Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Russia Masses Military Equipment Near Ukraine Borders: A Prologue to WWIII?


Grim Reaper 6
 Share

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, el midgetron said:

Obviously you don’t see or understand.

I trust Saru will be able to follow me making a point about the effects on a country of being a US proxy to which you respond only with a flippant “that's not the case”, so I provide you with an example, Yemen, to which you plead ignorance of the significance…..

Ukraine isn't a proxy war. There was no instigation by the US to wage a conflict, nor is the US using Ukraine to fight for them, so it's not relevant.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 15.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • DarkHunter

    1167

  • Helen of Annoy

    2285

  • Occult1

    1199

  • Grim Reaper 6

    1061

2 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

That, and/or conserving resources.

Yes, I was thinking that too, maybe they get rid of the old stock first and hold on to the good new technical stuff for later. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, thedutchiedutch said:

Yes, I was thinking that too, maybe they get rid of the old stock first and hold on to the good new technical stuff for later. 

It would be wise, especially considering the sanctions that have been imposed on Russia. They can't even pay off their recently-defaulted foreign debt because no banks will let them transfer money through them. Apologies for the tangent, but essentially what's happening now is the very beginning of the long-term implications that these sanctions have.

Edited by Nuclear Wessel
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

It would be wise, especially considering the sanctions that have been imposed on Russia. They can't even pay off their recently-defaulted foreign debt because no banks will let them transfer money through them. Apologies for the tangent, but essentially what's happening now is the very beginning of the long-term implications that these sanctions will have.

True. But what else can be done? Attack Russia and remove puta from power? I am sure this can be done but are russian allies going to just sit there and watch it happening without intervening?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

Ukraine isn't a proxy war. There was no instigation by the US to wage a conflict, nor is the US using Ukraine to fight for them, so it's not relevant.

You are welcome to your opinion but the conflict in Ukraine is widely recognized as a proxy war and has been so for 8 years. The dynamics changed once Russia became directly involved but Ukraine is still acting as proxy for the US & NATO.

Your suggested standard of “instigation” is not a standard of what constitutes a proxy war. Ukraine is of course “fighting for” the US and NATO. It’s the whole reason we are arming them. Clearly, Ukraine has its own interests in fighting also. It’s a mutually beneficial arrangement. If the US didn’t have a geopolitical interest in the fight, we wouldn’t be supporting it, 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proxy_wars

The US’s geopolitical interests are what the US cares about, not about the welfare or freedom of the Ukrainian people. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

:rolleyes:

8 hours ago, Cookie Monster said:

I quote from here: The Devastating Effects of Nuclear Weapons | The MIT Press Reader

`The thermal flash lasts many seconds and accounts for more than one-third of the weapons explosive energy`

I quote from the following chart which shows the illumination times up to 980kt: https://www.bellingcat.com/resources/2015/06/17/tactical-nuclear-ambiguity-part-ii-mushroom-clouds-flashes-and-bangs/#:~:text=The flash times of small,are 2 seconds or less.

1853017291_ThermalPulse.jpg.3d1a6240ea7fbb97a02b84ca0b4656ee.jpg

So we can see that you are wrong about the flash lasting millionths of a second. For a warhead of just 1 megaton then the flash is going to last just over 20 seconds.

I consede that I was wrong in assuming that you were talking about the flash of light that comes from the actual nuclear reaction. The thermal flash is the result of radiation, mainly x-rays, from the nuclear weapon heating the atmosphere. On the other hand you were wrong in saying that you could identify the nationality of a nuclear explosion from the lenght of the thermal flash. You left out some pretty important parts from your link:

"How long was the flash?: The illumination time of a nuclear explosion can be used to provide a rough indication of the flash. There is a defined period, which can be calculated mathematically, during which time the fireball will cause a brilliant flash. The flash of a nuclear explosion is actually quite quick.

You cannot really use flash time and flash time alone to make a nuclear/non-nuclear decision. A conventional explosion can often have a flash/illumination time similar or even much longer than a much larger nuclear explosion, particularly in situations where there is a lot of flammable material involved. I have personally witnessed a large conventional fuel explosion of approximately 500 gallons of thickened gasoline. The explosion caused an illumination time well in excess of 5 seconds.

It is possible to use the flash time to make a few educated guesses. The following chart is from US Army Field Manual 3-3-1 (1994 ed) and can be used to do a rough order of magnitude (± 0.1 x to 10x) estimate of the explosive yield of an explosion. Unlike Veterans Today’s dubious claims, you cannot use this table to make a nuclear versus non-nuclear explosions."

 

Do you have another link to your claim or did you just make it up ?

I would also like to know what you meant when you wrote that Chinese nukes have slower fusion than countries weapons ? :huh: 

Edited by Noteverythingisaconspiracy
Corrected spelling mistakes. Must remember to type slower.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, el midgetron said:

but the conflict in Ukraine is widely recognized as a proxy war

Just because something is recognized as being correct to a lot of people doesn't make it so.

Quote

 

Your suggested standard of “instigation” is not a standard of what constitutes a proxy war. 

 

image.thumb.png.abc288f5ba779e6c1d7ef0ace664e498.png

Quote

The dynamics changed once Russia became directly involved but Ukraine is still acting as proxy for the US & NATO.

They are not fighting for US and NATO, though. Neither of them "instigated" the conflict.

5 minutes ago, el midgetron said:

It’s the whole reason we are arming them.

Speculation.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

Just because something is recognized as being correct to a lot of people doesn't make it so.

image.thumb.png.abc288f5ba779e6c1d7ef0ace664e498.png

They are not fighting for US and NATO, though. Neither of them "instigated" the conflict.

Speculation.

 

You are hung up on one word while ignoring the rest of that definition, By your interpretation, a proxy war can only be one sided. So to you, when Russia “instigated” the separatists in Donbas, the conflict in Donbas was a proxy war BUT when the US was “supporting” Ukraine in the same conflict, the Donbas conflict wasn’t a proxy war. How is that even supposed to make sense? 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, el midgetron said:

So to you, when Russia “instigated” the separatists in Donbas, the conflict in Donbas was a proxy war BUT when the US was “supporting” Ukraine in the same conflict, the Donbas conflict wasn’t a proxy war. How is that even supposed to make sense? 

It seems that, to you, being supplied weaponry to defend one's self with directly means that they are acting as a proxy for the supplier. I don't think you understand what "proxy" means.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

:rolleyes:

I consede that I was wrong in assuming that you were talking about the flash of light that comes from the actual nuclear reaction. The thermal flash is the result of radiation, mainly x-rays, from the nuclear weapon heating the atmosphere. On the other hand you were wrong in saying that you could identify the nationality of a nuclear explosion from the lenght of the thermal flash. You left out some pretty important parts from your link:

"How long was the flash?: The illumination time of a nuclear explosion can be used to provide a rough indication of the flash. There is a defined period, which can be calculated mathematically, during which time the fireball will cause a brilliant flash. The flash of a nuclear explosion is actually quite quick.

You cannot really use flash time and flash time alone to make a nuclear/non-nuclear decision. A conventional explosion can often have a flash/illumination time similar or even much longer than a much larger nuclear explosion, particularly in situations where there is a lot of flammable material involved. I have personally witnessed a large conventional fuel explosion of approximately 500 gallons of thickened gasoline. The explosion caused an illumination time well in excess of 5 seconds.

It is possible to use the flash time to make a few educated guesses. The following chart is from US Army Field Manual 3-3-1 (1994 ed) and can be used to do a rough order of magnitude (± 0.1 x to 10x) estimate of the explosive yield of an explosion. Unlike Veterans Today’s dubious claims, you cannot use this table to make a nuclear versus non-nuclear explosions."

 

Do you have another link to your claim or did you just make it up ?

I would also like to know what you meant when you wrote that Chinese nukes have slower fusion than countries weapons ? :huh: 

This is a case of story time at the Cookie Monsters House, nothing more ! 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

Ukraine isn't a proxy war. There was no instigation by the US to wage a conflict, nor is the US using Ukraine to fight for them, so it's not relevant.

You are certainly right, however, what’s the point in arguing with the guy. He has been pushing this agenda for more than month and I believe he’s just trying to get a rise out of people. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Manwon Lender said:

You are certainly right, however, what’s the point in arguing with the guy. He has been pushing this agenda for more than month and I believe he’s just trying to get a rise out of people. 

I kept my responses to him short and to the point for a reason. I'm not entertaining his nonsense anymore and will just report irrelevant drivel.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

I kept my responses to him short and to the point for a reason. I'm not entertaining his nonsense anymore and will just report irrelevant drivel.

That’s the way to handle it, there is no sense in letting him push your buttons!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

It seems that, to you, being supplied weaponry to defend one's self with directly means that they are acting as a proxy for the supplier. I don't think you understand what "proxy" means.

This was posted today, haven't seen it all.

What would make you believe that the US is directing military efforts in Ukraine?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Knob Oddy said:

This was posted today, haven't seen it all.

What would make you believe that the US is directing military efforts in Ukraine?

Evidence that Ukraine was the aggressor and the US provided them with munitions, to start.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

images.jpeg.jpg.62896a3976c3653d6ac3b00557fed2af.jpg

7 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

Evidence that Ukraine was the aggressor and the US provided them with munitions, to start.

But US forces directing war efforts in a clandestine way is not evidence of a proxy war?

Hmmm, proxy wars generally don't rely on one side being the aggressor. The US backed radical Muslims against Assad, Russians backed Assad over the radical Muslims. 

It was clearly a proxy war, but was officially a "civil" war

Edited by Knob Oddy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Knob Oddy said:

images.jpeg.jpg.62896a3976c3653d6ac3b00557fed2af.jpg

But US forces directing war efforts in a clandestine way is not evidence of a proxy war?

Hmmm, proxy wars generally don't rely on one side being the aggressor. The US backed radical Muslims against Assad, Russians backed Assad over the radical Muslims. 

It was clearly a proxy war, but was officially a "civil" war

This is a thread about Ukraine v Russia, not Yemen, nor Syria. I am not going to sit here and lose more IQ points.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

This is a thread about Ukraine v Russia, not Yemen, nor Syria. I am not going to sit here and lose more IQ points.

The same thing the US did in syria they are doing in Ukraine. Arming, directing and informing all military actions.

But fair enough, I wouldn't want to lose any more brain cells either if I was running low

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
42 minutes ago, Knob Oddy said:

This was posted today, haven't seen it all.

What would make you believe that the US is directing military efforts in Ukraine?

Jimmy Dore is a freakin comedian that is  politically far left, his knowledge of the subject isn’t worth any consideration at all. He isn’t around to report the facts his mission is to spread disinformation and misinformation nothing else. 

Edited by Manwon Lender
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Knob Oddy said:

But fair enough, I wouldn't want to lose any more brain cells either if I was running low

You definitely don't want to lose any, then.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Knob Oddy said:

The same thing the US did in syria they are doing in Ukraine. Arming, directing and informing all military actions.

But fair enough, I wouldn't want to lose any more brain cells either if I was running low

Then please stop while your ahead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Knob Oddy said:

images.jpeg.jpg.62896a3976c3653d6ac3b00557fed2af.jpg

But US forces directing war efforts in a clandestine way is not evidence of a proxy war?

Hmmm, proxy wars generally don't rely on one side being the aggressor. The US backed radical Muslims against Assad, Russians backed Assad over the radical Muslims.

Dude, who were these Radical Muslims that the US backed against Assad?

 

15 minutes ago, Knob Oddy said:

It was clearly a proxy war, but was officially a "civil" war

 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Knob Oddy said:

images.jpeg.jpg.62896a3976c3653d6ac3b00557fed2af.jpg

But US forces directing war efforts in a clandestine way is not evidence of a proxy war?

Hmmm, proxy wars generally don't rely on one side being the aggressor. The US backed radical Muslims against Assad, Russians backed Assad over the radical Muslims. 

It was clearly a proxy war, but was officially a "civil" war

What's the difference between a proxy war and supporting an ally who is being invaded?

In regards to Ukraine.

 

Edited by spartan max2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

It seems that, to you, being supplied weaponry to defend one's self with directly means that they are acting as a proxy for the supplier. I don't think you understand what "proxy" means.

Because it is. Anyway, this sort of make-believe is exactly the problem with the pro-war side.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/russia-is-right-the-us-is-waging-aproxy-war-in-ukraine/2022/05/10/2c8058a4-d051-11ec-886b-df76183d233f_story.html

https://www.thenation.com/article/world/war-ukraine-censorship/

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/04/ukraine-nato-russia-proxy-war.html

https://www.cnbc.com/video/2022/06/06/ex-us-diplomat-explains-why-the-ukraine-war-has-become-a-proxy-war.html

But whatever. Let say your claim that Russia was waging a proxy war in Donbas but the US isn’t makes sense on some level. It doesn’t change the fact that prolonging the war by propping Ukraine up with weapons is only going to compound the misery of the Ukrainian people.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Manwon Lender said:

Jimmy Dore is a freakin comedian that is  politically far left, his knowledge of the subject isn’t worth any consideration at all. He isn’t around to report the facts his mission is to spread disinformation and misinformation nothing else. 

Zelensky is a comedian that isn’t even far left but he is the one you are trusting in all this. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • This topic was locked and unlocked
  • This topic was locked and unlocked

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   7 members

    • jules99
    • spud the mackem
    • +Noteverythingisaconspiracy
    • Cookie Monster
    • el midgetron
    • Grey Area
    • DarkHunter