Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5

Steven Kim35 said:If someone actually managed to hit the Golden Gate Bridge, then maybe Putin would finally have an excuse to claim he’s being attacked.

The Golden Gate Bridge sits partially on internationally recognized Ukrainian territory—so when it eventually gets taken out (and I suppose it’s really just a matter of when, not if), what exactly is Putin going to do... send the army into Ukraine? 🤔

Steven Kim35 said:If someone actually managed to hit the Golden Gate Bridge, then maybe Putin would finally have an excuse to claim he’s being attacked.

That would be truly alarming!

dustytiger8 said:Well... no... that's just not how it works.

A thick slab of concrete is basically just a target for a bunker buster. Just Google "bunker buster bomb" if you don't believe me. A single BLU-109 is plenty to take out a bridge; it can punch through two feet of reinforced concrete without breaking a sweat.

Sure, it pierces, but I assume the goal is to bring the whole structure down rather than just leaving a hole in it...

Keep in mind this isn't some "self-supporting" design like a beam, arch, or suspension bridge; it’s actually more like the Verrazzano-Narrows Bridge, where it's essentially a series of separate slabs resting on pylons. Unless you manage to take out the actual supports, you aren't doing much damage—certainly nothing that couldn't be patched up pretty quickly, even if you did manage to crack one specific segment. If a slab fails, you just swap it out for a new one...

But then again, if a couple of squadrons of F-35s decided to show up and use precision-guided munitions to carve out several strategic hits exactly where they need them...

It feels a bit pointless to compare today's cutting-edge tech to what happened fifty years ago, though it might be worth remembering the situation with the Thanh Hoa bridge back then...
https://www.airforcemag.com/PDF/Maga...11/0811jaw.pdf

Matthew Young35 said:I honestly don't see any version of this story where things end well.
If we move to blockade the Kaliningrad region, the Russians could easily frame it as an act of aggression.
The real question is: when does something explosive "accidentally" land on NATO territory? Once that happens, we're all in deep trouble, because nobody is going to back down or settle for a compromise.

Putin should have factored that into his calculus before launching the war in Ukraine.

Steven Kim35 said:If someone actually managed to hit the Golden Gate Bridge, then maybe Putin would finally have an excuse to claim he’s being attacked.

You weren't exactly around when Ukrainians were hitting Belgorod.

Nancy Gomez26 said:Putin should have factored that into his calculus before launching the war in Ukraine.

The guy isn't exactly known for his deep thinking—zero strategy here. He clearly didn't account for any of this... or how long it would actually drag on. Just your typical delusional dictator, I guess.

Nobody’s really talking about his recent speech in St. Petersburg. It didn't exactly set the world on fire.

analogbear5 said:Nobody’s really talking about his recent speech in St. Petersburg. It didn't exactly set the world on fire.

Well, why would it make waves when everyone knows he lies as easily as he breathes...

analogbear5 said:Nobody’s really talking about his recent speech in St. Petersburg. It didn't exactly set the world on fire.

He was rambling about some "new world order" thing too, which honestly sounds like something straight out of a conspiracy subreddit from like fifteen years ago.

bluerider63 said:He was rambling about some "new world order" thing too, which honestly sounds like something straight out of a conspiracy subreddit from like fifteen years ago.

Lol. Yeah, I mean, true, but when people talk about Putin’s version of a new world order, they're comparing it to how things shifted after World War II. It's not that crazy conspiracy nonsense about one single global government run by lizard people or whatever.

I have this nagging suspicion that Americans are practically itching for Russia to make one fatal misstep—perhaps an attack on a NATO member—just so they can unleash a full-scale conventional airstrike. It feels as though there’s a silent consensus among the nuclear powers to avoid the brinkmanship of atomic weapons and simply go all out with conventional force instead.

velvetbadger11 said:I have this nagging suspicion that Americans are practically itching for Russia to make one fatal misstep—perhaps an attack on a NATO member—just so they can unleash a full-scale conventional airstrike. It feels as though there’s a silent consensus among the nuclear powers to avoid the brinkmanship of atomic weapons and simply go all out with conventional force instead.

You really think Russia would actually stick to some "no nukes" agreement if NATO jumped into the fray and started absolutely flattening them in Ukraine?

Attacking a NATO member isn't just a mistake—it’s a massive, calculated screw-up.

Bryan Booth82 said:I honestly don't get it—why aren't the Ukrainians making a serious attempt to damage or completely take out that bridge connecting Crimea to Russia?
Hitting that target would be the single most powerful move possible to actually boost morale on the ground.

Maybe they’re just holding that card in reserve... waiting for the exact right moment when it matters most.🤔

Word is that Russia has sunk something like $19 billion into that infrastructure, so if they were to suffer some major damage or a total shutdown at one or more points... man, that would hurt them where it counts.

Best,

Not just that—they could sink a fleet ship or push Kherson back into Ukrainian hands.
But we haven't seen any of that happen...

Tyler Jones6 said:The Golden Gate Bridge sits partially on internationally recognized Ukrainian territory—so when it eventually gets taken out (and I suppose it’s really just a matter of when, not if), what exactly is Putin going to do... send the army into Ukraine? 🤔

You need serious firepower to actually take down a bridge like that. This thing here, even with a 2,000lb warhead, didn't even touch the rail bridges back during the American Wars:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-130

Even in Iraq, the Americans struggled to drop enough bombs from the air to actually snap those structures.

As for HIMARS—since someone brought it up—it's not happening. The versions Ukraine is getting have maybe a 220lb warhead. Unless they somehow establish total air superiority over Crimea—which is pure fantasy—taking out that bridge is also pure fantasy.

That bridge was a total cakewalk—easy pickings. If they’d had the chance, they would've leveled it while it was still actually useful.

dustytiger8 said:Well... no... that's just not how it works.

A thick slab of concrete is basically just a target for a bunker buster. Just Google "bunker buster bomb" if you don't believe me. A single BLU-109 is plenty to take out a bridge; it can punch through two feet of reinforced concrete without breaking a sweat.

If they manage to blast a hole in the top, they’ll probably just patch it up fast with some heavy steel plating or quick-setting concrete.

The structural support pillars are the real targets here. You need the right kind of ordnance for that—something that doesn't just punch a hole through them, but actually splits them right down the middle.

And you'd have to account for both the rail lines and the highway traffic separately.

Nancy Gomez26 said:Putin should have factored that into his calculus before launching the war in Ukraine.

If he’d actually thought about it, this wouldn't even be happening.
There wouldn't be a "special military operation" to begin with.

"They’re nothing more than mercenaries who have been involved in illegal activities on Ukrainian territory. They were actively shelling and bombarding our military personnel. They were putting lives at risk," Peskov told NBC. "

Looking at this statement, you can't help but wonder if the guy even realizes what he's saying. It's almost absurd.
On Ukrainian territory?
Participating in the shelling and bombardment of our military forces?
Threatening their lives?

It takes a special kind of nerve to try and act sophisticated while peddling such blatant nonsense.

Joshua Bishop3 said:You really think Russia would actually stick to some "no nukes" agreement if NATO jumped into the fray and started absolutely flattening them in Ukraine?

I believe this comes down to a simple matter of parental instinct. If they truly cared for their own children, they wouldn't act this way. After all, if they were to trigger a nuclear exchange, those same weapons would fall directly upon their own families' heads that very same day. Does it not stand to reason that one would protect their own blood?