Trump shoots down sending Ukraine ‘highly complex’ Tomahawk missiles - “The only way a Tomahawk is going to be shot is if we shot it,” the president added. “And we’re not going to do that.”
Posted by anarchyart2021@reddit | EndlessWar | View on Reddit | 25 comments
CapriSun87@reddit
Tomahawk missiles have the potential to be nuclear weapons. Giving them to Ukraine is a huge escalation and could lead to Russia overreacting by using nukes against Ukraine.
Inevitable-Regret411@reddit
To be fair, a lot of Russian cruise missiles and tactical ballistic missiles used in the conflict are also designed to be able to carry nuclear or conventional warheads. It's done to simplify logistics, it's easier to have one type of missile with interchangeable payloads than to have two separate systems. I don't think providing the missiles by themselves would risk nuclear escalation.
CapriSun87@reddit
It's not about what you think, but what Russia thinks.
And if russia thinks nuclear capable missiles are headed their way, the fuck you think they gonna do? They gonna respond accordingly with nukes. That alone is why Ukraine isn't getting them.
Because tomahawks are by definition nuclear escalation.
Inevitable-Regret411@reddit
Ukraine doesn't have nuclear weapons though, and isn't likely to acquire them for the foreseeable future. There's no reason why Russia would assume that a Tomahawk launched by Ukraine would have anything other than a conventional warhead.
CapriSun87@reddit
Who knows if NATO gave them nukes in secret?
Bottom line, russia can't know for sure. And they'd definitely and justifiably respond in kind with worst case scenario.
But keep telling yourself Russia has nothing to worry about. It's perfectly in line with western propaganda about unprovoked war.
Inevitable-Regret411@reddit
Russia has made extensive use of the Kalibr cruise missile family in the conflict. Like Tomahawk, these missiles are also capable of carrying a tactical nuclear weapon. If Russia would be justified in responding to a Tomahawk launch with a nuclear strike because it is possible the missile carried a nuclear payload, would NATO be justified in launching a nuclear strike against Russia the next time they launch Kalibr, just in case it had a nuclear payload and was pointed at them?
AtosPortosAramis3@reddit
Difference is that Russia is not sending it's nuclear capable missiles at a nuclear armed country. The whole concept of MAD is based on nuclear doctrines of nuclear capable countries.
They will launch nukes if one is headed their way. None nuclear countries obviously do not have and cannot afford the same doctrine.
Inevitable-Regret411@reddit
Ok, there's a better comparison available. Russian strategic bombers sometimes approach or enter NATO airspace in an intelligence gathering role to test NATO response times, among other objectives. You have said that Russia would be correct and justified to respond to a Ukrainian Tomahawk launch with a nuclear strike because of the possibility that the missile may be equipped with a nuclear payload, and Russia would have to assume the worst. Would a NATO nuclear power therefore be justified in a nuclear strike on Russia on the basis that a Russian bomber they detect near their airspace might be about to turn and attack them?
AtosPortosAramis3@reddit
Russia does not send their nuclear bombers into nazi space so you are not even attempting to make a coherent analogy.
An actual comparable analogy would be if a Russian nuclear bomber decided to fly over a nato nazi capitol and dropped bombs while telling the nazis that those are conventional bombs and not nuclear ones. Because a tomahawk is not there to approach the Russian border but is designated to strike deep into Russia to kill as many civilians as possible.
You are really bad at this.
Inevitable-Regret411@reddit
Your first sentence is factually incorrect. Russian aircraft, including strategic bombers, have approached and entered NATO airspace in the past. This has occurred both in Europe and over North America. Here's some recent examples:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-planes-alaska-us-fighter-jets-intercept-bomber-fighter-jets-adiz/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/sep/19/estonia-accuses-russia-of-brazen-violation-of-its-airspace
It goes without saying the purpose of a cruise missile is to destroy targets instead of proving airspace. My point was that Russia wouldn't be forced to respond to the missiles with a nuclear strike because of the mere possibility that those missiles were carrying a nuclear weapon, just as how NATO doesn't automatically assume these aircraft are engaging in a nuclear strike. Therefore, contrary to your earlier claim the use of Tomahawk missiles (or indeed any other nuclear capable weapon with a conventional payload) should not be viewed as a nuclear escalation.
AtosPortosAramis3@reddit
Being accused of is not the same as having been proven doing so. How hard is logic for you?
Guess what Alaska is really close to? Just guess.
Dopecombatweasel@reddit
Nobody is gonna use nukes bruh
Listen2Wolff@reddit
The USA is losing in Ukraine.
When Israel restarts its war with Iran, Iran will devastate the county.
Israel and the US will use nukes.
AtosPortosAramis3@reddit
That window is closing because Russia has been supplying more SU-35s and S-400s. Currently there was only enough for Tehran and eastern part of Iran but in the future they will be able to cover the whole country.
CapriSun87@reddit
Exactly what has kept NATO boots from Ukrainian soil, so far, do you think? It's not out of politeness to Russian wishes. It's because russian would nukes NATO if there were.
Also, why are Russians up in arms about tomahawks in the first place? Because tomahawks are nuclear capable. How the Russians realistically gonna react when a potential nuke (they don't if it is nucealr tipped, theyonly know it could be) is headed their way? With nukes, obviously.
The war started over russias refusal to allow western nukes on its border.
The entire freaking war is about nukes. But you're working on the assumption that 'no one is gonna use nukes'. Respectfully, but that's the dumbest thing I've read in a long time.
Terrorphin@reddit
That's not the issue - the problem is that they are really big naval missiles that need complex and unwieldy launchers, and they are not that effective. They are a red herring.
Ok-King-4868@reddit
Ukrainian/MI6 special operations to partially destroy an oil refinery in Hungary is a significant escalation against a fellow EU member, but it won’t draw a Russian response. But give Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine and the only way Russia can react is with rational overreaction.
OGmoron@reddit
Fellow EU member?
Ok-King-4868@reddit
Do yourself a favor and figure out what the United States of America accomplished by inciting Ukrainians to commit national suicide and making Russia take all the blame, 100% of the blame all across the West with the fewest of exceptions. Ask yourself what it gave them covers to do or to accomplish?
Once you figure that out then you should realize the level of sociopathic thinking and behavior involved by Americans and the stupidity or knowing complicity of the EU leaders & Brits.
It’s complex but if the war ended today they will have accomplished one major goal and one significant achievement. These people are all sociopaths who differ only be degree. Never ever mistake them for normal people who wish to live in peace and shared prosperity.
OGmoron@reddit
You alright, bro?
Ok-King-4868@reddit
Perfectly fine, and you?
Ok-King-4868@reddit
You’re correct. I keep forgetting about Brexit and Ukraine is still trying to make its bones and score an EU-NATO invite or, more accurately, whatever is left of Ukraine after Black Rock and Trump finish polishing off its assets.
Listen2Wolff@reddit
Is it "overreacting" to fire off nukes in response to nukes being shot at you?
Why would anyone of sound mind think "that Tomahawk isn't carrying a nuke."
I sure wouldn't.
Chicken_Crotch_Pie@reddit
So Trump is somewhat confirming what analysts have said about them, that their operation is tied into other US systems and networks that require US personnel with security clearances to access, making it so that it would really be the US firing them. I'm guessing it would be some CIA guys who would be considered civilians or contractors.
I suppose it is true that Russia would fear them. Not because they wouldn't be able to defend against them or that they'd do a lot of damage, but because then Russia would be faced with the dilemma of having to acknowledge and respond to that (being attacked by the US and having to escalate to possibly war) or play along and pretend they aren't being attacked by the US directly. And forcing that situation is in Zelenskyy's interests.
Also lends credence to what Putin's been saying about some of the weapons already supplied to Ukraine having the same restrictions.
exoriare@reddit
There's also the Missile Technology Control Regime agreement, which has banned the proliferation of long-range WMD since 1987. Nobody has violated this agreement, and this is the only reason Saddam and Qaddafi and Assad didn't have WMD capable of striking the US.
If Trump gave Tomahawks to Ukraine, it would be the end of the MTCR. Russia's proportional response would be to put a few Oreshnik aboard a cargo ship and offer it as a turnkey solution to anyone from Maduro to Assad to the Houthi - just sail the ship into international waters, and so long as a foreigner pushes the launch button, Russia is nothing but a neutral supplier.