5 ms·

I'm honestly not sure but I'm also not sure we have ever seen a nuclear power with its back against the wall to this degree have we? I'm not trying to make peo

I'm honestly not sure but I'm also not sure we have ever seen a nuclear power with its back against the wall to this degree have we? I'm not trying to make people worried it's just something I personally worry about.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
sdfghswe 3y ago
Russia doesn't have nuclear weapons though, common misconception. Do you know how expensive their maintenance is? Do you know how corrupt Russia is?
- enterprise_cog 3y ago
  So they don’t have nukes now because of fanciful thinking. Gotcha.
  - multjoy 3y ago
    They can't maintain tyres on trucks in storage. The idea that they have any serviceable nukes is not as current as it used to be.
    - enterprise_cog 3y ago
      Second statement does not follow from the first. For all we know those tires are poorly maintained because they spend their limited resources on maintaining their nuclear arsenal. Either way, you can’t call their bluff without risking nuclear annihilation. All it takes is a few dozen MIRV tipped IC/SL ballistic missiles to bypass anti missile systems and destroy a good chunk of the US population.
    - verdverm 3y ago
      They've doubled their military budget and are doing a nuclear modernization iirc
- red-iron-pine 3y ago
  By that logic India, Pakistan, and China don't either.
  - sdfghswe 3y ago
    Russia is another level compared to India and Pakistan in terms of corruption. China, maybe. The difference is that Chinese nukes are relatively new. How old are Russia's nukes? 40 years old? 60? You do know that nukes are extremely finicky. Getting a nuke to detonate is a highly precise thing.
- lp0_on_fire 3y ago
  This is a ridiculous and easily debunked assertion. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/nuke/R45861.pdf https://sgp.fas.org/crs/nuke/R45861.pdf
  - sdfghswe 3y ago
    Sorry, which part of that 47 pages document debunkes my assertion? I thought you were gonna link me to a video of a Russia nuclear weapon detonating... oh wait that hasn't happened in 70 years...
    - lp0_on_fire 3y ago
      Literally the entire document debunks your assertion that the Russians have no nuclear weapons.
      - sdfghswe 3y ago
        No it doesn't. The entire document assumes that their nuclear weapons can actually detonated. Let me know if I've missed otherwise. I searched the document and couldn't find any discussion on this point.
        verdverm 3y ago
        > The entire document assumes that their nuclear weapons can actually detonated. Are you actually assuming that they will not work? That's quite the leap of faith with no substance to back it up
Modified3019 3y ago
Kicking the fuckers out of Ukraine and degrading their ability to murder and rape is not “having their back against a wall”.
verdverm 3y ago
Two examples of what Russia has done: 1. knocked a US drone out of the air, and the US did not escalate 2. Fired two air-to-air missiles at a UK spy plane, due to miscommunication. One missed, one failed [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Black_Sea_drone_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Black_Sea_drone_incident [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66798508 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66798508
- red-iron-pine 3y ago
  (Possible) undersea pipeline and undersea cable destruction. Pushing the limit with attacks near the Polish or Romanian borders. Aggressive agitation / Agit-Prop efforts in the US. Likely pushing the MAGA GOP Republicans to obstruct obstruct obstruct, and doing things like not confirming high ranking generals. Efforts via Wagner in Africa, and leaning on Middle Eastern powers to take action as things get hotter w/r/t Israel and Palestine. This has seen attacks on US bases in the Middle East, albeit without tremendous impacts. Russia can't really take direction action since now Finland is NATO, and there are tons of NATO, to include US, UK, French, Canadian, et al, forces in Poland, the Baltics, and now Finland. Russia has, at best, token forces blocking most of those borders. They still have some gear in reserve in case NATO gets involved -- not a lot of call for AShMs in Ukraine, for example -- but even then there isn't much stopping NATO forces from driving straight into St. Pete's or Pskov.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> not sure we have ever seen a nuclear power with its back against the wall to this degree The Soviet Union literally collapsed.
rewmie 3y ago
> (...) I'm also not sure we have ever seen a nuclear power with its back against the wall to this degree have we? What do you perceive as "this degree"? I mean, Ukraine's endgame is to free its occupied territories from Russia's occupation. This means that Russia's worst-case outcome is doing yet another goodwill gesture, pack up and leave, and claim they succeeded in whatever was they claimed their goal was. All the redline arguments regarding NATO expansion and bullshit about protecting Russian speaking segments of the population were already thoroughly discredited and abandoned, and more importantly Putin's regime didn't even objected to them. In the meantime, Putin's regime seems to have its populace under tight control to the point they have pundits openly calling out in Russia's own mass media for the death of any Russian citizen not supporting Putin's regime without causing any backlash. So where is this existential threat you're talking about? All the harm that was lingering over Putin's regime was already done. Russia's economy is in shambles, Russia's diplomatic standing ceased to be, Russia switched from a world player to a vassal state of China and Iran, and is already being subservient to North Korea. Russia's arms industry also took a major reputation hit. Russia also lost Europe as a energy cliënt, which was basically it's diplomatic and economic support. At this point the only options on Russia's table is to either continue following the sunk loss fallacy path, or cutting its losses. Which one is supposed to be the wall?
_kbh_ 3y ago
> March_f6 5 hours ago | parent | context | flag | on: Ukraine's American Missiles Wrecked 21 Russian Hel... I'm honestly not sure but I'm also not sure we have ever seen a nuclear power with its back against the wall to this degree have we? I'm not trying to make people worried it's just something I personally worry about. Nuclear powers (including Russia and the USSR) have lost wars before so I’m not sure how they are backed against a wall. They can always just leave.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

sdfghswe 3y ago

Russia doesn't have nuclear weapons though, common misconception. Do you know how expensive their maintenance is? Do you know how corrupt Russia is?

enterprise_cog 3y ago
So they don’t have nukes now because of fanciful thinking. Gotcha.
- multjoy 3y ago
  They can't maintain tyres on trucks in storage. The idea that they have any serviceable nukes is not as current as it used to be.
  - enterprise_cog 3y ago
    Second statement does not follow from the first. For all we know those tires are poorly maintained because they spend their limited resources on maintaining their nuclear arsenal. Either way, you can’t call their bluff without risking nuclear annihilation. All it takes is a few dozen MIRV tipped IC/SL ballistic missiles to bypass anti missile systems and destroy a good chunk of the US population.
  - verdverm 3y ago
    They've doubled their military budget and are doing a nuclear modernization iirc
red-iron-pine 3y ago
By that logic India, Pakistan, and China don't either.
- sdfghswe 3y ago
  Russia is another level compared to India and Pakistan in terms of corruption. China, maybe. The difference is that Chinese nukes are relatively new. How old are Russia's nukes? 40 years old? 60? You do know that nukes are extremely finicky. Getting a nuke to detonate is a highly precise thing.
lp0_on_fire 3y ago
This is a ridiculous and easily debunked assertion. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/nuke/R45861.pdf https://sgp.fas.org/crs/nuke/R45861.pdf
- sdfghswe 3y ago
  Sorry, which part of that 47 pages document debunkes my assertion? I thought you were gonna link me to a video of a Russia nuclear weapon detonating... oh wait that hasn't happened in 70 years...
  - lp0_on_fire 3y ago
    Literally the entire document debunks your assertion that the Russians have no nuclear weapons.
    - sdfghswe 3y ago
      No it doesn't. The entire document assumes that their nuclear weapons can actually detonated. Let me know if I've missed otherwise. I searched the document and couldn't find any discussion on this point.
      - verdverm 3y ago
        > The entire document assumes that their nuclear weapons can actually detonated. Are you actually assuming that they will not work? That's quite the leap of faith with no substance to back it up

Modified3019 3y ago

Kicking the fuckers out of Ukraine and degrading their ability to murder and rape is not “having their back against a wall”.

verdverm 3y ago

Two examples of what Russia has done: 1. knocked a US drone out of the air, and the US did not escalate 2. Fired two air-to-air missiles at a UK spy plane, due to miscommunication. One missed, one failed [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Black_Sea_drone_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Black_Sea_drone_incident [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66798508 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66798508

red-iron-pine 3y ago
(Possible) undersea pipeline and undersea cable destruction. Pushing the limit with attacks near the Polish or Romanian borders. Aggressive agitation / Agit-Prop efforts in the US. Likely pushing the MAGA GOP Republicans to obstruct obstruct obstruct, and doing things like not confirming high ranking generals. Efforts via Wagner in Africa, and leaning on Middle Eastern powers to take action as things get hotter w/r/t Israel and Palestine. This has seen attacks on US bases in the Middle East, albeit without tremendous impacts. Russia can't really take direction action since now Finland is NATO, and there are tons of NATO, to include US, UK, French, Canadian, et al, forces in Poland, the Baltics, and now Finland. Russia has, at best, token forces blocking most of those borders. They still have some gear in reserve in case NATO gets involved -- not a lot of call for AShMs in Ukraine, for example -- but even then there isn't much stopping NATO forces from driving straight into St. Pete's or Pskov.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> not sure we have ever seen a nuclear power with its back against the wall to this degree The Soviet Union literally collapsed.

rewmie 3y ago

> (...) I'm also not sure we have ever seen a nuclear power with its back against the wall to this degree have we? What do you perceive as "this degree"? I mean, Ukraine's endgame is to free its occupied territories from Russia's occupation. This means that Russia's worst-case outcome is doing yet another goodwill gesture, pack up and leave, and claim they succeeded in whatever was they claimed their goal was. All the redline arguments regarding NATO expansion and bullshit about protecting Russian speaking segments of the population were already thoroughly discredited and abandoned, and more importantly Putin's regime didn't even objected to them. In the meantime, Putin's regime seems to have its populace under tight control to the point they have pundits openly calling out in Russia's own mass media for the death of any Russian citizen not supporting Putin's regime without causing any backlash. So where is this existential threat you're talking about? All the harm that was lingering over Putin's regime was already done. Russia's economy is in shambles, Russia's diplomatic standing ceased to be, Russia switched from a world player to a vassal state of China and Iran, and is already being subservient to North Korea. Russia's arms industry also took a major reputation hit. Russia also lost Europe as a energy cliënt, which was basically it's diplomatic and economic support. At this point the only options on Russia's table is to either continue following the sunk loss fallacy path, or cutting its losses. Which one is supposed to be the wall?

_kbh_ 3y ago

> March_f6 5 hours ago | parent | context | flag | on: Ukraine's American Missiles Wrecked 21 Russian Hel... I'm honestly not sure but I'm also not sure we have ever seen a nuclear power with its back against the wall to this degree have we? I'm not trying to make people worried it's just something I personally worry about. Nuclear powers (including Russia and the USSR) have lost wars before so I’m not sure how they are backed against a wall. They can always just leave.