• AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Well yes we do, ICBMs are generally associated with nukes because their sheer cost normally makes them impractical for standard explosive payloads.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 hours ago

      If it even is an ICBM. Ukraine says it’s an ICBM, and they’re 90% confident about that. The US thinks it’s an IRBM, which given the range involved, would make more sense. If it’s an ICBM, then Russia did it just out of spite.

      • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        37 minutes ago

        Spite, or to make the point that they have nukes and the capability to deliver them. An ICBM - or an IRBM for that matter - evokes nuclear fears, which is why the non-nuclear part needed to be clarified. They’ve been making threats about that recently, so I suspect this is Russia’s version of passive-agressive.

      • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        6 hours ago

        From wikipedia:

        In principle there is very little difference between a low-performance ICBM and a high-performance IRBM, because decreasing payload mass can increase the range over the ICBM threshold.

        Sounds like different militaries just classifying things differently

        • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          35 minutes ago

          Also the range is the only thing that’s different between them, they can both carry nukes. I suspect they did this to make that point. They want Ukraine to be afraid of launching deep attacks.