Seems like a bit of a waste to launch an intercontinental missile at a country next door, on the same continent. Isn’t Russia supposed to have plenty of short and mid range ballistic missiles? I guess they must be running low.
I was under the impression that ICBMs weren’t all that great for conventional warheads. Their payload capacity isn’t enormous and their accuracy tends to be relatively low- which matters not a jot if you’re firing nukes (which do a lot of bang per kilo, and where a few hundred metres either way isn’t likely to be critical), but not so great for dropping normal munitions.
Launching just one sounds like the primary purpose is for messaging, not taking out whatever single target. They want to remind Europeans that they aren’t safe just because they live far away. The west has been getting numb to the constant threats of using nuclear weapons. I believe this launch is to give those threats more weight again.
The US will no longer be a threat to Russian ambitions come January. Expect an urgent fear campaign to get the rest of NATO to no longer want to stick their necks out for Ukraine.
Nah, we’re not numb. But the fact of the matter is, we can’t change anything and letting him win is not going to work, because what’s the alternative? Being subjugated or attacked at a later state?
Putin should not forget however, that “we”, the EU, also have Nukes and will retaliate, if push comes to shove.
Those threats are meaningless either way.
Yeah this is far more a matter of there being a line. Putin has been aggressive towards nato and the eu for a long time. He’s currently invading countries when they get closer to us and cracking down on his own citizens’ rights. It’s clear he won’t stop with Ukraine. He can rattle his saber all he wants. If he fires a nuke France alone can destroy all of Russia that matters, and that’s assuming his fuckery with the US stops us from doing our duty to MAD and NATO.
I posted elsewhere about the rumour Russia was going to fire an RS26.
I got called a liar and warmonger.
Well, my next prediction remains the same: Russia WILL eventually use nukes. Because there will come a moment of “use it or lose it”, and Russia prefers a destroyed world over an intact one without Russia.
You see why you are called out. Putin will never use nukes. He will die if he does so and he fears for his life.
Nuclear weapons launched on the west only work as a threat, they don’t actually work for anything really except that.
Secondly, they do not have any tactical gains to have from tactical nukes (and it seems they do no longer have the batallions needed to use them, so they’d nuke themselves as much as the Ukrainians), and they would lose support from China and India for using them which would really hasten the downfall of the Russian regime.
So no, there is no nUkes cOmMing.
Even I, a certified armchair general, knows this.
Edit: you got called out because you said this:
There’s rumours that Russia is readying a RS26 missile at this very moment in retaliation.
If they actually do this, the war will go nuclear.
Very interesting news, kudos to you for finding and sharing them (really), but the rest is fear mongering.
@Valmond@Kyrgizion exception: tac nuke over uninhabited land or 20.000 ft over the sea (but only after the succ invasion of e. G. Finnish wetlands or the Baltics)
There’s still a few steps left on the escalation ladder.
Conceivably I can see them detonating a nuke somewhere over the blacksea at a high enough altitude to minimise fallout as a demonstration that they are serious and have the capability.
Russia prefers a destroyed world over an intact one without Russia.
That much is true, but none of this is existential. If the Russian military packs up and heads home, Russia continues to exist. They don’t want to do that ofc, but obviously Russia prefers an intact world with Russia compared to a destroyed world.
This missile is only “Intercontinental” if you launch it from the edge of a continent. It’s got about 6000km of range, which is a lot, but these are obviously meant for use in Europe. They were probably thinking of London and Paris when designing them though.
It was to send a message similar to how the Iranian drone attack on Israel in April was to send a message that they can launch a bunch of $2,000 drones and cause Israel to have to launch $2 million missiles and aircraft to take them out.
IMHO they might be just making a threat this way. Kremlin folks think that’s the way diplomacy works. See, we’ve launched a missile that can be used to send nukes. That’s our very subtle and diplomatic warning. We both understand what that means, yes? Let’s look very smart and diplomatic.
Seems like a bit of a waste to launch an intercontinental missile at a country next door, on the same continent. Isn’t Russia supposed to have plenty of short and mid range ballistic missiles? I guess they must be running low.
I was under the impression that ICBMs weren’t all that great for conventional warheads. Their payload capacity isn’t enormous and their accuracy tends to be relatively low- which matters not a jot if you’re firing nukes (which do a lot of bang per kilo, and where a few hundred metres either way isn’t likely to be critical), but not so great for dropping normal munitions.
Launching just one sounds like the primary purpose is for messaging, not taking out whatever single target. They want to remind Europeans that they aren’t safe just because they live far away. The west has been getting numb to the constant threats of using nuclear weapons. I believe this launch is to give those threats more weight again.
The US will no longer be a threat to Russian ambitions come January. Expect an urgent fear campaign to get the rest of NATO to no longer want to stick their necks out for Ukraine.
Nah, we’re not numb. But the fact of the matter is, we can’t change anything and letting him win is not going to work, because what’s the alternative? Being subjugated or attacked at a later state?
Putin should not forget however, that “we”, the EU, also have Nukes and will retaliate, if push comes to shove. Those threats are meaningless either way.
Yeah this is far more a matter of there being a line. Putin has been aggressive towards nato and the eu for a long time. He’s currently invading countries when they get closer to us and cracking down on his own citizens’ rights. It’s clear he won’t stop with Ukraine. He can rattle his saber all he wants. If he fires a nuke France alone can destroy all of Russia that matters, and that’s assuming his fuckery with the US stops us from doing our duty to MAD and NATO.
I suspect the use of an RS-26 was meant to serve as a provocation/response to the recent ATACMs strikes.
I posted elsewhere about the rumour Russia was going to fire an RS26.
I got called a liar and warmonger.
Well, my next prediction remains the same: Russia WILL eventually use nukes. Because there will come a moment of “use it or lose it”, and Russia prefers a destroyed world over an intact one without Russia.
You see why you are called out. Putin will never use nukes. He will die if he does so and he fears for his life.
Nuclear weapons launched on the west only work as a threat, they don’t actually work for anything really except that.
Secondly, they do not have any tactical gains to have from tactical nukes (and it seems they do no longer have the batallions needed to use them, so they’d nuke themselves as much as the Ukrainians), and they would lose support from China and India for using them which would really hasten the downfall of the Russian regime.
So no, there is no nUkes cOmMing.
Even I, a certified armchair general, knows this.
Edit: you got called out because you said this:
Very interesting news, kudos to you for finding and sharing them (really), but the rest is fear mongering.
@Valmond @Kyrgizion Plus, there is a high probability that the warheads turn out to be inoperable due to neglected pit maintenance.
Yes, but they have, supposedly, 6.000 so for now there are most certainly some that have received maintenance and scavenged material from the others.
@Valmond @Kyrgizion exception: tac nuke over uninhabited land or 20.000 ft over the sea (but only after the succ invasion of e. G. Finnish wetlands or the Baltics)
Why would they do that? Lots to lose nothing really to gain?
Shock and awe, and a demonstration that they do infact have operational nukes, can deliver them and are prepared to use them. Brinkmanship.
@Streetlights @Valmond exactly. They would likely only do it when already entered the NATO war rubicon… In order to divide NATO politically
Seems to be the way things are going.
There’s still a few steps left on the escalation ladder.
Conceivably I can see them detonating a nuke somewhere over the blacksea at a high enough altitude to minimise fallout as a demonstration that they are serious and have the capability.
I think they would use a tactical one in Kursk since it’s “their” territory.
That much is true, but none of this is existential. If the Russian military packs up and heads home, Russia continues to exist. They don’t want to do that ofc, but obviously Russia prefers an intact world with Russia compared to a destroyed world.
This missile is only “Intercontinental” if you launch it from the edge of a continent. It’s got about 6000km of range, which is a lot, but these are obviously meant for use in Europe. They were probably thinking of London and Paris when designing them though.
These missiles are designed with Western Europe in mind. Specifically, to deter them from coming to help Eastern Europe.
It was to send a message similar to how the Iranian drone attack on Israel in April was to send a message that they can launch a bunch of $2,000 drones and cause Israel to have to launch $2 million missiles and aircraft to take them out.
IMHO they might be just making a threat this way. Kremlin folks think that’s the way diplomacy works. See, we’ve launched a missile that can be used to send nukes. That’s our very subtle and diplomatic warning. We both understand what that means, yes? Let’s look very smart and diplomatic.
They may think that looks cool.