Comments by "" (@EbenBransome) on "Putin's claim that it was not-quite- an ICBM that hit Dnipro" video.

  1. In the escalating runup to WW3 it is important to get the steps right. An ICBM has a range over 5000km and usually has multiple warheads. The ATACMS supplied by the US is a short range missile which releases cluster bombs, effectively a minelayer. The Russian IRBM is intermediate range, fast and ballistic (from Gk. ballein, to throw) i.e. unguided till it slows and aims close to the target. The Iranians have similar weapons and so too, we assume, does Israel. The US tends to depend on overwhelming firepower and reducing the target to a big hole, which has been their tactical approach since about 1917. So you can read it like this: ATACMS attack - see, we can cause destruction and deny areas inside Russia and our mobile platform means you can't stop us. And we have bigger, longer range drones than the ones we've been using to disrupt you. Russian response - well, we have a precision missile beyond the range of your ATACMS, so if you don't want holes in Kiev, think again. And by the way we laugh at your crappy Watchkeepers. In the arithmetic of death and destruction it's perfectly rational, a kind of chess game.
    2
  2. I personally wish I didn't know as much as I do about missiles and artillery. It's a bit like watching a cricket match but knowing that you cannot influence the outcome but it may result in the wrecking of the Northern Hemisphere.
    1