• irotsoma@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    15 days ago

    Better than the gas that Russia is using illegally that causes serious pain and often takes a long time to die painfully from.

    • Windex007@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      If you’re deploying weapons on your own territory to reduce the operational capacity of an invading force then it’s by definition defending your country.

      If you have a problem w/ this you’re going to have to cycle to the next argument because this one is nonsense. NEXT.

    • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      15 days ago

      Any invaders in that tree line are likely having a very bad time continuing their invasionary goals.

  • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    15 days ago

    Good. As long as it doesn’t target civilian areas.

    Soldiers can always defect or surrender. Don’t want to face Ukraine’s army? Don’t be in Russia’s army. It’s that simple.

    I consider every Russian soldier complicit in this invasion of Ukraine. Otherwise they wouldn’t be there.

    • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      15 days ago

      Guess you’ve never been threatened with Job loss, homelessness, starvation, or anything of that sort before. Must be nice.

      • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        15 days ago

        Actually I have. But I didn’t use it as sn excuse to invade Canada, and start blowing up schools and hospitals in an attempt to take over Canadian land. I didn’t run around killing others for my misfortune. But if I had, I would FULLY expect the Canadian military to do anything it could to kill me.

    • 14th_cylon@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      It’s that simple

      It is anything but simple. Lot of them don’t really have a choice.

      • x00za@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        15 days ago

        A lot of them also believe getting captured by Ukraine is a death sentence, or worse.

        Their news is constantly talking about how Ukraine is inhumane towards their prisoners of war. Yet it’s Russia that does that.

  • geography082@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days ago

    So what is russia waiting to use nuclear weapons? What is holding Putin to just push a button and end the whole thing. I mean US did it, twice, on civilians, no sanctions . And I’m not adding the bombings on Tokio which where even worse.

    • loutr@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      I mean US did it, twice, on civilians, no sanctions

      There are of course a lot of reasons why these two situations can’t really compare, but an obvious and major difference is that only the US had nukes at the time, so no MAD.

    • rbesfe@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      Putin is very aware that a nuclear strike would mean immediate intervention by NATO

      • ours@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 days ago

        A nuclear strike is the end of the World.

        And a tactical nuke, even if it didn’t trigger a wider-scale nuclear conflict, wouldn’t help their situation.

        If brigades of enemy tanks were closing in on Moscow? Sure, that would be a nasty but effective option. NATO had something similar planned during the Cold War in case the Soviet tanks started pouring down the Fulka Gap.

        • derpgon@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          14 days ago

          Except when he is at the end of the line, and hopefully there is some humanity left in one of the people who hold the keys. Unless all the keys are held by Putler, then nuclear was is inevitable unless someone gets him before the “end of the line” moment comes.

          • BugKilla@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            14 days ago

            If he’s made himself the only validator in Perimeter then he may well get the last laugh in death.

    • nexguy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      Winds would blow fallout all over Russia. China/India would break off economic ties. Also nukes wouldn’t end the war anyway.

    • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      See, he knows that if he uses nukes, the US gets dragged in. He also knows we don’t have to Nuke Moscow and St. Petersburg, to effectively nuke Moscow and St. Petersburg. We developed the MOAB so that we could get away with big bada booms, with no radioactive or political fallout. He also knows that Russia never developed these weapons.

      He’s stuck between and immovable object and an unstoppable force.

      • fake@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 days ago

        Nobody’s dropping a MOAB on Moscow, because it’s dropped out the back of a C-130.

        And even if they did it’s got less than 4% the yield of a B61, on it’s lowest setting, that fits inside an F-35. On it’s highest setting the B61 is 30,000 times more yield.

        Conventional explosives are toys compared to nukes.

        • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          14 days ago

          They are toys compared to nukes, but I guarantee if we wanted to use the toys because radiation = more political backlash, we could easily escort two wings of C-130 transports to both cities. When the US wants to bomb something, well there’s not a whole hell of a lot that anyone can do to stop it, unfortunately.

  • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days ago

    Warfare has always been hell, but now when someone hunts you down with a drone while you’re running away it makes it a particularly terrifying personal hell.

    • TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      13 days ago

      If they collect enough real time statistical data from the battlefield i assume that that will be gamified into A.I. “soldier recognition” to deduce which people are the real threats and where and at whom fire should be concentrated.

      HEROES will be pointed out by A.I. and massacred.

      • adr1an@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        13 days ago

        AI (e.g. face recognition) is riddled with false positives. Such a tech already does wrong on civilians without being a weapon (e.g. cameras on subways). What you said is somewhat naïve.

  • Sarmyth@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days ago

    Eh, that’s pretty metal. What I like about it is that it’s not some chemical weapon that floats on the air to hiteveryone in the vicinity. You will see where you are hitting clearly because it’s like a bright tracer round. And it’ll cause more injuries than deaths.

    You almost have a sporting chance to get away once it’s started compared to the relatively sudden chaos of explosions.

    • lud@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      And it’ll cause more injuries than deaths.

      That is the entire problem with chemical weapons. They injure people badly.

      That’s why chemical weapons are banned while bombs aren’t.

      • Sarmyth@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 days ago

        That’s actually not the problem with chemical weapons. Chemical weapons are banned due to their indiscriminate nature (being blown by the wind) and really the fact that it causes slow deaths over years. It’s that it’s tantamount to torture (which is also banned).

        Blowing people’s limbs off is considered A-OK as long as it’s not done with land mines.

    • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      Yeah you can choose to just give up before getting suddenly delivered to the 360 degrees surrounding you in every direction.

    • lightstream@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      Eh, that’s pretty metal.

      It’s definitely pretty, and as thermite is a mixture of metal powder and metal oxide, your statement is entirely correct.

  • plz1@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    15 days ago

    This is straight up atrocious, but Russia has been using white phosphorus during this war. No side is pristine in this conflict. War is awful, period. One thing it has shown is that Ukraine has become expert in using commodity hardware to rain death on their enemy.

    • TheBlue22@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      One side started the war, one side can end it by withdrawing its soldiers tomorrow, one side constantly bombs civilians and infrastructure. It is Russia. Ukraine does none of this and is fighting for its fucking survival. They are incomparable.

  • T00l_shed@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days ago

    Maybe, if putin doesn’t want his soldiers crispied. He should withdraw all of them, and stop bombing schools and hospitals and shopping malls.

  • Ellia Plissken@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    15 days ago

    this is interesting and whatnot, but during WW2, US research indicated that jellied gasoline (napalm) was a far more effective incendiary than thermite when it comes to burning wood.

      • Podunk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        15 days ago

        Thermite is considered less lethal than napalm and phosphorus. Its fairly direct too. It only lights up what it is dropped on. It can burn up cover and leave the troops under it fairly unharmed. Another example of Ukraine fighting with one hand tied behind their back, but still making due with what works.

        On top of that, its super easy to make. Its just rust iron oxide and powdered aluminum. You can make it at home with a file and some old pipes.