- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmit.online
- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmit.online
President Vladimir Putin warned the West on Wednesday that Russia was technically ready for nuclear war and that if the U.S. sent troops to Ukraine it would be considered a significant escalation of the war.
Putin, speaking just days before a March 15-17 election which is certain to give him another six years in power, said the nuclear war scenario was not “rushing” up and he saw no need for the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
“From a military-technical point of view, we are, of course, ready,” Putin, 71, told Rossiya-1 television and news agency RIA in response to a question whether the country was really ready for a nuclear war.
Putin said the U.S. understood that if it deployed American troops on Russian territory - or to Ukraine - Russia would treat the move as an intervention.
You must log in or register to comment.
He starts sounding like Kim Jong Un.
Starts?
It doesn’t matter who he sounds like … he has access and control to hundreds of nuclear weapons that can land anywhere on the planet.
Kimmy boy might have one nuclear weapon that will more than likely be shot down before it left Asia.
Well, sort of.
NK has more than one now, though you’re right that it’s not many.
googles
This is as of late 2022.
This issue examines North Korea’s nuclear arsenal. The authors cautiously estimate that North Korea may have produced enough fissile material to build between 45 and 55 nuclear weapons; however, it may have only assembled 20 to 30.
However, they can definitely mess up South Korea if they don’t mind losing a war. They have a shit-ton of artillery at the border within range of South Korean population centers, a lot of it in caves and bunkers. IIRC estimates are that it’d take over a week for us to destroy that, and in that time, they could cause a lot of damage in South Korea.
North Korea’s Heavy Artillery Capabilities Matter More than its Nuclear
Russia can definitely hit the US first and and wreck the US. However, I’m not sold that Russia still retains second-strike capability against the US – or at least that the US military believes that it necessarily does or will – and that’s a big change from the Cold War. The US has been putting a lot of resources into first strike enablers.
https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/files/publication/is3004_pp007-044_lieberpress.pdf
The End of MAD? The Nuclear Dimension of US Primacy
The major point here is that the US doesn’t have missile defenses adequate to destroy launches from Russia’s arsenal if Russia launches first…but may well have the ability to destroy all launches from what remains of Russia’s arsenal following a US first strike. The reverse is probably not true of Russia – the US probably does have a second-strike capability against Russia.
And it’s a pretty good bet that the US isn’t spending on that capability unless it believes it to have a role.
You have the changes to nuclear warheads to give them very precise detonation times that improves their effectiveness against hardened targets (like silos):
That’s irrelevant for a countervalue strike, but important for a counterforce strike, and in particular if one uses depressed trajectory ballistic missile launches from submarines, they can be coupled with short flight times.
Upgrading the hydrophone network, which is important for finding submarines and being able to kill them prior to them performing an SLBM launch.
https://thediplomat.com/2016/11/us-navy-upgrading-undersea-sub-detecting-sensor-network/
Work on conventional hypersonics. Unlike Russia and China, the US hasn’t worked on nuclear hypersonics. Nuclear hypersonics are useful if you’re worried about an adversary’s ballistic missile defense capabilities being able to intercept your ballistic missiles. But the US has shown a lot of interest in putting conventional warheads on hypersonic vehicles. There are a limited number of reasons you’d want a very fast, hard-to-intercept, very-expensive conventional weapon. A first strike against nuclear weapons is one. Any nuclear weapon destroyed by a conventional one doesn’t consume one of the attacker’s nuclear warheads. They don’t have a deterrence or second-strike role, because they aren’t useful as a countervalue weapon. But they are helpful in a first strike.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventional_Prompt_Strike
Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS), formerly called Prompt Global Strike (PGS), is a United States military effort to develop a system that can deliver a precision-guided conventional weapon strike anywhere in the world within one hour, in a similar manner to a nuclear ICBM.[1][2] Such a weapon would allow the United States to respond far more swiftly to rapidly emerging threats than is possible with conventional forces. A CPS system could also be useful during a nuclear conflict, potentially replacing the use of nuclear weapons against up to 30% of targets.[3]
A shift to stealthy nuclear-capable aircraft and delivery platforms. These permit for strike without much by way of warning. Note that these have non-first-strike applications as well (though they can certainly enable such a strike).
As of this month, the F-35 is nuclear-certified:
https://breakingdefense.com/2024/03/exclusive-f-35a-officially-certified-to-carry-nuclear-bomb/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-21_Raider
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-181_LRSO
Meanwhile, Russia has been lugging some oddball delivery systems out of the closet, like a nuclear strategic torpedo. That’s useful if Russia is worried about the credibility of their existing second-strike capability in the presence of US anti-ballistic-missile systems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_System
Point is, if Russia doesn’t have a credible second-strike capability against the US, then Russia can only lean on the threat of nuclear weapon use so far as leverage, because if the US really does think that Russia has a high likelihood of engaging in nuclear war, the US is a lot more likely than Russia to launch first, as it becomes possible to successfully perform a disarming strike. The “oh, look, I invaded Estonia, do you want to have a nuclear war over it” gambit, where one tries to convince the other guy that they’re more-willing to have a nuclear war than you are, becomes a lot more dangerous for Russia, because the threshold for the US to say “yes” drops quite a bit relative to Russia’s threshold.
The scary thing I find about long winded arguments about nuclear conflict is that at one point, the leaders holding the triggers eventually come to the conclusion that you either launch everything all at once or you don’t … in the cold logic of nuclear warfare, each side only has one chance at “winning” and at the very least imposing as much damage as possible to the other side if you are likely to lose - which means there is no middle or moderate option, you either do it all or nothing because there will be no after.
So no matter what military logic that anyone can explain … there are only two options to nuclear warfare … either nothing happens … or everything gets launched and we all die (or at least 90% of us will)
In that context, if nuclear Armageddon does occur … it won’t matter who started it … all that will matter is who survives it. And chances are the survivors will never know what happened or why.
You underestimate the US’s military budget. Our nukes are in fact maintained.
I’m not sure what you’re referring to. I didn’t intend to say that they weren’t.
I’m rather more afraid of a guy with just one than I am a guy with enough to wipe out the entire world.
the guy with just one is more likely to use it.
but, I’m not convinced russia’s capability isn’t critically degraded. they have warheads, sure, but do they have the incredibly expensive and difficult-to-maintain delivery systems?
It’s a question of numbers and volume … the US or the Russians can stop a dozen maybe 20 long range nuclear weapons of whatever type. If North Korean launched everything they had, the US will likely be able to take all of them down if they were aimed at the US. One, two or three may make it through but I don’t think so, the US has hundreds of anti-missile systems so they have lots of chances to take stuff down.
The scary scenario is with the Russians … each side will launch thousands of weapons, dummy weapons, anti-missile, and actual missile systems … in all out warfare, they’ll fill the sky with all kinds of equipment to counter, counter-counter, counter-counter-counter systems and it all will still mean hundreds of nuclear weapons will make it to their target.
Well, before the war they were the prime provider for orbital launches, so … maybe?
They had space know how.
But look at the relative budgets set aside for the nukes. No way they’re maintaining dedicated equipment.
To be clear, we can’t plan on that, especially since there are other ways to deliver a nuke. (Ie simply by handing it to terrorists; and letting them smuggle it into a target…)
Yeah but what’re you gonna do? 🤷♂️ He either does it or he doesn’t. We can’t really stop him before but sure as hell can after.
Could maybe try not antagonizing the absolute fuck out of Russia for years without good cause. It’s pretty wild how everyone is so cavalier about the prospect of possible extinction level events.
Damn those Ukrainians, they got invaded and started all of this
Based on that map that Lukashenka had with the troop movements that included Odesa to Moldova back before the whole victory-in-a-few-days thing fell apart, I assume that the Moldovans were guilty of being in the general vicinity and not having a large military.
Which I guess also “antagonizes the absolute fuck out of Russia”.
A Russia first strike would not result in anything close to extinction for any species (except maybe the Moscovite Ork).
Yeah, those Ukrainians had it coming, having fair elections & kicking out Putin’s stooges like they did.
I wonder what he’ll do to the USA when we incarcerate Trump for the rest of his worthless life?
I can never understand the logic of never looking at the issue from the Russian side.
I’m no fan of Russia or Putin but I also know that no one should poke sticks at a wild bear and then call foul when the bear starts growling at them and then cry blame when the bear attacks.
You are right, the west is antagonizing someone that can lead us into Nuclear Armageddon and everyone is trying to argue that it’s Russia’s fault.
I also can’t believe how Lemmy News can be filled with so many war hawks
It’s like he’s standing in front of a mirror, flexing his muscles, whispering to himself he’s the biggest and toughest mf’er around.
Just what the world needs. An imbecilic jackass who’s nuclear capable.
Just what the world needs. Another imbecilic jackass who’s nuclear capable.
There. FTFY.
Thanks. It is better than the original. 👍
That kind of man could exists, ok, but I don’t believe an imbecile military man still exists, capable of following such decisions. Movies did a great job at making such decisions look so dumb
Uh. What?
“If you help Ukraine, we might end all life on earth”. Putin knows that nuclear war is unwinnable, and would destroy his empire as well, so if he’s a rational actor, the only use of nuclear weapons is as a prop for bluffing.
if he’s a rational actor
That’s a pretty gigantic if there.
Putin is a rational actor. And his actions have been wildly successful so far in achieving his goals.
(Improving the lives of the Russian people is not among those goals)Well to a degree.
He certainly didn’t want Sweden and Norway to join NATO and I doubt he wanted a multi year long war in Ukraine.
But I do agree that he certainly won’t throw nukes just cause hurr durr he is such a crazy dictator.
Yep, he’s a tactician but not a strategist. He makes individual moves and bets that can be very successful. Like supporting/blackmailing (?) Trump, and interfering with the 2016 election. That was an incredible payoff for him. But he’s not in control strategically.
He is very rational, though, and would not cross a line that would force a US response that would remove him from power. Which is exactly what would happen if seriously attempted to initiate nuclear war, and if pretty much anyone but Trump was president.
He likes his palaces, wants to enjoy them, and wants the children he had with his mistresses to inherit them, surely.
He doesn’t really care, he’s very ill and trying to hide it and wanting to cement a ‘legacy’ before he is rendered unable to rule.
If that legacy is starting ww3, he feels that is a stretch goal.
Ruzzias latest “final warning”, LOL.
Fuck around & find out. If US troops are defending Ukraine, it’s too late for you Putin. At that point the Ruzzian Federation is at its end, one way or another, regardless of which button you push.
You know if Puntin was going down he is crazy enough to want to take the world with him. So be careful what you wish for.
So what? Then he’d do it either way. That doesn’t mean we should hiss the white flag and let him do as he pleases. Nuclear deterrence is not supposed to work like a blackmail to launch offensive operations against everyone else.
It was designed to do exactly that.
You don’t understand. If we are already rolling thru Eastern Europe, Ruzzia very obviously can’t stop us & can’t win regardless if it does nuke the USA.
Doing so would only hasten Putin’s demise.
deleted by creator
And USA would launch our nukes and guess what so will ever country that got them and that’s game over. Haven’t you seen War Games? There no winners in that scenario. And only two men are crazy enough to do just that Puntin and Trump.
And hopefully we can keep Trump out of office. But for Puntin we are stuck until he dies and lets hope it’s unsuspected and quick. Because if he thinks he going die he might want take us all with him.
Is it wednesday again already?
It is
China’s final warning.
I wonder if the cold war got this boring and obnoxious too or if that’s more a symptom of our modern & fast communication. Hearing those weekly nuclear threats is nothing but a clown show at this point.
First, I prefer boring vs bombs.
Secondly yes, the cold war was like this with all the Soviet leaders except Gorbachev.
It’s just the cold war was always displayed as this phase of fear and uncertainty. However, I just feel tired and annoyed by the constant babbling. Like, when I constantly read those nuclear threats from Russia I don’t shudder and cower, I just roll my eyes and groan.He should either throw the bombs and end civilization or just shut up already. It’s not like anyone could do anything about it either, so why even give a fuck about it?
I get it. It is boring rhetoric and simply shows Putin in a dick-measuring contest with himself.
But Ukraine cares ‘cause Congress’ power struggle is directly affecting their ability to battle against that fuckwad for their lives and country.
Maybe Putin made a mistake here tho by (possibly) showing his hand, ie: he may be considering the use of a low yield nuclear weapon in Ukraine and used this “warning” to keep America at bay. This is only a guess tho.
Bombing drills in schools instead of active shooter drills I think was a big difference domestically. There was a little gap there from around the mid 1990s to the early 2000s without either, but I got to see the tail end of one and then the introduction of the other.
I’m from Europe so I can’t relate to either.
No Russian leader would have said anything provocative about nukes back then.
Yeah, they just secretly installed them in Cuba.
As a child of the cold war, yes, it got really tedious except for those moments of existential dread as I laid in bed at night wondering if I would ever wake up or be turned to glowing ash at some point while I slept, and which would be worse.
Getting directly blasted in your sleep sounds alright to me. Certainly better than a slow and agonizing radiation poisoning death.
At the time we lived within the flash zone of a military base and was likely on a target list somewhere.
I took strange comfort in that it would be quick.
That fucked up book ‘When the Wind Blows’ also instilled a deep, persistent fear over that slow death.
WMDs like this are meant to inflict the most amount of damage possible, so I think nukes would rather target the largest population centers, not so much military targets.
And this is what happens when your perspective on the world is informed by gut feelings and imagination instead of actual historic facts.
Every known military installation in North America had at least one nuke (most had several) already targeted. After the cold war, Russia shared some of its targeting data and it supports this.
They weren’t particularly interested in demoralizing the population, their goal was to remove our ability to make war.
But you are free to go on believing whatever you want, as I am sure you will do whether I mentioned it or not.
It’s based on literal precedence. lol
But you are free to rather be a smartass that takes Russia’s word for granted. You know, that one country that also claims to bomb military targets too, yet constantly hits civilians instead.precedence
Pretty sure you aren’t using that word correctly.
In fact I’m pretty sure you don’t really have anything to contribute here.
Oh, I thought it was tuesday, he said the same thing last tuesday, and the day before, and last week. And at the start of the war.
I’m pretty sure they’ve been ready for nuclear war since 1949.
Not really the same scenario.
China repeatedly warned the US in situations where the US was likely to do something. The US went right ahead and did it anyway, and China didn’t do anything.
Putin is warning the US about if the US sends troops, a scenario that the US has consistently said – as recently as the last few weeks – that it does not intend to do.
White House spokesman John Kirby said France was a ‘sovereign nation’ which, like any other NATO country, could make its own decision on whether to send troops to Ukraine.
But he added: ‘The only U.S. military personnel in Ukraine are associated with the embassy…The president’s been clear. There’s not going to be U.S. troops on the ground.’
That’s probably a pretty safe warning for Putin to issue, because the US is unlikely to do what he’s warning about.
This isn’t the first time they threatened nukes. Lines were crossed, and nothing happened. These threats no longer seem credible.
BTW, who’s gonna be his successor once he’ll pass away? Has that already been decided?
Nope. Any potentials are staying quiet in order to avoid accidentally exiting through a window.
So no list of names has been written? Neither a son in case it bocomes a new monarchy? I can’t believe it.
To be honest, without looking it up, I don’t even know how many kids he has.
They did a good job staying out of the limelight or the media is too scared to go after them. Either way, there’s little I can say about them.Nah, for now i rather think one of the oligarchs will eventually come out of the shadows to take over as the public figure while the rest keep them in check as counsel. They’ve been kept on a tight leash long enough to not want it happen for another generation.
Nothing official, but I believe it’s likely to be Nikolai Patrushev
“Technically” ready isn’t much of a boast about anything. Basically “yeah, you know we have nuclear weapons. Well, so we checked and they do work!” Well guess what Vladdo, the United States, France, the UK are also ‘technically ready’. But anyway, this is very different than saying we’re politically or strategically ready, so it’s not really news. Of course there are those soulless cretins on Russian TV discussing nuking Europe often, but nobody with a brain considers that anything other than an aggressive jerk-off session.
Nuclear weapons are incredibly expensive to maintain. I bet with all the greed and stealing of funds the Russian brass enjoys, all the money earmarked for that has been stolen and spent on big anime titty babushkas and yachts.
Again?
Sounds like Kim Jong Il, and his ineffectual son. I believe you Putin. I truly do.
Tankies: why would the US do this?
