Well we know Putins ICBMs won't fail in their silos

a reply to: putnam6

Thankfully Putin showed restraint. No nuke warheads.

originally posted by: putnam6
So what's next ATS think tank members...

Biden's DoD insisting that Ukraine needs ICBMs to compete with Russia?

for the children of the Cold War ICBMs being used was once considered the crossing of the "Rubicon" the opening of Pandoras box. Seems we are stuck in an endless loop of participants going look what I can do.

At what level do you think Russia knows a completely different direction president will be in office come Jan 20? They will talk a lot, but they are not doing anything until after Trump is in office.

You are also confused with what a IBCM is. The rockets Biden approved have a range of 180 miles and to call something IBCM it needs a range greater than 5500 miles...kind of a big difference, might as well add that IBCMs are nukes...lol and these rockets are about 3000 lbs and I think about 2000 pounds of boom.

I'm not for the war, but I really didn't understand the whole we can invade you, but you can't step a foot into Mother Russia. A key player for Ukraine is to disrupt the supply system, which these rockets and other measures need to do.

a reply to: putnam6

6 MIRVs, not ICBMs, I think.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: putnam6

So far I’ve read that only Kyiv has claimed an ICBM was fired on them.

Looks like the US is disputing that (saying it was just ballistic), and I haven’t seen confirmation from other entities.

I’m wondering how sophisticated Ukraines tracking infrastructure is to differentiate.

That said, what would be the benefit for Russia to use these? Harder to intercept is the only thing I can think of, but I guess I’m not knowledgeable enough to know would these have a better success rate than hypersonic? One would think they would want to preserve ICBMs in the event of further global escalation.

I’m sure time will tell, but the US has been pretty hawkish the past week or two, I would think they would run with this if it happened.

All I know is NATO should have the capability to detect an ICBM launch definitively #1 and FWIW the alleged videos of the hits look different than any hits Ive seen before.

comments from X.com

TOBust4
@TOBust4
·
10s
Replying to
@sentdefender
Did Russia notify United States about a nuclear capable [MIRV] ballistic missile launch? Treaty requirement. as US, Russia, China test launch ICBMs IRBMs notify to preclude 'Launch on Warning.' Interesting development.
Canadian Tire Battle Ork
@LonesomeC0wb0y
·
14s
Replying to
@DerAchsenZeit
Looks like their ICBMs work properly. Let's see if we can get them to test their nukes now. 😆
BLOCKADE TERRORIST RUSSIA 🇺🇦🇺🇸
@SIMCONTROL1
·
18s
russia for the first time in history used ICBMs. They have opened a pandora box that can’t be closed.

originally posted by: WeMustCare

Thankfully Putin showed restraint. No nuke warheads.

Why would these lead to nukes?

a reply to: putnam6

One would assume they aren't but it isn't 100%, what's to keep them from using another 2 dozen?

Common sense and cost prohibitive would be my guess there.

He shot off some blanks and made his point putnam6.

Do you really think he wants to see if NATO ICBM works?

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Building blows up. Why does the type of delivery missile matter?

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain
Will this finally shut up the armchair generals who think we should go to war with Russia and just gamble that their nukes won't work?

I don't think anyone with any sense would want to gamble on that.

But there has been some speculation based on various sources about viability based on age, corruption and lack of maintenance.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: WeMustCare

Thankfully Putin showed restraint. No nuke warheads.

Why would these lead to nukes?

He threatened nukes, but delivered non nukes. A relief!

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: putnam6

One would assume they aren't but it isn't 100%, what's to keep them from using another 2 dozen?

Common sense and cost prohibitive would be my guess there.

He shot off some blanks and made his point putnam6.

Do you really think he wants to see if NATO ICBM works?

As you mentioned he has carte blanche as long he doesn't hit an inch of NATO land and doesn't go nuclear.

FAWK Putin is testing to send older Russian ICBMs to Iran and is killing 2 birds with one stone, it's all a new frontier.

Unless you can tell us the last we had ICBMs flying in Eastern Europe.

We all are speculating while hoping our inclusive DoD is doing more than speculating

If it was what is being talked about-the RS-26 rubezh ICBM,that is a truck launched nuclear capable MIRV(multiple watheads within one missile.)
newsukraine.rbc.ua...

en.wikipedia.org...

Harder to take out before launch due to its mobile(if slow moving)capability although I am sure satellites are tracking many.

a reply to: putnam6

I did not say he has carte blanche but hitting a NATO nation would trigger an article 5.

And thats a third world war.

He's blustering putnam6 and knows fine well what happens under such a scenario.

Which does not bode well for mother Russia, or many others for that matter, my own little 700-mile-long island included.

I dont think he is ready to shoot his nation in the nuclear foot just yet.

originally posted by: WeMustCare

He threatened nukes, but delivered non nukes. A relief!

Russia has been threatening nukes for decades. They do what they want and then say we have nukes don't get involved. In this case the media I feel is blowing much out of proportion in calling them long-range missiles or in the OPs's case IBCMs etc. We all know the term Tomahawk missile as that has been used many times in the past and it has a range of 1500 miles. Ukraine has been successful with bigger drones going rather deep to hit military industries. The TRUE line in the sand for Russia would be massive UN troops on Russian soil pushing to Moscow, anything else is not nukes. BTW these are Short Range by definition.

a reply to: putnam6

RUSSIA DID NOT USE AN ICBM TO STRIKE UKRAINE ON THURSDAY, A WESTERN OFFICIAL TELLS REUTERS, CITING INITIAL ANALYSIS

Wait, Ukraine lied??

ZeroHedge on X


Edit:
As I've been saying since the beginning of the conflict. We can't believe anything coming out of there from either side.

a reply to: andy06shake

For over two years now this argument has been made at every escalation point.

a reply to: Dandandat3

And how many imaginary red lines have been crossed?

The answer is quite a few.

Arguments everywhere surrounding this entire debacle if we are honest.

Still dont mean using an intercontinental ballistic missile to hit your neighbors is a cost-effective solution.

After all those things are expensive and kind of hard to replace at a moment's notice.

originally posted by: watchitburn

As I've been saying since the beginning of the conflict. We can't believe anything coming out of there from either side.

I would say 90% of what Russia says are lies and 40 to 50% with Ukraine. We also have an easier time calling BS on Ukraine as with Russia they are an isolated country that can say anything, and do, and get away with it.

originally posted by: andy06shake

And how many imaginary red lines have been crossed?

The answer is quite a few.

Arguments everywhere surrounding this entire debacle if we are honest.

Still dont mean using an intercontinental ballistic missile to hit your neighbors is a cost-effective solution.

After all those things are expensive and kind of hard to replace at a moment's notice.

It is also very hard to maintain. After the Cold War, it was estimated that less than 10% of Russian IBCMs could be in service. Liquid propellant is a big issue.

a reply to: putnam6

for the children of the Cold War ICBMs being used was once considered the crossing of the "Rubicon" the opening of Pandoras box.

If they had a Nuke warhead on top then yes but in this case I think the claimed use is more symbolic of a threat being made than any real intension , Putin has already upset Mr Xi by cosying up to North Korea so using a Nuke in Ukraine or anywhere else would be the final straw for that relationship , without China Russia is doomed and liable to open up another front.

"what's next?"

Continued escalation. It's a slow burn and it's not cooling off. Don't expect U.S. media to tell you the truth and don't hold your breath waiting for an official declaration of WWIII. No one's going to tell you economies are collapsing, either. You'll have to put the pieces together and figure it out yourself.