209
Russia ‘fires intercontinental ballistic missile’ at Ukraine for first time
(www.telegraph.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2024
209 points (97.7% liked)
Ukraine
8310 readers
677 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
Server Rules
- Remember the human! (no harassment, threats, etc.)
- No racism or other discrimination
- No Nazis, QAnon or similar
- No porn
- No ads or spam
- No content against Finnish law
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
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
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.
Seems to be the way things are going.