this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2024
142 points (94.4% liked)

World News

32285 readers
843 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
all 46 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] nekandro@lemmy.ml 5 points 4 months ago (8 children)

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 37 points 4 months ago (2 children)

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 9 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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 5 points 4 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.

[–] Taco2112@lemmy.world 22 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 18 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Well it's Russian infrastructure on Ukrainian land, who cares what it's for?

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

So a simple eviction -slash- fireworks show then.

Wheeeee!

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Also, according to the genius logic there Ukraine is using cluster munitions to bomb their own civilians since these clowns claim that Crimea is Ukrainian.

[–] Olifant@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Which by all rights it is... annexation not withstanding.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 months ago

Given that Ukraine has no qualms murdering them, it's no surprise that people actually living in Crimea overwhelmingly voted to join Russia. Funny how westerners only care about self determination when it suits them.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -1 points 4 months ago

literally everyone who is not an imbecile

[–] Liz@midwest.social 18 points 4 months ago

Open source researchers on social media suggested a Krasukha electronic warfare radar jammer had been positioned on the complex.

That's why. The jammer is messing with Ukrainian operations and Russia put it there so they could scream "nuclear site!" if Ukraine ever went after it.

[–] Nakoichi@hexbear.net 9 points 4 months ago

Well that's not at all concerning...

I used to think nobody was stupid enough to kick off an apocalyptic nuclear war but in the last two years I feel like that belief may have been a bit naive.

[–] Collatz_problem@hexbear.net 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I guess they are trying to achieve the possibility of a decisive first strike for USA.

[–] MrVilliam@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months 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 -5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Is this a tinfoil conspiracy site? Tankie infowars?

[–] n3m37h@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Dude, leave your bubble every once in a while

[–] realharo@lemm.ee 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

TankieMore 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 0 points 4 months 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.