this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
Ukraine
8276 readers
77 users here now
News and discussion related to Ukraine
*Sympathy for enemy combatants is prohibited.
*No content depicting extreme violence or gore.
*Posts containing combat footage should include [Combat] in title
*Combat videos containing any footage of a visible human must be flagged NSFW
Donate to support Ukraine's Defense
Donate to support Humanitarian Aid
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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 Russians 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.
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.
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.
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 momeny of "use it or lose it", and 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.
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.
These missiles are designed with Western Europe in mind. Specifically, to deter them from coming to help Eastern Europe.