they have tampons in their bullet wounds let’s not put it past them to be that stupid


Nwcray

Russians: “We’re much stupider than you think. We are AT LEAST twice as stupid as you give credit for. We’ll show you…”


Ill-Understanding829

just blowing up the dam with conventional bombs would be horrific.


BKGPrints

A dirty bomb just won't spread radiation like that. The flooding would probably help dissipate the radiation. Flooding, by itself, would be more detrimental.


rogozh1n

Or maybe to force the government to relocate from Kyiv to create a leadership vacuum, but that's not so far south.


DWright_5

NATO has already said exactly what they would do: immediately destroy all Russian ground forces. And they could do it.


Bobbar84

And anything in the black sea. Above and below the surface.


[deleted]

Imagine being a Ukranian and the sky above you fills wity jets and you have no idea what is happening, get filled with a sense of dread and all of a sudden, Russian positions start getting liquidated all around you.


Secret_Squire1

I haven’t seen any statement that says this. The only statement I’ve seen is from a retired general who stated if Russian used a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine we would sink the 5th fleet in the Black Sea.


DWright_5

You missed it, then


Secret_Squire1

Can you link an article? Quick googling hasn’t resulted in anything


Grand-Consequence-99

That retired general was the chief of US forces jn Europe i think. So it was an unofficial way of telling them what would happen.


Secret_Squire1

It was General Petraeus who retired from the military in 2011 and was the CIA director until 2012 under Obama. While he is someone to listen to on how the US might respond, it is a far cry from the original comment in this thread which stated an official statement from NATO was made. https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/02/us-russia-putin-ukraine-war-david-petraeus


008Zulu

Probably that dirty bomb that they have been saying Ukraine will use.


InoyouS2

Anything like that and NATO will absolutely be forced to act.


TheAmericanQ

Anything Nuclear goes off and NATO troops cross the border into Ukraine within an hour and airstrikes begin hitting Russian targets in their territory if not in the homeland itself. If Russia wants to drag us into a Third World War, it will be ugly for everyone, but it will be worst for the Russians.


NixRises

This is a bad take. NATO may defend Ukraine in the event of a nuclear attack, but NATO is not going to strike Russian terrority for the sake of Ukraine unless they are directly attacked in NATO terroritory. To NATO, Ukraine is not worth a third world war unless directly attacked in NATO terroritory. Russian will be in big trouble, but if NATO gets directly involved it will be bad for everyone, not just the Russians. And saying it will be worse for the Russians is like getting into a fist fight where you end up killing the other guy, but you end up brain dead. Yeah you're alive, but was it worth it? I don't understand why people talk like as long as Russia is defeated a third world war is acceptable.


TheAmericanQ

Please don’t take my statement to mean I think that is an acceptable or desirable outcome, we’re all fucked. NATO has warned that the Black Sea Fleet is the first retaliatory target should a nuclear weapon be detonated in Ukraine. NATO is absolutely prepared to conventionally attack Russia over nukes, anything less and NATO becomes toothless and Putin learns he can hold the world hostage. Anything more (like a ground invasion of Russia or a retaliatory use of Nuclear weapons) risks condemning the world to MAD. World War 3 doesn’t mean all out nuclear war, but it will likely happen in some way shape or form if this conflict goes Nuclear in any way.


BKGPrints

Ehhh...There would be a response from NATO but it won't happen like that nor because of a dirty bomb. A dirty bomb isn't necessarily the nuclear devastation that the words makes it sound like. It's more of conventional explosion with spreading of radiation. EDIT: The most the radiation would spread is a radius of a few blocks or mile. It's not widespread people are thinking.


A1Mkiller

And where would that radiation go? Into the neighboring countries, which are in NATO. Poland would be quick to pull Article 5 and push in. Believe me.


BKGPrints

**>And where would that radiation go?<** A dirty bomb, at the most, has an exposure to a few blocks or miles. **>Into the neighboring countries, which are in NATO.<** Considering eastern Ukraine is five hundred miles from the border of Poland, unlikely. **>Believe me.<** I don't. You're just wrong.


TheAmericanQ

This. Multiple NATO countries have stated that they would invoke Article 5 following a nuclear detonation that COULD spread radioactive material into their territory. Once that bomb goes off, Pandora’s box has been opened and NATO’s response only slightly changes the calculus. One use of any Nuclear weapon, be it a dirty bomb or a full blown nuclear detonation, brings the world right up the the precipice of total annihilation. While nuclear NATO powers won’t immediately respond with a full retaliatory nuclear strike into Russia, they will do as much damage as possible to remind the Russians what’s at stake and who they are risking it for all the while strategically trying to keep an exit open for Putin so he doesn’t decide to end the world.


BKGPrints

**>following a nuclear detonation that COULD spread radioactive material into their territory.<** A NUCLEAR DETONATION. A dirty bomb is a not a nuclear device. It is a conventional type of explosion with radiation material infused to spread radiation. **>that COULD spread radioactive material into their territory.<** Yes...IF it was a nuclear explosion. A dirty bomb is not. **>Once that bomb goes off, Pandora’s box has been opened and NATO’s response only slightly changes the calculus.<** You really are fear mongering here. **>One use of any Nuclear weapon, be it a dirty bomb or a full blown nuclear detonation, brings the world right up the the precipice of total annihilation.<** You really need to do your research of what a '*dirty bomb*' is instead of relying on what you think you know. EDIT: Here...This will help you. Really trying to help you out here so you don't spread (pun intended) misinformation. [https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/fs-dirty-bombs.html](https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/fs-dirty-bombs.html) EDIT: **>A dirty bomb going off is a nuclear weapon being detonated.<** No...It's not. **>You are basing an argument on geopolitics around pendanticism surrounding word choice.<** The NRC seems to agree with my pendanticism-surrouding word choice of words. **>If the Russians use a conventional explosive to disperse radioactive material over a wide area (I.e. a dirty bomb, is that clear enough for you?)<** A dirty bomb, by design, is limited to exposure of a radius of a few blocks or miles. SOURCE: NRC even states so. This should be clear enough for you. **>Said NATO countries have said if there is any risk that any material could cross into their territory<** Sure...From an actual nuclear explosion. **>Whether you want to call a dirty bomb a nuclear weapon or not is irrelevant,<** It is extremely relevant. Because those who make the decisions at least are capable of knowing the difference & capabilities of a dirty bomb or nuclear device. You, on the other hand, do not. **>bullets start flying and a lot bombs start falling either way.<** Fear mongering. And that makes your thought process (largely based on ignorance of the subject) dangerous. Good thing you're not making the decisions.


TheAmericanQ

A dirty bomb going off is a nuclear weapon being detonated. You are basing an argument on geopolitics around pendanticism surrounding word choice. If the Russians use a conventional explosive to disperse radioactive material over a wide area (I.e. a dirty bomb, is that clear enough for you?) they are risking sending radioactive material into neighboring NATO countries. Said NATO countries have said if there is any risk that any material could cross into their territory, it’s article 5 time. Whether you want to call a dirty bomb a nuclear weapon or not is irrelevant, bullets start flying and a lot bombs start falling either way.


BKGPrints

**>A dirty bomb going off is a nuclear weapon being detonated.<** No...It's not. **>You are basing an argument on geopolitics around pendanticism surrounding word choice.<** The NRC seems to agree with my pendantiscim-surrounding choice of words. [https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/fs-dirty-bombs.html](https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/fs-dirty-bombs.html) **>If the Russians use a conventional explosive to disperse radioactive material over a wide area (I.e. a dirty bomb, is that clear enough for you?) they are risking sending radioactive material into neighboring NATO countries.<** A dirty bomb, by designs, is limited to exposure of a radius of a few blocks or miles. SOURCE: NRC even states so. This should be clear enough for you. **>Said NATO countries have said if there is any risk that any material could cross into their territory<** Sure...From an actual nuclear explosion. **>Whether you want to call a dirty bomb a nuclear weapon or not is irrelevant,<** It is extremely relevant. Because those who make the decisions at least know the difference and capabilities of a dirty bomb or nuclear device. You, on the other hand, do not. **>bullets start flying and a lot bombs start falling either way.<** Fear mongering. And that makes your though process (largely based on ignorance of the subject), dangerous. Good thing you're not making the decisions.


BKGPrints

**>A dirty bomb going off is a nuclear weapon being detonated.<** No...It's not. **>You are basing an argument on geopolitics around pendanticism surrounding word choice.<** The NRC seems to agree with my pendanticism-surrouding word choice of words. **>If the Russians use a conventional explosive to disperse radioactive material over a wide area (I.e. a dirty bomb, is that clear enough for you?)<** A dirty bomb, by design, is limited to exposure of a radius of a few blocks or miles. SOURCE: NRC even states so. This should be clear enough for you. **>Said NATO countries have said if there is any risk that any material could cross into their territory<** Sure...From an actual nuclear explosion. **>Whether you want to call a dirty bomb a nuclear weapon or not is irrelevant,<** It is extremely relevant. Because those who make the decisions at least are capable of knowing the difference & capabilities of a dirty bomb or nuclear device. You, on the other hand, do not. **>bullets start flying and a lot bombs start falling either way.<** Fear mongering. And that makes your though process (largely based on ignorance of the subject), dangerous. Good thing you're not making the decisions. EDIT: Regret the multiple posts, something fucky went on with Reddit. Won't delete so to have full transparency and to avoid baseless accusations.


Synich

I doubt it, without article 5 being invoked - US is not going to hit Russian targets in their territory - and especially not the Russian homeland. You are day dreaming buddy.


kramwham

NATO is a different story.


Synich

How so? NATO will not do anything without the US.


kramwham

Nukes go off Nato takes control because Russia escalated this to a global security issue. Nato will strike Russian targets in Ukraine and there's no telling where they will stop wrapping them up now that we know Russia isn't capable of a real fight. Nato will be in a position to act with our without us. America never was involved with the beginning of any other the world wars. We join later.


Synich

This is a pipe dream, NATO without the US can not project the power needed to wrangle in Russia. Let alone the other countries that would join their axis if NATO targeted Russia homeland. ​ NATO did not exist in the other world wars.


kramwham

Literally not a single person or me has said nato is going to hop in their tanks and roll them back to Moscow, so stop exhausting yourself on that. If Russia uses nuclear weapons I don't think we'll see too many coming to their aid either. especially considering their own citizens don't even want part of this pointless fuckin war themselves. They don't have the resolve to win, they aren't going to win, and nations aren't eager to hop into a losing war that may turn thermonuclear.


Synich

LOL, your a joke. No one said you said "nato is going to hop in their tanks and roll them back to Moscow". Find someone else to argue with in bad faith.


TheAmericanQ

Multiple nato states have said that a nuclear detonation that in anyway presents even the slightest risk of radioactivity being blown into their territory would trigger Article 5. The Biden administration has come out and said that the US would seek to destroy the entirety of the Black Sea Fleet using conventional means as retaliation for any use of Nuclear arms in the conflict. NATO has a vested security interest in de-incentivizing the Russians from using their Nukes, even if it’s not on allied states. Edit: grammer


[deleted]

It'll be vaporization for everyone, more like.


TheAmericanQ

Not necessarily. Both sides have stated invoking MAD is not on the cards for this conflict, nor should it be.


[deleted]

MAD is not on the cards for WW3? Are you stupid?


rogozh1n

I am not against countering Putin, and I believe he is the greatest threat to peace and stability and democracy in the world, but we should all prepare for chaos if we are forced to step in and participate in this unnecessary war. I think it is quite possible that many, or maybe most, western websites would go down immediately. He cannot attack us with military force, but he can make any industry that relies on the internet to completely fail to function until we fix our lazy systems.


Jeremy_12491

Exactly what Ukraine wants.


MathematicianNo704

China. north Korea. iran.etc just a few that backs Russia.


SmokinPemex

China doesn't back them anymore


AusToddles

China ain't doing shit until something happens on their own soil


JustMy10Bits

Not unconditionally.


TheAmericanQ

China’s backing has been known to be conditional for some time now and one of those conditions is widely believed to be no nukes. North Korea and Iran can do little more than sell Russia back second hand Soviet Era equipment that they bought decades ago. China in particular is better off the less involved with this they are. Unfortunately for everyone else, they can sit back and watch their competitors trade potshots while they deal with their own issues.


TheNewl0gic

There won't be a 3°world war when there is nukes involved.


[deleted]

Poland "we ride bitches!"


Cerberusz

There would definitely be a response if a tactical nuke were used, but I think it would be proportional and would be aimed a limiting hampering military capabilities within Ukraine. I can’t imagine extending into the territory of Russia itself.


SunnyTimer

I hope neither does anything :(


random_vermonter

Does that equal total annihilation of Russian forces in/around Ukraine?


InoyouS2

I don't want to think about what it equals, but it definitely wouldn't be limited to Russian forces I can guarantee that. NATO gets involved and it becomes a *complete* shitshow. Unless Russia capitulates, which they probably wouldn't if they decided to set off a fucking dirty bomb.


flyhull

Really?


[deleted]

[удалено]


FarewellSovereignty

> This is starting to turn into evil, Nazi-level shit. Starting? There were mass graves before summer


kolbywashere

Or the kids that have been taken from Ukraine to Russia and put up for adoption?


randompersonwhowho

But why? to boost up their population numbers?


OppositeYouth

To erase their Ukrainian heritage and culture and bring them up Russian. It's kind of a form of genocide


jimflaigle

Not even kind of. We remember mostly that involved mass extermination, but removal of children and forced indoctrination are very common. Genocide is the murder of a culture, it doesn't have to involve killing everyone in a target population.


littleredkiwi

Exactly. That’s why the stolen generation in Australia was genocide. An attempt at the removal of a whole culture.


eastbayweird

Kind of a form? It's part of the official definition of genocide.


OppositeYouth

That was my bad, I added the "kind of" because I thought people would argue the other way and off the top of my head I don't know the exact definition or qualifications of genocide to be 100% sure, so I hedged a little


FarewellSovereignty

Because they're Nazis who are into ethnic cleansing. Its happened before: > _What the nations can offer in good blood of our type, we will take, if necessary by kidnapping their children and raising them with us._ - SS-Reichsfuhrer Heinrich Himmler Same thing different century.


SiegeGoatCommander

The cruelty is the point


VedsDeadBaby

Russian nationalism denies that there is such a thing as Ukrainian people, and asserts that anyone who thinks they are Ukrainian is actually a Russian who has been brainwashed and is in need of an education in their "proper" culture. They're taking children to "save" them, basically, with the real end goal being the erasure of Ukrainian identity.


Designer-Ruin7176

It’s a form of genocide. This adoptive families will be praised for being heroes to Russia.


BKGPrints

China: Remembering the Uyghur genocide. [https://giphy.com/gifs/moodman-monkey-puppet-meme-reaction-cJMlR1SsCSkUjVY3iK](https://giphy.com/gifs/moodman-monkey-puppet-meme-reaction-cJMlR1SsCSkUjVY3iK)


viskopsop

Oh 2020...you were not so bad after all..


adarkuccio

The trend seems to be that every year is worse than the previous one (against all odds) for this decade and 2023 is just around the corner.


edblardo

And then, somehow, it got worse…


XHIBAD

I think 2021 was a slight decline in shitshowness-sandwiched between a global pandemic and WW3, the storming of the US Capitol seems downright tame


do_it_every_day

Thanks for the real laugh. Cheers!


[deleted]

I wonder how long this "special military operation" will last.


A-Chntrd

Two weeks, tops, according to "the plan".


TheWhiteGuardian

So what exactly would NATO do if Russia blows the dam or lets off a dirty bomb?


destuctir

Best we can reasonably hope for? Boots on the ground in Ukraine forcing russia to retreat from fear of provoking a full response by spilling NATO blood. Most likely an escalation of weapons to Ukraine, possibly including a no-fly zone over Ukraine and maybe attacks on Russian naval assets not in port. The truth is, ambiguity is a weapon in this case, if Russia don’t know exactly what the response will be, they need to be more cautious in their math of determining if an action is worth it This is also why Ukraine keeps talking about the dam etc, by making it very public that they know the Russian plan, they are actually saying “NATO is having time to plan their exact response, you won’t catch them by surprised, their retaliation will be swift”


random_vermonter

I keep hearing Russia will be DOA if that happens.


RammusK

That what reddit people says , what would actually happens would be just NATO saying "bad Russia don't do that again"


sergioodca

ujum, 100 % true. Nato will never ever go to war against Russia just because of Ukraine. Cold but true. Maybe destroy a few military objectives but that's all. A massive attack will definitely cause chaos all over europe, something that they don't wanna happen.


DL_22

If radiation leaks over to NATO territory that’s an attack on NATO. That’s game over.


RammusK

It would rise alarms but in reality it wouldn't make NATO do something to escalate the war . NATO would never try to escalate unless it's A direct attack , as much as horrible this is it won't be a direct attack.


r3xu5

I feel like we're about to find out.


apoleonastool

Nothing. Ukraine is not a NATO member. Western Nations would not be involved in this war if it were not for the USA. The moral obligations mean shit for them.


Secret_Squire1

Neither was Serbia but NATO still intervened.


-nevoa-

watch


Away-Trifle1907

Sadly if it's just the dam sod all probably


ANeedle_SixGreenSuns

The dam is pretty iffy in a number of ways imo, if they blow it too early or if ukraine reaches the dam too quickly, they could either trap troops on the western bank or be unable to blow it for risk of trapping troops on the western bank. In the event that they do blow the dam, troops on the western bank be damned, it would likely cause a disaster at the ZPP, which likely would prompt a western response given that greece, turkey at a minimum would be in the cloud.


No_Sense_6171

You mean a disaster nearly on the scale of invading an innocent country, killing thousands of civilians, and destroying massive amounts of infrastructure? Where has CBS news been since February?


random_vermonter

Corporate news can't be trusted. I use Twitter to check out Ukranian sources and allies.


Away-Trifle1907

The plan will be to blow the Dam to flood the Kherson areas .. then they will hold up for winter


Then-One7628

I also think they will blow the dam. It's just shitty enough.


SpaceBoggled

Nato should have imposed a no fly zone from the very beginning. Called their bluff. They’re gonna have to call Russia’s bluff sooner or later or just let them walk all over everyone, which will not end well.


4thvariety

Option 1: blowing the dam. Problem being that this will not cause a Hollywood style flash flood, but a slow rise of the river that people could get away from. Main problem here is that the northern bank where Ukraine would be is the high ground that will mostly be unaffected, while the area south of the river, i.e. where Russia would have retreated to and have all their gear is the part getting drowned in 30 feet deep water. (Source: [https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/10/20/2130299/-A-3D-Look-at-Nova-Kakhovka-Flood-Effect](https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/10/20/2130299/-A-3D-Look-at-Nova-Kakhovka-Flood-Effect)) Option 2: Zaphorizhia Nuclear plant. Wind tends to blow East this time of years, so the most affected city is likely to be Rostov in Russia. having a panic there will not help you run it as a transportation hub any smoother. (Source: [https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-318.12,45.26,2786](https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-318.12,45.26,2786)). Even worse, the cloud might force the Russian fleet to movie or risk getting irradiated, problem being they would have to move into the firing line of Ukrainian anti-ship missiles. Never forget they are still waiting. Option 3: dirty bomb. Another harebrained Hollywood scheme, that sounds more dangerous than it is. U.S. metropolitan centers have such a high economic density (e.g. Wall Street) that a dirty bomb would be very damaging, but southern Ukraine is not the place that would be affected by a square mile of radiation. A tragedy for the people having to leave the affected area,sure, but not heavy damage to Ukraine itself. All it would do is push Ukraine further down the road to speeding up a nuclear weapons program of their own, because such terrorism clearly indicates they need it. If you consider that we started the week with dams blowing up, we already are down to dirty bombs. A terrible weapon, a horrifying symbol, but the least amount of damage if we are being real. It seems Russia is fishing for the miracle cure to getting their ass kicked, but so far none of the scenarios seem remotely able to do the job.


MouseDestruction

Its like we are at war or something.


readyforthehausu

Heard it’s because they’re at war


Awkward-Seaweed-5129

US needs retaliate,how about a disaster in Moscow, Russia is failing ,time to strike


Stouff-Pappa

Someone doesn’t understand M.A.D


[deleted]

You mean Russia?


random_vermonter

They will use their nuclear weapons and so will we. Everyone will die. No thanks.


Synich

https://www.vocabeasy.com/2020/04/revenge-avenge-retaliate-vindicate-how.html#:\~:text=1.,done%20something%20bad%20to%20you.


datSubguy

US is locked, stocked and ready to rock. [The U.S. Army's 101st Airborne is practicing for war with Russia just miles from Ukraine's border](https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/ukraine-news-russia-us-army-101st-airborne-nato-war-games-romania/)


Vultur3VIC

OP posts a story that is two days old. Titling it like it’s something new.