this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2024
123 points (100.0% liked)

World News

39067 readers
2430 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world 16 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

So we're at the point where it's necessary to clarify missiles aren't nuclear? Great

taps doomsday clock

Well yes we do, ICBMs are generally associated with nukes because their sheer cost normally makes them impractical for standard explosive payloads.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 13 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

Was it non nuclear or do none of their nukes work?

[–] Saleh 10 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

While i appreciate the whish that Russian nukes don't work, it would be exceptional for none of their 10.000 or so to work. Even if only 1 in 1.000 work, that is still enough to annihilate some 10-20 million people or so.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 9 points 56 minutes ago

It was a joke.

[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 1 points 17 minutes ago

Back at the beginning of the arms race, the US believed Russian propaganda that they had significantly more nukes than the US was capable of producing.

By the time the US had around 4000 nukes, later intelligence revealed Russia had 4. The US decided to maintain the policy of the arms race as it was very beneficial to the defense industry and research.

The cost to develop and maintain a working thermonuclear weapon is enormous, let alone fission bombs. Russia never had the resources to maintain an arsenal the West isn't capable of intercepting. You may recall the "Iron Dome" missile defence system that was removed from Europe.

The rocket platforms are expensive enough. The nuclear material requires time, maintenance, and a fuck load of power to produce.

I get the fear. China can do it, they have all the resources and knowledge to. Same with India.

Facts of nukes help: Tritium has a halflife of 12.3 years. Meaning after 12.3 years, the amount of tritium in a nuke is half. the 500lbs of tritium in the 60s is now 35lbs today. Obviously I dont know how much is needed to make a nuke, but it's not easy to concentrate tritium well. The most effective way is replacing control rods in nuclear reactors with lithium rods. But that's not the real issue. That's relatively minor.

The problem is weapons grade uranium or plutonium. You need to enrich those to very high % of U-235 to get a big enough blast to trigger the fusion reaction. To do that, enormous, power intensive centrifuge facilities are required. And it takes a long time to produce enough for a fission bomb.

Given that Putin operates on wealth, and the shit state of the Russian military? They didn't maintain any operational nukes after the Soviet Union fell.

[–] BruceTwarzen@lemm.ee 2 points 39 minutes ago

How insane would that be? A nuke that fails to go off and they were like: just kidddding.

[–] freebee@sh.itjust.works 2 points 46 minutes ago

Excellent times to rewatch Threads (1984)

[–] superkret 37 points 4 hours ago (3 children)

Why though? A warning to the west?
Cause last time I checked, Russia and Ukraine are on the same continent, making this a huge waste.

[–] remon@ani.social 24 points 3 hours ago

Cause last time I checked, Russia and Ukraine are on the same continen

The RS-26 only has around 6000km range and was developed for striking Europe.

[–] Saleh 27 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Probably a warning in response to letting Ukraine use western missiles deep into russian territory.

[–] FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 18 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (2 children)

“deep into russian territory” is quite an exaggeration. Biden only okayed it for the Kursk and neighbouring regions.

The U.S. official, who wasn't authorized to speak publicly about the decision, said the U.S. is allowing Ukraine to use the weapons to target in and around Kursk — the same region where some 10,000 North Korean troops were recently deployed, according to the U.S. and its allies.

Source: NPR

[–] Saleh 3 points 1 hour ago

Thank you for the clarification. It was the lingo used by western media these past days.

[–] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 10 points 4 hours ago (3 children)

🤓 Russia is in two continents

[–] Skua@kbin.earth 7 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Funnily enough, it is not according to Russia. The definition of "continent" is almost completely arbritrary anyway, and exactly where you draw the line between Europe and Asia - or if you draw it at all - is probably the fuzziest bit of all. Russia and many other countries just consider Eurasia to be one continent

[–] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 0 points 32 minutes ago (1 children)

I'll accept Afro-eurasia before I do Eurasia 😤

[–] Skua@kbin.earth 1 points 18 minutes ago

Personally I think that Asia is too big a category to be useful as it is and we should be drawing extra lines. Let the Himalayas, Urals, Altais, and Tian Shans count as continental borders too. Also the Sahara. All of those have been obstacles to human movement as much as oceans have

[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 18 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

that still doesn't explain using an icbm against a nation you share a border with. there's some message russia is sending. it's either "don't forget, we have icbms and they're operational" or it's "we are running low on standard missiles and have to fight weird"

[–] _bcron_@lemmy.world 12 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Don't let the name fool you, ICBMs not only have a much larger range but they also (generally) have higher payloads and they're designed around 'user servicable' and swappable warheads.

They're sending a message and it isn't "we could hit you even if you were thousands of kilometers away", it's "we could bolt a nuke to this bad boy"

[–] Laser 3 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

I mean... The general point still stands. It's not that western nations seriously doubt that Russia has these weapons. We know Russia has ICBMs, we know they have nukes, we know they're willing to attack Ukraine with conventional weapons.

What Western nations doubt is that Russia would actually attack them or use nukes, because it'd trigger a united response they'd lose against, and they know that and want to avoid it.

It's not about capabilities, but willingness.

[–] _bcron_@lemmy.world 2 points 35 minutes ago

What Western nations doubt is that Russia would actually attack them or use nukes

Russia launched everything but the nuke. That should be the takeaway.

Yes, everyone knows they have nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, all that fun shit, everyone knows they have ICBMs.

They've implied verbally that there could be scenarios in which they'd feel justified with using a nuclear weapon, but they literally just launched everything but the nuke. It's a pretty major escalation.

I'm also not here to speculate as to whether it's a hollow threat, I'm just pointing out that launching an ICBM is a really big deal

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 1 points 42 minutes ago (1 children)

Yeah, but a central tenet of nuclear deterrence is that you don't constantly posture your own position with nuclear armaments. If you keep saying if you cross this red line we'll go nuclear, and then don't ...... It makes future threats pretty laughable.

International nuclear relations have already been gamed out. It's always a last case scenario, because everyone has a sense of self preservation, especially the narcissistic types that like to be in charge of countries.

No one wants to live in a nuclear wasteland, so no one is going to create a nuclear wasteland unless they feel that they themselves are in immediate existential danger, and even then it would be an action made in spite.

[–] Laser 1 points 37 minutes ago

This is part of the point I was trying to make

[–] superkret 7 points 3 hours ago

Yeah but no one lives in the part on the other continent.

[–] perestroika@lemm.ee 24 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

The report is true. The landings were recorded on CCTV.

https://x.com/NOELreports/status/1859535662539526551

It was even expected. A few days ago, Ukrainian intelligence informed the public that a non-standard missile attack was likely coming. They had seen launch preparations in Astrakhan and speculated that a liquid-fuel ICBM would be launched with multiple hypersonic glide vehicles.

Apparently, multiple shots of something considerably more dumb - what seems like six ICBMs with dummy warheads (alternatively a single missile with six warheads, each with six penetration aids) - rained down on Dnipro. It seems that air defense didn't even fire, no chance of intercepting and what's the point.

I guess this must be Putin's language for "don't poke our command centers" (Ukrainians recently attacked the command center of Russia's army group north). I guess Ukrainians can decipher what he means and won't torch the Kremlin, but will keep poking command centers.

[–] sit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 3 hours ago (1 children)
[–] FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 18 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

It’s sad that to avoid twitter, owned by a far right billionaire, the alternative is the telegraph, owned by rupert murdoch, a far right billionaire.

[–] grue@lemmy.world -2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I look forward to the link to your PeerTube instance.

[–] FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

I don’t have to own a peertube instance to be allowed to say it’s sad that video sharing is monopolised by billionaires.

(If I misunderstood your reply, I’m sorry, I’m just used to getting snarky comments here on lemmy)

[–] grue@lemmy.world 6 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Sorry, I meant it in a "be the change you wish to see in the world" sort of way, not a "you aren't entitled to complain" sort of way.

no worries. I wish I could, but I’m on disability benefits and below poverty line so I can’t exactly afford to host anything expensive.

[–] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 hours ago

Don't they know it's right next to it?