>>510356394
>>The Ukraine will not be given Tomahawks.
>Because you're wrong.
I think the biggest reason they won't be given Ts is that as far as I've read, the US doesn't have Typhon launchers (derived from the shipborne Mk 41 VLS) to spare.
>>510356602
>tomahawk is not a small hit, nuclear armed tomahawk can take out entierty of the goverment in moscow
>you dont understand scales of threats you are talking about
yes anon but the conventional Tomahawk is armed with a 450kg warhead that won't even fully destroy a khruschyovka. Lets say that the Ukraine is given Ts. The first few they don't fire at Moscow, they fire at the Kerch bridge. Does Russia nuke the US? of course not and the birds are subsonic, they'll be shot down easily and voenkors will pose next to Tomahawk wreckage. That will be the end of any Russian threat of nuclear response to Tomahawks fired at Russia.
>>510357014
>yes, as in "russian nuclear doctrine.pdf"
You cannot play the part of a reasonable, confident and relaxed country even when in war with the West for so long and then expect people to believe your threats to end the world if Tomahawks are used by Ukraine. I'm 100% on Russia's side and even I don't believe that Russia will commit species suicide if Tomahawks fly, no matter what the doctrine formally says. And for what its worth, the doctrine says Russia *RESERVES THE RIGHT* to use nukes, not that it will auto-end us all if a subsonic that is clearly not part of a nuclear decapitation strike heads into Russia. You realise, assuming that the US is moronic enough to do it and they actually find enough launchers, they won't even fire them at Moscow first.
First they'll fire them at the Kerch Bridge.
>No nuke response.
Then they'll fire them at Luhansk city.
>No nuke response.
Then they'll fire them at Krasnodar airbase.
>No nuke response.
Then they'll idk fire them at Volgograd or Engels-2 airbase near Saratov
>No nuke response

And that's how it'll go.