Russian artillery losses continue to be high
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Russia/Ukraine conflict
- Thread starter amolina
- Start date
I guess the other point on the artillery is that they have burned through so many units for the losses to be greatly accelerating in the face of diminishing numbers and greatly diminished amount of fire....that is what is interesting.
Maybe they had been using static towed units and got lazy?
Excalibur rounds saved just for them??
Badly trained orcs not being serious about shoot and scoot?
Something new?
Just me thinking out loud so to speak. Have a few hours off and thought in this a bit. I know it’s been discussed this weekend. Just the recent losses keep tickling my neurons.
Maybe they had been using static towed units and got lazy?
Excalibur rounds saved just for them??
Badly trained orcs not being serious about shoot and scoot?
Something new?
Just me thinking out loud so to speak. Have a few hours off and thought in this a bit. I know it’s been discussed this weekend. Just the recent losses keep tickling my neurons.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
I can only hope.
It's not hard to imagine drunk orcs.
And I would not be surprised if the towed artillery is slower to scoot compared to mobile artillery, is restricted to roads, and is operating on a static front line. Becoming predictable sounds deadly for artillery, and UKR has learned to respond quickly and accurately.
It would warm my heart to learn that Russian artillery will be silenced.
I agreed with petit_bateau. I disagree with your definition.
- One who loves, supports, or favours peace.
Mahatma Gandhi was one of the world's most famous pacifists. - One who prefers to avoid violence.
- One who opposes violence and is anti-war.
(Edited to delete duplicated quote)
Last edited:
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
Cold shutdown just means the cooling ponds are at less than 100° C. They require cooling water circulation for years to keep the reactors from boiling off all the water in the cooling pools. C.F. Fukushima. It is typically 5 yrs or more after cold shutdown before defueling operations can begin for decommissioning:
Backgrounder on Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants | U.S.NRC, update 17 Oct 2022
It's mind-boogling that the IAEA doesn't require that at least one onsite reactor be kept online at all times to provide electricity for local critcal needs. It's like these REMFs never ever CONSIDERED that the grid might be unavailable for extended periods over the 50+ yr lifespan of the reactor. smh.
Today there is a good uptick in tank and APV losses over the previous day.
The US M777 was designed to pack up and move quickly with the best shoot and scoot for towed artillery possible. Old Soviet towed artillery is slow to pack and unpack. It's one reason the Russians pretty much switched to using self propelled artillery exclusively.
SwedishAdvocate
Active Member
I agreed with petit_bateau. I disagree with your definition.
I know many people who consider themselves pacifists, who wouldn't argue with US involvement in WW2, but feel perfectly justified in opposing Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
- One who loves, supports, or favours peace.
Mahatma Gandhi was one of the world's most famous pacifists.- One who prefers to avoid violence.
- One who opposes violence and is anti-war.
(Edited to delete duplicated quote)
Ok...
I'll admit that is this appears to be more nuanced than the position I've held this far...
This guy as an example – Malcolm Nance former US intelligence officer and Ukraine Foreign Legion fighter – labels himself as a Pacifist at 4:16 in this clip...
A major part of my previous reasoning was based on the views publicly expressed by this group:
Their chairperson has periodically been interviewed in segments aired on Swedish Public Service Radio during the Dictator's War of aggression. And from memory, about a month ago they still opposed sending any weapons at all to Ukraine...
Last edited:
Ok...
I'll admit that is this appears to be more nuanced than the position I've held this far...
This guy as an example – Malcolm Nance former US intelligence officer and Ukraine Foreign Legion fighter – labels himself as a Pacifist at 4:16 in this clip...
A major part of my previous reasoning was based on the views publicly expressed by this group:
Their chairperson has periodically been interviewed in segments aired on Swedish Public Service Radio during the Dictator's War of aggression. And from memory, about a month ago they still opposed sending any weapons at all to Ukraine...
I put a lot of credibility to what Malcolm Nance says. However he might be stretching the definition of pacifist a bit.
I define a pacifist as someone who avoids a fight to an extreme degree. Nance was one of the first to volunteer for the foreign legion when the war started. I don't call myself a pacifist, and the last physical conflict of any kind I was in was sometime in the 1970s.
petit_bateau
Active Member
At ZNPP there is no electricity generation & export, though I believe there is electricity import so as to keep the pumps etc operating. If those elec import lines get shelled then they switch over to the on-site diesel gensets. They seem to have replenished the 2-weeks of diesel stocks at some point in the last few months.
"Of the six reactors, four units are in cold shutdown mode, with two in hot shutdown to supply steam and heat to the plant and the nearby city of Energodar, where most of the workforce lives. " i.e. the town/city has a district heating scheme, i.e. not many (if any) buildings have their own individual heat source.
www.world-nuclear-news.org
No, it is just that you haven't thought this through as carefully as they have.
The operators and the IAEA have concluded that the least-worst pathway is to get the four units into cold shutdown and - literally - get them as cold as possible as fast as possible so as to minimise risk from those four units in case of full electrical power and/or coolant loss in the future. (I have a vague memory that one of those 4 was in a maintenance condition prior to the invasion, but no matter). As to the other two they have concluded that they need sufficient warmth to keep the site, the LP utility/services steam plant, and the workforce & the families in a survivable situation for winter. No steam is literally a die of cold problem for the personnel, or be faced with an entire nuclear reactor site full of burst water pipes and literally nothing working. So they have got to have steam for warmth and the volume of steam required - in a situation where the Russians have weaponised the diesel supply - means they have to have at least one reactor ticking over. So they have chosen to keep two reactors ticking over so as to have some redundancy in case of steam plant failure on one reactor. Whether they are in any case so hot from their last higher power operation cycle (i.e. HP steam for elec) I don't know, but it is also likely that is the case, so they may be making a virtue of necessity at this point. But you can also be sure they will be operating them at the lowest possible power (steam) level consistent with this, so as not to make a bad situation worse in the event of a forced-full-on-shutdown event.
One of the reasons that nuclear reactors tend to get built in clusters is that they get safer by doing so, because they can share multiple sets of common services. Also if you look at nuclear reactors they do have blackstart units (generally diesel gensets) so as to get them through extended periods of interruption. That is specifically why there is sufficient diesel tank storage on the ZNPP site to cater for 2-weeks of operation on diesels. (as well as multiple independent electrical links to different off site import/export grids). But designing for years of interruption and deliberate weaponisation of the entire site by an invading army is not normally part of the design safety case. If it were, then even 5-minutes of safety case consideration would preclude construction of all nuclear reactors anywhere in the world.
By the way a site like this will have a lifetime of at least 100-years imho, certainly much more than 50. I've been seeing news items with various reactors being given licence extensions to operate for 100 years, never mind anything that might come afterwards.
Why do you think they have cooling ponds. But they are not of sufficient volumetric capacity to last forever. But restoring water supply in the event of the a full-on main dam breach is unlikely to be a quick/easy operation in the sort of circumstances that are being envisaged here. Again, if one thought that a nuclear reactor would become involved in a war, one would never build any at all anywhere, including for that matter in the USA. (The last major land war in the USA was only 160 or so years ago, so not exactly long enough to conclude that the area is safe from conflict).
"Of the six reactors, four units are in cold shutdown mode, with two in hot shutdown to supply steam and heat to the plant and the nearby city of Energodar, where most of the workforce lives. " i.e. the town/city has a district heating scheme, i.e. not many (if any) buildings have their own individual heat source.
IAEA chief's fresh Zaporizhzhia talks, Ukraine brings in nuclear sanctions : Regulation & Safety - World Nuclear News
International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi is expected in Russia this week for more talks on establishing a safety and security zone around the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant.
No, it is just that you haven't thought this through as carefully as they have.
The operators and the IAEA have concluded that the least-worst pathway is to get the four units into cold shutdown and - literally - get them as cold as possible as fast as possible so as to minimise risk from those four units in case of full electrical power and/or coolant loss in the future. (I have a vague memory that one of those 4 was in a maintenance condition prior to the invasion, but no matter). As to the other two they have concluded that they need sufficient warmth to keep the site, the LP utility/services steam plant, and the workforce & the families in a survivable situation for winter. No steam is literally a die of cold problem for the personnel, or be faced with an entire nuclear reactor site full of burst water pipes and literally nothing working. So they have got to have steam for warmth and the volume of steam required - in a situation where the Russians have weaponised the diesel supply - means they have to have at least one reactor ticking over. So they have chosen to keep two reactors ticking over so as to have some redundancy in case of steam plant failure on one reactor. Whether they are in any case so hot from their last higher power operation cycle (i.e. HP steam for elec) I don't know, but it is also likely that is the case, so they may be making a virtue of necessity at this point. But you can also be sure they will be operating them at the lowest possible power (steam) level consistent with this, so as not to make a bad situation worse in the event of a forced-full-on-shutdown event.
One of the reasons that nuclear reactors tend to get built in clusters is that they get safer by doing so, because they can share multiple sets of common services. Also if you look at nuclear reactors they do have blackstart units (generally diesel gensets) so as to get them through extended periods of interruption. That is specifically why there is sufficient diesel tank storage on the ZNPP site to cater for 2-weeks of operation on diesels. (as well as multiple independent electrical links to different off site import/export grids). But designing for years of interruption and deliberate weaponisation of the entire site by an invading army is not normally part of the design safety case. If it were, then even 5-minutes of safety case consideration would preclude construction of all nuclear reactors anywhere in the world.
By the way a site like this will have a lifetime of at least 100-years imho, certainly much more than 50. I've been seeing news items with various reactors being given licence extensions to operate for 100 years, never mind anything that might come afterwards.
Why do you think they have cooling ponds. But they are not of sufficient volumetric capacity to last forever. But restoring water supply in the event of the a full-on main dam breach is unlikely to be a quick/easy operation in the sort of circumstances that are being envisaged here. Again, if one thought that a nuclear reactor would become involved in a war, one would never build any at all anywhere, including for that matter in the USA. (The last major land war in the USA was only 160 or so years ago, so not exactly long enough to conclude that the area is safe from conflict).
The US is pretty much immune from foreign invasion, though it is vulnerable to intercontinental ballistic missiles and civil war is a possibility too.
Yes, exactly. Let's hope that those cooling ponds are of sufficient capacity to last a very long time with most of the reactors in cold shutdown for a number of months already. Or better yet, let's hope the Russians retreat further East without further damaging the dam/ZNPP.
SwedishAdvocate
Active Member
Lol!Ok...
I'll admit that is this appears to be more nuanced than the position I've held this far...
This guy as an example – Malcolm Nance former US intelligence officer and Ukraine Foreign Legion fighter – labels himself as a Pacifist at 4:16 in this clip...
A major part of my previous reasoning was based on the views publicly expressed by this group:
Their chairperson has periodically been interviewed in segments aired on Swedish Public Service Radio during the Dictator's War of aggression. And from memory, about a month ago they still opposed sending any weapons at all to Ukraine...
Okay, maybe I shouldn't have stayed up late last night watching a certain sports production for EV commercials, and I haven't watched the video (partly because you don't seem to recommend it) ... but if he's a Ukraine Foreign Legion fighter, who labels himself as a pacifist, - that doesn't strike me as a pacifist by the definition you quoted.
I have a feeling if we could resolve the nuances, we would probably be more in agreement. I hate the glacially slow dribbling out of kit that seems to be prolonging the suffering of the Ukrainians, but from what I've read in this thread, that may be the best way-ahead to avoid escalation. So overall, I'm motivated by wanting peace, but not at any cost. I don't think we should appease or fold to Putler (or any of his puppets in any countries, including my own).
And my own peace-leaning tendencies are partly due to living in DC and having a great deal of respect for the military, and also to having lost a friend to an IED in Afghanistan Nov 2008. I regret all the WMD hype I believed dearly and wish we'd had a less colonial/patronizing/hero approach to showing up with guns blazing approach to foreign affairs.
Last edited:
I was involved in NRC proceedings in the 70s when the risk assessment for airplane crash into the facility involved proximity to an airport (and flight paths) and possible intentional crash of a light private plane. It was assumed that pilots of large planes like airliners would avoid the facility, obviously pre 911. But to be fair no one thought about using a candle to detect air leaks at Browns Ferry NP either. Like the back end of the fuel cycle assessing long term risks when coupled with public perception, whether realistic or not is a difficult task.
KBF
Model X owner (formerly Cdn Signature Model S)
Since we're into history here in this thread, maybe my perspective will add some depth to this particular conversation. It may also bring some depth to discussion around how best to respond in Ukraine.
I agreed with petit_bateau. I disagree with your definition.
I know many people who consider themselves pacifists, who wouldn't argue with US involvement in WW2, but feel perfectly justified in opposing Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
- One who loves, supports, or favours peace.
Mahatma Gandhi was one of the world's most famous pacifists.- One who prefers to avoid violence.
- One who opposes violence and is anti-war.
(Edited to delete duplicated quote)
TL;DR - some types of pacifism aren't the same as passive-ism - creating peaceful relationships requires hard work. War is a failure to love our fellow humans, to deal with conflict before it gets out of control, and from turning a blind eye to injustice. By the time war breaks out it is inevitable, we have failed to take advantage of the myriad opportunities we had along the way to work for peace...
I am a pacifist, but not a passivist (this isn't a mainstream distinction, but one made in my circles). I'm a Mennonite, but not the old-colony kind with horses and buggies - I drive a Tesla and don't have religious rules around clothing. There are a diversity of beliefs within this theological stream - some are more passive and avoidant, others are more active and work for reconciliation. Just being anti-war is meaningless - to just be against something; you need to be "for" something to do anything meaningful.
I try to actively work for peace (not the absence of conflict, but a life characterized by healthy relationships between others - starting with family and neighbours, and then as I can with acquaintances and politically - similar to the Jewish shalom concept). That means starting with learning how to communicate non-violently (hard to do); not viewing differing viewpoints as scary/evil, but as learning from others and helping others learn. Conflict is inevitable, but the goal is to not break relationships because of it - though it takes wisdom to recognize when people need to be cut off to avoid enabling their destructive behaviours. But if we fail, we have to leave behind idealism and figure out what to do with the mess, and there are no easy answers - suffering is inevitable, no matter one's choices at that point. Bonhoeffer's autobiography was enlightening for me personally - diplomacy didn't fail because Germans were all evil, but the failure of nations to pursue reconciliation created a victim mentality and disenfranchisement that led to populist fascism. But back to my history (to do Bonhoeffer justice, I'd have to write 10 paragraphs to scratch the surface).
My ancestors came from the Netherlands, and were burned at the stake and tortured by both Protestants and Catholics post-Reformation because our beliefs were an existential threat to Christendom and theocratic politics: by rebaptizing adults instead of recognizing infant baptism, they stated that one's life should reflect Jesus' teachings (like loving even your enemies - which incidentally doesn't mean enabling them or letting them do whatever they want, but refusing to dehumanize people - but I'll try to avoid a theological rabbit hole...). You're not at automatic Christian - Christianity should be trying to imitate the way Jesus treated others; most politicians and priests didn't bother... The concept of loving enemies, living simply and sustainably, being free to choose one's religious beliefs, not blindly following political on religious leaders (but allowing churches to split off rather than forcing uniformity by killing those you disagree with) were all scary concepts to those in power back then.
Due to the persecution, we first fled to Prussia, then were invited by Catherine the Great to develop an area near the Black Sea in the early 1800's - my particular ancestors lived in the Molotschna colony. In the 1870's my ancestors were among the first to notice changes in the government's attitude, and so we left peacefully and settled in Canada where we were promised peace.
Some have heard of the Mennonite Central Committee - an international organization that started during the early 1900's to help those Mennonites who had stayed in Russia/Ukraine to escape the rising violence and government takeovers. The rise of Communism was particularly hard on those who stayed, and the Mennonites were essentially wiped out (they suffered under the artificial famine - the gov't took their harvest, leaving nothing for the farmers, and WW2 took care of the rest). The MCC helped Mennonites move to Canada & the USA - it was even worse when the Communists took over; constant looting and many were imprisoned in Siberia. The last ones fled with nothing but the clothes on their backs.
MCC has grown to help other culture groups suffering across the world - sending grain and clothing to those who have nothing, and training locals to produce food or goods in more sustainable ways. An arm of MCC is the Mennonite Disaster Service (MDS) - they send out tradesmen to help the poor rebuild their homes after disasters, like Hurricanes down South. Another local cause I personally support a lot is an organization that mentors kids in the downtown area of Winnipeg, mostly First Nations but also the poorest of the poor. It's a drop-in centre that includes teaching trades and giving kids a safe place to eat and hang out and avoid gangs and violence. This is an amazing example of pacifism - replacing weapons with tools.
The idea is that by helping the poor and the downtrodden, easing suffering, treating humans from different cultures with love and generosity, we build bridges and friendship. Training helps people become self-sufficient and avoids a victim or refugee mentality.
Sometimes this is taken advantage of, and it's a hard line to walk. We left many places because staying would enable the abusive relationship: when the government is corrupt and gets to the point of removing rights and killing peaceful citizens, if you choose to fight their way you will lose, so leaving means they lose productivity, valuable citizens and people to bully. Like today, the Russian gov't only knows how to take, not produce. If peaceful, productive people leave, there is nothing left to steal. But in the short term, it seems as though that gives the powerful dictators a win. Mennonites used to avoid politics, and that was a mistake - being Quiet in the Land helped them have peace with their neighbours, but not with corrupt governments. So we're learning to become better at speaking out. Treating political opponents as humans goes a long way - the second we start killing enemies, they now feel justified that they are correct, and will feel no remorse at killing us back. But to kill a human who has been kind to you, who treats others well, who actively helps you - that creates a cognitive dissonance. It starts with language, but actions are also key. It starts at the individual level, and extends outwards from there.
As far as military goes, I don't blame anyone for fighting. It's the most direct solution, though it's not sustainable in the long run, and causes trauma and harm to both sides. I think there's an issue if anyone glorifies it or enjoys killing, but most people don't; both sides do it because they believe they have no choice and are justified (or at least they believe it benefits them or they have an obligation). And I think there comes a point where war is inevitable, if we have failed again and again to deal with injustices and poverty, and have created victims by our peacetime actions.
Right now, Ukraine Russia is obviously past the point of peace, and the world's failures to deal with Putin (turning a blind eye because it profited our politicians, and actually enabling his government's corruption by accepting bribes and influence-peddling) means democratic governments are forced to support a war now.
Last edited:
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Pacifism is not black and white, it is clearly a spectrum. I suspect that the vast majority of people view violence as only justified as a defense. The problem of course is that 'defense' is in the eye of the beholder. E.g., Putin is very clear in framing his 'limited operation' in UKR as a defensive move forced on Russia by the West.
A very difficult, YMMV grey-area variant is aggression as a pre-emptive defense. As an Israeli, I made personal choices. I have no problem with Israel conducting aggressive strikes against Iranian nuclear installations based on military intelligence, but I left my Paratrooper unit when it was tasked with a quasi-permanent invasion of Lebanon to set up a buffer zone.
'Turn the other cheek' type pacifism is uncommon, although it is often heard in the context of people telling **others** how to behave.
Last edited:
That's correct. Many Quakers and Mennonites served during WW2 despite being pacifists. They recognized that when confronted with true evil, exceptions could be made to their non violent beliefs.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
And who is the judge of "true evil" ?
If you leave it up to religion, god help you.
Muslim theology, e.g., views lampooning their prophet, or leaving Islam for another religion as justifiable reason for homicidal violence.
