I don't believe it, what would be the point of supplying ICBMs used for nukes, Moscow is just 300 miles away from Ukraine and talk about the latest tech! They were reluctant to supply ATCMS and these are and order of magnitude more capable than those.I’m not sure this is a good idea.
AMP chief economist Shane Oliver declares that high immigration is to blame for Australia's housing crisis - and warns numbers need to be capped now before it's too late - BNN Breaking
Explore the divisive debate surrounding Australia's upcoming referendum on establishing an advisory indigenous Voice to parliament. Understand the political dynamics, opposition arguments, and the potential impact on racial tensions. Stay updated on this intense topic.bnn.network
It is confusing to me also. It is not a regionally useful weapon. And I don’t think a nonnuclear version has been developed. It’s like asking for some bug spray and hearing “all out, but here’s a pump shotgun instead”.I don't believe it, what would be the point of supplying ICBMs used for nukes, Moscow is just 300 miles away from Ukraine and talk about the latest tech! They were reluctant to supply ATCMS and these are and order of magnitude more capable than those.
I’m operating from the premise that nuclear non-proliferation is a Good Thing.Who said it will not have nukes? I suggested many years ago that if Iran were to go nuclear that the US should rent out little red buttons to friendly countries in the area. No need for an arms race or to keep dangerous warheads in unstable areas of the world. Maintenance and upkeep is done by the US, no need to set up a new and costly program for the countries. Of course there will be a lockout on areas the missile would be allowed to hit (wink, wink) and states like Russia and North Korea will manage to determine this by 'accidentally' confirming this with their spy network.
I am not sure I believe the US did offer them as I couldn't any other articles about it; but is it possible the no strike agreement would be absolute and Ukraine would agree not to strike inside Russia with any weapons and not just the MM3? While Ukraine may be under American protection for nuclear deterrence right now, that could change depending on 2024. This would offer a long term deterrent regardless of 2024's outcome.I’m operating from the premise that nuclear non-proliferation is a Good Thing.
As for containing Iran, France and Britain are close enough to supply ample deterrence.
There is also Israel , which is tight-lipped about its nuclear arsenal, but they have in-house thermonukes, missiles of tactical to strategic range, and at least two nuclear cruise missile subs.
It strikes me as more problem than solution. We have already guaranteed that Ukraine is under our nuclear deterrence umbrella. I see no benefit in giving them ICBMs.
Not really serious, would be funny to watch the Saudi's freak out thinking there button was defective ("?You never thought we would really give you a working button, did you?")I’m operating from the premise that nuclear non-proliferation is a Good Thing.
As for containing Iran, France and Britain are close enough to supply ample deterrence.
There is also Israel , which is tight-lipped about its nuclear arsenal, but they have in-house thermonukes, missiles of tactical to strategic range, and at least two nuclear cruise missile subs.
It strikes me as more problem than solution. We have already guaranteed that Ukraine is under our nuclear deterrence umbrella. I see no benefit in giving them ICBMs.
Halle-fucking-lujah...This could be the future of Belarus too... Dunno if this is the beginning of the offensive or not, if it is, it is a fucking dandy!