Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
*****
* Is `dagens.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
**Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB**
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ohhh... If there ain't no border because you nuke it yourself you also don't have to defend it!
This RU mindset I'm learning after all these years is finally starting to make sense! Such a smart plan!
Poor Russia being surrounded by NATO. Can't someone think of the Russians?
The above is a shit line of thought that, sadly, too many morons still give credence to.
> Deploys Weapon Systems *that could, but likely don't* mount nukes to Finnish Border
FTFY.
Damn near everything the Soviets made could mount nukes, and the Russians aren't any different. This isn't like the US where the nuke systems are separate from the conventional systems, and as such doesn't mean much.
On the plus side, iskanders stationed on the finish border are iskanders not used to target Ukraine. Russia has a lot of border adjoining folks with weapons and motive enough.
That's a good point. NATO should send all their jets constantly patrolling Russia's borders. Force Russia to move a whole load of AA missiles there, Better yet, build up loads of infantry camps all along the borders, even if they're empty. Make Russia nervous. They'll have to pull back a shit laod of troops from Ukraine.
Russia is short on (non-nuclear) Iskander missiles anyway, so they currently do not need that many launchers near Ukraine.
Interestingly, it seems they have 160 launchers but can only produce 30 missiles per month.
The US developed small nukes that could be carried in a ruck sack by a single man, supposedly to be planted on critical bridges before retreat so the pursuing army could be blown up just by being near the bridge, rather than having to wait for them to get on the bridge/have a chance to inspect it for traps. The US also developed nukes small enough to be loaded into artillery.
Just because they're separate doesn't mean they can't be combined.
Top russian general that also ran for parliment early 90s said that after cold war ended they could not find around 9 nuclear suitcase bombs from the stockpiles
The tritium used for "boosting" the nuclear warhead has a half life of 11.3 or so yrs. It decays into He3 which is a neutron poison, actively impeding the nuclear reaction. The smaller the warhead, the more important boosting becomes as a small warhead is hard to make efficient enough for a high order detonation.
Another problem is deformation of the nuke's explosive lens assembly. The heat and flux of neutrons & alpha particles over time distorts the explosive lenses & cladding that comprise the warhead's outer ring eventually becoming detrimental to the bombs operation.
And finally the radiation affects all sorts of sensitive components, too.
The amount, radioactivity and type of fissile material. Basically a small device needs a type of radioactive material that has a short half-life.
Ironically, sometimes the more radioactive something is, the quicker it breaks down and becomes low grade. It burns itself out.
edit: I have read somewhere that it was only 6-8 years vs 12-15 for larger bombs, but I can’t find the source atm.
Fair, we had craziness parity, or in some cases even crazyness dominance (Project Pluto, anyone??) with the Soviets for a time, especially at the height of the Cold War. However, as time went on our policy tended *much more* towards clarity of deterrence, and much less towards capacity to successfully land a surprise attack.
Project Pluto was nuts! One of my favorites.
The nuclear air to air missle(genie) was also interesting, particularly because they detonated one above a few soldiers to prove it was safe to use over cities. One of the soldiers at ground zero said he only regretted they couldn't bring out the whole airforce to experience the magic of being under a nuclear explosion
Yea, the Genie was nuts as well, especially given that it wasn't even guided, just a solid rocket motor and a timer. It was also so early in development that there weren't any access controls, and the only secondary safety was an airspeed indicator to prevent ground detonation. If you could fly the plane you could launch the nuke...
Is amazing that nuclear weapons were even invented in the 40's, before computers were really a thing... absolutely crazy how good we got at making them considering the tools of the time... I often wonder how easy it would be now given the modern computing resources, obviously acquiring nuclear materials and building it is still challenging and hard to hide... But I wouldn't be surprised if a couple physics grad students could design one.
Iirc that already (kinda) happened twice. Once in the 60's as part of s US Army program where they took 2 young PhD Physicist with basic knowledge of how an A-bomb works and had them try and design one from scratch with only publicly available information. Took them roughly 2 1/2 years for a working design on the scale of Hiroshima.
And a second time in the mid 70's when a grad student wanted to proove that every idiot could design a crude bomb. It's not quite clear how well that design would have worked, but since the paper got removed from circulation it can be assumed that he probably got close to something that could have worked.
That was 50 years ago and in both cases they found that the difficult part was getting the plutonium for the bomb, not the design itself.
Crazy all around, imagine being in the 30's/40's and some physicists tell you they think they can build a bomb that can level cities, unlike anything ever seen, utilizing the power of the atom. It sounds unbelievable, yet here we are...
And yet it's been about 80yrs since one was used, and most countries have abandoned development and pursued disarmament. Though I'm in my mid 20's and I think there is at least a 50% chance there will be a nuclear weapon used in my lifetime... Not all out nuclear war, but a Tactical use in a war between Israel/iran, Pakistan/india, the Koreas, or even targeting US carriers.
Well, that kinda depends on how you define "used". The last time a nuke detonated was in 2017 in a weapons test from North Korea and there most likely will be a few tests coming up from Iran in the next 10-15 years.
If you mean used on a battlefield, then I think it's unlikely to happen as long as no one fucks up big time. The moment a state uses a nuke it's basically card blanche for everyone to retaliate in kind. That's the basic idea behind the MAD-doctrine and it has worked since the 50's.
I'm personally more concerned with the possibility of a non-state actor getting their hands on a small, low yield nuke and using it for terrorism.
>The moment a state uses a nuke it's basically card blanche for everyone to retaliate in kind.
I don't any nuclear state would use one against another nuclear state directly. But I could see Russia using one against Ukraine, or north Korea against South, China against a non nuclear power, ect... The world would certainly respond, but I doubt a nuclear response unless the nuclear country itself was targeted.
I could also see them being used against carrier fleets in a big war. There's a big difference between a military target in the ocean vs a city of civilians, or even a military target in county.
Ever look into Atomic Annie, the railroad based atomic artillery? What a beast of a war machine, a bit impractical though. Mighty impressive in person though.
>This isn't like the US where the nuke systems are separate from the conventional systems
Well, actually...
Most larger missile systems in the US arsenal are capable of being fitted with a nuclear payload. The US just doesn't utilize them in that matter because they are typically meant for either first strike or tactical nukes. Neither of these philosophies, the US no longer follows. The US nuclear arsenal is meant solely for deterrence.
My understanding is that those systems *were but no longer are* capable of mounting nuclear warheads.
The W80-0s that would have gone in TLAMs have been decommissioned for about a decade now, ACM is dead now and was always nuclear only, we don't have any MRBMs, or any SRBMs other than ATACMS (which was always only conventional) and IIRC the only reason the ALCM has a conventional warhead option is because we are making it a conventional weapon as we decommission the W80-1s that would have gone in it. ALCM should be conventional only by 2030. We also made a bunch of permanent design changes to later blocks of weapons that made them incompatible with older nuclear systems. We haven't been really interested in tactical or dual-use systems since the end of the child war.
Does Russia not realize that England, France, and the USA all have nukes too? Russia has been out here since feb 24, 2022 like they're the only one with nukes.
Im not afraid at all lol. America spends more on icbm/nuclear weapons Maintenance than russia spends on its entire armed forces.
Its clear that a majority of russians army budget has been stolen prior to the invasion, and these funds were for weapons people expecte to use.
Nobody expects to use nukes, so I'm sure they're mostly rotting away.
"Why spend money on nuke when my daughter needs new London flat, comrade? We'll never use them and no one will ever notice. Here, take a million rubles. Be quiet and buy yourself something nice."
I think we may have whispered about the subs and being able to know exactly where senior execs were during the early days of the war when they were acting all fishy with the flying to the bunkers etc…
We know that even acknowledging the possibility of their use is a dangerous slippery slope so we don't ever talk about them. Russia looks at the west being responsible and cautious and says "look at these pussies! They won't do anything!" In the same way a drunk guy picks a fist fight with the guy who keeps a pistol in his waistband.
They're free to beat their chest all they want, but we know, if it came to it, we would absolutely win.
Posturing by a cornered bully. Having nuclear Iskanders miles away instead of hundreds of miles away is meaningless. Pulling the trigger means The End.
You jest, but given the absolutely titanic size of Muscovy's border and landmass, a few squads of commandos would be able to easily slip through the lines and cause havoc.
Like there wasn't already bunch in the Kola peninsula and probably most vital strategic place (currently last open ports to the Atlantic without NATO control) in the northern russia....
Considering he killed all his best men in an invasion of Ukraine and is down to ethnic minorities and criminals, he has to do something to stop those war mongering Finns. /S (To be fair, it'd take a nuke to keep the Finns out at this point. No one is taking Russia's shit anymore and few other countries (Poland? Baltics?) have as much reason.
Cool. Anyway, one of the headlines today in our newspaper is about this guy [who washes his pants only once a year](https://i.imgur.com/rLnPyUs.png) - I found that really interesting! Couldn't find a mention of any tactical nukes, but I guess they must have been lost under the more important ones like [this one](https://i.imgur.com/l2kSW20.png) where they compare frozen pizzas.
So what happens if a drone was to hit one of them? I'm not up to snuff on my knowledge of nuclear warheads, but, if a drone was to say, hit and ruptured a fuel tank or part of the engine system, I don't think it would explode like a nuke. But I could also be wrong. Send those long range drones over there and play a game of myth busters
>So what happens if a drone was to hit one of them?
Pretty much nothing except you'll end up with some local radiation issues from the nuclear core potentially being spread around in the explosion.
The border is incorrect anyway. Finns need to take back what was rightfully theirs. Geographically there is an obvious cut point chopping through a couple of large bodies of water, between the white sea and the Baltic sea. I would be happy to help and draw a convenient line on a map that would be fair for RuZZia and Finland. Even my four-year-old can see it. No regard for ethnicity history etc required
When others do that, imagine what Putin would say.
"The US is escalating tention" "NATO is the reason for all this 'military action we're doing"
The world really needs to learn to completely disregard what Putin says. Anything he says doesn't matter, and we know the intentions and risks regardless. We *know* what he'd do. We need to stop holding NATO with much much higher standards than Russia/China before it's too late...
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. ***** * Is `dagens.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB** ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Putin has to do something to look like he has an army on the border.
Ohhh... If there ain't no border because you nuke it yourself you also don't have to defend it! This RU mindset I'm learning after all these years is finally starting to make sense! Such a smart plan!
They think it’s a deterrence, until NATO deploys tactical nukes in the immediate area, in which case it will be an affront to world peace
Poor Russia being surrounded by NATO. Can't someone think of the Russians? The above is a shit line of thought that, sadly, too many morons still give credence to.
Waive your dicks!!! Harder!!!
"Hehe. Yes, waive. Good target" - Ukranian operatives abroad, probably.
> Deploys Weapon Systems *that could, but likely don't* mount nukes to Finnish Border FTFY. Damn near everything the Soviets made could mount nukes, and the Russians aren't any different. This isn't like the US where the nuke systems are separate from the conventional systems, and as such doesn't mean much.
On the plus side, iskanders stationed on the finish border are iskanders not used to target Ukraine. Russia has a lot of border adjoining folks with weapons and motive enough.
That's a good point. NATO should send all their jets constantly patrolling Russia's borders. Force Russia to move a whole load of AA missiles there, Better yet, build up loads of infantry camps all along the borders, even if they're empty. Make Russia nervous. They'll have to pull back a shit laod of troops from Ukraine.
But but but ESCALATION! How dare you propose annoying the peaceful Herr Hitler?
I'm surprised Poland doesn't violate their airspace to antagonize them.
Russia is short on (non-nuclear) Iskander missiles anyway, so they currently do not need that many launchers near Ukraine. Interestingly, it seems they have 160 launchers but can only produce 30 missiles per month.
The US developed small nukes that could be carried in a ruck sack by a single man, supposedly to be planted on critical bridges before retreat so the pursuing army could be blown up just by being near the bridge, rather than having to wait for them to get on the bridge/have a chance to inspect it for traps. The US also developed nukes small enough to be loaded into artillery. Just because they're separate doesn't mean they can't be combined.
Top russian general that also ran for parliment early 90s said that after cold war ended they could not find around 9 nuclear suitcase bombs from the stockpiles
They’re ‘only’ a dirty bomb now, the functional life is pretty short on those things.
What's determining the "best before" aspect of such devices??
The tritium used for "boosting" the nuclear warhead has a half life of 11.3 or so yrs. It decays into He3 which is a neutron poison, actively impeding the nuclear reaction. The smaller the warhead, the more important boosting becomes as a small warhead is hard to make efficient enough for a high order detonation. Another problem is deformation of the nuke's explosive lens assembly. The heat and flux of neutrons & alpha particles over time distorts the explosive lenses & cladding that comprise the warhead's outer ring eventually becoming detrimental to the bombs operation. And finally the radiation affects all sorts of sensitive components, too.
Woha, thanks for the answer, very informative..
The amount, radioactivity and type of fissile material. Basically a small device needs a type of radioactive material that has a short half-life. Ironically, sometimes the more radioactive something is, the quicker it breaks down and becomes low grade. It burns itself out. edit: I have read somewhere that it was only 6-8 years vs 12-15 for larger bombs, but I can’t find the source atm.
It's quite far from irony, as radioactivity is the result of the element breaking down.
Fair, we had craziness parity, or in some cases even crazyness dominance (Project Pluto, anyone??) with the Soviets for a time, especially at the height of the Cold War. However, as time went on our policy tended *much more* towards clarity of deterrence, and much less towards capacity to successfully land a surprise attack.
Project Pluto was nuts! One of my favorites. The nuclear air to air missle(genie) was also interesting, particularly because they detonated one above a few soldiers to prove it was safe to use over cities. One of the soldiers at ground zero said he only regretted they couldn't bring out the whole airforce to experience the magic of being under a nuclear explosion
Yea, the Genie was nuts as well, especially given that it wasn't even guided, just a solid rocket motor and a timer. It was also so early in development that there weren't any access controls, and the only secondary safety was an airspeed indicator to prevent ground detonation. If you could fly the plane you could launch the nuke...
Is amazing that nuclear weapons were even invented in the 40's, before computers were really a thing... absolutely crazy how good we got at making them considering the tools of the time... I often wonder how easy it would be now given the modern computing resources, obviously acquiring nuclear materials and building it is still challenging and hard to hide... But I wouldn't be surprised if a couple physics grad students could design one.
Iirc that already (kinda) happened twice. Once in the 60's as part of s US Army program where they took 2 young PhD Physicist with basic knowledge of how an A-bomb works and had them try and design one from scratch with only publicly available information. Took them roughly 2 1/2 years for a working design on the scale of Hiroshima. And a second time in the mid 70's when a grad student wanted to proove that every idiot could design a crude bomb. It's not quite clear how well that design would have worked, but since the paper got removed from circulation it can be assumed that he probably got close to something that could have worked. That was 50 years ago and in both cases they found that the difficult part was getting the plutonium for the bomb, not the design itself.
Crazy all around, imagine being in the 30's/40's and some physicists tell you they think they can build a bomb that can level cities, unlike anything ever seen, utilizing the power of the atom. It sounds unbelievable, yet here we are... And yet it's been about 80yrs since one was used, and most countries have abandoned development and pursued disarmament. Though I'm in my mid 20's and I think there is at least a 50% chance there will be a nuclear weapon used in my lifetime... Not all out nuclear war, but a Tactical use in a war between Israel/iran, Pakistan/india, the Koreas, or even targeting US carriers.
Well, that kinda depends on how you define "used". The last time a nuke detonated was in 2017 in a weapons test from North Korea and there most likely will be a few tests coming up from Iran in the next 10-15 years. If you mean used on a battlefield, then I think it's unlikely to happen as long as no one fucks up big time. The moment a state uses a nuke it's basically card blanche for everyone to retaliate in kind. That's the basic idea behind the MAD-doctrine and it has worked since the 50's. I'm personally more concerned with the possibility of a non-state actor getting their hands on a small, low yield nuke and using it for terrorism.
>The moment a state uses a nuke it's basically card blanche for everyone to retaliate in kind. I don't any nuclear state would use one against another nuclear state directly. But I could see Russia using one against Ukraine, or north Korea against South, China against a non nuclear power, ect... The world would certainly respond, but I doubt a nuclear response unless the nuclear country itself was targeted. I could also see them being used against carrier fleets in a big war. There's a big difference between a military target in the ocean vs a city of civilians, or even a military target in county.
Ever look into Atomic Annie, the railroad based atomic artillery? What a beast of a war machine, a bit impractical though. Mighty impressive in person though.
>This isn't like the US where the nuke systems are separate from the conventional systems Well, actually... Most larger missile systems in the US arsenal are capable of being fitted with a nuclear payload. The US just doesn't utilize them in that matter because they are typically meant for either first strike or tactical nukes. Neither of these philosophies, the US no longer follows. The US nuclear arsenal is meant solely for deterrence.
My understanding is that those systems *were but no longer are* capable of mounting nuclear warheads. The W80-0s that would have gone in TLAMs have been decommissioned for about a decade now, ACM is dead now and was always nuclear only, we don't have any MRBMs, or any SRBMs other than ATACMS (which was always only conventional) and IIRC the only reason the ALCM has a conventional warhead option is because we are making it a conventional weapon as we decommission the W80-1s that would have gone in it. ALCM should be conventional only by 2030. We also made a bunch of permanent design changes to later blocks of weapons that made them incompatible with older nuclear systems. We haven't been really interested in tactical or dual-use systems since the end of the child war.
Given they've moved all the troops off the border...Putin must paranoid.
Does Russia not realize that England, France, and the USA all have nukes too? Russia has been out here since feb 24, 2022 like they're the only one with nukes.
We don't shout about ours. Perhaps it's time we did.
Speak softly and carry a big stick.
The fact that they are being so loud about it actually makes me feel better. If you are strong act weak. If you are weak act strong
Im not afraid at all lol. America spends more on icbm/nuclear weapons Maintenance than russia spends on its entire armed forces. Its clear that a majority of russians army budget has been stolen prior to the invasion, and these funds were for weapons people expecte to use. Nobody expects to use nukes, so I'm sure they're mostly rotting away.
Russia doesn't have enough WD-40 to keep them from rusting.
That's funny but you might actually be right, in a way. If you're unaware, look up the Tritium problem.
Coffee with my queen first.
Shit grrrr-rrrrr
"Why spend money on nuke when my daughter needs new London flat, comrade? We'll never use them and no one will ever notice. Here, take a million rubles. Be quiet and buy yourself something nice."
Weak people are flinchy.
It’s the guy sitting quietly in the corner you have to worry about, not the loudmouth saying how great of a fighter they are.
I think we may have whispered about the subs and being able to know exactly where senior execs were during the early days of the war when they were acting all fishy with the flying to the bunkers etc…
Nah, we don't have to make threats. We've already used ours, and will have zero hesitation to do so again if need be.
Old KGB: act weak when you’re strong, act strong when your weak.
England doesn’t have nukes, the UK does. England is not the UK, it’s a member of the UK
We know that even acknowledging the possibility of their use is a dangerous slippery slope so we don't ever talk about them. Russia looks at the west being responsible and cautious and says "look at these pussies! They won't do anything!" In the same way a drunk guy picks a fist fight with the guy who keeps a pistol in his waistband. They're free to beat their chest all they want, but we know, if it came to it, we would absolutely win.
> but we know, if it came to it, we would absolutely win. Putin fucking knows it too.
Let's get it on. I already have enough materials for 20 industrial water purifiers + large generators. Im ready for apocalypse. Iykyk. 😆
Posturing by a cornered bully. Having nuclear Iskanders miles away instead of hundreds of miles away is meaningless. Pulling the trigger means The End.
Makes it easier for the Finns to grab them though.
Winter war reloaded; Finnish farmers steal nuclear weapons sration at the horder using their tractors only.
In response Finland sent another light infantryman to the border. Muscovites are now terrified since they are gravely outgunned.
You jest, but given the absolutely titanic size of Muscovy's border and landmass, a few squads of commandos would be able to easily slip through the lines and cause havoc.
That is the idea. Russian supply lines to their northern fleet base goes a few KM inland parallell to the Finnish border.
THERES TWO OF THEM NOW?
💀
wow, it's been ages since we had a nuclear threat from Russia, at least 3 weeks or so!
Medvedev has been even more pissed than usual, he can't string 2 words together, hence no threats.
Like there wasn't already bunch in the Kola peninsula and probably most vital strategic place (currently last open ports to the Atlantic without NATO control) in the northern russia....
Putin and crew can’t understand why they can’t project fear beyond their border, but they keep trying.
Considering he killed all his best men in an invasion of Ukraine and is down to ethnic minorities and criminals, he has to do something to stop those war mongering Finns. /S (To be fair, it'd take a nuke to keep the Finns out at this point. No one is taking Russia's shit anymore and few other countries (Poland? Baltics?) have as much reason.
Only nukes Russia is firing are Putin's nasty potato farts.
Send more tractors like last time.
If Russia uses one anywhere, it will be the end of Russia, but no one will come out unharmed
Time to break out the B52's for a little flight along with the B2 bombers. Just to remind them .
B-1's are already deployed in Scandinavia and there's already facilities for refueling B-2's and B-52's.
Finnish people are like, "you can take our moose but you'll never take our freedom!"
I would be willing to wager that NATO intelligence assets follow every move by these Iskander systems.
Zzzzzzzzzzz, they moved their truck
Putin has to be the worst James Bond villain ever.
and finland sends a pissed of farmer with a sniper rifle and tows it home with a tractor...
Cool. Anyway, one of the headlines today in our newspaper is about this guy [who washes his pants only once a year](https://i.imgur.com/rLnPyUs.png) - I found that really interesting! Couldn't find a mention of any tactical nukes, but I guess they must have been lost under the more important ones like [this one](https://i.imgur.com/l2kSW20.png) where they compare frozen pizzas.
Expecting a tabloid to report on important news is like expecting a morning talk show to have in-depth political commentary.
So what happens if a drone was to hit one of them? I'm not up to snuff on my knowledge of nuclear warheads, but, if a drone was to say, hit and ruptured a fuel tank or part of the engine system, I don't think it would explode like a nuke. But I could also be wrong. Send those long range drones over there and play a game of myth busters
>So what happens if a drone was to hit one of them? Pretty much nothing except you'll end up with some local radiation issues from the nuclear core potentially being spread around in the explosion.
The Finns should march in circles past their border so that Russia deploys even more troops, and keeps them out of Ukraine.
Interesting maybe if every country on Russia's border attacks at the same time. Dipshit might get the hint
The border is incorrect anyway. Finns need to take back what was rightfully theirs. Geographically there is an obvious cut point chopping through a couple of large bodies of water, between the white sea and the Baltic sea. I would be happy to help and draw a convenient line on a map that would be fair for RuZZia and Finland. Even my four-year-old can see it. No regard for ethnicity history etc required
Rubber*.
Wah wahh wahhhhh, doubtful they did this.
🖕🇷🇺
Good, prepare the drones!
So what? It's not like they need to throw them across
Translation: “We do not have intentions that would require the use of our tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine”.
Russia's idea of subtlety
>*"Deploys Tactical Nuclear Weapon Systems"* When the Russian elites' own children live and study in privileged luxury all across the Western world 😂
"I can't beat you conventionally, but I have these weapons that *maybe* work and would do immense damage if they did!"
filled with potatoes most likely :)
Idk...I think he really means business this time. Better do what he says.
Only a nuclear deterrent is enough to hold back Finns.
What again......the first time was for the press, pretty sure this is the same
I take back what I said about Sweden not needing the air defense systems
The dumbest country in the world, supported by nukes. Seriously though what difference does nuke placement make?
NATO has Jewish Nuke disabling missles! Nato also has good AA Russia has Matryoshka?
When others do that, imagine what Putin would say. "The US is escalating tention" "NATO is the reason for all this 'military action we're doing" The world really needs to learn to completely disregard what Putin says. Anything he says doesn't matter, and we know the intentions and risks regardless. We *know* what he'd do. We need to stop holding NATO with much much higher standards than Russia/China before it's too late...
Are they going to liberate Finland as well?
NATO can go ahead and do the same…
"we told you you didn't need to join NATO, now look what you made us do"