Ukraine’s air force has said Russia fired an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) at the city of Dnipro, which if confirmed would be the first time the long-range weapon has been used in any armed conflict.

The claim was not immediately accepted by others, however. ABC News reported, citing western officials, that this was an exaggeration and that the weapon was in fact a shorter-range ballistic missile, similar to the types used repeatedly by Russia against Ukraine during the war.

Update: President [ Putin] says hypersonic missile (Oreshnik) fired at Dnipro military site in reply to Kyiv’s strikes in Russia with western missiles

  • Riddick3001@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    9 hours ago

    Edit OP:

    Update: update guardian

    President [Putin] says hypersonic missile ( Oreshnik) fired at Dnipro military site in reply to Kyiv’s strikes in Russia with western missiles

  • b000rg@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    13 hours ago

    But why? Aren’t ICBMs incredibly expensive? Like, rocket ship expensive because that’s basically what they are? Aren’t there other hypersonic options that are cheaper and less politically loaded?

    • drathvedro@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 hours ago

      They are. It’s a message, and rather expensive at that. For all intents and purposes, most notably to early warning systems, it was a nuke. Crazy Vlad over here flung one without a payload and triggered full on DEFCON 2 or even 1 just to make a point.

    • Zwiebel@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      Maybe the propellant goes bad after a couple decades so you might as well? Idk

      Or they need to test fire and train people anyways

  • IMNOTCRAZYINSTITUTION@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    13 hours ago

    If confirmed, firing of weapon would mark first time missile – which can carry nuclear payload – has been used

    is the guardian too cheap for proofreading now??

    • Mihies
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Also this assessment is wrong. Russian cruise missiles are perfectly capable of carrying nukes and they are fired daily in dozens 🤷‍♂️ But perhaps they are nitpicking…

  • Kokesh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Wouldn’t the ICBM launch trip US nuclear defenses? Or is it only flocks of birds?

    • refalo
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Yes which is why other countries were notified first so they didn’t retaliate automatically. A lot more discussion goes on behind closed doors than most people realize.

  • Destide@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    13 hours ago

    There’s literally 2 clear videos of it, whats the claim?

    • Riddick3001@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      Apperantly, and I’m no expert, after checking various sources, the exact missile type hasn’t been confirmed yet, independentally. There seems to be a discussion of two options afaik; a proper ICBM; or another version, sort of it’s little brother, which is more of a shorter range missile.