Is Ukraine about to have a war?
If the clowns have dumped the water supply to the intakes, then getting outta dodge is a good idea. The fuel rods in place will still need cooling, as they would if withdrawn and put into cooling ponds. No new water supply, probably don't want to be near by. Would think that the IAEA would be rather interested in the current status of what the Russian Terrorists Army have done in ZNPP. The only good news is, Russia is downwind.
Guest
Tank is still powerful weapon on the battlefield providing it is used properly:
https://twitter.com/georgian_legion/...53259299221504
https://twitter.com/georgian_legion/...53259299221504
A direct result of their inflation that is caused by Russia's energy war going on and increased energy prices. 100 billion Euros won't buy as much as hoped for a year ago. I agree they should increase military spending again but that won't help inflation either. They try to keep their economy going by desperately subsidising energy costs.
The stupid thing they did was turning to Russia for energy supplies. Now they pay the price.
The stupid thing they did was turning to Russia for energy supplies. Now they pay the price.
The Euro took a hit. And the Zloty even a bit worse. And they are massively shopping outside Euro currency area. I have the feeling that more than a few ambitious procurment plans will face a revision in the next few years.
If the clowns have dumped the water supply to the intakes, then getting outta dodge is a good idea. The fuel rods in place will still need cooling, as they would if withdrawn and put into cooling ponds. No new water supply, probably don't want to be near by. Would think that the IAEA would be rather interested in the current status of what the Russian Terrorists Army have done in ZNPP. The only good news is, Russia is downwind.
Very light drift W to E at surface and 1000mb
Apparently not dull around Enerhodar. Or down wind.
,
As commented on before, tactical detonations tend to be airburst, and have relatively low fall out, compared at least to Tzar Bomba I guess. (trust us, we are after all talking about TNW's up to 4 times the Hiroshima size... anyone who assumes TNW's are minor issues should go visit both Hiroshima and Nagasaki).... There will be fallout, but if the detonation is at an altitude it should be minimal, not zero. In that case, low and mid level winds would be of interest.
For a meltdown, which results in loss of containment, then the mess can be extensive, still less than a ground burst of a TNW, but not pretty. In that case, the fallout we have seen before, in Apr 86. That followed mid and high-level wind patterns and left contamination all over Europe, from Scandinavia to Western Europe. The boys at Sandia will have fair ideas of where the stuff will go, but go, it will.
The system has been in shutdown for a number of weeks, and the thermal flux drops off promptly but doesn't go to zero for a number of years. For Fukushima, a week after the shutdown, a loss of water flow would boil off all the water above the fuel rods in 11 hrs, at which point the fuel rods would start to heat up without control.... When the fuel rod gets hot enough, it can mess up the cladding and that sets it off towards a bad day with H2 buildup, just one of the fun bits. At 7 days, it takes 11 hrs to boil off all the water... at 30 days, it takes about 16.5 hrs to get to the same point... the water within the cooling system may be more or less, but that is the rough order change in time to start having a rise of the fuel rod temps. Want a bucket brigade of Putin types if the water supply fails and the fuel rods are not in a large water body. The tertiary cooling is from external sources, like the lake... if they can sort out the feed. There are only 66 tons of Uranium in each reactor apparently, x 6, trivial for Vlad.
The problem with ZNPP isn't going critical, it is overheating causing H2 buildup and the potential for an explosion within the containment structure leading to the sort of problem that Chornobyl experienced, although the design of the fuel rods there was itself a major badness. ZNPP's risk is H2 explosion, and a subsequent corium event once more.
P.S.: the ~ 400 tons of fuel in the reactors is the current fuel load, onsite there would be the prior 5-25 years worth of spent fuel rods which still need cooling. the rods are good for.., what? 5 years? That's a fair amount of fuel in the residual heat state needing cooling and water protection.
Last edited by fdr; 23rd Oct 2022 at 11:20. Reason: P.S.:
Understood. I had close association with prediction of contamination in two roles: as S Met O UKWMO Fiskerton and Horsham, later managing the planned response to accidents with ships/ boats , nuclear power plants and weapons in transit. Very clever science and I was taught by very clever scientists. We always checked our calculations again and again .................
HOWEVER there is another sort of fallout: political ............ Turkey is a bit close for example. And the media storm after a bang would ignore any announcement of "minimal". Russia sort of got away with Chernobyl because it was deemed an accident, but any deliberate release would, I think, have profound local political consequences.
HOWEVER there is another sort of fallout: political ............ Turkey is a bit close for example. And the media storm after a bang would ignore any announcement of "minimal". Russia sort of got away with Chernobyl because it was deemed an accident, but any deliberate release would, I think, have profound local political consequences.
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Go-pro footage of ejection from Su-25. Must be a first?
https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFoota...eb2x&context=3
https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFoota...eb2x&context=3
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
https://www.netcost-security.fr/actu...-monde-entier/
Damaged European submarine cables impact internet connectivity worldwide
Several undersea cables in the south of France were cut overnight, rendering internet access globally unreliable. Engineers have fixed a broken link and investigations are still ongoing. Russian submarines have been blamed for the Ukrainian conflict, but investigators have yet to find evidence to support this hypothesis.
On Wednesday evening, a serious incident involving an undersea cable in the south of France caused widespread internet connectivity problems. At least three fiber optic cables were cut at 8:30 p.m. (UTC), slowing internet access for users in Europe, Asia and the United States. Cloud companies quickly worked to fix the backbone.
According to a report by cloud security firm Zscaler, the unexpected cable damage resulted in packet loss and increased latency for websites and applications traversing the impacted paths. The company has identified three broken links: Marseille-Lyon, Marseille-Milan and Marseille-Barcelona. Zscaler has made routing adjustments to internet traffic where possible to mitigate the issue. However, in some cases actions were hampered by app and content providers who were still using the severed links.
In a subsequent update released at 1:03:15 UTC, Zscaler confirmed that workers had fixed one of the affected links, resulting in lower packet loss and reduced latency for websites and internet apps. The remaining links (probably Marseille-Milan and Marseille-Barcelona) were confirmed cut by direct fiber tests. However, search operations to find the damaged points of the submarine cable are still in progress….
Damaged European submarine cables impact internet connectivity worldwide
Several undersea cables in the south of France were cut overnight, rendering internet access globally unreliable. Engineers have fixed a broken link and investigations are still ongoing. Russian submarines have been blamed for the Ukrainian conflict, but investigators have yet to find evidence to support this hypothesis.
On Wednesday evening, a serious incident involving an undersea cable in the south of France caused widespread internet connectivity problems. At least three fiber optic cables were cut at 8:30 p.m. (UTC), slowing internet access for users in Europe, Asia and the United States. Cloud companies quickly worked to fix the backbone.
According to a report by cloud security firm Zscaler, the unexpected cable damage resulted in packet loss and increased latency for websites and applications traversing the impacted paths. The company has identified three broken links: Marseille-Lyon, Marseille-Milan and Marseille-Barcelona. Zscaler has made routing adjustments to internet traffic where possible to mitigate the issue. However, in some cases actions were hampered by app and content providers who were still using the severed links.
In a subsequent update released at 1:03:15 UTC, Zscaler confirmed that workers had fixed one of the affected links, resulting in lower packet loss and reduced latency for websites and internet apps. The remaining links (probably Marseille-Milan and Marseille-Barcelona) were confirmed cut by direct fiber tests. However, search operations to find the damaged points of the submarine cable are still in progress….
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Lawn dart arrival….
NEW: Footage of a Su-34 crashing into a two-story building in Irkutsk, Russia
NEW: Footage of a Su-34 crashing into a two-story building in Irkutsk, Russia
Thought twin engine aircraft are inherently safer than single engine aircraft. Maybe, not in RU.
If you go and read the NATO articles you will definitely find that it specifically excludes the vast majority of the colonial posessions of all NATO countries, precisely so as to not make NATO Art 5 hostage to foreign adventures during the retreat from empire phase. I'm not 100% certain where the vestigial pieces stand wrt NATO articles - I'm thinking for example of Gibraltar (UK); Guantanamo (USA); or the various French DoMs and ToMs, but there are many more - and I think they mostly remain technically excluded from Art 5 matters.
Turning to the example you repeat of (say) Poland committing military forces into Ukraine thereby becoming a co-belligerent, and then being on the receiving end of Russian responses in Poland itself, I think that too is excluded from Art 5. If NATO collectively were to intervene - for whatever reason - then that would be a different matter. However any individual NATO-state voluntarily becoming a co-belligerent I believe puts itself outside Art 5 for this purpose. This is precisely why NATO as a whole is taking a qualitatively cohesive stance on this conflict. How is it that you read the NATO articles dfferently ?
(I think the various Iraq and Afghanistan episodes you cite are qualitatively different in nature due to the invocation of UN resolutions, so I think they are a red-herring in the current situation. Regrettably the UN structures suffer from the same drawbacks as the League Of Nations in the limit.)
Turning to the example you repeat of (say) Poland committing military forces into Ukraine thereby becoming a co-belligerent, and then being on the receiving end of Russian responses in Poland itself, I think that too is excluded from Art 5. If NATO collectively were to intervene - for whatever reason - then that would be a different matter. However any individual NATO-state voluntarily becoming a co-belligerent I believe puts itself outside Art 5 for this purpose. This is precisely why NATO as a whole is taking a qualitatively cohesive stance on this conflict. How is it that you read the NATO articles dfferently ?
(I think the various Iraq and Afghanistan episodes you cite are qualitatively different in nature due to the invocation of UN resolutions, so I think they are a red-herring in the current situation. Regrettably the UN structures suffer from the same drawbacks as the League Of Nations in the limit.)
The adjective belligerent is "hostile and aggressive". A party defending another's right to exist in the face of an aggressor nation conducting an illegal war "Special Military Operation" is not a belligerent. If you defend your family from an intruder, do you refer to yourself as a belligerent?
The noun belligerent, which you are using is "a nation or person engaged in war or conflict, as recognized by international law." As Russia went out of their way to commit criminal acts, and has not declared a war, I think using the term belligerent while correct in a war is somewhat inappropriate for a country undertaking self defence against a criminal act, and that would include any country assisting in the collective defence of the victim. "Belligerent" has connotations of aggression in all uses.
If Russia can call a criminal act an SMO, I see no reason not to call Ukraine a defender and those countries that support Ukraine co defenders.
The UN Charter permits collective defence, what that may mean to NATO is anyones guess, but Poland and presumably Estonia if they get involved within Ukraine would make that an interesting question for Vlad to sleep on. An attack of Belarus itself is high stakes, and would come with baggage. assisting Ukraine repeal the uninvited crime would be consistent with the UN Charter and a response directly against the country concerned would be a guessing game for Vlad as to where NATO may draw a line. So far he has been drawing blanks on his assumptions of world response to his summer vacation plans.
Should you wish to double cross this bride, you can PM me and we can take the discussion off line. Any assumption that NATO may not not respond assists Vlad, and I don't consider that appropriate in light of his barbaric actions with Ukraine and even his own citizens.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,077
Received 2,942 Likes
on
1,253 Posts
Russian column runs into Ukrainian armour on the road
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Another view of the lawn dart. Unless they got out at altitude they didn’t get out at all in that attitude and at that rate of descent…
P2:
The adjective belligerent is "hostile and aggressive". A party defending another's right to exist in the face of an aggressor nation conducting an illegal war "Special Military Operation" is not a belligerent. If you defend your family from an intruder, do you refer to yourself as a belligerent?
The noun belligerent, which you are using is "a nation or person engaged in war or conflict, as recognized by international law." As Russia went out of their way to commit criminal acts, and has not declared a war, I think using the term belligerent while correct in a war is somewhat inappropriate for a country undertaking self defence against a criminal act, and that would include any country assisting in the collective defence of the victim. "Belligerent" has connotations of aggression in all uses.
If Russia can call a criminal act an SMO, I see no reason not to call Ukraine a defender and those countries that support Ukraine co defenders.
The UN Charter permits collective defence, what that may mean to NATO is anyones guess, but Poland and presumably Estonia if they get involved within Ukraine would make that an interesting question for Vlad to sleep on. An attack of Belarus itself is high stakes, and would come with baggage. assisting Ukraine repeal the uninvited crime would be consistent with the UN Charter and a response directly against the country concerned would be a guessing game for Vlad as to where NATO may draw a line. So far he has been drawing blanks on his assumptions of world response to his summer vacation plans.
Should you wish to double cross this bride, you can PM me and we can take the discussion off line. Any assumption that NATO may not not respond assists Vlad, and I don't consider that appropriate in light of his barbaric actions with Ukraine and even his own citizens.
The adjective belligerent is "hostile and aggressive". A party defending another's right to exist in the face of an aggressor nation conducting an illegal war "Special Military Operation" is not a belligerent. If you defend your family from an intruder, do you refer to yourself as a belligerent?
The noun belligerent, which you are using is "a nation or person engaged in war or conflict, as recognized by international law." As Russia went out of their way to commit criminal acts, and has not declared a war, I think using the term belligerent while correct in a war is somewhat inappropriate for a country undertaking self defence against a criminal act, and that would include any country assisting in the collective defence of the victim. "Belligerent" has connotations of aggression in all uses.
If Russia can call a criminal act an SMO, I see no reason not to call Ukraine a defender and those countries that support Ukraine co defenders.
The UN Charter permits collective defence, what that may mean to NATO is anyones guess, but Poland and presumably Estonia if they get involved within Ukraine would make that an interesting question for Vlad to sleep on. An attack of Belarus itself is high stakes, and would come with baggage. assisting Ukraine repeal the uninvited crime would be consistent with the UN Charter and a response directly against the country concerned would be a guessing game for Vlad as to where NATO may draw a line. So far he has been drawing blanks on his assumptions of world response to his summer vacation plans.
Should you wish to double cross this bride, you can PM me and we can take the discussion off line. Any assumption that NATO may not not respond assists Vlad, and I don't consider that appropriate in light of his barbaric actions with Ukraine and even his own citizens.
I would like to hope UN applies, but that hope died stillborn back in 1945 when circumstances meant that the same problems as bedevilled the League Of Nations were baked in.
More Aviation content.
SU-25 Ejection, Pilots eye view. Something lopped off a major part of the tail fin and the rear of the aircraft is on fire.
https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1584128393510952960
SU-25 Ejection, Pilots eye view. Something lopped off a major part of the tail fin and the rear of the aircraft is on fire.
https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1584128393510952960
I said "a severe response from NATO countries" and not a severe NATO response. And the very reason I stated it that way is probably because at the back of my mind I always tend to dismiss the French and the Italians! 
However, I remain hopeful that the majority would band together with a suitable military response.
However, I remain hopeful that the majority would band together with a suitable military response.
Originally Posted by petit plateau
I think you've now sussed out the point. If a party elects to become a co-belligerent then NATO Art 5 no longer applies.
As to the 101st Airborne/Air Assault Division
A total of 4,700 soldiers from Fort Campbell, Kentucky, the home base of the 101st Airborne, have been sent to strengthen NATO’s eastern flank. The “Screaming Eagles” leaders repeatedly stated that while they are in the region to defend NATO territory, they are completely prepared to cross the border into Ukraine if the combat intensifies or if a NATO country comes under attack.
Their deployment began in August, with a couple thousand deployed to Romania then.
I'd be interested to find out how many battalions of Blackhawks, and other helicopters, made the trip.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Blaming us darstardly Machiavellian Brits again. Brings tears of pride to my eyes….
Doubtless why Shoygu called Wallace this afternoon….
RIA Novosti: According to "credible sources in Ukraine and various other countries", Ukraine is preparing a provocation on the territory of its country using a "dirty bomb" or "low-yield nuclear weapon."
"Kyiv has already begun the practical implementation of this plan."
Doubtless why Shoygu called Wallace this afternoon….
RIA Novosti: According to "credible sources in Ukraine and various other countries", Ukraine is preparing a provocation on the territory of its country using a "dirty bomb" or "low-yield nuclear weapon."
"Kyiv has already begun the practical implementation of this plan."