• The Quuuuuill@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    12 hours ago

    that still doesn’t explain using an icbm against a nation you share a border with. there’s some message russia is sending. it’s either “don’t forget, we have icbms and they’re operational” or it’s “we are running low on standard missiles and have to fight weird”

    • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      It makes sense from Purim’s perspective because he gets to perform a test of his pilfered military and the results are validated by an independent third party for free.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      FWIW, the US currently thinks it’s an IRBM, not an ICBM, basically for that reason. Why use an ICBM here? But Russia might have done it just because they can.

    • _bcron_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Don’t let the name fool you, ICBMs not only have a much larger range but they also (generally) have higher payloads and they’re designed around ‘user servicable’ and swappable warheads.

      They’re sending a message and it isn’t “we could hit you even if you were thousands of kilometers away”, it’s “we could bolt a nuke to this bad boy”

      • Laser@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        9 hours ago

        I mean… The general point still stands. It’s not that western nations seriously doubt that Russia has these weapons. We know Russia has ICBMs, we know they have nukes, we know they’re willing to attack Ukraine with conventional weapons.

        What Western nations doubt is that Russia would actually attack them or use nukes, because it’d trigger a united response they’d lose against, and they know that and want to avoid it.

        It’s not about capabilities, but willingness.

        • _bcron_@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 hours ago

          What Western nations doubt is that Russia would actually attack them or use nukes

          Russia launched everything but the nuke. That should be the takeaway.

          Yes, everyone knows they have nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, all that fun shit, everyone knows they have ICBMs.

          They’ve implied verbally that there could be scenarios in which they’d feel justified with using a nuclear weapon, but they literally just launched everything but the nuke. It’s a pretty major escalation.

          I’m also not here to speculate as to whether it’s a hollow threat, I’m just pointing out that launching an ICBM is a really big deal

        • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 hours ago

          Yeah, but a central tenet of nuclear deterrence is that you don’t constantly posture your own position with nuclear armaments. If you keep saying if you cross this red line we’ll go nuclear, and then don’t … It makes future threats pretty laughable.

          International nuclear relations have already been gamed out. It’s always a last case scenario, because everyone has a sense of self preservation, especially the narcissistic types that like to be in charge of countries.

          No one wants to live in a nuclear wasteland, so no one is going to create a nuclear wasteland unless they feel that they themselves are in immediate existential danger, and even then it would be an action made in spite.