undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbell-cot9mo ago0 comments

I'd replace "some analysts" with "some alarmists". And unless you're in the hyped-up headline business, the attack fell well short of "devastating".

Plus, the pre-attack triad cred of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95 bombers was pretty limited. Notice that they are turboprops. From the 1950's. Hitting hard against the western nuclear powers (US/UK/France) ain't in their talent set.

0 comments

themadturk9mo ago

The point is that Tu-95s are still an integral part of Moscow's aircraft leg of their nuclear triad. They are fully capable of carrying nuclear-tipped standoff weapons and attacking Europe. They fulfill the same role as the B-52 (also a 1940s-1950s design) does for the USAF. Their apparent cruising speed is roughly 100kph less than the B-52 and they are comparable in range.

Part of the reason it's so critical to Moscow is the uncertainty over the viability of their missile-based systems (both the land-based and sea-based legs of the triad). Maintenance has been so poor on these systems that no one is sure how reliable they are.

closewith9mo ago

> And unless you're in the hyped-up headline business, the attack fell well short of "devastating".

All other comparable attacks have been considered devastating in history.

bell-cotOP9mo ago

Yet the passably professional military news sites I've read describe the attack in terms like "substantial", "demoralizing", and "temporarily constrain Russia's ability to conduct long-range drone and missile strikes into Ukraine". Not "devastating", nor any similar (emotive or maximal) terminology.

XorNot9mo ago

sigh all of that history existed before the development of ICBMs and submarine launched ICBMs particularly. Which happened around the 1960s-ish depending how you count it.

ICBMs, and in particular submarine based ICBMs, are what provide nuclear deterrence in a serious fashion. They arrive faster, and are effectively unstoppable at scale.

closewith9mo ago

An attack can be devastating without harming any military capabilities at all.

9/11 was devastating. October 7th was devastating. Pahalgam was devastating.

The drone attacks against Russian airbases were highly destructive, caused extreme shock, and were extremely impressive - the literal definitions of devastating.

The response will depend on the emotional and political reality within Russia. Although they have not lost their nuclear strike capabilities, they have lost face and now Putin may feel the need to act to retain his strongman hold on the country, or risk being Ceaușescu'd.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

themadturk9mo ago

closewith9mo ago

> And unless you're in the hyped-up headline business, the attack fell well short of "devastating".

All other comparable attacks have been considered devastating in history.

bell-cotOP9mo ago

XorNot9mo ago

sigh all of that history existed before the development of ICBMs and submarine launched ICBMs particularly. Which happened around the 1960s-ish depending how you count it.

ICBMs, and in particular submarine based ICBMs, are what provide nuclear deterrence in a serious fashion. They arrive faster, and are effectively unstoppable at scale.

closewith9mo ago

An attack can be devastating without harming any military capabilities at all.

9/11 was devastating. October 7th was devastating. Pahalgam was devastating.

The drone attacks against Russian airbases were highly destructive, caused extreme shock, and were extremely impressive - the literal definitions of devastating.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse