WW3

[Larse]

Have you noticed that the media is pushing more news about nuclear war since the use of ATACM is Bryansk region (which is not Kursk region)? Or maybe my news AI is playing with me

Must be your news AI - you're doing too many Google searches about it.

The only one on my feed is something about Putin fearing a coup attempt.

 

[old dog new tricks]

I am not looking online watching sky and bbc broadcasts

 

[Larse]

I have my doubts about an ICBM the costs are huge and only fitting a conventional war head is waste of the most complex delivery system out there.

If Russia have started firing their ICBMs that would perhaps indicate they are trying another strategy or just have so many of them they will not miss a few?

Just to clarify ICBMs are just the delivery system the war head is the scary bit

I don't know what ICBM was used, but most ICBMs are very high speed, so it could have been used to defeat AD systems. Very expensive way of doing it, but if you've got a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

 

[old dog new tricks]

I don't know what ICBM was used, but most ICBMs are very high speed, so it could have been used to defeat AD systems. Very expensive way of doing it, but if you've got a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

I am well aware of ICBMs in a past life I was an inspector for such systems is about all i can say

 

[Larse]

I am well aware of ICBMs in a past life I was an inspector for such systems is about all i can say

Interesting. You did ask a question though. So I answered it with a possible reason. The lack of information from Ukraine on the target may indicate it was important infrastructure that may have been well covered by AD but not good enough to intercept a very high speed missile.

 

[JockyBrewer]

I have my doubts about an ICBM the costs are huge and only fitting a conventional war head is waste of the most complex delivery system out there.

If Russia have started firing their ICBMs that would perhaps indicate they are trying another strategy or just have so many of them they will not miss a few?

Just to clarify ICBMs are just the delivery system the war head is the scary bit

You think that the Russian military system makes rational decisions?

My impression in this war has repeatedly been that Putin gives an order and that order cascades down to whoever can fulfil it without any context or strategy planning, meaning they'll use whatever means necessary to fulfil that order.

Lawnmower drones not getting though? Run out of cruise missiles? Chuck an ICBM at it, we've got lots more!

As for what they're actually hitting - it's almost like they're looking for significant structures on google maps and then firing at those rather than having any actual intelligence.

 

[Laner]

Just to clarify ICBMs are just the delivery system the war head is the scary bit

Further clarification…. The war head is only scary with an ICBM

 

[Northern_Brewer]

I have my doubts about an ICBM the costs are huge and only fitting a conventional war head is waste of the most complex delivery system out there.

If Russia have started firing their ICBMs that would perhaps indicate they are trying another strategy or just have so many of them they will not miss a few?

Reports out of Ukraine suggest it was a RS-26 Rubezh (SS-X-31 Sickle D), which is essentially an intermediate-range missile that can just about scrape over the arbitrary limit for an ICBM (5,500km/3,400 miles) when empty or with a minimal payload, but really it's a replacement for the old SS-20 that prompted the US deployments at Greenham Common etc in the 1980s. It only had to travel 500 miles in this case.

But it's in the interests of both Russia and Ukraine to hype it up as a scary ICBM for propaganda purposes.

Missiles have to be tested regularly, and they also have a best-before date, after which they have to be (expensively) disposed of, so if you're at war it can be the cheap option to fire it rather than manage the lifecycle. But obviously there's an attempt to scare the West here, even if Putin is never going to fire an actual nuke until he gets Trump to sign a surrender deal.

 

[Omega]

As I understand, this is a new model of ICBM.
I read that whole territory of the USA is protected by around 50 "Patriots" while Ukraine has 25 plus lots of S-300 and other systems, so Ukraine's air defence is much denser than that of any NATO country. If Russian ICBM can get through Ukrainian air defence, then it will go through any existing air defence, and deliver the boom factor. Guess this is the message to our leaders

 

[Northern_Brewer]

As I understand, this is a new model of ICBM.

Russia are calling it Oreshnik, but people seem to think that it's a minor variant on the Rubezh, and that they don't have conventional warheads for it so that's why there were no explosions, it was just dummies. Again - if you're going to test a new variant anyway, why not fire it into the warzone?

I read that whole territory of the USA is protected by around 50 "Patriots" while Ukraine has 25 plus lots of S-300 and other systems, so Ukraine's air defence is much denser than that of any NATO country. If Russian ICBM can get through Ukrainian air defence, then it will go through any existing air defence, and deliver the boom factor. Guess this is the message to our leaders

And have you thought about how it looks going the other way? If this war has proven anything it's that the vaunted Russian air defences are really quite porous, nobody is wondering about what escalation is feared by Putin...

 

[Omega]

And have you thought about how it looks going the other way? If this war has proven anything it's that the vaunted Russian air defences are really quite porous, nobody is wondering about what escalation is feared by Putin...

I not only thought, but I also looked into the analysis at various nuclear war scenarios. And you know what? All models end up with the nuclear war. In all scenarios, except limited nuclear war, Russia disappears, and usually we lose 5 times more people than Russia. So, we will destroy Russia, they know we can do it. And they will kill quarter of our population, and they proved they have this capability today. Who will give in or let the nuclear war decide this stupid argument? It is a fight of two bold men for a hairbrush
Putin will not give in - he knows from Cubans and badies like Saddam and Libyan dictator that showing weakness to us leads to the destruction because we will put extra effort to destroy the wounded enemy. Standing up to us, like Assad of Syria did, gives a chance to survive

 

[Omega]

The Russian leader declared that Russia would issue advance warnings before strikes on other countries to allow civilians to evacuate to safety.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...d-experimental-ballistic-missile-into-ukraine
What will you do if you get this warning?
Remember what happened in Hawaii? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Hawaii_false_missile_alert

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Speaking on his Telegram channel, Zelensky said Putin was using Ukraine as a "testing ground", and Russia was "so terrified" that it was "already using new weapons".

The US National Security Council, meanwhile, said "an experimental medium-range ballistic missile" had been used against Ukraine, adding that Russia probably only possessed a handful of these weapons and that they would not be a game changer in the war.

Putin said a "test" was successfully carried out on a non-nuclear hypersonic version of a ballistic missile and that the "target was reached".

"In response to the use of American and British long-range weaponry, on 21 November this year, the Russian armed forces carried out a combined strike on one of Ukraine's military-industrial complex sites," he said.

There is no way of counteracting this weapon, which attacks targets at a speed of 10 Mach, or 2.5-3km/s, he said.

And he warned the West that Russia was "ready for any developments. If anyone still doubts this, they shouldn’t. There will always be a response”.

Matthew Savill, director of military sciences at Rusi, a think tank, said available information about the Russian missile suggests something with a longer range than the Iskanders used so far in the conflict, which have a range of up to 500km (311 miles).

Intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs) - which Putin appears to have been describing - generally have ranges of between 3,000 and 5,500km.

Savill says the use of such a weapon may not have huge military significance but is symbolically important, coming on the back of Russia's revised nuclear doctrine which many see as a lowering of the threshold for the use of such weapons.

It is, he says, a not so subtle reminder that Russia has a wider arsenal of different and larger missile types and is ready to develop more.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

In all scenarios, except limited nuclear war, Russia disappears

So what is the logic for Russia going much further down this route?

 

[Rodcx500z]

There is no logic other than we are not eating humble pie

 

[old dog new tricks]

Definitely Putin puffing out his chest and triggering fear of potential nuclear war.

Signs of desperation showing now.

Let's see what happens when the Trump takes office not holding out much hope but let's see.

Hard to see how this will end now as gone too far and the NATO membership will always be a redline to Putin and Ukraine will rightly not surrender sovereign territory.

 

[Larse]

I just don't buy the NATO membership excuse. NATO countries all around Russia that have never made any hostile moves towards it. And then of course Finland and Sweden joined NATO as a direct result of Putin's invasion, so both feet shot off right there. If you believe it's an issue that is.
And what exactly does Ukraine joining NATO mean to Putin? Oh yeah, makes invading it a lot harder. Anything else? Crickets...