• IHave69XiBucks@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    11 hours ago

    I think there is only 1 way to avoid an actual nuclear conflict if this does happen. And thats for Russia to test a nuke. Do it somewhere in siberia or the Arctic where NATO cant get mad. Announce it before hand. and set off a Tsar Bomba level nuke with everyone watching. Remind the world what nukes look like and that you have big ones. Then turn around and say “Now back the fuck off”.

    It will show Russia is serious without actually risking a nuclear exchange. Its the only thing that may wake up the Americans and make them realize the type of fire they are playing with.

    • Red_Scare [he/him]@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Siberia is not a wasteland, there are around 40 million people living there, it’s incredibly ethincally diverse with dozens of different peoples and languages, not to mention it’s a gigantic region with huge forests that are home to a large number of rare species.

      It’s already being affected by global warming and testing nukes there would be a disaster.

      • IHave69XiBucks@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        5 hours ago

        well you get what i meant somewhere uninhabited im not sure where they used to do the tests but the USSR had places to do them.

    • lorty@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      6 hours ago

      I feel that the more likely scenario is that they target NATO satellites, drones and other sensors that home in these weapons. Anything involving nukes would turn the world against Russia and play into NATO’s hand.

      • IHave69XiBucks@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        The issue is that activates article 5. I think Russia will want to avoid giving all the NATO nations an excuse to dogpile in. The DPRK has proven the effectiveness of doing tests as a deterrent.

        • ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          4 hours ago

          The DPRK was successful in using nukes as a deterrent because it was long in question if the DPRK had a functional nuclear weapons program.

          What does dropping a nuke in the middle of Siberia accomplish? “Oh wow, Russia has nukes. That’s a surprise. It’s not like they have the largest nuclear weapons stockpile in the world.”

          What does Russia get out of destroying some random part of its country? Also Russia doesn’t have any Tsar bomba level nukes. No one does. One of would to be built from the ground up taking an absurd amount of money, resources, and manpower.

          • IHave69XiBucks@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            4 hours ago

            I have actually seen liberal media speculating on if Russias “Soviet Era” nukes still work. This would not only shut that talk up but demonstrate a willingness to use them. The west wants to be able to bomb Russia and thinks Russia isnt gonna use nukes in response. In order for it to be a deterrent you have to demonstrate you are capable and willing to use them.

            • JucheBot1988@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              2 hours ago

              I have actually seen liberal media speculating on if Russia’s “Soviet Era” nukes still work.

              I’ve seen articles like that too, and they strike me as propaganda – in other words, they’re intended for citizen consumption, as a way to drum up support for a (largely) unpopular war. Western militaries likely have a much more accurate picture of Russia’s nuclear capabilities. Which is why Trump’s generals were so unhappy when, back in 2018, he went on twitter and personally threatened Assad with missile strikes; such things are hard to walk back, and US brass fully understood what war with Russia might entail. Even today, under an administration that is much more hardline neocon than Trump’s, you’ve gotten US generals – Mark Milley, for instance, a very sorry and two-faced character – talking out of both sides of their mouths on Ukraine: we’re committed to defending Ukraine, but, we want to stop Putin’s agression, but

              I think what we are seeing right now with Biden is not exactly an attempt to go to war with Russia. Rather, it’s dangerous, irresponsible, and utterly criminal brinkmanship: politicians playing Kissinger without having an ounce of Kissinger’s geopolitical saavy. It could also be an attempt to hurt Trump, whom Biden and so many democrats seem to have a personal animus against; for when bourgeois states reach this late stage of corruption, and when there’s a division in the ruling class like that we see in America today, vendettas can become a real factor in politics. In other words, what Biden wants to do is leave an enormous mess for Trump to sort out, and he’s hoping that that mess won’t go (quite literally) thermonuclear.

              Or the US ruling could really be just that crazy. I hope not.