Jump to content

BamaATL

Full Members
  • Posts

    4524
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by BamaATL

  1. 3 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

    Kennedy and Khrushchev negotiated the end of the CUban Missile Crisis.  The UN had nothing to do with it.

    Wow, the Russians got pants at the UN.  Its one of the most famous moments of the cold war, look it up.  And by the way their wasn't a direct negotiation ever, it was all done with back channel negotiation.  

     

    This is one of our largest problems, somehow its become cool socially to be willfully ignorant.  This information is readily available to be studied, its not classified.  These are facts   

    • Like 3
  2. 8 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

    The UN was created just like the League of Nations was created because the nations who won the World Wars thought they could "good talk Russ" with communists and dictators. Both were/are failures.

    Yeah, like the time they had to come and explain why they put missiles into Cuba?  How'd that work out for them.  Don't wait for the translation, answer the question now!

    • Haha 1
  3. 4 minutes ago, bolverk said:

    Serious question here:

    As a child of the 80s and as scary as some aspects of the Cold War were, like waking up in a cold sweat at the age of 12 after watching "The Day After", there was always some degree of reassurance that Soviet leadership had some sort of intricate decision-making process. It was murky as shit, and I never fully understood it (still don't as I'm not a student of the USSR). But there was always that term Kremlinology that was thrown around that made me feel like there were always ongoing consultations/debates among mysterious committees which led Soviet actions. And, after all, the Russians really did seem to love their children too when it came to nuclear annihilation, which is why we survived it.

    In this case, are all decisions made at the whim of a single man? Are there some sort of internal checks and balances like what appeared to be the case in Soviet times? Because, if not, this actually might be more dangerous.

    A great question, and I don't have a great answer.  It's entirely unclear, at least at the public level.  I'm sure our intel operations have a good sense of this situation, but they certainly aren't going to tell us, let alone the enemy.  You are correct, to my understanding, that in the Soviet days they had rigorous protocols and safety measures.  Problem is, that was 30 plus years ago.  Could Putin have changed all this, certainly.  

  4. 18 minutes ago, bolverk said:

    Not sure how you cut off a facility like you're talking about, but I can only imagine some stupendous buried Soviet bunker built over the last 70 years that would make a Bond villain blush. I've got to think it likely has its own redundant power supply/communications and is buried a mile underground with all sorts of food storage and shit.

    I just wonder if its enough to just cut him off, use the facility as a de facto prison while he is toppled.  

  5. 1 minute ago, rpspeed said:

     

     

    The more I think about it, the more this makes sense.  Putin is in a hardened facility in the Urals, surrounded by absolute loyalists.  If the Russians want to end this a little easier, why no just cut off all communication from Putin and just let him stew in his facility.  This would assume nuclear release requires 2 step authorization and no one else with Putin has authorization.  Once he's cut off, a potentially bloodless coup could happen.

  6. 2 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:


    I believe the blast radius of a 100MT nuclear weapon is about 40 miles. That’s 40 miles in every direction. How many did the Chernobyl meltdown kill? 60 people?

    lol - USSR I think acknowledged 39 total deaths directly attributed, but it was more like hundreds of thousands via cancers and shorter life spans.  Maybe even upward of a million.  Remember, they used human "liquidators" to clean the roof of the exposed radioactive graphite.  

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Rage+1 1
  7. Just now, TXSG8R said:

    I’m starting to believe Putin wants to draw NATO in. He dangled a 40 mile convoy, and now he’s doing an oops on a nuke plant?  

    No, this is what happens when you have a population of uneducated hicks and you send them to war.  They are just plain ignorant morons with big weapons and no concept of context  

    • Like 1
  8. 3 minutes ago, immamac said:

    They are launching missiles at it. Probably unintentionally because of incompetence. 

    Also, if they hit any of the containment with the shelling, there will be a spike in radiation for sure, but nothing like Chernobyl so long as they stop the reactor and repair the damage.  For weeks if not months after Chernobyl Cesium 137 spewed from it, that's gamma radiation on such a massive scale that it's like that everyone in the world to this day has trace levels of it in them.  

  9. 2 minutes ago, MillerEP said:

    From what little I understand. It won't explode like a bomb or anything, but it can crack and leak and turn into another Chernobyl depending on where they shell.

    Well, safety systems should act to shut everything down automatically should anyone system fail, i.e. coolant, power, etc.  So nothing like Chernobyl, where all the safety systems were deliberately bypassed. Additionally, the Chernobyl control rods had graphite tips that the operators didn't know about which is what actually caused the explosion because when they went to reinsert the control rods (that should have never been removed to the level that they were, a whole different problem), the graphite caused the reaction to spike, thus causing the actual explosion.  To my knowledge the Russians actually did change this practice moving forward and retroactively replaced the boron control rods that had graphite tips.  

    • Hook 'Em 1
  10. 4 minutes ago, Doc Reeves said:

    I mean, I’m not try to split hairs or be unpatriotic but… Russians would take the gold if we had to go up against them in crack, mdma or methamphetamines. With out question. While we would destroy them in prescription pills, cannnabis and cocaine. 

    just trying to offer facts

    USA new national motto:  We aren't number 1 in Meth! 

×
×
  • Create New...