Anybody Remember the Neutron Bomb?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Couple of points of order:

1) When it comes to nukes, the people that really know what they or the other guy has in inventory aren't saying. For us outside that group to say we know who has what is a conceit I cannot share.

2) The stigma of being the first to pop some instant sunshine is such that I think even Putin knows it's a non-starter.

3) If 2) is wrong because Putin is either so determined not to be seen losing or is just stark staring mad, the consequences of same will make today's gas prices a non-issue.

Now, back to the game I recorded of my English soccer team coming from behind for a 3-1 victory. :)
 
Do people ever look at you while you're talking and just walk away?

Der Verminator said:
My take on this after a lot of research is this:

Russia has only two ways to win.

1. Letting Ukraine wear itself out with costly counteroffensives and letting a starvation winter (or even two starvation winters) sap the strength of the Ukrainians and their European helpers.

2. Use a barrage of neutron weapons to wipe out major concentrations of Ukrainian troops without radioactive contamination or major damage to infrastructure and weapons like tanks. Russia could then reclaim weapons like tanks and artillery.

This is the most dangerous option because we would probably provide neutron weapons to Ukraine and the possibility of escalation to strategic nuclear weapons would be great if Russian started to take heavy losses, possibly even INSIDE Russia.

In that case everybody would lose.
Click to expand...
 
Onomea said:
Seems to me the Russians used a thermobaric weapon at least once early on in the war...
Click to expand...

Ukraine said he did and said it killed 70 of their troops.

Don't know if it was ever confirmed.

Doesn't sound like a real game-changer of a weapon if he did use it.
 
Der Verminator said:
Thanks.

That's exactly what I was thinking.

Also, it destroys far less infrastructure which leaves less rebuilding for Russia when they take over.
Click to expand...

Ah, but rebuilding is the key to war. And without people for whom we claim to rebuild, it's pointless. Create a need (mass destruction), send gazillions of dollars, and the scammers get fabulously wealthy. War is a racket, said Smedley Butler.
 
Last edited:
Telecaster said:
Ah, but rebuilding is the key to war. And without people for whom we claim to rebuild, it's pointless. Create a need (mass destruction), send gazillions of dollars, and the scammers get fabulously wealthy. War is a racket, said Smedley Butler.
Click to expand...

Of course.

The big winners are Ukraine since we've made the U.S. their bottomless piggybank........and, of course, the good folks who sell all those weapons that we're sending.

Smedley had it figured out, that's for sure.
 
Smedley Butler was a man with experience and an opinion (and ties to scuzzy industrialists until they went too far). I prefer Evans Carlson, who fought WWI, bannana wars, then WWII.
 
Last edited:
The use of nuclear, chemical, or biological warfare

..has never been off the table in regards to Russia. IMHO it isn't a matter of if but when.

I doubt it will be neutron or strategic weaponry, but local battlefield (aka "theatre") nukes such as Russian OTR-21's and the like.

Chemical and biological agents are what I'm expecting before the nukes are used.

Putin has painted himself into a corner; a perfect no-win situation for him and his cronies. He knows it. He has nothing to lose at this point except to destroy Ukraine and send a strong message to the NATO alliance.

When the weapons are used, I expect NATO's response to be tepid to put it mildly. As for Ukraine and possibly one or two other nations, I expect a response similair to the Munich Agreement of 1938.
 
Talked to a good friend who is retired from US Military with a "I WOULD HAVE TO kill you if I ever told you anything" level clearance. He thinks China would take out Putin for doing such a thing. But he also fears that nuke use could still start WWIII.
 
The Last Standing Knight said:
..has never been off the table in regards to Russia. IMHO it isn't a matter of if but when.

I doubt it will be neutron or strategic weaponry, but local battlefield (aka "theatre") nukes such as Russian OTR-21's and the like.

Chemical and biological agents are what I'm expecting before the nukes are used.

Putin has painted himself into a corner; a perfect no-win situation for him and his cronies. He knows it. He has nothing to lose at this point except to destroy Ukraine and send a strong message to the NATO alliance.

When the weapons are used, I expect NATO's response to be tepid to put it mildly. As for Ukraine and possibly one or two other nations, I expect a response similair to the Munich Agreement of 1938.
Click to expand...

Putin's problem with the use of chemical or biological weapons is that the U.S. has never used them.

He says that the U.S. set a precedent for nuclear weapons by using them on Japan. That's his excuse.

There is no such precedent with chemical weapons.

Using neutron weapons is only logical......the radiation would be short-lived--only hitting the battlefield. A clean but precise, powerful and deadly deployment.

The normal nuke would be dirty.......have long-lasting nuclear fallout that could bring a lot of collateral damage and could even be a danger to Russia because prevailing winds there are mostly toward Russia.
 
pasound said:
Talked to a good friend who is retired from US Military with a "I WOULD HAVE TO kill you if I ever told you anything" level clearance. He thinks China would take out Putin for doing such a thing. But he also fears that nuke use could still start WWIII.
Click to expand...

Since we are China's best customer.......they might well frown on Russia nuking us.

But.......it would be all over very quickly if it happened and China couldn't stop Russia from hitting us.

It would be bad for business not just for China, but for everybody.

It would end business.......which is why it won't happen.
 
The Last Standing Knight said:
When the weapons are used, I expect NATO's response to be tepid to put it mildly. As for Ukraine and possibly one or two other nations, I expect a response similair to the Munich Agreement of 1938.
Click to expand...

As long as he limits his use to small neutron weaponry in Ukraine........NATO will do nothing but whine.

They will never take a chance of becoming a target themselves.

NATO speaks loudly and carries a small stick.
 
Muss Muggins said:
Have you ever noticed people you are talking to will just walk away mid-sentence . . . ?

They'll come back, but they're just being nice . . .
Click to expand...

So you're just being nice.

I wondered what all this was about.

Thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top