Whoever you are, whatever you do - downregulate Musk in the ways you can, for the benefit of societies all over the place.

Thanks, this taught me something new about how a seismogram can be analyzed. :)

Short answer: no.

Long story follows. Disclaimer: I’m not a physicist, but ages ago, I did reasonably at high school physics contests.

In above-ground nuclear explosions, you detect the signature immediately, you don’t need to wait for weeks to see radiation.

You will be detecting great amounts of gamma photons (which a chemical explosion can’t create). Satellites looking for extraterrestial gamma flashes (attributed to collapsing stars, formation of black holes and such) will register a nuclear explosion on Earth.

A direct observer will experience a blinding flash and scorching heat, followed by a shockwave. Victims will have clothes that caught fire and skin that burnt instantly. Wood will flash to a burning state, paint will burn off metal, etc.

This was not the case. We have multiple videos of the explosion. Nobody got burned by seeing it, but the shockwave that arrived was indeed very powerful. I hate linking to Twitter but this “NAFO” guy that does war reporting doesn’t seem to have an account in other places that I know: link 1, link 2, link 3.

My conclusions:

• this was a very powerful conventional explosion, perhaps comparable to the Beirut port explosion (ship full of ammonium nitrate)
• the initial warhead probably was a bunker buster
• the bunker was probably full of interesting stuff
• the big explosion was a secondary explosion

Projectiles being cast out of the site and orange clouds of fire hint of which chemicals are burning. I’m not competent to tell what.

If radiation levels increased, then most likely the ammunition depot contained radioactive material.

Israel does possess nuclear weapons, but would have a great amount of acceptance to lose if it used them for a frivolous or vain purpose. Destroying the remnants of a collapsing regime’s more powerful weapons would be a frvivolous and vain use for a nuclear weapon. Israel would not expose itself in such a way. It has conventional weapons which can break a bunker.

While that is possible, I believe Ukrainians have South Korean assistance for analysis and a lot of expertise of their own. In case of a diary, you can use old-school detective work - you look for progressively great wear towards the beginning. You look for stains and grease on older pages. Such things are difficult to manufacture in a quantity.

And, besides, it would not be very motivating for a soldier to carry a fake diary on the assumption that it’s going to be recovered from his body. I think they want their folks a bit better motivated than that. :)

I can only speculate, since I’m not from there. To my understanding you aren’t either.

If war came here, I would probably stay. Maybe because I’m an aeromodelist that flew drones already in 2004. I would probably think “it’s bad stuff, but I have trained for this job for 20 years”. But if someone didn’t give me a correct job to do, I’d politely refuse. Jail is better then stupidity.

If someone thinks that jail is better than any participation in war, I understand.

If someone thinks that emigration or hiding is better than jail, I understand. If my home country wanted my building or flying skills to invade or conquer, I’d disappear or resist.

But there is something you need to understand, which I feel from reading your post that you don’t.

In Ukraine, the president changes, in Russia, the same guy rules since Yeltsin picked and propped him up 25 years ago (after so much stealing that Putin’s first decree was to give Yeltsin and his family immunity, and of course, after Yeltsin had started enlarging presidential power during the constitutional crisis and the Supreme Soviet (parliament) had been fired upon). Putin continued that path, but the word “autocracy” seemed appropriate until recently. In the last decade, only the term “dictatorship” seems appropriate. Full totalitarianism hasn’t been achieved yet, but is approaching fast.

In Ukraine, you can campaign and demonstrate against the government and my anarchist comrades operate above ground. Some of them have voluntarily joined the army, and some have died. Some have gone there from Russia, joined the Ukraininan army, and some of them have died too. They weren’t patriots. They just knew the difference and knew the cost of Putin’s regime to society. Officially, they fought for Ukraine. In their own mind, they fought to stop Putin’s conquest and help break his regime (which had imprisoned and killed people who mattered to them).

In Russia, they operate underground. Saying the wrong stuff gets 5 years. Army has a habit of torturing and shooting its members. Police has a habit of torturing people. Courts take direct commands from the prosecutor and security apparatus. Opposition politicians die of poisoning or get railroaded to prison.

If one has any interest in politics, the difference between Ukraine and Russia is massive. Only for a person who wants to eat in the morning, work during day and eat in the evening - with no interest in society whatsoever - only for that kind of a person is the difference limited. Yes, it’s possible to live in both countries. Sun still rises and wind still blows.

Indeed, war has a flip side of selection. Ukraine will lose some percentage of its society and Russia will lose some percentage. The social profiles of the people who are lost - can be understood. Both societies are burning through their groups most willing to fight, but the way of mobilizing people differs considerably, so the groups that lose most members will differ by country.

I will tell as much as I know about the profiles.

• professional military -> very big losses on both sides
• national guard and interior troops -> medium to big losses on both sides
• volunteers (trained, well motivated) -> medium to big losses on both sides, they fight better than others, but also get sent to more dangerous misssions
• conscripts (untrained, young) -> big losses only on Russian side, almost no losses on Ukrainian side (they don’t send folks under 25 to the front unless they volunteer)
• reservists (trained, old) -> big losses only on Russian side, since they practise meat attacks (Ukrainians aren’t willing to attack under such conditions)
• convicts (training varies, age varies) -> big losses on Russian side, since they practise meat attacks (Ukrainians only recently allowed convicts to join the war, and I have no idea about how they train or fight)
• a Russian special seems to be burning through ethnic minorities from remote places

As far as I’ve read, starting from a known and equal condition (e.g. “you have a bullet wound in your arm”) or even no condition (“you are in a frontline trench”), levels of ending up dead differ quite radically. Ukrainians seem to be evacuating their wounded and don’t seem to practise suicidal attacks. I’ve seen fundraisers for remote-operated evacuation vehicles (stretcher on tracks), DIY ambulances and a long list of medical equipment.

On the Russian side, it doesn’t seem to go like that. I’ve read of the wounded remaining on the front for weeks, and being pressed to attack again.

Also, Ukrainians have infrastructure behind their back. Russians, not so much, because their attack has destroyed it.

Numbers aren’t public, but I’d estimate a fourfold difference in survival of the same type of wound. Historians will figure out the exact rate later.

There is another aspect which the article doesn’t mention, so I better mention it.

Sometimes units have ****head commanders, but you can’t get rid of them. Only anarchist armies (which haven’t proven very effective) have elected their commanders, and even then, typically not in battle.

If a commander is stupid or careless (and sometimes tries covering up those qualities), it can take a while until someone of their peers or higher-ups notices. You can request a transfer away from such a unit, but the commander can deny the transfer.

In Ukraine, if you go absent without leave, you don’t have to return to the same unit. So it’s one method of getting away from stupid or careless commanders, or units which have been neglected due to organizational problems. So in a way, many people running from a unit indicates that it needs attention: something is wrong there.

Not knowing what it’s like to be under hostile fire, I can’t blame those people. As much reading tells, not everybody can take it. It is said that you can train everyone to perfection (the article tells that some get sent to combat with inappropriate training, which is obviously worse), but still, some people’s nervous system cannot handle continued risk of death. They break down, and should be employed in other than frontline roles. And some people’s health fails in other ways. A smart commander notices them and sends then back to the rear. Maybe they are good at logistics? Maybe they can build drones and do quality checking? Maybe they can treat the wounded? Etc.

In my opinion, Finns did the procedures one should do in this case - boarded, redirected and seized the ship.

And did it quickly, to avoid destruction of evidence.