Zelenskyy promises to use Tomahawks only against Russian military targets
www.aljazeera.com
Moscow has warned of the risk of escalation if Kyiv is provided with the US-built long-range missiles.
    • ArxCyberwolf@lemmy.ca
      3·
      17 hours ago

      "How many Orcs can I kill today?

      Too many to count, don’t get in my way

      I shoot a mofo in the throat with my bow

      Tomahawk chop is my death blow!"

  • SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works
    22·
    24 hours ago

    They are doing very well striking the oil infrastructure with homegrown solutions, so they would actually want the tomahawk for the tougher military targets, like command and control, airfields, supply bunkers etc.

      • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
        21·
        21 hours ago

        You’re confusing “Airfield” and “Runway”. One is a strip of asphalt/concrete, the other is a giant collection of expensive stuff like planes, fueling facilities, ammo stores, workshops, etc etc.

      • supersquirrel@sopuli.xyzOP
        2·
        15 hours ago

        It depends how big and extensive the craters are, there is a reason the UK spent so much effort bombing fastjet airstrips in the Falklands War with a globe spanning Avro Vulcan bomber strikes.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Black_Buck

        edit there is more controversy over the effectiveness of this than I thought vs. it being a glorified PR program for the air force… which it clearly was to a large degree.

  • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
    71·
    1 day ago

    Escalation? YOU are the ones who for the past 3 years have been trying to destroy Ukraine. What should have been a 2 week “special military operation” has now become a 3 year embarassment, and total collapse of your military, your countrys resources, and your young male population for generations to come. Essentially putin, YOU have now gone down in history as russias biggest embarassment. You crippled your own country. And the worst part (for you) is that all of this is because you wanted a lasting legacy. And if you had just done nothing, you’d have gone down as the guy who rebuilt russias economy after the post cold war fallout years. If you just did nothing, you would be in a decent position today. And the rest of the world would still think your military is far stronger than it is/was.

    Instead, you pulled back the curtain, showed the whole world how weak you are. You lashed out, issued empty threats, had no way to follow through with your threats, and now you expect us to believe you have the balls to nuke anyone?

    You nuke Ukraine, or anyone for that matter, and ALL countries reign down upon you. That nuke would instantly be the end of russia, which has stood for over 1000 years. You would be the cause of it’s permanent end.

    Then again, you ARE known to be very stupid, and make the dumbest choices.

    Loser.

  • YtA4QCam2A9j7EfTgHrH@infosec.pub
    61·
    1 day ago

    I think he should continue using other weapons too. I doubt there are enough tomahawks to only use them.

    Edit: maybe he is only personally going to use tomahawks now. This makes more sense. I’d only use the best too if I was at the top.

    • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      2·
      10 hours ago

      I thought the same thing, then I realized “I think they mean they won’t use them for civilians (duh) or infrastructure (less duh).”

      “Only” as in “not for other targets” not “exclusively using THs.”

    • Lysol@lemmy.world
      51·
      1 day ago

      Nope, politicians are not military targets. And that makes sense. Nobody would ever talk and try to settle things diplomatically if they could be legally assassinated while doing so.

      Also, you can’t have a Nuremberg-style trial with the responsible people if you kill them. The military are following orders and doing what they are told (well, hopefully). The politicians are the ones with the highest responsibility for an invading army. An army serving the state won’t invade unless politicians tell them to.

      • unphazed@lemmy.world
        2·
        20 hours ago

        I’m sure the fact that politicians tend to come from wealthy backgrounds has no factor whatsoever…

    • supersquirrel@sopuli.xyzOP
      82·
      1 day ago

      No I would not consider it a military target, a top military building HQ could be considered a target but I would think the international community would deem the literal capital of the country a non-military target.

      • astropenguin5@lemmy.world
        3·
        19 hours ago

        I mean yeah I haven’t been following it that closely because I dont have the time or attention to follow more than the broad strokes of the war nowadays

        But even still from what I’ve seen it looks more likely than Trump’s ridiculous plan

        A lot of what I do actively consume about Ukraine is from https://youtube.com/@perunau (great channel btw), and whatever randomly crosses my lemmy feed

        EDIT:

        Wait a sec, after having done a bit of quick searching, it looks like it’s already confirmed to have been used a couple of times? And is actively in production? Why do you think it’s not real?

          • astropenguin5@lemmy.world
            3·
            17 hours ago

            Tbh most of those points are irrelevant or make no sense, and are easily refutable (Id go down the list but I really don’t have the time rn, might do it this evening)

            The only potentially valid one is the corruption stuff, but I’d have to look into it more.

            Any other sources besides some random twitter guy?