Russia invades Ukraine

[Cloud Strife]

Stinks of desperation on the part of the Russians. They'd normally conduct this kind of attack in the dead of winter.

This will be the telling tale, if they can't follow up the barrage with more attacks for at least a week, it means they simply don't have the equipment needed for an all-out air attack. The latest numbers suggest over 100 missiles and 100 drones, and Ukraine has confirmed substantial damage to their energy infrastructure.

At the very, very least, if we're not going to authorise the use of Western missiles in Russia, then we need to provide Ukraine with as much materials as possible for creating and deploying drones.

 

[brad465]

Ukraine really needs work carried out towards a smart grid (this maybe happening to an extent already but if so clearly inadequate for now): have a wide array of renewable energy installations at small scale across the country, including on people's homes and businesses, with battery storage where possible as well. Even if these only gave the average home 4-6 hours' worth of energy a day in winter, this could be a huge difference maker in satisfying energy needs and improving morale. But most importantly, a decentralised grid is much harder to target for effective destruction, given the number of targets increases significantly and each target destroyed has a much lower impact compared to a critical target on a centralised grid.

 

[scarby]

It's a pity the West didn't instead act in late 2021 and early 2022, when they could clearly see Russia mounting forces on the border - it was no secret.

If they had sent forces to Ukraine and told Russia not to even think about stepping one inch into Ukraine, Russia would surely have had little choice but accept a Mexican stand-off, as they would not have wanted to start WW3 over Ukraine.

 

[Ivor]

It's a pity the West didn't instead act in late 2021 and early 2022, when they could clearly see Russia mounting forces on the border - it was no secret.

If they had sent forces to Ukraine and told Russia not to even think about stepping one inch into Ukraine, Russia would surely have had little choice but accept a Mexican stand-off, as they would not have wanted to start WW3 over Ukraine.

Exactly right. Now Ukraine have had throughout one hand tied behind their back with restrictions using certain weapons upon Russia & having to in the main just defend constantly & have to put up with atrocities of losing their people from babies through to senior citizens.

Kursk is an example where enough was enough & even shocked the allies who had no clue allegedly.

 

[najaB]

If they had sent forces to Ukraine and told Russia not to even think about stepping one inch into Ukraine, Russia would surely have had little choice but accept a Mexican stand-off, as they would not have wanted to start WW3 over Ukraine.

How many troops do you think the West would have been able to get into Ukraine before the Russians figured out what was going on and went in themselves?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

It's a pity the West didn't instead act in late 2021 and early 2022, when they could clearly see Russia mounting forces on the border - it was no secret.

If they had sent forces to Ukraine and told Russia not to even think about stepping one inch into Ukraine, Russia would surely have had little choice but accept a Mexican stand-off, as they would not have wanted to start WW3 over Ukraine.

Poor strategy. With Russian satellites etc they would know extremely quickly and move troops in themselves.

 

[Giugiaro]

Ukraine really needs work carried out towards a smart grid (this maybe happening to an extent already but if so clearly inadequate for now): have a wide array of renewable energy installations at small scale across the country, including on people's homes and businesses, with battery storage where possible as well. Even if these only gave the average home 4-6 hours' worth of energy a day in winter, this could be a huge difference maker in satisfying energy needs and improving morale.

This is an issue that applies to Europe as a whole as well. Our inadequate response to Russia's invasion was also in part due to our over-reliance on the Just-in-Time supply of Russian oil and gas.

The green transition isn't just necessary to combat climate change. It's also an urgent necessity to equip Europe with a resilient energy system detached from the whims of dictators that sit over fossil fuel-rich lands.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

This is an issue that applies to Europe as a whole as well. Our inadequate response to Russia's invasion was also in part due to our over-reliance on the Just-in-Time supply of Russian oil and gas.

The green transition isn't just necessary to combat climate change. It's also an urgent necessity to equip Europe with a resilient energy system detached from the whims of dictators that sit over fossil fuel-rich lands.

Exactly. I love the idea of loads of smaller (500MWhr) modular nuclear stations spread around the country. Add in wind, wave, solar and battery back up too. When you can walk away from dictators and also not give them business and hence money, you help in war situations such as this.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Exactly. I love the idea of loads of smaller (500MWhr) modular nuclear stations spread around the country. Add in wind, wave, solar and battery back up too. When you can walk away from dictators and also not give them business and hence money, you help in war situations such as this.

The problem is that no-one has really found a way to make small modular nuclear stations work, despite the hype. They still need a lot of human resources to operate, and the Western approach to safety in nuclear power plants really pushes up the costs. I absolutely agree with what you say however, and I think the future clearly lies with smaller reactors producing around 30% of demand with renewables covering the other 70%, combined with battery storage.

 

[Richard Scott]

The problem is that no-one has really found a way to make small modular nuclear stations work, despite the hype. They still need a lot of human resources to operate, and the Western approach to safety in nuclear power plants really pushes up the costs. I absolutely agree with what you say however, and I think the future clearly lies with smaller reactors producing around 30% of demand with renewables covering the other 70%, combined with battery storage.

Without wishing to get off topic, nuclear is not the answer, the waste remains radioactive for thousands of years and leaving future generations with a problem not of their making.
If we wish to reduce our reliance on just in time Russian oil and gas we need another method and possibly a new thread to discuss it?

 

[DustyBin]

How many troops do you think the West would have been able to get into Ukraine before the Russians figured out what was going on and went in themselves?

Poor strategy. With Russian satellites etc they would know extremely quickly and move troops in themselves.

The other thing (that’s easy to forget at this stage) is that in February 2022 the Russian military was widely regarded as being the second best in the world. Even if you look past the nuclear threat, nobody wanted to risk taking them on.

The situation has evolved massively over the last two and a half years.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

The other thing (that’s easy to forget at this stage) is that in February 2022 the Russian military was widely regarded as being the second best in the world. Even if you look past the nuclear threat, nobody wanted to risk taking them on.

The situation has evolved massively over the last two and a half years.

They have weakened but the nuclear threat is real and they have the most in raw numbers.

 

[Killingworth]

Without wishing to get off topic, nuclear is not the answer, the waste remains radioactive for thousands of years and leaving future generations with a problem not of their making.
If we wish to reduce our reliance on just in time Russian oil and gas we need another method and possibly a new thread to discuss it?

We are seeing another aspect to consider in the Ukraine conflict. Residues radioactive for just a few hundred years pose questions at to whether mankind can continue to train the personnel to manage and control it. And not to be blowing things up in ignorance of what they may be unleashing.

 

[najaB]

Without wishing to get off topic, nuclear is not the answer, the waste remains radioactive for thousands of years and leaving future generations with a problem not of their making.

That may (arguably) be true, but at least it's a problem that we already have workable solutions for.

And not to be blowing things up in ignorance of what they may be unleashing.

If you're talking about nuclear power plants, it's pretty hard to get them to go boom. And even when they do, it's a thermal explosion rather than a nuclear one.

 

[Richard Scott]

That may (arguably) be true, but at least it's a problem that we already have workable solutions for.

No we don't have a solution unless bury it and wait hundreds of thousands of years whilst it goes through 5/6 half lives is a solution?

 

[brad465]

They have weakened but the nuclear threat is real and they have the most in raw numbers.

Russia has not tested a nuclear weapon since the end of the USSR. I would not be surprised if much of the Russian nuclear stock is well past its sell by date, and even if it's still in good condition, the regime is not sure and doesn't want to take the risk. They could so easily have tested a weapon in the deep expanses of Siberia while the Ukraine invasion was going on and demonstrated they're not bluffing about their nuclear threats. But they haven't tested anything. It reminds me of the Simpsons' episode where Sideshow Bob detonated a nuclear bomb, but it just disintegrated after emitting a puff of smoke, giving way to the inscription "Best Before November 1959".

 

[najaB]

No we don't have a solution unless bury it and wait hundreds of thousands of years whilst it goes through 5/6 half lives is a solution?

And the problem with this is....? The amount of really nasty stuff with long half lives is miniscule (something less that 1% of all radioactive waste). You're probably talking a few thousand tonnes globally.

 

[Richard Scott]

And the problem with this is....? The amount of really nasty stuff with long half lives is miniscule (something less that 1% of all radioactive waste). You're probably talking a few thousand tonnes globally.

You still have to look after it and know where it is. You can't just abandon it and hope no one discovers it in years to come. Approximately 50 milligrams of this stuff is lethal to a human so miniscule amounts are still a problem. It has to be looked after and that is that.
Anyway drifting off topic, maybe need a new thread if wish to discuss radioactive waste?

 

[zero]

It's a pity the West didn't instead act in late 2021 and early 2022, when they could clearly see Russia mounting forces on the border - it was no secret.

If they had sent forces to Ukraine and told Russia not to even think about stepping one inch into Ukraine, Russia would surely have had little choice but accept a Mexican stand-off, as they would not have wanted to start WW3 over Ukraine.

The other thing (that’s easy to forget at this stage) is that in February 2022 the Russian military was widely regarded as being the second best in the world. Even if you look past the nuclear threat, nobody wanted to risk taking them on.

The situation has evolved massively over the last two and a half years.

Also, who is "the West" exactly? Which politician would have wanted to send troops into Ukraine at that time? Boris Johnson? The US had recently withdrawn from Afghanistan leaving it to the Taliban, and most of Europe was still focused on the (mis)management of covid.

 

[brad465]

Also, who is "the West" exactly? Which politician would have wanted to send troops into Ukraine at that time? Boris Johnson? The US had recently withdrawn from Afghanistan leaving it to the Taliban, and most of Europe was still focused on the (mis)management of covid.

This will almost certainly be the reason Putin decided to escalate when he did, thinking most of NATO and other key allies were not going to be able to support Ukraine due to lack of popularity and war fatigue. Had Putin been in control of a far more competent army he'd have probably succeeded in 3 days as hoped, as it looked like at first allies were not going to provide Ukraine any support beyond a safe route out for Zelensky and some virtue-signalling sanctions for Russia and Belarus.

However, once it became clear how incompetent Russia's army is, then military aid started flowing and NATO also gained two new members despite looking like an obsolete organisation just months earlier.

 

[Cloud Strife]

would not be surprised if much of the Russian nuclear stock is well past its sell by date, and even if it's still in good condition, the regime is not sure and doesn't want to take the risk.

Indeed, if they have a failed nuclear test, it means that they're in an even weaker position that they already are. It would almost be inviting an invasion of Belarus by NATO (perhaps led by Poland) to secure Grodno and to expand the Suwałki Gap, which would also have the benefit of opening up the most direct route between Warsaw and Vilnius. There's a Polish minority in/around Grodno too, so there would be a pretext to take advantage of the Union State's weakness

Had Putin been in control of a far more competent army he'd have probably succeeded in 3 days as hoped

Perhaps not 3 days, but I suspect that we might have seen a repeat of the Bosnian War, with Kyiv under a lengthy siege and much of the central/eastern part of Ukraine under occupation. They probably wouldn't have managed to take Western Ukraine, but they also probably wouldn't have tried to take it in light of the minimal ethnic Russian/Russophone presence there.

 

[RailWonderer]

However, once it became clear how incompetent Russia's army is, then military aid started flowing and NATO also gained two new members despite looking like an obsolete organisation just months earlier.

NATO was never obsolete. If you listen to academic scholars it's always been relevant. Putin was always talking about NATO expansion (Munich 2007, the list is endless) and if one of the world's superpowers sees it as a threat to the national security of his own country, then it's relevant.

Anyway drifting off topic, maybe need a new thread if wish to discuss radioactive waste?

Yes please. The cost of building and dismantling the plants plus the expense of dealing with its waste makes them prohibitively expensive. Then you have the Chernobyl and Fukushima episodes, plus the ability of a nation (India in the early 70s) to easily weaponise nuclear technology donated to it by the US.

 

[spyinthesky]

Like many other military advances, logistics supply chain just can’t keep up.
Frontline troops may be expected to be able fend for themselves for a week, then the looting begins.
Morale is quick to disappear once supply and communications become more difficult which becomes the focus of the defensive force .
Ukraine made the surprise incursion which lengthened the front over hundreds of miles to which Russia has to divert their attention preventing a major advance before winter sets in again.

 

[Richard Scott]

Yes please. The cost of building and dismantling the plants plus the expsnse of dealing with its waste makes them prohibitively expensive. Then you have the Chernobyl and Fukushima episodes, plus the ability of a nation (India in the early 70s) to easily weaponise nuclear technology donated to it by the US.

Now set up.

 

[Cloud Strife]

NATO was never obsolete. If you listen to academic scholars it's always been relevant. Putin was always talking about NATO expansion (Munich 2007, the list is endless) and if one of the world's superpowers sees it as a threat to the national security of his own country, then it's relevant.

I think one thing that NATO still doesn't really understand is that Russia is terrified of being invaded by NATO. This fear was present in the Soviet Union and it's still present today. This line of thinking is also why the Belarusian Army has a pacifist stance, because they know that they have no chance in a conventional conflict and that Belarus will be flattened if they try and resist. For them, the most logical thing is to simply let NATO through without fighting.

 

[Giugiaro]

No we don't have a solution unless bury it and wait hundreds of thousands of years whilst it goes through 5/6 half lives is a solution?

Let's be honest. The materials used in fission nuclear power were radioactive when we mined it. And we aren't suing God for leaving it dumped all over the place.

If we were efficient in using that fuel (with recycling added in, like they do in France) the mines themselves would be more than enough to store the spent fuel, and the volume would be minuscule because the biggest problem regarding nuclear waste is not with spent fuel rods. It's with low-level nuclear waste, that we produce orders of magnitude more of, no matter if there's nuclear power generation or not. That waste is still very dangerous and is made of several different materials, including everyday items like clothing that anyone can wear without any knowledge of the risk. We have also had "negative ion charms" scams that were just random items infused with radioactive materials. That's all low-level nuclear waste now.

 

[Richard Scott]

Let's be honest. The materials used in fission nuclear power were radioactive when we mined it. And we aren't suing God for leaving it dumped all over the place.

If we were efficient in using that fuel (with recycling added in, like they do in France) the mines themselves would be more than enough to store the spent fuel, and the volume would be minuscule because the biggest problem regarding nuclear waste is not with spent fuel rods. It's with low-level nuclear waste, that we produce orders of magnitude more of, no matter if there's nuclear power generation or not. That waste is still very dangerous and is made of several different materials, including everyday items like clothing that anyone can wear without any knowledge of the risk. We have also had "negative ion charms" scams that were just random items infused with radioactive materials. That's all low-level nuclear waste now.

Yes, they were and still are hence why any rock you pick up is radioactive to some degree; the difference is it's not concentrated!
Opened up a new thread to discuss disposal of radioactive waste so as not to hijack this one, would link it if I could work out how!!!

 

[ainsworth74]

Opened up a new thread to discuss disposal of radioactive waste so as not to hijack this one, would link it if I could work out how!!!

Ta da! https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/radioactive-waste.273090/

 

[GusB]

Yes, they were and still are hence why any rock you pick up is radioactive to some degree; the difference is it's not concentrated!
Opened up a new thread to discuss disposal of radioactive waste so as not to hijack this one, would link it if I could work out how!!!

Radioactive Waste

This has come up in Russia invading Ukraine thread where suggestion about relying on cheap oil and gas from Russia could be overcome by small nuclear power plants but are these the answer? Nuclear waste remains radioactive effectively for ever but dwindles over thousands of years until can be...

www.railforums.co.uk

Bu**er. @ainsworth74 got there first!

 

[ainsworth74]

Radioactive Waste

This has come up in Russia invading Ukraine thread where suggestion about relying on cheap oil and gas from Russia could be overcome by small nuclear power plants but are these the answer? Nuclear waste remains radioactive effectively for ever but dwindles over thousands of years until can be...

www.railforums.co.uk

Bu**er. @ainsworth74 got there first!

Fastest fingers in the West

Russia has not tested a nuclear weapon since the end of the USSR. I would not be surprised if much of the Russian nuclear stock is well past its sell by date, and even if it's still in good condition, the regime is not sure and doesn't want to take the risk. They could so easily have tested a weapon in the deep expanses of Siberia while the Ukraine invasion was going on and demonstrated they're not bluffing about their nuclear threats. But they haven't tested anything. It reminds me of the Simpsons' episode where Sideshow Bob detonated a nuclear bomb, but it just disintegrated after emitting a puff of smoke, giving way to the inscription "Best Before November 1959".

Though, to be fair, neither have we! Well, not quite, there was some limited US/UK testing in 1991/1992 and the French did tests in 1996 but that's been it. It's been effectively thirty years since a NATO nuclear power has carried out any nuclear testing outside of a supercomputer simulations. That being said I do share the suspicion that the Russian nuclear forces are in poor condition, whilst even during the properly lean years of the 1990s and early 2000s it was generally protected (at least the ground forces, the submarine and air launched components withered) and indeed invested in as new systems entered service to replace older systems. It would seem highly unlikely that the corruption that has been seen elsewhere hasn't also been present in the nuclear forces.

That being said, are you (a general you, not aimed at you specifically @brad465 ) willing to gamble that the entire Russian arsenal would fail if called upon? The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists estimated in March 2024 that the Russians had around 1,710 deployed strategic nuclear warheads. That is warheads on submarines, in silos, on mobile launchers or assigned and available to bomber bases. I.e. those that could be used right now as we type. Lets say that the failure rate is 98% so only 2% of those deployed warheads reach their targets and detonate. That's still 34 warheads reaching targets. Now the scattergun effect of that will reduce the damage. It will likely be spread over Europe and the US. But are you (again a general you) willing to accept 34 nuclear detonations? Even one will likely overwhelm the ability of a single country to respond effectively to. Big risk. And I don't think the failure rate would be 98%.

They could of course test on in Siberia but I'm not sure that really gets them anything. OMG a special chosen warhead worked, whoopee!