top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 76 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I think they weren't ever going to use them because they know they would get nuked in turn. Once it became clear the bluff wasn't working, makes you look weak to use a threat and not follow through.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Plus many of them are so poorly maintained they likely wouldn't launch anyway. Missiles have a lot of upkeep

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    While this may well be true, Russia has so many nukes and nukes are themselves so destructive that it's kinda cold comfort even if 90% of them fail

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago*

    You wouldn't even need a working one. A lot of nuclear responses work by going off the moment a likely missile fitting that criteria launches, since it would be too late otherwise.

    Someone making the wrong decision at a given time could easily cause everything to go up in a nuclear conflagration. It's nearly happened before.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    Comrade what do with many ICBM no longer function?

    I have a best solution we take derelict submarine insert many warhead call it Poseidon. Is glorious Soviet superweapon Dah.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Yep. Mutually Assured Destruction.

    Some countries will use the threat of nuclear war to get what they want. But what they want often involves still being alive afterwards. Putin, like the rest of the leaders of countries with nuclear arms, knows that a nuclear strike demands a nuclear response. There is no other option and unfortunately the whole world suffers as a result.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Although I don't think pootin cares about his people and wont care if they get killed.

    He may care about himself but he is a old man now with nothing left.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    He should at the very least care about the oligarchs in the country who are reliant on the Russian people to build and maintain their wealth. There's no wealth without people.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    My understanding is China reminded them of their policies on nuclear escalation.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    The threat wasn't to attack. It was more of a warning, saying that if NATO was to step onto Russian soil he would use them.

    Nuclear weapons are basically a defensive weapon. You never aim to use them but you have them as a deterrent. No country wants to mess with it or test whether a nuclear nation would use it

    To do so is suicide, both to call their bluff or to use the weapons. So you get into a state where militarily no one can do anything (except wage a war in a country that doesn't have nuclear weapons).

    That's kinda the purpose of nuclear weaponry. To use then it's basically game over for everyone everywhere.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    you get into a state where militarily no one can do anything (except wage a war in a country that doesn't have nuclear weapons)

    ok, I got it. Give every country nuclear weapons and then there is nowhere to wage war.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago

    The proviso of this is that all the countries involved are led by sane, (reasonably) rational leaders. It also breaks down if they get into the hands of non-governmental forces. If they get into the hands of someone willing to act irrationality, a lot of people will be very screwed.

    Interestingly, Ukraine was once a nuclear power. They had a significant chunk of the USSR's arsenal. They decommissioned them, due to safety concerns. Part of that deal was protection from invasion (both from Russia and NATO). I suspect they now regret giving up their nukes.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago*

    Well military yes. You still have economic and cyber wars and colour revolutions (upsetting the locals to raise up against the power). Which honestly you're seeing more of.

    Don't worry, the powers will always find ways to innovate.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    MAD.

    If Russia uses nukes what is stopping other atomic powers from hitting Russia?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • I always loved this acronym, because while it means Mutual Assured Destruction, which is a given in a world with numerous nuclear-weaponry-equiped nations, it's clear that someone who thought they could just send out nukes and not get any in return is literally madder than a hatter.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I'll go ahead and venture another guess I don't see mentioned yet. It was one of many stall tactics he's employed, hoping to drag things out while the West (specific groups at least) grows weary of paying for proxy war.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago

    Honestly I suspect the countries supporting Ukraine are the ones dragging it out. Russia is getting it's military destroyed.

    Five digit numbers of armored vehicles gone, around a thousand aircraft, incredibly expensive and irreplaceable military equipment in flames, and many men never coming home.

    Russia is hurting because of this war, so from a certain cold-hearted utilitarian perspective the war is a good thing. Someone living somewhere like Latvia, and old enough to remember how badly the Russians treated them during the USSR, would see their military getting destroyed as a blessing even if they were sad to see the Kremlin leaving a trail of bodies through Donbas.

    People act like Russia can just keep on fighting because of it's larger population, but it was having serious demographic trouble before this even started. Whereas Ukrainians have a just cause, and they're defending their homes and families.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    I am starting to heavily consider the option that this account is a bot. Look at his history

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] [S] 6 points 2 years ago (2 children)
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Because they are no longer scared of losing.

    They stopped the counteroffensive and the west is cooling on the whole support for Ukraine thing. They think they can win this now.

    And unless we do something, they could very well be right.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    And actually, nukes are part of the reasons we won't do much. Not only western nations aren't keen to send their kids dying in Ukraine. But Russia has nuke. A nuclear power engaging an offensive inside the territory of another nuclear power is a big risk of nuclear escalation. Remember the missile crisis in Cuba ? US officers considered a preemptive nuclear strike.

    Nuclear power fight each other by proxy. See how NATO provide weapon to Ukraine, or how Wagner mercenaries attacked french troops in Africa.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago

    The Boy Who Cried "Wolf."

    Ever heard it?

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    If I remember correctly it was always the clown Medwedew who threatened to use nuclear weapons and throw them on London or some other bullshit, but never Putin directly

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    Read "The Butter Battle Book" by Dr. Seuss....

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    Haha! Pooted

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    He finally got an accurate inventory and found out all of the delivery systems and most of the nukes had required components sold off by the commanders

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›