Russian forces simulate nuclear strike as upper house rescinds ratification of test ban treaty
Russian forces simulate nuclear strike as upper house rescinds ratification of test ban treaty
Russia’s military has conducted a simulated nuclear strike in a drill overseen by President Vladimir Putin. The exercise came hours after the upper house of parliament voted to rescind the country’s ratification of a global nuclear test ban.
Russia’s military conducted a simulated nuclear strike in a drill Wednesday overseen by President Vladimir Putin, hours after the upper house of parliament voted to rescind the country’s ratification of a global nuclear test ban.
The bill to end ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, approved in the lower house last week, will now be sent to Putin for final approval. Putin has said that revoking Russia’s 2000 ratification would “mirror” the stance of the U.S., which signed but did not ratify the nuclear test ban.
State television showed Putin directing the exercise via video call with top military officials.
Russia’s Minister of Defense Sergei Shoigu said the purpose of the drills is to practice “dealing a massive nuclear strike with strategic offensive forces in response to a nuclear strike by the enemy.”
You're viewing a single thread.
I get a little hate for saying so, but I really think Russia's nuclear saber rattling is always so intense because they've never nuked anyone. Nobody believes them.
We nuked Nagasaki for no strategic or tactical reason. It was essentially a "twice for flinching" situation. Not to mention the last president wanted to nuke some bad weather. What a prick.
We Americans have a shitload of problems, but we don't need to threaten nuking anyone. You know we want to. So the Russians have to work hard to catch up in terms of the Madman Theory.
I have a different theory. Russia’s nuclear saber rattling exists because it is basically all they have to feel powerful. Their economy is a joke, they have no real cultural influence in the wider world.
It is like Nth Korea, they both threaten to launch the nukes to feel powerful while no one in the wider world really gives a shit.
Yes, the US launched nukes in WW2 but the big difference is that no one else had them at the time.
Now that half a dozen nations do, all you can do with them is threaten because the implication is that any launch of nukes will be answered with a counter launch. Russia cannot use them as they will be wiped out if they do.
It is like Nth Korea
An infinite and higher dimensional Korea
You're right that the game is different now. Where I differ is that I try not to think of nations as having feelings. Nations have interests, not feelings.
What about nations where the last word in decisions is taken by a single person (a.k.a. dictator)? He certainly has feelings and interests
Nations have interests, not feelings.
Nations are run by people, who do have feelings.
If Putin was not in charge, getting old, and wanting to leave a legacy, would Russia have invaded Ukraine?
One of the main reasons the China - Taiwan situation is heating up is that Xi wants to cement his legacy alongside Mao and he is also getting very old.
The USA invaded Iraq for no other reason that Bush wanted to finish what his daddy had started. They had nothing to do with 9/11.
The UK launched the defence of the Falkland Islands because Maggie Thatcher wanted it. There was zero economic or military benefit in doing so.
Etc
etc
etc.
Even guys like Putin and Kim Jong are only absolute tyrants in certain senses. Their governments are still rife with factions and competing interests, and they can only wield power in prescribed ways. Thinking of their nations as like Mecha that they get to pilot is not as apropos as it was for, e.g., a Mongol Khan. If a Khan died, the whole empire would grind to a halt until succession was resolved back home, even mid-conquest. Modern states are more akin to a Voltron, and the power dynamic is necessarily less direct.
Edit to add: there is definitely an argument however that, owing to the nature of nuclear weaponry and the tactical necessity of having one leader with that sole power, the power dynamic of modern statehood can more easily be suborned by a nuclear leader. It may well be part of the logic historians of the future use to conveniently explain our slouching towards authoritarianism of late.
Fuck Thatcher, but I'm not sure that one really belongs on that list. Defending territory against a foreign invasion is not generally considered an unreasonable thing to do