this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2024
303 points (98.7% liked)

World News

39367 readers
2666 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Russia has cut compensation for troops injured in Ukraine, limiting full payouts of 3 million rubles ($30,000) to those with severe, life-threatening injuries.

Soldiers with minor wounds will now receive reduced payments between 1 million ($10,000) and 100,000 ($1,000) rubles.

This change comes as Russia faces escalating war expenses, with casualty compensation costs estimated at 2.3 trillion rubles ($26 billion) by mid-2024.

High personnel losses have led to recruitment efforts funded by regional social welfare budgets, diverting resources from vulnerable populations, raising concerns about future mobilization efforts and public discontent.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Yeah, that was my thought.

I think it's clear that Biden and the west is banking on collapsing the country economically, which I totally understand as a reasonable idea. But I think that it fails to account for the incredibly unpredictable and negative consequences of collapsing a state. And that's before considering that it's a nuclear state.

[–] [email protected] 59 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Or they were thinking that russia was going to be a rational actor and stop before it's collapse.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

"They won't kill themselves over this..... Right? "

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

After the US election, I think yes they will out of pride and spite.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

Am I crazy for assuming that they're in "go for broke" mode, and everyone else assumes this too?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The soviets collapsed and it only gave the North Koreans access to ICBM capable rocket engines a few decades early. I’m sure nothing bad will happen again this time.

Ah, who am I kidding, some general will probably sell a nuke to the saudis and we’ll all die the next time there’s an oil fiasco.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 month ago (2 children)

The good news about nukes: they have a shelf life -- most soviet-era nukes needed to be replaced every 12 years, as the loss of fissile material to natural radioactive decay would render them dirty bombs after a certain point. Now don't get me wrong, a dirty bomb still sucks, but it's no nuke.

So when a collapsing Russia is hypothetically selling nukes, they're probably selling old depleted nukes or nearly expired nukes. To a terrorist it is almost the same thing, but to nation stations looking at MAD, it really isn't.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

Dirty bomb will still render half a city uninhabitable for generations.

And, there is a decent chance the Russians have been recycling spent bomb cores for their current bombs. Just because a core loses its potency, doesn’t mean you can’t refine it again and mix it with other refined cores for a brand new bomb.

Is true that the tritium for hydrogen bombs would be basically impossible for a non nuclear nation to get, but conventional fission bombs are readily recycliable.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Why is this the first time I’m hearing of this?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Did you take physics in high school (or elsewhere) and learn about half lives? Many of the main ingredients in nuclear weapons all have half lives: tritium, plutonium, etc -- and most have fairly short half lives. They need to be continuously produced, enriched, refined, etc. to keep the purity high enough to be detonated. Some of them require breeder reactors and other fun thing.

Well, okay, U235 has a half-life of 700 million years, but you still need to enrich uranium to increase to proportions of U235, since U238 cannot sustain a chain reaction.

The original nuclear weapons were U235 weapons. Later bombs added all the harder to make stuff to make them bigger -- fusion bombs still usually have a U235 starter to get the reaction going, but rely on things like tritium and plutonium to do the fusion bits. Even the Lithium-6 (which is stable) slowly decays to helium and tritium inside the weapon as neutrons from the other components hit it.

Anyway, enjoy the Wikipedia rabbit hole.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yes, your first paragraph I am familiar with. What I was referencing was the fact that no one has called out that Russia has not been, what, re-enriching its nuclear stockpile? I am aware that the US does somewhat regular maintenance on our nuclear arsenal, but I was not aware that Russia simply did not do this. You’re second and third paragraph were fascinating though. I was not aware that that’s what enrichment did. Thanks!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

I think it's more the fact that the Russians likely wouldn't be selling their "good" nukes. They would be selling the old, run-down ones. They would be a large chance they wouldn't detonate properly.

There's also a lot of debate on how well the rest of Russia's nuclear arsenal has been maintained. It's highly specialist work that can't easily be verified by non-specialists. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Russian nukes were already non-viable due to corruption affecting maintenance.