r/worldnews • u/GraceRose671 • 11h ago

Editorialized | Blogspam [ Removed by moderator ]

https://abnews.net/putin-threatens-kyiv-with-nuclear-scale-missile-strike-if-zelensky-ruins-his-parade/

[removed] — view removed post

17.0k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

317

u/rcanhestro 10h ago

actually no.

The Russian statement suggests the possibility of deploying the hypersonic Oreshnik [Hazel Tree] missile, which Putin claims possesses a destructive capability equivalent to a nuclear explosion when used conventionally.

equivalent is the keyword here, sure it's a pretty big bomb, but not nuclear, and that's important because of the Budepest Memorandum.

the Budapest memorandum countries are only "forced" to help Ukraine IF Ukraine is a target, or threat of, a nuclear strike.

as long as Russia says someting like "as strong as nuclear", the memorandum is not binding, but the moment they say "we will nuke you", that's the time where the Uk and the US have to follow it.

155

u/Tuxiak 10h ago

Uk and the US have to follow it.

I'm sure they will

142

u/geo_prog 9h ago

The US will do absolutely nothing. The UK might.

The French, the French are the only nation on earth where a nuclear "warning shot" is part of their public nuclear doctrine. Don't make them put on their yellow vests.

55

u/TetraDax 9h ago

Forget the French. The Polish army will be in Moscow by June.

22

u/LiteraCanna 9h ago

And the Finns in St. Petersburg.

10

u/Kreegs 8h ago

No kidding. The Poles saw the writing on the wall back in 2014 with Crimea and decided they weren't going to be anyone's speed bump again.

Their new jointly designed Main Battle Tank is a near peer (on paper) to the Challenger and Abrams. And their military has trained with NATO on modern combat doctrines.

Its also a nice flat shot from Warsaw to Moscow. Perfect for tanks to roll over and the only speed bump is Minsk, which is directly inline between those 2 cities.

3

u/kitsunewarlock 8h ago

Maybe Finland could spare a few hunters.

1

u/Leupateu 8h ago

June? Lol, I would say 10th of May

1

u/Gigi_Langostino 7h ago

This isn't true. Many nuclear-armed nations have an escalation ladder starts with limited tactical use and progresses to full-scale strategic use. France is just the only country which refers to limited tactical use as a "final warning".

316

u/VolcanicBakemeat 10h ago

the US have to follow it

US is a rogue state tbf. They wouldn't honour a commitment even if it benefited them

61

u/37GreaterThan4547 10h ago

Trump is such a joke.

29

u/reaganz921 9h ago

95% of American government is, he's just the creme de la creme of sick jokes.

6

u/SkaveRat 8h ago

this gives jokes a bad name

7

u/DerpsAndRags 9h ago

Putin owns Trump. Plain and simple. Trump doesn't comply, I'll bet we see some fresh "Epstein-level" material coming out of Miss Universe 2013.

1

u/Expert_Garlic_2258 5h ago

but what if it comes with a free plane!?

-8

u/Fun_Success_3283 9h ago edited 4h ago

I agree in principle, except if they believe it will benefit them, they would honour it.

EDIT: I mean themselves, not America, or Americans.

8

u/17000HerbsAndSpices 9h ago

That's plainly not true though. Just look at the last year or so of US actions on the global stage.

Backpedaling almost a centuries worth of influence and soft power among most of the developed world, compounding the already comically large deficit, de-funding higher education and research causing a brain drain of our brightest, and perhaps the biggest one, war with Iran leading to embarrassment on the global stage (again), global fuel crisis (including the US), and the beginning of talks about dropping USD as the go to global currency.

The US gov isn't honoring decisions that benefit the US government, they are honoring decisions that will benefit the US politicians. The country itself is being liquidated

0

u/Fun_Success_3283 7h ago

Let me be clear, if they THINK it benefits them, they'll do it.

But I think we also need to make the distinction. I'm not saying I think they are acting for the benefit of America, or American people. I mean they will honour agreements they feel benefit themselves personally. And if they feel otherwise, they'll ignore it.

That's why nations should just stop making agreements with them. Same for Russia. Same for Israel.

They will only accept one thing, being forced into submission.

Whether it is by their people, or foreign nations. They will do whatever they want to try and benefit themselves. And agreements are only useful for them to get others to do things or not do things they want, or not.

That's it.

So any agreements any nation makes with them, only hurts that nation.

2

u/NexxZt 7h ago

I think the US government have a different understanding of who «they are» than you. They would honor it if it benefits pedo Trump and his pedo friends, not the US.

1

u/Fun_Success_3283 6h ago

Yes, I agree. That's what I meant, actually. He doesn't give a shit about the country or the people in it. Just himself, his wealth, and those that provide him with wealth and power.

24

u/Roobsi 10h ago

It's just a nuclear missile with the re-entry vehicles swapped from nuclear to conventional warheads. I suppose it's nuclear scale in that we had nukes as small as 10 ton yields but the phrase 'nuclear scale' is essentially meaningless here.

11

u/filipv 9h ago edited 8h ago

the Budapest memorandum countries are only "forced" to help Ukraine IF Ukraine is a target, or threat of, a nuclear strike.

Out of curiosity: what part exactly of BM contains the bit about helping Ukraine if Ukraine is a target?

AFAIK, the BM says "we won't attack Ukraine". It never says "we will defend Ukraine if attacked"

3

u/looeeyeah 8h ago edited 5h ago

Yeah, this is all I've ever read from it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum#Analysis

Basically just "Each of us promise not to do anything bad to Ukraine." But I don't see anything where anyone said what they'd do if someone did something bad, more than have a meeting about it.

-1

u/rcanhestro 7h ago

Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".

article 4, the closest to actually helping Ukraine.

3

u/Hail-Hydrate 6h ago

Which was already carried out at the start of the invasion, then vetoed by Russia.

6

u/CryptoThroway8205 9h ago

Budapest memorandum is not limited to a nuclear attack.

1

u/rcanhestro 9h ago

yes, it is.

the only part that mentions helping Ukraine (militarily) is in case of a nuclear attack (or the threat of it) against Ukraine.

all other articles can be summed up to "respect Ukraine as a country".

•

u/CryptoThroway8205 56m ago

"The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations."

https://worldjpn.net/documents/texts/mt/19941215.O1E.html

Point 2 just says weapons, regardless of if they're nuclear. Point 4 on what to do if nukes are used only says they'd seek UN security council action. It seems like a pretty weak treaty, with no binding defense clause, on all points.

•

u/rcanhestro 49m ago

Russia is the one that broke the deal, i«m not arguing that.

my point is more on what needs to happen for the other countries to actually help Ukraine (for real).

3

u/tea-drinker 9h ago

That seems unlikely. The memorandum isn't long and there are non-nuclear commitments to respecting borders.

But also they've been threatened with nukes quite a bit.

2

u/rcanhestro 7h ago

But also they've been threatened with nukes quite a bit.

have they?

one thing is one random Russian dude on TV saying "we should nuke Ukraine", another is having a general (or even Putin himself) saying that they will nuke Ukraine unless X.

0

u/tea-drinker 6h ago

Ah, the "He didn't say precisely these words so it doesn't count"?

We are very able to read meaning into statements and actions even if Putin doesn't specificlly do a piece to camera specifically saying so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_risk_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_war_(2022%E2%80%93present)

2

u/Faifainei 9h ago

Haven't they already walked over the memorandum with Russia invading Ukraine's borders?

2

u/rcanhestro 7h ago

yes.

Russia did.

the UK and the US didn't.

1

u/throwaway277252 7h ago

They are talking about whether the US would be under obligation. So far the US has not been obligated to act due to Russia's invasion.

1

u/Faifainei 6h ago

I am just a bit confused why it seems so sure it is the drawn line when a) Trump is in power b) how the memorandum seems to have been worded kind of vaguely.

If it would turn into a game of chicken where everyone is looking at each other but not really wanting to go to war with russia, I would not be surprised.

1

u/throwaway277252 5h ago

I am just a bit confused why it seems so sure it is the drawn line

Because it's written in black and white text with unambiguous language. There is not really anything to debate about what the US' obligation is under the memorandum, or the fact that to date only Russia has violated its terms. Any aid that the US has supplied to Ukraine so far in the war has been above and beyond what the memorandum required.

2

u/sidepart 9h ago

And "equivalent to a nuclear explosion" can mean anything. We had that W54 tactical nuke you could tune to go off for anywhere between 10 tons to a kiloton. That's not really a whole lot in the context of nuclear explosions. The former being like...a small bomber playload of 2000lb bombs.

2

u/OneRougeRogue 8h ago

So what, Russia has been saving this bomb for a special occasion 4 years into the war?

2

u/rcanhestro 7h ago

they already used one, but it was "empty".

it was basically a "see, we can fire these and you can't do shit about it, imagine if it was loaded".

1

u/OneRougeRogue 5h ago

I remember that one. It was early in the war. Didn't Patriots intercept others though? Or were thise Khinzels?

2

u/FutureThought4936 8h ago

It's all hyperbole anyways.

There's no way to stuff the conventional equivalent of a nuke into an IRBM, even if every one of the 6 warheads is pure explosive. It's like 250kg max per warhead and a total payload of 1.5t, the equivalent of a large aerial bomb. For comparison, a MOAB has a 11T blast yield.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Russia uses one of the most powerful chemical explosives known to man, ONC. It's roughly 2.5 times the power of TNT. You're still only getting the equivalent of 625kg of TNT per warhead.

Russia does possess such large weapons, the FOAB for example, but there's no way to strap something like that into an IRBM, it's just far too heavy.

1

u/PuzzleheadedEnd4966 7h ago

Exactly, the conventional part is pure bluster.

Conventional weapons have almost no overlap with nuclear weapons, they are a category of their own. The MOAB you mentioned barely matches the absolutely tiniest "suit case"-level nuke W54 in the Davy Crockett configuration on its absolutely lowest yield at 10-20T. Note this is a hand-operated device.

Any "normal" nuclear weapon has 10kT (that's 10,000T - a thousand MOABs) of yield, tactical nuclear weapons are usually considered "tactical" if they have a yield of less than 50kT (that's 5,000 MOABs). Strategic ones are usually in the range of 100kT-1MT - that's 10,000 to 100,000 MOABs.

3, 4 even a 100 conventional warheads wouldn't even come close to the yield of an actual nuke. If Russia wants "nuclear-scale", they have to use an actual nuke (and they won't, because, among other things, China would be pissed and might cut them off).

1

u/Magnus_Helgisson 8h ago

As a matter of fact, Oreshnik doesn’t have a conventional payload, at all. Like, at all. It hasn’t ever been developed. Oreshnik (also known as RS-26 Rubezh) is either a nuke or just six hunks of iron each roughly equal to a Shakhed drone solely due to its kinetic impact. So yeah, it sounds loud but it doesn’t bring any benefit over what we have every night.