Russia-Ukraine conflict


LDSGator
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

A completely nuke-free world would undoubtedly be a better place, but I think recent events make that dream even more unlikely.  In the current conflict Putin has been immeasurably empowered by his possession of nukes, and Ukraine has been immeasurably hamstrung by the fact that they gave theirs away.  The takeaway here is likeIy to be that unilateral nuclear disarmament is merely a precursor to your own people becoming the victims of theft, rape, and murder by their greedy neighbors while the international community sits on its hands in terror.

I agree with unilateral disarmament being a death trap. We've done a good job of banning and eliminating chemical weapons (if memory serves, only three countries refused to sign the chemical weapons treaty; North Korea, Iraq, and Syria).  We would need to go through a similar, world wide treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons.  It's a pipe dream right now, but a worthy goal.

In the meantime, I'd be content if the U.S./NATO, Russia, China, and India maybe reduced their stockpiles to just the number of weapons we need to destroy the world once, rather than knock it out of orbit.

Quote

I agree re the treatment of Russian nationals.

As for the Russian Orthodox Church:  it’ll be interesting to see what kind of influence they maintain in the next decade.  Obviously I can’t speak with any authority here; but if (as I understand to be the case) they have been in Putin’s pocket and are unqualified cheerleaders for the war, and if the war goes badly . . . Russians have also, in the past, shown themselves adept at directing fearsome temper tantrums towards the Orthodox Church.

I would find that very interesting indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

I agree with unilateral disarmament being a death trap. We've done a good job of banning and eliminating chemical weapons (if memory serves, only three countries refused to sign the chemical weapons treaty; North Korea, Iraq, and Syria).  We would need to go through a similar, world wide treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons.  It's a pipe dream right now, but a worthy goal.

In the meantime, I'd be content if the U.S./NATO, Russia, China, and India maybe reduced their stockpiles to just the number of weapons we need to destroy the world once, rather than knock it out of orbit.

I would find that very interesting indeed.

Granted it has been nearly 40 years since I worked for the Defense Department but I am somewhat knowledgeable about weapon systems.  I will not go into all the technical details but firing ballistic missals over the northern poll region  is not a reliable or accurate system.  The most effective nuclear delivery systems are systems that can be launched from a similar latitude as the target.  But Russia has a greater problem with any nuclear conflict because of the global jet streams that would effect Russia (northern countries) the most even if they were not involved in the conflict.

Also, even 40 years ago there were weapons much more globally dangerous than nuclear.  A lesson we should have learned over the last few years or at least become more aware of such possibilities.  

Personally I am of the belief that without intervention from a more advanced intelligent civilization, that we (humans on earth) lack the intelligence to become even a level I Kardashev civilization without annihilating ourselves first.  As smart as we think we are in the USA we can't even deal with the increasing violence in our own nation - obviously we are unfit to deal with the violence between Russia and Ukraine.  I think we have crossed the threshold of our technology and intelligence to make things better - only much worse.  Even from a religious viewpoint - there is nothing that we are witnessing that has not been the result of trends initiated millennials ago and especially accelerated more recently.   If anyone is surprised it is only because they have ignored the trends. 

I would suggest this is as good a time as possible to repent and exercise faith in a just and compassionate G-d - or not - depending on expectations.   But it is my opinion that continuing to do the same things and expecting different results than what is trending - is the definition of insanity. 

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

I agree with unilateral disarmament being a death trap. We've done a good job of banning and eliminating chemical weapons (if memory serves, only three countries refused to sign the chemical weapons treaty; North Korea, Iraq, and Syria).  We would need to go through a similar, world wide treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons.  It's a pipe dream right now, but a worthy goal.

 I'm not sure if it is a worthy goal. I don't trust worldwide treaties that everybody assumes everybody else is going to adhere to. There are ways of doing even nuclear-level research and development workout detection, as long as they're not actually walking through your facility. If you're Pakistan (or Taiwan without US support), what are the drawbacks?

5 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

In the meantime, I'd be content if the U.S./NATO, Russia, China, and India maybe reduced their stockpiles to just the number of weapons we need to destroy the world once, rather than knock it out of orbit.

 When I was a child, we were taught about something the teachers called kill-power. It was supposed to convince us that the nuclear arms race was ridiculous and that we already had too many weapons and making more weapons wouldn't make us safer.

As a child, I bought into it. As an adult, I see the flaws and fallacies in that sort of thinking. As if you're carrying your entire arsenal with you at any place you happen in the world and if you decide you have to bomb someplace you're going to have all your stuff right there with you . That just is not how it works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

In the meantime, I'd be content if the U.S./NATO, Russia, China, and India maybe reduced their stockpiles to just the number of weapons we need to destroy the world once, rather than knock it out of orbit.

I read somewhere recently that only about 1/3 of the nuclear warheads in the world are (for lack of a better word) operational at this point.  (So, something like 4,000; not 12,000.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vort said:

 I'm not sure if it is a worthy goal. I don't trust worldwide treaties that everybody assumes everybody else is going to adhere to. There are ways of doing even nuclear-level research and development workout detection, as long as they're not actually walking through your facility. If you're Pakistan (or Taiwan without US support), what are the drawbacks?

 When I was a child, we were taught about something the teachers called kill-power. It was supposed to convince us that the nuclear arms race was ridiculous and that we already had too many weapons and making more weapons wouldn't make us safer.

As a child, I bought into it. As an adult, I see the flaws and fallacies in that sort of thinking. As if you're carrying your entire arsenal with you at any place you happen in the world and if you decide you have to bomb someplace you're going to have all your stuff right there with you . That just is not how it works.

I get where you're coming from. I'm not actually as naive as I come across. Being actively involved in the destruction of chemical weapons, I can assure you that our compliance with the chemical weapons treaty doesn't mean we don't have chemical weapons; it only means we don't have stockpiles. (Off the top of my head, I don't recall what the formal definition of stockpile is).

But we will definitely have some weapons, and we will definitely have chemical agents. The treaties allow retention and development in the interests of staying ahead/abreast of developments elsewhere.

As for compliance, I would anticipate a nuclear disarmament treaty to follow the same model as the Chemical Weapons treaty. We are regularly inspected by OPCW, with inspectors coming from all sorts of places (some of them hostile and very motivated to find us out of compliance). It's been a good system.

50 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I read somewhere recently that only about 1/3 of the nuclear warheads in the world are (for lack of a better word) operational at this point.  (So, something like 4,000; not 12,000.)

All the more reason to get rid of them. :)

Ultimately, my objection to nuclear weapons is the same as my objection the chemical weapons. They are not intended to destroy military targets; they are intended to kill civilians. In that regard, 4,000 is about 4,000 too many.

for a lot of reasons, I understand that full disarmament is unlikely in my lifetime. But reducing stockpiles to something that doesn't guarantee the extinction of the species would be a good start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MarginOfError said:

Ultimately, my objection to nuclear weapons is the same as my objection the chemical weapons. They are not intended to destroy military targets; they are intended to kill civilians. In that regard, 4,000 is about 4,000 too many.

Does this (either your argument, or the total count of nuclear stockpiles—and I admit that I’m the one who floated the figures under discussion) distinguish between strategic nukes versus tactical nukes, nuclear-tipped torpedoes and the like?

It seems to me that the latter could have a legitimate use against a hardened target or a massed troop formation, depending on the nature of the lingering radiation/fallout that the bomb would cause.

As to the strategic nukes:  I agree with you from a moral standpoint; but the problem remains that from a practical standpoint—they work.  The sheer number of them in existence, and the impossibility of taking them all out of play with a first strike, is a big part of the reason they work.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Does this (either your argument, or the total count of nuclear stockpiles—and I admit that I’m the one who floated the figures under discussion) distinguish between strategic nukes versus tactical nukes, nuclear-tipped torpedoes and the like?

It seems to me that the latter could have a legitimate use against a hardened target or a massed troop formation, depending on the nature of the lingering radiation/fallout that the bomb would cause.

As to the strategic nukes:  I agree with you from a moral standpoint; but the problem remains that from a practical standpoint—they work.  The sheer number of them in existence, and the impossibility of taking them all out of play with a first strike, is a big part of the reason they work.

The other awkward truth is that some countries will lie and say “You can trust us, we’re not like the others.” And then not destroy their nuclear arsenal while you do. Thus leaving you helpless. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mikbone said:

44D8877C-94A5-4CF2-802E-C238B4B25B00.thumb.jpeg.4b907d5f48dd927bcff99392048acb08.jpeg

Isn't that straight out of Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising?  The American intelligence folks think something's up with Russia, because they go on a round of executing corrupt generals for diverting funds to build their summer Dachas.

 

Recent news reminds me: I met some Russian treaty inspectors back in 1995: https://www.deseret.com/1995/5/20/19213437/russian-inspectors-arrive-at-hafb

They came to the candy store where I worked, grinning like maniacs.  The dictionary definition of kids in a candy shop.  This was only a few years after the fall of the Soviet Union, and I watched firsthand the stereotypical "Russians simply can't believe the choices available in American grocery stores" play out live.   Then my ultra-John-Bircher boss showed up and made a total jerk out of himself, awkwardly insulting the Russians with some stupid claim about how American culture was superior because we went to bed on time.  (It made no sense, but that was par for his course.)   But their grins didn't dent in the slightest.

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I read somewhere recently that only about 1/3 of the nuclear warheads in the world are (for lack of a better word) operational at this point.  (So, something like 4,000; not 12,000.)

Nuclear weapons do wear out, in that the radioactive fuel decays. The tritium used in pretty much every modern nuke has a half-life best measured in hours.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Vort said:

Nuclear weapons do wear out, in that the radioactive fuel decays. The tritium used in pretty much every modern nuke has a half-life best measured in hours.

I read 12.3 years for tritium half-life, or 108K hours.

 

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mikbone said:

I read 12.3 years for tritium half-life, or 108K hours.

 

 Thanks for the correction. "Months to years", then. The point is that over a period of years and decades, the weapons' potency degrades.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The tritium in a warhead is continually undergoing radioactive decay, hence becoming unavailable for fusion. Furthermore, its decay product, helium-3, absorbs neutrons if exposed to the ones emitted by nuclear fission. This potentially offsets or reverses the intended effect of the tritium, which was to generate many free neutrons, if too much helium-3 has accumulated from the decay of tritium. Therefore, it is necessary to replenish tritium in boosted bombs periodically. The estimated quantity needed is 4 grams per warhead.[10] To maintain constant levels of tritium, about 0.20 grams per warhead per year must be supplied to the bomb.

- Wikipedia

Cost of Tritium is $30K per gram.

https://hpschapters.org/northcarolina/NSDS/tritium.pdf

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mikbone said:

F3685B15-450A-41B7-AC32-A52C0514C5F8.thumb.jpeg.6a8c5ab827a1f2704d59f366bc3c3959.jpeg

An embarrasing lack of maturity and basic soft skills. I do not know of any president or vp in our country's history who has demonstrated their utter lack of knowledge and awareness like she has. She is truly clueless about how to properly conduct herself on the national and world stage with regards to common decorum. Unprepared and lazy. Her answers to questions are word salad, and her demeanor is that of a young girl in middle school. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
3 hours ago, scottyg said:

An embarrasing lack of maturity and basic soft skills. I do not know of any president or vp in our country's history who has demonstrated their utter lack of knowledge and awareness like she has. She is truly clueless about how to properly conduct herself on the national and world stage with regards to common decorum. Unprepared and lazy. Her answers to questions are word salad, and her demeanor is that of a young girl in middle school. 

I'm not here to defend Kamala, but in reference to the emphasized bit..... I mean..... surely you're joking, right? 🤨

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, scottyg said:

An embarrasing lack of maturity and basic soft skills. I do not know of any president or vp in our country's history who has demonstrated their utter lack of knowledge and awareness like she has. She is truly clueless about how to properly conduct herself on the national and world stage with regards to common decorum. Unprepared and lazy. Her answers to questions are word salad, and her demeanor is that of a young girl in middle school. 

Just from the clip I watched:  it appeared that maybe there was some confusion between Harris and the Polish guy about who was to answer the question, or maybe a pause to see if an interpreter was needed . . . At any rate there was an awkward silence while everyone was waiting for everyone else to say something, followed by laughter.

Now, I frankly think that Harris is a prime example of a mean girl of loose morality who never outgrew her meanness or her looseness.  And her cackling non-answers to Pence in the VP debate still stick in my craw almost two years later.

But . . . The criticisms arising out of this particular incident seem to be rooted in a preconception that Serious People must never ever smile, laugh, or appear to be enjoying themselves; and that to do otherwise indicates their true status as insensitive ogres with no regard for human tragedy.  I’m not sure that’s really fair.  A similar criticism was leveled against Lincoln, who replied “I laugh because I must not cry”.  

When you’re dealing with that level of stress, humor can be a real sanity-saver.  Certainly I prefer some level of decorum at a press conference; but this is really a quibble over style, not substance.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

When you’re dealing with that level of stress, humor can be a real sanity-saver.  Certainly I prefer some level of decorum at a press conference; but this is really a quibble over style, not substance.

I think it is more a reaction to the continued exposure of her lack of character and knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think she may have pseudobulbar affect PBA

“Some people simply express anxiety by doing this. Inappropriate laughter or nervous laughter can almost be a sort of reflex with some people. It can also be seen in people with more serious mental illness such as Bipolar Personality Disorder or Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. In Kamala’s case, it’s hard to really say. My guess is this is her reaction to a stressful or uncomfortable situation. This trait of hers where she exhibits nervous, inappropriate laughter does not serve her well and it is quickly emerging as a flaw, upon which she will be increasingly caricatured. With help, she might be able to shed this quirk. If it is a sign of a more serious psychological disorder, it will prove to be difficult to control.“

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, mikbone said:

President Biden has dementia.  Vice President Harris either has PBA or at the least an embarrassing character flaw.

I’m not going to give this administration congratulations on preventing WW III.

 

Perhaps I would take a different point of view.  Since the restoration, our prophet Joseph Smith (and many others) have indicated that starting with the Civil War - war would be pored out upon the nations of the world.  Over the last 150 years we have seen horrors of war on a scale of lethal weaponry never seen before on this earth.  The engines of mass destruction are active in several nations and available to tyrants as well as fools.  It seems as though wisdom has abandoned our human race at all levels of governments.  Most interesting to me are the words of divine revelation that even though we hear of wars throughout the planet our greatest problem is that we do not know the hearts of those in our own country.

We have been told by our prophets that the "time" is drawing near in which we will see all prophesies fulfilled concerning the last days and destruction of the wicked.  It is my impression that many Latter-day Saints do not "know" who the wicked are - or even what wicked is.  It seems to me that the primary thought on this matter is that the wicked are those involved in various acts contrary to our understanding of scripture.  The ancient meaning of wicked are those not loyal to their covenants with G-d.  

We have been warned to "stand in holy places".  It is my personal impression that many do not know well enough what "holy" is let alone what place is holy.  For example, I was asked by an inactive individual; if when "the time comes" should we flee to the temple?  There is a temple in Kyiv.  I do not know if the Saints of Ukraine will be spared the horrors of war - I suspect that the Saints of Ukraine will suffer the physical horrors with all the citizens of Ukraine - though I pray otherwise.  Other than the words of our prophets - I think the words of Winston Churchill apply as much today as when he spoke them --- "we have nothing to fear but fear itself".

It is my opinion that as much as we may think our leaders have failed us and the free world - we have failed ourselves more.  We are more divided and concerned with things that do not matter than we are willing to stand for justice, freedom and liberty.  And as I have said many times white water rafting - "Pay attention to what is about to happen next - each person needs to prepare to perform and do their part now - it is too late to worry about what anyone else is doing."  If one does not know their part I would suggest you no longer put off your repentance and throw yourself upon the mercy of G-d.  When white water rafting - I tell such to position themselves in the middle of the raft and say and do nothing - relying whole heartily on those that are prepared. 

I plan to fast and pray with the brethren and sisters (our general authorities) that will fast and meet together the Thursday before conference. And then I plan to listen intently to all their words of wisdom.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
2 hours ago, mikbone said:

President Biden has dementia.  Vice President Harris either has PBA or at the least an embarrassing character flaw.

I’m not going to give this administration congratulations on preventing WW III.

 

Good to know that we have the personal psychiatrist of both President Biden and VP Harris in this forum. Very enlightening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share