Will Waste From Nuclear Power Stations Be Used By Zelensky To Trigger A Nuclear Exchange

When I discovered that high level nuclear waste from my friendly neighbourhood 'electricity generating station' was being carefully prepared and stored in expensive cast iron casks, instead the much cheaper and safer method, (mixed with concrete into a block so heavy that only an extra-large truck can move it), I knew they wanted that waste for something. Either for some advanced generating system, or more likely for dirty bombs.

Now the suggestion has been made.

" . . . it may point to Ukraine having decided to use a dirty bomb, a crude artifact with nuclear waste that could cause radioactive contamination of large sections of territory, and be the catalyst of a worldwide nuclear exchange between the major powers.”
. . .
“We have the material; we have the knowledge. If the order is given, we will only need a few weeks to have the first bomb."

leohohmann.substack.com...

Yawn, popcorn.

a reply to: TimBurr

Ukraine uses dirty bomb = Goodbye Ukraine.

It is that simple. ☠️

a reply to: TimBurr

Ukraine will dig its own grave.

The apparent lack of reaction from the western partners tells me that Zelensky has already been dealt with in the background. I doubt that he will make such a statement again. The man has nothing to say at all, he is a bad comedian, not even a real actor and certainly not a politician with any stature.

Zelensky was elected into this conflict, that must be clear to everyone.

originally posted by: WeMustCare
a reply to: TimBurr

Ukraine uses dirty bomb = Goodbye Ukraine.

It is that simple. ☠️

Which is why the premise of this article is BS.

A nuclear explosive bomb is a horse of a different color, however. Ukraine makes a good point that they gave up their nuclear weapons capability in 1994 on the promise that the US would protect them from nuclear-armed Russia. The US is the only other nation on the planet that has a nuclear war-fighting force that is equal to (and honestly--superior to) Russia's and therefore is the only nation that could make this promise. If Trump were to get re-elected and throw Ukraine to the wolves, they would be highly motivated to find a replacement for the US nuclear umbrella. They designed and built many of the nuclear weapon systems in Russia's arsenal, so they definitely know how to do it. They couldn't come up with a credible war-fighting nuclear capability, but even a handful of nuclear weapons would give them a credible nuclear deterrent capability. Moscow is not that far from Kyiv.

This is why American isolationism is so dangerously stupid. It creates all the incentives for massive nuclear proliferation--Ukraine, Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, several European countries, maybe Australia--with no thought about what happens next. Being the wealthiest and most target-rich nation on the planet, the US has the most to lose from loose nukes. MAGA seems perfectly happy to contemplate spending a few Trillion dollars on a preemptive strike on Iran to neutralize their possible obtaining of nuclear weapons, but chokes on the idea of spending a few percent of that amount to keep nuclear proliferation from happening elsewhere.

The part of the story that raises eyebrows is the assertion that Ukraine "has the material". They're not supposed to have any, but if that is true, then they probably could get a few usable devices inside of a few weeks.

a reply to: Boomer1947

Well, it seems as if the honorable Ukrainian government did lie after all. Who would have thought that?

But I am sure that it was just this one lie. Everything else that Ukraine reports is always true.

No they won’t.

originally posted by: Boomer1947

originally posted by: WeMustCare
a reply to: TimBurr

Ukraine uses dirty bomb = Goodbye Ukraine.

It is that simple. ☠️

Which is why the premise of this article is BS.

A nuclear explosive bomb is a horse of a different color, however. Ukraine makes a good point that they gave up their nuclear weapons capability in 1994 on the promise that the US would protect them from nuclear-armed Russia. The US is the only other nation on the planet that has a nuclear war-fighting force that is equal to (and honestly--superior to) Russia's and therefore is the only nation that could make this promise. If Trump were to get re-elected and throw Ukraine to the wolves, they would be highly motivated to find a replacement for the US nuclear umbrella. They designed and built many of the nuclear weapon systems in Russia's arsenal, so they definitely know how to do it. They couldn't come up with a credible war-fighting nuclear capability, but even a handful of nuclear weapons would give them a credible nuclear deterrent capability. Moscow is not that far from Kyiv.

This is why American isolationism is so dangerously stupid. It creates all the incentives for massive nuclear proliferation--Ukraine, Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, several European countries, maybe Australia--with no thought about what happens next. Being the wealthiest and most target-rich nation on the planet, the US has the most to lose from loose nukes. MAGA seems perfectly happy to contemplate spending a few Trillion dollars on a preemptive strike on Iran to neutralize their possible obtaining of nuclear weapons, but chokes on the idea of spending a few percent of that amount to keep nuclear proliferation from happening elsewhere.

The part of the story that raises eyebrows is the assertion that Ukraine "has the material". They're not supposed to have any, but if that is true, then they probably could get a few usable devices inside of a few weeks.

Where have you seen Japan, South Korea Saudi Arabia, and Australia clamouring for nuclear warheads?

This is where Democratic America's unrealistic paranoid concerns are not only dangerously stupid they are ineffective and expensive AH to implement. LOL, we've had Democrats for the last 12 or 16 years and the world is a helluva lot less secure.

Japan, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia will all fully support Trump as President and would not come close to seeking nuclear weapons during his next term

a reply to: Boomer1947

It's not isolationism, it's trying to get back on our feet. The last 4 years under Biden/Harris has weakened our global stance and until we get back on top, it's hard to justify protecting everyone else. Yes, we are still a power to be reckoned with, but with Liberal policies, we are weakened to the point that no one takes Biden seriously. With a strong leader, strong military and strong economy, we can cover your ass when needed. Right now, we have none of that and if Harris wins, it WILL get worse.

Appeasement doesn't work, as seen with both Obama and Biden. They didn't do this under Trump because the implied threat is "Do it and we'll kick your ass". It's time to get back to that.

....or would you rather keep going as it is ?

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: Boomer1947

It's not isolationism, it's trying to get back on our feet.

You, US, could try the UK govt genius method of lending the value of 10% of your fiscal black hole to Zelenksy/Ukraine! That'll fix everything.

Zelenski looking like a kid who just got slapped after he spoke with Trump a couple weeks ago tells us volumes.

I expect he'll quietly disappear to a tropical island with billions in laundered money shortly after Trump wins.

a reply to: watchitburn

If he leaves or isn't in a protected position I think one of his own countrymen will kill him. Especially after all the Ukrainians who've died for this war... His only choice at this point in my opinion is to ride the ship under the waves.

a reply to: watchitburn

Biden must be really scared. I didn't know about the phone call between Trump and Zelensky, but now a lot of things make sense.

That's why Biden will win the election, because there's no other way. He and his wayward son are really screwed if Zelensky works with Trump and brings out the old stuff before the war.

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: Boomer1947

originally posted by: WeMustCare
a reply to: TimBurr

Ukraine uses dirty bomb = Goodbye Ukraine.

It is that simple. ☠️

Which is why the premise of this article is BS.

A nuclear explosive bomb is a horse of a different color, however. Ukraine makes a good point that they gave up their nuclear weapons capability in 1994 on the promise that the US would protect them from nuclear-armed Russia. The US is the only other nation on the planet that has a nuclear war-fighting force that is equal to (and honestly--superior to) Russia's and therefore is the only nation that could make this promise. If Trump were to get re-elected and throw Ukraine to the wolves, they would be highly motivated to find a replacement for the US nuclear umbrella. They designed and built many of the nuclear weapon systems in Russia's arsenal, so they definitely know how to do it. They couldn't come up with a credible war-fighting nuclear capability, but even a handful of nuclear weapons would give them a credible nuclear deterrent capability. Moscow is not that far from Kyiv.

This is why American isolationism is so dangerously stupid. It creates all the incentives for massive nuclear proliferation--Ukraine, Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, several European countries, maybe Australia--with no thought about what happens next. Being the wealthiest and most target-rich nation on the planet, the US has the most to lose from loose nukes. MAGA seems perfectly happy to contemplate spending a few Trillion dollars on a preemptive strike on Iran to neutralize their possible obtaining of nuclear weapons, but chokes on the idea of spending a few percent of that amount to keep nuclear proliferation from happening elsewhere.

The part of the story that raises eyebrows is the assertion that Ukraine "has the material". They're not supposed to have any, but if that is true, then they probably could get a few usable devices inside of a few weeks.

Where have you seen Japan, South Korea Saudi Arabia, and Australia clamouring for nuclear warheads?

...

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA —
"Less than two years after South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol pledged his country would not seek nuclear weapons, his newly appointed defense minister is openly envisioning scenarios in which South Korea might reconsider that stance.

The comments by Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun, who took office on Friday, are the latest evidence that the once-taboo idea of nuclear armament has gone mainstream in Seoul, amid growing concerns about North Korea's rapidly expanding nuclear arsenal and the long-term reliability of U.S. protection."

www.voanews.com...


"Europe Is Quietly Debating a Nuclear Future Without the US
America has protected Europe with is nuclear umbrella for more than 70 years. In the era of Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, the continent is quietly debating a different nuclear future."

www.politico.com...

In talks with the United States, Saudi Arabia is pushing for the right to produce nuclear fuel, a move that poses a greater proliferation risk given Riyadh’s threats to develop nuclear weapons.

....
As a non-nuclear-weapon state-party to the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), Saudi Arabia can legally enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, but its interest in uranium enrichment is complicated by its threat to build nuclear weapons to match Iranian capabilities.

In a September interview with Fox News, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman said that if Iran acquires a nuclear weapon, “we have to get one.” Saudi officials have made similar comments in the past."

www.armscontrol.org...

"My country, Japan, has reached a historic crossroads: It must develop nuclear weapons because it really does not have a choice.
.....
If one is realistic about the current geopolitical situation in Asia, there is only one issue that matters: The circumstances that served Japan so well following its defeat in World War II no longer exist. A nuclear China is an ever-expanding menace, flexing its muscles well beyond its borders. North Korea has a growing arsenal of nuclear weapons and shows no signs of tempering its hostility toward its neighbors. Most of all, the American “nuclear umbrella” that allowed us so many years of peace and prosperity under Washington’s military protection is increasingly frayed, probably irreparably. A long list of government officials and academic experts has always viewed America’s guarantees of protection against enemies as the foundation of its security. What policymaker in Japan, looking at the present disarray in Washington, can still take those guarantees for granted?"

nationalinterest.org...

For example.

a reply to: TimBurr

B.S.

Ukraine surrendered their nuclear arsenal, they no longer "have the material" to build nuclear weapons (other than so-called "dirty bombs").

They may still have the knowledge regarding how build a nuclear weapon (based on the old designs they once used), but without the enriched fissionable material at the core (literally) of any nuclear device, they won't be able to actually build a weapon.

And even if they could build a nuclear weapon, they have no way to deliver it, currently.



ETA:

Remember, a "dirty bomb" is no more powerful than a regular bomb, it is only more psychologically more disruptive due to the potentially long term contamination it can produce.

The question then arises; why would Zelenskyy deploy such a weapon when the result would be to contaminate the very land he seeks to win back from the invading Russians?

originally posted by: Boomer1947

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: Boomer1947

originally posted by: WeMustCare
a reply to: TimBurr

Ukraine uses dirty bomb = Goodbye Ukraine.

It is that simple. ☠️

Which is why the premise of this article is BS.

A nuclear explosive bomb is a horse of a different color, however. Ukraine makes a good point that they gave up their nuclear weapons capability in 1994 on the promise that the US would protect them from nuclear-armed Russia. The US is the only other nation on the planet that has a nuclear war-fighting force that is equal to (and honestly--superior to) Russia's and therefore is the only nation that could make this promise. If Trump were to get re-elected and throw Ukraine to the wolves, they would be highly motivated to find a replacement for the US nuclear umbrella. They designed and built many of the nuclear weapon systems in Russia's arsenal, so they definitely know how to do it. They couldn't come up with a credible war-fighting nuclear capability, but even a handful of nuclear weapons would give them a credible nuclear deterrent capability. Moscow is not that far from Kyiv.

This is why American isolationism is so dangerously stupid. It creates all the incentives for massive nuclear proliferation--Ukraine, Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, several European countries, maybe Australia--with no thought about what happens next. Being the wealthiest and most target-rich nation on the planet, the US has the most to lose from loose nukes. MAGA seems perfectly happy to contemplate spending a few Trillion dollars on a preemptive strike on Iran to neutralize their possible obtaining of nuclear weapons, but chokes on the idea of spending a few percent of that amount to keep nuclear proliferation from happening elsewhere.

The part of the story that raises eyebrows is the assertion that Ukraine "has the material". They're not supposed to have any, but if that is true, then they probably could get a few usable devices inside of a few weeks.

Where have you seen Japan, South Korea Saudi Arabia, and Australia clamouring for nuclear warheads?

...

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA —
"Less than two years after South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol pledged his country would not seek nuclear weapons, his newly appointed defense minister is openly envisioning scenarios in which South Korea might reconsider that stance.

The comments by Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun, who took office on Friday, are the latest evidence that the once-taboo idea of nuclear armament has gone mainstream in Seoul, amid growing concerns about North Korea's rapidly expanding nuclear arsenal and the long-term reliability of U.S. protection."

www.voanews.com...


"Europe Is Quietly Debating a Nuclear Future Without the US
America has protected Europe with is nuclear umbrella for more than 70 years. In the era of Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, the continent is quietly debating a different nuclear future."

www.politico.com...

In talks with the United States, Saudi Arabia is pushing for the right to produce nuclear fuel, a move that poses a greater proliferation risk given Riyadh’s threats to develop nuclear weapons.

....
As a non-nuclear-weapon state-party to the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), Saudi Arabia can legally enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, but its interest in uranium enrichment is complicated by its threat to build nuclear weapons to match Iranian capabilities.

In a September interview with Fox News, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman said that if Iran acquires a nuclear weapon, “we have to get one.” Saudi officials have made similar comments in the past."

www.armscontrol.org...

"My country, Japan, has reached a historic crossroads: It must develop nuclear weapons because it really does not have a choice.
.....
If one is realistic about the current geopolitical situation in Asia, there is only one issue that matters: The circumstances that served Japan so well following its defeat in World War II no longer exist. A nuclear China is an ever-expanding menace, flexing its muscles well beyond its borders. North Korea has a growing arsenal of nuclear weapons and shows no signs of tempering its hostility toward its neighbors. Most of all, the American “nuclear umbrella” that allowed us so many years of peace and prosperity under Washington’s military protection is increasingly frayed, probably irreparably. A long list of government officials and academic experts has always viewed America’s guarantees of protection against enemies as the foundation of its security. What policymaker in Japan, looking at the present disarray in Washington, can still take those guarantees for granted?"

nationalinterest.org...

For example.

Respectfully, those are OP-ED pieces it's quite a bit different than actionable intelligence reports, not to mention as the Saudi article suggested if Iran all of a sudden wants nukes it's a normal question to bring up regionally. The good news is that the Saudis would need all kinds of American assistance it would be years and likely semi-under our control.

As for Europe the UK and France already have a small arsenal, secondly, the rumors Ive read show it could be a political/MIC money grab for the UK and France with the American MIC getting a fat chunk. liberals in Europe will have a meltdown pardon the pun. Russia and China both will aim a few more missiles toward the UK and Europe. It isn't called MAD for nothing if you are going to believe OP-EDs verbatim listen to the ones who that know once the next nuclear trigger is pulled it will not be limited.

Only a fool or nutjob believes we can have a limited nuclear exchange, it might take days or weeks but the mushrooms will be sprouting all over. More than one analyst believes MAD is what keeps Putin from already using even a tactical nuke.

From one of your links...

armscontrolcenter.org...

Nuclear weapons collaboration between the United Kingdom and the United States is rooted in the World War II effort to develop the first atomic bomb and the programs remain linked today. The Mutual Defense Agreement of 1958 between the two countries allows for the sharing of classified information to develop nuclear power and weapons for military use. The United Kingdom relies solely on its nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBN) for its nuclear deterrent, and the warhead deployed, the Trident Holbrook, is based on the United States’ W76 warhead. There is speculation that the United States’ W93 warhead – which may replace the U.S. Navy’s W76 warhead – might be the design basis for the United Kingdom’s next nuclear warhead, and the UK government has actively lobbied Congress to support its funding. The United Kingdom also buys its Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM) from the United States.

Global systemic nihilism. As far as I can call it, each leader and government is hell bent on annihilation. All this posturing and threat narratives.

No weapon ever brought peace. I think proliferation will continue to grow, the UN may try to intervene and world leaders will look to Netanyahu's disdainful example.

All war is evil and as an old woman with no skin in the game, I would be quite happy for all these war mongers and their suppliers to kick # out of eachother. I deplore how my taxes are used in ways that can without consent end me and I view these people as stupid boys who need to grow up and put their egos in check.

Contemptible POS, every one of them.

a reply to: TimBurr

Ukraine is not threatening to unleash nukes.

Russia on the other hand..............

a reply to: putnam6

Sorry mate, if Putin gets his own way due to people and nations cowering to his threats to use nuclear weapons - which he has threatened on several occasions - then that will pave the way clear for many nations to seek some sort of nuclear armaments.

North Korea would possibly threaten South Korea. South Korea recognising that, and in light of America's abandonment of Ukraine and possible isolationist policy, would seek nuclear weapons to defend itself.

If that were ever to occur I'd be amazed if Japan didn't do the same.
How would China react to that?

Would Australia feel threatened and isolated by Chinese expansionism in the Pacific?
I don't think the UK would ever abandon Australia but we are a long way from there, who could blame them to seek nuclear weapons to defend themselves?

The possible ramifications of any proliferation of nuclear weapons in The Middle East doesn't bear thinking about.

I'm sure Germany and possibly Poland would think about it.
Possibly even a combined EU deterrent?

In the present circumstances if Ukraine were to use a dirty bomb they would lose all the support they currently have, I doubt they'll risk that.
If their backs are against the wall and NATO etc have abandoned them, who knows?

The USA, UK, France and Russia signed The Budapest Memorandum guaranteeing support for Ukraine independence in return Ukraine gave up its nuclear weaponry to Russia.
Russia has obviously reneged on that, if the USA does the same it could open a whole new can of worms that could have dire consequences for all us.
The least it would do is completely change the dynamics of global politics.

a reply to: TimBurr

You should also realise that if Ukraine wanted to create a dirty bomb.

All they would need to do is order a few 1000 smoke detectors and retrieve the Americium.

Or simply remove and repurpose the dangerous radioisotope widely used in medical facilities PET Scanners and Xray machines

They dont need to use high-level waste from nuclear power stations.

Just a fact.

Again through Russia are the one's threatening to start throwing around tactical nukes, not Ukraine.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: putnam6

Sorry mate, if Putin gets his own way due to people and nations cowering to his threats to use nuclear weapons - which he has threatened on several occasions - then that will pave the way clear for many nations to seek some sort of nuclear armaments.

Yeah, respectfully we've been under the same threats since the 80s, these threats are just a negotiating ploy, countries can pretend that adding thier own nuclear arsenals will make them more secure. All it will do is make the involved politicians' and companies' bank accounts more secure. Amazing with all thats happened in the SMO Putin has stopped at the "not one inch of NATO land" Any use of tactical nukes would open Pandora's box and would get an immediate military response from the the US. While likely not nuclear it would be so overwhelming it's a real deterrent. Read up on most of the American think tanks that have put forth this likely response I can provide links, but Ive been working on this response for a while

North Korea would possibly threaten South Korea. South Korea recognizing that, and in light of America's abandonment of Ukraine and possible isolationist policy, would seek nuclear weapons to defend itself.

South Korea, Japan the Philippines, Guam, and the rest in the Asian Pacific under Uncle Sam's umbrella have the same protection LOL if not more. After all, they seem to love America regardless of our politicians.

If that were ever to occur I'd be amazed if Japan didn't do the same.
How would China react to that?

Would Australia feel threatened and isolated by Chinese expansionism in the Pacific?
I don't think the UK would ever abandon Australia but we are a long way from there, who could blame them to seek nuclear weapons to defend themselves?

Again MAD, go ahead and spend billions and make your politicians and MIC rich. All of the while an attack on Australia would get a massive response from the US and others making it highly unlikely they would be needed in the next 10-15 years

The possible ramifications of any proliferation of nuclear weapons in The Middle East doesn't bear thinking about.

Sure it does Israel and Saudi Arabia are solid allies, and there's circumstantial evidence that the Ukrainian war might have been partially the impetus for the financing and final go-ahead for 10/7 partially to stress the West. Is there any doubt if Russia could push those buttons they would? isn't that much more likely than some of the other possibilities being posed in your post

I'm sure Germany and possibly Poland would think about it.
Possibly even a combined EU deterrent?

Again MAD America has millions of German and Polish citizens, hell the current administration is supporting Israel to its detriment politically. Both the Polish and German populations dwarf the Jewish populations and there wouldn't be the near as much protesting of our support

America isn't going to abandon NATO no matter what happens in Ukraine or whoever is President

In the present circumstances if Ukraine were to use a dirty bomb they would lose all the support they currently have, I doubt they'll risk that.
If their backs are against the wall and NATO etc have abandoned them, who knows?

The USA, UK, France and Russia signed The Budapest Memorandum guaranteeing support for Ukraine independence in return Ukraine gave up its nuclear weaponry to Russia.
Russia has obviously reneged on that, if the USA does the same it could open a whole new can of worms that could have dire consequences for all us.
The least it would do is completely change the dynamics of global politics.

Regardless of who is President Ukraine wont be abandoned either. Even in its unlikely worst-case scenario of losing all the lands the American MIC will still arm them to the hilt as per what any military leader would advise, not to mention likely upgrades for other European countries as long as they pay a fair portion of the bill.

Thats all Trump has said, he rattled the cage and said this isn't fair the American taxpayer pays so much. Purely a domestic political pandering BTW So now you have European politicians suggesting the US will pull out of NATO Purely a domestic political pandering BTW when it is again highly unlikely and isn't politically viable in America to pull out of NATO hell I can think of 5 other priorities of both our politicians and public.

I hope you know I completely respect your thoughts and opinions, just my first thoughts are we are destined to have different viewpoints here because we are in different locations while the UK and Europe are caught up in WWII analogies, and, it looks and feels different from here in the US.

You say appeasement and I say try diplomacy to end the killing the destruction and the cost of the stalemated war. A stalemate which was my concern from the get-go. Check my history, this is unwinnable unless NATO feeds troops into the situation. No more no less

As long as whatever diplomatic solution is fair and Ukraine gets reparations, compensation, and assurances for its security. What's wrong with that? Instead of years more of the status quo.

No matter who the President is, it's ridiculous to worry about the US having the UK and Europe's back in a hot war. The majority of the American public has no qualms about full support.

Frankly, it's mostly Uncle Sam's stick thats still behind any Memorandum Agreement or Treaty that's been signed by Russia since WWII. No matter if you don't like who will be swinging the stick, it's got to be painfully obvious after Ukraine to Russia that they can harass and proxy the US but militarily they can't project the force needed to hold and conquer much more than the sliver they have in Ukraine. So Europe and the UK can fight over Ukraine forever, and the US will be there when and if it goes beyond

Hell the American MIC isn't going to sit out of any war it can stick its nose into, nor will the MIC-aligned politicians on both sides of the aisle. It's all intertwined and pretty much self-perpetuating.