Romulus augustulus
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2023
pretty sure he's shown the thread or posted screen shots of us here before. usually in reference to Karl.
General GunTuber thread
- Thread starter Trig.Point
- Start date
Slurgle
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2022
I just want to say that "Bald With Dignity" would be a great name for a federal program, and I'm stealing that shit if I ever go into politics.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2018
Both of the IG stories from Garand Thumb about his hair transplant surgery and Charlie's savaged burning of Garand (someone wanting to recap their feud or if I'm confusing him and Micah can go ahead and correct me)
(PS something is keeping me from just posting the pics normal)
(PS something is keeping me from just posting the pics normal)
Attachments
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2017
HE'S A PEANUT! HE IS JAMES CARVILLE ON TREN!
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2013
I like trench, but that guy can't keep his spaghetti in his pockets to save his life and he's just constantly changing his mind about shit.
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2023
I haven't watched this guy in years, when did his balding start? I could have sworn he had normal, if unremarkable hairline in his earlier videos(unless those were implants or something).
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2015
Actually since he banged a tranny (don't care if it's unproven, it's funny as fuck) and is balding, he's probably a Brazilian family man.
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2015
This entitlement behavior of eurocucks and Ukrainians pisses me the fuck off, I can't see a Finnish soldier getting a french lebel rifle saying this shit in 1939, or a Soviet pilot flying a spitfire saying the British caused this in Munich 1938.
You're getting shit for free nigger, if you think Germany is in any way responsible for your current predicament you should give their aid up or pay it postwar.
Imagine I'm your neighbor, my house burns down, so you feed, clothe and house my family while giving me a job, but I say "yeah you should anyway"?
- Joined
- May 3, 2024
They weren't exactly happy when Italy gifted them all of their 7.35mm Carcanos.
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2019
He claims it started years ago while he was still in the military but it was only visible when he got heavy into steroids and a new workout regimen. When he went from naturally buff to swollen and tatted up people started to notice the hair disappearing.
Well, in the case of Ukrainians, they would be bitter because you supplied the fuel for whoever burned that house down.
Also, it was a joke. And just because you are grateful for something, doesn't mean you can't find things to complain about. It's pretty important feedback to H&K too I would imagine (or would be, if H&K actually cared about its customers).
Though I would imagine that the issues were mostly with incompatible ammunition. There was the complaint about non-adjustable sights, but that's small potatoes.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2022
Jesus christ, I thought the first posts about this were ai or something. This is fucking brutal.
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2015
Ukraine didn't help itself when it gave up their nukes and strategic Soviet bombers which are now carpet bombing them with cruise missiles in the 1990s over gas debt they owed to Russia in the first place.
They had the majority of the Tu-160 planes and a fuckton of the tu-22m strategic bombers.
I'm sure they regret the fact that they gave those away for a "guarantee" of Ukraine's sovereignty, backed by both Russia and the United States.
They will build a nuke once things settle down, as should every European country. Not really a question of technology, but political will. And there will be political will for countries to arm themselves with nukes now, considering what Trump is doing. Poles have already began discussing it internally.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2024
Ukraine didn't have much a choice when they had Russia, United States and rest of the nuclear powers "leaning" on them to hand over the nukes and the bombers or else.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2015
They could had scrapped the bombers and nukes in country instead of returning them over the gas debt, they did scrap some of the bombers, but turned the rest over to Russia over gas debt prices.
Probably one of the dumbest actions ever.
Unlikely, although Ukraine is in a much better position due to remaining Soviet technical skills and reactors than all of Europe (sans France and the UK) combined to rush to build a nuclear bomb.
France and the UK would never allow it, specially to Germans owning one, and I doubt the poles have the financial or the technical resources to quickly build a bomb, best they will ever get is the current nato sharing of US tactical weapons in case of war.
Specially since despite a war with their largest energy supplier they still insist on decommissioning of nuclear reactors.
Takes a fuckton of time to create enough plutonium for a tactical nuke from a reactor and you got to explain to the EURATOM and the IAEA what the fuck you are doing since they track every gram of yellow cake around the world and know exactly how much nuclear waste (plutonium) you're expected to return for reprocessing.
Poles dont even nothing but their research reactor until the 2030s:
Short answer: Practically zero — Poland doesn’t have power reactors today that could quietly make weapon-usable plutonium, and its only operating reactor (the MARIA research reactor) could only produce a weapon-quantity in theory after many months of dedicated, detectable activity plus fast reprocessing — so in practice it couldn’t be done quickly or covertly.
Here’s the reasoning and a simple numeric sketch:
1. Current Polish reactors
• Poland has no commercial power reactors in operation; the national nuclear programme is still building/ planning plants for the 2030s.
• Poland’s single reactor today is the MARIA research reactor (≈30 MW thermal), used for research and isotope production and operating under IAEA safeguards.
2. How much plutonium is needed for a tactical bomb
• Open-source references quote roughly a few kilograms of Pu-239 for a simple implosion device (older designs ∼4–6 kg; some modern hollow-pit/boosted designs can use less — ≈3 kg is sometimes cited). Less-sophisticated or composite designs need more.
3. How fast a reactor can make that plutonium (crude engineering rule)
• A commonly used rule of thumb: ~30 MW-thermal-years of specially managed irradiation can produce ~10 kg of weapons-grade Pu-239 (this assumes fuel/irradiation optimized for weapons production and frequent fuel changes). That comes from reactor-physics/IAEA literature.
• MARIA is ~30 MW(th), so purely by the numbers, one year of full-power, weapon-directed operation could produce on the order of 10 kg Pu in an idealized scenario (and therefore a few months might produce the ~3–6 kg needed). But that is an idealized thermal-power scaling, not a realistic pathway.
4. Why that theoretical number is misleading (real-world barriers) • Fuel form and burnup: Commercial research reactors use LEU fuel and operate at burnups and neutron spectra that make producing weapons-grade Pu inefficient; getting mostly Pu-239 requires special fuel and very short irradiation cycles. MARIA has been converted to LEU and is not configured for weapons production.
• Reprocessing needed: Plutonium is chemically locked in irradiated fuel — you must have a reprocessing plant (hot, complex, large, and highly visible) to separate Pu. Poland has no civilian reprocessing facilities. Building one would take years and be visible to intelligence/IAEA.
• Safeguards and detection: MARIA and any future reactors are under IAEA safeguards — diversion of material or unusual irradiation/refueling patterns would be detected quickly. International monitoring, export controls, and political consequences make covert production extremely unlikely.
5. Bottom line (practical timeline)
• Theoretical minimum (very coarse): If a state owned and dedicated the MARIA reactor to weapons-style irradiation and already had a reprocessing plant and weapons know-how, you might count months to ~1 year to accumulate a few kilograms of Pu. (That’s a rough back-of-envelope from the 30 MW-yr → 10 kg rule.)
• Realistic practical timeline for Poland today: Not feasible quickly. Because Poland has no power reactors producing large plutonium streams, no reprocessing capacity, MARIA is under safeguards and not configured for weapons production, and any attempt would be detected and blocked — a covert emergency program would likely be detected within weeks/months and would require years (and foreign procurement) to complete even a crude path. International political, technical and logistical obstacles make a short emergency “build a tactical nuke from reactor waste” scenario unrealistic.
Here’s the reasoning and a simple numeric sketch:
1. Current Polish reactors
• Poland has no commercial power reactors in operation; the national nuclear programme is still building/ planning plants for the 2030s.
• Poland’s single reactor today is the MARIA research reactor (≈30 MW thermal), used for research and isotope production and operating under IAEA safeguards.
2. How much plutonium is needed for a tactical bomb
• Open-source references quote roughly a few kilograms of Pu-239 for a simple implosion device (older designs ∼4–6 kg; some modern hollow-pit/boosted designs can use less — ≈3 kg is sometimes cited). Less-sophisticated or composite designs need more.
3. How fast a reactor can make that plutonium (crude engineering rule)
• A commonly used rule of thumb: ~30 MW-thermal-years of specially managed irradiation can produce ~10 kg of weapons-grade Pu-239 (this assumes fuel/irradiation optimized for weapons production and frequent fuel changes). That comes from reactor-physics/IAEA literature.
• MARIA is ~30 MW(th), so purely by the numbers, one year of full-power, weapon-directed operation could produce on the order of 10 kg Pu in an idealized scenario (and therefore a few months might produce the ~3–6 kg needed). But that is an idealized thermal-power scaling, not a realistic pathway.
4. Why that theoretical number is misleading (real-world barriers) • Fuel form and burnup: Commercial research reactors use LEU fuel and operate at burnups and neutron spectra that make producing weapons-grade Pu inefficient; getting mostly Pu-239 requires special fuel and very short irradiation cycles. MARIA has been converted to LEU and is not configured for weapons production.
• Reprocessing needed: Plutonium is chemically locked in irradiated fuel — you must have a reprocessing plant (hot, complex, large, and highly visible) to separate Pu. Poland has no civilian reprocessing facilities. Building one would take years and be visible to intelligence/IAEA.
• Safeguards and detection: MARIA and any future reactors are under IAEA safeguards — diversion of material or unusual irradiation/refueling patterns would be detected quickly. International monitoring, export controls, and political consequences make covert production extremely unlikely.
5. Bottom line (practical timeline)
• Theoretical minimum (very coarse): If a state owned and dedicated the MARIA reactor to weapons-style irradiation and already had a reprocessing plant and weapons know-how, you might count months to ~1 year to accumulate a few kilograms of Pu. (That’s a rough back-of-envelope from the 30 MW-yr → 10 kg rule.)
• Realistic practical timeline for Poland today: Not feasible quickly. Because Poland has no power reactors producing large plutonium streams, no reprocessing capacity, MARIA is under safeguards and not configured for weapons production, and any attempt would be detected and blocked — a covert emergency program would likely be detected within weeks/months and would require years (and foreign procurement) to complete even a crude path. International political, technical and logistical obstacles make a short emergency “build a tactical nuke from reactor waste” scenario unrealistic.
Man vs persistent rats
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2024
Also, the idea that they could afford to even maintain or justify the need for those up to this point is utterly absurd. Some people have seriously pushed this point on socials.
And additionally, Ukraine magically knowing that its neighbour will go crazy in 30 years and try to destroy it when even the CURRENT UKRAINIAN POPULATION generally did not believe that until it happened. Why would they destroy something that they can extract value from over a non-existent fear?
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2024
After seeing what the Russians had done with Moldova, Republic of Georgia, and the Baltics during the break up of the Soviet Union. Ukrainians did have the justification to hang onto a handful of nukes if they weren't so head in the sand Pollyannas.
That neighbor had gone crazy back in the 1990s to get the other former Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union nations to start clamoring for admission into NATO. With Ukrainians were slow on the uptake to so sooner.
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2019
I just don’t see how they looked at WW2 which had the Brits in an alliance with Poland that did fuck all until France was invaded. Especially when France and Britain weren’t ready for war. History repeats I guess. Also Bill Clinton promising them the South Africa Boer treatment that sealed it for them.
74164978231
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2022
Those nukes where useless. They had no ability to actually arm/use them.