Seems like a bit of a waste to launch an intercontinental missile at a country next door, on the same continent. Isn’t Russia supposed to have plenty of short and mid range ballistic missiles? I guess they must be running low.
I was under the impression that ICBMs weren’t all that great for conventional warheads. Their payload capacity isn’t enormous and their accuracy tends to be relatively low- which matters not a jot if you’re firing nukes (which do a lot of bang per kilo, and where a few hundred metres either way isn’t likely to be critical), but not so great for dropping normal munitions.
Launching just one sounds like the primary purpose is for messaging, not taking out whatever single target. They want to remind Europeans that they aren’t safe just because they live far away. The west has been getting numb to the constant threats of using nuclear weapons. I believe this launch is to give those threats more weight again.
The US will no longer be a threat to Russian ambitions come January. Expect an urgent fear campaign to get the rest of NATO to no longer want to stick their necks out for Ukraine.
It was to send a message similar to how the Iranian drone attack on Israel in April was to send a message that they can launch a bunch of $2,000 drones and cause Israel to have to launch $2 million missiles and aircraft to take them out.
I posted elsewhere about the rumour Russia was going to fire an RS26.
I got called a liar and warmonger.
Well, my next prediction remains the same: Russia WILL eventually use nukes. Because there will come a moment of “use it or lose it”, and Russia prefers a destroyed world over an intact one without Russia.
Russia prefers a destroyed world over an intact one without Russia.
That much is true, but none of this is existential. If the Russian military packs up and heads home, Russia continues to exist. They don’t want to do that ofc, but obviously Russia prefers an intact world with Russia compared to a destroyed world.
There’s still a few steps left on the escalation ladder.
Conceivably I can see them detonating a nuke somewhere over the blacksea at a high enough altitude to minimise fallout as a demonstration that they are serious and have the capability.
This missile is only “Intercontinental” if you launch it from the edge of a continent. It’s got about 6000km of range, which is a lot, but these are obviously meant for use in Europe. They were probably thinking of London and Paris when designing them though.
IMHO they might be just making a threat this way. Kremlin folks think that’s the way diplomacy works. See, we’ve launched a missile that can be used to send nukes. That’s our very subtle and diplomatic warning. We both understand what that means, yes? Let’s look very smart and diplomatic.
Seems like a bit of a waste to launch an intercontinental missile at a country next door, on the same continent. Isn’t Russia supposed to have plenty of short and mid range ballistic missiles? I guess they must be running low.
I was under the impression that ICBMs weren’t all that great for conventional warheads. Their payload capacity isn’t enormous and their accuracy tends to be relatively low- which matters not a jot if you’re firing nukes (which do a lot of bang per kilo, and where a few hundred metres either way isn’t likely to be critical), but not so great for dropping normal munitions.
Launching just one sounds like the primary purpose is for messaging, not taking out whatever single target. They want to remind Europeans that they aren’t safe just because they live far away. The west has been getting numb to the constant threats of using nuclear weapons. I believe this launch is to give those threats more weight again.
The US will no longer be a threat to Russian ambitions come January. Expect an urgent fear campaign to get the rest of NATO to no longer want to stick their necks out for Ukraine.
It was to send a message similar to how the Iranian drone attack on Israel in April was to send a message that they can launch a bunch of $2,000 drones and cause Israel to have to launch $2 million missiles and aircraft to take them out.
I suspect the use of an RS-26 was meant to serve as a provocation/response to the recent ATACMs strikes.
I posted elsewhere about the rumour Russia was going to fire an RS26.
I got called a liar and warmonger.
Well, my next prediction remains the same: Russia WILL eventually use nukes. Because there will come a moment of “use it or lose it”, and Russia prefers a destroyed world over an intact one without Russia.
That much is true, but none of this is existential. If the Russian military packs up and heads home, Russia continues to exist. They don’t want to do that ofc, but obviously Russia prefers an intact world with Russia compared to a destroyed world.
There’s still a few steps left on the escalation ladder.
Conceivably I can see them detonating a nuke somewhere over the blacksea at a high enough altitude to minimise fallout as a demonstration that they are serious and have the capability.
I think they would use a tactical one in Kursk since it’s “their” territory.
This missile is only “Intercontinental” if you launch it from the edge of a continent. It’s got about 6000km of range, which is a lot, but these are obviously meant for use in Europe. They were probably thinking of London and Paris when designing them though.
IMHO they might be just making a threat this way. Kremlin folks think that’s the way diplomacy works. See, we’ve launched a missile that can be used to send nukes. That’s our very subtle and diplomatic warning. We both understand what that means, yes? Let’s look very smart and diplomatic.
They may think that looks cool.
These missiles are designed with Western Europe in mind. Specifically, to deter them from coming to help Eastern Europe.