On 04/05/2022 05:19, Gopalan Sampath wrote:
> Now, this is scary: https://youtu.be/JSJOvCkHCQU

All the best Russian propaganda is. It is Putin's last card. If it fails
to terrorize his power is gone and he joins the ranks of the Norwegian
Blues.

--
“The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to
fill the world with fools.”

Herbert Spencer

On 04/05/2022 06:46, Andy Burns wrote:
> Gopalan Sampath wrote:
>
>> Now, this is scary
>
> You appear to have misspelt propaganda
>
LOL!

--
“The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to
fill the world with fools.”

Herbert Spencer

On 03/05/2022 22:19, Jock wrote:
> On Wed, 04 May 2022 04:12:42 +1000, Tim Streater
> <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
>
>> On 03 May 2022 at 19:05:59 BST, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 3 May 2022 17:27:49 +0100, John Rumm
>>> <see.my.signature@nowhere.null> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 03/05/2022 00:22, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>> There's no English translation provided for this 2 minute clip, but
>>>>> you'll get the gist of it all too clearly nevertheless....
>>>>>
>>>>> https://twitter.com/AlexKhrebet/status/1521069215691812864
>>>>
>>>> So a TV station produces an unrealistic animation of a nuclear
>>>> attack on
>>>> the uk, but then stops short of showing the effect on Russia of the
>>>> direct nuclear response from the UK and other NATO allies?
>>>>
>>>> So are you suggesting that if he is mad enough to end life on earth, we
>>>> can fix that by not saying harsh words to the despot?
>>>
>>> I'm simply saying that all I'm hearing is people who *should* know
>>> better ratcheting up the tension. Where is the fuck is the diplomatic
>>> approach? How about a bit of de-escalation, given the cataclysmic
>>> consequences of continued bellicose rhetoric?
>>
>> What would the diplomatic approach consist of?
>
> Going and visiting Putin, sitting at the other end of a very long table,
> come home and wave a piece of paper in the air at the airport.
>
> That worked SO well.
It worked superbly because it bought time to re-arm

On 03/05/2022 15:50, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 03/05/2022 in message <suo17h1ulkduuhpfd24edkrdtokcpuh11v@4ax.com>
> Chris Hogg wrote:
>
>> If he doesn't get his way, he will be highly tempted to use tactical
>> nuclear weapons, irrespective of the consequences. When dealing with a
>> maniac dictator such as he, you have to tread carefully.
>
> OK, understood. You are saying that any maniac dictator can have as much
> of the world as he wants since we are too cowardly to stand up to him.

That is exactly why maniac dictators are so keen to have a large
stockpile of WMDs. Russia unfortunately does have more than enough.

I think if Russia and Putin ends up cornered and obviously losing ground
then they will resort to tactical nukes in Ukraine. Russian military
view them as just a bigger bang and have very few scruples about killing
civilians as previous total flattening of other places shows.

Any nuclear airbursts (or worse still groundbursts) will cause a great
deal of trouble for the global semiconductor industry. Radioactive
fallout can cause faults in modern chips. We got away with it in the
1970's because feature sizes were bigger and the decay of the worst
offending isotopes roughly tracked minimum feature size on the chips.
ISTR they did have to be careful with the packaging at times.

https://www.ti.com/seclit/eb/sgzy002a/sgzy002a.pdf

See section 1.2 for terrestrial radiation environment.

Lead solder is also mildly radioactive.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 03/05/2022 08:27, Chris Hogg wrote:

> Russia's attitude to human life is very materialistic - they don't put
> any more value on it than on any other type of military materiel.
> Their attitude is well demonstrated in their defence of Stalingrad and
> their subsequent push westwards to Berlin. They just threw troops into
> battle, men and women equally, and were unconcerned by high casualty
> rates as long as they overwhelmed the enemy and won. Stalin was
> ultimately responsible for all that, and now Putin is showing the same
> attitude, both towards the Ukrainians and his own troops. He doesn't
> care about the casualty rates, civilian or military, on either side.

Every couple of years or so the Russian military carry out major
exercises using live ammunition, and involving perhaps 100,000 men,
Casualties are regarded as 'light' if there are only 1% killed. By
contrast, D-Day killed was 3%...but that was against heavily defended
positions.

--
Spike

On 03/05/2022 07:13, Jeff Gaines wrote:

> I can't believe how cowardly the western nations are being over the
> Ukraine invasion, if my father's generation had been this cowardly we
> would all be goose stepping down the Mall singing Deutschland Uber Alles
> now.

> We let Russia take Crimea so it believes it can take anything else it
> likes. I wonder if we need to be able to wave to the Russians from Dover
> before our resolve will stiffen?

During the Cold War the Soviet plan was to use massed armour in
'operational manoeuvre groups' to break through the defences in West
Germany and get to the Channel ports in two days. Tank commanders posed
as lorry-driver's mates in order to reconnoitre their routes.

The current Russian army, as deployed in Ukraine, is a very poor
descendent of their Cold War predecessors.

--
Spike

On 03/05/2022 14:16, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> Is Putin really so stupid that he doesn't know the consequences of
> starting a nuclear war? Even if he his, you can bet there are plenty of
> his generals who aren't.

It isn't a question of stupidity.

The Russians see attack and defence as the same thing, and their
doctrine calls for nuclear weapons to be used if either aren't currently
succeeding.

Their generals are schooled in this approach.

--
Spike

On 03/05/2022 21:33, Jock wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote
>> On 03/05/2022 12:39, Chris Hogg wrote:

>>> It supports my view that Russian leaders are indifferent to their
>>> casualties, and are prepared to sacrifice millions to achieve an
>>> objective.

>> +1.

> While that may well have worked when Russia was being invaded,
> it is less clear if it will work when Russia is doing the invading and
> they can't just shoot the individuals who tell the officers to get fucked.

Is fragging now back in fashion?

--
Spike

On Wed, 04 May 2022 18:29:56 +1000, <nothanks@aolbin.com> wrote:

> On 03/05/2022 22:19, Jock wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 May 2022 04:12:42 +1000, Tim Streater
>> <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 03 May 2022 at 19:05:59 BST, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 3 May 2022 17:27:49 +0100, John Rumm
>>>> <see.my.signature@nowhere.null> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 03/05/2022 00:22, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>> There's no English translation provided for this 2 minute clip, but
>>>>>> you'll get the gist of it all too clearly nevertheless....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://twitter.com/AlexKhrebet/status/1521069215691812864
>>>>>
>>>>> So a TV station produces an unrealistic animation of a nuclear
>>>>> attack on
>>>>> the uk, but then stops short of showing the effect on Russia of the
>>>>> direct nuclear response from the UK and other NATO allies?
>>>>>
>>>>> So are you suggesting that if he is mad enough to end life on earth,
>>>>> we
>>>>> can fix that by not saying harsh words to the despot?
>>>>
>>>> I'm simply saying that all I'm hearing is people who *should* know
>>>> better ratcheting up the tension. Where is the fuck is the diplomatic
>>>> approach? How about a bit of de-escalation, given the cataclysmic
>>>> consequences of continued bellicose rhetoric?
>>>
>>> What would the diplomatic approach consist of?
>> Going and visiting Putin, sitting at the other end of a very long
>> table,
>> come home and wave a piece of paper in the air at the airport.
>> That worked SO well.

> It worked superbly because it bought time to re-arm

Fat lot of good that did Poland, France, Belgium, the Netherlands etc etc
etc.

In fact it was only Pearl Harbour that saved the UK's bacon.

On Wed, 04 May 2022 18:31:59 +1000, Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:

> On 03/05/2022 07:13, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>
>> I can't believe how cowardly the western nations are being over the
>> Ukraine invasion, if my father's generation had been this cowardly we
>> would all be goose stepping down the Mall singing Deutschland Uber Alles
>> now.
>
>> We let Russia take Crimea so it believes it can take anything else it
>> likes. I wonder if we need to be able to wave to the Russians from Dover
>> before our resolve will stiffen?
>
> During the Cold War the Soviet plan was to use massed armour in
> 'operational manoeuvre groups' to break through the defences in West
> Germany and get to the Channel ports in two days. Tank commandersposed
> as lorry-driver's mates in order to reconnoitre their routes.

But the first Gulf War proved that that wouldnt work today.

> The current Russian army, as deployed in Ukraine, is a very poor
> descendent of their Cold War predecessors.

The world has moved on with anti tank and anti APC technology.

On Wed, 04 May 2022 18:35:02 +1000, Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:

> On 03/05/2022 14:16, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>
>> Is Putin really so stupid that he doesn't know the consequences of
>> starting a nuclear war? Even if he his, you can bet there are plenty of
>> his generals who aren't.
>
> It isn't a question of stupidity.
>
> The Russians see attack and defence as the same thing, and their
> doctrine calls for nuclear weapons to be used if either aren't currently
> succeeding.
>
> Their generals are schooled in this approach.

But they didn't use it when they got kicked out of Afghanistan.

On Wed, 04 May 2022 18:41:14 +1000, Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:

> On 03/05/2022 21:33, Jock wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote
>>> On 03/05/2022 12:39, Chris Hogg wrote:
>
>>>> It supports my view that Russian leaders are indifferent to their
>>>> casualties, and are prepared to sacrifice millions to achieve an
>>>> objective.
>
>>> +1.
>
>> While that may well have worked when Russia was being invaded,
>> it is less clear if it will work when Russia is doing the invading and
>> they can't just shoot the individuals who tell the officers to get
>> fucked.
>
> Is fragging now back in fashion?

No evidence of that happening with the russians.

They have just continued with their approach of generals
being right in the hot zone.

On 03/05/2022 20:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 03/05/2022 17:33, Colin Bignell wrote:
>> On 03/05/2022 08:13, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>> ...
>>> I can't believe how cowardly the western nations are being over the
>>> Ukraine invasion, if my father's generation had been this cowardly we
>>> would all be goose stepping down the Mall singing Deutschland Uber
>>> Alles now....
>>
>> Adolf didn't have strategic nuclear weapons and, if you read Mein
>> Kampf, it is fairly obvious that Hitler's ambitions lay to the East.
>> He only came West because Britain and France thought that, with the
>> help of Poland, they could defeat Germany fairly quickly. We might
>> have done better to let Hitler and Stalin fight between themselves,
>> then take on the weakened victor, if necessary.
>>
> Unfortunately Poland would have been even more of a wasteland than it
> ended up

Which wouldn't have been our problem if we hadn't made a hasty deal with
the Poles only a matter of weeks before the Germans invaded.

--
Colin Bignell

On 03/05/2022 20:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 03/05/2022 18:59, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 May 2022 13:09:57 +0100, Andrew
>> <Andrew97d-junk@mybtinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/05/2022 10:01, billy bookcase wrote:
>>>> "Jeff Gaines" <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:xn0nhf7p88fmpof00u@news.individual.net...
>>>>> On 03/05/2022 in message
>>>>> <9op07hl57s83cjgkejupo9t7suq6sde9mi@4ax.com> Cursitor Doom
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> There's no English translation provided for this 2 minute clip, but
>>>>>> you'll get the gist of it all too clearly nevertheless....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://twitter.com/AlexKhrebet/status/1521069215691812864
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't believe how cowardly the western nations are being over the
>>>>> Ukraine invasion,
>>>>> if my father's generation had been this cowardly we would all be
>>>>> goose stepping down
>>>>> the Mall singing Deutschland Uber Alles now.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In defeating the Germans the Soviet Union suffered between 20,000,000
>>>> and 27,000,000 deaths in WW2 both military and civilian;
>>>>
>>>> The UK lost 450,000 (383,700 military)
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Total_deaths_by_country
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> HTH
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> bb
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> How many millions did Stalin murder outside any war ?
>>
>> It wasn't just Stalin. So many people make this mistake. The mass
>> arrests, torture and executions were going on *well* before Stalin
>> came along - began as early as April 1919 under Lenin, actually.
>
> Indeed., nothing like a Marxist ideological government that just knows
> it is right for slaughtering anyone who dares even think it might not be.,

Yet in reality, bush and Bliar in combination have killed more people
that any socialist state has managed. When Putin has killed 1,000,000
Ukrainians then he will be in the same league.

On 03/05/2022 17:44, Chris Hogg wrote:
> On Tue, 3 May 2022 17:33:17 +0100, Colin Bignell
> <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 03/05/2022 08:13, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>> ...
>>> I can't believe how cowardly the western nations are being over the
>>> Ukraine invasion, if my father's generation had been this cowardly we
>>> would all be goose stepping down the Mall singing Deutschland Uber Alles
>>> now....
>>
>> Adolf didn't have strategic nuclear weapons and, if you read Mein Kampf,
>> it is fairly obvious that Hitler's ambitions lay to the East. He only
>> came West because Britain and France thought that, with the help of
>> Poland, they could defeat Germany fairly quickly. We might have done
>> better to let Hitler and Stalin fight between themselves, then take on
>> the weakened victor, if necessary.
>
> My english master at school was a major in WW2. He said that when the
> allies reached Berlin they should have just kept going, because by
> that time the Russian army had been reduced to a pretty poor state,
> and the only reason they managed to be as effective as they were
> against Hitler was because the German army was in an even poorer
> state.
>

However, after six years of war, all anybody really wanted to do then
was to end it, and Stalin was one of our allies. Had we been going in
fresh, to de-Nazify Germany and liberate countries from the Soviets, it
might have been different. Of course, we might not have had the tools
for the job as the six years of war had seen many improvements in armour
and aircraft, which might not have happened had we been sitting on the
sidelines.

--
Colin Bignell

On 04/05/2022 09:30, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 03/05/2022 15:50, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>> On 03/05/2022 in message <suo17h1ulkduuhpfd24edkrdtokcpuh11v@4ax.com>
>> Chris Hogg wrote:
>>
>>> If he doesn't get his way, he will be highly tempted to use tactical
>>> nuclear weapons, irrespective of the consequences. When dealing with a
>>> maniac dictator such as he, you have to tread carefully.
>>
>> OK, understood. You are saying that any maniac dictator can have as
>> much of the world as he wants since we are too cowardly to stand up to
>> him.
>
> That is exactly why maniac dictators are so keen to have a large
> stockpile of WMDs. Russia unfortunately does have more than enough.
>
> I think if Russia and Putin ends up cornered and obviously losing ground
> then they will resort to tactical nukes in Ukraine. Russian military
> view them as just a bigger bang and have very few scruples about killing
> civilians as previous total flattening of other places shows.
>
> Any nuclear airbursts (or worse still groundbursts) will cause a great
> deal of trouble for the global semiconductor industry. Radioactive
> fallout can cause faults in modern chips. We got away with it in the
> 1970's because feature sizes were bigger and the decay of the worst
> offending isotopes roughly tracked minimum feature size on the chips.
> ISTR they did have to be careful with the packaging at times.
>
> https://www.ti.com/seclit/eb/sgzy002a/sgzy002a.pdf
>
> See section 1.2 for terrestrial radiation environment.
>
> Lead solder is also mildly radioactive.

For some equipment manufacture uses where low radioactivity is
particularly desirable, there is a market for uncontaminated steel made
before any nuclear tests were conducted. Fortunately there is a
relatively ready "new" source of this, in the form of steel from
shipwrecks.

--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

On 04/05/2022 10:22, Colin Bignell wrote:
> after six years of war, all anybody really wanted to do then was to end
> it, and Stalin was one of our allies. Had we been going in fresh, to
> de-Nazify Germany and liberate countries from the Soviets, it might have
> been different. Of course, we might not have had the tools for the job
> as the six years of war had seen many improvements in armour and
> aircraft, which might not have happened had we been sitting on the
> sidelines.

What actually happened was that the US was as naive as shit and let the
Russians have what they wanted despite Churchill's warnings.

--
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.

On 04/05/2022 09:01, Jock wrote:
> On Wed, 04 May 2022 18:35:02 +1000, Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
>> On 03/05/2022 14:16, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

>>> Is Putin really so stupid that he doesn't know the consequences of
>>> starting a nuclear war? Even if he his, you can bet there are plenty of
>>> his generals who aren't.

>> It isn't a question of stupidity.

>> The Russians see attack and defence as the same thing, and their
>> doctrine calls for nuclear weapons to be used if either aren't currently
>> succeeding.

>> Their generals are schooled in this approach.

> But they didn't use it when they got kicked out of Afghanistan.

Rag-tag ad-hoc groups that melt into the hills are a hard target even
for nuclear weapons.

The Ukrainians are a well-trained professional and reservist army where
the geography is is more favourable for nukes.

--
Spike

On 04/05/2022 08:59, Jock wrote:
> On Wed, 04 May 2022 18:31:59 +1000, Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
>> On 03/05/2022 07:13, Jeff Gaines wrote:

>>> I can't believe how cowardly the western nations are being over the
>>> Ukraine invasion, if my father's generation had been this cowardly we
>>> would all be goose stepping down the Mall singing Deutschland Uber Alles
>>> now.

>>> We let Russia take Crimea so it believes it can take anything else it
>>> likes. I wonder if we need to be able to wave to the Russians from Dover
>>> before our resolve will stiffen?

>> During the Cold War the Soviet plan was to use massed armour in
>> 'operational manoeuvre groups' to break through the defences in West
>> Germany and get to the Channel ports in two days. Tank commanders posed
>> as lorry-driver's mates in order to reconnoitre their routes.

> But the first Gulf War proved that that wouldnt work today.

The Soviets weren't using gas-turbine tanks.

>> The current Russian army, as deployed in Ukraine, is a very poor
>> descendent of their Cold War predecessors.

> The world has moved on with anti tank and anti APC technology.

The armour/anti-armour war is always under way.

--
Spike

On 04/05/2022 09:35, Spike wrote:
> On 03/05/2022 14:16, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>
>> Is Putin really so stupid that he doesn't know the consequences of
>> starting a nuclear war? Even if he his, you can bet there are plenty of
>> his generals who aren't.
>
> It isn't a question of stupidity.
>
> The Russians see attack and defence as the same thing, and their
> doctrine calls for nuclear weapons to be used if either aren't currently
> succeeding.
>
> Their generals are schooled in this approach.

Well we regard "attack and defence as the same thing". That's why we
have a Minister of Defence rather than a Minister of War.

--
Max Demian

On 04/05/2022 09:41, Spike wrote:
> On 03/05/2022 21:33, Jock wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote
>>> On 03/05/2022 12:39, Chris Hogg wrote:
>
>>>> It supports my view that Russian leaders are indifferent to their
>>>> casualties, and are prepared to sacrifice millions to achieve an
>>>> objective.
>
>>> +1.
>
>> While that may well have worked when Russia was being invaded,
>> it is less clear if it will work when Russia is doing the invading and
>> they can't just shoot the individuals who tell the officers to get fucked.
>
> Is fragging now back in fashion?

(Involuntary) *fratting* is as testified by Ukrainian women.

--
Max Demian

On 04/05/2022 11:18, Max Demian wrote:
> On 04/05/2022 09:41, Spike wrote:
>> On 03/05/2022 21:33, Jock wrote:

>>> While that may well have worked when Russia was being invaded,
>>> it is less clear if it will work when Russia is doing the invading and
>>> they can't just shoot the individuals who tell the officers to get fucked.

>> Is fragging now back in fashion?

> (Involuntary) *fratting* is as testified by Ukrainian women.

Copulation without conversation is not fraternisation.

--
Spike

In article <muWdndllB-ak_e__nZ2dnUU7-KednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>,
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> On 04/05/2022 09:35, Spike wrote:
> > On 03/05/2022 14:16, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> >
> >> Is Putin really so stupid that he doesn't know the consequences of
> >> starting a nuclear war? Even if he his, you can bet there are plenty of
> >> his generals who aren't.
> >
> > It isn't a question of stupidity.
> >
> > The Russians see attack and defence as the same thing, and their
> > doctrine calls for nuclear weapons to be used if either aren't currently
> > succeeding.
> >
> > Their generals are schooled in this approach.

> Well we regard "attack and defence as the same thing". That's why we
> have a Minister of Defence rather than a Minister of War.

but, before the MoD we had a "War Office" to look after the Army.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote
> On 03/05/2022 20:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 03/05/2022 18:59, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>> On Tue, 3 May 2022 13:09:57 +0100, Andrew
>>> <Andrew97d-junk@mybtinternet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 03/05/2022 10:01, billy bookcase wrote:
>>>>> "Jeff Gaines" <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>> news:xn0nhf7p88fmpof00u@news.individual.net...
>>>>>> On 03/05/2022 in message
>>>>>> <9op07hl57s83cjgkejupo9t7suq6sde9mi@4ax.com> Cursitor Doom
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's no English translation provided for this 2 minute clip, but
>>>>>>> you'll get the gist of it all too clearly nevertheless....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/AlexKhrebet/status/1521069215691812864
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't believe how cowardly the western nations are being over the
>>>>>> Ukraine invasion,
>>>>>> if my father's generation had been this cowardly we would all be
>>>>>> goose stepping down
>>>>>> the Mall singing Deutschland Uber Alles now.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In defeating the Germans the Soviet Union suffered between 20,000,000
>>>>> and 27,000,000 deaths in WW2 both military and civilian;
>>>>>
>>>>> The UK lost 450,000 (383,700 military)
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Total_deaths_by_country
>>>>> HTH
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> bb
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How many millions did Stalin murder outside any war ?
>>>
>>> It wasn't just Stalin. So many people make this mistake. The mass
>>> arrests, torture and executions were going on *well* before Stalin
>>> came along - began as early as April 1919 under Lenin, actually.
>> Indeed., nothing like a Marxist ideological government that just knows
>> it is right for slaughtering anyone who dares even think it might not
>> be.,
>
> Yet in reality, bush and Bliar in combination have killed more people
> that any socialist state has managed.

More of your utterly mindless bullshit. Both Stalin
and Mao actually killed FAR more in their respective
famines than Bush and Blair have ever done.

> When Putin has killed 1,000,000 Ukrainians then he will be in the same
> league.

More of your utterly mindless bullshit.

On Wed, 04 May 2022 20:04:01 +1000, Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:

> On 04/05/2022 09:01, Jock wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 May 2022 18:35:02 +1000, Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>> On 03/05/2022 14:16, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>
>>>> Is Putin really so stupid that he doesn't know the consequences of
>>>> starting a nuclear war? Even if he his, you can bet there are plenty
>>>> of
>>>> his generals who aren't.
>
>>> It isn't a question of stupidity.
>
>>> The Russians see attack and defence as the same thing, and their
>>> doctrine calls for nuclear weapons to be used if either aren't
>>> currently
>>> succeeding.
>
>>> Their generals are schooled in this approach.
>
>> But they didn't use it when they got kicked out of Afghanistan.
>
> Rag-tag ad-hoc groups that melt into the hills are a hard target even
> for nuclear weapons.

Just as true of the Ukraine, tho in the case of the Ukraine,
there aren't many hills involved. They could have nuked
Kabul and other major towns tho, and didn't. Both the
Ukraine and Afghanistan are very similar in size and
population.

> The Ukrainians are a well-trained professional and reservist army

The Afghans didn't need that to fuck over the Russians
and in fact the British, very comprehensively indeed in
earlier times when the Brits showed up with a well-trained
professional army. In the first Afghan War, the Brits
ended up with just ONE survivor of the retreat from Kabul.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Anglo-Afghan_War#Destruction_of_Elphinstone's_army

> where
> the geography is is more favourable for nukes.

So you just use more of them.