I can’t vouch for the author at all, but this seems like a nice detailed, technical look at the difference between the two.
TL;DR the 212CD is very good at what in biology would be called “sit and wait predation”. It’s designed to sneak into an ocean floor crevice and hang out there, possibly for for weeks until something comes by, and then attack it. The Hanwha offering, on the other hand, is less superlatively stealthy and maneuverable, but is much more flexible, allowing missile launches and likely having a much longer range.
The point of nukes is to not use them. Countries with nukes negotiate. Countries without nukes get preyed upon.
Your comment is ridiculous considering there is an active war of invasion in Ukraine at present, and they traded their nukes in exchange for a promise not to invade. In retrospect, the nukes would have been better.
And if Russia doesn’t stop? What would you suggest they do?
Why are all you comments hopelessly misconstrued?
If they had nukes, there would have been no invasion.
OK, wait a sec. We all know what MAD entails. However, Ukraine is currenty striking deep into Russia, disrupting refineries and such. Yet Russia hasn’t blown Kiev with a nuke. That’s a legitimate issue to consider. I don’t think most would disagree that nukes reduce the chance of an armed conflict. However it seems like even so, we can’t rely on it to stop it entirely. It’s as if there’s a threshold of threat/intensity below which a hot war can be maintained despite having nuclear capability. If that’s a realistic possibility, we should tackle it. Maybe after we get nukes.
With all that said I do believe we need nukes yesterday especially because we have little ability to maintain a hot war with the US.
Amassing a large ballistic missle arsenal DPRK-style would also work as a deterrent. Perhaps even more effectively since we could fire some of it to prove we ain’t afraid to use it, without “starting a nuclear war.”
And if Russia said “fuck it” and called their bluff, what should Ukraine do?
What bluff?
Answer
I did. This sounds suspiciously like trolling.
It’s not like trolling. I’m asking you a legitimate question and you keep copying and pasting bullshit. Answer with your own words.
If Ukraine got a nuclear weapon and Russia continued to do what it’s doing without using your nuclear weapons, what do you think Ukraine should do about it?
Answer with your own words otherwise you are the fucking troll
Fuck off. My words would explain MAD, just like wikipedia did, but I’m too lazy to rewrite wikipedia for someone who has the knowledge of a child and an allergy to reading.
Edit:
Stop being ignorant. If Ukraine had nukes, Russia would never had invaded. Your scenario is preposterous and you appear oblivious to even rudimentary geopolitics or military theory. Litteral 12 yo children get this. Why don’t you?
Nuke east of the Urals and hope the clouds drift to North Korea.