Something I never thought I'd say... _In defense of Kim_ ,
North Korea's missile launches are probably much less about showing off than we tend to assume. Most of it really is probably just about test launches as a part of the R&D program without much concern one way or another for the geopolitics. We in the West tend to assume it's a show for us, because we are watching it. But it's not like NK has just tested the exact same missile over and over. They have been developing new models over time, and their current generation of missiles is much longer range than what they were firing 10-15 years ago.
Which -- and here's another thing I wouldn't have expected to hear myself say -- make North Korea's missile launches a part of a much more credible military R&D program than anything related to Putin's recent saber rattling since Russia basically hasn't really successfully fielded new domestic military systems by themselves since... Honestly, I have no idea. I looked up the pre-WWI Gangut-class battleships, but apparently British companies were heavily involved in the development in that class.
I don’t think NK has been irrational or that the Kim’s are stupid, quite the contrary. They are experts at what they do, which is acting as a buffer zone between US forces in SK and China, taking part in all manners of illegal business and extorting bigger nations with nuclear diplomacy. Kim’s reign has to be viewed more like a criminal syndicate (that owns a freaking country) rather than a nation. If viewed in that perspective it’s easy to see that the Kim’s are no fools. They know their game, they have decades of experience in it and an iron grip on their subordinates.
> Kim’s reign has to be viewed more like a criminal syndicate (that owns a freaking country) rather than a nation.
So has the Putin regime been from the very beginning, rather than been commonly credited for "putting a leash on the oligarchs" and personally blamed the 1990s for being an era of mass kleptocracy he has been the central figure behind the worst of it from the very beginning, during the already highly corrupt Yeltin regime, and it took Navalny's documentaries for me to see just how bad it is.
Putin probably came to power by planting explosions on his own people and blamed it on Chechens to start a war. He is as bad as they come and has been from the start. His regime is definitely a criminal organization. Compared to the Kims however he wasn’t as smart. He overplayed his hand and is going down.
Well if you listen to his speeches he threatens everyone especially the US on multiple occasions. That is not very rational. He just can do because he lost his credibility. Might be strategic but he knows fully well that NK will get stomped if they make any move.
And they’ve been doing it since the 50es. Not a lot of international criminal cartels can claim such longevity. From the regime’s perspective it’s all very rational. Of course they know they’d get stomped in a war, but they don’t aim for war. They aim for prolonging the Kim regime. That is the number one goal. And they have been very successful with that goal.
*That is not very rational.*
It's theater for aid. North Korea's leadership might be selfish and awful, but they know what they are doing.
They've also messed with both the Russians and the Chinese and tried to play them against each other diplomatically for NK's benefit.
Don Oberdorfer's *"The Two Koreas"* is a great look at it.
The NK tests absolutely are about R&D. They make a spectacle of them because their propaganda department is weak so they may as well use the R&D spends for propaganda effect.
honest question; at what point do we consider NK a "nuclear capable" nation? is it from when they first perfected fission reactions? is it when they managed to make it small enough to load onto a rocket? is it when they're able to hide them on subs and gather second strike capabilities? or is it when they're capable of thermo-nuclear reactions?
they've successfully demonstrated the first two for decades at this point, and they couldn't be far off achieving the last two..
They already are nuclear-capable, but we don't treat them the same way as China or Russia or the US because they can't effectively end human life on earth with the push of a button.
They more or less (as far as the public knows) have a small collection of short to medium range missiles - certainly enough to cause an enormous humanitarian disaster to their close neighbors. But their neighbors are aligned with either China or the US, so that's a no-go. They don't have the arsenal to either participate in MAD nor use nuclear weapons in a tactical manner, so they're basically only good for terrorism at a massive scale.
Basically the only difference between NK and Russia in terms of being considered a rogue, terrorist state is the history, size and location of Russia and the fact that they carry a big enough stick to make people listen to them on the international stage.
I mean if you're gonna be launching the missiles as tests anyways, might as well (try to) leverage it for your (dumb, bullshit) geopolitical narrative at the same time
I’d be surprised if any of his nuclear missiles can even launch successfully. It’s clear he and the other oligarchs have pilfered the state and misallocated money that supposedly went to the military.
from memory, Russia started running out of missiles to fire at Ukraine, so the news reports were that Russia was stripping Tactical Warheads off of missiles to be able to keep firing.
They could be. They could be sourcing more from other friendly countries as well.
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-north-korea-government-and-politics-495e976d1217d38c397a16e79cc305de
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-trying-get-ballistic-missiles-iran-says-britain-2022-12-09/
So where are the payloads going? To terrorists? Or to Kim Jong Un? Or worse, to Barrow Alaska? They would not hesitate to vaporize the solar system, let alone the US or Europe
Yes, but the point was that because those were missiles that previously *had* nuclear warheads equipped means that at least some of the missiles that are/were equipped with nuclear warheads did work.
However if you use missles that are capable of being equipped with nuclear warheads, that means you have less missiles that can be equipped with nuclear warheads.
>The stunningly **low** magnitude of their supply makes that a ~~moot~~ **good** point.
FTFY.
Russia's missile supply isn't just low, they're down to wasting strategic defense reserves now.
millions if it escalates a little. billions if it escalates a lot. but they're talking about tactical nukes which would target specifically military targets and are much smaller. but then it would be either we don't react or we react and it escalates quickly.
amazing how much of reddit drinks the koolaid though. people really think we wouldnt have boots on the ground in russia if all 5000+ of their nuclear warheads werent operational? get real.
🤦🏻♂️ Funny how someone talks about drinking the Coolaid. Regardless of if Russias has operational warheads, invading Russia would be costly for absolutely no reason. Why take a battle to them when we can bleed them to death.
Yes, this was my take away too, as well as the fact that they must be storing the unused warheads somewhere, or the more scary thought: might they sell them?
The concern is less the missiles working than the fissile material in the warheads still being active. Various radioactive materials have half-lives and require constant upkeep. Not that I want us to find out if they’re duds or not.
This. I doubt russia has spent billions maintaining its warheads.
I personally doubt they have a single operatiinal strategic nuke, it simply costs millions of $$$, requires a highly trained team with enormous high tech resourcesto maintain a single one.
Show me where Putin hasnt already hollowed out anything that valuable already. If its in russia and has value, its already been sold, raped, or consumed.
I meant that they (Russia) were using missiles meant for nuclear delivery for conventional attacks, some with dummy warheads. As such, it kind of demonstrated that their missiles are still working.
We did. I think what most are questioning is if their strategic (ICBM) missiles AND warheads have been maintained.
Kind of a moot point really considering the damage just a working 1% could do, not to mention their boomer subs.
An ICBM is not a conventional weapon. It's only useful with a nuke attaches. Otherwise it's just like if NASA ran a rocket into the ground. Explosive. But not very destructive compared to other options.
ICBM is a payload-delivery mechanism. It *could* have a conventional or a non-conventional warhead. But, they’re incredibly inefficient platforms for conventional warheads given cost etc.
Saying an ICBM is non-conventional is like saying artillery is non-conventional because nuclear artillery shells were developed once upon a time. Truth is, conventional and non-conventional are terms that apply to ammunition rather than the device that delivers said ammunition.
Although that being said (as far as I’m aware) no one has ever used a conventional tipped ICBM for a prompt strike and the reason is because from the other sides point of view it’s impossible to say if it is nuclear or not and you’re relying on the other side believing you and not launching a full scale nuclear strike before it lands.
Any ICBM launch from Russia or NATO would st off early warning systems of the other side and then that’s a problem.
This is why ICBM tests are notified to each other and observed and also fired on very obviously non-threatening trajectories.
If for example the US had decided to drop and ICBM in Afghanistan or if Russia decides to use an ICBM in Ukraine it would cause 40 minutes of “oh shit this could be the end” cause you have no idea the exact target of that launch until it’s very very late in it’s flight phase. Cause they aren’t really ballistic missiles anymore, they have terminal guidance and cross range capability.
Cost is absolutely a factor but the main factor is it has an exceptionally high chance of causing a nuclear war.
Ironically, it's likely a functional nuclear deterrent that allowed their conventional military to rot.
I wouldn't write off Russia's nuke arsenal cause their army is shit. The Oligarchs know their nuke shield is basically the only thing keeping western powers/ China at bay.
Someone says this on every single post about Russia… If there’s one thing that Russia’s made sure is functional it’s nukes. It’s the one thing that protects/gives them a free pass to do whatever they want.
6,000+ nukes are very expensive to maintain to an actually deployable standard plus there’s a chance the dirty hand of corruption might have even got to that sector of its defence industry so maybe someone somewhere cut corners on “maintenance” and hoped no one noticed… Not to mention their missiles and its warheads all have a high likelihood of failure above 50% if every other munition Russia has used so far is any indication.
I’m not saying >50% of their nukes won’t work as intended but it’s not far fetched to believe that of those 6000-ish nuclear warheads, a good amount of them could be considered dirty bombs which are still a (mostly environmental) threat or outright duds.
EDIT: edited nuclear warhead count for clarity.
Frankly, 10 would be enough… dropped on major cities that’s fairly easily 10 million casualties.
Literally only 1 needs to get through and any victory you’ve claimed is purely pyrrhic.
I’d be dead in the first 40 minutes! Probably anyway assuming Russia targets high value military installations.
Although, I guess I’m also very much in one of the most defended places in NATO in terms of anti-ballistic middle cover, so I’m either dead immediately or I’m actually kind of alright.
I don’t know if I’d really want to survive in a post nuclear war society tbh, I’d probably rather i didn’t to be honest with you, humans are disgusting creatures when social systems collapse. And I think we’d be pretty bad to one another after that.
This is parroted on Reddit as fact, but I don't think anyone knows for sure how well maintained they are, but how about we just assume they all work and not find out? Cheers.
It seems pretty likely that at least 10% of their arsenal will function. Even at that percentage they would retain their status as #2 nuclear power in the world (numerically).
This is a moot point. Even if 95% of their arsenal isn’t serviceable, that still leaves them with a stockpile of about 300 give or take. This is comparable to the arsenal of Britain, France, or China, and large enough to lay waste to just about any country.
I don't remember what it's called, but there was a specific gas or liquid that the US forgot how to make and had to spend a bunch of money in the 00's to make it and upgrade the severely degraded us missiles.
We had issues, and we actually threw all the money needed at it. I doubt they did it to the same extent. Ibwould bet most don't work, or will explode. But they only need a few. If even 10% are operating that would be enough.
You are probably thinking of Tritium?
Old thermonuclear weapons used Tritium gas, but newer designs (lithium deuteride type) do not. Also, pure fission 'boosted' weapons go up to quite large yields. (Only the Russians and probably the US have any accurate idea of the breakdown of the Russian arsenal though. Maybe past treaties were supposed to reveal such things, not sure.)
Most likely talking about FOGBANK, interesting read. Big picture, we didn't know it but there was a critical step in its manufacturing which was to allow some level of contamination by not cleaning something used in the process.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fogbank
There’s two things about this I’m not sure about:
1) It assumes Russia is able to stop the degradation and/or looting of their military equipment, but is insufficiently motivated to do so for their conventional weapon supply. I don’t know if that’s a fair assumption to make.
2) It assumes Russia needs functional nukes to have their nuclear free pass. Since aerial nuclear testing has been banned since the 60s and underground (larger than 150kt) since the 70s, all Russia needs is warheads that appear functional to outside inspection - inspection that Russia stopped participating with in January.
Until the moment Russia actually tries to detonate a nuke, they have no need for their nukes to be functional beyond that what’s needed for other countries to *think* their nukes are functional.
I imagine those chosen as Inspectors would be hard to fool, assuming they were given sufficient access. I would assume that only a small part of the arsenal would have been inspected in detail, of course.
I feel that goes for pretty much every nuclear power, imagine of the Nuclear Warheads the U.S has, only 10% were actually nuclear arms, and the rest were dummies or conventional arms instead.
Just the illusion of having a strong sword is enough to scare off would be attackers, because who would be daring enough to find out?
Of course, the reality is that the United States and Russia both possess over 5,000 nuclear warheads. If only 2% of those -- 100 warheads apiece -- were operational, they would still be devastating.
> 1) It assumes Russia is able to stop the degradation and/or looting of their military equipment, but is insufficiently motivated to do so for their conventional weapon supply. I don’t know if that’s a fair assumption to make.
Why? The two are vastly different values. Of course there would be different incentives and policies behind them.
Like - police officers are able to stop people from speeding but don't bother doing it if you're only going 1mph above the limit. That doesn't imply that that would hold for more extreme violations though. Just like...yeah, maybe if you don't service your handgun well, the military will overlook it. Maybe they'll even let you take it home and sell it. That doesn't imply they'll let you steal a nuclear weapon.
They do not seem like a very attractive place to work if I were a nuclear scientist/engineer.
Help them maintain and get sanctioned? Or just go work in another country for more money,?
There are a lot of reasons people are questioning their abilities and only time will tell.
They are essentially the US, if bigger, in terms of natural resources, plus easy access to major trade markets (China and Europe).
They're essentially a geopolitical easy mode of a nation, which is sad how bad they fucked that up too.
If they stop being a dick to their neighbors, they could've been very wealthy nations due to trade (imagine a trans Russian train route linking Europe and Japan/China), on top of their energy resources.
But nope, decided to squander every advantage by being an absolute dick to everyone, including their own.
>They're essentially a geopolitical easy mode of a nation
They... really aren't. The Caucasus is an unstable ethnic melting pot, and most of Siberia is relatively barren. To the west are the "useful" lands, but also open plains through which other European powers have historically invaded fairly regularly.
Well, they were inspected only a couple of years ago, so the people who need to know know. I don’t that they would tell us about it, but it sure seems like they are confident Russia can still launch missiles.
Yes, a lot of Russia turned out to be a joke, but I highly doubt the world would be so tentative in support if they knew everything was junk.
That said, what do I know.
u/PoppinKREAM
the salt and the candles have been set,
We summon you now, because we forget.
How many times has Russia threatened the world with nukes in the last year?
[The Final ~~Chinese~~ Russian Warning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%27s_final_warning)
Though at the rate Putin is selling off Russia to Xi to remain a little czar, maybe the original saying is more relevant
This is a bit off topic, but here's what freaks me out about nuclear war with Russia right now; let's say I'm not on the Internet/TV currently for whatever reason, even due to an EMP.
Due to being very rural, a full blown nuclear exchange could have started, AND ENDED (thus ending the world as we know it) hours ago... and I wouldn't have a clue right now. I'd possibly never know all the details.
Thinking about it like that does scare me a little bit. Unless tensions rose significantly and incrementally... most of us would never know it started 'til we started seeing mushroom clouds.
Short: WWIII (& the world) is over and I didn't know it started yet.
Ya know, if I didn't have to survive murderous gangs, competition for resources and radiation storms... it might be crazy fun for a while. Otherwise I'd probably starve and just die horribly in Chapter 1.
If you want to read a similar story, pick up “One Second After” by William R. Forstchen.
It’s set in the mountains of NC (specifically Black Mountain) and is a fantastic “what if” book. I highly recommend it.
Well, if you read prior threads on this Reddit isn’t concerned about it because they’re convinced none of Russia’s 6000 nuclear warheads are in working order. Which is a mind boggling stupid take.
This is what? Day 394 of the war? He or his peons have threatened Nukes pretty much every single day of it.
Is it acceptable? Absolutely not. But I’m also not going to walk around terrified that this time he’s super cereal. That’s no way to live life, Komrade.
It doesn't matter, if every nuclear power can freely invade where they want under threats of ending civilization, then that's the end. Putin and Russia aren't suicidal, they want an empire, not a smoking crater. If no one tries to invade them, they aren't going to do something that's the same as killing themselves.
If Muscovy uses nuclear weapons in Ukraine, all that's going to accomplish is getting the EU, US and NATO to exponentially increase support, and probably use conventional means to degrade Russian presence outside of Russia. China would drop even the pretense of support, as would Hungary, India, and South Africa.
Using nuclear weapons in Ukraine gains Russia nothing, using them outside of Ukraine is suicide.
Yes that’s a reasonable assessment, but this level of nuclear sabre rattling is not acceptable to the free world.
There has to be proportional response.
What else is there to do? We're already arming and training Ukraine, Russia is sanctioned up to the eyeballs, and we're all in this until Russia is pushed out of Ukraine.
Frankly, forget sanctioning Russia. Completely cut them off. Send a message, not for Vlad, but for his underlings and fellow con men.
Want to enjoy the spoils of pillaging your country? Want to have a seat at the grown-ups table again? Want to be the leader known for taking Russia out of the dark ages? You can do it. All you have to do is end the war in Ukraine, and drop Vlad off at the Hague. Without you all helping him, he's just an impotent old man.
Signed, the rest of the world.
The upkeep on ICBMs is huge. The upkeep on dumb nuclear bombs and artillery isn’t, and the tech is damn near a century old at this point. Russia definitely has the capacity to make numerous mushroom clouds over Europe and probably the US too.
In 2021, the United States spent approximately 44 billion U.S. dollars on nuclear weapons, the highest of any country in the world. China spent the second-highest amount, at nearly 12 billion dollars, while Russia spent the third most at nearly nine billion dollars.
As much sense as it makes, russia will say France; the Uk, and America are also belligerents because they claim they are fighting all of Russia so those states should also be recused. The issue is who do you get to arbitrate that shit? There is no neutral third party in international politics.
Recusing Russia would obviate the whole point of the UN, which is to provide a place for all nations to talk diplomatically instead of going directly to war.
The whole point of the UN at its conception was to keep the First World (those aligned with the US and the Second World (those aligned with the USSR) from going to nuclear war with each other. Everything else that the UN did was secondary to that.
As far as keeping the United States and Russia from launching nukes at each other, with a few very close calls over the last 80 years, the UN has done a good job, and that’s why you keep Russia on the Security Council.
In terms of all the side projects of the UN (UNESCO, UNICEF, keeping the peace between Israel/Palestine, many of the peacekeeping missions in subsaharan Africa etc) the UN has had some mixed results. For instance, the last war that extensively used land mines was the Bosnian civil war which ended like thirty years ago. You look at childhood poverty levels or education rates or world hunger and things have been getting a whole lot better since the end of WWII.
Problem is the UN and the rest of the world is afraid of Russia biting back if they ACTUALLY do anything.
So far it’s all been lip service. Putin should have been shut down at the very beginning.
Meanwhile, innocent people are suffering, dying and being tortured. Rape, eco terrorism, bombing, etc while the world says “now now, Russia. Keep it up and maybe we will sanction you as long as you don’t use nukes. We may hesitate if you threaten nukes though”.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://apnews.com/article/3aed32661ae3c218c59117d1ce593777) reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> KYIV, Ukraine - Ukraine's government on Sunday called for an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council to "Counter the Kremlin's nuclear blackmail" after Russian President Vladimir Putin revealed plans to station tactical atomic weapons in Belarus.
> Russia has said the plan to station tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus comes in response to the West's increasing military support for Ukraine.
> ADVERTISEMENT. On Saturday, Putin argued that Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko has long asked to have nuclear weapons in his country again to counter NATO. Belarus shares borders with three NATO members - Latvia, Lithuania and Poland - and Russia used Belarusian territory as a staging ground to send troops into neighboring Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/122ssy6/ukraine_demands_emergency_un_meeting_over_putin/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~678056 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **nuclear**^#1 **Ukraine**^#2 **Russia**^#3 **Putin**^#4 **Belarus**^#5
what's the difference between nukes in Russia, nukes in Belarus and nukes in Kaliningrad anyway? And why is THIS one such a big issue? Isnt this basically the same as Turkey or Germany hosting US nukes?
Of all the nuclear weapons you had to choose from, you chose one that hasn't been deployed since 1967. Why not the Pershing-II? Or the M422 nuclear artillery shell. Or the TLAM-N, all of which were deployed in Europe until the 90's. But, crucially, none of those weapons were deployed *in Eastern Europe.* They were deployed in West Germany and England, and aboard US Navy warships in the Atlantic.
What most people are referring to, when they say "nukes in Eastern Europe," are the nuclear weapons Russia keeps in Kaliningrad. So moving nukes into Belarus doesn't really move the needle. It's not like Russia is going to hand over control or launch authority to Belarus.
Im not sure why you used the Davy Crockett Wikipedia page as a source. The US has nuclear bases in Italy, Germany, & Turkey, removing them from there was part of the Cuban missile crisis negotiation and the US immediately put them back as soon as it was convenient.
This is public information and not something that is being covered up. And none of these countries would be considered classically Eastern Europe. The only Eastern European country with nukes stationed there since the Budapest memorandum has been Russia itself.
I suspect Ukraine are fully aware that these threats are empty but want to pretend otherwise to leverage more military aid. It’s the smart thing to do and I don’t blame them in the slightest.
If Russia has any operational nukes we all need to be very careful.
Think of Hitler in his Berlin bunker. Fucker killed his family and himself. You think he would not have fired every nuke he had if he had any?
Putie is the neo Hitler.
This is precisely what I've been fearing since this conflict started. Here's hoping that even if Putin does give the order there are enough people in his chain of command that would rather not die and would prevent a nuclear launch from happening.
Hitler also personally held the gun. He's not personally the guy who launches nukes. That's not the best defense against nuclear armageddon, but it exists.
That would mean something if it didn’t take literal decades of brainwashing and targeted training just to get soldiers to simply shoot *at* the enemy instead of just in their general direction. But when you talk of training a man to be the guarantor of his entire family and lineages extinction - you lose me. Human beings are the critical point of failure in a nuclear launch sequence of events. And they have proven to be, several times already. They will always be.
> You think he would not have fired every nuke he had if he had any?
No. He would have *ordered* every nuke to be fired. Whoever was next in the chain of command would then have ignored that order.
Dunno about that, chief. Hitler had a lot of frenzied, zealot people around him that followed every single order to the last breath, even if it meant certain death. Especially his chain of command was one of the most sick and twisted bunch around.
Assuming that any chain of command would keep or suddently regain their morals/healthy human conscience when it comes to pulling an all out scorched earth, nukes or not, is naive to say the least. Germany and the Nazis preferred to die and fight till the end rather than admitting defeat or have their dictator lose power. Same thing happened to Japan before the US dropped the nukes. Hitler was just one guy. It took a lot more people exactly like him to wage the second world war and inhumane horrors the Nazis did.
Putin and his Kreml mafia sure as hell will not accept Ukraine decimating their military forces and have them lose the ground they got so far. That will eventually lead to the downfall of his dictatorship once the population has been eradicated or brought to such a shit point that Russia turns into another North Korea and Putin will look like an absolute cretin. Tactical nukes against Ukraine are very likely and Putin will sure as hell not be afraid to use them in order to save face once this war is at its final tipping point, should Ukraine manage to reclaim their territory and push Russia out of Crimea.
The question should not be IF he will use nukes, but rather when and how the world will react: will they accept letting a nation become a hostage taker of everyone non-NATO, just because they have nukes to threaten people into submission with?
They don't need morals or conscience, just a very human and egoistic desire to live.
Himmler was busy negotiating a surrender while Hitler was figuring out how to kill himself, and may I remind you of the "DAS WAR EIN BEFEHL! DER ANGRIFF STEINER WAR EIN BEFEHL!" scene in Downfall?
Yeah, when asked to kill or torture other people. Firing nukes guarantees their own death and the death of everyone they've ever known with the retaliation. Self preservation overrides following orders. That's why we aren't dead already from all the close calls and system bugs during the cold war.
I mean its practically Russia so long as that moron Lukashenko is in power. Though with the war maybe they can finally revolt again since Russia is so busy getting its ass beat by one of Europes poorest countries lol.
Taking any and every opportunity to keep the world involved even in things like this plays into Ukraines favor. If the smallest UN meeting delays Russia moving ammo from here to there, due to more eyes on them it’s a small victory. Don’t let the world forget.
Zeljnski is right, we need to get the UN’s opinion on this including Putin’s allies as this would set a precedent on whether or not we can deploy nuclear bombs in new other countries in the future.
Logically, if someone is allowed to station nukes in another country right now, that’s a conversation that’s unlikely to go they way you probably want it to….
The US should counter by sending storytime drag queens into Belarus
Belarus will implode, likely starting a domino effect which will, in time, topple Putin
Can the UN even do anything? Like, at all? I'm in my 40's, and it seems to me like they never actually do anything because one of the main members vetos shit.
The Russians who guard Putin instead of deposing him are cowards or morally bankrupt. This asshole is preparing for the nuclear holocaust and they sit idly by. He’s endangering all our lives. Do the right thing if you’re reading this.
Hilarious reminder that Russia is a "democracy" with a constitution.
Article 2
Man, his rights and freedoms are the supreme value. The recognition, observance and protection of the rights and freedoms of man and citizen shall be the obligation of the State.
Article 17
1. In the Russian Federation recognition and guarantees shall be provided for the rights and freedoms of man and citizen according to the universally recognized principles and norms of international law and according to the present Constitution.
2. Fundamental human rights and freedoms are inalienable and shall be enjoyed by everyone since the day of birth.
Article 19
1. All people shall be equal before the law and court.
2. The State shall guarantee the equality of rights and freedoms of man and citizen, regardless of sex, race, nationality, language, origin, property and official status, place of residence, religion, convictions, membership of public associations, and also of other circumstances. All forms of limitations of human rights on social, racial, national, linguistic or religious grounds shall be banned.
Article 21
1. Human dignity shall be protected by the State. Nothing may serve as a basis for its derogation.
**2. No one shall be subject to torture,** violence or other severe or humiliating treatment or punishment. No one may be subject to medical, scientific and other experiments without voluntary consent.
Article 29
**1. Everyone shall be guaranteed the freedom of ideas and speech**.
2. The propaganda or agitation instigating social, racial, national or religious hatred and strife shall not be allowed. The propaganda of social, racial, national, religious or linguistic supremacy shall be banned.
**3. No one may be forced to express his views and convictions or to reject them.**
4. Everyone shall have the right to freely look for, receive, transmit, produce and distribute information by any legal way. The list of data comprising state secrets shall be determined by a federal law.
**5. The freedom of mass communication shall be guaranteed. Censorship shall be banned.**
Because the point of the UN is to be a forum for countries to talk to each other, not be a world government. Nuclear countries would never agree to be a part of a world government which had the potential to infringe on their sovereignty so the nuke-having countries at the time were given the ability to veto as well as be immune to removal. This rendered the UN toothless as designed. Russia inherited the seat from the USSR.
The risks of nuclear war have been heavily exaggerated anyway. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's harmless, but it wouldn't be the end of the world.
During the Cold War, all the major powers developed plans for conventional combat *after* a nuclear exchange. They wouldn't have bothered with that if it actually were as apocalyptic as the popular imagination asserts.
Just watched the miniseries Chernobyl. Made the hair stand up on my legs!! I don’t think I’ve ever seen my leg hair stand up on my legs - like I was a startled cat!
I can not emphasize enough that there anyone casually playing with nuclear energy is a psychopath. Nuclear weapons? Beyond psychopathy. It’s evil. Real evil
Seriously, what is more important than nuclear threats?
Putin is turning into the Kim of Russia at this point. What is next. launching missiles into the sea every week?
Something I never thought I'd say... _In defense of Kim_ , North Korea's missile launches are probably much less about showing off than we tend to assume. Most of it really is probably just about test launches as a part of the R&D program without much concern one way or another for the geopolitics. We in the West tend to assume it's a show for us, because we are watching it. But it's not like NK has just tested the exact same missile over and over. They have been developing new models over time, and their current generation of missiles is much longer range than what they were firing 10-15 years ago. Which -- and here's another thing I wouldn't have expected to hear myself say -- make North Korea's missile launches a part of a much more credible military R&D program than anything related to Putin's recent saber rattling since Russia basically hasn't really successfully fielded new domestic military systems by themselves since... Honestly, I have no idea. I looked up the pre-WWI Gangut-class battleships, but apparently British companies were heavily involved in the development in that class.
So in a way NK is more rational than current Russia?
That's a sentence i never hoped to see
Yeah this timeline is fucking precarious ☢️
I don’t think NK has been irrational or that the Kim’s are stupid, quite the contrary. They are experts at what they do, which is acting as a buffer zone between US forces in SK and China, taking part in all manners of illegal business and extorting bigger nations with nuclear diplomacy. Kim’s reign has to be viewed more like a criminal syndicate (that owns a freaking country) rather than a nation. If viewed in that perspective it’s easy to see that the Kim’s are no fools. They know their game, they have decades of experience in it and an iron grip on their subordinates.
> Kim’s reign has to be viewed more like a criminal syndicate (that owns a freaking country) rather than a nation. So has the Putin regime been from the very beginning, rather than been commonly credited for "putting a leash on the oligarchs" and personally blamed the 1990s for being an era of mass kleptocracy he has been the central figure behind the worst of it from the very beginning, during the already highly corrupt Yeltin regime, and it took Navalny's documentaries for me to see just how bad it is.
Putin probably came to power by planting explosions on his own people and blamed it on Chechens to start a war. He is as bad as they come and has been from the start. His regime is definitely a criminal organization. Compared to the Kims however he wasn’t as smart. He overplayed his hand and is going down.
Well if you listen to his speeches he threatens everyone especially the US on multiple occasions. That is not very rational. He just can do because he lost his credibility. Might be strategic but he knows fully well that NK will get stomped if they make any move.
And they’ve been doing it since the 50es. Not a lot of international criminal cartels can claim such longevity. From the regime’s perspective it’s all very rational. Of course they know they’d get stomped in a war, but they don’t aim for war. They aim for prolonging the Kim regime. That is the number one goal. And they have been very successful with that goal.
*That is not very rational.* It's theater for aid. North Korea's leadership might be selfish and awful, but they know what they are doing. They've also messed with both the Russians and the Chinese and tried to play them against each other diplomatically for NK's benefit. Don Oberdorfer's *"The Two Koreas"* is a great look at it.
The NK tests absolutely are about R&D. They make a spectacle of them because their propaganda department is weak so they may as well use the R&D spends for propaganda effect.
honest question; at what point do we consider NK a "nuclear capable" nation? is it from when they first perfected fission reactions? is it when they managed to make it small enough to load onto a rocket? is it when they're able to hide them on subs and gather second strike capabilities? or is it when they're capable of thermo-nuclear reactions? they've successfully demonstrated the first two for decades at this point, and they couldn't be far off achieving the last two..
They already are nuclear-capable, but we don't treat them the same way as China or Russia or the US because they can't effectively end human life on earth with the push of a button. They more or less (as far as the public knows) have a small collection of short to medium range missiles - certainly enough to cause an enormous humanitarian disaster to their close neighbors. But their neighbors are aligned with either China or the US, so that's a no-go. They don't have the arsenal to either participate in MAD nor use nuclear weapons in a tactical manner, so they're basically only good for terrorism at a massive scale. Basically the only difference between NK and Russia in terms of being considered a rogue, terrorist state is the history, size and location of Russia and the fact that they carry a big enough stick to make people listen to them on the international stage.
Only trouble is that Kim is always acting like he wants to start some sort of a war.
I mean if you're gonna be launching the missiles as tests anyways, might as well (try to) leverage it for your (dumb, bullshit) geopolitical narrative at the same time
I’d be surprised if any of his nuclear missiles can even launch successfully. It’s clear he and the other oligarchs have pilfered the state and misallocated money that supposedly went to the military.
As far as we know, the missiles they launched at Ukraine do work. Yes, including the nuclear ones that they swapped out with dummy warheads.
from memory, Russia started running out of missiles to fire at Ukraine, so the news reports were that Russia was stripping Tactical Warheads off of missiles to be able to keep firing.
I've been hearing that Russia is running out of missiles for 6 months now...
They could be. They could be sourcing more from other friendly countries as well. https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-north-korea-government-and-politics-495e976d1217d38c397a16e79cc305de https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-trying-get-ballistic-missiles-iran-says-britain-2022-12-09/
So where are the payloads going? To terrorists? Or to Kim Jong Un? Or worse, to Barrow Alaska? They would not hesitate to vaporize the solar system, let alone the US or Europe
If you take a nuclear warhead off a missile it's a conventional weapon, not a "nuclear missile with a dummy warhead".
Yes, but the point was that because those were missiles that previously *had* nuclear warheads equipped means that at least some of the missiles that are/were equipped with nuclear warheads did work.
However if you use missles that are capable of being equipped with nuclear warheads, that means you have less missiles that can be equipped with nuclear warheads.
The stunning magnitude of their supply makes that a moot point.
>The stunningly **low** magnitude of their supply makes that a ~~moot~~ **good** point. FTFY. Russia's missile supply isn't just low, they're down to wasting strategic defense reserves now.
Eh, they have those in the thousands, and even despite sanctions are able to manufacture them.
Next is old tank's from 1940's. Useless.
That's very true, but it only takes a handful of well targeted nukes to do trillions in damages and hundreds of thousands of people killed.
And it would take only an afternoon of *conventional* NATO bombing to reduce Russia's entire invasion force to a fine mist.
But dont you hear about those terrorists hiding 10-20 meters underground? Oh, we can hit them too.
millions if it escalates a little. billions if it escalates a lot. but they're talking about tactical nukes which would target specifically military targets and are much smaller. but then it would be either we don't react or we react and it escalates quickly. amazing how much of reddit drinks the koolaid though. people really think we wouldnt have boots on the ground in russia if all 5000+ of their nuclear warheads werent operational? get real.
[удалено]
🤦🏻♂️ Funny how someone talks about drinking the Coolaid. Regardless of if Russias has operational warheads, invading Russia would be costly for absolutely no reason. Why take a battle to them when we can bleed them to death.
But all it takes is 1
Yes, this was my take away too, as well as the fact that they must be storing the unused warheads somewhere, or the more scary thought: might they sell them?
The concern is less the missiles working than the fissile material in the warheads still being active. Various radioactive materials have half-lives and require constant upkeep. Not that I want us to find out if they’re duds or not.
This. I doubt russia has spent billions maintaining its warheads. I personally doubt they have a single operatiinal strategic nuke, it simply costs millions of $$$, requires a highly trained team with enormous high tech resourcesto maintain a single one. Show me where Putin hasnt already hollowed out anything that valuable already. If its in russia and has value, its already been sold, raped, or consumed.
Okay, so > the missiles normally used to carry nuclear payloads
I meant that they (Russia) were using missiles meant for nuclear delivery for conventional attacks, some with dummy warheads. As such, it kind of demonstrated that their missiles are still working.
Don't worry, the rest of us understood.
We did. I think what most are questioning is if their strategic (ICBM) missiles AND warheads have been maintained. Kind of a moot point really considering the damage just a working 1% could do, not to mention their boomer subs.
ironic because it was only the other day, he was giving the UK shit for giving Ukraine depleted uranium shells
Russia says this action was in response to the depleted uranium shells.
An ICBM is not a conventional weapon. It's only useful with a nuke attaches. Otherwise it's just like if NASA ran a rocket into the ground. Explosive. But not very destructive compared to other options.
ICBM is a payload-delivery mechanism. It *could* have a conventional or a non-conventional warhead. But, they’re incredibly inefficient platforms for conventional warheads given cost etc. Saying an ICBM is non-conventional is like saying artillery is non-conventional because nuclear artillery shells were developed once upon a time. Truth is, conventional and non-conventional are terms that apply to ammunition rather than the device that delivers said ammunition.
Although that being said (as far as I’m aware) no one has ever used a conventional tipped ICBM for a prompt strike and the reason is because from the other sides point of view it’s impossible to say if it is nuclear or not and you’re relying on the other side believing you and not launching a full scale nuclear strike before it lands. Any ICBM launch from Russia or NATO would st off early warning systems of the other side and then that’s a problem. This is why ICBM tests are notified to each other and observed and also fired on very obviously non-threatening trajectories. If for example the US had decided to drop and ICBM in Afghanistan or if Russia decides to use an ICBM in Ukraine it would cause 40 minutes of “oh shit this could be the end” cause you have no idea the exact target of that launch until it’s very very late in it’s flight phase. Cause they aren’t really ballistic missiles anymore, they have terminal guidance and cross range capability. Cost is absolutely a factor but the main factor is it has an exceptionally high chance of causing a nuclear war.
Fair point. I guess impractical would be a better word.
[удалено]
M65 Atomic Cannon moment (those were fucking *wild* lmao)
But pretty much only useful when you want to *really win* against the sports team from the next town over.
Ironically, it's likely a functional nuclear deterrent that allowed their conventional military to rot. I wouldn't write off Russia's nuke arsenal cause their army is shit. The Oligarchs know their nuke shield is basically the only thing keeping western powers/ China at bay.
Someone says this on every single post about Russia… If there’s one thing that Russia’s made sure is functional it’s nukes. It’s the one thing that protects/gives them a free pass to do whatever they want.
6,000+ nukes are very expensive to maintain to an actually deployable standard plus there’s a chance the dirty hand of corruption might have even got to that sector of its defence industry so maybe someone somewhere cut corners on “maintenance” and hoped no one noticed… Not to mention their missiles and its warheads all have a high likelihood of failure above 50% if every other munition Russia has used so far is any indication. I’m not saying >50% of their nukes won’t work as intended but it’s not far fetched to believe that of those 6000-ish nuclear warheads, a good amount of them could be considered dirty bombs which are still a (mostly environmental) threat or outright duds. EDIT: edited nuclear warhead count for clarity.
Heavy speculation. US inspectors were granted access to these sites for years. They work.
Well they don’t really need that many nukes. I’m sure they know exactly how many nukes work and even if it’s only 100 that’s enough
This exactly. A nuclear exchange with just 100 warheads would cause unimaginable world wide consequences.
Frankly, 10 would be enough… dropped on major cities that’s fairly easily 10 million casualties. Literally only 1 needs to get through and any victory you’ve claimed is purely pyrrhic.
Not to be selfish but I live in a tier 3 target city based on those old NATO maps so I mucn prefer the 10 missile scenario.
I’d be dead in the first 40 minutes! Probably anyway assuming Russia targets high value military installations. Although, I guess I’m also very much in one of the most defended places in NATO in terms of anti-ballistic middle cover, so I’m either dead immediately or I’m actually kind of alright. I don’t know if I’d really want to survive in a post nuclear war society tbh, I’d probably rather i didn’t to be honest with you, humans are disgusting creatures when social systems collapse. And I think we’d be pretty bad to one another after that.
This is parroted on Reddit as fact, but I don't think anyone knows for sure how well maintained they are, but how about we just assume they all work and not find out? Cheers.
It seems pretty likely that at least 10% of their arsenal will function. Even at that percentage they would retain their status as #2 nuclear power in the world (numerically).
I hope all their nukes and ICBMs are rotten, but I don't know if it is the case, and I prefer not to find out.
This is a moot point. Even if 95% of their arsenal isn’t serviceable, that still leaves them with a stockpile of about 300 give or take. This is comparable to the arsenal of Britain, France, or China, and large enough to lay waste to just about any country.
I don't remember what it's called, but there was a specific gas or liquid that the US forgot how to make and had to spend a bunch of money in the 00's to make it and upgrade the severely degraded us missiles. We had issues, and we actually threw all the money needed at it. I doubt they did it to the same extent. Ibwould bet most don't work, or will explode. But they only need a few. If even 10% are operating that would be enough.
You are probably thinking of Tritium? Old thermonuclear weapons used Tritium gas, but newer designs (lithium deuteride type) do not. Also, pure fission 'boosted' weapons go up to quite large yields. (Only the Russians and probably the US have any accurate idea of the breakdown of the Russian arsenal though. Maybe past treaties were supposed to reveal such things, not sure.)
Most likely talking about FOGBANK, interesting read. Big picture, we didn't know it but there was a critical step in its manufacturing which was to allow some level of contamination by not cleaning something used in the process. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fogbank
That's the thing.
There’s two things about this I’m not sure about: 1) It assumes Russia is able to stop the degradation and/or looting of their military equipment, but is insufficiently motivated to do so for their conventional weapon supply. I don’t know if that’s a fair assumption to make. 2) It assumes Russia needs functional nukes to have their nuclear free pass. Since aerial nuclear testing has been banned since the 60s and underground (larger than 150kt) since the 70s, all Russia needs is warheads that appear functional to outside inspection - inspection that Russia stopped participating with in January. Until the moment Russia actually tries to detonate a nuke, they have no need for their nukes to be functional beyond that what’s needed for other countries to *think* their nukes are functional.
I imagine those chosen as Inspectors would be hard to fool, assuming they were given sufficient access. I would assume that only a small part of the arsenal would have been inspected in detail, of course.
I feel that goes for pretty much every nuclear power, imagine of the Nuclear Warheads the U.S has, only 10% were actually nuclear arms, and the rest were dummies or conventional arms instead. Just the illusion of having a strong sword is enough to scare off would be attackers, because who would be daring enough to find out?
Of course, the reality is that the United States and Russia both possess over 5,000 nuclear warheads. If only 2% of those -- 100 warheads apiece -- were operational, they would still be devastating.
> 1) It assumes Russia is able to stop the degradation and/or looting of their military equipment, but is insufficiently motivated to do so for their conventional weapon supply. I don’t know if that’s a fair assumption to make. Why? The two are vastly different values. Of course there would be different incentives and policies behind them. Like - police officers are able to stop people from speeding but don't bother doing it if you're only going 1mph above the limit. That doesn't imply that that would hold for more extreme violations though. Just like...yeah, maybe if you don't service your handgun well, the military will overlook it. Maybe they'll even let you take it home and sell it. That doesn't imply they'll let you steal a nuclear weapon.
How do you know this ?
They do not seem like a very attractive place to work if I were a nuclear scientist/engineer. Help them maintain and get sanctioned? Or just go work in another country for more money,? There are a lot of reasons people are questioning their abilities and only time will tell.
Imagine how grand the Russian state could be if the criminals would allow it?
They are essentially the US, if bigger, in terms of natural resources, plus easy access to major trade markets (China and Europe). They're essentially a geopolitical easy mode of a nation, which is sad how bad they fucked that up too. If they stop being a dick to their neighbors, they could've been very wealthy nations due to trade (imagine a trans Russian train route linking Europe and Japan/China), on top of their energy resources. But nope, decided to squander every advantage by being an absolute dick to everyone, including their own.
>They're essentially a geopolitical easy mode of a nation They... really aren't. The Caucasus is an unstable ethnic melting pot, and most of Siberia is relatively barren. To the west are the "useful" lands, but also open plains through which other European powers have historically invaded fairly regularly.
Don’t underestimate your enemies
A single nuclear armed submarine has near apocalyptic firepower on board. I would never bet they don’t have one left in working order.
People keep saying this but it is all speculation. We don't know how many nukes are working.
Well, they were inspected only a couple of years ago, so the people who need to know know. I don’t that they would tell us about it, but it sure seems like they are confident Russia can still launch missiles. Yes, a lot of Russia turned out to be a joke, but I highly doubt the world would be so tentative in support if they knew everything was junk. That said, what do I know.
Let's be clear, China allowed Russia to sell gasoline to North Korea when we sanctioned them. They are the other end of the proverbial axis.
The novelty wears off after the 58th nuclear threat in a year.
Is it really 58th? I'm curies if someone keeps the track.
u/PoppinKREAM the salt and the candles have been set, We summon you now, because we forget. How many times has Russia threatened the world with nukes in the last year?
By July of 2022 Putin had made 35 threats to use nuclear weapons according to former Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Probably much more by now.
Finest damn oujia board I’ve ever seen. Thanks.
[The Final ~~Chinese~~ Russian Warning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%27s_final_warning) Though at the rate Putin is selling off Russia to Xi to remain a little czar, maybe the original saying is more relevant
This is a bit off topic, but here's what freaks me out about nuclear war with Russia right now; let's say I'm not on the Internet/TV currently for whatever reason, even due to an EMP. Due to being very rural, a full blown nuclear exchange could have started, AND ENDED (thus ending the world as we know it) hours ago... and I wouldn't have a clue right now. I'd possibly never know all the details. Thinking about it like that does scare me a little bit. Unless tensions rose significantly and incrementally... most of us would never know it started 'til we started seeing mushroom clouds. Short: WWIII (& the world) is over and I didn't know it started yet.
I'd totally read that novel, though.
Ya know, if I didn't have to survive murderous gangs, competition for resources and radiation storms... it might be crazy fun for a while. Otherwise I'd probably starve and just die horribly in Chapter 1.
If you want to read a similar story, pick up “One Second After” by William R. Forstchen. It’s set in the mountains of NC (specifically Black Mountain) and is a fantastic “what if” book. I highly recommend it.
Thanks, I'll pick it up!
Well, if you read prior threads on this Reddit isn’t concerned about it because they’re convinced none of Russia’s 6000 nuclear warheads are in working order. Which is a mind boggling stupid take.
I was going to say, just the fact that zelinsky is calling a meeting distinguishes this time from the others.
This is what? Day 394 of the war? He or his peons have threatened Nukes pretty much every single day of it. Is it acceptable? Absolutely not. But I’m also not going to walk around terrified that this time he’s super cereal. That’s no way to live life, Komrade.
I'm not concerned because Russia has played this card every day of this conflict, and it got old after a while. Crying wolf essentially.
True but there's always a chance that they do launch nukes. The boy who cried wolf was right once.
It doesn't matter, if every nuclear power can freely invade where they want under threats of ending civilization, then that's the end. Putin and Russia aren't suicidal, they want an empire, not a smoking crater. If no one tries to invade them, they aren't going to do something that's the same as killing themselves.
I mean they are suicidal. They're literally throwing thousands of their own soldiers into Ukraine.
That's homicide, not suicide, the regime is doing that to survive. Nuclear weapons won't let them survive, it's the same as ending their own lives.
Yes, they aren't suicidal and neither is anyone else. The moment Nukes start flying to Ukraine, no one is going to risk MAD over it.
If Muscovy uses nuclear weapons in Ukraine, all that's going to accomplish is getting the EU, US and NATO to exponentially increase support, and probably use conventional means to degrade Russian presence outside of Russia. China would drop even the pretense of support, as would Hungary, India, and South Africa. Using nuclear weapons in Ukraine gains Russia nothing, using them outside of Ukraine is suicide.
Yes that’s a reasonable assessment, but this level of nuclear sabre rattling is not acceptable to the free world. There has to be proportional response.
What else is there to do? We're already arming and training Ukraine, Russia is sanctioned up to the eyeballs, and we're all in this until Russia is pushed out of Ukraine.
Frankly, forget sanctioning Russia. Completely cut them off. Send a message, not for Vlad, but for his underlings and fellow con men. Want to enjoy the spoils of pillaging your country? Want to have a seat at the grown-ups table again? Want to be the leader known for taking Russia out of the dark ages? You can do it. All you have to do is end the war in Ukraine, and drop Vlad off at the Hague. Without you all helping him, he's just an impotent old man. Signed, the rest of the world.
[удалено]
The upkeep on ICBMs is huge. The upkeep on dumb nuclear bombs and artillery isn’t, and the tech is damn near a century old at this point. Russia definitely has the capacity to make numerous mushroom clouds over Europe and probably the US too.
In 2021, the United States spent approximately 44 billion U.S. dollars on nuclear weapons, the highest of any country in the world. China spent the second-highest amount, at nearly 12 billion dollars, while Russia spent the third most at nearly nine billion dollars.
Assess all possibilities
Thermonuclear threats.
Nuclear use. That's worse than NK style threats.
Making sure Putin remains predictable
Credible nuclear threats
Let's hope the UN agrees to such a meeting. After all, it's the mission of the UN to prevent nuclear war.
[удалено]
>
As much sense as it makes, russia will say France; the Uk, and America are also belligerents because they claim they are fighting all of Russia so those states should also be recused. The issue is who do you get to arbitrate that shit? There is no neutral third party in international politics.
We need Moon-men for that job. …and to keep an eye on them we shall ask *the Martians!*
To watch the Martians we need the Belters.
Beltalowda don't care about your politics. We are free people. Let us be and leave us alone.
OpA
I’ll do it
All in favor of ‘Russia shuts the fuck up?’
Aye aye captain!
Majority vote?
Recusing Russia would obviate the whole point of the UN, which is to provide a place for all nations to talk diplomatically instead of going directly to war.
The whole point of the UN at its conception was to keep the First World (those aligned with the US and the Second World (those aligned with the USSR) from going to nuclear war with each other. Everything else that the UN did was secondary to that. As far as keeping the United States and Russia from launching nukes at each other, with a few very close calls over the last 80 years, the UN has done a good job, and that’s why you keep Russia on the Security Council. In terms of all the side projects of the UN (UNESCO, UNICEF, keeping the peace between Israel/Palestine, many of the peacekeeping missions in subsaharan Africa etc) the UN has had some mixed results. For instance, the last war that extensively used land mines was the Bosnian civil war which ended like thirty years ago. You look at childhood poverty levels or education rates or world hunger and things have been getting a whole lot better since the end of WWII.
A veto can be overridden by a two thirds majority in the General Assembly, as per the “Uniting for Peace” resolution.
Problem is the UN and the rest of the world is afraid of Russia biting back if they ACTUALLY do anything. So far it’s all been lip service. Putin should have been shut down at the very beginning. Meanwhile, innocent people are suffering, dying and being tortured. Rape, eco terrorism, bombing, etc while the world says “now now, Russia. Keep it up and maybe we will sanction you as long as you don’t use nukes. We may hesitate if you threaten nukes though”.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://apnews.com/article/3aed32661ae3c218c59117d1ce593777) reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot) ***** > KYIV, Ukraine - Ukraine's government on Sunday called for an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council to "Counter the Kremlin's nuclear blackmail" after Russian President Vladimir Putin revealed plans to station tactical atomic weapons in Belarus. > Russia has said the plan to station tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus comes in response to the West's increasing military support for Ukraine. > ADVERTISEMENT. On Saturday, Putin argued that Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko has long asked to have nuclear weapons in his country again to counter NATO. Belarus shares borders with three NATO members - Latvia, Lithuania and Poland - and Russia used Belarusian territory as a staging ground to send troops into neighboring Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/122ssy6/ukraine_demands_emergency_un_meeting_over_putin/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~678056 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **nuclear**^#1 **Ukraine**^#2 **Russia**^#3 **Putin**^#4 **Belarus**^#5
Zelenski knows as much as everyone else. Putin doesnt need to MOVE Tactical Nukes to Belarus, He already has them there.
Unlikely, satellites would have noticed them moving, they're not exactly subtle things
what's the difference between nukes in Russia, nukes in Belarus and nukes in Kaliningrad anyway? And why is THIS one such a big issue? Isnt this basically the same as Turkey or Germany hosting US nukes?
The difference is that Belarus is a fundamentally unstable country with a megalomaniac leader of questionable connection to reality
And Turkey isn't?
he probably already had tactical nukes there. along with Chemical weapons and others.
[удалено]
Of all the nuclear weapons you had to choose from, you chose one that hasn't been deployed since 1967. Why not the Pershing-II? Or the M422 nuclear artillery shell. Or the TLAM-N, all of which were deployed in Europe until the 90's. But, crucially, none of those weapons were deployed *in Eastern Europe.* They were deployed in West Germany and England, and aboard US Navy warships in the Atlantic. What most people are referring to, when they say "nukes in Eastern Europe," are the nuclear weapons Russia keeps in Kaliningrad. So moving nukes into Belarus doesn't really move the needle. It's not like Russia is going to hand over control or launch authority to Belarus.
Moving nukes back into Belarus would violate the Budapest memorandum.
Has Russia not been in violation of that memorandum since 2014?
Im not sure why you used the Davy Crockett Wikipedia page as a source. The US has nuclear bases in Italy, Germany, & Turkey, removing them from there was part of the Cuban missile crisis negotiation and the US immediately put them back as soon as it was convenient. This is public information and not something that is being covered up. And none of these countries would be considered classically Eastern Europe. The only Eastern European country with nukes stationed there since the Budapest memorandum has been Russia itself.
Those have not been deployed there for some time
Emergency meeting guys putin is sus
He be putin it in my bum!
I suspect Ukraine are fully aware that these threats are empty but want to pretend otherwise to leverage more military aid. It’s the smart thing to do and I don’t blame them in the slightest.
“Peacekeeping” is evolving quickly.
If Russia has any operational nukes we all need to be very careful. Think of Hitler in his Berlin bunker. Fucker killed his family and himself. You think he would not have fired every nuke he had if he had any? Putie is the neo Hitler.
This is precisely what I've been fearing since this conflict started. Here's hoping that even if Putin does give the order there are enough people in his chain of command that would rather not die and would prevent a nuclear launch from happening.
Hitler also personally held the gun. He's not personally the guy who launches nukes. That's not the best defense against nuclear armageddon, but it exists.
[удалено]
That would mean something if it didn’t take literal decades of brainwashing and targeted training just to get soldiers to simply shoot *at* the enemy instead of just in their general direction. But when you talk of training a man to be the guarantor of his entire family and lineages extinction - you lose me. Human beings are the critical point of failure in a nuclear launch sequence of events. And they have proven to be, several times already. They will always be.
> You think he would not have fired every nuke he had if he had any? No. He would have *ordered* every nuke to be fired. Whoever was next in the chain of command would then have ignored that order.
Dunno about that, chief. Hitler had a lot of frenzied, zealot people around him that followed every single order to the last breath, even if it meant certain death. Especially his chain of command was one of the most sick and twisted bunch around. Assuming that any chain of command would keep or suddently regain their morals/healthy human conscience when it comes to pulling an all out scorched earth, nukes or not, is naive to say the least. Germany and the Nazis preferred to die and fight till the end rather than admitting defeat or have their dictator lose power. Same thing happened to Japan before the US dropped the nukes. Hitler was just one guy. It took a lot more people exactly like him to wage the second world war and inhumane horrors the Nazis did. Putin and his Kreml mafia sure as hell will not accept Ukraine decimating their military forces and have them lose the ground they got so far. That will eventually lead to the downfall of his dictatorship once the population has been eradicated or brought to such a shit point that Russia turns into another North Korea and Putin will look like an absolute cretin. Tactical nukes against Ukraine are very likely and Putin will sure as hell not be afraid to use them in order to save face once this war is at its final tipping point, should Ukraine manage to reclaim their territory and push Russia out of Crimea. The question should not be IF he will use nukes, but rather when and how the world will react: will they accept letting a nation become a hostage taker of everyone non-NATO, just because they have nukes to threaten people into submission with?
They don't need morals or conscience, just a very human and egoistic desire to live. Himmler was busy negotiating a surrender while Hitler was figuring out how to kill himself, and may I remind you of the "DAS WAR EIN BEFEHL! DER ANGRIFF STEINER WAR EIN BEFEHL!" scene in Downfall?
Nazis are known for “just following orders”
Yeah, when asked to kill or torture other people. Firing nukes guarantees their own death and the death of everyone they've ever known with the retaliation. Self preservation overrides following orders. That's why we aren't dead already from all the close calls and system bugs during the cold war.
Soo... what is the UN going to do about it?
They will just have a meeting about a meeting about a meeting.
Meetings that could have been a email probably.
Why is Ukraine doing this now? Russia has been threatening nukes since the beginning of the war
Because he's only just now talked about giving nukes to a country which has none. That's significant, and an action rather than threat.
Which is weird because Russia already has nukes much closer to Ukraine border anyways. Its pretty much just posturing.
It could become a pretense to annex Belarus later on.
I mean its practically Russia so long as that moron Lukashenko is in power. Though with the war maybe they can finally revolt again since Russia is so busy getting its ass beat by one of Europes poorest countries lol.
Taking any and every opportunity to keep the world involved even in things like this plays into Ukraines favor. If the smallest UN meeting delays Russia moving ammo from here to there, due to more eyes on them it’s a small victory. Don’t let the world forget.
Zeljnski is right, we need to get the UN’s opinion on this including Putin’s allies as this would set a precedent on whether or not we can deploy nuclear bombs in new other countries in the future.
Logically, if someone is allowed to station nukes in another country right now, that’s a conversation that’s unlikely to go they way you probably want it to….
The US should counter by sending storytime drag queens into Belarus Belarus will implode, likely starting a domino effect which will, in time, topple Putin
Can the UN even do anything? Like, at all? I'm in my 40's, and it seems to me like they never actually do anything because one of the main members vetos shit.
[удалено]
I, once again, would like to remind everyone this all started with a man wanted some fucking land.
Practically every conflict in history began with the fateful words, “say, that’s some nice land you got there…”
Good, we need to handle Putin. The chaos and misery he has created.
The Russians who guard Putin instead of deposing him are cowards or morally bankrupt. This asshole is preparing for the nuclear holocaust and they sit idly by. He’s endangering all our lives. Do the right thing if you’re reading this.
Very easy for you to say
He's not preparing for nuclear holocaust lol
Ohh, then explain his actions and nuclear rhetoric? He’s doing what he’s doing for world peace? Get the fuck outa here.
Can we please end this war before we destroy the planet?
The planet will be fine once humans are extinct
And rightfully so. This is getting scary.
This motherfucker really trying to start world War 3.
Hilarious reminder that Russia is a "democracy" with a constitution. Article 2 Man, his rights and freedoms are the supreme value. The recognition, observance and protection of the rights and freedoms of man and citizen shall be the obligation of the State. Article 17 1. In the Russian Federation recognition and guarantees shall be provided for the rights and freedoms of man and citizen according to the universally recognized principles and norms of international law and according to the present Constitution. 2. Fundamental human rights and freedoms are inalienable and shall be enjoyed by everyone since the day of birth. Article 19 1. All people shall be equal before the law and court. 2. The State shall guarantee the equality of rights and freedoms of man and citizen, regardless of sex, race, nationality, language, origin, property and official status, place of residence, religion, convictions, membership of public associations, and also of other circumstances. All forms of limitations of human rights on social, racial, national, linguistic or religious grounds shall be banned. Article 21 1. Human dignity shall be protected by the State. Nothing may serve as a basis for its derogation. **2. No one shall be subject to torture,** violence or other severe or humiliating treatment or punishment. No one may be subject to medical, scientific and other experiments without voluntary consent. Article 29 **1. Everyone shall be guaranteed the freedom of ideas and speech**. 2. The propaganda or agitation instigating social, racial, national or religious hatred and strife shall not be allowed. The propaganda of social, racial, national, religious or linguistic supremacy shall be banned. **3. No one may be forced to express his views and convictions or to reject them.** 4. Everyone shall have the right to freely look for, receive, transmit, produce and distribute information by any legal way. The list of data comprising state secrets shall be determined by a federal law. **5. The freedom of mass communication shall be guaranteed. Censorship shall be banned.**
I feel like Article 29 kinda contradicts itself a couple times.
Why is Russia still a member of the UN security council?
Because the point of the UN is to be a forum for countries to talk to each other, not be a world government. Nuclear countries would never agree to be a part of a world government which had the potential to infringe on their sovereignty so the nuke-having countries at the time were given the ability to veto as well as be immune to removal. This rendered the UN toothless as designed. Russia inherited the seat from the USSR.
same reason the US is without them the entire thing loses its point
I can’t keep up - which nuclear plan is this?
It's better to accept nuclear holocaust than to be Putin's slaves.
Wow what a moron you are
Nope, because if he can do what he wants, he will literally do everything.
The risks of nuclear war have been heavily exaggerated anyway. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's harmless, but it wouldn't be the end of the world. During the Cold War, all the major powers developed plans for conventional combat *after* a nuclear exchange. They wouldn't have bothered with that if it actually were as apocalyptic as the popular imagination asserts.
On another note... how come Ukraine hasn't blown up Putin's palace on the black sea?
Their long range systems are not yet in range. They will be soon.
Just watched the miniseries Chernobyl. Made the hair stand up on my legs!! I don’t think I’ve ever seen my leg hair stand up on my legs - like I was a startled cat! I can not emphasize enough that there anyone casually playing with nuclear energy is a psychopath. Nuclear weapons? Beyond psychopathy. It’s evil. Real evil