"If you're afraid of DU projectiles, withdraw your tanks from Ukraine", says White House

[+Nuclear Wessel]

 

 

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

Since depleted uranium rounds have been issued to T-64/72/80/90 series tanks since Soviet times, I would be surprised if Russian haven't allready used them in Ukraine. 

This is a Russian depleted uranium 3BM46 tank round:

[Occult1]

3 hours ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

 

 

Except that this is not what happened. Russia has responded by announcing they will move tactical nuke to Belarus.

[+Nuclear Wessel]

6 minutes ago, Occult1 said:

Except that this is not what happened. Russia has responded by announcing they will move tactical nuke to Belarus.

Kirby made the US' stance pretty clear.

[Occult1]

4 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

Kirby made the US' stance pretty clear.

Empty rethoric.

The fact is that providing depleting uranium shells to Ukraine has lead to an escalation. There will now be nuclear weapons in Belarus which has some U.S officials concerned.

[+Nuclear Wessel]

Just now, Occult1 said:

Empty rethoric.

The fact is that providing depleting uranium shells to Ukraine has lead to an escalation. There will now be nuclear weapons in Belarus which has some U.S officials concerned.

Empty rhetoric.

U.S. Skeptical of Putin's Pledge to Put Nukes in Belarus

U.S. officials and independent analysts said the announcement, which comes as his forces sustain large amounts of casualties on the battlefield in Ukraine and ahead of an expected Ukrainian counteroffensive, thus far appeared to be primarily for show. Much of what Putin said about the relationship with Belarus was already known—the training and aircraft modifications were previously announced—and no evidence has emerged to suggest that Russia has invested the time, money or effort to build the type of robust storage facilities necessary to house nuclear warheads.

“We’re watching this as best we can,” White House National Security Council Spokesman John Kirby told reporters on Tuesday. “We haven’t seen any movement by Mr. Putin to act on what he pledged he would do. And we haven’t seen any indications that Mr. Putin is leaning towards, or getting closer to, any preparations for the use of tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine.”

U.S. Skeptical of Putin's Pledge to Put Nukes in Belarus | Time

[DarkHunter]

Putting tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus is completely and utterly pointless and does absolutely nothing to change the strategic balance.

Russia already has ballistic missiles, nuclear submarines, and strategic bombers that can already hit just about any target in Europe by some means within a matter of minutes anyway so moving tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus doesnt change anything in nuclear threat.

The Russian military can already freely enter and move through Belarus as it wills so the range of targets these tactical nuclear weapons can hit hasnt increased by being in Belarus and being able to attack from Belarus.

There is just simply nothing gained strategically or tactically by moving tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus for Russia.

All moving tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus has done is move them closer to the front and making them easier targets in case hostilities break out between NATO and Russia.  It's rather obvious that this is nothing more that a poor attempt to scare western leaders and try to convince them Russia will use nuclear weapons after multiple Russian red lines have been crossed and bluffs called with no Russian use of nuclear weapons or even the indication they might be used.  

Edited March 29, 2023 by DarkHunter

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

1 hour ago, Occult1 said:

Empty rethoric.

The fact is that providing depleting uranium shells to Ukraine has lead to an escalation. There will now be nuclear weapons in Belarus which has some U.S officials concerned.

Depleted uranium is not a nuclear weapon.

It is a waste product from uranium enrichment, mening that it is what is left when you remove the uranium-235 that is used in nuclear weapons. 

But you don't really care about this do you ? 

[+and-then]

1 hour ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

Depleted uranium is not a nuclear weapon.

It is a waste product from uranium enrichment, mening that it is what is left when you remove the uranium-235 that is used in nuclear weapons. 

But you don't really care about this do you ? 

America was accused of everything except crimes against humanity because of the DU shells we used in Iraq.  Supposedly they leave toxic waste that is a carcinogen.  Like most issues, there are differing evaluations of the dangers.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

18 minutes ago, and-then said:

America was accused of everything except crimes against humanity because of the DU shells we used in Iraq.  Supposedly they leave toxic waste that is a carcinogen.  Like most issues, there are differing evaluations of the dangers.

I'm not saying that depleted uranium isn't unhealthy. I responded to Occult1's implication that depleted uranium is a nuclear escalation. 

Don't you agree that it is hypocritcal of Russia to accuse somebody of nuclear escaltion when they are using the same weapons themselves ?