5 ms·

First ICBM Launch in Combat?

18 points by myrmidon 2y ago

Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/what-is-intercontinental-ballistic-missile-ukraine-says-russia-fired-2024-11-21/ Impact video (low quality): https://bsky.app/profile/drfranksauer.bsky.social/post/3lbhiz45bik2u Russian spokesperson being instructed to not comment on it: https://bsky.app/profile/kevinrothrock.me/post/3lbha3zcxxk2p Alleged missile type: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-26_Rubezh What do you think about this launch, could this maybe have been something else entirely? If not, what is the objective behind it, is this a sort of warning to Europeans specifically? Do you think we are going to see more ICBMs repurposed for conventional strikes, possibly to avoid cruise missile defenses? Personally, I found the impact video very impressive despite the low quality, and very different from how I would have pictured a missile impact before. We live in interesting times indeed.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
bediger4000 2y ago
Wouldn't the German V-2 be the first?
- beretguy 2y ago
  Where and when?
- KingOfCoders 2y ago
  The V-2 (Aggregat A-4) was not an ICBM. There were plans for an ICBM called A9/10 but it didn't leave the planing phase.
  - asdf123qweasd 2y ago
    Oh, they built them- and they tested them- by launching them at the moon. Even put three guys on top of that ..
paganel 2y ago
> Do you think we are going to see more ICBMs repurposed for conventional strikes, possibly to avoid cruise missile defenses? As far as I can tell this was more like a warning for the Westerners that next time those ICBMs will be carrying real nuclear warheads, because otherwise it doesn't make sense to use them in a conventional manner, the cost vs. combat benefits ratio doesn't make it worth it. But, I agree, that impact video was really something, hope it pulls to sleep the opinions of those (very stupid) people saying things like "Russian nukes don't even work!".
- KingOfCoders 2y ago
  "make sense to use them in a conventional manner" When you run out of cruise missiles you might switch to ballistic missiles. I don't know about the state of Russian missiles, but looking at storage sites Russia seems to run out of quite a lot of equipment [0]. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/@CovertCabal/videos https://www.youtube.com/@CovertCabal/videos
  - paganel 2y ago
    > run out of quite a lot of equipment [0]. Come on, we're all grown-ups here, let's stop the charade like we're back in March or April of 2022. I'm too lazy to even link to all the Western magazine covers telling us how Russia has run out of a lot of stuff during the last two and a half years.
    - KingOfCoders 2y ago
      The facts speak for themselves.
      - paganel 2y ago
        You’re correct on that.
        myrmidon 2y ago
amai 2y ago
So the symmetric answer would be for the West to hand over ICBMs to Ukraine now? Of course only after deployment of South Korean solders to the front line.
MrHamburger 2y ago
To me it looks like Russia is trying to test if their ICBMs will get through western air defense as they had troubles with their Kinzal/Iskander ballistic missiles being shot down in some scenarios. There were also purges on Russian side because of this - https://mil.in.ua/en/news/russia-imprisoned-12-scientists-in-the-field-of-hypersonics-three-of-them-dead/ https://mil.in.ua/en/news/russia-imprisoned-12-scientists-in... I think there is no utility of using ICBM for targeting anything using conventional warhead. CEP is 100m and more, it is just waste of military resources. So my guess is a test / show of force / terror bombing. Probably all 3 at the same time.
- myrmidon 2y ago
  The weapon test aspect is a very interesting thought. My view so far was that ballistic missile defense in general is a complete gamble and basically impossible to get satisfactory coverage for a reasonable price. I wonder if that view has become obsolete already.
  - red-iron-pine 2y ago
    when you're looking at national or global population annihilation, even a 10-20% reduction in missile hits means you're saving millions of people. someone has to rebuild.
jerlam 2y ago
It's also noteworthy that the United States, or any of its allies, did not detect and warn Ukraine of the impending strike. Or maybe they did but determined that the target wasn't their own country, and wasn't worth letting their adversaries know about their detection capabilities.
- jerlam 2y ago
  Russia is saying that they warned the United States before launching the missiles, presumably to reduce the chances of it being misinterpreted as a nuclear weapons launch (and triggering a nuclear retaliation): https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/ukraine-russia-war-11-21-24#cm3rqbma200003b6q4p0b8re9 https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/ukraine-russia-war-11-21...
konart 2y ago
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russia-launched-icbm-ukraine-war-putin-rcna181131 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russia-launched-icbm-ukra... - "Russia did not fire an ICBM at Ukraine, U.S. officials say, disputing a claim by Kyiv" Also: https://www.reuters.com/world/ukraine-war-live-updates-kyiv-says-russia-launches-intercontinental-ballistic-2024-11-21/ https://www.reuters.com/world/ukraine-war-live-updates-kyiv-...
- isthatafact 2y ago
  The main difference would seem to be range. This is still a ballistic missile, launched into space, able to carry nuclear warheads. and I assume this was to make sure that it was not misinterpreted as a nuclear attack: "US official says it was 'pre-notified' by Moscow about strike"
mediumsmart 2y ago
Seems to have been a puny Oreshnik missile going at a glacial 1.8 miles per second. Nothing to worry about.
IAmGraydon 2y ago
Perhaps this is a foolish thought, but I wonder...what would the outcome be if we could smuggle into Ukraine the supplies to set up a smallish number of ICBMs and launchers. Then notify the Russians that the guy that they're pointing a gun at also happens to have a gun pointed at them. It would be nowhere near the size of the Russian arsenal, but enough to potentially decapitate Russia. Game theorists, what is the most likely outcome?
- severino 2y ago
  Who is "we" and why should we do that? Should somebody also smuggle into Palestine supplies so that they can strike back at Israel with the same weapons they use? What about Syria? Would it be good that they can have the same weapons the US military (which happens to be occupying its country the same way Russia is occupying Ukraine) has to hit them back? Asking just out of curiosity.

DecoySalamander 2y ago

> hope it pulls to sleep the opinions of those (very stupid) people saying things like "Russian nukes don't even work!". How does this incident relate to the issue of the Russians having nuclear capability? All we see here are missiles delivering a conventional payload (or probably no payload at all) next door.

myrmidon 2y ago
This missile type is basically designed specifically to hit European cities with nuclear payloads as efficiently as possible (relatively small missile, with just enough range to cover Europe and a MIRV design makes absolutely no sense for non-nuclear payloads). It is also a very modern design... The point about Russia possibly testing that their ICBMs reliably avoid missile defense is also a very interesting perspective, though.
- DecoySalamander 2y ago
  It doesn't really matter how well Russian ICBMs can evade missile defenses. An actual all-out nuclear attack would be fatal for the EU, a response to that attack would be fatal for Russia. So all we really have here is posturing.
  - paganel 2y ago
    Trying to ignore MAD or limited nuclear war and treating them like they won't ever happen is beyond crazy, not sure what they feed you people there in the West in terms of propaganda but for sure it's working. Crazy stuff.
    - DecoySalamander 2y ago
      This is just nuclear fearmongering, an important tool in the Russian political arsenal, but that's all it is. And the best proof of that is the fact that we are having this conversation right now. The Soviets didn't use nuclear weapons, despite all the Cold War tensions, despite having an ideological grip on society and an actual arsenal to rival the US. The idea that Russians of today are capable of collective suicide, after decades of disillusionment and material decline, is patently ridiculous.
      - ossobuco 2y ago
        It's not "collective suicide" when they feel backed in a corner without alternatives, and that's how they feel whether you think it's legitimate or not. The Soviets didn't use nuclear weapons because they've never been in the situation we're trying to put Russia in now.
        aguaviva 2y ago
        Except they were in a very similar situation not too long ago of course, in a country called Afghanistan. In which their leadership ultimately chose to do the only right and pragmatic thing. Rather than bleed the country's resources out indefinitely over a conflict which (all their bluster at the time notwithstanding) it knew perfectly well to be in no way existential, and, exactly like the current conflict -- entirely symbolic.
        ossobuco 2y ago
        As I said, > and that's how they feel whether you think it's legitimate or not
        aguaviva 2y ago
        More like how the aggressor says it "feels". Whether you accept its statements at face value is up to you.
        ossobuco 2y ago
        I accept it the same way I accept when a dog feels threatened by me, even if I know I'm just trying to pet it. I'm not going to risk a bite by forcing my hand; I'll make it feel safe first. That will only work if I have good intentions, obviously.
        aguaviva 2y ago
        Except it's not the "dog" that you're interacting with. But rather, the dog's owner. You know, the man behind the curtain.