comment: >
  
  What happens if we give Ukraine tactical nukes?
context: Ukraine has been able to successfully utilize the GMLRS (HIMARS) missiles because they have hundreds of cheap unguided long-range artillery rockets that can saturate Russian Air Defense while the GMLRS missiles punch through.
  But the Ukrainian long-range artillery rockets can't reach target areas that are this far away. Instead the West should buy up the cheap Scud/Tochka missiles in Eastern Europe and the Middle East and give to Ukraine. These cheap, old but long-range missiles will be used to saturate Russian air defense so the more precise GLSDB (and one day hopefully the ATACMS) can punch through. >
  
  That's a really good idea. We should be buying up all the high volume cheap shit that the Russians saturated the world with, and give it to the Ukrainians to shoot right back at them. There's a symmetry to that. >
  
  Russia likes wave tactics, give them a dose of their own medicine. >
  
  The GLSDB sounds like a great way to say fuck you, precisely you, and nobody else but you. >
  
  That’s the R9x aka the flying slap chop. >
  
  True, GLSDB is more like "Fuck this building/bunker/vehicle in particular." >
  
  This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 87%. (I'm a bot)
  
  
  The US says additional military aid to Ukraine worth $2.2bn will include long-range missiles capable of doubling its attack range.
  Previously, Ukraine's longest range weapon was the Himars rocket system, which can hit targets at a range of up to 80km. Kyiv used the system to devastating effect during its counter-offensive in the south and east last year.
  The new package - which will also include additional Himars missiles and 250 Javelin anti-armour systems - comes amid mounting concerns that Western nations have been too slow to provide fresh military aid to Ukraine.
  
  
  Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Ukraine^#1 system^#2 Russian^#3 Ukrainian^#4 weapon^#5 >
  
  Good and Putin can cry about it all he wants. Time for Ukraine to strike deeper into Russia >
  
  90 miles isn’t very deep into Russia. In fact it’s likely not reaching Russia at all since the eastern Ukraine is contested. >
  
  Unlike Russia, Ukraine's objective won't be to hit cities, populated areas, and other various war-crimes with the missiles.  They don't need the missiles to go deep into the Russian heartland.  
  However these new missiles do put a lot of Russian military targets near the border at risk, there are massive ammo dumps near the Russian border that are well out of HIMAR range that are going to get bombed very soon.  Russia's front-line will soon be having major logistical issues.  
  Russian artillery guns will be getting targeted and destroyed well before they are in range to fire at Ukrainian forces.  Ukrainian artillery teams firing cheap conventional round will then be able to engage Russian positions very cost-effectively with little to no risk.    
  The only responses Russia will have will be counter-artillery with their own long-range munitions or airstrikes.  Ukraine is saturated with MANPADS and other anti-air defense making both of the  options costly.  Add in that Russia can't keep up with western production of modern missiles and planes and the February Russian offense is looking pretty bleak.  Of course their is a third choice, it's the easiest, cheapest, and most logical one which would be for Russia to just pull out of Ukraine but well Putin isn't a very logical or rational man. >
  
  They’ll be useful, but they won’t reach deep into Russia. 90 mile range, when Russia is about that deep into east Ukraine already. That’s all I was saying. >
  
  Not reaching deep into a Russia is a feature, not a bug buddy. >
  
  Did you read the comment I originally replied to? I wasn’t saying it’s meant to reach deep, I just said it won’t. >
  
  You do realize Ukraine shares a direct border with Russia in the northeast that isn't contested you stupid fuck. >
  
  You do realize if Ukraine moves into Russia, the US stops sending aid, right? US already said it won’t send ATACMS for this very reason >
  
  lets hope they use them where it hit hardest >
  
  Thank fuck >
  
  Yes, please >
  
  Why announce this? To give Russian chance to move important facilities out of range? Better to let Russia learn the hard way. >
  
  Either USA wants Russia to do exactly that and relieve the front lines or they really know that Russia wont do a thing about it.
  US politics can be a stupid shitshow, but their Military is something that will always deserve respect. >
  
  The US may be a joke, but boy do we have mighty fine military industrial complex and international spy network. >
  
  bought and paid for by The House of Saud >
  
  in 9 months* >
  
  90 miles isn't very long-range >
  
  My dude, that is a two hour drive. If I had to go that far to fuck your mother I’d definitely call it a long distance relationship. >
  
  Good one? Anyway, it's not even enough to reach into Crimea. >
  
  It won’t become WWIII. That’s just a Russian talking point to try and scare the West into pulling their support of Ukraine. >
  
  Explosion looks like a bird Pokémon going on a rampage