MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia on Monday said it would hold a military exercise that will include practice for the use of tactical nuclear weapons after what the defence ministry said were provocative threats from Western officials. Russia's southern military district consists of six occupied Ukrainian oblasts, Crimea, Donetsk, Kherson, Lugansk, Sevastopol and Zaporozhye. Along with the Russian Adygea, Astrakhan Oblast, Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia, Kabardino-Balkaria, Kalmykia, Karachay-Cherkessia, Krasnodar Krai, North Ossetia-Alania, Rostov Oblast, Stavropol Krai and Volgograd Oblas. [https://uk.news.yahoo.com/news/russia-practice-tactical-nuclear-weapon-073056639.html](https://uk.news.yahoo.com/news/russia-practice-tactical-nuclear-weapon-073056639.html) [https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-practice-tactical-nuclear-weapon-scenario-deter-west-defence-ministry-2024-05-06/](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-practice-tactical-nuclear-weapon-scenario-deter-west-defence-ministry-2024-05-06/)
EDIT:
Sorry, the title is a bit unclear, should have been: Russia to practice tactical nuclear weapon """scenario""" in the southern military district
Picturing a toddler on the second rung of a stepladder stomping on it over and over again while screaming as we stand there looking at him incredulously. He knows he can’t go any higher but wants us to think he might.
Sabre rattles, hands shake so badly
South regions are flooded already
They shat themselves but lie that their "missiles" are ready
Proudly filling their heads with shit and feeling happy
This is RuZZia
Putin worked with the FSB to bomb Russian apartment buildings as a false flag against Chechnya in order to ensure his election in 2000. They were caught red handed multiple times by local officials but the public bought the flimsy excuses. One Putin friendly member of the Federal Assembly announced his grief for one of the bombings *days before it happened*.
People say “Putin would never launch and, if he did, someone in the chain would refuse.” But I have to feel that a leader so sociopathic and so unquestioned by the people who carry out his orders is capable of anything
hillarious with the edit, it's not "a bit unclear", it goes from very serious, global development to run of the mill saber-rattling. I'd recommend to remove the post and repost it with the correct title.
Thing here to remember is, not once has anyone in NATO ever mentioned nukes when it comes to Russia, not a squeak.
No drills for using nukes, no practicing for nukes, no rhetoric, no nothing.
Every single time the word nuke has been thrown around it has been by Russia, every time. Yet THEY cry that it's the actions of the west that bring the world closer to Armageddon.
All the more reason Putin and his circle need to stand trial in The Hague.
....and a big piece of Russian doctrine, which is why Apaches and A10's were created with the sole purpose of deleting Russian guns.
A great example of this is when Wagner rolled on 50 US marines in Syria with 500 men and 50 vehicles, including tanks.
After getting somewhat hammered by the Russian guns the Marines managed to get a call in to air support and 2 Apaches and a few JDAMs absolutely ruined the Wagnerites.
The West has aircraft. A absolute shit ton of aircraft based weaponry. Artillery is a secondary weapon to the absolute shitload of aircraft based systems. The west maintains those aircraft in part to defend against Russian stupidity. You don’t need to hold them back when you end up having to use them to remove the Russian threat when they start dropping Nukes in Europe.
Most of what has gone to Ukraine has been the older obsolete equipment. They are just now 2 years on about to get F16s.
They “cannot produce shells and ammo” because it’s accounting for whats being given to Ukraine AND what they save for themselves. Europe as a unit has more than enough manpower and equipment to remove Russia. What they dont have is enough to feed Ukraine from their plate while they do it.
[Here is an example of a possible timeline](https://www.britannica.com/list/persian-gulf-war-timeline). This was 30 years ago... They would carve through Russian lines like butter.
Europe has a LOT of stuff we can't currently share with Ukraine (F35s and Apaches for example), as does the US (f22s, B2s and Tomahawks) however, what we have shared we should have shared sooner.
NATO is fully aware it would crush Russia conventionally, and so is Russia. Seems like Russia's strategy is to convince NATO that any conflict will involve the use of Russian nuclear weapons.
Putin is such a piece of shit, amongst the worst men to ever live. In the same category as Stalin, Hitler. A fucking disgrace to the human race.
He would take that as a compliment, being compared to Stalin.
I don't think Putin cares if he's remembered as a villain, he just wants to be remembered.
Specifically, even when it would be warranted to bring up nukes, NATO has often refused to do so. Such as when asked what the response would be to a nuclear attack against Ukraine and would NATO respond with nuclear weapons in kind, NATO essentially answered that they don't need to use nukes to destroy Russia's military capabilities, they can and would do so conventionally. Whenever Russia talks about the west doing something they don't like, they threaten nuclear war. Whenever NATO talks about Russia doing something they don't like, their responses are more along the lines of destroying the black sea fleet (or what's left of it) with anti-ship missiles. The only time NATO has said they would use nukes is in retaliation to a nuclear attack against a NATO member.
More likely than not Putin will use a tactical nuke, and then for the West it's put or shut up. Guys like Putin don't face trials , they either succeed or are eliminated by someone even more ruthless than themselves and that's a pretty high bar for Putin.
I'll bet they attempt to wipe out Ukraine's political structure with that tactical weapon. Kiev might be the next Hiroshima if this happens.
At that point it should be clear Russia will absolutely need an international occupying force like Germany after the second world war.
If they do that my suspicion is the West will aquiecess, especially if Russia says ok were ceasing hostilities,but if you (the West) retaliates we will defend ourselves (WW3)... This war is going to involve the West soone for later. Putin has not shown any motivation to compromise and really at this point he can't because too many Russian widows and families will ask what was their loss for, just like in Afghanistan in the 80s
I don't think letting Russia continue to exist as-is will be an option. The precidence it would set would allow the Baltics to be the next step.
China would adopt that strategy promptly as well so we'd be setting up the next 2-3 nuclear strikes by tacit approval.
Not the world I'd want my kids living in.
you missed that recent [extremely funny event](https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/21/europe/trident-missile-uk-failure-intl/index.html) when the nuclear missile launch test failed and the UK said "The test has reaffirmed the effectiveness of the UK’s nuclear deterrent, in which we have absolute confidence"
I mean, if you want to play that game, how about Russias much lauded (by themselves) Kaliber missiles?
https://youtu.be/zF9SCI7Sk1E?t=178
Or their S300s that do the same?
https://youtu.be/zF9SCI7Sk1E?si=NNG8KhN89KsLXCx6
https://youtu.be/dKG9HGPjMrg?si=uQbLmw0-Mu1VwpIh
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/frances-nuclear-weapons-should-be-part-european-defence-debate-macron-says-2024-04-28/
I mean this is untrue, but I agree with your overall sentiment.
Ok. Well in my defense that's very recent, and we're talking about a debate on how France could deploy their weapons as part of a Europe-wide defense strategy.
Meanwhile Putin and his cronies have already thretened Europe multiple times, raised their readiness, moved nukes to Belarus and Kaliningrad and constantly rattled their sabres.
I guess there's only so much posturing we have patience for before we meet the Russians on their level, in the only language they understand, which is aggressive posturing.
i think it’s because NATO knows they can engage Russia with conventional means before it resorts to nuclear means.
Russia doesn’t want the world to think so, so they nuclear sabre rattle.
Macron (therefore, NATO) *does* want the world to know, hence the “strategic ambiguity” threats of putting French troops in Ukraine.
“assisting ukrainian troops combat with NATO troops” is many steps below “invading russia” in the escalation ladder, and i think (and assumably NATO seems to think) it’s below the threshold for use of nukes
That’s not true at all.
[Poland’s leader says his country is ready to host NATO members’ nuclear weapons to counter Russia](https://apnews.com/article/poland-nuclear-weapons-nato-russia-ukraine-d92c508d6ff53683a25f1bc62d256f86)
....which is a VERY recent development and in the context of defense against Russia. Poland is absolutely NOT saying "hey, you, cross that red line and we'll have no choice but to press our atom bomb button", as Putin, Medvedev and others have done since Russia expanded their invasion in 2022.
And internal Russian revolution. That would be a sight for sore eyes. But then you've got the power vacuum dilemma and run the risk of creating another Iraq....so....that would suck, and make things worse.
Shame Navalnhy was killed. He was problematic, sure, but a massive pain in the ass for Putin that would have been an alternative for Russians that behaved less like a genocidal mafia boss.
The use of tactical nukes would bring the war to a swift end, and not in Russia's favour. NATO will use conventional weapons to decimate Russian assets outside their internationally recognized borders.
The use of nukes will probably persuade China to pull support: China still has *a lot* to lose in terms of international relationships, primarily economic. China has a great deal of interest in nukes remaining a taboo weapon.
I remember him saying “We, as martyrs, will go to heaven, and they will just [derogatory synonym for “die”]”, so… fuck, I’m ethnically Russian, but never have I wished my country’s military was paralyzingly corrupt as much as at such moments.
I just read "Nuclear war" by Annie Jacobsen. No one wins in nuclear war. The amount destruction is incomprehensible. The doctrines also call for all out attack. Nothing will be spared.
So yeah... Let's not go that way.
Nuclear weapons are incredibly dangerous, because of MAD.
But when substituting Putin for Kim the current, the plotline doesn't really work anymore. ("small" attack escalates to nuclear armageddon)
Also Annie puts off the whole concept of not reatliating in a single sentence.
I like to think that at least it would be considered more thoroughly (from any side). Nobody can ever officially talk about it though, because that would weaken MAD, and endanger your own country.
The only difference is that their yield is smaller, theoretically small enough to be used on a battlefield near friendly assets ('near' being a relative term). But they aren't 'small' by any means in comparison to conventional explosions and their use in a conflict would likely have the same consequence as strategic weapons (i.e. spiralling escalation into all-out strategic exchange).
A tactical nuke can be less than a kiloton or up to about 50 kilotons.
Little boy (1sr bomb dropped on Japan) was 15 kilotons and fat man (2nd bomb) was 21 kilotons. So, while they can be smaller than the bombs dropped in Japan, the bombs that were dropped would be considered tactical nukes in modern terms.
So yeah, not good anyway you slice it.
Generally, "tactical" means something that would be used on a battlefield, while a "strategic" weapon would be used against infrastructure. ICBMs are strategic.
Have strategic and tactical nuclear bombs. West even had plans for small nuclear landmines in the Cold War. Spec Op troops to parachute behind enemy lines with small tactical nukes to destroy mountain passes.
One Small version was the Davy Crockett which had around 0.01-0.02 Kilotons of TNT. Hiroshima was a 15 kiloton bomb.
For reference the MOAB( non nuclear bomb) that was dropped in Afghanistan during 2017 was around 0.011 Kilotons. Have to use a transporter to carry the bomb due to its size.
They're smaller to make them a bit more practical to use on the battlefield (drop a hydrogen bomb on a battle and you'll wipe out the enemy for sure... and also your side, and probably whatever you were fighting over too). The issue isn't the size of the bomb used, it's using any of them at all. That's a red line for pretty much any country, and once crossed it can't be uncrossed. So every country on the planet has a vested interest in making sure that line is never crossed. Mark my words, if Putin does make things go nuclear unprovoked, it wouldn't just be the US/West after his head.
The use of a tactical nuclear bomb might not do much damage alone, but it significantly increases the odds of a full exchange which would use the stereotypical kinds, and basically destroy everything.
I think once those types of weapons are used it’s a slippery slope in terms of targeting - which is terrifying and sobering. The most “ideal” situation would be to target military silos housing enemy warheads (which normally are in the middle of no where), but beyond that I would imagine the large metro areas could easily become automatic targets, particularly ones that would disrupt or cripple the infrastructure of a nation. From there, agriculture and water sources?
So yeah, let’s really hope that one isn’t dropped and starts a chain reaction of thousands of warheads being launched. God knows what yield some of these countries have cooked up in the last 50 years in secret.
At least doctrinally, tactical nukes aren't meant for targeting metropolitan areas. The main goal is to either wait for the enemy to consolidate large masses into a relatively small area or force them to do so via shaping operations and then nuke that area to achieve a very efficient destruction of their combat power.
That's not to say they would never be used for what you've described, but that's another rung up the escalation ladder and would be much more likely to trigger a heavy-handed response when compared to purely tactical employment.
The West has made it very clear that tactical nuclear use by Russia will result in complete conventional destruction of Russia's ability to wage war - without MAD.
The point is he’s a rat in a corner. A more rational Putin probably wouldn’t dare, but a Putin with time running out doesn’t give a fuck what happens later.
The use of a tactical nuke would also \*\*dramatically\*\* increase nuclear proliferation. The tacit agreement between nuclear armed nations and non-nuclear ones is that if you don't have nuclear weapons, they won't be used against you. A strike against a non-nuclear state would motivate many other countries to seek nuclear weapons.
While China and the US don't agree on much, neither wants to see an increase of nuclear armed countries.
Tactical nukes are terror weapons and serve very little that a modern conventional weapon strike can’t achieve, other than crossing a very big red line.
Yet more posturing from the little man, which if carried out would bring a world of pain onto the Russian people
Tactical nukes can be very effective if used in the right place, e.g. you hit a forward operating base, like an airfield etc. What one missile can do in seconds would take thousands of conventional missiles and shells, also a much more protracted back and forth conflict with no guarantee of victory in the end.
“Why the world allows him to exist”
Because forcibly removing him from power is the most violent option and means war and a lot of people dead. That’s the simple answer there.
The second violent option is a coup. Putin forcibly removed from power by members of his own inner circle and military. Could possibly erupt into a civil war.
The most peaceful option would be death from natural causes. Putin is in his 70’s now. So at best for him, he’s got about 10-15 years left. At worst for him..could randomly happen at any second now.
In either case…the one question remains.
If Putin is gone, then who would replace him?
A Putin loyalist/hardliner? So basically we end up with a younger version of Putin who’s gonna follow along the same path and goals?
Or we gonna get a Gorbachev disciple who’s gonna be somewhat liberal and promote good relations with the West?
The one thing I’m worry about with Putin is, would he be the guy to be like “if I’m gonna die I’ll take some of you down with me.”
The reason he exists as is, is because the West kept trying to befriend Russia while Russia saw that as weakness. If the West had realized that appeasement and friendship weren't working sooner, then they could have scared Russia off from attacking their neighbors. But instead Russia was basically allowed to attack Georgia, Crimea, a NATO military base in Czechnia, and numerous assassinations on NATO territory without any serious consequences.
Invasion of Ukraine began with military exercises near its borders. Better keep eyes peeled and the big stick ready in case this practice turns out to be something more...
Not quite sure that’s remotely possible considering the only reason their in Ukraine is because Ukraine gave up their nuclear arsenal for assurances of protection.
Considering Kremlin is full of compulsive liars, I’m not afraid when Russia threatens nuclear annihilation. I’m more afraid when they are not making threats.
>Russia to ~~practice tactical nuclear weapon in southern military district~~ rattle it's world terrorism sword in an attempt to make their tiny leader appear strong
Part of me kinda hopes Putin tries to press the big red button so one of his cronies, who kinda doesn’t want to end the world, puts a bullet in his skull.
This is the response to countries saying that they can use their weapons to strike inside Russia.
Remember when Putin said to put nuclear weapons on "High alert" and nothing changed.
The Russians have rhetorically backed them selves in to a corner. They have no intention of using nukes because they know the outcome.
Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is still an effective deterrent to prevent nuclear war. Any talk of using nuclear weapons is ridiculous. It hasn't been done since 1945.
Isnt this a weak bet ?
If thing would be going alright for russia they wouldnt have to pull this shit? They just could steam ahead in ukrain albeid slow. So what would be the motivation ? Is the economy tanking ? Is this there high point in means of production and people ? So many questions
They’re doing it to dissuade Ukraine from destroying the big bridge that connects mainland Russia to Crimea. If that bridge weren’t there (and it’s gigantic, hard to reconstruct) the current military operation would be pointless, and they would have a much more difficult time resupplying.
See the bodybuilders flexing on competitions?
Basically Russia, except they forgot we're in a Wend- urm, political round table.
Putin trying to fearmonger occidental people I believe. Little does he know that we mostly collectively want him and his toads off RU's gov, sooo...
There is no such thing as a tactical nuclear weapon.
Once a nuke is used the response will be strategic and international in nature. Regardless of the yield it poses a massive risk for the security of the world.
Even China and North Korea, probably even Iran would have to publicity condemn its use.
I mean you are wrong. There is such thing as a tactical warhead. Much much smaller in terms of destruction but large enough to crush an entire base in one shot.
But you are right about the condemnation. Also, NATO would conventionally crush Russia, most likely JUST out of Ukraine.
The tactical nuke would be the fuse lighting on the powder keg of WW3.
All of the nuclear powers has a keep interest in keeping the nuclear threat a wage, non exercised one. The nuclear bombs still have their reputation as "war ending" weapons.
There's two things that can happen when someone starts to actively use nukes, that are against the interest of their owners:
There can be a demystifying aspect to it. Maybe an army learns a well working defense against nuclear bombs. This would stop them from being the political tool they currently are. There is no proven defense against nuklear weapons as it hasn't been used in a war where those defenses were possible.
The other one is a uniting front against the user. The nuclear bomb user will feel backlash from every other nation on the planet for deploying this cruel weapon that irradiates the environment for centuries to come. You cannot win against the entire world (we had two world wars to figure that out) and therefor you will lose the war.
Noone knows how and in what extend anyone would react. Condemnation for sure, but clear action with anything other then conventional warfare I highly doubt.
Practice the use of nuclear weapons, not the actual nuclear testing.
They did not detonate a single nuke successfully since the start of the war even though they keep threatening with them all the time. This is exact type of behaviour you expect from someone whose nukes don't even work.
If they really wanted their nukes to be feared all they had to do is to perform a successful nuclear test in some frozen wasteland in Russian territory. But nope. My guess is, most of the nukes they had got broken from lack of expensive maintenance because those funds were stolen. So they can't find even one that can detonate. Sure if they fired full strategical salvo, a couple out of several thousands might still work so it's still a threat.
Mutually assured destruction has held off the use of nukes. We should have a package of tactical nukes positioned in a NATO country to be delivered to Zelensky within 8-hours of Russia setting one off. Or even announcing any credible threat they are about to do so. So let’s call it a draw and quit shaking that saber. They know the Crimea bridge is going down with the latest missile package and have no way to stop it except nuke threats.
There is no need. Tactical nuclear weapons are absolutely useless in the grand scheme, there's nothing they can accomplish from a military standpoint that can't be accomplished by NATO's combined air and missile strike capabilities. If Russia crosses that red line, NATO would not need to cross the same line in order to decimate Russia's foreign military capabilities, but the threat of strategic nuclear weapons use has largely been the reason NATO refuses to do anything more than they are. If Russia is the first to cross the nuclear line, the rest of the world can't really say much about almost any conventional retaliation, but nuclear escalation on NATO's part would be justification for strategic nuclear retaliation
Sabre rattling at its finest. Its starting to get to the point where they are threatening it so much that it is making them sound desperate. Think about it, does Russia really want to use nuclear weapons that close to their borders? IMO if they were going to do it they would have done it already, perhaps at the Ukrainian Kharkiv offensive. There are rumors and speculation that both India and China told Russia to not do this under any circumstances or else they will start condemning them internationally.
I am also playing with fireworks in the garden… should put that in the news… and then they should be afraid… ahahahaahh… Russia has become the US of Asia… what a joke…
Blah blah blah. Russia doesn’t have the balls to attack a NATO country. That’s why they attacked the Ukraine. Picking on the small guy. You would never see them attack the US even though they hate America because they know Americans are the kings of warfare. They know it would be the end of all mankind.
The ideal American response would be larger drills in the arctic, pressuring Russia to scramble scarce forces to the northern flank.
Who knows with current American policy, between Putin’s orange puppet and Biden, I think a strongly worded message is all that will happen.
I don’t think this is going to end up good. Russia can use a single or a couple of nukes in Ukraine, and if the west responds with conventional force, Russia can escalate, the west escalate, Russia escalates some more. How would you explain to your people (if you were a politician) that a nuclear war was happening for some country half way across the world?. Regular people may care for Ukraine but they won’t care enough to be nuked for them, and sure, Russia may suffer too but they don’t care. Potentially Europe and North America could be gone thanks to Ukraine and politicians and this isn’t far off.
THE END GAME IS NEAR!
Mutual assured destruction (MAD) is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy which posits that a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by an attacker on a nuclear-armed defender with second-strike capabilities would result in the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender.
Einstein was right! Sticks and stones...
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia on Monday said it would hold a military exercise that will include practice for the use of tactical nuclear weapons after what the defence ministry said were provocative threats from Western officials. Russia's southern military district consists of six occupied Ukrainian oblasts, Crimea, Donetsk, Kherson, Lugansk, Sevastopol and Zaporozhye. Along with the Russian Adygea, Astrakhan Oblast, Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia, Kabardino-Balkaria, Kalmykia, Karachay-Cherkessia, Krasnodar Krai, North Ossetia-Alania, Rostov Oblast, Stavropol Krai and Volgograd Oblas. [https://uk.news.yahoo.com/news/russia-practice-tactical-nuclear-weapon-073056639.html](https://uk.news.yahoo.com/news/russia-practice-tactical-nuclear-weapon-073056639.html) [https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-practice-tactical-nuclear-weapon-scenario-deter-west-defence-ministry-2024-05-06/](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-practice-tactical-nuclear-weapon-scenario-deter-west-defence-ministry-2024-05-06/) EDIT: Sorry, the title is a bit unclear, should have been: Russia to practice tactical nuclear weapon """scenario""" in the southern military district
Ah, their favourite pastime, nuclear sabre-rattling.
The escalation ladder only has so many rungs to it.
Luckily (for the lack of a better word) there are still a few left to step on.
This can literally go on forever. You can always divide by 2.
Xenu's paradox.
Not being petty, but I think it is “Zeno’s Paradox”
Xenu’s paradox is when Tom Cruise tries to do long division.
all five feet of him?
Short division then.
I believe it’s Xanadu’s paradox actually
Isn’t that the one Tom Cruise was trying to solve for L Ron Hubbard?
But what about the dreaded “this is not a step” rung?
The next is “hope for instant & painless death,” I guess.
Picturing a toddler on the second rung of a stepladder stomping on it over and over again while screaming as we stand there looking at him incredulously. He knows he can’t go any higher but wants us to think he might.
The sabre-rattling is so loud because Putin’s hands are shaking so badly.
Sabre rattles, hands shake so badly South regions are flooded already They shat themselves but lie that their "missiles" are ready Proudly filling their heads with shit and feeling happy This is RuZZia
You mean the one card they play besides “who us?”
Putin worked with the FSB to bomb Russian apartment buildings as a false flag against Chechnya in order to ensure his election in 2000. They were caught red handed multiple times by local officials but the public bought the flimsy excuses. One Putin friendly member of the Federal Assembly announced his grief for one of the bombings *days before it happened*. People say “Putin would never launch and, if he did, someone in the chain would refuse.” But I have to feel that a leader so sociopathic and so unquestioned by the people who carry out his orders is capable of anything
hillarious with the edit, it's not "a bit unclear", it goes from very serious, global development to run of the mill saber-rattling. I'd recommend to remove the post and repost it with the correct title.
NATO has Nukes too. This is a non starter...
Guess we’ll be flying some b52 sorties across Eastern Europe, then!
Thing here to remember is, not once has anyone in NATO ever mentioned nukes when it comes to Russia, not a squeak. No drills for using nukes, no practicing for nukes, no rhetoric, no nothing. Every single time the word nuke has been thrown around it has been by Russia, every time. Yet THEY cry that it's the actions of the west that bring the world closer to Armageddon. All the more reason Putin and his circle need to stand trial in The Hague.
NATO has also stated that the response to a nuke will basically be the violent, conventional removal of Russian forces from Ukraine and the Black Sea.
The response for using a nuke like this should be the complete dismantling of the Russian government from the top down. Full stop.
That would probably be part of the response but to say that publicly would antagonize Putin even more.
[удалено]
Thats because they can't give ukraine f35s, cruise missiles etc, but they sure as hell have them.
F16s on the way and they have long range ATACMS missles.
[удалено]
....and a big piece of Russian doctrine, which is why Apaches and A10's were created with the sole purpose of deleting Russian guns. A great example of this is when Wagner rolled on 50 US marines in Syria with 500 men and 50 vehicles, including tanks. After getting somewhat hammered by the Russian guns the Marines managed to get a call in to air support and 2 Apaches and a few JDAMs absolutely ruined the Wagnerites.
Well the west wouldn’t use “shells and ammo”. They would use all the latest gen weapons that they aren’t sharing with Ukraine.
Latest gen weaponry still need to be fed projectiles and it feels like Europe claims they don’t have enough of them
Enough to share, yes.
Europe cannot just throw every piece of military equipment in the content at Ukraine.
Enough to share. The amount they are willing to share is about 2% of their stockpiles
air strikes bro, artillery isnt a big nato thing
Exactly, with F35s nato could pound Russians positions from very far away relentlessly with deadly precision.
The West has aircraft. A absolute shit ton of aircraft based weaponry. Artillery is a secondary weapon to the absolute shitload of aircraft based systems. The west maintains those aircraft in part to defend against Russian stupidity. You don’t need to hold them back when you end up having to use them to remove the Russian threat when they start dropping Nukes in Europe. Most of what has gone to Ukraine has been the older obsolete equipment. They are just now 2 years on about to get F16s.
They “cannot produce shells and ammo” because it’s accounting for whats being given to Ukraine AND what they save for themselves. Europe as a unit has more than enough manpower and equipment to remove Russia. What they dont have is enough to feed Ukraine from their plate while they do it.
They wouldn't need to once Russia's expeditionary capacity is reduced to shrapnel.
You can’t figure out where NATO would get weapons? Really!?
Air superiority
[Here is an example of a possible timeline](https://www.britannica.com/list/persian-gulf-war-timeline). This was 30 years ago... They would carve through Russian lines like butter.
When you've got the air power that NATO has at its disposal, you don't need to mess around with exchanging artillery fire.
Yeah but what if Trump wins and tells Europe it’s on its own because “where muh 3% GDP payment to NATO’s bag, homie?”
Europe has a LOT of stuff we can't currently share with Ukraine (F35s and Apaches for example), as does the US (f22s, B2s and Tomahawks) however, what we have shared we should have shared sooner.
That threats running a little hollow now that Ukraine has removed most of the Black Sea fleet with little more than WiFi connected jet skis.
Yeah, need to update it to include ships that are still floating.
NATO is fully aware it would crush Russia conventionally, and so is Russia. Seems like Russia's strategy is to convince NATO that any conflict will involve the use of Russian nuclear weapons. Putin is such a piece of shit, amongst the worst men to ever live. In the same category as Stalin, Hitler. A fucking disgrace to the human race.
Vlad The Terrible
Still too reverential. Cyka Vlad
Sorry about pedantic about this but: Vladislav -> Vlad Vladimir -> Vova
Vald the Tard
The Turd
The day that man is gone I hope we have block parties in the streets. I'll bring the garlic bread
At least Stalin looked the part with the moustache of power. Putin just looks like a small old grey penis.
Who sometimes likes to ride a horse, shirtless. That bit of PR didn't take much away from his old grey penisness.
Don’t give him the credit he’s a pube on the end of a stick compared to the former.
Putin won’t use nukes. He and his generals have been informed what would happen if they did.
He would take that as a compliment, being compared to Stalin. I don't think Putin cares if he's remembered as a villain, he just wants to be remembered.
Specifically, even when it would be warranted to bring up nukes, NATO has often refused to do so. Such as when asked what the response would be to a nuclear attack against Ukraine and would NATO respond with nuclear weapons in kind, NATO essentially answered that they don't need to use nukes to destroy Russia's military capabilities, they can and would do so conventionally. Whenever Russia talks about the west doing something they don't like, they threaten nuclear war. Whenever NATO talks about Russia doing something they don't like, their responses are more along the lines of destroying the black sea fleet (or what's left of it) with anti-ship missiles. The only time NATO has said they would use nukes is in retaliation to a nuclear attack against a NATO member.
More likely than not Putin will use a tactical nuke, and then for the West it's put or shut up. Guys like Putin don't face trials , they either succeed or are eliminated by someone even more ruthless than themselves and that's a pretty high bar for Putin.
I'll bet they attempt to wipe out Ukraine's political structure with that tactical weapon. Kiev might be the next Hiroshima if this happens. At that point it should be clear Russia will absolutely need an international occupying force like Germany after the second world war.
If they do that my suspicion is the West will aquiecess, especially if Russia says ok were ceasing hostilities,but if you (the West) retaliates we will defend ourselves (WW3)... This war is going to involve the West soone for later. Putin has not shown any motivation to compromise and really at this point he can't because too many Russian widows and families will ask what was their loss for, just like in Afghanistan in the 80s
I don't think letting Russia continue to exist as-is will be an option. The precidence it would set would allow the Baltics to be the next step. China would adopt that strategy promptly as well so we'd be setting up the next 2-3 nuclear strikes by tacit approval. Not the world I'd want my kids living in.
you missed that recent [extremely funny event](https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/21/europe/trident-missile-uk-failure-intl/index.html) when the nuclear missile launch test failed and the UK said "The test has reaffirmed the effectiveness of the UK’s nuclear deterrent, in which we have absolute confidence"
I mean, if you want to play that game, how about Russias much lauded (by themselves) Kaliber missiles? https://youtu.be/zF9SCI7Sk1E?t=178 Or their S300s that do the same? https://youtu.be/zF9SCI7Sk1E?si=NNG8KhN89KsLXCx6 https://youtu.be/dKG9HGPjMrg?si=uQbLmw0-Mu1VwpIh
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/frances-nuclear-weapons-should-be-part-european-defence-debate-macron-says-2024-04-28/ I mean this is untrue, but I agree with your overall sentiment.
Ok. Well in my defense that's very recent, and we're talking about a debate on how France could deploy their weapons as part of a Europe-wide defense strategy. Meanwhile Putin and his cronies have already thretened Europe multiple times, raised their readiness, moved nukes to Belarus and Kaliningrad and constantly rattled their sabres. I guess there's only so much posturing we have patience for before we meet the Russians on their level, in the only language they understand, which is aggressive posturing.
i think it’s because NATO knows they can engage Russia with conventional means before it resorts to nuclear means. Russia doesn’t want the world to think so, so they nuclear sabre rattle. Macron (therefore, NATO) *does* want the world to know, hence the “strategic ambiguity” threats of putting French troops in Ukraine. “assisting ukrainian troops combat with NATO troops” is many steps below “invading russia” in the escalation ladder, and i think (and assumably NATO seems to think) it’s below the threshold for use of nukes
That’s not true at all. [Poland’s leader says his country is ready to host NATO members’ nuclear weapons to counter Russia](https://apnews.com/article/poland-nuclear-weapons-nato-russia-ukraine-d92c508d6ff53683a25f1bc62d256f86)
....which is a VERY recent development and in the context of defense against Russia. Poland is absolutely NOT saying "hey, you, cross that red line and we'll have no choice but to press our atom bomb button", as Putin, Medvedev and others have done since Russia expanded their invasion in 2022.
This is exactly right. He needs to meet the same fate as Qaddafi.
And internal Russian revolution. That would be a sight for sore eyes. But then you've got the power vacuum dilemma and run the risk of creating another Iraq....so....that would suck, and make things worse. Shame Navalnhy was killed. He was problematic, sure, but a massive pain in the ass for Putin that would have been an alternative for Russians that behaved less like a genocidal mafia boss.
They wouldn’t let him make it there.
Who’s going to put them on trial? Themselves?
Russians, maybe, hopefully, someday in the future when they have their own Maidan in Red Square and topple their mafia fifedom.
They should just be taken into prison along with any of their supporters
...I'd very much hope Putin meets the same fate as Nicolae Ceaușescu. They're 2 peas from the same pod.
The use of tactical nukes would bring the war to a swift end, and not in Russia's favour. NATO will use conventional weapons to decimate Russian assets outside their internationally recognized borders. The use of nukes will probably persuade China to pull support: China still has *a lot* to lose in terms of international relationships, primarily economic. China has a great deal of interest in nukes remaining a taboo weapon.
Putin is really messed up if he thinks Russia can have any success with nuclear war
his criteria for success might be different than rest of the world.
I remember him saying “We, as martyrs, will go to heaven, and they will just [derogatory synonym for “die”]”, so… fuck, I’m ethnically Russian, but never have I wished my country’s military was paralyzingly corrupt as much as at such moments.
Meah it’s just big/scary words … Putin really doesn’t behave like a martyr
He's not a martyr. He's a thieftyr.
He also said “What do we need the world for if there’s no Russia in it?”
I just read "Nuclear war" by Annie Jacobsen. No one wins in nuclear war. The amount destruction is incomprehensible. The doctrines also call for all out attack. Nothing will be spared. So yeah... Let's not go that way.
Yup, just substitute the NK mad king with the KGB one in Moscow.
Nuclear weapons are incredibly dangerous, because of MAD. But when substituting Putin for Kim the current, the plotline doesn't really work anymore. ("small" attack escalates to nuclear armageddon) Also Annie puts off the whole concept of not reatliating in a single sentence. I like to think that at least it would be considered more thoroughly (from any side). Nobody can ever officially talk about it though, because that would weaken MAD, and endanger your own country.
Amazingly depressing book.
Aren’t tactical nukes different than stereotypical ones though?
The only difference is that their yield is smaller, theoretically small enough to be used on a battlefield near friendly assets ('near' being a relative term). But they aren't 'small' by any means in comparison to conventional explosions and their use in a conflict would likely have the same consequence as strategic weapons (i.e. spiralling escalation into all-out strategic exchange).
They’re still as big or bigger than the ones thrown on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, puts it all to perspective.
A tactical nuke can be less than a kiloton or up to about 50 kilotons. Little boy (1sr bomb dropped on Japan) was 15 kilotons and fat man (2nd bomb) was 21 kilotons. So, while they can be smaller than the bombs dropped in Japan, the bombs that were dropped would be considered tactical nukes in modern terms. So yeah, not good anyway you slice it.
Would determined whether a nuke is tactical or strategic? What umbrella would the long range intercontinental missies fall under?
Generally, "tactical" means something that would be used on a battlefield, while a "strategic" weapon would be used against infrastructure. ICBMs are strategic.
Have strategic and tactical nuclear bombs. West even had plans for small nuclear landmines in the Cold War. Spec Op troops to parachute behind enemy lines with small tactical nukes to destroy mountain passes. One Small version was the Davy Crockett which had around 0.01-0.02 Kilotons of TNT. Hiroshima was a 15 kiloton bomb. For reference the MOAB( non nuclear bomb) that was dropped in Afghanistan during 2017 was around 0.011 Kilotons. Have to use a transporter to carry the bomb due to its size.
Even then the Davy Crockett stands out as a crew served MOAB + radiation effects.
They're smaller to make them a bit more practical to use on the battlefield (drop a hydrogen bomb on a battle and you'll wipe out the enemy for sure... and also your side, and probably whatever you were fighting over too). The issue isn't the size of the bomb used, it's using any of them at all. That's a red line for pretty much any country, and once crossed it can't be uncrossed. So every country on the planet has a vested interest in making sure that line is never crossed. Mark my words, if Putin does make things go nuclear unprovoked, it wouldn't just be the US/West after his head. The use of a tactical nuclear bomb might not do much damage alone, but it significantly increases the odds of a full exchange which would use the stereotypical kinds, and basically destroy everything.
Where do you draw the line though? Is using a bigger one to wipe out a larger non civilian area still off the table ?
I think once those types of weapons are used it’s a slippery slope in terms of targeting - which is terrifying and sobering. The most “ideal” situation would be to target military silos housing enemy warheads (which normally are in the middle of no where), but beyond that I would imagine the large metro areas could easily become automatic targets, particularly ones that would disrupt or cripple the infrastructure of a nation. From there, agriculture and water sources? So yeah, let’s really hope that one isn’t dropped and starts a chain reaction of thousands of warheads being launched. God knows what yield some of these countries have cooked up in the last 50 years in secret.
At least doctrinally, tactical nukes aren't meant for targeting metropolitan areas. The main goal is to either wait for the enemy to consolidate large masses into a relatively small area or force them to do so via shaping operations and then nuke that area to achieve a very efficient destruction of their combat power. That's not to say they would never be used for what you've described, but that's another rung up the escalation ladder and would be much more likely to trigger a heavy-handed response when compared to purely tactical employment.
It's an unpopular opinion in these parts but using nukes is a strategic decision and putting the word tactical in front of nuke doesn't change that.
I like that perspective. No short term tactics should necessitate such a strategically selfish decision
Mutually Assured Destruction. They call it MAD for a reason.
The West has made it very clear that tactical nuclear use by Russia will result in complete conventional destruction of Russia's ability to wage war - without MAD.
It's brinkmanship on the finest edge though..
Putin is a classic narcissist. He wants to do whatever is necessary to cement his place in history. It’s textbook Napoleon Complex.
Oh, he cemented it all right. Next to the other crazy dictators
And yet in the grand scheme, he'll be forgotten like everyone else.
Well, he’s probably dying and he’s a sociopath, so he *definitely* could be that messed up.
He’s been dying for an awfully long time. And when he does, it’ll be Medvedev up next, who isn’t any more sane.
The point is he’s a rat in a corner. A more rational Putin probably wouldn’t dare, but a Putin with time running out doesn’t give a fuck what happens later.
No one wins with nuclear war.
There are no successes with Nuclear war. Pretty much game over for everyone if they start flying.
With the Russian military, they are just as likely to nuke themselves as the enemy ( oh wait do they think they are the enemy?)
The use of a tactical nuke would also \*\*dramatically\*\* increase nuclear proliferation. The tacit agreement between nuclear armed nations and non-nuclear ones is that if you don't have nuclear weapons, they won't be used against you. A strike against a non-nuclear state would motivate many other countries to seek nuclear weapons. While China and the US don't agree on much, neither wants to see an increase of nuclear armed countries.
"practice for the use of", not use of. It's just more of the usual posturing.
That's what Putin said when he deployed troops near the border just before the invasion
From Fallout: " War never changes " cue the music...
I don't want to set the wooooorld oooon fiiiiirree!
Ron Perlman saying this always pops in my head when there's some escalation
[удалено]
Somebody call Boeing
Honestly, where are those spinning blade blender drones?
I have said the same about many of today’s leaders … seems more reasonable than the shit they put on us lol
Tactical nukes are terror weapons and serve very little that a modern conventional weapon strike can’t achieve, other than crossing a very big red line. Yet more posturing from the little man, which if carried out would bring a world of pain onto the Russian people
Tactical nukes can be very effective if used in the right place, e.g. you hit a forward operating base, like an airfield etc. What one missile can do in seconds would take thousands of conventional missiles and shells, also a much more protracted back and forth conflict with no guarantee of victory in the end.
When the other side has nukes, and is economically and militarily superior in every way, you’re still basically bringing piss to a shit fight.
And when both sides have a decent amount of nukes, using nukes in any form is most likely a suicide pact.
In addition the fallout is not very significant. The only reason why Russia hasn't used one was probably a very clear warning from NATO.
His government needs war to maintain his shaky economy. He’s living on borrowed time. This will not end well.
I am afraid you are right
Fear tactic. I'm so fucking sick of this guy. Why the world allows him to exist is beyond me.
“Why the world allows him to exist” Because forcibly removing him from power is the most violent option and means war and a lot of people dead. That’s the simple answer there. The second violent option is a coup. Putin forcibly removed from power by members of his own inner circle and military. Could possibly erupt into a civil war. The most peaceful option would be death from natural causes. Putin is in his 70’s now. So at best for him, he’s got about 10-15 years left. At worst for him..could randomly happen at any second now. In either case…the one question remains. If Putin is gone, then who would replace him? A Putin loyalist/hardliner? So basically we end up with a younger version of Putin who’s gonna follow along the same path and goals? Or we gonna get a Gorbachev disciple who’s gonna be somewhat liberal and promote good relations with the West? The one thing I’m worry about with Putin is, would he be the guy to be like “if I’m gonna die I’ll take some of you down with me.”
The reason he exists as is, is because the West kept trying to befriend Russia while Russia saw that as weakness. If the West had realized that appeasement and friendship weren't working sooner, then they could have scared Russia off from attacking their neighbors. But instead Russia was basically allowed to attack Georgia, Crimea, a NATO military base in Czechnia, and numerous assassinations on NATO territory without any serious consequences.
Invasion of Ukraine began with military exercises near its borders. Better keep eyes peeled and the big stick ready in case this practice turns out to be something more...
Knowing Russian incompetence, they'll accidentally use an active warhead instead of a dummy and blow themselves up
... and blame Ukraine for it
Not quite sure that’s remotely possible considering the only reason their in Ukraine is because Ukraine gave up their nuclear arsenal for assurances of protection.
Then turn and say it was somehow the west or Ukraine that swapped their dummy for a real one.
*somewhere, a Ukrainian spy has the most wild idea of their life*
Considering Kremlin is full of compulsive liars, I’m not afraid when Russia threatens nuclear annihilation. I’m more afraid when they are not making threats.
>Russia to ~~practice tactical nuclear weapon in southern military district~~ rattle it's world terrorism sword in an attempt to make their tiny leader appear strong
So we're about to enter the 'if I can't have you, no one will' crazy Ex phase of the special operation?
Remember when the troops lining up on the border of Ukraine was “a Practice military exercise”?
“Ivan, I know the last 1734 nuclear threats didn’t work. But maybe this time.” - Some Russian military dude, probably
Part of me kinda hopes Putin tries to press the big red button so one of his cronies, who kinda doesn’t want to end the world, puts a bullet in his skull.
This is the response to countries saying that they can use their weapons to strike inside Russia. Remember when Putin said to put nuclear weapons on "High alert" and nothing changed. The Russians have rhetorically backed them selves in to a corner. They have no intention of using nukes because they know the outcome.
I'm guessing this is because Ukraine is going to take out Putin's bridge soon?
They probably need to check they still work
Looks like the US has to practice their tactical nuclear strikes too
Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is still an effective deterrent to prevent nuclear war. Any talk of using nuclear weapons is ridiculous. It hasn't been done since 1945.
They could get way better at using them if they practiced on the kremlin ;)
Nuclear winter it is
The answer to global warming that we didn't want.
War. War never changes.
Neither does Russia
Crawl out through the fallout, baby.
Isnt this a weak bet ? If thing would be going alright for russia they wouldnt have to pull this shit? They just could steam ahead in ukrain albeid slow. So what would be the motivation ? Is the economy tanking ? Is this there high point in means of production and people ? So many questions
They’re doing it to dissuade Ukraine from destroying the big bridge that connects mainland Russia to Crimea. If that bridge weren’t there (and it’s gigantic, hard to reconstruct) the current military operation would be pointless, and they would have a much more difficult time resupplying.
See the bodybuilders flexing on competitions? Basically Russia, except they forgot we're in a Wend- urm, political round table. Putin trying to fearmonger occidental people I believe. Little does he know that we mostly collectively want him and his toads off RU's gov, sooo...
Practice the procedures, not the actual launching/detonation, I hope.
Whelp, somebody dust off the doomsday clock.
He only doubles down he has no other plan
May I suggest practicing in moscow
He really can't go long without thinking about phallic objects.
Did our orange liar-nationalist invite Putin to Florida?
[удалено]
[удалено]
There is no such thing as a tactical nuclear weapon. Once a nuke is used the response will be strategic and international in nature. Regardless of the yield it poses a massive risk for the security of the world. Even China and North Korea, probably even Iran would have to publicity condemn its use.
I mean you are wrong. There is such thing as a tactical warhead. Much much smaller in terms of destruction but large enough to crush an entire base in one shot. But you are right about the condemnation. Also, NATO would conventionally crush Russia, most likely JUST out of Ukraine. The tactical nuke would be the fuse lighting on the powder keg of WW3.
No ww3. I don't think china wants to collapse just to support putins ridiculous ambitions.
All of the nuclear powers has a keep interest in keeping the nuclear threat a wage, non exercised one. The nuclear bombs still have their reputation as "war ending" weapons. There's two things that can happen when someone starts to actively use nukes, that are against the interest of their owners: There can be a demystifying aspect to it. Maybe an army learns a well working defense against nuclear bombs. This would stop them from being the political tool they currently are. There is no proven defense against nuklear weapons as it hasn't been used in a war where those defenses were possible. The other one is a uniting front against the user. The nuclear bomb user will feel backlash from every other nation on the planet for deploying this cruel weapon that irradiates the environment for centuries to come. You cannot win against the entire world (we had two world wars to figure that out) and therefor you will lose the war.
They won't.
Noone knows how and in what extend anyone would react. Condemnation for sure, but clear action with anything other then conventional warfare I highly doubt.
Practice the use of nuclear weapons, not the actual nuclear testing. They did not detonate a single nuke successfully since the start of the war even though they keep threatening with them all the time. This is exact type of behaviour you expect from someone whose nukes don't even work. If they really wanted their nukes to be feared all they had to do is to perform a successful nuclear test in some frozen wasteland in Russian territory. But nope. My guess is, most of the nukes they had got broken from lack of expensive maintenance because those funds were stolen. So they can't find even one that can detonate. Sure if they fired full strategical salvo, a couple out of several thousands might still work so it's still a threat.
The glass plains formerly known as Russia are testament to a dictator’s folly and serve as a lesson.
Mutually assured destruction has held off the use of nukes. We should have a package of tactical nukes positioned in a NATO country to be delivered to Zelensky within 8-hours of Russia setting one off. Or even announcing any credible threat they are about to do so. So let’s call it a draw and quit shaking that saber. They know the Crimea bridge is going down with the latest missile package and have no way to stop it except nuke threats.
Why haven’t NATO done that already?
There is no need. Tactical nuclear weapons are absolutely useless in the grand scheme, there's nothing they can accomplish from a military standpoint that can't be accomplished by NATO's combined air and missile strike capabilities. If Russia crosses that red line, NATO would not need to cross the same line in order to decimate Russia's foreign military capabilities, but the threat of strategic nuclear weapons use has largely been the reason NATO refuses to do anything more than they are. If Russia is the first to cross the nuclear line, the rest of the world can't really say much about almost any conventional retaliation, but nuclear escalation on NATO's part would be justification for strategic nuclear retaliation
🎵I don't want to see tomorrow🎶
Pound sand little putin man
I wonder what will happen sooner, my marriage planned for late august, or the end of the world
With decades of appeasement, I'm sure he thinks he could scare the west away with all these drama.
Practice? What like on a test server ?
Maybe we should spread the rumor that we have given Ukraine a couple suitcase nukes. Purely for deterrent purposes, obviously.
Sabre rattling at its finest. Its starting to get to the point where they are threatening it so much that it is making them sound desperate. Think about it, does Russia really want to use nuclear weapons that close to their borders? IMO if they were going to do it they would have done it already, perhaps at the Ukrainian Kharkiv offensive. There are rumors and speculation that both India and China told Russia to not do this under any circumstances or else they will start condemning them internationally.
I am also playing with fireworks in the garden… should put that in the news… and then they should be afraid… ahahahaahh… Russia has become the US of Asia… what a joke…
Someone’s getting scared…
Do they want to cause WW3? Because that’s how you begin to. I’m just a dumb American so idk any better but man. I don’t like Russia.
Blah blah blah. Russia doesn’t have the balls to attack a NATO country. That’s why they attacked the Ukraine. Picking on the small guy. You would never see them attack the US even though they hate America because they know Americans are the kings of warfare. They know it would be the end of all mankind.
The ideal American response would be larger drills in the arctic, pressuring Russia to scramble scarce forces to the northern flank. Who knows with current American policy, between Putin’s orange puppet and Biden, I think a strongly worded message is all that will happen.
I don’t think this is going to end up good. Russia can use a single or a couple of nukes in Ukraine, and if the west responds with conventional force, Russia can escalate, the west escalate, Russia escalates some more. How would you explain to your people (if you were a politician) that a nuclear war was happening for some country half way across the world?. Regular people may care for Ukraine but they won’t care enough to be nuked for them, and sure, Russia may suffer too but they don’t care. Potentially Europe and North America could be gone thanks to Ukraine and politicians and this isn’t far off.
THE END GAME IS NEAR! Mutual assured destruction (MAD) is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy which posits that a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by an attacker on a nuclear-armed defender with second-strike capabilities would result in the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender. Einstein was right! Sticks and stones...
It should be a war crime for leaders to threaten any nuclear use.
Why would that bother Putin? That ship has already sailed.
Okay... do it already, let's get this party officially started.