• nekandro@lemmy.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    1 year ago

    This strike is extremely confusing. It’s a space radar thats only other use case is as an early-warning radar for ICBMs (that is, in the event of nuclear war).

    Why is Ukraine going after Russia’s nuclear triad? What the fuck is going on?

    • ThePyroPython@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year 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
        14
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year 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
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year 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
        14
        arrow-down
        25
        ·
        1 year 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.

        • CyberMonkey404@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year 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

    • Taco2112@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Where are you reading that is a radar for ICBMs? The article just says a Krasukha radar jammer is reported to be there. Reading the Wikipedia article for these systems indicate that they can jam the radar for UAVs and drones. Since Ukraine has been using drones heavily, I can see why they would attack. I’m not saying that it doesn’t work against ballistic missiles but it’s seems like they have a lot of other applications to Russia’s war effort.

    • MrVilliam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Because any country fighting a war on defense against aggressors/invaders knows that the path to winning is to hold strong, wait out the clock, and drain resources from the enemy. Something as essential as that will cause urgency to redirect resources and personnel to replace/repair and then better defend it so that it doesn’t just immediately happen again. This makes defense easier because there’s less of an offense while that’s happening. This also can cause internal loss of support since Russian citizens can see the costs of this going up. They will know people who were sent to die on the front lines. They will see taxes go up and availability of goods go down. Once Russian citizens start to question and criticize the campaign, there could be a snowball effect that ends with Putin and his cronies having to make a choice between stopping the invasion or losing power. I don’t think Putin will ever stop, so the real choice will be desperate attacks (which could include nukes, triggering article 5 and effectively ending Russia) or a coup. Putin has checkmated himself whether he is aware of it yet or not. His best case scenario at this point is dying of natural causes in office and leaving that hard decision to his successor who will probably back down and be a pariah for it, saving Russia in the process.

        • realharo@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You don’t think coming to the conclusion “omg, this must be nuclear war preparations”, instead of this just being a regular target, is conspiracy level thinking?

          It would fit right into Alex Jones’s show. And it’s the most upvoted comment here.

          • n3m37h@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago
            Tankie

            More generally, a tankie is someone who tends to support “militant opposition to capitalism”, and a more modern online variation, which means “something like ‘a self-proclaimed communist who indulges in conspiracy theories and whose rhetoric is largely performative.’”

            How is asking a simple question suddenly make one an Alex Jones Tankie? Yes there is a implication, but I don’t see a conspiracy theory here.

            Plus Alex Jones target audience aren’t tankies. They are racist, Christian white nationalists

            Once again, please leave your bubble every once in a while

            • realharo@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I can’t believe I have to explain this. Anyway

              The comparison to Alex Jones and other conspiracy nutjobs was about how they don’t care about any facts or context, and just like to string together random headlines into some doomsday narrative that supports their view.

              The phrase “tankie infowars” means basically that - same methods, just different target audience. So you would switch around who the good guys and bad guys are, but not much else.