• The Quuuuuill@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 days 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”

      • _bcron_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        4 days 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          3 days 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
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 days 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
            2
            ·
            3 days 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.

            • Laser
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 days ago

              This is part of the point I was trying to make

      • Wahots@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        My guess is the latter, Iran and North Korea aren’t exactly making state of the art weaponry. And Russia has burned through most of its rusted out and repainted armament at this point. That leaves either new weapons, scuffed imports from “shithole”-class countries, or weird weapons.

        At any rate, nuking your nextdoor neighbors and having the radiation potentially drifting over parts of your country, potentially even your capital (yield dependent) seems like a stupid idea. Not to mention it ruining their “trophy” land that they illegally acquired.

        • The Quuuuuill@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          see… but… i don’t think the dickhead wants the farmland in ukraine, i think he hates ukrainian people. he’s mad they don’t just fall in line and do what he wants. they have their own culture, and their own ideas about how the world should work, and those ideas don’t involve him being in charge of them. i’m very close with some ukrainians and the one thing they share, despite very different backgrounds coming up, is a strong belief that everyone deserves to be treated with dignity, respect, and the allowance to be one’s own true self.

          that this idea is prevalent amongst ukrainian people even after so many centuries of russain oppression is dangerous to the russian autocrat. he rules through using terror to crush a person’s spirit to resist his power, and not only does ukraine resist, they give a place for other forces to resist, too, like siberian anarchists. he is not trying to gain land, i don’ think, i think he’s trying to kill an idea. he wants to kill the idea that anyone other than himself can be in charge

      • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 days 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
        3 days 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.

    • Skua@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      3 days ago

      Funnily enough, it is not according to Russia. The definition of “continent” is almost completely arbritrary anyway, and exactly where you draw the line between Europe and Asia - or if you draw it at all - is probably the fuzziest bit of all. Russia and many other countries just consider Eurasia to be one continent

        • Skua@kbin.earth
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 days ago

          Personally I think that Asia is too big a category to be useful as it is and we should be drawing extra lines. Let the Himalayas, Urals, Altais, and Tian Shans count as continental borders too. Also the Sahara. All of those have been obstacles to human movement as much as oceans have

    • superkret
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      Yeah but no one lives in the part on the other continent.