You're talking about nuclear weapons onboard a ship which had no reason to carry them in this immediate conflict. In escalation perhaps. If it needed them it would dock and fit them. Sevastapol is right there, it takes about a day to Dock off the Ukrainian coastline. Where it would be actively resupplying in a conflict. If a Nato ship or threat went through the Bosphorus Strait, it would have time to rearm. At what point did it need nukes onboard for this conflict? The nuke tips it carried were supposedly an antiship based supersonic. Are they for ground based targets. It has planes and silos and mobile launchers for that. Or even other ships and subs.

The Bosphorus strait is closed to Russian ships. It might not be to Nato, but it could provoke all out war, if other threatening navy went through it. The Black Sea has largely non threatening navies nearby like Bulgaria and Romania. There is Turkey and Greece with far more battleships, not much match to Russia navy, more than Ukraine, but I didn't think they're sailing up the Black Sea through the Black Sea Fleet. At what point did the Moskva need supersonic antiship nukes?

Or do tell me they're for land targets. Now you're claiming they're leaking, because its nukes were hit. What are you talking about?

Do you understand the odds of your claim they're marginal. Highly improbable. Because of its range, and the active demand for them in this conflict. It test fired that weapon of a range of more than 900km recently. Okay perhaps rather than resupply it carries. But if a strike group went through the Bosphorus, would it race there to face, or would it shell? It would shell next to its Sams at Svestapol, firing from range. In which case wouldn't it rearm. Strike group would also use planes. It's hypothetical. Speculation. More erratic claims of OMG Russia's nuking the ocean.

It's laughable because when nukes fly they aren't flying like that either. That ship didn't have much immunity regardless. Nevermind to a squadron of planes.

I am drinking reading a tabloid, remembering the exocets.

You're talking about nuclear weapons onboard a ship which had no reason to carry them in this immediate conflict. In escalation perhaps. If it needed them it would dock and fit them. Sevastapol is right there, it takes about a day to Dock off the Ukrainian coastline. Where it would be actively resupplying in a conflict. If a Nato ship or threat went through the Bosphorus Strait, it would have time to rearm. At what point did it need nukes onboard for this conflict? The nuke tips it carried were supposedly an antiship based supersonic. Are they for ground based targets. It has planes and silos and mobile launchers for that. Or even other ships and subs.

The Bosphorus strait is closed to Russian ships. It might not be to Nato, but it could provoke all out war, if other threatening navy went through it. The Black Sea has largely non threatening navies nearby like Bulgaria and Romania. There is Turkey and Greece with far more battleships, not much match to Russia navy, more than Ukraine, but I didn't think they're sailing up the Black Sea through the Black Sea Fleet. At what point did the Moskva need supersonic antiship nukes?

Or do tell me they're for land targets. Now you're claiming they're leaking, because its nukes were hit. What are you talking about?

Do you understand the odds of your claim they're marginal. Highly improbable. Because of its range, and the active demand for them in this conflict. It test fired that weapon of a range of more than 900km recently. Okay perhaps rather than resupply it carries. But if a strike group went through the Bosphorus, would it race there to face, or would it shell? It would shell next to its Sams at Svestapol, firing from range. In which case wouldn't it rearm. Strike group would also use planes. It's hypothetical. Speculation. More erratic claims of OMG Russia's nuking the ocean.

It's laughable because when nukes fly they aren't flying like that either. That ship didn't have much immunity regardless. Nevermind to a squadron of planes.

You're talking about nuclear weapons onboard a ship which had no reason to carry them in this immediate conflict. In escalation perhaps. If it needed them it would dock and fit them. Sevastapol is right there, it takes about a day to Dock off the Ukrainian coastline. Where it would be actively resupplying in a conflict. If a Nato ship or threat went through the Bosphorus Strait, it would have time to rearm. At what point did it need nukes onboard for this conflict? The nuke tips it carried were supposedly an antiship based supersonic. Are they for ground based targets. It has planes and silos and mobile launchers for that. Or even other ships and subs.

The Bosphorus strait is closed to Russian ships. It might not be to Nato, but it could provoke all out war, if other threatening navy went through it. The Black Sea has largely non threatening navies nearby like Bulgaria and Romania. There is Turkey and Greece with far more battleships, not much match to Russia navy, more than Ukraine, but I didn't think they're sailing up the Black Sea through the Black Sea Fleet. At what point did the Moskva need supersonic antiship nukes?

Or do tell me they're for land targets. Now you're claiming they're leaking, because its nukes were hit. What are you talking about?

Do you understand the odds of your claim they're marginal. Highly improbable. Because of its range, and the active demand for them in this conflict. It test fired that weapon of a range of more than 900km recently. Okay perhaps rather than resupply it carries. But if a strike group went through the Bosphorus, would it race there to face, or would it shell? It would shell next to its Sams at Svestapol, firing from range. In which case wouldn't it rearm. Strike group would also use planes. It's hypothetical. Speculation. More erratic claims of OMG Russia's nuking the ocean.

You're talking about nuclear weapons onboard a ship which had no reason to carry them in this immediate conflict. In escalation perhaps. If it needed them it would dock and fit them. Sevastapol is right there, it takes about a day to Dock off the Ukrainian coastline. Where it would be actively resupplying in a conflict. If a Nato ship or threat went through the Bosphorus Strait, it would have time to rearm. At what point did it need nukes onboard for this conflict? The nuke tips it carried were supposedly an antiship based supersonic. Are they for ground based targets. It has planes and silos and mobile launchers for that. Or even other ships and subs.

The Bosphorus strait is closed to Russian ships. It might not be to Nato, but it could provoke all out war, if other threatening navy went through it. The Black Sea has largely non threatening navies nearby like Bulgaria and Romania. There is Turkey and Greece with far more battleships, not much match to Russia navy, more than Ukraine, but I didn't think they're sailing up the Black Sea through the Black Sea Fleet. At what point did the Moskva need supersonic antiship nukes?

Or do tell me they're for land targets. Now you're claiming they're leaking, because its nukes were hit. What are you talking about?

Do you understand the odds of your claim they're marginal. Highly improbable. Because of its range. It test fired that weapon of a range of more than 900km recently. Okay perhaps rather than resupply it carries. But if a strike group went through the Bosphorus, would it race there to face, or would it shell? It would shell next to its Sams at Svestapol, firing from range. In which case wouldn't it rearm. Strike group would also use planes. It's hypothetical. Speculation. More erratic claims of OMG Russia's nuking the ocean.

You're talking about nuclear weapons onboard a ship which had no reason to carry them in this immediate conflict. In escalation perhaps. If it needed them it would dock and fit them. Sevastapol is right there, it takes about a day to Dock off the Ukrainian coastline. Where it would be actively resupplying in a conflict. If a Nato ship or threat went through the Bosphorus Strait, it would have time to rearm. At what point did it need nukes onboard for this conflict? The nuke tips it carried were supposedly an antiship based supersonic. Are they for ground based targets. It has planes and silos and mobile launchers for that. Or even other ships and subs.

The Bosphorus strait is closed to Russian ships. It might not be to Nato, but it could provoke all out war, if other threatening navy went through it. The Black Sea has largely non threatening navies nearby like Bulgaria and Romania. There is Turkey and Greece with far more battleships, not much match to Russia navy, more than Ukraine, but I didn't think they're sailing up the Black Sea through the Black Sea Fleet. At what point did the Moskva need supersonic antiship nukes?

Or do tell me they're for land targets. Now you're claiming they're leaking, because its nukes were hit. What are you talking about?

Do you understand the odds of your claim they're marginal. Highly improbable. Because of its range. It test fired that weapon of more than 900km. Okay perhaps rather than resupply it carries. But if a strike group went through the Bosphorus, would it race there to face, or would it shell? It would shell next to it's Sam's firing from range. In which case it would rearm.

You're talking about nuclear weapons onboard a ship which had no reason to carry them in this immediate conflict. In escalation perhaps. If it needed them it would dock and fit them. Sevastapol is right there, it takes about a day to Dock off the Ukrainian coastline. Where it would be actively resupplying in a conflict. If a Nato ship or threat went through the Bosphorus Strait, it would have time to rearm. At what point did it need nukes onboard for this conflict? The nuke tips it carried were supposedly an antiship based supersonic. Are they for ground based targets. It has planes and silos and mobile launchers for that. Or even other ships and subs.

The Bosphorus strait is closed to Russian ships. It might not be to Nato, but it could provoke all out war, if other threatening navy went through it. The Black Sea has largely non threatening navies nearby like Bulgaria and Romania. There is Turkey and Greece with far more battleships, not much match to Russia navy, more than Ukraine, but I didn't think they're sailing up the Black Sea through the Black Sea Fleet. At what point did the Moskva need supersonic antiship nukes?

Or do tell me they're for land targets. Now you're claiming they're leaking, because its nukes were hit. What are you talking about?

You're talking about nuclear weapons onboard a ship which had no reason to carry them in this immediate conflict. In escalation perhaps. If it needed them it would dock and fit them. Sevastapol is right there, it takes about a day to Dock off the Ukrainain coastline. Where it would be actively resupplying in a conflict. If a Nato ship or threat went through the Bosphorus Strait, it would have time to rearm. At what point did it need nukes onboard for this conflict? The nuke tips it carried were supposedly an antiship based supersonic. Are they for ground based targets. It has planes and silos and mobile launchers for that. Or even other ships and subs.

The Bosphorus strait is closed to Russian ships. It might not be to Nato, but it could provoke all out war, if other threatening navy went through it. The Black Sea has largely non threatening navies nearby like Bulgaria and Romania. There is Turkey and Greece with far more battleships, not much match to Russia navy, more than Ukraine, but I didn't think they're sailing up the Black Sea through the Black Sea Fleet. At what point did the Moskva need supersonic antiship nukes?

Or do tell me they're for land targets. Now you're claiming they're leaking, because its nukes were hit. What are you talking about?