Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Russia/Ukraine conflict

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
.../ Another critical component is they use a special type of bearing in all their modern trains and the entire country is completely dependent on rail. There are only three sources for those bearings, two are American and one Swedish. They don't know how to make them.

As the components that keep their economy running break, they won't have the parts to fix them and things will degrade. They will probably do things like go back to older bearing types for their trains, but the newer rail cars will go out of service as their bearing wear out and can't be replaced.

Some things they will have to do without and others will have to have work arounds devised.

Galeev points out they are putting all the emphasis on keeping military production going. The parts of the country with civilian production are crashing economically due to lack of parts. The military production areas are doing okish due to the emphasis on military, but those plants are struggling to get parts too.

They don't have the engineering and scientific expertise they had 40 years ago when they were trying to compete with the west on a shoestring. They are also reluctant to hire in Chinese expertise and most of their tech is geared to use western parts.

Basically all the tech in Russia is a ticking time bomb.
This sounds hopeful.

But two questions popped up:

1. How does North Korea keep their country going? And not only that. How did they develop nuclear weapons and ICBMs?

2. Iran is apparently only weeks away from getting their own nuclear weapon. How did that happen? Is it 'that easy' to build nuclear weapons?
 
  • Like
Reactions: X Fan
This sounds hopeful.

But two questions popped up:

1. How does North Korea keep their country going? And not only that. How did they develop nuclear weapons and ICBMs?

2. Iran is apparently only weeks away from getting their own nuclear weapon. How did that happen? Is it 'that easy' to build nuclear weapons?
Nuclear weapons are an 80 year old technology. It's not surprising that any country with the desire and resources to have them can have them.
 
This sounds hopeful.

But two questions popped up:

1. How does North Korea keep their country going? And not only that. How did they develop nuclear weapons and ICBMs?

2. Iran is apparently only weeks away from getting their own nuclear weapon. How did that happen? Is it 'that easy' to build nuclear weapons?

The tech to make nuclear weapons is not really that difficult. There have been a few students in western universities over the years who have made them (usually minus the fissionable materials). The tricky part is isolating the fissionable materials and those materials are dangerous to handle. It takes spending a fair bit of money to build dedicated facilities and proper protection for the people working on them to isolate the materials. Any nation with a small cadre of scientists with the right training and the willingness to sink the funds into the project will eventually be able to make enough for a few bombs.

If I remember right India took a short cut and separated the materials for their first bombs from spent nuclear reactor fuel. I believe they were reprocessing a lot of the world's waste fuel at the time. I don't have time to look it up at the moment, I may be misremembering.

It's also rumored that Israel, South Africa, and Japan have had secret nuclear weapons programs. In Japan it's rumored they keep the parts for several weapons disassembled on the "shelf" in case China gets too threatening.

Any country known to be working on nuclear weapons have tremendous pressure put on them to stop, the country risks becoming a political pariah on the world stage, and it can be a massive chunk of a small country's GDP to run the facilities. A lot of countries don't go down that route because it's more trouble than it's worth. A fair number of countries have joined alliances like NATO so they can be under the nuclear umbrella of a country like the US.

For countries with an adversarial relationship with the US or don't have promises the US will protect them with nukes, they have found other members of the nuclear club aren't generally willing to put their country under their umbrella, so some have chosen to go their own way.
 
The tech to make nuclear weapons is not really that difficult. There have been a few students in western universities over the years who have made them (usually minus the fissionable materials). The tricky part is isolating the fissionable materials and those materials are dangerous to handle. It takes spending a fair bit of money to build dedicated facilities and proper protection for the people working on them to isolate the materials. Any nation with a small cadre of scientists with the right training and the willingness to sink the funds into the project will eventually be able to make enough for a few bombs.

If I remember right India took a short cut and separated the materials for their first bombs from spent nuclear reactor fuel. I believe they were reprocessing a lot of the world's waste fuel at the time. I don't have time to look it up at the moment, I may be misremembering.

It's also rumored that Israel, South Africa, and Japan have had secret nuclear weapons programs. In Japan it's rumored they keep the parts for several weapons disassembled on the "shelf" in case China gets too threatening.

Any country known to be working on nuclear weapons have tremendous pressure put on them to stop, the country risks becoming a political pariah on the world stage, and it can be a massive chunk of a small country's GDP to run the facilities. A lot of countries don't go down that route because it's more trouble than it's worth. A fair number of countries have joined alliances like NATO so they can be under the nuclear umbrella of a country like the US.

For countries with an adversarial relationship with the US or don't have promises the US will protect them with nukes, they have found other members of the nuclear club aren't generally willing to put their country under their umbrella, so some have chosen to go their own way.
Also it’s not just making a bomb it’s delivering a bomb. Any large nuke is going to require large missile or bomber technology. Granted they could make a small suitcase bomb but why spend billions on that? Other than to sell to terrorists.
 
Dutch agency prevented Russian spy from working at ICC

Dutch intelligence services say they prevented a Russian spy from accessing the International Criminal Court in the Hague as an intern. The man was working under a Brazilian identity but actually belonged to the GRU. Pre-positioning someone in the ICC ahead of future war crimes trial?
 
One of the news sources this morning claims the US is encouraging Ukraine to end the war with a negotiated settlement. Gotta hope the US/EU doesn't slow delivery of missiles etc to force the issue. I guess Ukraine would would give up land and become a member of the EU and possibly NATO. Hard to imagine Russia being welcomed back as a global trading partner but the sour economy could make strange bed fellows.
 
One of the news sources this morning claims the US is encouraging Ukraine to end the war with a negotiated settlement. I guess Ukraine would would give up land and become a member of the EU and possibly NATO. Hard to imagine Russia being welcomed back as a global trading partner but the sour economy could make strange bed fellows.

I think IMMEDIATE NATO membership might be the only thing that would tempt Ukraine enough to give up land, especially their coastal land in the south.

I would also be a black eye to Russia, so I just don't see it happening.
 
One of the news sources this morning claims the US is encouraging Ukraine to end the war with a negotiated settlement. Gotta hope the US/EU doesn't slow delivery of missiles etc to force the issue. I guess Ukraine would would give up land and become a member of the EU and possibly NATO. Hard to imagine Russia being welcomed back as a global trading partner but the sour economy could make strange bed fellows.

Who are they talking to? There are people in Congress, the Senate, and outside government with a soapbox who want Ukraine to roll over and surrender to Russia, but the current administration appears to be staying the course. The latest I heard from Biden was the US was going to follow Ukraine's lead and let Ukraine decide for themselves if they have had enough.

War Translated has a lot of interesting stories. Many from intercepted phone calls or translations of Russian bloggers talking about their own military. Apparently a number of Russian bloggers who were very pro-war early on have turned sour on their military.

This came up today. The Ukrainians took out a large ammunition depot in the LPR
LPR blogger says Ukrainian 16 June attack on Krasnyi Luch stockpiles will halt Russian offensive • WarTranslated - Dmitri Masinski
 
Last edited:
The battle for Kherson may be starting
Thread by @TrentTelenko on Thread Reader App

Trent Telenko here points out that the Ukrainians are handing the Russians a difficult choice. If they don't divert supply from their Donbas operation, they might lose Kherson. If they do, there will be a few days where neither region has artillery shells.
 
Also it’s not just making a bomb it’s delivering a bomb. Any large nuke is going to require large missile or bomber technology. Granted they could make a small suitcase bomb but why spend billions on that? Other than to sell to terrorists.
As an aside dimensionally small nuclear fusion devices are the trickiest ones to design, make, and keep operable. Even if you design and make one, you really need to test the design to be absolutely sure of the behaviour as the margins for design error become more significant. Remember that there is a lot of incentives for the nuclear devices to be small, as that enormously eases the payload delivery equation, irrespective of whether it is a ballistic missile atmospheric re-entry vehicle, or an artillery shell, or anything in between. So it is not as if this hasn't received a great deal of attention from a lot of smart people over the years. And most of these devices use tritium boosters with a half life of 12-years .... Just saying.
 
Last edited:
The battle for Kherson may be starting
Thread by @TrentTelenko on Thread Reader App

Trent Telenko here points out that the Ukrainians are handing the Russians a difficult choice. If they don't divert supply from their Donbas operation, they might lose Kherson. If they do, there will be a few days where neither region has artillery shells.
My understanding - correct me if I am wrong - is that the Russians will be very reluctant to blow the dam at Nova Kakhova as the Crimean water supply canal intake depends on the dam being functional. The dam also carries a road highway and a rail line. So this is the one crossing of the Dnieper that the Russians really cannot blow up. One can also debate whether they would blow the Antonov bridge at Kherson itself, or the rail bridge 3-km upstream of the Antonov bridge. I've circled all three on the map, and the photo is the south side of the dam.



1655455688034.png


1655455367365.png
 

Attachments

  • 1655455368123.png
    1655455368123.png
    1.9 MB · Views: 18
A an aside dimensionally small nuclear fusion devices are the trickiest ones to design, make, and keep operable. Even if you design and make one, you really need to test the design to be absolutely sure of the behaviour as the margins for design error become more significant. Remember that there is a lot of incentives for the nuclear devices to be small, as that enormously eases the payload delivery equation, irrespective of whether it is a ballistic missile atmospheric re-entry vehicle, or an artillery shell, or anything in between. So it is not as if this hasn't received a great deal of attention from a lot of smart people over the years. And most of these devices use tritium boosters with a half life of 12-years .... Just saying.

Tritium is heavy hydrogen and hydrogen leaks out of any container given enough time. The process of leaking out of the container also makes many materials brittle in the process. Trying to contain any hydrogen for any period of time is a major pain.

I doubt any of the upstarts making nuclear weapons are taking the extra steps to make hydrogen bombs.

There's a reason the US spends many billions a year maintaining their nuclear stockpile.

My understanding - correct me if I am wrong - is that the Russians will be very reluctant to blow the dam at Nova Kakhova as the Crimean water supply canal intake depends on the dam being functional. The dam also carries a road highway and a rail line. So this is the one crossing of the Dnieper that the Russians really cannot blow up. One can also debate whether they would blow the Antonov bridge at Kherson itself, or the rail bridge 3-km upstream of the Antonov bridge. I've circled all three on the map, and the photo is the south side of the dam.



View attachment 817642

View attachment 817640

I was literally just talking to my partner about this very thing. Must have been reading your mind while you were writing. ;)

Trent Telenko was saying in a shaping operation you force your enemy to make decisions, all of which are bad results with no good options. The strategic smart thing would be to blow the dam and dig in on the south shore. Assaulting across the Dnipro would be very tough, even for one of the world's most professional armies. Blowing the dam would also flood Kherson on their way out.

However, blowing the dam would leave Crimea without a water supply, which would become a logistical nightmare very quickly.

The Ukrainians might still have to do an assault across the dam, which is not going to be easy. Easier than an amphibious crossing, but still not easy.
 
One of the news sources this morning claims the US is encouraging Ukraine to end the war with a negotiated settlement. Gotta hope the US/EU doesn't slow delivery of missiles etc to force the issue. I guess Ukraine would would give up land and become a member of the EU and possibly NATO. Hard to imagine Russia being welcomed back as a global trading partner but the sour economy could make strange bed fellows.

Do you have a source?
 
The video shows two missiles slamming into a vessel believed to be 19 miles east of Snake (or Zmiinyi) Island, causing it to erupt in a fireball.
In a statement on Twitter, the Ukrainian Navy claimed the vessel to be the Russian Black Sea Fleet’s Project 22870 rescue tug Vassily Bekh, described as carrying ammunition, weapons and personnel to reinforce Russian troops on the island—as well as a Tor air defense system.


Ukraine Blasts Russian Tug Near Snake Island With Land-Based Missiles
 
As an aside dimensionally small nuclear fusion devices are the trickiest ones to design, make, and keep operable. Even if you design and make one, you really need to test the design to be absolutely sure of the behaviour as the margins for design error become more significant. Remember that there is a lot of incentives for the nuclear devices to be small, as that enormously eases the payload delivery equation, irrespective of whether it is a ballistic missile atmospheric re-entry vehicle, or an artillery shell, or anything in between. So it is not as if this hasn't received a great deal of attention from a lot of smart people over the years. And most of these devices use tritium boosters with a half life of 12-years .... Just saying.

Tritium is heavy hydrogen and hydrogen leaks out of any container given enough time. The process of leaking out of the container also makes many materials brittle in the process. Trying to contain any hydrogen for any period of time is a major pain.

I doubt any of the upstarts making nuclear weapons are taking the extra steps to make hydrogen bombs.

There's a reason the US spends many billions a year maintaining their nuclear stockpile.
@petit_bateau was referring to the 12.3 year half time for tritium. You lose half of the original quantity just by decay in 12 years. Every year you basically lose something ~5.5% of the quantity and you need to replenish it in order for the nuclear weapons' neutron initiator to still work. Otherwise you get a relatively weak fission weapon. Assuming that that part of the weapon works, of course.... If not it's a dirty bomb or just a radioactive ACME anvil if nothing detonates. The leaking losses that @wdolson was referring to, are just the icing on the cake that makes a bad problem worse. On top of that tritium is produced from 6Li in breeding reactors and needs serious processing. Last decades' Russia may or may not still have the technology to do it. But it's not easy nor cheap, therefore it becomes a really nice juicy target for lining the pockets of the kleptocracy. "Cui bono" and all of that....

BTW, allegedly first use of Harpoon AShMs today in Black Sea. A russian Black Sea Fleet tug carrying ammo for the forces on Serpent Island was hit by two anti-ship missiles. It is claimed that they were Harpoons. The tug/Multi-Purpose Salvage Vessel SPASATEL VASILIY BEKH carrying ammo and a Pantsir or TOR SAM system (conflicting info on which type) was sunk earlier today


Maybe a small target for 2 Harpoons, but the morale effect can't be underestimated. On both sides.
 
Last edited: