Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bad beat/Moaning/Venting thread - Wordle Gummidge

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Does anyone have a recommendation for good, proper bbq in Dublin? I've tried Bison and Pitt Bros but their idea of bbq was a rack of ribs with some cheap sauce on top like ketchup.

    Anywhere doing anything remotely decent?

    Comment


      Originally posted by dobby View Post
      Does anyone have a recommendation for good, proper bbq in Dublin? I've tried Bison and Pitt Bros but their idea of bbq was a rack of ribs with some cheap sauce on top like ketchup.

      Anywhere doing anything remotely decent?
      I won't necessarily have a recommendation but probably no harm in narrowing your question

      What sort of bbq are you looking for?

      Southern USA, Brazilian, Argentinian etc.

      The couple of times I had usa style bbq in Dublin I thought it was overpriced and average. Could have been the same places you went to but it's a few years back. Maybe there's a better restaurant now.

      Comment


        Originally posted by coillcam View Post

        I won't necessarily have a recommendation but probably no harm in narrowing your question

        What sort of bbq are you looking for?

        Southern USA, Brazilian, Argentinian etc.

        The couple of times I had usa style bbq in Dublin I thought it was overpriced and average. Could have been the same places you went to but it's a few years back. Maybe there's a better restaurant now.
        I've not thought about it that specifically tbh. I'd happily take a recommendation for a good place off anyone. Was away in Lithuania for a few days and went to a bbq joint near the apartment. The rib fell off the bone as I picked it up and the sauce was absolutely gorgeous.

        I know I am probably better off just doing my own stuff at home but sometimes you just get that craving that needs to be fed.

        Comment


          The Mongolian BBQ in Temple Bar is cheap 'n tasty.
          Depends on how far your definition of BBQ
          strays beyond meat cooked on an open fire tho'.

          Comment


            Originally posted by Raoul Duke III View Post
            Big Putin speech incoming. No doubt some plan even more cunning than the current one.
            Would imagine:
            1. speeding up integration of occupied Ukraine into Russia, with rigged referenda.
            2. because then Ukraine would be 'attacking Russia'
            3. some steps towards mobilization to replace all the tens of thousands already killed

            12 hours late (which might indicate some domestic issues) but it was all of the above plus explicit nuclear threats.
            I guess it's no longer a special military operation.
            "We are not Europeans. Those people on the continent are freaks."

            Comment


              Originally posted by Raoul Duke III View Post

              12 hours late (which might indicate some domestic issues) but it was all of the above plus explicit nuclear threats.
              I guess it's no longer a special military operation.
              Oh, it's all kinds of 'special'
              Gone full 'Glinner' since June 2022.

              Comment


                Originally posted by Raoul Duke III View Post

                12 hours late (which might indicate some domestic issues) but it was all of the above plus explicit nuclear threats.
                I guess it's no longer a special military operation.
                Every 3rd man gets a gun
                People say I should be more humble I hope they understand, they don't listen when you mumble
                Get a shiny metal Revolut card! And a free tenner!
                https://revolut.com/referral/jamesb8!G10D21

                Comment




                  "Russia’s seaborne crude exports have fallen sharply in the first half of September, hit first by a storm in the Pacific and then by an unexplained decline in shipments from the Baltic. Flows to the big Asian buyers — China and India — aren’t offsetting a drop in volumes for Europe.

                  Crude shipped from Russia’s ports has fallen by almost 900,000 barrels a day in two weeks, averaging 2.54 million barrels a day in the week to Sept. 16, compared with 3.42 million in the seven days to Sept. 2. Using a four-week moving average to smooth out variability in the figures, shipments fell below 3 million barrels a day for the first time in more than five months. "


                  Comment


                    Originally posted by dobby View Post

                    I've not thought about it that specifically tbh. I'd happily take a recommendation for a good place off anyone. Was away in Lithuania for a few days and went to a bbq joint near the apartment. The rib fell off the bone as I picked it up and the sauce was absolutely gorgeous.

                    I know I am probably better off just doing my own stuff at home but sometimes you just get that craving that needs to be fed.
                    Mister S must be easily the best BBQ place in town. Literally just falling off the bone in the most delicious way. The short rib is a thing to die for. Think its Michelin Star, or whatever the step below Michelin Star is. Cheap enough for lunch. Currently ranked 9th from 2,000+ restaurants in Dublin, so the public have spoken.
                    "We're not f*cking Burundi" - Big Phil

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by Hectorjelly View Post
                      https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...t?srnd=premium

                      "Russia’s seaborne crude exports have fallen sharply in the first half of September, hit first by a storm in the Pacific and then by an unexplained decline in shipments from the Baltic. Flows to the big Asian buyers — China and India — aren’t offsetting a drop in volumes for Europe.

                      Crude shipped from Russia’s ports has fallen by almost 900,000 barrels a day in two weeks, averaging 2.54 million barrels a day in the week to Sept. 16, compared with 3.42 million in the seven days to Sept. 2. Using a four-week moving average to smooth out variability in the figures, shipments fell below 3 million barrels a day for the first time in more than five months. "

                      lols at the stats approach. Lets take two weeks when we know shipments are low - apparently caused mainly by a storm - and give it the appearance of a long-term trend by extending the averaging to ... four weeks
                      "We're not f*cking Burundi" - Big Phil

                      Comment


                        Averaging is only appropriate if both samples being averaged are drawn from the same underlying data generation process.
                        "We're not f*cking Burundi" - Big Phil

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by Raoul Duke III View Post

                          12 hours late (which might indicate some domestic issues) but it was all of the above plus explicit nuclear threats.
                          I guess it's no longer a special military operation.
                          Imagine if Trump was still in power.
                          1. Ukraine would not have gotten half the military support and Putin would be proclaiming a glorious victory begot from the brains of a tactical genius
                          2. The US President would have gotten top seating in the Cathedral at the Queens funeral


                          Hmm what else?


                          Comment


                            Putin really backing himself into a corner now. Assassination, Nuclear weapon usage, or in his favour, Ukraine getting carved up.

                            Are there any other possible outcomes?
                            This may or may not be an original thought of my own.
                            All efforts were made to make this thought original but with the abundance of thoughts in the world the originality of this thought cannot be guaranteed.
                            The author is not liable for any issue arising from the platitudinous nature of this post.

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by Theresa View Post
                              Putin really backing himself into a corner now. Assassination, Nuclear weapon usage, or in his favour, Ukraine getting carved up.

                              Are there any other possible outcomes?
                              He's banking on the Western support crumbling. To disillusion him we should send more and better weaponry, sanction Russia harder, and transfer the $300bn in frozen Russian reserves directly to Ukraine as reparations.
                              "We are not Europeans. Those people on the continent are freaks."

                              Comment


                                Just as well your bro-in-law got out of dodge Hitch. I see all flights out of Russia to visa free countries are now sold out.

                                Comment


                                  Originally posted by Raoul Duke III View Post

                                  He's banking on the Western support crumbling. To disillusion him we should send more and better weaponry, sanction Russia harder, and transfer the $300bn in frozen Russian reserves directly to Ukraine as reparations.
                                  I was listening to something the other day about the use of nuclear weapons. Guest made the point that in order to use tactical nuclear weapons, it very much needs to be tactically advantageous.

                                  He wrote a long piece yesterday and postscript after Putin’s comments. This is the conclusion:

                                  Originally posted by FreedmanI View Post

                                  There is no evidence for now that weapons are being moved into position or being prepared for such strikes. US intelligence, which has been extraordinarily precise so far can be expected to pick up any details (or at least the Russian would need to assume that). No effort has been made to explain to the Russian public why such strikes might be necessary. After all Putin still insists that this is a limited operation and has refused to put the country on a war footing. As we have seen Russian figures talk garrulously about scenarios for nuclear use against NATO countries but not Ukraine. We can also assume that neither of Putin’s recent interlocutors - Xi and Modi - would be enthused. This is a scenario largely generated in the West trying to anticipate contingencies that have yet to be reached.

                                  It is true that the prospect of nuclear use might engender panic in Ukraine and NATO. It is also hard to imagine that the news would be greeted calmly in Russia. It could intensify opposition in Moscow to Putin. He would of course need a compliant chain of command to implement an order to go nuclear, especially as part of a complex military operation on the ground. If the wind catches radioactive dust close to the borders it could fall on Russian territory.

                                  Even if use did make a difference the fundamental political problem would still be there: how to pacify a hostile population with a depleted army. Meanwhile nuclear threats do serve an important purpose for Putin, in deterring more direct NATO engagement. Should he use nuclear weapons in a limited and possibly futile way, the threshold would still have been crossed and all bets would be off in terms of a NATO response, which might well include doing exactly those things Putin was trying to deter. This would also be true of possible Ukrainian moves against Belgorod and Crimea.

                                  There is one qualification to this analysis, which is Crimea. This territory was seized from Ukraine in 2014 and Ukraine wants it back. Militarily this would be even more challenging than the other acts of ‘de-occupation’ that Ukraine wants to achieve. There are ways of making the Russian hold on Crimea more difficult without a military assault, and Zelensky has spoken of this as a problem that might require a diplomatic solution, although if Russia shows no interest in a negotiated withdrawal his forces will keep on going. Rather than fretting about some future craziness, efforts might more usefully be put into preparing for the moment when Putin realises that he has lost and may seek to hold on to Crimea. At this time all the issues connected with ending this war – sanctions, reparations, war crimes, prisoner exchanges, and security guarantees – would need to be addressed. We may find it difficult to imagine that Putin can lose, and wonder about how well he will cope with his failed aggression, but it is entirely possible that at some point he will run out of options, and have to look failure in the eye.

                                  Comment


                                    Where would he aim the nuke at?
                                    Turning millions into thousands

                                    Comment


                                      Originally posted by Strewelpeter View Post
                                      Where would he aim the nuke at?
                                      I wonder would Hitler have fired a nuke at the end ? Knowing it would destroy the world .

                                      Comment


                                        Mortgage rates now over 6% in the US and a further 75bps coming today.
                                        They should be close to done at this point imo. EU on the other hand is only starting...
                                        "We are not Europeans. Those people on the continent are freaks."

                                        Comment


                                          Originally posted by Solksjaer! View Post

                                          I wonder would Hitler have fired a nuke at the end ? Knowing it would destroy the world .

                                          To the best of my knowledge, it would take dozens of their bigger nukes to release the levels of radiation that Chernobyl did, but just one of them directed at a residential area could wipe out hundreds of thousands of people.

                                          Turning millions into thousands

                                          Comment


                                            Originally posted by Strewelpeter View Post
                                            Where would he aim the nuke at?
                                            Well, hypothetically aiming one at a non-Nato member who is still heavily alligned with them and aiding the Ukrainian defence could be a runner.

                                            As Nato technically still wouldn’t have to enter the war.

                                            A country like the above with no missile defence system maybe.

                                            Any country fit that bill?

                                            Comment


                                              "We're not f*cking Burundi" - Big Phil

                                              Comment


                                                Edit: need to click on that tweet. It seems to have cut off the vitally important top message
                                                "We're not f*cking Burundi" - Big Phil

                                                Comment


                                                  Originally posted by Degag View Post

                                                  Well, hypothetically aiming one at a non-Nato member who is still heavily alligned with them and aiding the Ukrainian defence could be a runner.

                                                  As Nato technically still wouldn’t have to enter the war.

                                                  A country like the above with no missile defence system maybe.

                                                  Any country fit that bill?
                                                  Perhaps they’ll simply fire at somewhere with no risk of human casualty. Article above refers to Snake Island as a possibility.

                                                  Comment


                                                    6 and a half weeks booked in Phoenix (Nice two bed Air BnB) from late Oct to mid Dec. Couldn't be better timing, my course closes on the 15th. Then have an event promo'ing the app, then down to Phoenix to spend some time down there promoting, creating content, and networking.

                                                    Could be the winter of sun chasing.
                                                    This may or may not be an original thought of my own.
                                                    All efforts were made to make this thought original but with the abundance of thoughts in the world the originality of this thought cannot be guaranteed.
                                                    The author is not liable for any issue arising from the platitudinous nature of this post.

                                                    Comment


                                                      Originally posted by Murdrum View Post

                                                      Perhaps they’ll simply fire at somewhere with no risk of human casualty. Article above refers to Snake Island as a possibility.
                                                      It's a good illustration of the futility of nukes that firing one into the sea is the only way he can use one without getting into mutually assured destruction territory.

                                                      Not at all into military tactics but it feels like there is something different going on in this war, it seems that the superior technology and intelligence Ukraine have access to allows them to disrupt Russian field command and control with very little face to face combat. Managing large numbers of poorly trained and unmotivated conscripts might only make it harder for Russia to achieve their aims.
                                                      Turning millions into thousands

                                                      Comment


                                                        Originally posted by Strewelpeter View Post
                                                        To the best of my knowledge, it would take dozens of their bigger nukes to release the levels of radiation that Chernobyl did, but just one of them directed at a residential area could wipe out hundreds of thousands of people.
                                                        Apples and oranges though.

                                                        Chernobyl was an accident, lots of nuclear waste products, isotopes with long half-lives. The explosion was relatively small, so a lot of radioactive fallout stayed in the area. A dirty bomb that kills slowly.

                                                        Nukes are designed to burn up instantly. Massive energy blast - which is what levels cities instantly. Largest nukes are something like 1000 X Hiroshimas
                                                        But the blast, and the fact they are detonated in the atmosphere means fallout is widespread.

                                                        Comment


                                                          Originally posted by Strewelpeter View Post

                                                          It's a good illustration of the futility of nukes that firing one into the sea is the only way he can use one without getting into mutually assured destruction territory.

                                                          Not at all into military tactics but it feels like there is something different going on in this war, it seems that the superior technology and intelligence Ukraine have access to allows them to disrupt Russian field command and control with very little face to face combat. Managing large numbers of poorly trained and unmotivated conscripts might only make it harder for Russia to achieve their aims.
                                                          Ukraine is getting realtime battlefield intelligence from the US.
                                                          Hence how they are able to hit Russian targets so efficiently while the RuSSians just indiscriminately shell areas and hope the sheer tonnage gets results.
                                                          "We are not Europeans. Those people on the continent are freaks."

                                                          Comment


                                                            Originally posted by Raoul Duke III View Post

                                                            Ukraine is getting realtime battlefield intelligence from the US.
                                                            Hence how they are able to hit Russian targets so efficiently while the RuSSians just indiscriminately shell areas and hope the sheer tonnage gets results.
                                                            So there would be less indiscriminate deaths if the US also fed realtime battle intelligence to the Russians?
                                                            "We're not f*cking Burundi" - Big Phil

                                                            Comment


                                                              Russia has its own military-grade version of GPS, Glonass, updated over the last few years, so I can't imagine they are completely without intelligence.
                                                              "We're not f*cking Burundi" - Big Phil

                                                              Comment


                                                                Originally posted by Hitchhiker's Guide To... View Post

                                                                So there would be less indiscriminate deaths if the US also fed realtime battle intelligence to the Russians?
                                                                lol wtf is this?
                                                                This may or may not be an original thought of my own.
                                                                All efforts were made to make this thought original but with the abundance of thoughts in the world the originality of this thought cannot be guaranteed.
                                                                The author is not liable for any issue arising from the platitudinous nature of this post.

                                                                Comment


                                                                  Originally posted by Hitchhiker's Guide To... View Post
                                                                  Russia has its own military-grade version of GPS, Glonass, updated over the last few years, so I can't imagine they are completely without intelligence.
                                                                  For complete refutation of this statement, see their actions which demonstrate they are truly and deeply lacking intelligence.
                                                                  "We are not Europeans. Those people on the continent are freaks."

                                                                  Comment


                                                                    Originally posted by Theresa View Post

                                                                    lol wtf is this?
                                                                    It's Hitch posting anything Russia-related. Don't expect coherence.
                                                                    "We are not Europeans. Those people on the continent are freaks."

                                                                    Comment


                                                                      Originally posted by Hitchhiker's Guide To... View Post
                                                                      Russia has its own military-grade version of GPS, Glonass, updated over the last few years, so I can't imagine they are completely without intelligence.
                                                                      I think you need a bit more than decent GPS signal to win an information war
                                                                      Turning millions into thousands

                                                                      Comment


                                                                        This popped up on my Quora timeline a few days ago and thought it might be of interest given the current discussion. Really dunno how much of it is credible but it seems to have generated a lot of discussion over there and if even some of it is factually correct I learned something.

                                                                        I'm sure some here will know more than me about how credible the various parts of the analysis is. Starts off incredible for sure but he seems to build up layers of intriguing angles.

                                                                        John Mark McDonald
                                                                        ·
                                                                        Follow
                                                                        Disabled and Retired.Updated Tue


                                                                        Will Putin resort to nuclear weapons now that it is becoming increasingly clear, from the many, many posts that I have read on Quora, that he has little or no chance of being victorious in Ukraine by means of conventional war?
                                                                        As someone who has studied nuclear war for close to thirty years now, I am going to give you an answer that will blow your mind. Even if the entire Russian nuclear arsenal were used against Ukraine, it wouldn't substantially change the course of the war. How could I possibly say that? Because, the power of nuclear weapons has been used as a boogeyman for so long that the actual power of a nuclear detonation has almost no relation to their actual destructive power. No nuclear power can afford to actually use one in combat because it would expose the mythical nature of nuclear weapons.

                                                                        Nuclear weapons are hyped to the point that no one contradicts it when a media outlet publishes a statement indicating that even a single nuclear device will destroy the world. This is a blatantly, stupidly, obviously untrue, but never corrected. After all, two were used in WWII. BUT that is just the tip of the iceburg. I thought there had been a couple of hundred nuclear test that prove this point. I was off by over an order of magnitude. There have been nearly THREE THOUSAND NUCLEAR DETONATIONS ALREADY, that are either known or suspected and this has not effected the survivability of life on Earth even slightly.

                                                                        Well then, how dangerous are nuclear weapons? Nuclear weapons, if they weren't their own catagory, would be classified as incendiary weapons. They set stuff on fire. They set a lot of stuff on fire. In fact they can set things on fire as far as two miles away from the actual detonation. Besides this, nuclear detonation are very bright, capable of blinding people 20–30 miles away. This is only constrained by the curvature of the earth. They also create hurricane force winds as the air around the detonation expands and contracts. If you are outside and unshielded and within a mile of a nuclear detonation, you are going to die.

                                                                        The problem here is that Ukraine is really big. I mean the size of Texas big. Cities there tend to be spread out in modern times and their larger ones cover over a hundred square miles. The average nuclear detonation are only burn 2–3 square miles of territory. A city the size of Kiev would take on the order of 200 warheads to cover the whole thing.

                                                                        Which brings us to our next point. Modern cities are just not that vulnerable to incendiaries. Modern city centers and industrial areas are made of concrete and steel. Most of the damage in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was done because almost all the buildings were made of wood and paper. The initial blast set the city centers on fire which spread and ended up burning down most of the city. Modern cities are just not that vulnerable. In Ukraine, despite millions of rounds of being poured into their cities, not one of them caught fire and burned to the ground like the Great Chicago or Great London Fires in the 19th century or the fire storms of WWII. In the Japanese nuclear detonations, the brick buildings were still standing, despite being much less sturdy than modern buildings. This leads to the most surprising revelation about nuclear detonations: If you are not outside, you stand a good chance of surviving even within the blast zone. Nuclear blasts are mainly line of sight killers. The vast majority of “radiation” created by an nuclear detonation is infrared radiation, or heat the same as a gas stove or fireplace makes. Unless the building you are in is collapsed by the wind or you fail to leave if it catches on fire or you happen to be in front of a window with a direct line of sight to the detonation, you are probably going to be fine.

                                                                        Thus we get to the real reason why Putin will not use nuclear weapons: they're just not all that effective compared to the boogeyman that is in our collective imaginations. Were a nuclear missile to detonate over central Kiev, no one would believe that it was an actual nuclear blast because the city is still there and all the major buildings are still standing.

                                                                        Secondly, he doesn't have very many of them. The numbers given for the Russian nuclear arsenal are an outright farce. You get that number by taking of bombs that the USSR claimed to have built, and subtract the number used in their testing program. This leaves you with about 9,000 warheads. First of all, Russia doesn't have nearly enough delivery systems to put those warheads on. The second problem here is that nuclear warheads have a very short shelf life. Nuclear warheads require a detonator made of conventional expolsives. These detonators are some of the most precision pieces of engineering in the history of mankind. A series of explosives has to go off in such a way that the core is hit by the same amount of pressure from all directions simultaneously. If any of those explosives are even slightly off, the nuclear warhead will not go off. You now have an extremely precise machine sitting around a core of material emiting hard radiation. Hard radiation is not friendly to machines. Nuclear warheads need to be rebuilt a least every five years and maintained a lot more often than that. Even with that, a twenty year old warhead is a piece of junk. It's been more than twenty years since the Putin kleptocracy came to power. I'm sure that Russia has a number of Potemkin warheads that are kept in top shape for inspectors, but given the current Russian system, the Russian nuclear arsenal most likely resembles the Russian tank reserves: the bare minimum kept in service while the rest is a scrap pile.

                                                                        Currently, the spector of the vast Russian nuclear arsenal is the last card he has in his hand. If he were to actually use it, it would expose that he never had anything but a junk hand and bluffing to back it up.

                                                                        Update 9/16/2022:

                                                                        The response to his post here been overwhelming and I very much appreciate those of you who have asked a number of sincere and insightful questions. I am going to try and clarify and expand here as the reply thread has gotten quite long. Nuclear weapons are the most deadly weapons that mankind has ever made, capable of killing tens of thousands of people at a time. It would be insane not to fear and respect that kind of power. On the other hand, even the most powerful nuclear warhead is not capable of killing millions, destroying our civilization, causing the extinction of mankind, or destroying the planet. There is a middle ground between being completely ineffective the apocalypse.

                                                                        Some clarifications about the types of nuclear explosions and categories of warheads.

                                                                        There are four categories of nuclear device: Air burst, bunker buster, torpedo, and mine. Mines and torpedoes are not relevant to our discussion here. Air burst bombs are the classical nuclear bomb with the mushroom cloud. These are detonated at altitude in order to do as much damage over as wide an area as possible. Bunker buster bombs are designed to destroy underground installations like bunkers. There is another type that is talked about but never existed. This is the contact or ground burst bomb. As far as I am aware, no one has ever designed nor made a nuclear warhead that explodes when it hits the ground.

                                                                        There are four kinds of nuclear explosions that are talked about:

                                                                        Neutron bombs are nuclear detonations that produce large amounts of hard radiation at the cost of producing very little physical damage. These were banned by mutual treaty in the 1970s. My suspicion is that they were either ineffective or mind bogglingly expensive and both sides agreed to ban them because they were already in the process of dropping the programs. Because of this Neutron bombs do not currently exist.

                                                                        Third stage bombs are in a similar position without the treaty ban. In theory, a third stage bomb uses a four stage detonation to set off an explosion in the multi-megaton range. Any stats on their power are made up as everything to do with them is massively classified. The infamous Tsar Bomba was an attempt to make a third stage bomb and this prototype is acknowledged to have caused the most powerful nuclear detonation in history … and then the program was dropped. (The US had a program that was similar in nature, but not as powerful result and was similarly dropped.) Again, no third stage bombs actally exist. (1)

                                                                        This leaves us with fission and fusion bombs. These bombs actually exist and have been tested extensively. Unfortunately for the purposes of our discussion, the tests are highly classified. The only data available to the public is from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs and is over 75 years out of date. In the intervening time, Uranium based warheads have been replaced with Plutonium based warheads almost completely. Thus makes comparisons very difficult. How do we know anything about modern nuclear warheads? Well, they still obey the laws of physics. (2)

                                                                        Fission warheads work by a two stage explosion. A set of conventional explosives form a shell around a core of highly enriched Uranium or Plutonium. This explosion has to be mind bogglingly precise or you only pulverized the core (creating an unintentional dirty bomb). The level of precision required is that if you had a steel ping pong ball in the middle that after the explosion the ping pong ball would be perfectly intact. This level of precision is unmatched in any other device made by humanity, except fusion warheads. (3)

                                                                        Fusion warheads have a three stage explosion in which a conventional explosive shell sets off a fission explosive shell to trigger a fusion explosion. This is orders of magnitude more complex than a fission warhead.

                                                                        This brings to the most common set of questions: Just what are the effects of a nuclear detonation? A nuclear explosion converts some of radioactive core into pure energy and hard radiation. Simple enough, but the devil is in the details. The equivalent of a small piece of the sun being brought into existence in the atmosphere for a fraction of a second (this is the nuclear fireball which has temperatures similar to the sun, but never even comes close to the ground or any other solid objects)(4). This sends out radiation across the spectrum from Gamma rays to radio waves (including EMPs) but not in equal amounts. Most of the radiation is Thermal or visible; AKA heat and light. This radiation goes out in straight lines (line of sight) for a fraction of a second. This is relevant because this radiation is only there for a fraction of a second and then is gone leaving only its effects. A small amount of alpha and beta particles (hard radiation) are also produced. This radiation is also absorbed by the first solid object it runs into. The amount of energy transferred depends of the distance from the explosion by the inverse cube law. This damages things by cooking flesh and settings things on fire. The range at which people are killed and things are set on fire is known as the damage radius. If you are in the damage radius and you have a direct line of sight you will be burned to death. This is also the range that you might receive a fatal dose of radiation, but as you are already dead from the heat, it doesn't really matter. EMPs are also generated in this zone, which means that any computer chips or diodes within the zone will be fried even if they survive the heat. That's it for the direct effect of a nuclear detonation. Secondary effects will be covered later.

                                                                        The thing is that radiation follows the inverse cube law, which means that the effects drop off very quickly.(5) Nuclear bombs are rated in explosive force equivalent to a number of tons of TNT. This gives a rough estimate of their damage radius. The bigger the number, the bigger the damage raduis is roughly. (The Hiroshima bomb was rated at 15 KT and killed about 50% more people than the 20 KT Nagasaki bomb so we already know its not an absolute ratio.) Just outside of the damage radius, there is a small edge zone. People in a direct line of sight of this explosion within the edge zone will receive serious burns that are not immediately fatal as well as high doses of other forms of radiation besides visible and thermal. These are the people who are the most likely to survive the blast but later die of burns or radiation sickness. This edge zone is only a few hundred feet across and being on the side of the street closer to the blast can literally mean the difference between life and death.(6)

                                                                        (1) Everyone seems to love to talk about the “Tsar Bomba” like they know anything about it. In 1961 a pair of propaganda releases were made about a Soviet nuclear test. At that particular time it was to both sides advantage to play up the danger of the Russian nuclear threat. All actual data is still highly classified to this day. The only real things we know is that it was a really big explosion, and that the program was considered a failure and dropped. Therefore talking about the Tsar Bomba is irrelevant and all comments using it as a example will be deleted because it is about as relevant as unicorn farts.

                                                                        I previously identified third stage bombs as cobalt bombs. This was my mistake and I apologize. Cobalt bombs were an attempt to create a hybrid nuclear/dirty bomb with significant long term fallout. This only emphasizes that conventional nuclear warheads do not produce a lot of fallout as there would be no purpose I cobalt bombs if they did.

                                                                        (2) The only other clue we have is the bomb’s public rating in tons of TNT. The only ones that know how accurate this are a few engineers that are not allowed to talk about on penalty of up to death.

                                                                        (3) I'm aware of the plunger type detonator, but this technology seems to have been abandoned as well and so is not relevant.

                                                                        (4) People who refer to vaporizing flesh and melting rock (turning cities into glass) are confusing being in the damage radius with being inside the nuclear fireball. Only nuclear mines produce a fireball on the surface, and they cannot be used offensively. The only time that people were killed inside a nuclear fireball was in the MOVIE “The Day After.” People who say these things can reliably be dismissed for not knowing what they are talking about.

                                                                        (5) The damage radius is where the nuclear explosion (A three dimensional sphere), intersects the ground (effectively a circle on a two dimensional plain). Trying to make calculation based only on the circle on the map leads wildly inaccurate conclusions. We do not live in a two dimensional world. Most of the time this can be ignored, but in this specific case you get the completely wrong answer if you do. Just like a 24″ pizza is much bigger than two 12″ pizzas, A one mile diameter explosion is much more powerful than two half mile diameter explosions.

                                                                        (6) Because the nuclear fireball is hundreds to thousands of feet across, solid objects may only provide partial protection to someone who is on the edge of a shadow. There is also the photoelectric effect that blurs the effect of the edge of the shadow. This can lead to people within the damage zone getting injuries similar to those in the edge zone that are not immediately fatal,but still end up killing them in the next few days or months.
                                                                        Last edited by BennyHiFi; 21-09-22, 19:49.

                                                                        Comment


                                                                          To lighten the mood .

                                                                          Should be changed to Ukrainian accent

                                                                           

                                                                          Comment


                                                                            Originally posted by Raoul Duke III View Post

                                                                            It's Hitch posting anything Russia-related. Don't expect coherence.
                                                                            Do you not think Putin would love a long term war (like 10/15 years) to see out his lifetime? Seems like a far more efficient way of killing off youngsters than re-education camps, and there are only so many people that can accidently fall from their sixth floor hospital window.
                                                                            Gone full 'Glinner' since June 2022.

                                                                            Comment


                                                                              2 hours and 45 minutes and I still don't seem to be able to shake Quora Timeline.

                                                                              Comment


                                                                                Any recommendations for a hotel in Amsterdam..myself and Mia going and can't really find anything decent that's central .budget around 470 ish three nights

                                                                                Never been before so absolutely clueless

                                                                                These two came recommended



                                                                                And this but obv private room with own bathroom

                                                                                Last edited by SatNav; 21-09-22, 22:38.
                                                                                Her sky-ness
                                                                                © 5starpool

                                                                                Comment


                                                                                  Also how safe are them space cakes...no joints
                                                                                  I'd love for her to experience the whole Amsterdam vibe thingy just looking for a giggle type thing.

                                                                                  She's going on 18 now in case anyone thinking she's 10 lol
                                                                                  Her sky-ness
                                                                                  © 5starpool

                                                                                  Comment


                                                                                    Originally posted by SatNav View Post
                                                                                    Also how safe are them space cakes...no joints
                                                                                    I'd love for her to experience the whole Amsterdam vibe thingy just looking for a giggle type thing.

                                                                                    She's going on 18 now in case anyone thinking she's 10 lol
                                                                                    Can't be too bad. I had a 4hr layover in Amsterdam coming back from a poker gig. Straight out of the airport and found the first coffee shop I could find and got a fun brownie. Girl at the counter asked if I ever done weed. Not much I said, so she advised eating half now and half an hour later. Brownie was delicious hence the whole thing lasted about 3 seconds

                                                                                    Spent the next 2hours walking around Amsterdam alone looking at buildings pretty spaced out of it but not too bombed and made the flight. Good auld craic to be fair. Hopefully going back in March
                                                                                    Redbet at the Dublin Poker Invasion FTW

                                                                                    Comment


                                                                                      Originally posted by BennyHiFi View Post
                                                                                      This popped up on my Quora timeline a few days ago and thought it might be of interest given the current discussion. Really dunno how much of it is credible but it seems to have generated a lot of discussion over there and if even some of it is factually correct I learned something.

                                                                                      I'm sure some here will know more than me about how credible the various parts of the analysis is. Starts off incredible for sure but he seems to build up layers of intriguing angles.

                                                                                      John Mark McDonald
                                                                                      ·
                                                                                      Follow
                                                                                      Disabled and Retired.Updated Tue


                                                                                      Will Putin resort to nuclear weapons now that it is becoming increasingly clear, from the many, many posts that I have read on Quora, that he has little or no chance of being victorious in Ukraine by means of conventional war?
                                                                                      As someone who has studied nuclear war for close to thirty years now, I am going to give you an answer that will blow your mind. Even if the entire Russian nuclear arsenal were used against Ukraine, it wouldn't substantially change the course of the war. How could I possibly say that? Because, the power of nuclear weapons has been used as a boogeyman for so long that the actual power of a nuclear detonation has almost no relation to their actual destructive power. No nuclear power can afford to actually use one in combat because it would expose the mythical nature of nuclear weapons.

                                                                                      Nuclear weapons are hyped to the point that no one contradicts it when a media outlet publishes a statement indicating that even a single nuclear device will destroy the world. This is a blatantly, stupidly, obviously untrue, but never corrected. After all, two were used in WWII. BUT that is just the tip of the iceburg. I thought there had been a couple of hundred nuclear test that prove this point. I was off by over an order of magnitude. There have been nearly THREE THOUSAND NUCLEAR DETONATIONS ALREADY, that are either known or suspected and this has not effected the survivability of life on Earth even slightly.

                                                                                      Well then, how dangerous are nuclear weapons? Nuclear weapons, if they weren't their own catagory, would be classified as incendiary weapons. They set stuff on fire. They set a lot of stuff on fire. In fact they can set things on fire as far as two miles away from the actual detonation. Besides this, nuclear detonation are very bright, capable of blinding people 20–30 miles away. This is only constrained by the curvature of the earth. They also create hurricane force winds as the air around the detonation expands and contracts. If you are outside and unshielded and within a mile of a nuclear detonation, you are going to die.

                                                                                      The problem here is that Ukraine is really big. I mean the size of Texas big. Cities there tend to be spread out in modern times and their larger ones cover over a hundred square miles. The average nuclear detonation are only burn 2–3 square miles of territory. A city the size of Kiev would take on the order of 200 warheads to cover the whole thing.

                                                                                      Which brings us to our next point. Modern cities are just not that vulnerable to incendiaries. Modern city centers and industrial areas are made of concrete and steel. Most of the damage in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was done because almost all the buildings were made of wood and paper. The initial blast set the city centers on fire which spread and ended up burning down most of the city. Modern cities are just not that vulnerable. In Ukraine, despite millions of rounds of being poured into their cities, not one of them caught fire and burned to the ground like the Great Chicago or Great London Fires in the 19th century or the fire storms of WWII. In the Japanese nuclear detonations, the brick buildings were still standing, despite being much less sturdy than modern buildings. This leads to the most surprising revelation about nuclear detonations: If you are not outside, you stand a good chance of surviving even within the blast zone. Nuclear blasts are mainly line of sight killers. The vast majority of “radiation” created by an nuclear detonation is infrared radiation, or heat the same as a gas stove or fireplace makes. Unless the building you are in is collapsed by the wind or you fail to leave if it catches on fire or you happen to be in front of a window with a direct line of sight to the detonation, you are probably going to be fine.

                                                                                      Thus we get to the real reason why Putin will not use nuclear weapons: they're just not all that effective compared to the boogeyman that is in our collective imaginations. Were a nuclear missile to detonate over central Kiev, no one would believe that it was an actual nuclear blast because the city is still there and all the major buildings are still standing.

                                                                                      Secondly, he doesn't have very many of them. The numbers given for the Russian nuclear arsenal are an outright farce. You get that number by taking of bombs that the USSR claimed to have built, and subtract the number used in their testing program. This leaves you with about 9,000 warheads. First of all, Russia doesn't have nearly enough delivery systems to put those warheads on. The second problem here is that nuclear warheads have a very short shelf life. Nuclear warheads require a detonator made of conventional expolsives. These detonators are some of the most precision pieces of engineering in the history of mankind. A series of explosives has to go off in such a way that the core is hit by the same amount of pressure from all directions simultaneously. If any of those explosives are even slightly off, the nuclear warhead will not go off. You now have an extremely precise machine sitting around a core of material emiting hard radiation. Hard radiation is not friendly to machines. Nuclear warheads need to be rebuilt a least every five years and maintained a lot more often than that. Even with that, a twenty year old warhead is a piece of junk. It's been more than twenty years since the Putin kleptocracy came to power. I'm sure that Russia has a number of Potemkin warheads that are kept in top shape for inspectors, but given the current Russian system, the Russian nuclear arsenal most likely resembles the Russian tank reserves: the bare minimum kept in service while the rest is a scrap pile.

                                                                                      Currently, the spector of the vast Russian nuclear arsenal is the last card he has in his hand. If he were to actually use it, it would expose that he never had anything but a junk hand and bluffing to back it up.

                                                                                      Update 9/16/2022:

                                                                                      The response to his post here been overwhelming and I very much appreciate those of you who have asked a number of sincere and insightful questions. I am going to try and clarify and expand here as the reply thread has gotten quite long. Nuclear weapons are the most deadly weapons that mankind has ever made, capable of killing tens of thousands of people at a time. It would be insane not to fear and respect that kind of power. On the other hand, even the most powerful nuclear warhead is not capable of killing millions, destroying our civilization, causing the extinction of mankind, or destroying the planet. There is a middle ground between being completely ineffective the apocalypse.

                                                                                      Some clarifications about the types of nuclear explosions and categories of warheads.

                                                                                      There are four categories of nuclear device: Air burst, bunker buster, torpedo, and mine. Mines and torpedoes are not relevant to our discussion here. Air burst bombs are the classical nuclear bomb with the mushroom cloud. These are detonated at altitude in order to do as much damage over as wide an area as possible. Bunker buster bombs are designed to destroy underground installations like bunkers. There is another type that is talked about but never existed. This is the contact or ground burst bomb. As far as I am aware, no one has ever designed nor made a nuclear warhead that explodes when it hits the ground.

                                                                                      There are four kinds of nuclear explosions that are talked about:

                                                                                      Neutron bombs are nuclear detonations that produce large amounts of hard radiation at the cost of producing very little physical damage. These were banned by mutual treaty in the 1970s. My suspicion is that they were either ineffective or mind bogglingly expensive and both sides agreed to ban them because they were already in the process of dropping the programs. Because of this Neutron bombs do not currently exist.

                                                                                      Third stage bombs are in a similar position without the treaty ban. In theory, a third stage bomb uses a four stage detonation to set off an explosion in the multi-megaton range. Any stats on their power are made up as everything to do with them is massively classified. The infamous Tsar Bomba was an attempt to make a third stage bomb and this prototype is acknowledged to have caused the most powerful nuclear detonation in history … and then the program was dropped. (The US had a program that was similar in nature, but not as powerful result and was similarly dropped.) Again, no third stage bombs actally exist. (1)

                                                                                      This leaves us with fission and fusion bombs. These bombs actually exist and have been tested extensively. Unfortunately for the purposes of our discussion, the tests are highly classified. The only data available to the public is from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs and is over 75 years out of date. In the intervening time, Uranium based warheads have been replaced with Plutonium based warheads almost completely. Thus makes comparisons very difficult. How do we know anything about modern nuclear warheads? Well, they still obey the laws of physics. (2)

                                                                                      Fission warheads work by a two stage explosion. A set of conventional explosives form a shell around a core of highly enriched Uranium or Plutonium. This explosion has to be mind bogglingly precise or you only pulverized the core (creating an unintentional dirty bomb). The level of precision required is that if you had a steel ping pong ball in the middle that after the explosion the ping pong ball would be perfectly intact. This level of precision is unmatched in any other device made by humanity, except fusion warheads. (3)

                                                                                      Fusion warheads have a three stage explosion in which a conventional explosive shell sets off a fission explosive shell to trigger a fusion explosion. This is orders of magnitude more complex than a fission warhead.

                                                                                      This brings to the most common set of questions: Just what are the effects of a nuclear detonation? A nuclear explosion converts some of radioactive core into pure energy and hard radiation. Simple enough, but the devil is in the details. The equivalent of a small piece of the sun being brought into existence in the atmosphere for a fraction of a second (this is the nuclear fireball which has temperatures similar to the sun, but never even comes close to the ground or any other solid objects)(4). This sends out radiation across the spectrum from Gamma rays to radio waves (including EMPs) but not in equal amounts. Most of the radiation is Thermal or visible; AKA heat and light. This radiation goes out in straight lines (line of sight) for a fraction of a second. This is relevant because this radiation is only there for a fraction of a second and then is gone leaving only its effects. A small amount of alpha and beta particles (hard radiation) are also produced. This radiation is also absorbed by the first solid object it runs into. The amount of energy transferred depends of the distance from the explosion by the inverse cube law. This damages things by cooking flesh and settings things on fire. The range at which people are killed and things are set on fire is known as the damage radius. If you are in the damage radius and you have a direct line of sight you will be burned to death. This is also the range that you might receive a fatal dose of radiation, but as you are already dead from the heat, it doesn't really matter. EMPs are also generated in this zone, which means that any computer chips or diodes within the zone will be fried even if they survive the heat. That's it for the direct effect of a nuclear detonation. Secondary effects will be covered later.

                                                                                      The thing is that radiation follows the inverse cube law, which means that the effects drop off very quickly.(5) Nuclear bombs are rated in explosive force equivalent to a number of tons of TNT. This gives a rough estimate of their damage radius. The bigger the number, the bigger the damage raduis is roughly. (The Hiroshima bomb was rated at 15 KT and killed about 50% more people than the 20 KT Nagasaki bomb so we already know its not an absolute ratio.) Just outside of the damage radius, there is a small edge zone. People in a direct line of sight of this explosion within the edge zone will receive serious burns that are not immediately fatal as well as high doses of other forms of radiation besides visible and thermal. These are the people who are the most likely to survive the blast but later die of burns or radiation sickness. This edge zone is only a few hundred feet across and being on the side of the street closer to the blast can literally mean the difference between life and death.(6)

                                                                                      (1) Everyone seems to love to talk about the “Tsar Bomba” like they know anything about it. In 1961 a pair of propaganda releases were made about a Soviet nuclear test. At that particular time it was to both sides advantage to play up the danger of the Russian nuclear threat. All actual data is still highly classified to this day. The only real things we know is that it was a really big explosion, and that the program was considered a failure and dropped. Therefore talking about the Tsar Bomba is irrelevant and all comments using it as a example will be deleted because it is about as relevant as unicorn farts.

                                                                                      I previously identified third stage bombs as cobalt bombs. This was my mistake and I apologize. Cobalt bombs were an attempt to create a hybrid nuclear/dirty bomb with significant long term fallout. This only emphasizes that conventional nuclear warheads do not produce a lot of fallout as there would be no purpose I cobalt bombs if they did.

                                                                                      (2) The only other clue we have is the bomb’s public rating in tons of TNT. The only ones that know how accurate this are a few engineers that are not allowed to talk about on penalty of up to death.

                                                                                      (3) I'm aware of the plunger type detonator, but this technology seems to have been abandoned as well and so is not relevant.

                                                                                      (4) People who refer to vaporizing flesh and melting rock (turning cities into glass) are confusing being in the damage radius with being inside the nuclear fireball. Only nuclear mines produce a fireball on the surface, and they cannot be used offensively. The only time that people were killed inside a nuclear fireball was in the MOVIE “The Day After.” People who say these things can reliably be dismissed for not knowing what they are talking about.

                                                                                      (5) The damage radius is where the nuclear explosion (A three dimensional sphere), intersects the ground (effectively a circle on a two dimensional plain). Trying to make calculation based only on the circle on the map leads wildly inaccurate conclusions. We do not live in a two dimensional world. Most of the time this can be ignored, but in this specific case you get the completely wrong answer if you do. Just like a 24″ pizza is much bigger than two 12″ pizzas, A one mile diameter explosion is much more powerful than two half mile diameter explosions.

                                                                                      (6) Because the nuclear fireball is hundreds to thousands of feet across, solid objects may only provide partial protection to someone who is on the edge of a shadow. There is also the photoelectric effect that blurs the effect of the edge of the shadow. This can lead to people within the damage zone getting injuries similar to those in the edge zone that are not immediately fatal,but still end up killing them in the next few days or months.
                                                                                      TLDR
                                                                                      ﴾͡๏̯͡๏﴿

                                                                                      Comment


                                                                                        Originally posted by The Aul Switcharoo View Post

                                                                                        Can't be too bad. I had a 4hr layover in Amsterdam coming back from a poker gig. Straight out of the airport and found the first coffee shop I could find and got a fun brownie. Girl at the counter asked if I ever done weed. Not much I said, so she advised eating half now and half an hour later. Brownie was delicious hence the whole thing lasted about 3 seconds

                                                                                        Spent the next 2hours walking around Amsterdam alone looking at buildings pretty spaced out of it but not too bombed and made the flight. Good auld craic to be fair. Hopefully going back in March
                                                                                        Would recommend to buy 6 between you as the baking process removes most of the effect. Munch one each, wait 15 minutes and if no effects experienced, munch another. Wait 15 more mins, then repeat.
                                                                                        "We are not Europeans. Those people on the continent are freaks."

                                                                                        Comment


                                                                                          I see RuSSia has exchanged the Azovstal prisoners for one of Putin's oligarch buddies.
                                                                                          Big propaganda win for Ukraine and undercuts the whole 'but...but....Nazis!' nonsense.
                                                                                          "We are not Europeans. Those people on the continent are freaks."

                                                                                          Comment


                                                                                            Originally posted by Raoul Duke III View Post
                                                                                            I see RuSSia has exchanged the Azovstal prisoners for one of Putin's oligarch buddies.
                                                                                            Big propaganda win for Ukraine and undercuts the whole 'but...but....Nazis!' nonsense.
                                                                                            How so... It is obviously nonsense... but how does the exchange undercut that particular arguement?
                                                                                            No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity, but I know none, therefore am no beast.

                                                                                            Comment


                                                                                              Originally posted by Hitchhiker's Guide To... View Post
                                                                                              Russia has its own military-grade version of GPS, Glonass, updated over the last few years, so I can't imagine they are completely without intelligence.
                                                                                              How is it military grade compared to GPS?
                                                                                              And how does it provide intelligence on targets.

                                                                                              I hadn’t heard if it before. But GPS gives you in information about where you are, that you can share. Not sure how it would give them info on location of enemies not using the systems. Unless there extra features on Glonass

                                                                                              Comment


                                                                                                Originally posted by pokerhand View Post

                                                                                                How so... It is obviously nonsense... but how does the exchange undercut that particular arguement?
                                                                                                Because why would you let these allegedly 'terrible, evil war criminal Nazis' go safely home after using them as a justification for war?

                                                                                                The gap between rhetoric and action is enormous.
                                                                                                "We are not Europeans. Those people on the continent are freaks."

                                                                                                Comment


                                                                                                  Originally posted by Micknail View Post

                                                                                                  TLDR
                                                                                                  Detonate different type of nukes and see the impact. Fun for all the family guessing where the estimated fatalities counter will stop.

                                                                                                  NUKEMAP is a website for visualizing the effects of nuclear detonations.
                                                                                                  Happiness is not a goal; it is a by-product. ~Eleanor Roosevelt

                                                                                                  Comment


                                                                                                    Originally posted by Mellor View Post

                                                                                                    How is it military grade compared to GPS?
                                                                                                    And how does it provide intelligence on targets.

                                                                                                    I hadn’t heard if it before. But GPS gives you in information about where you are, that you can share. Not sure how it would give them info on location of enemies not using the systems. Unless there extra features on Glonass
                                                                                                    There's a military grade version of GPS also - only accessible to friendly powers. Much higher precision than the public version of GPS. Glonass was falling to pieces around a decade ago and then they launched new satellites to bring it up to scratch.
                                                                                                    "We're not f*cking Burundi" - Big Phil

                                                                                                    Comment


                                                                                                      Originally posted by Strewelpeter View Post

                                                                                                      I think you need a bit more than decent GPS signal to win an information war
                                                                                                      Indeed. But the reason why US/EU/China/Russia all have a version of GPS, plus planned UK and Indian launch of similar, is because it is the starting point of military intelligence in terms of targeting.
                                                                                                      "We're not f*cking Burundi" - Big Phil

                                                                                                      Comment


                                                                                                        GPS was started as a military project by the US Department of the Defence, it only later became accessible in a dumbed-down version for the public.
                                                                                                        "We're not f*cking Burundi" - Big Phil

                                                                                                        Comment




                                                                                                          Originally posted by BennyHiFi View Post
                                                                                                          This popped up on my Quora timeline a few days ago and thought it might be of interest given the current discussion. Really dunno how much of it is credible but it seems to have generated a lot of discussion over there and if even some of it is factually correct I learned something.




                                                                                                          I'm sure some here will know more than me about how credible the various parts of the analysis is. Starts off incredible for sure but he seems to build up layers of intriguing angles.




                                                                                                          John Mark McDonald

                                                                                                          ·

                                                                                                          Follow

                                                                                                          Disabled and Retired.Updated Tue







                                                                                                          Will Putin resort to nuclear weapons now that it is becoming increasingly clear, from the many, many posts that I have read on Quora, that he has little or no chance of being victorious in Ukraine by means of conventional war?

                                                                                                          As someone who has studied nuclear war for close to thirty years now, I am going to give you an answer that will blow your mind. Even if the entire Russian nuclear arsenal were used against Ukraine, it wouldn't substantially change the course of the war. How could I possibly say that? Because, the power of nuclear weapons has been used as a boogeyman for so long that the actual power of a nuclear detonation has almost no relation to their actual destructive power. No nuclear power can afford to actually use one in combat because it would expose the mythical nature of nuclear weapons.




                                                                                                          There have been nearly THREE THOUSAND NUCLEAR DETONATIONS ALREADY, that are either known or suspected and this has not effected the survivability of life on Earth even slightly.

                                                                                                          .



                                                                                                          I’d be skeptical about how much of an expert that he is. There’s a few nonsense claims at the start.

                                                                                                          The edit is more detailed, but where-ever he pulled contradicts his earlier claims. A few parts stood out to me;




                                                                                                          “Brick buildings were still standing in Hiroshima”.




                                                                                                          Yes many were. But that was a tiny bomb in a technology never used. It was 15KT. Current typical smaller nukes are 50x bigger (a delivery rocket carries 10 of them). Big nukes are 1000x bigger.




                                                                                                          The biggest ever nuke level a village of brick buildings 50km from the test site. That data isn’t top secret. It was declassified when USSR fell.




                                                                                                          “They dint have that many”




                                                                                                          His claim about peak nukes minus tests being the estimate is definitely nonsense. Somebody posted a cool timeline video of nuclear armouries in here before. The numbers were insane at the height of the Cold War.




                                                                                                          Both the US and Russia got up to ~40,000 nukes. Both did ~500-1000 tests. Both currently have 5000-6000 nukes estimated.

                                                                                                          Do clearly it’s not peak minus tests. There are whole agencies dedicated to knowing that number. I take their word over random guy on Quora.




                                                                                                          “average nuke burns 2-3square miles”




                                                                                                          Depends on the size of the explosion. But that would be the smaller nukes mentioned above, and as mentioned there’s 10 of them on board, as it does more damage than a single nuke.

                                                                                                          A single 1MT+ nuke burns 80-100 sq.miles.




                                                                                                          He seems to be looking at it like a single device going off won’t end the word.

                                                                                                          But is missing the point that nobody just one snowball in a snowball fight.















                                                                                                          Comment


                                                                                                            Fk you Mellor . You radioheaded me.



                                                                                                             

                                                                                                            Comment


                                                                                                              Originally posted by Hitchhiker's Guide To... View Post
                                                                                                              There's a military grade version of GPS also - only accessible to friendly powers. Much higher precision than the public version of GPS. Glonass was falling to pieces around a decade ago and then they launched new satellites to bring it up to scratch.
                                                                                                              As I said, I was aware Glonass was a thing. I just assume they used GPS.

                                                                                                              That still doesnt my explain how you think it gives them military intelligence. GPS allows you to locate yourself or objects you are connected to. They can’t just ping Ukrainian hiding places.

                                                                                                              Originally posted by Hitchhiker's Guide To... View Post
                                                                                                              GPS was started as a military project by the US Department of the Defence, it only later became accessible in a dumbed-down version for the public.
                                                                                                              The Internet, digital cameras and super glue all started off life in the military too. Probably many more every day items too.

                                                                                                              Comment


                                                                                                                Originally posted by Solksjaer! View Post
                                                                                                                Fk you Mellor . You radioheaded me.
                                                                                                                Sorry Solks. If it’s any consolation, you’ll be glad to know that young priest turned his depression around, quit the priesthood, and became a successful xocaine fuelled comedian

                                                                                                                Comment


                                                                                                                  Good article by Anne Applebaum on the continuing collapse of RuSSia.
                                                                                                                  "We are not Europeans. Those people on the continent are freaks."

                                                                                                                  Comment


                                                                                                                    Hitchhiker's Guide To.... sent you a pm not drug related lol
                                                                                                                    Her sky-ness
                                                                                                                    © 5starpool

                                                                                                                    Comment


                                                                                                                      Originally posted by BennyHiFi View Post
                                                                                                                      This popped up on my Quora timeline a few days ago and thought it might be of interest given the current discussion. Really dunno how much of it is credible but it seems to have generated a lot of discussion over there and if even some of it is factually correct I learned something.

                                                                                                                      I'm sure some here will know more than me about how credible the various parts of the analysis is. Starts off incredible for sure but he seems to build up layers of intriguing angles.

                                                                                                                      John Mark McDonald
                                                                                                                      ·
                                                                                                                      Follow
                                                                                                                      Disabled and Retired.Updated Tue


                                                                                                                      Will Putin resort to nuclear weapons now that it is becoming increasingly clear, from the many, many posts that I have read on Quora, that he has little or no chance of being victorious in Ukraine by means of conventional war?
                                                                                                                      As someone who has studied nuclear war for close to thirty years now, I am going to give you an answer that will blow your mind. Even if the entire Russian nuclear arsenal were used against Ukraine, it wouldn't substantially change the course of the war. How could I possibly say that? Because, the power of nuclear weapons has been used as a boogeyman for so long that the actual power of a nuclear detonation has almost no relation to their actual destructive power. No nuclear power can afford to actually use one in combat because it would expose the mythical nature of nuclear weapons.

                                                                                                                      Nuclear weapons are hyped to the point that no one contradicts it when a media outlet publishes a statement indicating that even a single nuclear device will destroy the world. This is a blatantly, stupidly, obviously untrue, but never corrected. After all, two were used in WWII. BUT that is just the tip of the iceburg. I thought there had been a couple of hundred nuclear test that prove this point. I was off by over an order of magnitude. There have been nearly THREE THOUSAND NUCLEAR DETONATIONS ALREADY, that are either known or suspected and this has not effected the survivability of life on Earth even slightly.

                                                                                                                      Well then, how dangerous are nuclear weapons? Nuclear weapons, if they weren't their own catagory, would be classified as incendiary weapons. They set stuff on fire. They set a lot of stuff on fire. In fact they can set things on fire as far as two miles away from the actual detonation. Besides this, nuclear detonation are very bright, capable of blinding people 20–30 miles away. This is only constrained by the curvature of the earth. They also create hurricane force winds as the air around the detonation expands and contracts. If you are outside and unshielded and within a mile of a nuclear detonation, you are going to die.

                                                                                                                      The problem here is that Ukraine is really big. I mean the size of Texas big. Cities there tend to be spread out in modern times and their larger ones cover over a hundred square miles. The average nuclear detonation are only burn 2–3 square miles of territory. A city the size of Kiev would take on the order of 200 warheads to cover the whole thing.

                                                                                                                      Which brings us to our next point. Modern cities are just not that vulnerable to incendiaries. Modern city centers and industrial areas are made of concrete and steel. Most of the damage in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was done because almost all the buildings were made of wood and paper. The initial blast set the city centers on fire which spread and ended up burning down most of the city. Modern cities are just not that vulnerable. In Ukraine, despite millions of rounds of being poured into their cities, not one of them caught fire and burned to the ground like the Great Chicago or Great London Fires in the 19th century or the fire storms of WWII. In the Japanese nuclear detonations, the brick buildings were still standing, despite being much less sturdy than modern buildings. This leads to the most surprising revelation about nuclear detonations: If you are not outside, you stand a good chance of surviving even within the blast zone. Nuclear blasts are mainly line of sight killers. The vast majority of “radiation” created by an nuclear detonation is infrared radiation, or heat the same as a gas stove or fireplace makes. Unless the building you are in is collapsed by the wind or you fail to leave if it catches on fire or you happen to be in front of a window with a direct line of sight to the detonation, you are probably going to be fine.

                                                                                                                      Thus we get to the real reason why Putin will not use nuclear weapons: they're just not all that effective compared to the boogeyman that is in our collective imaginations. Were a nuclear missile to detonate over central Kiev, no one would believe that it was an actual nuclear blast because the city is still there and all the major buildings are still standing.

                                                                                                                      Secondly, he doesn't have very many of them. The numbers given for the Russian nuclear arsenal are an outright farce. You get that number by taking of bombs that the USSR claimed to have built, and subtract the number used in their testing program. This leaves you with about 9,000 warheads. First of all, Russia doesn't have nearly enough delivery systems to put those warheads on. The second problem here is that nuclear warheads have a very short shelf life. Nuclear warheads require a detonator made of conventional expolsives. These detonators are some of the most precision pieces of engineering in the history of mankind. A series of explosives has to go off in such a way that the core is hit by the same amount of pressure from all directions simultaneously. If any of those explosives are even slightly off, the nuclear warhead will not go off. You now have an extremely precise machine sitting around a core of material emiting hard radiation. Hard radiation is not friendly to machines. Nuclear warheads need to be rebuilt a least every five years and maintained a lot more often than that. Even with that, a twenty year old warhead is a piece of junk. It's been more than twenty years since the Putin kleptocracy came to power. I'm sure that Russia has a number of Potemkin warheads that are kept in top shape for inspectors, but given the current Russian system, the Russian nuclear arsenal most likely resembles the Russian tank reserves: the bare minimum kept in service while the rest is a scrap pile.

                                                                                                                      Currently, the spector of the vast Russian nuclear arsenal is the last card he has in his hand. If he were to actually use it, it would expose that he never had anything but a junk hand and bluffing to back it up.

                                                                                                                      Update 9/16/2022:

                                                                                                                      The response to his post here been overwhelming and I very much appreciate those of you who have asked a number of sincere and insightful questions. I am going to try and clarify and expand here as the reply thread has gotten quite long. Nuclear weapons are the most deadly weapons that mankind has ever made, capable of killing tens of thousands of people at a time. It would be insane not to fear and respect that kind of power. On the other hand, even the most powerful nuclear warhead is not capable of killing millions, destroying our civilization, causing the extinction of mankind, or destroying the planet. There is a middle ground between being completely ineffective the apocalypse.

                                                                                                                      Some clarifications about the types of nuclear explosions and categories of warheads.

                                                                                                                      There are four categories of nuclear device: Air burst, bunker buster, torpedo, and mine. Mines and torpedoes are not relevant to our discussion here. Air burst bombs are the classical nuclear bomb with the mushroom cloud. These are detonated at altitude in order to do as much damage over as wide an area as possible. Bunker buster bombs are designed to destroy underground installations like bunkers. There is another type that is talked about but never existed. This is the contact or ground burst bomb. As far as I am aware, no one has ever designed nor made a nuclear warhead that explodes when it hits the ground.

                                                                                                                      There are four kinds of nuclear explosions that are talked about:

                                                                                                                      Neutron bombs are nuclear detonations that produce large amounts of hard radiation at the cost of producing very little physical damage. These were banned by mutual treaty in the 1970s. My suspicion is that they were either ineffective or mind bogglingly expensive and both sides agreed to ban them because they were already in the process of dropping the programs. Because of this Neutron bombs do not currently exist.

                                                                                                                      Third stage bombs are in a similar position without the treaty ban. In theory, a third stage bomb uses a four stage detonation to set off an explosion in the multi-megaton range. Any stats on their power are made up as everything to do with them is massively classified. The infamous Tsar Bomba was an attempt to make a third stage bomb and this prototype is acknowledged to have caused the most powerful nuclear detonation in history … and then the program was dropped. (The US had a program that was similar in nature, but not as powerful result and was similarly dropped.) Again, no third stage bombs actally exist. (1)

                                                                                                                      This leaves us with fission and fusion bombs. These bombs actually exist and have been tested extensively. Unfortunately for the purposes of our discussion, the tests are highly classified. The only data available to the public is from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs and is over 75 years out of date. In the intervening time, Uranium based warheads have been replaced with Plutonium based warheads almost completely. Thus makes comparisons very difficult. How do we know anything about modern nuclear warheads? Well, they still obey the laws of physics. (2)

                                                                                                                      Fission warheads work by a two stage explosion. A set of conventional explosives form a shell around a core of highly enriched Uranium or Plutonium. This explosion has to be mind bogglingly precise or you only pulverized the core (creating an unintentional dirty bomb). The level of precision required is that if you had a steel ping pong ball in the middle that after the explosion the ping pong ball would be perfectly intact. This level of precision is unmatched in any other device made by humanity, except fusion warheads. (3)

                                                                                                                      Fusion warheads have a three stage explosion in which a conventional explosive shell sets off a fission explosive shell to trigger a fusion explosion. This is orders of magnitude more complex than a fission warhead.

                                                                                                                      This brings to the most common set of questions: Just what are the effects of a nuclear detonation? A nuclear explosion converts some of radioactive core into pure energy and hard radiation. Simple enough, but the devil is in the details. The equivalent of a small piece of the sun being brought into existence in the atmosphere for a fraction of a second (this is the nuclear fireball which has temperatures similar to the sun, but never even comes close to the ground or any other solid objects)(4). This sends out radiation across the spectrum from Gamma rays to radio waves (including EMPs) but not in equal amounts. Most of the radiation is Thermal or visible; AKA heat and light. This radiation goes out in straight lines (line of sight) for a fraction of a second. This is relevant because this radiation is only there for a fraction of a second and then is gone leaving only its effects. A small amount of alpha and beta particles (hard radiation) are also produced. This radiation is also absorbed by the first solid object it runs into. The amount of energy transferred depends of the distance from the explosion by the inverse cube law. This damages things by cooking flesh and settings things on fire. The range at which people are killed and things are set on fire is known as the damage radius. If you are in the damage radius and you have a direct line of sight you will be burned to death. This is also the range that you might receive a fatal dose of radiation, but as you are already dead from the heat, it doesn't really matter. EMPs are also generated in this zone, which means that any computer chips or diodes within the zone will be fried even if they survive the heat. That's it for the direct effect of a nuclear detonation. Secondary effects will be covered later.

                                                                                                                      The thing is that radiation follows the inverse cube law, which means that the effects drop off very quickly.(5) Nuclear bombs are rated in explosive force equivalent to a number of tons of TNT. This gives a rough estimate of their damage radius. The bigger the number, the bigger the damage raduis is roughly. (The Hiroshima bomb was rated at 15 KT and killed about 50% more people than the 20 KT Nagasaki bomb so we already know its not an absolute ratio.) Just outside of the damage radius, there is a small edge zone. People in a direct line of sight of this explosion within the edge zone will receive serious burns that are not immediately fatal as well as high doses of other forms of radiation besides visible and thermal. These are the people who are the most likely to survive the blast but later die of burns or radiation sickness. This edge zone is only a few hundred feet across and being on the side of the street closer to the blast can literally mean the difference between life and death.(6)

                                                                                                                      (1) Everyone seems to love to talk about the “Tsar Bomba” like they know anything about it. In 1961 a pair of propaganda releases were made about a Soviet nuclear test. At that particular time it was to both sides advantage to play up the danger of the Russian nuclear threat. All actual data is still highly classified to this day. The only real things we know is that it was a really big explosion, and that the program was considered a failure and dropped. Therefore talking about the Tsar Bomba is irrelevant and all comments using it as a example will be deleted because it is about as relevant as unicorn farts.

                                                                                                                      I previously identified third stage bombs as cobalt bombs. This was my mistake and I apologize. Cobalt bombs were an attempt to create a hybrid nuclear/dirty bomb with significant long term fallout. This only emphasizes that conventional nuclear warheads do not produce a lot of fallout as there would be no purpose I cobalt bombs if they did.

                                                                                                                      (2) The only other clue we have is the bomb’s public rating in tons of TNT. The only ones that know how accurate this are a few engineers that are not allowed to talk about on penalty of up to death.

                                                                                                                      (3) I'm aware of the plunger type detonator, but this technology seems to have been abandoned as well and so is not relevant.

                                                                                                                      (4) People who refer to vaporizing flesh and melting rock (turning cities into glass) are confusing being in the damage radius with being inside the nuclear fireball. Only nuclear mines produce a fireball on the surface, and they cannot be used offensively. The only time that people were killed inside a nuclear fireball was in the MOVIE “The Day After.” People who say these things can reliably be dismissed for not knowing what they are talking about.

                                                                                                                      (5) The damage radius is where the nuclear explosion (A three dimensional sphere), intersects the ground (effectively a circle on a two dimensional plain). Trying to make calculation based only on the circle on the map leads wildly inaccurate conclusions. We do not live in a two dimensional world. Most of the time this can be ignored, but in this specific case you get the completely wrong answer if you do. Just like a 24″ pizza is much bigger than two 12″ pizzas, A one mile diameter explosion is much more powerful than two half mile diameter explosions.

                                                                                                                      (6) Because the nuclear fireball is hundreds to thousands of feet across, solid objects may only provide partial protection to someone who is on the edge of a shadow. There is also the photoelectric effect that blurs the effect of the edge of the shadow. This can lead to people within the damage zone getting injuries similar to those in the edge zone that are not immediately fatal,but still end up killing them in the next few days or months.
                                                                                                                      I saw that the other day posted somewhere other than quroa. I said at the time and repeat now it seems almost ridiculously optimistic.
                                                                                                                      I mean, great and all, I just think it isn't realistic to suggest one bomb per city is the gameplan of any potential nuclear assault.

                                                                                                                      ah I see Mellor got there first
                                                                                                                      Last edited by DeadParrot; 22-09-22, 12:12.
                                                                                                                      People say I should be more humble I hope they understand, they don't listen when you mumble
                                                                                                                      Get a shiny metal Revolut card! And a free tenner!
                                                                                                                      https://revolut.com/referral/jamesb8!G10D21

                                                                                                                      Comment


                                                                                                                        Originally posted by SatNav View Post
                                                                                                                        Any recommendations for a hotel in Amsterdam..myself and Mia going and can't really find anything decent that's central .budget around 470 ish three nights

                                                                                                                        Never been before so absolutely clueless

                                                                                                                        These two came recommended



                                                                                                                        And this but obv private room with own bathroom

                                                                                                                        https://www.tripadvisor.ie/Hotel_Rev..._Province.html
                                                                                                                        Swiss hotel or krasnapolski is where I would stay for light hearted hi jinks while in the Dam
                                                                                                                        People say I should be more humble I hope they understand, they don't listen when you mumble
                                                                                                                        Get a shiny metal Revolut card! And a free tenner!
                                                                                                                        https://revolut.com/referral/jamesb8!G10D21

                                                                                                                        Comment


                                                                                                                          Quora just a place for pompous asshats to
                                                                                                                          show off how much they think they know about stuff.

                                                                                                                          Kinda like how some posters use here.
                                                                                                                          This may or may not be an original thought of my own.
                                                                                                                          All efforts were made to make this thought original but with the abundance of thoughts in the world the originality of this thought cannot be guaranteed.
                                                                                                                          The author is not liable for any issue arising from the platitudinous nature of this post.

                                                                                                                          Comment

                                                                                                                          Working...
                                                                                                                          X