Western leaders should not be intimidated by Kremlin threats of nuclear escalation, the head of the CIA said on Saturday, and be willing to consider allowing Anglo-French Storm Shadow missiles to be used inside Russia.

Bill Burns, on a visit to London alongside the head of MI6, said the US had brushed off a previous Russian nuclear scare in autumn 2022, demonstrating that threats from Moscow should not always be taken literally.

“Putin’s a bully. He’s going to continue to sabre rattle from time to time,” Burns said. “We cannot afford to be intimidated by that sabre rattling … we got to be mindful of it. The US has provided enormous support for Ukraine, and I’m sure the president will consider other ways in which we can support them.”

MBFC
Archive

top 9 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Faydaikin@beehaw.org 17 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Russian leaders has been yelling about their nukes since I was a kid.

I can honestly say that I don't care anymore. Like, either launch them or shut up about it. It's just tiring now.

[–] furrowsofar@beehaw.org 3 points 1 month ago

Same. The thing is we have nukes and they have nukes. One cannot let more or less useless nukes dominate the discussion. Similarly Russia cannot even beat Ukraine. What do they think will happen if they go up against NATO.

[–] deuleb_biezelbob@programming.dev 9 points 1 month ago (2 children)

nukes are basically zero sum except tactical nukes and dirty bombs

[–] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

tactical nukes escalate all the way to strategic anyway and dirty bombs don't work

[–] BombOmOm@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

The modern tactical nuke is as strong as what the US dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. People have this idea that a tactical nuke is 'small', but what is really the case is they are full sized nukes, and strategic nukes are simply larger. From a MAD perspective, there is no reason why dropping a nuke the strength of what was dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki would somehow be notably different than a larger nuke.

[–] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 month ago

tacnukes were obsoleted by DPICM and later PGMs

[–] anachronist@midwest.social 11 points 1 month ago

Tactical nukes aren't real. They start an escalation ladder that gets you to global thermonuclear war in a few hours. Using a "tactical nuke" is just laying naked your intent to have things go nuclear while giving your opponent a chance to respond.

During the Cuban Missile Crisis Kennedy wanted to nuke Cuba. The joint chiefs told him that if he wanted to do that he would also have to nuke Russia in a massive fully committed first strike.

[–] aramis87@fedia.io 7 points 1 month ago

I wasn't?

[–] lerba@sopuli.xyz -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Since when are we listening to whatever the fucking CIA says as if they were the good guys/ on our side?

edit: That being said, never trust anything Putin's boasting about either