• ThePyroPython@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    3 months ago

    I would guess this is likely to get Russia to dedicate more forces to protecting their nuclear capabilities because without that Putin knows he’s fucked.

    The more anti-missile and anti-air are dedicated to protecting nuclear triad infrastructure, the less is protecting other assets like HQs, supply depos, aircraft and other conventional combat systems.

    • filoria@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      dedicate more forces to protecting their nuclear capabilities

      Are you hearing yourself? The nuclear capability is the protection. There’s a reason that during the Cold War nobody was stupid enough to attack someone else’s nuclear early warning radar. The entire principle of mutually assured destruction relies on both parties knowing what the other is NOT doing so they know that they don’t need to respond.

      • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        A preemptive strike is still suicide even if it’s done because early detection capabilities are reduced or lost. And a first strike against someone without early detection capabilities still isn’t a guaranteed win when the subs are still hidden and the doomsday device is still armed.

    • nekandro@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      23
      ·
      3 months ago

      The implication being that somebody wants to launch a nuclear strike on Russia.

      Attacking a country’s nuclear triad is cause for a nuclear retaliatory strike under all non-NFU doctrines. If Russia can’t identify whether an incoming object is a nuclear strike, any no first use doctrine goes out the window.

      This is pushing us straight towards nuclear war with our eyes closed.

      • sweng@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        How is that the implication when there are lots of other explanations, one even given above?

        If the target costs more than the missile (including the opportunity cost), and/or the target is a high priority for repairs, it makes sense to target it. It doesn’t need to be more complicated than that.

        • filoria@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          16
          ·
          3 months ago

          I guess the fear of nukes has waned since the end of the Cold War.

          Y’all will literally sacrifice the entire world so long as Russia loses.

      • CyberMonkey404@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Our eyes aren’t closed. The ruling class wants it. The proles have been taught to want it - just go to any thread discussing Russia or China, you’ll see calls to bomb Three Gorges Damb or just a broad “bomb the blyats” (actual quote). Our eyes aren’t closed at all