7 ms·

You're not wrong to be concerned, just likely off on the probabilities by orders of magnitude. 1. Tactical nukes aren't a likely step for Russia if Ukraine tak

You're not wrong to be concerned, just likely off on the probabilities by orders of magnitude. 1. Tactical nukes aren't a likely step for Russia if Ukraine takes back their territory - even if they go for Crimea. Russia knows that any use of nuclear weapons is crossing a line, and that the regime is done if they do so. 2. There isn't a reason for spying on these facilities if the goal is to analyze the US' ability to launch a nuclear strike. That strike would come from a submarine sitting on the ocean floor off the coast near Moscow. And there's no real countermeasures for those missiles.

avgcorrection 4y ago
The coast near Moscow?
- rjknight 4y ago
  Clunky, but I read that as "the nearest coast to Moscow".
- foxyv 4y ago
  Near is a relative term with ballistic missiles.
kypro 4y ago
> 1. Tactical nukes aren't a likely step for Russia if Ukraine takes back their territory - even if they go for Crimea. Russia knows that any use of nuclear weapons is crossing a line, and that the regime is done if they do so. Is Putin not done politically if RU is defeated in UA, and Crimea is liberated / annexed? > 2. There isn't a reason for spying on these facilities if the goal is to analyze the US' ability to launch a nuclear strike. That strike would come from a submarine sitting on the ocean floor off the coast near Moscow. And there's no real countermeasures for those missiles. It's a good point. I suppose it depends on the nature of the conflict though. Maybe you're right, that in the event of an all out nuclear war there would be no point in trying to achieve a tactical advantage – but does either side really know the exact nature of the conflict well enough to make that assumption at this point? Perhaps both sides just know conflict is likely.
- KptMarchewa 4y ago
  >Is Putin not done politically if RU is defeated in UA, and Crimea is liberated / annexed? Nicholas II wasn't done after Russo-Japanese war loss, Alexander II wasn't done after Crimean War, Lenin wasn't done after Polish-Soviet war, Yeltsin wasn't done after First Chechen War... why would Putin be done? History of russia is full of counterexamples and them presenting as "we'll win or we'll nuke whole world" is a propaganda tactics and bluff.
  - TrapLord_Rhodo 4y ago
    Nicholas II ended the Romanov dynasty. Alexander II was assasinated. Lenin implemented the red terror to ensure his grip. Yeltsin was forced to resign to... you guessed it; Putin. All these may not have happened directly after the loss, but it definitely swayed public opinion against them.
    - KptMarchewa 4y ago
      > Nicholas II ended the Romanov dynasty. Attributing Nicholas II death to 12 year earlier Russo-Japanese war and not... ongoing WW1 is weird take. > Alexander II was assasinated. 25 years later by revolutionary socialists, not some kind of revanchist. >Lenin implemented the red terror to ensure his grip. Actually totally reverse, Lenin then ended it with NEP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy >Yeltsin was forced to resign to... you guessed it; Putin. "Forced" 4 years later full of disastrous policies and, most importantly for russian state, low oil prices.
  - gspetr 4y ago
    > Alexander II wasn't done after Crimean War That war started in 1853, Alexander II's reign began in 1855, obviously he wasn't done since this wasn't even a war he had started... People need to temper their hot takes on history.
- rhaway84773 4y ago
  It’s easier for Putin to change the narrative in Russia than to try and fend off every western power (and many Russians as well) trying to personally assassinate him. Let’s not forget that until a few months ago it was literally illegal to even call this war a war in Russia. But today, it’s not just a war, it’s a defensive ear, if you go by Russian state media (a defensive war that is somehow being fought entirely on another country’s territory).
smegger001 4y ago
> Russia knows that any use of nuclear weapons is crossing a line, and that the regime is done if they do so. Yeah well we thought that about the taking of Crimea in the first place, then we thought that about this invasion yet here we are.

avgcorrection 4y ago

The coast near Moscow?

rjknight 4y ago
Clunky, but I read that as "the nearest coast to Moscow".
foxyv 4y ago
Near is a relative term with ballistic missiles.

kypro 4y ago

> 1. Tactical nukes aren't a likely step for Russia if Ukraine takes back their territory - even if they go for Crimea. Russia knows that any use of nuclear weapons is crossing a line, and that the regime is done if they do so. Is Putin not done politically if RU is defeated in UA, and Crimea is liberated / annexed? > 2. There isn't a reason for spying on these facilities if the goal is to analyze the US' ability to launch a nuclear strike. That strike would come from a submarine sitting on the ocean floor off the coast near Moscow. And there's no real countermeasures for those missiles. It's a good point. I suppose it depends on the nature of the conflict though. Maybe you're right, that in the event of an all out nuclear war there would be no point in trying to achieve a tactical advantage – but does either side really know the exact nature of the conflict well enough to make that assumption at this point? Perhaps both sides just know conflict is likely.

KptMarchewa 4y ago
>Is Putin not done politically if RU is defeated in UA, and Crimea is liberated / annexed? Nicholas II wasn't done after Russo-Japanese war loss, Alexander II wasn't done after Crimean War, Lenin wasn't done after Polish-Soviet war, Yeltsin wasn't done after First Chechen War... why would Putin be done? History of russia is full of counterexamples and them presenting as "we'll win or we'll nuke whole world" is a propaganda tactics and bluff.
- TrapLord_Rhodo 4y ago
  Nicholas II ended the Romanov dynasty. Alexander II was assasinated. Lenin implemented the red terror to ensure his grip. Yeltsin was forced to resign to... you guessed it; Putin. All these may not have happened directly after the loss, but it definitely swayed public opinion against them.
  - KptMarchewa 4y ago
    > Nicholas II ended the Romanov dynasty. Attributing Nicholas II death to 12 year earlier Russo-Japanese war and not... ongoing WW1 is weird take. > Alexander II was assasinated. 25 years later by revolutionary socialists, not some kind of revanchist. >Lenin implemented the red terror to ensure his grip. Actually totally reverse, Lenin then ended it with NEP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy >Yeltsin was forced to resign to... you guessed it; Putin. "Forced" 4 years later full of disastrous policies and, most importantly for russian state, low oil prices.
- gspetr 4y ago
  > Alexander II wasn't done after Crimean War That war started in 1853, Alexander II's reign began in 1855, obviously he wasn't done since this wasn't even a war he had started... People need to temper their hot takes on history.
rhaway84773 4y ago
It’s easier for Putin to change the narrative in Russia than to try and fend off every western power (and many Russians as well) trying to personally assassinate him. Let’s not forget that until a few months ago it was literally illegal to even call this war a war in Russia. But today, it’s not just a war, it’s a defensive ear, if you go by Russian state media (a defensive war that is somehow being fought entirely on another country’s territory).

smegger001 4y ago

> Russia knows that any use of nuclear weapons is crossing a line, and that the regime is done if they do so. Yeah well we thought that about the taking of Crimea in the first place, then we thought that about this invasion yet here we are.