4 ms·

> 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 mor

> 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
        I believe you are mostly arguing against a strawman (or highly editorialized, i.e. misleading headlines). It would be beyond naive to assume that Russia would just announce "we're out of tanks, gonna call of the war now!". That is not how supply shortages affect a military. What you instead expect to see is that the use of scarce weapon platforms and ammunition types becomes rarer, and that militarily undesirable compromises and alternatives have to be made and found (which is more costly, less effective or both). Instead of taking massive ground in a tank offensive, the military might be forced into slowly advancing trenches and artillery; long-range guided shells might be reserved for high value targets only (instead of being blanket fired at every somewhat promising target in range). You would expect to see significantly older and less effective equipment, instead of more modern variants, more conservative use of bombardment, etc. These are all things that can actually be observed! But they don't mean that Russia is going to lose, obviously-- this is just going to make continuing the offense more and more difficult, expensive and less effective. You do not need to take my word for this, and you don't even need to keep up with lengthy OSINT reports and analysis to track this yourself, just consider the following: There has been significant use of Iranian drones and ammunition and lately even North Korean conscripts. I find it very hard to believe that Russian leadership pursued this as a desirable choice-- rather, it seems the exact kind of necessary alternative/compromise that you are forced into when you can not properly supply the war effort on your own (just like how the Ukraine was from day 1 forced into relying on western systems). This is especially glaring because Russia is a proud exporter of both weapons and mercenaries-- having to fall back on foreign stuff is just a bad look here.
        paganel 2y ago
        > It would be beyond naive to assume that Russia would just announce "we're out of tanks, gonna call of the war now!". That is not how supply shortages affect a military. The West has been repeating the mantra of "the Russians are out of [insert Russian weapon here]" for two and a half years now, but objectively judging by what happens on the field (which is the main thing that counts during the phase of active war) that is demonstrably false. Unless you think the Russians are winning this war (which they are) with shovels. Other than that I'm sure that the Germans themselves must have thought that the Soviets didn't have enough tanks to pass the Vistula or the Oder back in the day, not after Kursk.
baybal2 2y ago
[dead]
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.

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
      I believe you are mostly arguing against a strawman (or highly editorialized, i.e. misleading headlines). It would be beyond naive to assume that Russia would just announce "we're out of tanks, gonna call of the war now!". That is not how supply shortages affect a military. What you instead expect to see is that the use of scarce weapon platforms and ammunition types becomes rarer, and that militarily undesirable compromises and alternatives have to be made and found (which is more costly, less effective or both). Instead of taking massive ground in a tank offensive, the military might be forced into slowly advancing trenches and artillery; long-range guided shells might be reserved for high value targets only (instead of being blanket fired at every somewhat promising target in range). You would expect to see significantly older and less effective equipment, instead of more modern variants, more conservative use of bombardment, etc. These are all things that can actually be observed! But they don't mean that Russia is going to lose, obviously-- this is just going to make continuing the offense more and more difficult, expensive and less effective. You do not need to take my word for this, and you don't even need to keep up with lengthy OSINT reports and analysis to track this yourself, just consider the following: There has been significant use of Iranian drones and ammunition and lately even North Korean conscripts. I find it very hard to believe that Russian leadership pursued this as a desirable choice-- rather, it seems the exact kind of necessary alternative/compromise that you are forced into when you can not properly supply the war effort on your own (just like how the Ukraine was from day 1 forced into relying on western systems). This is especially glaring because Russia is a proud exporter of both weapons and mercenaries-- having to fall back on foreign stuff is just a bad look here.
      - paganel 2y ago
        > It would be beyond naive to assume that Russia would just announce "we're out of tanks, gonna call of the war now!". That is not how supply shortages affect a military. The West has been repeating the mantra of "the Russians are out of [insert Russian weapon here]" for two and a half years now, but objectively judging by what happens on the field (which is the main thing that counts during the phase of active war) that is demonstrably false. Unless you think the Russians are winning this war (which they are) with shovels. Other than that I'm sure that the Germans themselves must have thought that the Soviets didn't have enough tanks to pass the Vistula or the Oder back in the day, not after Kursk.

baybal2 2y ago

[dead]

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.