news
Welcome to c/news! Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember... we're all comrades here.
Rules:
-- PLEASE KEEP POST TITLES INFORMATIVE --
-- Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed. --
-- All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. --
-- If you are citing a twitter post as news please include not just the twitter.com in your links but also nitter.net (or another Nitter instance). There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/libredirect/ or archive them as you would any other reactionary source using e.g. https://archive.today/ . Twitter screenshots still need to be sourced or they will be removed --
-- Mass tagging comm moderators across multiple posts like a broken markov chain bot will result in a comm ban--
-- Repeated consecutive posting of reactionary sources, fake news, misleading / outdated news, false alarms over ghoul deaths, and/or shitposts will result in a comm ban.--
-- Neglecting to use content warnings or NSFW when dealing with disturbing content will be removed until in compliance. Users who are consecutively reported due to failing to use content warnings or NSFW tags when commenting on or posting disturbing content will result in the user being banned. --
-- Using April 1st as an excuse to post fake headlines, like the resurrection of Kissinger while he is still fortunately dead, will result in the poster being thrown in the gamer gulag and be sentenced to play and beat trashy mobile games like 'Raid: Shadow Legends' in order to be rehabilitated back into general society. --
view the rest of the comments
I disagree this is just simply underscoring the well known fact that any nuclear armed regime would not allow itself to be topped by an outside power in conventional warfare without using said nukes to defend itself.
Effectively this is nothing new to anyone making decisions at this scale. If any country thinks that they'd be able to conventionally topple a nuclear power without a nuclear response they have the worst military planners ever.
If we replayed Barbarossa with Stalin having nukes, he would have never let the blitz get to Stalingrad let alone cross the Dnipro or arguably the Dneister. Whether the nukes target the front or the enemy cities doesn't really matter in these scenarios because the reaction/overreaction would effectively be world ending anyway.
The reality is that at this point ATACMS aren't going to do much, even if Ukraine defies the US and uses them outside "Kursk" (which has been a lulzy explainer by DoD tbh since they shot at Bryansk) they still aren't going to do much to turn the tide except give the US realistic data on how rocket artillary works against Russian interceptors.
There's like 225 possible targets within range, and Ukraine has fewer than 50 ATACMS missiles.
https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/8b060c46ee6f49908f9fb415ad23051c
Also this is the response to the fact that Ukraine used ATACMS on Bryansk, which were shot down.
So this is just saber rattling/dunking on your enemy. Russia is basically saying, even if your wildest dreams of NAFO ATACMS FAFO SHIBE DOGE HIMARS GHOST OF KYIV were possible and you could march straight up to Moscow under the cover of all Western power projection capabilities, we'd still retaliate with nukes. They will not simply capitulate to moving the front to a less advantageous position for them, even if it was technically possible as it is in the magical thinking scenarios of Westerners.
I think you misunderstand the problem here. The real issue is that these types of long range missiles can carry a nuclear payload. If Russia detects that a bunch of nuclear capable missiles are flying to Russia then they have to make call on whether it is a genuine nuclear first strike or just a conventional weapons attack. Russia has to treat that as a nuclear strike because otherwise deterrence does not work. It would tell NATO they can just lob nuclear capable missiles into Russia without any response, and at some point they could lob nuclear missiles. That's what makes the whole situation so incredibly dangerous.
Dismissing this as sabre rattling is incredibly misguided.
There is no known nuclear warhead that exists for the MGM-140 tactical ballistic missile, and the idea that the US would give one to Ukraine, or that Ukraine could develop one is completely insane.
Only if you're pretending that doctrine is to respond to nuclear attacks with nuclear attacks immediately without any real information. For weapons that Ukraine fields the SOP would literally be the same. The MGM-140 can be shot down by multiple Russian SAM systems. Nuclear warheads don't make nuclear detonations unless they are triggered correctly. This isn't a video game red barrel.
Every missile above a certain size is "nuclear capable". This phrase doesn't mean anything. Any world where your explainer is correct hinges on multiple misunderstandings.
AFAIR NATO countries haven't ever fielded TCMBs with nuclear warheads on mobile land platforms due to the risk. Mobile land-based launch platforms for nuclear TCBMs is typically only fielded by Russia/Post-Soviet countries. NATO typically uses Air/Sea for these types of deployments due to the risks of land based mobile deployment.
Your entire line of reasoning is something that the US can simply accuse Russia of for using the Iskander platform, which it does in Ukraine, because it actually has known nuclear warheads.
Literally FTA
Furthermore see Erdogan's response that was highlighted by Russian state media:
https://tass.com/world/1874889
There was Pershing Ia and Pershing II which had nuclear warheads, but they are no longer in service. They were stationed in Europe, West Germany in particular had a lot of mobile sites, mounted on MAN M1001 vehicles. Pershing II was a particularly scary missile as it had a MaRV (Maneuverable Re-entry Vehicle) back in the 1980s. It's basically the father of all modern tactical ballistic missiles. No air defence system from that time was intercepting that. Even the most sophisticated modern missile defence systems, such as Arrow 2 and Arrow 3 in Israel, still struggle to intercept MaRVs, as shown by Iran's October 1st retaliatory strike.
The reason we haven't seen this after 1991, and why the US and Russia have not focused much on short, medium and intermediate range ballistic missiles since then, is due to the INF treaty. However, the US withdrew from this treaty during 2018 and 2019.
The reason the INF was even signed is because these are the riskiest platforms to actually field and maintain, the INF still allowed sea and air launched short/intermediate ranged ballistic missiles.
The reason the US pulled out of the INF is because the idiot neocon policy under Trump lead to a statement like, "their test platform has wheels" when referring to Novator 9M729 development, and was used as an excuse for the US to exit the treaty with all allegations unproven.
Well yes, no one wants nuclear weapons stationed on their land border. It's an extremely high risk scenario. So both sides at the time could agree to take these weapons out of service. Banning sea launched nuclear weapons would be an impossibility given the existence of submarines, no side would willingly give up their second strike capabilities. And air launched ballistic missiles were not operational as of 1991, the US had only conducted a few experiments and the air launched version of what became the ATACMS programme was scrapped. The Kinzhal only became operational as of 2022. Nuclear air launched cruise missiles were not going to be banned, as that was important for both sides strategic bombers.
Ultimately the treaty was not going to last with only the US and Russia being members, it's gives a superpower like China a huge advantage in this field. Even a country like Iran has developed IRBMS/MRBMs which don't have a direct NATO or Russian counterpart currently in service. There's also the plans around the "NATO missile defense system" that basically killed the deal. If one side builds missile defences, the other side is going to look to construct weapons that can bypass them, to keep the playing field level. Any future treaty would have to ban the deployment or construction of certain advanced missile defence systems to be viable.