Oooo it's TIME for... a DIRTY BOMB?! β’οΈπ£π₯
They have perhaps the highest disparity between the damage they actually do (basically just high explosives, if radiation is sufficiently high to kill you, you're already dead anyway), and the outrage they provoke (muh evil atomics).
They have perhaps the highest disparity between the damage they actually do (basically just high explosives, if radiation is sufficiently high to kill you, you're already dead anyway), and the outrage they provoke (muh evil atomics).
While the military utility of tactical nukes (unless used on a large scale) is low, and absurdly outweighed by their costs (NATO intervention), that of dirty nukes is precisely zero.
So Russia has zero interest in breaking out dirty nukes even if losing.
https://twitter.com/powerfultakes/status/1574635988575748096
So Russia has zero interest in breaking out dirty nukes even if losing.
However, dirty bombs HAVE historically been a consistent & deranged preoccupation of Ukrainian nationalists, who view them (as well as triggering nuclear power plant meltdowns and dam destruction) as Samson options in the event the existence of the Ukrainian state is threatened.
Consequently, a Ukrainian plan to use a dirty nuke on its territory, while far-fetched, is not beyond the realm of possibility if it is losing, given the maximalism of svidomist ideologues and their view of their East/South Ukrainian countrymen as lower status people anyway.
In so far as whoever is responsible, it near guarantees some level of NATO intervention.
Conversely, as per above, it's hard to think of a scenario in which Russia uses a dirty bomb, either directly (totally useless) or as a false flag.
Conversely, as per above, it's hard to think of a scenario in which Russia uses a dirty bomb, either directly (totally useless) or as a false flag.
As the West has clearly stated that it will reject this in advance:
So we're talking of a scenario in which Russia guarantees step change in NATO military aid to Ukraine at the very least, through to full intervention.
https://twitter.com/cgtnamerica/status/1584635708559556610And there's no reason to doubt that.
So we're talking of a scenario in which Russia guarantees step change in NATO military aid to Ukraine at the very least, through to full intervention.
Playing such ultra-risky games would be a bizarre approach for Russia to take given that it has finally started getting somewhat serious about winning the war in the past month, i.e. mobilization & mass Kalibr/drone attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure.
https://twitter.com/powerfultakes/status/1579582778433499136
The only context in which it makes sense is the theory that Russia *wants* to be defeated by NATO, not Ukraine, because justifying the former would be easier to domestic electorates.
Perhaps, but that's a tall order, something that we would normally call a "powerful take."
Perhaps, but that's a tall order, something that we would normally call a "powerful take."
β’ β’ β’
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
γ
