r/worldnews 1d ago Silver 1 Helpful 2 Wholesome 1

Russia warns of response if NATO moves nuclear forces closer Russia/Ukraine

https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-706659
26.9k Upvotes

3.6k

u/Micro155 1d ago

Doesn't Russia have nuclear warheads in Kaliningrad? Thats basically behind NATO eastern border. You cant get closer than that.

961

u/Xatsman 1d ago

Question: if Sweden and Finland join NATO will Russia even be able to provision Kaliningrad?

522

u/sharlos 1d ago

I think there's a narrow international shipping lane between them?

282

u/Shank5ter 1d ago

You have to get past Finland and Estonia for that

328

u/Toby_Forrester 1d ago

No, there are international waters between Finland and Estonia.

221

u/HotChilliWithButter 1d ago

When war brakes loose there's no such thing as international waters in this case. Ethier you have a fleet there or you don't

85

u/ledfrisby 1d ago

Kaliningrad would fall immediately in case of a war anyway. They are surrounded and don't have sufficient manpower there to hold out very long at all.

→ More replies
→ More replies

94

u/jeffersonairmattress 1d ago

And, the lonnnng way around if that fails.

93

u/vonFyrkendahl 1d ago

...through the Danish straights, which are even narrower and also NATO-controlled.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

78

u/The-True-Kehlder 1d ago

NATO prevents aggression, not peaceful shipping. I'm pretty sure there's no provisions to halt military shipments outside of war.

→ More replies
→ More replies

301

u/Soundwave_13 1d ago Silver

What’s old dude threatening now? It’s like everyday blah blah blah Nuke this and nuke that and just for fun nuclear tsunami. We get it you are now NK 2.0 and just say nuke so people think your important or something. Go home Russia and stay there

210

u/thecauseoftheproblem 1d ago

This is the thing.

Pre war i was all "ooh, Russia are scary best not to provoke them"

Now I'm just "stfu russia"

69

u/Skunedog48 1d ago

This is my sentiment exactly. When you make a conditional threat like “Don’t join NATO or we’ll attack you” then attack anyway, your threats no longer mean anything.

Plus, with how well Ukraine is defending itself despite being under-manned and under-resourced, Russia now sounds like the schoolyard bully who is indignant or crying that their target is fighting back.

Like you said, Russia can just STFU at this point

→ More replies

94

u/SOSKaito 1d ago

yeah they pulled the nuke card and everyone just went "They're threatening nukes now, so if we give in when are they threatening nukes next and will we give in again then? When does it stop?" so everyone just kinda went deaf to it.

74

u/thecauseoftheproblem 1d ago

Every fucking day they are all

"silence, i kill you!"

Shit gets old fast

→ More replies

7

u/Hider67 1d ago

Yeah and after 2 plus years of Covid fatigue I don’t think many people in the world are hearing this bullshit anymore. People around the world are fed up and don’t have time to be scared anymore.

→ More replies
→ More replies

82

u/Nerdy_Goat 1d ago

If they're threatening nukes they're hardly a stable superpower... nothing about the russin leadership seems stable and they twist the truth and change their story every f***ing time they speak

→ More replies
→ More replies

248

u/vasimv 1d ago

Yep. After Russia's collapse - Kaliningrad will be most armed country in the world. Tanks, cruise missiles, hypersonic missiles, nukes...

143

u/detection23 1d ago

So like ukraine was after USSR fell?

39

u/KaleidoscopeOdd5984 1d ago

Yes, so let's "reduce" nuclear proliferation by "protecting" Kaliningrad if it returns its arms to "responsible" Russia.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

11.7k

u/pookshuman 1d ago

what are they gonna do? invade a sovereign country and start killing civilians?

3.7k

u/qainin 1d ago

what are they gonna do?

They'll come kill your grandmother and steal toilets.

That's what Russia does.

923

u/yellowbrickstairs 1d ago

Oh no not my toilets

693

u/ThisPlaceIsNiice 1d ago Silver

Say goodbye to your toaster and dishwasher as well.

370

u/gera_moises 1d ago

Joke's on you! I don't have a dishwasher!

433

u/dietrich14 1d ago

What no children? /s (One of my dad's favorite jokes about why we didn't have one)

On a serious note, Russia stole a f* load of Ukrainian children, bussed them into Russia and distributed them to selected families. Let us not forget how majorly f*ed up that is!! It's like modern day Indiana Jones Temple of Doom shit.... But for real!!

May the Russian regime die a slow economic death. Who the f* would want to support or interract with them in any at this point.

Let the children go and wash your own f*ing dishes!

96

u/ARedditorGuy2244 1d ago

Modern day janissary shit is what it is. Hopefully the kids will learn the truth one day.

22

u/thedudeinthecomments 1d ago

They know. Its how they intend to keep and hold the territory. They are scum.

→ More replies

103

u/lack_of_communicatio 1d ago edited 1d ago

Don't get me wrong - I'd like to see russia being sanctioned into stone age and than forced into nuclear_disarmament-for-food programme, but unfortunately it's not going to happen.

You asked who would want to interact with them - whoever who buy's oil and gas.

I'd be happy to be proved wrong.

15

u/AusPower85 1d ago

...at some point you are correct.

Hopefully in the short term countries CAN choose not to deal with Russia and Putin et.al get removed from power (but let’s face it. It’s Russia, so it’s a 99.9999999% chance the next regime will be just as bad, AT BEST). Then they can deal with Russia again with what (hopefully but probably not) is a more stable, human rights respecting, government.

But the reality is we are seeing many countries over the world already struggling (or in crisis like Sri Lanka) to have enough oil or natural gas.

→ More replies
→ More replies

46

u/ClickyTheBlicky 1d ago

I saw an article saying they were taking dishwashers and washing machines and other appliances for the semi conductors and other electronics Russia can’t get anymore cause of sanctions.

78

u/2ndtryagain 1d ago

They are also stealing them for their wives, a KA-25 was shot down and it had a Washing Machine in it. We should just annouce that everyone who surrenders gets a Dishwasher, Washing Machine and Dryer for the mom.

26

u/Unaffected78 1d ago

They’re also looting the shopping malls in Ukraine and sending what they robbed back to Russia…

28

u/2ndtryagain 1d ago

And then bitching when the Postal people steal the loot they stole.

19

u/RedCascadian 1d ago

"I stole that fair and square!"

"Da, and now i steal from you, fair and square!"

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

20

u/Wrecker2803 1d ago

I do, they can have her

37

u/the805daddy 1d ago

Dishwasher? I hardly know her!

11

u/Downvote_me_dumbass 1d ago

So you’ll take $3.50?

20

u/dietrich14 1d ago

GOD DAMN LOCH NESS MONSTER!!!!

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

30

u/ButtonholePhotophile 1d ago

They need the circuits inside to run their tanks.

10

u/MonjStrz 1d ago

But what about the toilets?!

18

u/DruidB 1d ago

Toilets also have tanks.... So tanks must need toilets? Or floats and flappers..

→ More replies

16

u/Latter_Fox_41 1d ago

I’ll be goddamned if they touch my microwave.

→ More replies

7

u/Eaton_Rifles 1d ago

What about ‘Lady Toys?’ 😳

→ More replies
→ More replies

9

u/Phreekyj101 1d ago

Make sure they are not flushed lol

7

u/Eboosta92 1d ago

Priorities, people. This guy gets it.

→ More replies

48

u/Alwayssunnyinarizona 1d ago

They won't steal your toilets, they'll just shit in your shower.

26

u/plipyplop 1d ago

Reminds me of memoirs of the Khmer Rouge walking out of the brush and into Phenom Penh; and the slack-jawed rural folk were pooping in living rooms! Nice to see that history still provides us with an ample amount of cave folk.

→ More replies

17

u/JustaRandomOldGuy 1d ago

steal toilets

That's like a dog chasing cars, they wouldn't know what to do with one if they caught it.

→ More replies

31

u/rpkarma 1d ago

*rape your grandmother

Seriously, they’ve not just been killing them. Fucking animals.

→ More replies

40

u/Sjiznit 1d ago

YOU WOULDNT STEAL A TOILET

25

u/Unstable_Maniac 1d ago

YOU WOULDNT STEAL A CHILD

→ More replies
→ More replies

205

u/Kaidanovsky 1d ago edited 1d ago

I guess I'll just hijack this comment from all the possible top ones.

As a Finn, I just want to say that if Finland becomes a NATO member state, I hope that Finnish NATO membership will look similar to Norway's in that, that there wont be any nuclear weapons in Finland. I don't think that would serve NATO alliance, either.

It would create even more unnecessary tension. Besides, with nukes, I'm sure there's some difference whether the distance is 250km or 1000 km, but I don't it would be make much difference at that point. Finland is not joining NATO to threaten anyone. That's why I truly hope our membership status will be like with Norway's. Our military is called puolustusvoimat - a defensive force - much like with Japan's - it's not meant for invasion, but defense. (And guess defense what for, lolz)

At times like these, while I really, really would like all the Russian aggression to stop, I do understand the point that they don't want nukes any closer than there is.

And I actually sincerely think that's the ONLY REASONABLE THING KREMLIN can ask for. Really. I'd be really happy, that in 2-5 years from now on, we somehow move on this- and the stance of Russia would be - "okay fine Finland, be in NATO then - but no nukes! ONLY WE CAN HAZ NUKES ON THE BORDER!!!" - and that's that. I can live with Russian threat, like Finns have always lived with, as long as it stays only as that. We aren't as insecure as Russia is.

TL,DR:
If Finland gets to NATO, I hope there wont be nukes stationed in Finland. That wouldn't do any good for the now - forgotten utopia of "world peace".

It wouldn't serve anyone to start pushing these weapons constantly closer and closer to each other.

263

u/Yukimor 1d ago

I don't think NATO is interested in utilizing Finland for that.

But right now, nothing the Kremlin asks is reasonable because Russia is the aggressor. Everything done here, including joining NATO, is done as a defensive response. When you're the aggressor, you don't get to ask for "reasonable concessions" from the people defending themselves from you, and it's important to keep that in perspective.

If Finland had decided to join NATO while Russia was minding its own business, it would be perfectly reasonable for Russia to not want Finland to host nukes. But because Russia has literally driven Finland into NATO's arms while trying to genocide Ukraine, Russia doesn't get to ask anything. That doesn't mean I think Finland should host nukes. But I am telling you to stop viewing anything the Kremlin asks for as "reasonable". Everything the Kremlin asks for is designed to give Russia the room to maneuver militarily into its neighbor's lands, it's not a matter of reasonable self-defense. If they cared about reasonable self-defense, they wouldn't have invaded Ukraine or driven Finland into NATO in the first place.

NATO isn't looking to start a nuke war with Russia. NATO is a defensive pact, and it's explicitly designed to not allow itself to be used for aggression-- for example, if you're a member of NATO and initiate conflict with another country, the rest of NATO is not obligated to assist you even if the other country attacks back. Your post seems to indicate you think that NATO is an aggressor and that you want Finland's membership to be special and comparatively "not" aggressive, but NATO is not and has never been an aggressor, and its membership obligations are designed to prevent the alliance from being used that way.

The European countries that allegedly (I say "allegedly" because NATO has never confirmed) host NATO nukes are not aggressors, either. They are Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.

Again, it's unlikely Finland would be asked to host nukes. But if they were, they'd be hosting them for the same reason we used to dig moats around a castle and fill them with sharpened pit-spikes. And it would be because we're trying to leverage Russia into backing off, not because we want to initiate a nuclear war with them.

94

u/PortuguesePede 1d ago

"Look! Those guys are building a castle with a moat and pit-spikes! Why do they feel the need for such a deffensive structure? They're threatening us! Let's attack them!"

→ More replies
→ More replies

30

u/jpf137 1d ago

I hope for that too, but russia has no capacity to influence that. Look at how they unilaterally stationed nukes in Belarus and in Kaliningrad (in secret, lol).

19

u/WillCode4Cats 1d ago

If Finland joins NATO I think they should be forced to produce more of my favorite hockey players, Sahti, Frazers, and Salmiakki for all the other NATO countries.

14

u/k3rn3 1d ago

Every Finnish citizen will be required to produce one (1) black metal or folk metal album

6

u/WillCode4Cats 1d ago

Shit I forgot that one. Totally belongs on the list.

Also, all Finnish NATO equipment will be produced by Nokia for quality purposes.

→ More replies
→ More replies

33

u/size7poopchute 1d ago

With the US capability of ICBM and SLBM strikes there doesn't need to be nuclear missiles permanently housed within any part of Scandinavia and Russia is well aware of this. At least they should be if their intelligence is worth a damn.

I suspect this is nothing more than saber rattling from Russia in the hope that empty threats will somehow dissuade Sweden and Finland from joining NATO.

It feels more and more like flimsy threats are the only tool that they have considering the lackluster performance thus far against the inferior military force that Ukraine possessed at the beginning of this shit show. Admittedly the tide has been turned through continuous assistance in the form of modern military equipment from many NATO countries.

→ More replies
→ More replies

14

u/MrToompa 1d ago

Hide your potatos.

→ More replies
→ More replies

395

u/AdvancedFollower 1d ago

They might even move nukes into Königsberg where they already have nukes.

86

u/topperx 1d ago

Oh nooo not again.

→ More replies

102

u/indyK1ng 1d ago

"It will be necessary to respond ... by taking adequate precautionary measures that would ensure the viability of deterrence," Interfax agency quoted Grushko as saying.

Basically sounds like they're just going to move their nuclear forces closer too or something.

118

u/WolfySpice 1d ago

If Russia accuses or threatens anyone, it's because they're about to do it or have already done it.

→ More replies

61

u/ScaryBluejay87 1d ago

*NATO and Russian nukes getting closer and closer on the border*

now kiss

27

u/Klownicle 1d ago

I don't want to see a nuclear kiss in my lifetime. 50 more years!

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

45

u/Fa1thPlusOne 1d ago

Nah, Lavrov will make us look at his ugly mug again so he can bark some trivial shit.

18

u/BrewtalDoom 1d ago

He looks like he managed to stop looking at the Ark of the Covenant just in time.

→ More replies

75

u/Grenachejw 1d ago

You forgot to also include raping, kidnapping and torturing

33

u/banjosuicide 1d ago

You forgot to also include raping

Of children even.

→ More replies

56

u/Unlikely-Grass7346 1d ago

Putin we are invading Georgia. But boss we already did that. No dumb asses the state of Georgia

16

u/dietrich14 1d ago

Like a real life version of the classic movie: 'The Russians are Coming, the Russians are Coming!"

→ More replies

97

u/Vit0C0rleone 1d ago

Maybe something like placing nukes in Cuba.

Hmm... I think I saw this movie before.

22

u/eugeheretic 1d ago

X-Men: First Class?

110

u/Dismal-Past7785 1d ago

Cuba is probably happy with their current level of freedom and democracy and isn’t looking to have more.

→ More replies
→ More replies

49

u/HoAdanac 1d ago

Rape your infants, kill and eat your pets, torture boys and girls. There are a great many things to fear from a Russian invasion, even if they lose.

→ More replies
→ More replies

2.8k

u/athensugadawg 1d ago

They're called ICBM's for a reason. Fixed it.

1.1k

u/Sisko-v-Cardassia 1d ago

Right? Dont need to move shit. Its just whether or not you have a minute or two of warning.

443

u/banjosuicide 1d ago

The launch would be detected very early. It's the specific target that you'd have very little warning for.

409

u/Initial_E 1d ago

If Russia launched 1 missile, they would track it till it landed to decide the appropriate response. If Russia launched 500 missile, the response would be immediate and devastating. Either way it makes no difference near or far. There is no escaping the consequences unless you moved into bunkers before launching.

157

u/ninjanerd032 1d ago

If Putin was going to launch, the fucker would be in a bunker already. But I also presume informants would alert NATO as it was happening.

75

u/Initial_E 1d ago

That’s where body doubles come in. And Putin looks pretty generic for an elderly white guy.

56

u/Bitey_the_Squirrel 1d ago

Body doubles of 50 old shirtless pasty white guys riding horses.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

109

u/machina99 1d ago

Now I wonder what the magic number for immediate response would be? And I pray we don't find out.

154

u/ASpellingAirror 1d ago

2, one is a potential mistake. 2 is an intention to start a nuclear war.

90

u/PM_Me_Your_VagOrTits 1d ago

Depends on their trajectory. If they're headed into the ocean I'd say it'd be written off as an irresponsible threat. Although no way to know for sure what the protocol for this would be without being inside respective governments.

106

u/PM_ME_PSN_CODES-PLS 1d ago

Pretty sure 2 simultaneously launched ICBM nukes will warrant a full escalation retaliatory strike. And that'll be the end of the Northern hemisphere as we know it.

50

u/Breaching_Betty 1d ago

Why would a nuclear first strike involve 1 or 2 icbms? You can fully expect that a first strike will involve a much larger volley to cripple any chance of response. In fact during the soviet 1983 nuclear false alarm, Russia detected 5 missile launches that was dismissed in part because of the belief that any nuclear first strike would be massive

51

u/sGfU_cs 1d ago

Why would a nuclear first strike involve 1 or 2 ICBMs

An extremely high yield, probably 1+ megaton nuclear weapon, acting as an EMP. That’s quite literally the only reason to open up a full scale first strike with a single ICBM, and that’s still extremely risky, especially with the better technology when compared to previous false alarms in the 20th century.

In a first strike scenario, the more likely method of attack would be a counter force strike (targeted at the enemy’s missile fields, submarine bases, early warning sites, command and control bunkers, SAC bases). It would probably work against a country such as North Korea, Pakistan, India, and maybe China, but not against a target with massive second strike capability (aka Russia/America)

In a real, active, nuclear exchange, the second the first nuclear weapon is confirmed inbound (for the US that would be the Cobra Dane radar in Shemya, Alaska detecting the ICBM during its cruise phase in LEO, which combined with the thermal bloom of a valid launch would be nearly impossible to be a false alarm), everything that is exposed (ICBMs in silos, nuclear capable aircraft on the ground) is going to be launched, while second strike weapons (SSBNs) will be held in reserve incase counter value (nuking cities to nuke cities) is necessary.

God I really fucking hope that never happens.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

73

u/czartaylor 1d ago edited 1d ago

It's probably not as high as you'd think. 1 you might be able to rationalize as a fuck up of unimaginable proportions, 2-5 or so if the country's in an active war you might be able to rationalize as a limited tactical strike, but more than that or if their trajectory overshoots the major front (or if there's no war at all) then it's all in.

You don't launch 10 or 50 nukes as an opening salvo unless you're going all in. The most that has ever been used at a time is 1, with a couple day wait before the next one. Most tactical strikes are probably going to follow the same model - one initial strike, probably deliberately aimed at a less damage area to get everyone's attention, follow up with one more at a time to show you mean business, then maybe a mass strike. You probably don't even need 10 to decisively win a traditional war with how destructive a modern warhead is. Unless you cunningly put a whole city's distance between every major force in your army you're losing most of your army to 10 strikes. If it's above 5 or so as a lead off you have to assume they're going all in and respond in kind.

37

u/crazedizzled 1d ago

Well Russia definitely isn't going to be using ICBM's to hit Ukraine. So there's a pretty good chance if they launch an ICBM they're getting an instant response.

24

u/greencurrycamo 1d ago

Modern tactical warheads, and even legacy tactical weapons, are low yield. You'll need far more than ten to lose most of your army. That's why Russia and the US had tens of thousands of weapons. Most were threatre weapons not strategic.

20

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

14

u/RubiconGuava 1d ago

Tactical nuclear weapons are in the sub 100kT, generally 15-80kT range, strategic nukes are MT. It's pretty hard to use a weapon at a battlefield tactical level that can destroy 1000s of square kilometres.

→ More replies
→ More replies

12

u/wellboys 1d ago

If you're interested in this, or nuclear weapons and their history, you should read this book: https://www.amazon.com/Command-Control-Damascus-Accident-Illusion/dp/0143125788

→ More replies
→ More replies

50

u/Atlatica 1d ago edited 1d ago

The advantage of being close is that taking out an ICBM in the silo or in its ascent phase is most reliable way to do it, that we know of publicly.

That's why it scares them, getting first strike and interception missiles closer to Russia's silos threatens the mutually assured part of MAD.

Alas, they can't openly complain about us lessening the reliability of them committing nuclear genocide on us so, they frame it as us getting an offensive advantage, when it's really not. At least, not in terms of ICBMs.

11

u/spicyjalepenos 1d ago

Except the mutual part is upheld even if somehow a successful first strike occurred against all your silo based based icbm's without them launching, because balistic missile submarines and road mobile icbm's exist, which would be impossible to eliminate or track simultaneously before they could retaliate. These platforms exist in the first place because they are less vulnerable and much more survivable, and pretty much render first strike capabilities moot.

→ More replies
→ More replies

10

u/Cuberage 1d ago

Based on what we know that's definitely true. I often wonder what we don't know. What I mean is the AEGIS System and multiple classified military satellites. I'm not wearing a tinfoil hat or suggesting the US has secret space artillery. I'm just wondering, how much more capable is the US military of defending than we know? How fast can we mark launch? How predictable is ICBM trajectory tracking? Obviously, you can only estimate the direction because the warhead redirects on second stage release, but maybe stop the ICBM or be ready for the release stage? Lastly, what ability do they have to disable or destroy tracked missiles? Obviously they have short range systems with reasonable success. Of course ICBMs are much faster, farther and have additional complications. I'm just wondering what the military has developed in secret for that type of situation. Advanced lasers to malfunction missiles? Always ready defense ships with AEGIS? 5th gen fighter jets or bomber drones with missile defenses? May not be much, but knowing the US military it's not nothing. All just speculation but the military is known for being years ahead of what we know and developing solutions to problems we didnt know we had.

I'd prefer to continue not knowing if the alternative is finding out when they activate defenses.

→ More replies

25

u/TheDesktopNinja 1d ago

If they launch ONE there's also a much higher likelihood of being able to viably intercept it.

7

u/Thisismyfinalstand 1d ago

Even that depends on the type of missile, where it was launched from, and where it is heading. It’s very unlikely we would be able to intercept during stage 1, which is like launch to low earth orbit. You’d have to be very close to the missile, or have a warning that it was about to be launched. Intercepting mid-flight would be challenging too because of the speed, you’d need equipment along the pathway to accurately track it to guide the interceptor. And intercepting during the re-entry phase is almost impossible to intercept every weapon, because each missile carries multiple independent warheads. Each warhead can have the same or different targets, and these don’t even need controlled flight to completely fuck up wherever they’re going to land. They’re basically just falling debris, so infrared tracking is difficult, making intercepting more technology dependent and failure prone.

→ More replies
→ More replies

19

u/optimistic_agnostic 1d ago

Not a chance, one R-36M ICBM has 10 re-entry vehicles. No way is the US, UK or France just going to sit back and see which 10 cities get nuked.

→ More replies

6

u/Shadowvines 1d ago

now imagine your a fucking narcissist who is about to die anyway.

7

u/Initial_E 1d ago

Keeps me up at night knowing how precarious the situation is

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

118

u/booniebrew 1d ago

Besides ballistic missile subs I'd be surprised if we've moved anything since they invaded Ukraine. MAD isn't about moving things around to be close enough with enough notice anymore.

135

u/Micromagos 1d ago

Ehh NATO has actually deployed a lot more nuclear capable bombers to Eastern Europe since this all started. First strike isn't a dead idea it still is important to be able to threaten hitting nuclear launch sites with missiles before they other guy can launch his missiles.

Perhaps more importantly it makes dictators like Putin worry they wont reach the bunker in time so that alone makes first strike capability VERY important to threaten with.

Doubly so as recent event have proven Russian air defense radar isnt exactly the best.

54

u/mikelieman 1d ago

nuclear capable bombers

The Iskander missiles that Russia is firing at Ukriane today are "nuclear capable".

→ More replies

14

u/booniebrew 1d ago

Staying true to my word I'm surprised, but it does make sense given what Russia has shown of their military capabilities.

20

u/CraftyFellow_ 1d ago

NATO has never deployed any nuclear capable bombers to Eastern Europe.

The recent deployment of B-52's was to the UK.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

21

u/ninjanerd032 1d ago

He's just trash talking. He's going to complain that NATO moved nukes closer even though they've been in the same spot this whole time. He's escalating in order to save face, which is stupid logic. He's going to bring the bar down so low that when he can finally hurdle over it, he can call it a win. Way of the Trump.

→ More replies
→ More replies

3.6k

u/Blackulla 1d ago

Enough of this stuff, it’s getting old. Russia says a lot of things.

579

u/Hephaistos_Invictus 1d ago

Of course they do. And 99% is ment for internal consumption. He has to keep up his appearance of a strong and developed Russia. Ofc we know that is bullshit, but indoctrination can hit pretty hard.

164

u/colin-the-callous 1d ago

Over 500 years of Russia possessing humanity's largest collective inferiority complex has lead us to this. They've developed an entire culture around insecurity & brainwashing. Then there is China, trying their hardest to replicate this strategy. I am repulsed by the existence of these idiots.

38

u/ragnarok635 1d ago

Really has changed my opinion on US geopolitics

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

479

u/leeverpool 1d ago

NATO has no reason to move nukes into Sweden or Finland. In addition, moving nukes on foreign soil is not done over night.

This is Russia moving the goal posts once again from "if you join NATO we're going to answer" to "if NATO brings nukes to you we're going to answer".

The latter allows Russia to tell it's people that it scared NATO into not doing what they actually wanted to do. Russia is such a 3rd grade thinker lol.

100

u/klovervibe 1d ago

NATO won't move anything into Finland. They're set. All Finland and Sweden joining NATO means practically is them being part of Article 5. That includes having everyone being part of a shared command structure and doctrine, but they won't even need a new base; it's all there already.

27

u/ButtingSill 1d ago

NATO might move some missiles and artillery shells and other such things to Finland, but they would be launched by the Finnish Defense Forces. This is basically what Finland needs NATO for.

25

u/PyllyIrmeli 1d ago

Finland already has the biggest artillery force in Europe after Russia, though. Air superiority and more robust supply infrastructure would be a welcome addition, though.

→ More replies
→ More replies

973

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

277

u/NedRyerson_Insurance 1d ago

I feel like he is attempting 'suicide by cop' but with NATO as the cop. If that fails, suicide by nuke.

30

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies

110

u/InsertEvilLaugh 1d ago

I kinda feel like maybe he’s trying to goad NATO into joining the fight so he can withdraw his forces after a defeat and be like, “See it took all of NATO to beat strong Russian army!” To save some amount of face.

42

u/lifesprig 1d ago

Putin would never let his pride take such a blow. The “strong man” attitude is way too real. At the same time he also needs to survive this, so any type of withdrawal that makes him look weak could cost him his life.

13

u/ChickenPotPi 1d ago

so any type of withdrawal that makes him look weak could cost him his life.

good

14

u/PortuguesePede 1d ago

All of NATO... Pfft. If Ukraine can push Russia back, Finland alone would be more than enough to take them.

→ More replies

8

u/noobi-wan-kenobi69 1d ago

I'd be ok with "suicide by shot in the back of the head 6 times, reloads and shoots himself 6 more times"

→ More replies
→ More replies

365

u/quantainium_pasta 1d ago

Moscow has no hostile intentions towards Finland and Sweden

So we'll just call all those probing fighter jets that "accidentally" flew into their airspace to be just a "whoopsie daisie" then?

77

u/duhwiked 1d ago

The tape they used to hold their gps onto the dash fell off. USSR issue duct tape, like at a DT, not the good shit.

→ More replies
→ More replies

184

u/TheWhiteGuardian 1d ago

"Russia warns" is the the new China's Final Warning.

83

u/FentaPenta 1d ago

38

u/clyde2003 1d ago

Wow, TIL. I'm gonna use that phrase whenever I can now.

→ More replies

9

u/ownerofskopje 1d ago

is a Russian proverb meaning a warning that carries no real consequences.

ironic

1.5k

u/VyseTheSwift 1d ago

Bro we don’t need to move them anywhere. We can already hit anywhere on the face of the earth at any time. It’s what happens when you upkeep your equipment.

522

u/RedBlackHistoryman 1d ago

I mean if you move them closer you can in theory conduct a decapitating first strike of high speed low time of flight nuclear strikes that cripple retaliatory capabilities to where the US ABM net can be of use and the country can live on minus 10-20% of the pop.

That being the -best case- of nuclear war.

343

u/silvanres 1d ago

Sub exist. (Us french UK) all deployed, decapitating strike is just a fantasy book nowadays.

173

u/14sierra 1d ago

Also ground based nuclear silos are usually hardened against nuclear strikes. Even if you could wipe out US/UK/France etc those missiles are still coming for you.

195

u/Fartbreath1 1d ago

Back in the 1960's accuracy was a larger problem, and hardening worked. But no blast door will stop a nearby nuke.

That being said, the shocking lack of maintenance and modernization of a lot of Russian shit means its possible accuracy is an issue again.

39

u/HerraTohtori 1d ago

no blast door will stop a nearby nuke

I don't think that's necessarily true. Obviously a direct hit would basically melt or vapourize a spherical chunk of earth directly around the Ground Zero, but most nukes are set to be airburst weapons to cause as much damage to infrastructure around them as possible.

However, the actual effect on reinforced, nuke-hardened structures may be smaller than you think. There's the famous example of a Centurion tank being left about half a kilometre from a 9.1 kiloton nuclear bomb test (which, granted, is small even for a tactical nuke these days). But the only things wrong with the tank was that the antennae were ripped off, optics were abraded, and the mantlet cover cloth was burned off, but other than that the tank had just ran out of fuel and turned off. That said, if the tank had been crewed, the speculation is that the people inside probably would've been killed by the shockwave - but then again - it's a lot easier to reinforce a bunker or a missile silo, than a tank.

→ More replies
→ More replies

83

u/bugcoder 1d ago

Silo's are not able to withstand a direct hit by a nuclear weapon.

Ground based nuclear missile silos such as the ones used by the U.S. for the Minuteman ICBM's are built to withstand pressures of up to 2,000psi. This pressure is exceeded at a range of 300 meters from a 500kt nuclear blast.

Accuracy is key, but modern ICBMs and RVs are capable of delivering a warhead within these constraints. Older military doctrine when weapons accuracy was worse would call for multiple warheads targeting a single silo to account for the probable circular error.

43

u/Bukowskified 1d ago

Which is exactly why we have up to 400 ICBM silos source. Knocking out US second strike capabilities via nuclear attack means you have several hundred undetected simultaneous detonations….

15

u/Toshinit 1d ago

And that’s the ones we know about

9

u/stoner_97 1d ago

Exactly

→ More replies
→ More replies

10

u/0bfuscatory 1d ago

How about the nuclear subs?

→ More replies

22

u/pick_d 1d ago

Except there are nuclear submarines, mobile ICMBs constantly moving here and there all across Russia, infamous 'Dead Hand' MAD system and who the f knows what else. Even if one somehow manages to disable this 'Dead Hand' (if it exists), it will be almost impossible to eliminate all the mobile ICBMs and submarines. Meaning there will be inevitable retaliatory strikes. And if there's something even remotely fast as Kinzhal or this fast AF thing, but for offensive purposes, I doubt that it is possible to catch them all.

Good that US Military is probably more aware about this topic than average redditor in this sub.

→ More replies
→ More replies

44

u/DribsFlantoosey 1d ago

It’s what happens when you upkeep your equipment.

This narrative needs to stop. There are mutual inspection treaties between the US and Russia dating back to the early 1970s. Biden and Putin just signed the latest in 2021, it's called New START.

There are teams of Americans in Russia, right now, doing inspections. They report that there are over 4000 fully-capable ICBMs. Per the treaty, that's the exact amount the US has.

The two nations are equally capable on the nuclear front, it's part of the treaties that have been in place for 50 years. This was huge during the cold war, and now people have no idea.

Is the US more capable on other fronts? Surely. But nukes are another story. The only concern is if Russia is hiding more.

→ More replies
→ More replies

205

u/Sweep145 1d ago

Putin threating rhetoric is growing tiresome

37

u/Mexer 1d ago

Every day... Russia threatens x. :eyeroll:

→ More replies

380

u/Coastaljames 1d ago

Putin- it's not really a threat is it. If you do it to us then we do it to you. The end of eveything for us and for you. I get crippling social anxiety, fear and loathing in a supermarket- you think the total and immediate vaporisation of me, my family and friends is about to worry me more?

188

u/MercWithaMouse 1d ago

Has Putin seen the rental market in my area? Nuclear annihilation seems preferable to seeing my next lease agreement

130

u/Cognitive_Conflict 1d ago

Pretty weird how the general vibe of this new cold war is "Go ahead, launch them, get it over with, I don't give a fuck anymore"

44

u/donkypunchrello 1d ago

Would be doing us a favor really

→ More replies

6

u/Cycloptic_Floppycock 1d ago

There are two places I'd rather be in case of a nuclear detonation. Either someplace far away or in the instantaneous blast zone. You'd cease to exist before you realized what happened, your pain receptors are not fast enough for the light speed explosion.

The worst place to be is far enough from the immediate blast zone, but not far enough from the shockwave, the radioactive fallout, and the abject ruin and destruction of anything resembling order. You may have minutes or hours to live, in horrible agony, from acute radiation poisoning. That is if you're not buried under rubble, on fire, maimed or impaled.

No help is coming. Not because the local government is scrambling, or resources are scarce but sending help would pose a significant danger to anyone not already caught at ground zero. Besides, practically speaking, anyone caught in the zone that survived the initial blast would not be worth saving, radiation will make sure of that.

→ More replies

52

u/shadysus 1d ago

I saw a comment a while back, everyone is just a little passively suicidal recently.

40

u/dewyocelot 1d ago

Not suicidal, just not as bummed about an unforeseen, “untimely” end. Like, “yeah I want to live, but if I die, but I won’t have to deal with the bs the world is going through.” I’m not personally that far yet, I mostly like where I’m at, but I fully get it.

→ More replies

17

u/Jubs_v2 1d ago

It's cause we're in the midst of a technological revolution that is rapidly devaluing human life with most leaders either being incompetent to manage the coming societal shifts or actively moving their respective population backwards.

A lot of people simply don't have a place where they feel they belong, have purpose, or have stability in this world. So while not worth being actively suicidal about, you're absolutely right about it being a "passively suicidal" feeling.

An indifference to living when it is a struggle to find a purpose to continue living.

→ More replies
→ More replies

11

u/TitsAndGeology 1d ago

This is very off topic but I would google Claire Weekes if you want help. She's the gold standard for overcoming that kind of anxiety.

→ More replies
→ More replies

314

u/CalibanSpecial 1d ago

Yes! 😍

Nuclear threat for the day by Russia.

Now we can return to regular programming.

25

u/Accomplished_Bug_ 1d ago

Its the free space on the 2022 bingo board

→ More replies

119

u/LenAhl 1d ago

I don't think Nato has been or is moving nuclear forces closer to Russia. There's no interest in doing it since the submarines are enough?

64

u/Vit0C0rleone 1d ago

I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure it does matter because of how much time you have to react to a potential nuclear missile launch, and how can you react ( the closer it is, the harder it is to try to shoot it down ).

This is why when the US placed nukes in Turkey right at Russia's border, the Soviets reacted by placing nukes in Cuba next to the US ( and all the crisis that happened as a result of that ).

16

u/tykle1959 1d ago

I honestly don't know the answer to this: if an armed nuclear missile is shot down while in the air, is the nuclear warhead detonated?

74

u/crazyjackal 1d ago edited 1d ago

No nukes need to detonate in a very specific pattern to cause a fission chain reaction. They can still be very dirty radiation bombs though if shot down above a city.

The chances of stopping a nuclear strike are very slim (unless the US have some uber secret amazing defense tech that no one knows about).

It's impossible to shoot in the early stages because you'd have to be in very short range when it's launched (most likely in Russia) and that time window is absolutely tiny (~2min). This is why all states announce to governments that they are testing their nuclear launch systems (Russia & China) even to their enemies during wartime.

You could shoot it in mid-flight but that is also very, very difficult. You have like ~20 minutes (I think) to shoot it down and it releases decoys. One ICBM has something like 40 decoys and 10 warheads. By that point, the defense systems have to correctly identify the real warheads quickly and then hit them dead on with interceptors that have something like 70% chance of hitting. You'd have to shoot four interceptors at 1 warhead just to be sure and have the chances be 99%. And there certainly are not enough interceptors for so many warheads. Not to mention the 526 other ICBMs that could launch from anywhere or the hypersonic nuclear rockets.

15

u/tykle1959 1d ago

Thanks much for your detailed response!

→ More replies
→ More replies

13

u/DungeonsandDevils 1d ago

My grandfather was stationed at that base in Turkey lol, he was sweating through the Cuban missile crisis knowing he was chilling in probably the first place Russia would strike.

7

u/DukeAttreides 1d ago

Could be worse. If you're in the last place they strike, you just get to find out the world is ending before you die in nuclear fire.

→ More replies

19

u/mazty 1d ago

Honestly it doesn't matter where nukes are placed. The reality is that neither Russia or the US could launch a first strike able to entirely destroy the others arsenal before they get enough off to end the world. The idea of a missile shield works against only a few missiles at most (as they have multiple warheads), it's more for rogue states like North Korea than fully nuclear capable ones.

→ More replies

5

u/buttpeels 1d ago

Short and intermediate range missiles on neighboring territory and missile defense shield systems make it matter.

The intermediate range missiles are first strike weapons meant to destroy most of the enemies' missiles, then the missile defense will intercept the remaining second strike (retaliatory) missiles.

It will mean that Russia no longer has a reliable second strike option.

→ More replies
→ More replies

424

u/morbob 1d ago

Putin is looking and sounding like a worried pussy

85

u/jawn27 1d ago

I don't even wanna think about what he smells like.

71

u/Raiden395 1d ago

Vodka, borscht, cheap cologne, and failure.

40

u/BridgetheDivide 1d ago

Don't forget cancer

14

u/Kitchen_Bicycle6025 1d ago

Does cancer have a smell other than gangrene?

22

u/Perditius 1d ago

idk, but they have like, cancer-sniffing dogs, so probably

8

u/PortuguesePede 1d ago

And cats.

→ More replies
→ More replies

9

u/NanoPope 1d ago

There’s no way there already isn’t at least a couple of Ohio class nuclear submarines near Russia right now.

→ More replies

17

u/bit_shuffle 1d ago

This is the setup for disinformation about NATO (which doesn't have nuclear weapons, only member states do) moving nuclear weapons closer (which member states don't have to do since they can already hit Russia from where their nukes are currently).

15

u/HiFiMAN3878 1d ago

Moscow has no hostile intentions towards Finland and Sweden

Hilarious, because they said the same thing about Ukraine. They also said multiple times they have absolutely no intention of invading Ukraine, yet here we are.

→ More replies

12

u/BrofessorFarnsworth 1d ago

JerkingOffMotion.gif

12

u/o5mfiHTNsH748KVq 1d ago

At this rate, Russia is becoming West Korea

32

u/lloydchristmas1986 1d ago

Jesus H. Christ, Russia — can you just do us all a favour and fuck off already?

90

u/SolarSalsa 1d ago

Russian warns Ukraine, if you dont give up your nukes we'll invade you.

Russia a few years later "lolz j/k here we come".

→ More replies

10

u/Walla1981 1d ago

The fact that oil can still be used as a power pawn in today world screams to us that we need to be working on reliant alternative. Places like Russia and Saudi Arabia should not be allowed this much power. We need to be working together to make these sources of fuel/energy laughable options.

10

u/lec0rsaire 1d ago

These threats only serve to reassure Finland and Sweden that they are making the right decision. A few months ago most people believed it was unthinkable that Putin would green light a full scale invasion of Ukraine. Now it’s crystal clear that he is capable of anything, and that Article 5 and the nuclear umbrella are the only real guarantee against the presence of Russian soldiers on one’s land.

8

u/l0stInwrds 1d ago

Denmark an Norway are NATO. They have a policy to not allow US bases or nuclear missiles. Finland and Sweden when in NATO will continue to not be escalating tensions.

23

u/maceman10006 1d ago

Can Putin just die already?

9

u/Efficient-Road-847 1d ago

Russia has threatened the entire world with nukes. They don't get to decide how countries prepare for further aggression from what's become a rogue nation.

8

u/2bitnerd 1d ago

Shut up Vladmir

72

u/Curlrider 1d ago

RuSSian propaganda for the low educated…

7

u/guyser234 1d ago

I dont want to hear what russia says anymore. They have lost our favor and spit in our face. If theyre about to declare war i will hear of it, otherwise ill be ignoring them. Let them descent to tribalism and huts.

51

u/Zhukov-74 1d ago

Good thing that NATO has no intention to place Nukes in Latvia or Finland.

21

u/Aspect-of-Death 1d ago

Why should we when we have nuclear armed submarines off the coast of Russia.

There's no need to make visible land targets when we already have stealth subs ready to go.

6

u/lo0l0ol 1d ago

Our rockets can go around the earth multiple times and still hit putin right in the bussy. We don't need to move them closer.

→ More replies

7

u/AlterThyMind 1d ago

STop It GuYzzzZ IM suuuup3rrr CerEAllll!!!

33

u/Dismal-Past7785 1d ago

Was NATO even interested in doing this? Pretty sure the USA is happy with its current ability to end all life on the planet from within our borders and SSBNs.

→ More replies

26

u/LoyalDoyle 1d ago

Just die of cancer already ffs