Yeah, also, looks like what would happen to a hinged board if it were to rotate while bending at the hinge. This would happen if there was an imbalance of weight on the bridge, like from a heavy truck (I think).
No, that crackpot scenario is not going to happen.
No, there really aren't. The best targets would be "large concentrations of Ukranian forces and material".No, that crackpot scenario is not going to happen.
if Ukraine gets the city back, it'll be leveled with regular artillery, not nukes. There are better targets for nuclear weapons than Kherson: bridges over Dnipro to cut Ukrainian logistics, the capital, or an actual nuclear plant for maximum terror factor.
Why would Kherson, upon liberation, have any larger concentrations of Ukrainian forces than, say, liberated towns of Izyum or Lyman? Or larger cities like Kharkiv, Zaporizhzhia, Kryvyi Rih, or Mykolaiv?No, there really aren't. The best targets would be "large concentrations of Ukranian forces and material".No, that crackpot scenario is not going to happen.
if Ukraine gets the city back, it'll be leveled with regular artillery, not nukes. There are better targets for nuclear weapons than Kherson: bridges over Dnipro to cut Ukrainian logistics, the capital, or an actual nuclear plant for maximum terror factor.
Sure, the already demoralized Russian troops are going to be "galvanized" when they hear that in addition to being shot or blown to pieces by artillery fire and Himars rocket, they now will have to contend with risk of radiation poisoning too.
We aren't talking "after". We are, as you note, talking "upon". As in the effort to secure the city takes a commitment of troops.
The point is to accuse the west of doing something that "forced the sacrifice". It is to demoralize the protestors while calling for revenge. I'm not sure how effective that would actually be but that is the kind of enemy we are facing.
You don't need massive troop concentrations to secure the city. Most civilians support Ukraine, and others will flee to Russian-occupied territory. And Ukraine doesn't have an incentive to put troops inside the city, because that just invites shelling and destruction from the Russian side, and unlike Russia, Ukraine actually cares about civilian lives.
Russian warmongers who think Putin is too weak would be ecstatic if an Ukrainian city was nuked.
I think you overestimate the ability of conspiracy theorists to think rationally.
Yes, you do. Do you not know what it means to secure a space the size and complexity of a city? It's like the cork in a wine bottle, keeping the UA from flowing across that river, and staging attacks out of Kherson on the Crimean side.
You really do not understand the logistical elements of the existence of a river in a theater of war.
In other news, your news is 99% lies and propaganda.
Only the criminal western media talks about nukes.
Apparently mig-29 was damaged by debris from destroyed drone and then crashed. That's very unfortunate and extremely economically unsustainable.Ok, straight from the horse's mouth folks, Russia apparently IS gearing up to accuse the west of a false flag nuking.
Yeah but in your scenario the proverbial cork would be gone, and Ukraine would have liberated the city. Ukraine doesn't need nearly as many soldiers stationed in a liberated territory to keep it secure, than a foreign occupier. And unlike Russia, Ukraine wouldn't want to station much of its artillery or armor inside the city to avoid it getting pummeled by counter-battery fire.
You seem confused about the geography. The city is on the right bank of the Dnipro river. The river is a natural barrier that prevents Ukraine from establishing bridge heads on the left bank and using it to attack Crimea, even it were to take back Kherson city and the Nova Kakhovka dam. From military perspective, Russia could just leave it at that. But being vengeful bastards that they are, they will probably continue to hit the city with artillery until there is nothing left but rubble, but the point is that they don't have to... and there's no particularly good reason to use nuclear weapons for that. They might as well hit a city a little bit farther away from the front line (one that they can't reach with regular artillery) to avoid radioactive fallout harming their own side too much.
The rail connection might be usable, they've run some passenger trains at least over it. I think the lines are mostly for civilian traffic. I would imagine that if there was an actual "Z" truck with important stuff going to the front, they'd get priority. Locals seem to agree that military columns are still getting through:
Medvedev has been threatening with nuclear weapons long before the private warnings. And Putin's speech where he uses Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a "precedent" is clearly talking about a first strike, not retaliation to possible western nuclear attack.
No, in my scenario, it happens AS Ukraine TRIES to liberate the city, at the climax of the military action to take it, as Ukraine goes as all-in on the assault as they will be.
But only 5 countries voted against. And even some of Russia's top allies like Serbia voted for the resolution.In actual news, regime in Washington asked Saudi Arabia to postpone oil production cut until November elections,..... SA refused
UN resolution voting was a fiasco with India abstaining. Also US did not allow secret voting, which means regime knows that result would have been even worse.
This is almost certainly 100% horse shit. Putin is blaming the wheat shipments because he wants a pretext to terminate the agreement and hurt Ukraine economically.
