How powerful were the Tu 22m3 strategic bombardment planes and X22 rockets?

How powerful were the Tu 22m3 strategic bombardment planes and X22 rockets?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    idk but not as powerful as the nuclear weapons that Ukraine agreed to get rid of in exchange for Russia promising not to invade them.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The situation would be the same even if Ukraine had nukes because both Ukraine and Russia would agree to not use them and proceed with conventional warfare.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Not really, nukes take the Domination victory off the table. Russia could never contemplate annexing Ukraine completely without tens of millions of dead and a destroyed economy. Putin is moronic enough to consider it though since this really is just Risk to him and the lives of average Russian citizens are worthless.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The intrinsic value of life doesn't matter to Putin, but he does value his people for their instrumentality. What they perform within the economy that supports his power is something he would seek to preserve.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It's less likely Russia would've risked open war at all with a nuclear-armed Ukraine. Considering how small their economy is though, and considering how Russia's nuclear arsenal is almost certainly mostly non-functional despite a rather larger economy, it may be a moot point.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >despite a rather larger economy
          Quite literally, it's not about the size. Ukraine was the one who maintained russian nukes before 2014

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Ukraine was the one who maintained russian nukes before 2014
            No they weren't, there's about half a dozen facilities in Russia that do parts of warhead maintenance, Ukraine had one of them that Russia also used.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              The old UR-100NUTTHs used Ukrainian parts (which is why they have basically all left service), the R-36Ms also used Ukrainian parts but have probably been mainly substituted.
              The solid fuel missiles and the navy missiles never had anything to do with Ukraine.
              But that goes both way, Soviet nuclear pits only lasted 10-15 years so the Ukrainian warheads would be 15+ years out of date by this point. They would have just sold them to North Korea anyway, like they did with their missile tech.
              And people ITT seem to forget that the Americans were just as likely to invade Ukraine in 95/96 if they didn't get rid of their nukes. Remember that the scrapping of the strategic bombers was a US initiative, not a Russian one.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >the R-36Ms also used Ukrainian parts
                They were manufactured in Ukraine wholesale, all the way back during the soviet times. Ukraine was also contracted to do maintenance on theim until 2015 when the contract got cut after crimea takeover, and russia has been struggling to maintain them ever since, both cutting their expected service life and also doing 0(zero) test launches since then.
                >have probably been mainly substituted.
                good luck, lmao
                >the Americans were just as likely to invade Ukraine in 95/96 if they didn't get rid of their nukes
                shut the frick up you delusional vatBlack person

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >shut the frick up you delusional vatBlack person
                I mean, he's right. Kind of. The US would've just nork the frick out of Ukraine while showering ruBlack folk in gibs

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I'd wager that Russia would have risked a Donesk situation, but not the entire country.

          "Ukraine is using nuclear weapons of its own to safeguard it against a holocaust of Russian speakers in the East. We will intervene, but it will be kept conventional"

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          iirc Mosscow still had command of the activation codes, to use the nukes Ukraine would have to make their own triggers, and refuel the rockets, possibly even re gas the nukes

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        No. The two of them would not trust each other not to go first. The Russians would not be able to concentrate their forces for the initial attack. You plan on your opponents abilities not their promises. Nukes prevent force concentration for both offense and defense.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >The situation would be the same even if Ukraine had nukes because both Ukraine and Russia would agree to not use them and proceed with conventional warfare.
        I think Ukraine would have been justified in nuking Moscow in 2014 then if not 2014 definitely in 22

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Holy frick, are you 16? What you theorize is akin to both of us putting our guns away and just sticking to fist-fighting. Yeah No. When your ass is getting beat into the ground you're going to go for your weapon if it gives you the advantage.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Except in your analogy, instead of fist fighting, you reach for you .22LR handgun and shoot him once, he then brings out his .50AE handgun and fires eight times. Yeah you both shot guns, but from a 'who is more likely to walk away' situation is pretty lopsided. You'd need at least two to hit the two major cities as well. Another 14 if you want to hit every city above 1m population. Then you'd prob want a 15th and 16th just to hit Vladivostok and Khabarovsk just to end their major city in the Far East.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That guy is right, you probably are 16. No, moron, we all know you don't want to get shot by a 22 and you wouldn't fight a guy over that.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >That guy is right
              >This Is Not A New IP By This Post
              Lol lmao. You literally just said 'when your ass is getting beat into the ground you're going to go for your weapon', in this scenario, if Ukraine had nukes (aka a gun) and fired, great, but Russia has more and better nukes that Ukraine did prior to their disarmament. So unless in your theoretical situation Ukraine not only stopped being a corrupt shithole and upgraded their nuclear weapons and increased their number, then what Ukraine would fire at Russia would be matched in kind by Russia, but at a degree of severity higher. Russia is a big fricking place.

              This isn't a case of
              >We won't fight because you got a gun and I got a gun and neither of us wants to use it
              In your example you said they were already fighting. Therefore if you're at the stage where you're fighting and 'getting your ass beat into the ground' and THEN you pull the gun, the other side isn't going to go
              >Whoa hold on now
              Because that guy also has a gun and will just go
              >Okay, shoot, but my gun is going to fire more times and hit harder than yours
              Are you fricking moronic? Can't you just accept your analogy was fricking shit? You're fricking anonymous. Nobody is going to remember you or your dumb frick moronic syphilis infected brainrot in 30 mins. I sure as frick won't. I'll have a laugh tonight about it, however.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The other anon is right and we know this because even as the sole nuclear power in this war, russia while getting beat up real bad and sitting on the brink of civil war still hasn't touched even the tactical nukes that were developed for this exact scenario. If both sides had nukes there would be an even greater incentive to not use them

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You the same OP that shills this pic all over the place? Regardless
    Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Never ever disarm. No matter what assurances you are given.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This is a theme history repeatedly bears out in fact true. But, 'Dancing With the Stars' is on and my neighbors just got free cell phones, so reasonable gun control is just common sense.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Never unilaterally disarm

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    they were pretty great during the 70s/80s and a major threat against NATO shipping.

    if the ukrainian senpaitachi had kept them (more importantly their fricking nukes) they would have been absolutesly fricking european russia and launching gods knows what nigrigged NATO cruise missiles from.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The reason why Ukraine was willing to exchange their nukes for diplomatic advantage was because their Soviet-era nuke fleet was probably in terrible disrepair and wouldn’t be effective as a MAD threat. Ukraine was an astoundingly corrupt place and they crawled out from under that shit-heap just recently.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >was willing
      Forced. Or else sanctioned like north korea and iran to death.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If I remember correctly, they are kind of a match for the B1 in specs.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They were dogshit
      Everything Russian is dogshit

      The US realized back in the fricking 50s that bombers were moronic unless you could make them fly
      super low (true nap of the earth nav)
      super high and fast (mach 3+ 80k feet+)
      or not be seen on radar

      Russias bombers have always had none of these aspects

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I have a feeling that the threads that are headed towards an inconvenient for US direction are getting hidden for everyone except those who already replied in them/

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *