Chinese expert: Moscow's intentions to deploy tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus are London's response to its readiness to supply uranium munitions to Ukraine

38
Chinese expert: Moscow's intentions to deploy tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus are London's response to its readiness to supply uranium munitions to Ukraine

The desire of the West to pump up Ukraine with more and more new weapons of various types does not go unanswered by Russia.
As noted by the Chinese edition of Global Times, London's recent statement about its intention to supply Kiev with depleted uranium shells did not go unanswered by Moscow, which warned the US, the EU and Britain itself about the consequences of such actions.

On March 25 of this year, the Russian president announced plans to deploy a tactical nuclear weapon on the territory of Belarus. weapons. According to Qu Heng, a researcher at the Center for Russian Studies at East China University, this statement was a direct response to London's decision to supply ammunition with depleted uranium, and a response to the entire West, which is increasingly drawn into events in Ukraine.



The Chinese expert noted that such decisions by Western countries create a negative precedent, since the use of depleted uranium ammunition is banned in many countries. These weapons affect the health of the civilian population for many years to come. Earlier, documents appeared on the network that regulated the handling of depleted uranium (DU) ammunition by NATO soldiers. Despite numerous statements by NATO functionaries and Western politicians that BDUs do not cause any harm to human health after their use, the NATO documents themselves ordered their own servicemen not to be in the area of ​​the affected objects for a certain time - at least until dust settles from high uranium concentration.

By announcing plans to deploy nuclear weapons in Belarus, Russia is signaling to Washington, Brussels and London that their further intervention in the conflict in Ukraine will not remain without Moscow's opposition, Qu Heng believes.

Cui also noted that Washington's reaction to the Russian president's statement was very restrained, which indicates his unwillingness to irritate Moscow.
38 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -16
    27 March 2023 15: 11
    Well, they caught the British on the supply of weapons "with a nuclear component." And now, on legal grounds, Belarus can be included in the club of nuclear powers. I personally "for". Let all sorts of Poles no longer lick their lips at the last socialist republic. I hope that if the "dad" uses something without arguing. Belarus will immediately gain weight on the world stage. Now London and Washington also need to take into account the opinion of Grygorych. They put a hedgehog in their pants!
    1. -13
      27 March 2023 15: 18
      Since when did depleted uranium become a nuclear weapon? Or to weapons "with a nuclear component"? "Commander" watches or other luminous indicators with salts of radioactive materials - also "with a nuclear component"?
      1. -8
        27 March 2023 15: 40
        Haha! The minus ones probably smoked behind garages while nuclear chain reactions took place at school in physics, which have nothing to do with radioactivity at all.
        1. +4
          27 March 2023 15: 45
          About useful and environmentally friendly scrap at VO
          https://topwar.ru/169704-dva-slova-pro-uranovyj-lom.html
          https://topwar.ru/166853-ot-mango-k-svincu-snarjady-v-serii-i-na-skladah.html
          1. 0
            27 March 2023 21: 26
            As for the answer to the British, our GDP in a delicate form threatened to supply Iskanders, and these are far from "harmless" shells.
        2. +5
          27 March 2023 15: 51
          Already the question of the radioactivity and toxicity of uranium has been chewed here repeatedly, but there are those who again begin to ask stupid questions and play know-it-alls. Apparently it is difficult to get out of a binge, and knowledge of chemistry, physics and biology at their junction is not their forte.
          Strontium is also not very radioactive if anything, but for some reason after Chernobyl they started talking about it. Comparing dispersed uranium and salts of radioactive metals found in watches, well, this is the height of sanity! It's like comparing fluorography with nuclear contamination! fool
          1. -4
            27 March 2023 17: 44
            Uncle, you are probably very smart, but strontium-90 is "not very radioactive" because it emits beta radiation, i.e. electrons, from which you can cover yourself with ordinary clothes. And after Chernobyl, they started talking about it because a huge amount of strontium-90 got into the environment, and, as you probably know, strontium in the body is chemically similar to calcium, therefore it is easily deposited in the bones and from there it emits electrons in all directions, irradiating the bone marrow, with all the consequences.
            Well, how about without numbers?
            The activity of 1 g of strontium-90 is 5,1 TBq.
            The activity of 1 g of uranium-238 is 12.5 kBq.
            Well, which of them is "not very radioactive" ??!
            1. 0
              27 March 2023 18: 25
              Son, you can hide from beta radiation even with paper as long as the source is outside the body, and when inside, then welcome to the cemetery through radiation sickness and cancer! wassat
              After reading any numbers on the internet, you still need to know what is behind them, and not like a monkey with glasses - it seems like she put them on her eyes, but she didn’t learn to read.
              1. -2
                27 March 2023 19: 07
                No, uncle. Paper will only save you from alpha. Helium nuclei hit painfully, but very close, and are easily absorbed by almost anything. Something more serious is needed from the beta, but there are enough clothes. But from both, just a sufficient distance and lack of contact with the skin and mucous membranes, protection of the respiratory and digestive organs (respirator, gas mask) will save.
                So how many times more active is strontium-90 than uranium-238? I didn’t pull your tongue, you yourself dragged strontium into a conversation about depleted uranium.
                Want another math puzzle? How many hits do you need to make with uranium sub-caliber ammunition in order to shoot at least one billionth part of Chernobyl at the radioactive contamination of the area? For reference: the power of release of strontium-90 during the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant was 8-10 PBq.
                1. 0
                  27 March 2023 21: 22
                  Quote: Torvlobnor IV
                  How many hits do you need to make with uranium sub-caliber ammunition in order to shoot at least one billionth part of Chernobyl at the radioactive contamination of the area?

                  Would you explain this to the Yugoslavs, otherwise they are dying from oncology out of ignorance that they were shooting at them with absolutely harmless depleted uranium (basically, the A-10 attack aircraft distinguished themselves by this)
                  1. 0
                    27 March 2023 21: 35
                    ABOUT! Here come the doctors! How miraculously did you determine that oncology among the Yugoslavs (who are they? Maybe Serbs? Or Croats? Kosovars?) Is connected precisely with depleted uranium? Oncology, in your opinion, is caused only by radiation? And lymphomas, and sarcomas, and melanomas - everything is from depleted uranium? So how do you recognize the true cause of cancer, share the secret, please? Just be honest and scientific.
              2. -1
                27 March 2023 22: 54
                By the way, uncle, find out how much potassium-40 is in your body. And at the same time compare its activity with uranium-238. You will see, I guarantee.
      2. 0
        27 March 2023 16: 40
        Quote: Torvlobnor IV
        Since when did depleted uranium become a nuclear weapon? Or to weapons "with a nuclear component"?

        Why are there so many minuses? I thought there were educated people on this site! Once again I ask, since when has depleted uranium been classified as a nuclear weapon? It's just a heavy piece of iron, relatively safe, only licking is not necessary, it's harmful. wassat
        1. 0
          27 March 2023 16: 58
          It's just a heavy piece of iron, relatively safe, only licking is not necessary, it's harmful.

          Another fetishist. fool
          If so smart, did you even hold a dosimeter in your hands? Do you know how it works? What is the difference between alpha, beta and gamma radiation? What are the effects of radiation on living organisms? When the study of these issues is left behind, move on to the question of the effect of uranium rods on armor, what is the pyrophoric effect, and finally the effect of heavy metal oxides on the environment. After that, the cons will stop worrying you.
          Oh yes, we still need to study the cumulative effects of pollutants on the environment.
          PS I hope you have not tried to grow food at the test site where uranium cores were tested? wassat
          My suggestion: all products grown in the places where such ammunition is used must be bought by Europe without fail, and it must be consumed for its intended purpose! They are completely safe! wassat
          1. 0
            28 March 2023 20: 33
            Quote: Horon
            Do you know how it works? What is the difference between alpha, beta and gamma radiation? What are the effects of radiation on living organisms? When the study of these questions is left behind,

            28 days was a business trip to Chernobyl (although it was not 86 but 88.) And I know your concerns. They just confuse RADIOACTIVITY and NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
            Metallic depleted uranium is harmful, but nuclear weapons. hi
    2. +1
      27 March 2023 15: 18
      Russia signals to Washington, Brussels and London
      Will they hear the signal? And will the steam go off the whistle .....
    3. +3
      27 March 2023 15: 36
      I have no doubt that the Supreme informed Xi about this decision even before the official announcement and received tacit approval, but what's wrong? The United States has filled its military bases with nuclear weapons and does not even inform the government of those countries, and then their sixes raise a squeal. The decision is quite symmetrical and justified, such Russophobe hawks as Poland and the Baltic states will be erased in 5 minutes.
      1. -1
        27 March 2023 15: 48
        I have no doubt that the Supreme informed Xi about this decision even before the official announcement and received tacit approval.


        China, as always, is reserved, but it doesn't look like approval:

        China opposes nuclear war and believes that the Ukrainian conflict should be resolved through diplomacy. So the official representative of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, Mao Ning, responded to a request to comment on Russia's decision to deploy tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, Sina reports.

        https://www.rbc.ru/rbcfreenews/64215e2a9a79475746fad53f
        1. -3
          27 March 2023 16: 07
          Quote from cadaver
          Ukrainian conflict must be resolved through diplomacy

          And what? While the diplomats agree to meet, while the agenda is clarified, while the weather becomes flying, while the railway tracks are cleaned, while they think about who to invite as witnesses ... this is how the Russian army will reach Kiev (if not Lvov))))
    4. Maz
      +2
      27 March 2023 15: 56
      Where is London and where is Belarus? What is the connection? TNW will not reach either Washington or London from Minsk. For the United States, on the contrary, this is a plus, but for the whole of Europe, just the range of iskanders, daggers and other carriers will be in suit.
    5. 0
      27 March 2023 16: 14
      fool
      Quote: voice of reason
      And now, on legal grounds, Belarus can be included in the club of nuclear powers.
      belay And Germany, Turkey and others like them are already in the club? lol the Americans taught the Germans to bomb YaBomi, so what?
      Chinese expert: Moscow's intentions to deploy tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus are London's response to its readiness to supply uranium munitions to Ukraine
      This is not an answer, but a pathetic fart, because it will in no way affect the supply of shells with depleted uranium. The United States absolutely does not care about the Great European radioactive desert .... For the Britons, the color of the nation is moving to Australia. And polluting Europe will bring us more harm than anyone else. Our wind rose is Western. recourse And spit against the wind, prepare the sheet to wipe. feel
  2. +4
    27 March 2023 15: 15
    Bullshit answer. They will use uranium shells, but we will not use tactical nuclear weapons. And what is the answer?
  3. -4
    27 March 2023 15: 26
    The deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in the Republic of Belarus is .... increasing the radius for those who thought that they would not reach them laughing and this is already an iron argument !!! .... now there is panic in Europe and this is very good!
    1. 0
      27 March 2023 15: 54
      and this is already an iron argument !!! .... now there is panic in Europe and this is very good!

      this could have been an ironclad argument a year ago, but now (after numerous "goodwill gestures", after iPhones to the Nazis instead of a tribunal, after the regular announcement of red lines and the lack of reaction for crossing them) Europe will not have any panic. For they see that the Russian fifth column will not allow the use of tiao.
    2. -3
      27 March 2023 16: 28
      Quote: Vladislav_2
      The deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in the Republic of Belarus is .... increasing the radius for those who thought that they would not reach them and this is already an iron argument !!! .... now there is panic in Europe

      "Are you sick?" (Brother 2). Having SNF, it is not difficult to punish anyone in Europe. And tactical nuclear weapons are just a joke to save strategic nuclear weapons from the great powers. Suddenly, to punish the United States, Russia will need all 1500 warheads of strategic nuclear weapons. request Will they be even scarier in Kaliningrad? fool Kindergarten. Only a warning about a preemptive strike against England could stop deliveries. And the United States would not twitch, they are not up to idiots. No.
  4. The comment was deleted.
  5. 9PA
    0
    27 March 2023 15: 39
    Swift will turn off the maximum, hit the enemy clusters
  6. +5
    27 March 2023 15: 42
    response to London's readiness to supply uranium munitions to Ukraine

    And what is the answer? The shells will soon hit our equipment, and the Iskanders will be installed in Belarus as they are. They are meant for other purposes, IMHO
  7. +2
    27 March 2023 16: 09
    How long will it take for a vigorous loaf to fly through the territory of Belarus from east to west? 10-20 seconds? This is our answer negative - reduction by several seconds of the time for nuclear weapons to reach the target, and the main thing in this is hypothetical !!! That is, until you find the will to press the button.
    But the enemy may well use these shells, what are the problems?
  8. -1
    27 March 2023 16: 12
    It is also necessary to arrange a radioactive waste dump next to the "Small Britain". Hai sniff.
  9. -1
    27 March 2023 16: 29
    Quote: Torvlobnor IV
    Since when did depleted uranium become a nuclear weapon? Or to weapons "with a nuclear component"? "Commander" watches or other luminous indicators with salts of radioactive materials - also "with a nuclear component"?

    It was said to be a dirty bomb; and to apply against you in response to this TNW is not Ze, it will be up to you to decide, but the GDP.
    1. -1
      27 March 2023 19: 35
      You see, I am for science and logic, I don't give a damn about propaganda sobs about a "dirty bomb". Why? Because the "dirty bomb" is useless and impossible bullshit. I explain:
      1. In order to create a real radioactive contamination of an area like a small town, it is necessary to collect an appropriate amount of radioactive material with sufficient activity in one place and stuff a bomb, rocket, etc. with it.
      2. A simple calculation shows that some very evil and active isotope will have to be chosen, since to cover the required area (town) with the required level of radioactivity, low-activity isotopes are not suitable, because otherwise the bomb will turn out to be absolutely cyclopean in size, and there will be a problem with delivery.
      3. If, nevertheless, it is possible to collect the amount of evil and active isotope necessary for the town, to fit it into a bomb of sane dimensions, then it will turn out that due to the monstrous radioactivity of the "filling", it is simply impossible to work with this bomb! Technology breaks down and people die quickly.
      4. Let's make a thick lead shell for the bomb, so that at least you can approach it!
      5. Well, how are we going to launch it now??
  10. 0
    27 March 2023 16: 46
    Quote: voice of reason
    . They put a hedgehog in their pants!

    Well, what's the point? London is 100 km away. closer became, Hurrah!
    BG delivery speeds are purely seconds. And tanks and ammunition will be delivered. And fight against us! hi
  11. 0
    27 March 2023 17: 36
    Chinese expert: Moscow's intentions to deploy tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus are London's response to its readiness to supply uranium munitions to Ukraine
    . Rather, there is a hint of a warning to the most zealous ...
    Quite a transparent hint, one might say, vigorous!
  12. +1
    27 March 2023 18: 40
    That's an asymmetric answer ... it's hard to come up with an asymmetric one. British uranium shells, if supplied, will be used on Russian territory. And our tactical nuclear weapons will not be used in Belarus, at all. The British do not care at all about such castling. And this is probably only to the advantage of Washington, because. potentially allows to expand the territory of American TNW deployment in Europe (primarily Poland).

    the use of depleted uranium ammunition is banned in many countries

    Excuse me, how?? Do potential victims of aggression (against whom uranium munitions will be used) forbid the aggressor to use them?
  13. 0
    27 March 2023 20: 15
    Quote: Deck
    About useful and environmentally friendly scrap at VO

    I tried to tell especially violent commentators about it) no, they don’t perceive it)
    The costs of the outlook, apparently. Or age. Or the influence of propaganda ... I don’t know, but they don’t perceive
  14. +1
    27 March 2023 20: 21
    "Moscow's intentions to deploy tactical nuclear weapons in the Republic of Belarus are London's response to its readiness to supply uranium munitions to Ukraine" (c)
    Nonsense, complete.
    And I'll even tell you why.
    Because sub-caliber with depleted uranium will still be delivered - this is, in practice, the most effective and modern core. And they will put it, and, for sure, it will be used. As well as everything that has been delivered to this day.
    But whether we will use our tactical nuclear weapons in response is a question.
    A very big question.
    1. 0
      28 March 2023 01: 11
      The answer is definitely not. Nuclear weapons can, hypothetically, be used only in Poland (the use of strategic nuclear weapons by the first Russia in London is nonsense of the mentally ill or teenagers). But the Polish arms hub could have been destroyed without nuclear weapons, and Russia is not ready for such an escalation.
  15. 0
    29 March 2023 09: 27
    Amusing human stupidity. Poisons have been known to mankind since time immemorial. And handling them is quite worked out. How did it go from time immemorial? If you need to get rid of the poison, reduce its effect to zero, you need to let it go to the wind, or pour it into the water. And stay away from this place for a while. Oxygen neutralizes any poison if given full access, that is, dissolve the poison in free water, or release fine dust into the air.
    You read recommendations about radioactive contamination, and you are amazed. After all, scientists wrote! Educated military! All as one stupid as a wall. Radioactivity cannot be reduced by combining a radioactive substance with oxygen) It is pointless to wait until the substance becomes a harmless oxide. It won't.)
    Only time can neutralize radioactive fallout. Moreover, this time is usually calculated in tens of thousands of years (for relatively harmless isotopes), if we are not talking about short-lived isotopes or secondary radiation, that is, about uranium itself. You can appear at the site of impact of a uranium-core projectile in a hundred years, and if you step on a piece of uranium that remains in the tread of your sole, you will die as soon as if you were in this place ten minutes after the shot.
    Problems of defeat by radioactive substances are fundamentally different from problems with poisons. What is absolutely not visible in the frankly stupid recommendations) Of course, there is a way to dispose of radioactive waste. It's not used anywhere, but it's there. Waste must be collected and transported to spent uranium mines) Just everything. Waste will continue to be harmful, but the danger from it will be the same as it was from time immemorial. As for me, an excellent result.
    In general, the use of a projectile with uranium is a crime against humanity. No more, no less. And the time that all those who use it should receive should be comparable to the half-life of uranium 238. That is, 4,5 billion years. That's how long you have to wait for the danger from these uranium pieces to be reduced by half.