5 ms·
NATO, Ukraine hold emergency talks after Russia's new hypersonic missile attack
- aphantastic 2y agoBidens approval of the latest missiles has to be the most bone headed — nay, straight evil — actions committed by a US Chief of Staff since Bush. January can’t come soon enough. How many humans have died from this administration? Has it reached millions yet? Will it?
- amanaplanacanal 2y agoAre you forgetting who invaded whom here? What did the US have to do with any of that?
- JumpCrisscross 2y agoAlso who fired the nuclear-class missile…
- ImJamal 2y agoWhy does it matter if it is "nuclear-class"? Were there any actual nukes? No. Then who cares?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> Why does it matter if it is "nuclear-class"? Were there any actual nukes? No. Then who cares? Because you don’t know it’s not nuclear tipped until it lands. A nuclear-capable missile streaking West out of Russia looks identical to a first strike on early warning radars.
- ImJamal 2y agoRussia could bring a tactical nuke and use that with no warning. If they want to nuke Ukraine they can do it without "nuclear class" missiles.
- roenxi 2y agoIf they didn't, people would be talking about how their red lines are bluffs. The Russians are being given two options by the US - surrender or escalate. They aren't going to surrender. I'm not sure what people expect to happen but given the strategic madness out of the west we're probably doing well if we get all the way through this without London being targeted. Whoever thought it was a good idea to try and turn Iraq 2 into WW3 really should be relieved of their power to make decisions. Russia was behaving well within international norms established by the US's actions until the west got involved in Ukraine. Now we've seen orders of magnitude more casualties for nothing, and the risk of nuclear war are off the hitherto plotted charts.
- talldayo 2y ago> we're probably doing well if we get all the way through this without London being targeted. Putin might be stupid, but you think too lowly of him. You attack population centers after mutually assured destruction. There is no reason to escalate by creating a humanitarian crisis if you're not already prepared to deal with the consequences (a-la Nagasaki/Hiroshima). The first attacks are tactical and therefore negligible in civilian damage and controversial to discuss. They will certainly be condemned globally, but no one smart enough to stockpile tactical nukes is going to use it somewhere with reprehensible civilian harm. It is both more valuable, smarter, and less costly to deploy it tactically against enemy installations or materiel. If London is "targeted" then Russia is going to find out just how fucking bad Europe hates them. The nuclear dance is about riding the threshold of plausible escalation without revealing desperation and giving your enemies casus belli.
- roenxi 2y agoThe Russians have figured out that the Europeans hate them, that is why we're all on day >1,000 of the current war and they're firming up relations with Asian powers in a way that is a net loss to the rest of us. > You attack population centers after mutually assured destruction. There have already been what are basically missiles targeting Moscow, any compunction about targeting Russia itself have been overcome and those storm shadows the other day were a pretty inflammatory gambit. It isn't there yet, but extrapolate forward 12 months and I think some sort of strike on the UK is on the cards. May as well be London. The British aren't going to stop until something stops them, if they don't see a red line at hitting Russia proper then they probably don't see any at all anywhere. And Russia has been pretty clear through their targeting in Ukraine that they are happy to go for civilian infrastructure. Fingers crossed they run out of money or steam before the situation gets much worse, I suppose.
- aphantastic 2y agoNothing, if you assume Putins decisions are made in a vacuum. If on the other hand you grant that he might observe the leaders of world super powers, you’ll notice a striking connection between the change of power in America and the launch of his invasion of Ukraine. And of course you can assume all of Netenyahoo’s decisions are made in a vacuum too, or you can open your eyes.
- bdangubic 2y agoBiden, on his best days, cant hardly remember his name mate… if you think Biden is making these decisions I have some Enron stock options to sell to you
- aphantastic 2y agoSynecdoche.
- hollerith 2y agoYou mean "Commander-in-Chief" or "head of state".
- aphantastic 2y agoYes. I can’t edit unfortunately.
- pestatije 2y ago> How many humans have died from this administration? 400K russians (the enemy, remember?)...plus not as many Ukrainians which seem to have been ok-ish with it so far. You waiting for January?...another 40k+ at current rates...if that clown doesnt owe Putin too much hell be wise to keep the massacre ongoing
- aphantastic 2y ago^ great example of the evil-Biden mentality I described above. I wonder, do the folks who are opposed to my viewpoint generally support this narrative?
- aphantastic 2y agoAh, anon downvotes but no vocal support. Aka: that sentiment looks awful and I won’t put my name to it, but also fuck you, you aren’t toeing the liberal party line if you question it. Disgusting.
- pestatije 2y agoyou are one of those wholl be queuing to fight the evil enemy if your leader says so, fine (or send your sons to do so, depending on your age)...thats all well an dandy. Myself and every other reasonable individuals will prefer the evil enemy bleeds itself into nonexistence before that is needed. > Human lives... are you kidding!? these guys are after us and wont stop until their stopped
- aphantastic 2y agoThey’re after you, are they? Those people who you’ve never met, never once interacted with? Who have never made any attack on US soil? Who instead are facing attacks from US weapon systems onto their soil? Those guys, are “after” you? Absolutely wild mentality.
- pestatije 2y ago
- lawn 2y agoSo it's "evil" to help a democratic country defend itself against genocide? I guess then it's "good" when the coming administration will point the military against its own people and put them in camps?
- IAmGraydon 2y ago>I guess then it's "good" when the coming administration will point the military against its own people and put them in camps? Ladies and gentlemen, this is what brainwashing due to propaganda exposure looks like in real life.
- lawn 2y agoIt can indeed be considered propaganda when you listen to what they themselves are saying. If they end up doing it and to what extent is an open question though.
- throwdec 2y ago[flagged]
- pixelsort 2y agoMach 11 hypersonic missiles? Is it even possible to intercept something going that fast without your interceptor tearing itself apart?
- openasocket 2y agoAbsolutely! The US ABM shield is meant to intercept incoming ICBMs, which in terminal velocity will be in excess of Mach 20. The difficulty with speed isnt that the interceptor will “tear itself apart” it’s just that it means less margin for error when plotting your intercept course
- stormfather 2y agoI bet there are nuclear tipped interceptors too, though that wouldn't be public. Its a lot easier to destroy the incoming missile if your margin of error is a few miles versus a few meters. Not to mention it would blot out all the multiple re-entry vehicles. The public wouldn't want to know that's the plan but it would sure beat nukes detonating in cities. I even remember reading about how the Soviets planned to chain detonate nukes over Moscow in the event of an exchange to destroy incoming ICMBs.
- gs17 2y agoNuclear armed anti-balistic missiles have been made, but they're not in use as far as we know. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinel_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinel_program Spartan missiles were set to be armed with 5 MT warheads!
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- openasocket 2y agoGMD is hit-to-kill. Though I should point out that it’s broadly useless. GMD is only capable of taking out 10-20 missiles at once. Russia and China both have hundreds of missiles, and if the DPRK isn’t there yet they will be soon. GMD is essentially useless at preventing a first strike. It was ostensibly meant for if a rogue state managed to launch a handful of ICBMs at the US, a scenario that really isn’t likely. What it would be useful for, is if the US were to strike first and take out the majority of the enemy’s missiles on the ground. To be clear, I don’t think that is why the US built it, and that isn’t part of the strategic thinking. But that possibility is exactly what Russia and China suspect about GMD. Hence their expansion of new weapons.
- jalapenos 2y ago[flagged]
- openasocket 2y agoI actually don’t think that’s why Russia responded. The announcement about being able to us US missiles on Russian territory occurred too quickly for them to have launched this is response. I think this is Russias response to the opening of the Aegis Ashore ballistic missile shield in Poland, which has been in progress for years and just recently was made operational
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> announcement about being able to us US missiles on Russian territory occurred too quickly for them to have launched this is response Why? It’s a missile. It’s meant to be fired on short notice.
- openasocket 2y agoIt’s a missile that has been developed in secret, for years. With a conventional payload, so that it could actually be used in a demonstration strike like this. That was apparently completed just in time to be used here. Makes sense that it is a reaction to the Aegis Ashore base in Poland, since that has been under way for years, the completion date could be predicted and planned for well in advance, and is of grave concern to the Russian state. Putin himself has constantly expressed concern about those missile defense bases, he’s very concerned that they could secretly loaded with nuclear-tipped tomahawk missiles and used for a sudden first strike. It’s a bit academic, of course, why Russia decided to reveal the existence of this missile now, and employ it in Ukraine. It’s not like there’s only one reason why Russia did this.
- dismalaf 2y ago> he’s very concerned that they could secretly loaded with nuclear-tipped tomahawk missiles and used for a sudden first strike. Putin knows that wouldn't happen, he's concerned about his own arsenal being neutralized.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- dismalaf 2y ago[flagged]
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> US has enough active missile defense that if all out nuclear war were to happen, the US would likely survive and Russia wouldn't What? We absolutely don’t. Even if our missile defences work 1:1, that doesn’t account for decoys. We should curb stomp Putin because the precedent he’s set, if accepted, will lead to nuclear war by prompting a global cascade of wars of conquest.
- dismalaf 2y agoThe US has at least 799 operational THAAD interceptors. Source: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12645/2 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12645/2 56 Aegis BMD equipped ships. Source: https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/RL33745.pdf https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/RL33745.pdf Japan also has 8 equipped ships. Operational land-based Aegis BMD sites in Poland, Romania and the US. Given how well Russian technology has performed in Ukraine versus American technology, I'd put money on American tech. I'd also put money on the US having systems that aren't public knowledge. Russia's sabre rattling has grown increasingly unhinged and frequent which suggests they feel the same way. Edit - should mention, it's thought that Russia has ~300 operational ICBMs. Also, I don't think our systems would be 100% effective. But I think they'd be effective enough that the US would survive.
- dividedbyzero 2y agoSo let's say the US could shoot down everything Russia throws at them, could tell apart all of the decoys, intercept every single MIRV warhead and take out every other secret weapon Russia may have deployed. It doesn't take many hits to take out a big chunk of the US population and wipe out its economy, so that would have to be done at 100% success rate over large parts of the country. Europe cannot do anything remotely like that, so close to everything west of the Ural would burn and pretty much everyone there would die, hundreds of millions of dead and God knows how many more further to the east. The soot from burning cities and forests would darken the whole northern hemisphere for several growing seasons, large parts of the US population would probably just freeze or starve, more so if the US has been hit as well. And that leaves out fallout dispersal, especially from the inventories of nuclear power plants hit with nukes and so on. There simply is no winning an all-out nuclear war.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]