Proposals had been made to change Russia's nuclear doctrine to allow for attacking any non-nuclear state that had the participation or support of a nuclear state, Putin said.

Proposals had been made to change Russia’s nuclear doctrine to allow for attacking any non-nuclear state that had the participation or support of a nuclear state, Putin said.

  • tal@lemmy.todayOPEnglish
    0·
    1 month ago

    I suppose “any non-nuclear state” here is intended to be read as “Ukraine”.

    • cheese_greater@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      1 month ago

      no tools

      Its the same thing with narc parents. They got nothing but the roof over your head so all day they make threats about it. They abuse the tiniest bit of power incessantly to create a dopamine skinner box of a life for themselves

  • Kyrgizion@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    1 month ago

    None of their nukes will ever get off the launching pad before exploding harmlessly. These empty threats ring hollow, as always.

    • fuckingkangaroos@lemm.eeEnglish
      0·
      1 month ago

      They just had a catastrophic failure when they tried to rattle their saber recently. They can’t even launch a single ICBM for intimidation.

      • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.caEnglish
        0·
        1 month ago

        That was testing a new missile, so not exactly the same thing. It still doesn’t inspire confidence, and the maintenance levels of the rest of their military doesn’t inspire confidence in the readiness of their existing nuclear arsenal.

  • sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyzEnglish
    0·
    1 month ago

    Mutually assured destruction was supposed to be a deterrent to anyone using nukes. Not to enable an aggressor force to do what they want without repercussions out of fear that they would use nukes. If they use nukes, at a minimum they’ll no longer exist. Probably along with the rest of us.

    • BeMoreCareful@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      1 month ago

      MAD exists between two nuclear armies. If you nuke us we’ll nuke you back. Ukraine gave up it’s nukes (from the Soviet era). No country will ever make that mistake again.

      It’s still a deterrent, just not here.

    • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      1 month ago

      Probably along with the rest of us.

      This is an age-old myth. If any of Puta’s nuclear delivery systems were actually successful in delivering the largest payload in their arsenal and detonating it, greater than 99% of the global population of humans would remain unharmed, even long term. And the likelihood that even one would be successful is exceedingly low.

      While we certainly don’t want thousands killed in a single strike, ruining an area for years and causing global panic, we are exceptionally prepared to prevent the very few that take flight from making it to their destination.

      The best shot at a detonation Putler has is driving the device to a target in a well-disguised box truck, just like any other terrorist.

      • Womble@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        1 month ago

        There is no reason to think Russia’s entire strategic nuclear arsenal is unusable. It’s entirely possible a decent chunk of it is due to corruption and neglect, but even if 10% work that’s still 160 city destroying nukes being detonated across Europe and North America if the world goes full MAD. That probably wouldn’t wipe out humanity but it would lead to hundreds of millions of people dying. Not something to be taken lightly.

        • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          1 month ago

          There is absolutely no scenario in which 160 or even 16 cities are hit with anything Putin launches.

          More than 30 capable nations, including the U.S. (who eclipses the rest combined) have been focusing their primary defense and intelligence efforts on countering Russia’s arsenal for the last 60 years. The most likely outcome of a nuclear attempt from Russia is that not even a single city is hit.

          The only effective nuclear offense Russia has is fear-mongering about a nuclear offense.

          • Womble@lemmy.worldEnglish
            0·
            1 month ago

            Wishing something to be true doesnt make it so. I havent seen any credible assessments that Russia’s strategic nuclear arsenal is so bad that it would be more that 90% non-functional. That’s an insane level of broken that there is just no reason to assume it.

            Put another way, way more than 10% of their tanks, planes, artillery and tactical ballistic missiles work, why would you assume that their strategic nukes are significantly worse?

            All of which isnt to say we should cower before Putin’s obviously empty nuclear threat, let Ukraine release the storm shadows! But to go from there to lol dumb Russians cant fire a single ICBM is just not credible.

  • maniii@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    1 month ago

    Putin is paranoid and insane.

    If he ever pushes the button and the Russian soldier “following orders” all of them will stand trial at the ICC for war-crimes against humanity and the entire-planet earth.

    The first nation that attempts at launching nukes success-or-failure will get crushed by the rest of the world.

    Nuclear-Mutually-Assured-Total-Destruction is not a joke. It is reality we live in everyday.

        • fuckingkangaroos@lemm.eeEnglish
          0·
          1 month ago

          Ahh I’m sorry to waste your time, I know about them. I just meant to say “there’s more than one!”

          It’s hard to take joy from anything in this war, but seeing the Kremlin’s ammunition lighting up the sky with a thousand foot fireball, knowing it would save many Ukrainian lives, was incredible. Some of the craters in the satellite photos are very impressive.

          • tal@lemmy.todayOPEnglish
            0·
            1 month ago

            There were three in three or four days, though the first depot, at Toropets, was the most-significant.

            At least the first involved a substantial number of Ukranian long-range UAVs – I saw “about 100” quoted in coverage of it – and given that this current statement references large UAV or missile strikes and comes shortly after those, I guess that it might indeed be in response to those.

            EDIT:

            https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/09/18/russia-may-have-stockpiled-its-best-missiles-at-an-arsenal-in-the-town-of-toropets-which-is-why-ukraine-just-blew-it-up-with-100-drones/

            That so many of Russia’s best munitions were reportedly concentrated in a single location explains why Ukraine devoted such a large force to the attack. RBC-Ukraine claimed more than 100 drones were involved—potentially making the Toropets raid the biggest Ukrainian strike on a target inside Russia since Russia widened its war on Ukraine 30 months ago.

            and here:

            “The conditions for Russia’s transition to the use of nuclear weapons are also clearly fixed,” Putin said, adding that Moscow would consider such a move if it detected the start of a massive launch of missiles, aircraft, or drones against it.

            • fuckingkangaroos@lemm.eeEnglish
              0·
              1 month ago

              I hope the speculation about them hitting missiles is right. Much harder to replace them than artillery shells or small arms ammunition.

  • Z3k3@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    1 month ago

    Ukraine is not attacking Russia. It’s a counter attack.

    Stopping those is easy with this 1 simple trick

  • ms.lane@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    1 month ago

    attacking any non-nuclear state that had the participation or support of a nuclear state, Putin said.

    This is also how you get Australia to start seriously considering a nuclear arsenal.

  • Destide@feddit.ukEnglish
    0·
    1 month ago

    We issue a Sunffaluffakus warning don’t make us release the Sunffaluffakus