Posts by wiredtiger8

wearytrucker22 said:To all you nuclear enthusiasts

Back in the year 2020, the United States dropped roughly $37.4 billion just to keep its nuclear arsenal running. China came in second with a $10.1 billion price tag, followed by Russia at $8 billion.

Now, just try to wrap your head around the actual condition of those weapons. Setting the USA aside for a moment, look at China and Russia. You’ve got Russia sitting on thousands of warheads while China has a few hundred—yet the Chinese spent significantly more than the Russians just to maintain them.

analogbear5 said:Look, if Putin doesn't care about sending hundreds of thousands of his own people to die, he definitely isn't sweating an $11 billion loss.

Lost time is worth way more than that money. But when you're fighting a losing war, your thinking starts getting pretty short-sighted.

Anthony Hill5 said:If the Americans were truly pulling the strings here, they would have pulled them ages ago, rather than waiting until the moment the European Union had already decided to stop sourcing gas from Russia. Such a claim is fundamentally devoid of any logical basis.

ironseal said:What’s so "fascinating" or weird about that? You seriously didn't see a reason to mock the Russian military and their so-called "Special Military Operation" over the last six months? That doesn't mean they can't blow up a damn pipe in shallow water—we're talking depth where people compete in free diving. A small terrorist cell could pull that off, let alone a terrorist state like the Russian Federation.

gentlestag15 said:Don't sweat the Germans too much; they'll figure it out. They've got enough gas in storage to coast through this winter.
If you want someone to worry about, look at the Russians. They're sliding straight into total totalitarianism and an absolute economic meltdown.

gentlestag15 said:Isn't it basically just some equipment failure on the pipeline that caused the Russians to cut us off?
Of course it’s just another Russian play. Putin pulled the rug out from under them, not the Germans.
The Germans definitely wouldn't be crawling on their hands and knees like a lapdog after Viktor Orbán, begging Putin for a few extra cubic meters of gas.

The explosions went down in international waters, which changes the whole vibe. Plus, the pipeline is mostly under Russian control anyway.
What kind of headache is NATO even dealing with there?

dustyfalcon122 said:That's it exactly—false flags and pure distraction. Putin doesn't even think gas will ever flow through there during his lifetime, so the whole pipeline is basically useless to him anyway.
I bet the Americans would rather mess with Canada and Mexico or go after the Turkish pipeline than deal with an empty pipe that won't even start moving for at least another ten years.

Terry Green3 said:This situation is a mess, and completely unexpected. For the first time in this war, lethal force has been used outside the borders of Ukraine or Russia.

I’m in shock. I honestly don't know what to write. I've been trying to find some sort of motive or logic behind this, but all I can find are reasons why nobody would actually pull this off.

Russ has burned through billions investing in pipelines; S2 was supposed to pay for itself through gas sales. Now, once seawater gets into those pipes and the corrosion starts, the whole project is essentially trash. We're looking at billions in lost investments.
Secondly, why specifically there, right on the maritime borders of Denmark and Sweden?
I really hope this isn't the case, but flight and vessel tracking sites noted US Navy activity in that area just before these incidents occurred. What is that supposed to imply? That the USA doesn't even trust the Germans anymore and fears they might blink this winter, necessitating a physical blockade of their options?
What kind of message does that send to our allies?
Then again, if it's Russ, it's eerie for two reasons. First, it's unsettling that they could carry out an operation so close to NATO waters; if they wanted to, they could have done this much closer to home in safer territory. Second, it's just insane if they've actually lost their minds and are destroying their own infrastructure for god knows what reason.
Total madness. Not exactly the best news to digest.

bluepuma9 said:Why does there even need to be a long stay... just drop them off nearby, maybe use a dinghy, then circle back later. There's so much traffic out there that anything unusual just blends in. And it's not 100 meters deep anyway; we're talking more like 50 meters.

Jessica Peterson2 said:So, this is what the world's second most powerful military is handing out to their mobilized reservists...

Terry Green3 said:The last time anyone went out waving flowers was during WWI. I don't think it's happened since.

Sandra Harris2 said:I wonder how the Mad King plans on spinning this to the Russian public.
First he announces a "special military operation" to "denazify Ukraine," calls for trials and death sentences for the Azov soldiers, and threatens all sorts of barbaric atrocities... then suddenly, he's sending them off to Turkey for a vacation.

It looks like his... The little oligarch... More important than the sacred mission you set for yourself... ☕

By the way, word is already getting around... The "referendum" results... 🕺

Nancy Gomez26 said:If someone intends to use long-range or even medium-range projectiles, how is the opposition—or NATO, who are monitoring all launches—supposed to know they are specifically aimed at Ukraine? At the exact moment of launch, you have to decide whether to counterstrike, yet you have absolutely no way of knowing the true target. That is why you don't play games with this. The Russians understand this dynamic perfectly well; their verbal outbursts are mostly just self-soothing or perhaps an attempt to intimidate the uneducated masses.

boldotter2 said:If you look at the basic logic, I guess anyone capable of taking out Putin after he’s spent 20 years building his grip on power is definitely capable of taking out whoever comes next.
It’s kind of like survival of the fittest, right? Like a selective process where they just keep eliminating options until they land on someone acceptable.

boldotter2 said:I don't think nuclear escalation could ever be "safer" for Putin. If he goes with mobilization, he loses the public. If he drops a nuke, he’ll have half the intelligence agencies in the world—and probably a good chunk of his own, too—turning on him. He'd literally be terrified to even flip a light switch. Between the strike, his mistress, his kids, Novichok, car bombs, falling out a window, or slipping in the tub, he'd be gone within 24 hours.

The guy is already scared of the lights in front of the Kremlin; he'd be even more terrified of a bomb under his bed.

Christian Torres3 said:Yeah, the Russians really nail it when it comes to both intelligence work and high-precision weaponry.

Timothy Nelson5 said:I guess I should start by saying that everything we think we know about this situation is probably just a surface-level glance at a much deeper, messier reality. It’s easy to get caught up in the headlines, but if you sit back and really look at the mechanics of how things move on the global stage, it’s all a bit more complicated than the news makes it out to be. Maybe. Or maybe I'm just being overly cautious. Regardless, there's a certain weight to these events that doesn't always translate to the soundbites we see on TV. It feels like we're watching a slow-motion collision where nobody actually knows when the impact is going to happen. Just my two cents, anyway.

First off, it's not exactly like this all happened overnight—it’s not like this war just kicked off six months ago. I mean, if you look at the timeline, this whole thing actually started eight years back.

Second off, it isn't even as if Ukraine would be breaking some kind of international legal norm or anything like that. I guess. Maybe. It just doesn't seem that way to me.
They were essentially just the nuclear successor to the USSR, I suppose.
They just walked away from it. Or maybe they gave up on it entirely. I guess you could say they renounced it, though I'm not entirely sure if that's the right word for it. It feels more like they just let it slip through their fingers. Maybe. voluntary... in exchange for... Guarantees... I suppose that’s what we’re talking about now. It’s a heavy word, isn't it? People toss it around like it actually means something in this day and age. Back in the day, you could take a man's word or a signed contract and feel some semblance of security, but now? Everything feels conditional. Everything comes with a massive asterisk attached to the fine print. I guess we just assume things will hold up, but history usually has other plans. Maybe we're all just being a bit too optimistic. Or maybe we're just tired of being disappointed. Hard to say.The guarantees have been broken, I suppose. It seems the Ukrainian side isn't even trying to hide their position anymore—they’re basically claiming they have every right to go nuclear now.
I know some people are going to get worked up about this, and they probably will, but honestly? If Russia starts making those nuclear threats, I don't see anyone in the West actually having the guts to tell Ukraine "no." It’s a messy situation, I guess... maybe even more complicated than it looks on the surface, but the reality is likely that nobody is going to push back against that kind of leverage.

Thirdly.
They’ve got quite a few nuclear facilities scattered around, I suppose... everything from the major power plants to those various processing sites. It's a lot to keep track of, really.
There are thousands of specialists out there who have spent their entire careers working in those facilities—everything from the enrichment processes to handling weapon-grade materials, all the way down to the actual construction of the nuclear warheads themselves. I guess you could say they know where all the bodies are buried.

Who knows how much leftover material or old technology actually ended up sitting around in those facilities... and honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if some warhead from back in the day is just tucked away somewhere, hidden out of sight. Maybe. It's hard to say.

I suppose there isn't much left to say, really. Everything just feels like it's circling the drain at this point. I guess I'll just leave it at that.

I mean, look at Iran. They’ve got the "know-how"—I suppose any decent physicist can wrap their head around the theory behind building a nuclear bomb—they have the cash, they have the centrifuges... they've been grinding away at this for ten years now, and yet, well, they still don't have one. I guess.

Look, you and I both understand the basic mechanics of an internal combustion engine—how it actually functions under the hood. But go ahead, try building one from scratch. Just imagine someone suddenly drops you right into the middle of the 1700s without a single tool or a scrap of modern tech. Good luck with that, I guess.
Look, if you actually had access to a local junkyard, I guess you could probably scrape together something that runs in no time at all. Maybe.

Sean Watson3 said:Sure, the biggest mistake people make is assuming this is all being done in Russia's best interest. Everything we've seen so far has actually backfired on Russia and its citizens, regardless of how you look at the timeline.

That’s why I wouldn't be shocked by some "desperation moves."
He’s backed himself into a corner of his own making. Winning this war on the battlefield seems impossible unless he calls for a general mobilization—which, let's face it, might be the only thing capable of actually toppling him.

So, it wouldn't surprise me if he drops a smaller bomb on a section of the front where it won't cause a massive massacre, but will serve to freeze the lines. It seems he'd rather gamble against NATO than risk a full-scale mobilization.

Think about it: stage a referendum, perhaps fabricate a scenario involving a Ukrainian chemical attack from a NATO lab on Russian soil, and then launch a retaliation strike.

But honestly? I think the Ukrainians are in a "pay the price" mindset for everything; they'd likely keep pushing even after a strike like that.

Either way, I see tactical mobilization happening before general mobilization, simply because the personal risk to Putin is much lower.

Timothy Nelson5 said:What would stop them?

The simple fact is, those countries would just rush to get their own nuclear arsenal immediately.

It’s an open secret that Japan has its own "readiness" program ready to go.

And I find it hard to believe South Korea doesn't have something similar up their sleeve.
South Korea's GDP is roughly on par with Russia's.
Japan's is nearly three times larger.

There are even circles claiming Taiwan might already have a few pieces tucked away...

There isn't even a 0.0001% chance that nobody would react, and Russ knows that all too well..

I guess Ukrainians would be pretty naive—maybe even foolish—if they weren't preparing to scramble and put together a few units themselves under these conditions.

bluemason3 said:About a third of the Russian strikes aren't even hitting their marks. On top of that, it takes days to scout and fix those target coordinates—which isn't exactly ideal when you're trying to hit high-priority strategic military targets in real time.

I don't even know where to start with this one—honestly, it’s just one of those days where everything feels like a slow-motion train wreck. You look at the news, you look at what's happening on the ground, and you just want to stare at a wall for an hour. It’s exhausting. Everything is moving so fast, yet somehow nothing is actually changing, if that makes any sense? Just a constant loop of chaos and noise. Anyway, I'm just venting. My head is spinning. kaže: When people talk about "modernity," they usually mean getting from point A to point B with some kind of efficiency—you know, progress, tech, moving forward. But honestly? Most times, we’re just watching a Russian missile blow everything up at point A before we even get started.

If Russ were actually looking to pull off a tactical strike like that, they wouldn't be wasting time—they’d probably just let a Tomahawk do the dirty work. And honestly? You can't exactly call those things inaccurate. They hit what they're aimed at.

Look, let’s just stop with all this nonsense about a poorly maintained Russ nuclear arsenal. Seriously. They have more than enough modern, fully functional hardware ready to go whenever they feel like it—so yeah, maybe rethink that whole narrative.

And then there’s this endless, repetitive chatter—not just on this damn forum, but everywhere you look lately—about whether tactical nukes should be used in Ukraine. It’s become this constant background noise, honestly. Even Biden is getting pulled into the conversation. Everyone seems to have their own little angle on it, talking out of their own pockets and pushing whatever agenda serves them best. It’s exhausting.

If you ask me—and honestly, I’m just shouting into the void here—we talk about this possibility way too often. It’s constant. It’s exhausting. And I can't help but wonder why we're doing it. Is it some kind of psychological play to get Putin to back off from even considering it? Or is it something much more calculated—like we're slowly paving the road and laying the groundwork so that when the time actually comes, nobody is shocked? Who knows. It feels like we're either trying to scare them off or prepping ourselves for the inevitable, and frankly, it’s hard to tell which one it is.

One thing is absolutely certain—and this is exactly what Biden said (or more likely, what he was coached to say)—is that the very nature of this war, and honestly every single conflict we see from here on out, is about to change forever.

First thing that jumps to mind—and I mean, really sticks in my craw—is Israel stepping in, maybe alongside some tactical strikes against Iran, if they ever decide that Iran is actually sitting on a finished nuclear program or is just seconds away from pulling the trigger on one.