A false flag operation using radioactive warheads is reportedly aimed at spent nuclear fuel
Ukrainian forces have begun preparations to target nuclear waste storage sites at a Russian power plant with radioactive warheads and to then blame Moscow, according to intelligence received by Russia.
“Sources on the other side report that the [Ukrainians] are preparing a nuclear false flag – an explosion of a dirty atomic bomb,” military journalist Marat Khairullin said Friday on his Telegram channel. “They plan to strike the storage sites of spent nuclear fuel of a nuclear power plant.”
The special warheads intended for the attack have already been delivered to the Vostochny Mining and Processing plant in Zhovti Vody, in Ukraine’s Dnepropetrovsk Region, according to Khairullin.
As possible targets of the attack, Khairullin indicated either the Zaporozhye NPP in Energodar or the Kursk NPP in Kurchatov, noting that the Ukrainian government and its Western backers are “desperate and willing to try anything.”
A security official in the Russian Military Administration of Kharkov Region corroborated Khairullin’s claim to RIA Novosti on Friday. The attack is intended to use radioactive warheads to target spent fuel storage sites at a nuclear power plant, and the ammunition has already been delivered to Zhovti Vody.
Kiev’s intention is to accuse Moscow of a false flag so it could justify using nuclear weapons against Ukraine, the security official said. The Ukrainian government has received orders from its Western backers to “escalate as much as possible,” he added.
According to the security official, the intelligence came from Ukrainian prisoners of war.
Sergey Lebedev, introduced as leader of the Nikolaev Region underground, who said the planned attack would be carried out with NATO weapons, with the consent of the West.
Lebedev pointed out that a large number of Western journalists have already arrived in the Sumy Region near Kursk, as well as the Ukrainian-controlled part of Zaporozhye, suggesting that this is part of Kiev’s preparations for the nuclear false flag.
This is the second time Ukraine is trying to use nuclear war as a bargaining chip.
Keep in mind, the earlier Kursk offensive’s goal seemed to be to take control of the Kursk nuclear power plant to threaten a nuclear meltdown on Russian soil and/or to take control of nuclear weapons nearby. In other words, Ukraine has already tried this shit once.
If Ukraine and NATO wants nukes that badly, Russia should deliver them the experience first, preferably with conventional munitions first as a taste. I honestly do not give a shit anymore what happens to the Ukronazis. If they want to get glassed that badly, Russia should give it to them.
On a related note, Russia and China really need to assist Iran to get nukes. China also needs to increase its nuclear stockpile to more than the USA. If China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea (CRINK) combine their nuclear forces and ICBM defense, they can wipe out the West if need be while taking out a good number of US nukes. The USA is the only NATO country with sizable nuclear forces and decent ICBM defenses, so CRINK should be able to glass Europe at least. China should be able to glass the USA, Russia to glass Europe, Iran to glass Israel, and North Korea to glass the stragglers (Japan, occupied Korea, etc.) if needed. That is deterrence.
On a related note, Russia and China really need to assist Iran to get nukes. China also needs to increase its nuclear stockpile to more than the USA. If China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea (CRINK) combine their nuclear forces and ICBM defense, they can wipe out the West while taking out a good number of US nukes. The USA is the only NATO country with sizable nuclear forces and decent ICBM defenses, so CRINK should be able to glass Europe at least. China should aim to glass the USA, Russia to glass Europe, Iran to glass Israel, and North Korea to glass the stragglers (Japan, occupied Korea, etc.) if needed.
sorry chief but I think we should be aiming for nuclear disarment, not holocaust.
I agree that nuclear disarmament is a lovely utopian ideal to strive for, but is simply not realistic until capitalism is completely destroyed. Until then, there is no way to trust that any capitalist country is actually disarming. For example, if everyone disarms except for the US, then we are even more fucked than if everyone had nukes.
Acquiring nukes is simply the best way for any anti-imperialist country to protect themselves against overt outside interference. If capitalist countries warmonger about invading the anti-imperialist bloc, the logical response is to remind them that they will get glassed if they try. Libya is what happens when you don’t get nukes.
See this previous discussion on the topic: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/4516648
China’s current nuclear stockpile of ~500 warheads is 1/10 the size of Russia’s or the USA’s (both around 5000) and is around the size of Britain + France (~250 each). China’s official reason for this is the country’s no-first-use policy, but such a policy assumes that NATO is not insane. Ukraine’s recent NATO-backed attempts at attacking/stealing nukes is clear evidence against that. In such a scenario, China’s arsenal is simply not enough to protect its 1.4 billion population.
A country must have enough nukes to ensure decently proportional retaliation. If the USA can kill 1 million Chinese, China should be able to immediately do the same ad infinitum. Otherwise, the calculus breaks down in one side’s favor. Let’s assume a nuclear exchange between China and the USA based on Wikipedia’s stockpile numbers for each.
I do not consider nuclear winter in this scenario, only direct kills. Nuclear winter only really affects food production. Recent simulations and the experiences of the Kuwaiti oil well fires and various wildfires actually show that nuclear winter would be much less severe than initially predicted in the early 1980s, decreasing temperatures by only a few degrees for ~10 years in localized areas before returning to normal. If this wasn’t the case, Canadian wildfires would be cooling the planet significantly, but they don’t. Furthermore, nuclear winter depends on setting flammable cities ablaze. Modern cities are made of concrete and steel, not wood, so would not produce the firestorms and soot needed for severe nuclear winter.
Its real, relatively small effects can be mitigated with large enough stockpiles and rapid deployment of nonperishable foodstuffs, greenhouses, sunlight-independent energy like nuclear/geothermal energy, fossil fuels (which would actually make climate change a good thing to warm the planet), sunlight-free food production tech, climate geoengineering, and other technologies (much research has been focused on this topic already). China and the USA both have enough resources to invest in these and protect their own populations if tensions did spike. Ultimately, the only way to hinder their deployment is again, to kill enough of the enemy.
Based on their strategic warhead arsenal to total strategic arsenal megatonnage ratios), each warhead in both of their stockpiles is about 0.6 megatons, for a total megatonnage of 300 for China and 3000 for the USA. The average population density is ~400 per sq mile (psqm) in China and ~90 psqm in the USA.
Using NUKEMAP to estimate deaths per nuke, we can use Hanzhong, Shaanxi; Hegang, Heilongjiang; and Yuxi, Yunnan with population density around 400 psqm to estimate that the average deaths per 0.6 megaton warhead in China is ~230,000. We use Sandpoint, Idaho; Hillsboro, Texas; and Vermillion, South Dakota with population density around 90 psqm to estimate that the average deaths per 0.6 megaton warhead in the USA is ~10,000.
This means that to match the casualties for every one US warhead, China needs around 23 warheads. If the USA uses its entire stockpile, it can kill at least 1.15 billion Chinese, while China can only kill around 5 million USAmericans. What an amazing deal for the USA, a trade of one US death per 230 Chinese deaths! This is not mutually assured destruction, this is USA assured success. We aren’t even counting the nukes that could be shot down by air defenses or destroyed during first strike, which would just make the US situation even better.
To just counter the USA and ensure complete mutual destruction, China needs at least 30,000 nukes with 0.6 megatons each. Notice how conveniently close this is to the USSR’s maximum stockpile of 45,000 nukes. The math is valid and has been done before.
An obvious objection to my quick maths is that nukes would be used on population centers first. However, if China and the USA want true mutually assured destruction, they must kill practically every single human. At first, the deaths-per-nuke will be very high. But by the end, all population centers will have already been glassed, so the deaths-per-nuke will be very low, resulting in an overall deaths-per-nuke around that experienced by the average population density.
Even if this averaging assumption isn’t true, it simply makes China’s situation all the more pressing since each US nuke can kill way more Chinese.
Strongly agree with most of what you’re saying.
A country must have enough nukes to ensure decently proportional retaliation. If the USA can kill 1 million Chinese, China should be able to immediately do the same ad infinitum. Otherwise, the calculus breaks down in one side’s favor. Let’s assume a nuclear exchange between China and the USA based on Wikipedia’s stockpile numbers for each.
The calculus for China is even more complex. They need the ability not just to take x lives for x lives. They need the ability to suppress US and NATO capabilities globally. It’s not enough to suppress the US mainland when the US stations nukes and has military forces, bases, reserves, pawns all over western Europe, as well as smaller bases in the middle east in places like Jordan, as well as places in Asia itself like Japan, occupied Korea, etc, etc. Nukes could come from anywhere including a pawn which the US disavows.
China needs a nuclear capability that is enough they can wipe out the US in a tit for tat mainland attack but also have enough that if they start with attacking US assets outside the US, they’ll have enough after finishing that to still finish the US and the UK. I’d say 1500 bare minimum. Luckily they are on their way to 1000 though it will take time, time in which they’re under greater threat.
They must also consider interceptor tech or the math that not all warheads will reach their destination if this is in response to a first strike by the US who is now waiting fully prepared to mitigate as much as possible (to say nothing of the possibility of the US actually managing to take out a chunk of their warhead stock in the first strike). So you need to allocate at least 10-20% more warheads than you think you need, maybe as high as 30%. Having reserves never hurts. Of course this is alleviated somewhat by putting such warheads on hypersonic missiles/delivery systems but I don’t think the Chinese have entirely switched their nuclear arsenal over to those yet as they are still kind of a beta product and may not be considered ready for that duty. But even those there’s still the chance the US could launch counter-nukes into the atmosphere in the path of incoming weapons to destroy them and a hypersonic missile if caught close enough would be destroyed just the same as a regular one (though I admit given the plasma around them they probably have an advantage in being able to be closer to such a blast and continue than normal missiles).
And I’ve mentioned this before they need enough to hit all these places plus New Zealand. Why NZ? Because it’s where all the big western bourgeoisie have their bunkers and will likely flee and they need to know they’ll die because China will drop 3 nukes one on top of the other on them and bury them alive in their now tombs.
I agree. The US and all its vassals and military bases absolutely have to be subdued in the event of nuclear war. In other words, the USSR’s 45,000 nuke stockpile should be the goal for China as well, and is even more prescient than we expected.
Russia and North Korea should be encouraged to assist as well, as it increases redundancy and is in their interests also. In the same vein, Iran still desperately needs nukes to defend itself and contribute as well.
As @MelianPretext@lemmygrad.ml discussed, unlike the USSR, China actually has the industry to rapidly build up and maintain a stockpile of this size. If China can automate electric car production like no other, it should automate nuke production as well. Nuclear warheads are about the size of electric scooters, so should be able to be built on similar production lines. China’s rapid buildout of nuclear reactors should help this along, as nuclear reactors are needed to produce the plutonium for nukes.
It seems many of our considerations have been taken into account by Xi already. If western media is to be believed, China’s buildup is real. I only hope that production is scaled exponentially to reach the necessary amounts before it is too late.
As a side note, IDK why western journalists on this topic say that China is building up nukes for “ambiguous political reasoning and muddled thinking”. Clearly, Chinese thinking isn’t muddled if we here are discussing the same things. It’s so funny how westerners will warmonger about destroying China, then act surprised when China prepares by strengthening its arms.
On a related note, Russia and China really need to assist Iran to get nukes
Reasonable
China also needs to increase its nuclear stockpile to more than the USA
Unnecessary, useless brinksmanship
If China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea (CRINK) combine their nuclear forces and ICBM defense, they can wipe out the West while taking out a good number of US nukes
Batshit, world-ending insanity that should permanently disqualify the speaker from holding any political office
Obviously CRINK shouldn’t first strike ever, but having the ability to wipe out the West is essential. Please see my calculations below on why China needs more nukes. Right now China is fully dependent on Russia for nuclear defense. Russia’s nukes are better spent as EU deterrence. China’s 500 warheads simply cannot kill more than 10% of the USA with its entire arsenal on a good day, while the USA can wipe China’s entire population out. That is not deterrence.
China’s 500 warheads simply cannot kill more than 10% of the USA with its entire arsenal on a good day
Lmao what are you talking about
Say the U.S. could destroy 20% of Chinese nukes in a war (it can’t). The remaining 400 nukes could do more than enough damage to the U.S. to make thr cost of starting a nuclear war too high – that’s deterrence, that’s all you need. Hell, the DPRK’s situation (a few nukes that can strike U.S. bases or take out a carrier group) is probably sufficient.
If push comes to shove, the loss of 10% of the US population in exchange for deleting all of China is not that bad of a trade for US capitalists. 0.6 megaton nukes are actually kind of small compared to the size of the USA.
In the case of the DPRK, the cost of getting California nuked is not worth the relatively tiny amount of resources the DPRK has. It wouldn’t even pay for the damages. The same is not true for China. Taking over all of China would certainly be enough resources to rebuild the USA and profit massively for hundreds of years after, especially if the USA only loses ~10% of its population. The radioactive nuclides from nukes last barely a week, leaving the land empty and ready for colonization. Imagine Manifest Destiny 2.0 and white colonization of a ‘pristine’ land, empty of the ‘yellow hordes’, the size of another USA. A settler’s wet dream.
the loss of 10% of the US population
400 nukes would do far more damage. Just the 100 most populous U.S. cities have about 67 million people, or 20% of the U.S. population. And that itself dramatically understates the immediate effects of nuclear strikes on those cities, because a bunch of the next most populous U.S. cities are right by where the nukes would land (Frisco, TX, #101 on that list, would have a real bad time if nukes landed on Dallas, Ft. Worth, and Plano, all in the top 100).
And that still leaves 300 nukes to strike military bases, carrier groups, and smaller population centers (again, baking in the overgenerous assumption that the U.S. could shoot down 1 in 5 nukes). And there would be worldwide fallout and environmental destruction. And killing well probably closer to a third or half the U.S. population, in addition to losing every major economic hub, would likely end the country’s ability to function anything like it does now.
In short, you aren’t remotely close to the reality of a nuclear exchange. It just might be possible that the PRC’s strategists have a better handle on effective deterrence than someone on the internet who thinks 500 nukes would be basically a bump in the road.
So what if the USA loses 20%? All it does it change the calculus for US capitalists a little bit. It is still a great deal for deleting China.
You are confusing the rather ambiguous definition of a “city” in the USA with the actual distribution of people in said “city”. US city populations aren’t distributed like Hiroshima/Nagasaki, they’re much more spread out (Even then, the US’s bombs weren’t enough to kill everyone in the municipal city area). Because of US sprawl, it doesn’t take just one 0.6 megaton warhead to eliminate a city’s inhabitants, it takes 4+. For example, New York City technically has ~8 million residents, but it takes ~5 0.6 megaton nukes to cover the entire city. As cities get smaller populations in the USA, they get much more spread out, making this problem worse. As another example, take Virginia Beach, a “city” that is 100% suburbs. Just to kill all residents, it also takes another 4 nukes. At this rate, China will very quickly run out of nukes in a casualty v. casualty exchange with the USA. If we approximate that each city takes ~5 nukes, China can currently only eliminate 20% of the US population at maximum as you estimate.
The problem is that we can apply the same density-maximization to the US nuking China, in which case everything looks much worse. China’s cities are much larger, much denser, and there are way more of them. Because China is denser, the US simply gets more bang-for-the-buck per nuke. In that sense, the US could cripple China much faster than the other way around by killing many more people with way fewer nukes.
In my calculations, I assume that both nations seek full elimination of the other. As I explained in my other post, over time there are diminishing returns per nuke as nations run out of dense population targets and trend toward sparser targets. That is why I calculated using average population density.
I have already addressed the environmental destruction / nuclear winter talking point below. In short, new research, experiences from the Kuwaiti oil well fires and various wildfires, and the switch from flammable wood to nonflammable concrete and steel in city buildings combine to show that nuclear winter simply would be nowhere as severe as initially predicted in the 1980s. Fallout from nuclear bombs only lasts around a week due to short half-lives. Assuming decent amounts of prior preparation of necessary supplies and tech in hardened bunkers (which major Cold War countries did kinda do before), it is survivable, especially if China only kills 20% of the US population in certain centralized cities. At current, there are plenty of Wyoming farmers who would survive unscathed, put up some greenhouses, and weather out the storm.
Previously, China could get away with low nuclear bomb counts because it could depend on Russia and/or court the West. Now they can’t do that. Russia has its own worries in Europe, and the USA is hellbent on destroying China. The USSR has shown the number of nukes required to go against the USA alone. China is clearly responding to these concerns by building up to at least 1000 nukes, which should increase the cost to the US to ~30% of its population based on your estimates. I see no downsides with such an act.
So what if the USA loses 20%? All it does it change the calculus for US capitalists a little bit.
You’re on another planet lol
