5 ms·
> Prigozhin was threatened with a tactical nuke, decided it wasn't worth it. I have trouble believing there was a credible threat of nukes. Nuking your own ter
by meepmorp 3y ago
> Prigozhin was threatened with a tactical nuke, decided it wasn't worth it.
I have trouble believing there was a credible threat of nukes. Nuking your own territory is an unambiguous way to signal you've completely lost control of everything.
- runarberg 3y agoWasn't that one of the extra headlines in Robocop? Something about South Africa—still under the apartheid regime at time of premier—were “forced” to nuke one of their own cities because of unrest.
- jasfi 3y agoSeems so: https://robocop.fandom.com/wiki/Pretoria https://robocop.fandom.com/wiki/Pretoria Only in the movies though. No country would risk a tactical nuke in their own territory, that's self-defeating.
- boomboomsubban 3y ago>No country would risk a tactical nuke in their own territory, that's self-defeating. No one had done that, but that's the general theory as to why South Africa developed nukes.
- meepmorp 3y agoPossibly, but per a 1993 NY Times article on the program: > Mr. de Klerk told Parliament that the program, one of the nuclear era's most closely guarded secrets, was begun in 1974 because of the apartheid Government's sense of isolation and its fear of Communist designs in the region. Of course, that doesn't preclude internal use.
- jasfi 3y agoI still don't think they would have used it internally, but perhaps as a threat to neighboring countries. Really glad it was shutdown!
- dragonwriter 3y ago> No one had done that, but that’s the general theory as to why South Africa developed nukes. No, it was for external use; that’s why when there was a clear internal existential threat, instead of using the weapons, they dismantled them and the program to prevent the successor regime from having them.
- lawn 3y agoBlowing up the Kakhovka Dam is classified as an offense similar to blowing up a nuclear power plant. It should be a pretty clear signal that they've lost control, as the damage the dam causes is larger than that of a small tactical nuke.
- sharikous 3y agoThere is a lot of plausible deniability on the destruction of the dam. In the case of a nuke in your own territory that's more unequivocal
- lawn 3y agoNot really. It's pretty damn clear who blew up the dam, yet lots of people still claim that Russia didn't do it. Wouldn't be hard to make the same people believe someone else nuked Russian territory.
- coldtea 3y agoWasn't it "clear" who blew the pipelines too?
- runarberg 3y agoTotally different. The dam has a bunch of circumstantial evidence which together overwhelmingly indicate Russia. The same is not true of the pipeline, where there is hardly any such evidence. The dam also has a pretty clear motive. While the only clear motive for the pipeline are the Americans. But there is a sever lack of evidence to back up any narrative indicating them.
- vGPU 3y agoYou do realize Ukraine has bragged multiple times about hitting the dam, right? And that Russia has much more to lose over the flooding than Ukraine does?
- 3y ago
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]