• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

UA-RU-NATO | DISCUSSIONS

Status
Not open for further replies.
Again, the dirty bomb story makes absolutely no sense scientifically nor logically, and the prove of it is the letter which Russia sent to the UN.
It's just another way to try to scare people and to deter the west from further support to Ukraine.
There's no way to sell the explosion of a dirty bomb as the explosion of a tac-nuke....no sismological effects, no radiological effects (well, not close to the ones that come from even a tac-nuke), and of course, no major destruction. The israelians did plenty of tests in the past 20 years.

Also, always coming from the russians...the story which involves a radioactive contamination from the explosion of a dirty bomb in Ukraine, reaching the rest of Europe, is absolute crap, as it's crap the Ukrainan story which compares Chernobyl to ZNP...just stipid...and it's a matter of elementary physics. Unless of course you can manage to make and deliver a device as big and heavy as a nuclear reactor, with sufficient exploding energy to spread the contaminants thousands of km apart, without actually completely vaporizing them (as opposite of what would happen with a fission/fusion device) and making its purpose completely useless.

If I was given the possibility to not to become a nuclear engineer, I would be a personal trainer...much more sex...much less media, russian crap to digest.

If Russia needs a justification (it doesn't...they could just use it, since the retaliation from the west would be inevitable in any case), and wants to find one to use a tac-nuke, assuming that they're convinced about the practical benefits of using one (NONE), there are much easier ways to do it.
They could just use one of theirs and blame Ukraine, saying that their claims about Ukraine still owning WMD were right.
They could even say that the nuke comes from NATO.
The isotopes analysis would be useless since, even if the nuke was proved to have been built with the shit which comes out from Putin's ass, it would still be seen as a NATO's device from the Russia propaganda.

The blame game is going on since february.
Come on guys...don't buy the bullshit.
 
Last edited:
Well sure, But thinking that Ukraine does not have "Dirty Bombs" and dont want to drag the west into the conflict would be naive also. ( Its a survival fight for Ukraine and its existance as a state )
 
Very true...but would make even less sense to use a dirty bomb on the soil that you're willing to take back from Russia.
Also because it comes with a flavour...the west will never physically join Ukraine in the war.
And a false flag attack from Ukraine, would probably turn against them when it comes to western support.
Probably Biden would have already entered the war against Ukraine if it wasn't that NATO would break up in the next 5 seconds.
 
Irag8er said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1584935820263591937
BREAKING:

Poland’s president Duda has organized an urgent evening meeting between himself, Poland’s PM Morawiecki, Defense Minister Błaszczak, Interior Minister Kamiński and the top generals of the Polish Army.

Rumors swirling in Poland say there‘s a new threat from Kaliningrad
Click to expand...
I for one have no patience when it comes to any attack or harassment on Poland considering 1939 and their history in general. As Biden said, every inch. Russian soldier so much as trips and falls over into Polish territory, Kaliningrad is annexed into Poland.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Torch
New Colour said:
And this dismissive attitude is exactly what has pushed them into a corner and now come out snarling.
Click to expand...
There is nothing dismissive about it. It is the way it is.
New Colour said:
Of course they have something to say about what happens on their borders, especially when they don't quite agree that they are borders.
Click to expand...
No. They don't. And their whining about the border certanly didn't include Kyiv.
New Colour said:
Same as US if Mexico signed a joint defense agreement with China or Russia.
Click to expand...
So if Mexico signed a defense agreement with Russia, does the U.S. get to invade, bomb cities, and kidnap citizens?
 
TruthandJustice said:
I for one have no patience when it comes to any attack or harassment on Poland considering 1939 and their history in general. As Biden said, every inch. Russian soldier so much as trips and falls over into Polish territory, Kaliningrad is annexed into Poland.
Click to expand...
I also am convinced that Russia had their President assassinated in 2010.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bravo
reynolds said:
Very true...but would make even less sense to use a dirty bomb on the soil that you're willing to take back from Russia.
Also because it comes with a flavour...the west will never physically join Ukraine in the war.
And a false flag attack from Ukraine, would probably turn against them when it comes to western support.
Probably Biden would have already entered the war against Ukraine if it wasn't that NATO would break up in the next 5 seconds.
Click to expand...
Yeah that would be the logical thinking - But we have also to think about what would actually happen if such a false flag happens ( or in the future ) Are the trenches so deep now, ( diplomatic/geo game ) that even if your partner does such a dirty step, would the US back down? or would it ignore it and use it instead to trash Russia. ( and pull Europe into it )
 
Pentagon Press Secretary Air Force Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder briefs the news media at the Pentagon.
He was asked if 2 phone calls between U.S. were unusual
He stated that 1st. call was initiated by Sec. Austin because he believed it was too long since last call (paraphrasing)
2nd call was a follow up From Shoigu to further go over details of previous call
So that was reason for 2 calls so close to each other.
 
Irag8er said:
Pentagon Press Secretary Air Force Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder briefs the news media at the Pentagon.
He was asked if 2 phone calls between U.S. were unusual
He stated that 1st. call was initiated by Sec. Austin because he believed it was too long since last call (paraphrasing)
2nd call was a follow up From Shoigu to further go over details of previous call
So that was reason for 2 calls so close to each other.
Click to expand...
Righttt....
 
Friendly Engineer said:
For all we know, "troubling developments" could just refer to increased rhetoric.
Click to expand...
If I was wrtiting about rhetoric and I was a professional writer working for the New York Times, I would not have written the sentence this way: "A senior US official told The New York Times on Tuesday that there are "new, troubling developments" involving Russia's nuclear arsenal."
 
So whats the analysis on if the USAs partner makes a dirty move, would it stick to its partner, would it turn on it heel, or would it even try to escalate the situation? ( for its own benefit )
 
Barbara Starr question: (she emphasized this is not a Hypothetical question)
What is commitment to inform allies, troops , public , if some indication of preparation for some "dirty bomb" etc were observed?

"We take force protection seriously. Continue to monitor closely, constantly communication with allies, we continue to call on Russians to de-escalate"

What is level of confidence do you have that you would in fact able to detect an event about to happen, or had in fact happened (paraphrasing)

"We are constantly monitoring Not going into details."

End of of the presser
 
Erecon said:
So whats the analysis on if the USAs partner makes a dirty move, would it stick to its partner, would it turn on it heel, or would it even try to escalate the situation? ( for its own benefit )
Click to expand...
This concept of "partner" nations is wishful thinking. Even with "alliances" and "treaties."
Every nation's government has a priority to act in its own interests as its primary mission.
That does not mean nations don't attempt to find common causes, joint interests, and willingness to sacrifice (to a point) for other nations. But despite the rhetoric, I think it is unrealistic for USA to view Ukraine as a "partner" and actually vice versa as well. Ukraine will ultimately do what is in Ukraine's best interests.
 
REALHumanRights said:
This concept of "partner" nations is wishful thinking. Even with "alliances" and "treaties."
Every nation's government has a priority to act in its own interests as its primary mission.
That does not mean nations don't attempt to find common causes, joint interests, and willingness to sacrifice (to a point) for other nations. But despite the rhetoric, I think it is unrealistic for USA to view Ukraine as a "partner" and actually vice versa as well. Ukraine will ultimately do what is in Ukraine's best interests.
Click to expand...
Yeah excactly what I am thinking, but lets play the scenario what would the USA do if lets say Ukraine "plays dirty" and its a 50/50 accusation of who did it. The Western Media alrdy on Ukraines side. What would the next step for the USA be?
 
DarkNoon said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1585002404025606145
Click to expand...
Interesting, I thought the risk was low? Doesn’t seem that way if the President has to come out and constantly warn about something that should be obvious. Wasn’t invading Ukraine a “serious mistake”? Putin doesn’t seem to care about the path he is sending his country down.

---

Please Continue Here:

UA-RU-NATO | DISCUSSIONS

Putin is the only one that can deescalate this. The only one. If he isn’t mentally capable of doing this well that’s too bad and Russia better get their shit together and replace him with somebody that can or they will be destroyed.
community.defconwarningsystem.com community.defconwarningsystem.com
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom