102

Russian forces simulate nuclear strike as upper house rescinds ratification of test ban treaty (apnews.com)

submitted 11 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

24 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.”

all 25 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] BombOmOm@lemmy.world 40 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Russia's saber rattling has gotten embarrassing. All they have left is to prattle about nukes and meaningless red lines, meanwhile they are losing massive quantities of troops and equipment against a country much smaller than them. Here are just the visually confirmed Russian losses in Ukraine. Every single one of the thousands of tanks and vehicles destroyed has it's own picture or video. Click them. It's mind-boggling.

[+] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world -31 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Yeah, all talk until they actually use one...

[-] Pons_Aelius@kbin.social 30 points 11 months ago

actually use one…

Never going to happen.

While the Ukraine war is destroying the Russian military and economy, those in power are still living a pretty sweet existence and are not touched by any of it.

But they are smart enough to know that if they push the big red button, their cushy lives and those of their families are over.

[-] echodot@feddit.uk 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Russia are currently losing the war to a country smaller than they are if they're use a nuke they will be at war with all of NATO.

They would be wiped out even if NATO didn't respond in kind.

[-] Donjuanme@lemmy.world 17 points 11 months ago

Simulate as in when it's over they go back to their cushy jobs, then leave their standing office, drive down the lit and controlled streets to their houses.

Actual nuclear strike is none of the above.

Get fucked Russian war machine.

[-] jubilationtcornpone@sh.itjust.works 14 points 11 months ago

Might as well simulate blowing their own brains out then because that's what a nuclear strike is in this case: a really, really horrible mass murder/suicide.

[-] drmoose@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

It's impressive how russia has zero real opposition. It's almost like a dictatorship or something.

[-] echodot@feddit.uk 12 points 11 months ago

No not really. Vladimir Putin is just the best leader for Russia and has no opposition. That's why he got 120% of the vote next year.

Occasionally people have put their names forward but it's never turned into anything because they've always fallen out of the window in completely not suspicious circumstances. It's old but that's just how things are sometimes.

[-] echodot@feddit.uk 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Russian forces of simulated their response to a nuclear strike?

So they all just lay on the ground didn't they because that would be their response. Even if the Russian military will even moderately competent there isn't much there going to be able to do against an actual hit.

I know during the cold War everyone was told to hide under their desks but that's because everyone knows that plywood is an excellent radiation blocking material.

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 2 points 11 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

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.

While similar drills are held every autumn, Shoigu’s pointed comments came amid soaring tensions between Russia and the West over the fighting in Ukraine.

There are widespread concerns that Russia could move to resume nuclear tests to try to discourage the West from continuing to offer military support to Ukraine.

Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said earlier this month that Moscow will continue to respect the ban and will only resume nuclear tests if Washington does it first.

Ryabkov said Wednesday that the Russian Foreign Ministry had received U.S. proposals to resume a dialogue on strategic stability and arms control issues, but noted that Moscow doesn’t consider it possible in the current political environment.

“We aren’t ready for it because the return to a dialogue on strategic stability ... as it was conducted in the past is impossible until the U.S. revises its deeply hostile policy course in relation to Russia,” Ryabkov told reporters in comments carried by Russian news agencies.

The original article contains 381 words, the summary contains 187 words. Saved 51%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[+] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world -6 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] Pons_Aelius@kbin.social 31 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

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.

[-] echodot@feddit.uk 4 points 11 months ago

It is like Nth Korea

An infinite and higher dimensional Korea

[-] Pons_Aelius@kbin.social -1 points 11 months ago

Nth means North

[-] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] SwallowsNest@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

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

[-] Pons_Aelius@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

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.

[-] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

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.

[-] Skua@kbin.social 1 points 10 months ago

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

this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2023

102 points (97.2% liked)

World News

38563 readers

3041 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.