Ukraine’s air force has said Russia fired an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) at the city of Dnipro, which if confirmed would be the first time the long-range weapon has been used in any armed conflict.
The claim was not immediately accepted by others, however. ABC News reported, citing western officials, that this was an exaggeration and that the weapon was in fact a shorter-range ballistic missile, similar to the types used repeatedly by Russia against Ukraine during the war.
But why? Aren’t ICBMs incredibly expensive? Like, rocket ship expensive because that’s basically what they are? Aren’t there other hypersonic options that are cheaper and less politically loaded?
They are. It’s a message, and rather expensive at that. For all intents and purposes, most notably to early warning systems, it was a nuke. Crazy Vlad over here flung one without a payload and triggered full on DEFCON 2 or even 1 just to make a point.
If confirmed, firing of weapon would mark first time missile – which can carry nuclear payload – has been used
is the guardian too cheap for proofreading now??
Also this assessment is wrong. Russian cruise missiles are perfectly capable of carrying nukes and they are fired daily in dozens 🤷♂️ But perhaps they are nitpicking…
There’s a reason it is nicknamed the Grauniad
Wouldn’t the ICBM launch trip US nuclear defenses? Or is it only flocks of birds?
Yes which is why other countries were notified first so they didn’t retaliate automatically. A lot more discussion goes on behind closed doors than most people realize.
“But Scholz!”
There’s literally 2 clear videos of it, whats the claim?
Apperantly, and I’m no expert, after checking various sources, the exact missile type hasn’t been confirmed yet, independentally. There seems to be a discussion of two options afaik; a proper ICBM; or another version, sort of it’s little brother, which is more of a shorter range missile.
Manufacturing consent from a UK newspaper. That’s unheard of.
