Given all that we now know, do you believe that Russian nukes work properly?

Given all that we now know, do you believe that Russian nukes work properly?

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Some of them probably do.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Some of them probably do.
      Enough of them probably do.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Russia doesn't actually even know how nuclear fission, let alone fusion, works. Even their "nuclear" power plants are just fancy buildings over coal plants. Chernobyl was just setting off a steam boiler dirty bomb so we'd thing they suffered a meltdown and must therefore know how atomic energy works.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The fuck kind of schizo shit are you on?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The real schizos are the people who think you can make bombs out of fucking rocks.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              ???

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >um, if you stick a bunch of one really heavy rock together it explodes!
                >and if you put hydrogen around the rocks it explodes LIKE THE SUN
                Fucking Star Trek is more believable.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >This man denies the power of rock
                Grug mad
                Be gone club shill
                Rock power is world power

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >rock not one rock
                >rock many small rock stuck together
                >this barely hold together
                >that why when hit hard rock become smaller rocks
                >make rock of many small rock go boom
                >small rock hit other rock of many small rock
                >also make go boom
                >put small rock around big rock of many small rock first
                >more small rock to hit other rock of many small rock
                >more boom
                man how does it feel to be one of the STUPIDER grugs out there?
                its not that hard to turn the atomic structure and the principle of a chain reaction into grug speak

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Yeah, and those nuts think you can make rocket fuel out of water!

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              you literally can, retard.
              take any fucking stone from a river and chuck it in a campfire.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Fbpb best case scenario is only a few of them work and NATO just glasses the whole place in response

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Mentally sane people aren't willing to stomach getting hit by a single nuke. If 99% of Russia's nukes didn't work, that'd still be an unacceptable amount.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This is why we shpuld use B-2s and B-21s to do a decapitation strike and find out for sure.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      NATO missile defense could fuck 1% of their nukes into the dirt.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        So we just have to hope we intercept the right 1% and not any of the 99% that are rusted ?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      wiping Russia out for like 6 nukes hitting allied soil, I'd take that trade any day.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Even if they have terrible maintenance, I'm sure some do. Which mean there's a risk of being nuked.

      >Mentally sane people aren't willing to stomach getting hit by a single nuke. If 99% of Russia's nukes didn't work, that'd still be an unacceptable amount.
      ONLY IF THEY DON'T USE THEM though. You're right that there is a plenty enough risk for them to be an effective DETERRENT, nobody is going to go ahead and just invade Russia proper. But that counts on the general assumption that Russia is sane enough to not use nukes offensively and completely fuck everything.

      If Russia does do that, then 99% of their nukes not working would 100% make a first strike highly viable, and means a conventional massive counter attack is also far more likely to be worth it. Because once they start nuking we're automatically on the escalator anyway.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Uh yeah man. What are you on about?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Mentally sane people aren't willing to stomach getting hit by a single nuke.
      I bet if we just shot off a few people would realize they aren't that big a deal, which is the REAL reason why nobody has done that in almost eighty years.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Delusional cope

        The entire nation went into mourning and launched 2 wars when terrorists collapsed 2 buildings and killed 2500 people

        Now imagine what will happen when one ICBM kills 3 million and completely levels manhattan

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          9/11 will never be replicated no matter how huge the disaster. It wasn't the number of people killed that mattered, it was that anyone was killed at all. The only reason why America has such a huge collective trauma about 9/11 is that it shattered a decades long myth of national invincibility and the idea that we were living at the end of history. In the years after 9/11 pretty much everybody EXPECTED a nuclear attack on the USA to happen at some point, if one actually did happen we'd wince, sure, but it wouldn't actually cause us as much grief as the planes did. We'd mourn, vow revenge, take something petty, and then get on with it. That's the actual scary part, it's not that the world would end, but that it wouldn't end, it would just keep going, but now nobody's afraid to start nooking whenever they feel like throwing a chimp fit.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They would be more dangerous to the planet if they just fizzle with a 5% planned yield (strategic ones)

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Even if they have terrible maintenance, I'm sure some do. Which mean there's a risk of being nuked.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >russia launches nuke
    >missile explodes in silo

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >33% of nukes explode inside the silo
      >33% of nukes take off the silo but dont explode
      >33% of nukes do nothing
      >0,999% of nukes get intercepted
      >single remaining nuke flies and actually detonates
      >over belgorod

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >tfw the Ukrainians master mindcontrol via telephone

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >yUrIPOsTiNG Is bAcK ON tHE meNu
        Yuriposting never left the menu.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    While we can apply what we've seen so far from the disorderly/corrupt Russian military to their nuclear arsenal, I personally think the biggest factor is their Tritium maintenance. Nuclear warheads with very large yields tend to rely on tritium-boosted fission reactions that can get a lot more bang for your buck, and Russia loves big yields. I'm confident any competent intelligence agency can track domestic production via Reactor activity in Russia as well as additional import quantities from other producers. The question then is how well are preventative maintenance and trititum replacements handled across their missile forces. Tritium only has a half life of ~12 years, and while decayed tritium wont stop nukes from detonating it will turn a loud shart into a meager brap.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      many of their ICBMs are liquid fueled with things like hydrazine
      this is liquid is toxic and reactive and requires routine maintenance
      however, since hydrazine has other uses, it may have been siphoned off and sold

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >siphoning and selling the radioactive fucking fluid from fucking nukes
        Like this?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The nuke forces are the one thing about the Army Putin's always paid personal attention to, and invested a shitload of money into. They've got more modern (as in, commissioned only 10 years ago or less) SSBNs than Su-57s for a reason, and the missiles they carry are likewise new.

          >radioactive

          He's not talking about the warheads, he's talking about the rocket fuel. That shit ain't radioactive.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >The nuke forces are the one thing about the Army Putin's always paid personal attention to,
            Confidence still low. The best thing Russia has to prove their threat is the Soyuz launches.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, yes. They said the same thing about the ground army as that was supposed to be the key to rebuilding glorious stronk Rasha. As other pet projects like wunderwaffels in the sky and sea (like Moskva). In the end the result was a lot of golden floating dachas in Cyprus and barely functional t-62s after the initial attrition barrage.

            Reality is monke was nothing never more then a mediocre KGB bureaucrat with a aptitude for criminal gangsterism. He realized that potential fully yet like your typical gangbanging street monkey, knows jack fucking shit about military engineering or knowing what to look for/ask for in detecting liars in said affairs. Strategic NOOKSTERS is the first place you start stealing from as everything is a state secret and a lot of expensive things lying around.

            >inb4 he hires people
            He hires them alright. Yes-men all the way down to the janny

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          They'd probably use a siphoning method that doesn't involve your mouth

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >siphoning hydrazine
        Not saying they couldn't have done that but you'd have to particularly brave or stupid to do it. That shit is just ridiculously dangerous to handle.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Russia still has a robust rocket program so perhaps it isn't in the same state of its army.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Tritium only has a half life of ~12 years, and while decayed tritium wont stop nukes from detonating it will turn a loud shart into a meager brap
      Decayed tritium will absolutely dud a boosted primary

      "Its main decay product is helium-3, which is among the nuclides with the largest cross-section for neutron capture. Therefore, periodically the weapon must have its helium waste flushed out and its tritium supply recharged. This is because any helium-3 in the weapon's tritium supply would act as a poison during the weapon's detonation, absorbing neutrons meant to collide with the nuclei of its fission fuel."

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      well, thing is the normal military branches are not the same as their special branches.
      different standards, treatment, etc.
      some fag was saying the FSB is actually competent in doing their stated jobs because of that, despite obviously being corrupt as fuck.
      So the question is... is THAT true?
      And does it apply to the space force or whatever their fucking nukies are?
      My bet is no, but I don't know shit or dick about the subject.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    60% fail to launch, aliens/govt test pilots in tic tacs deactivate 30%, the last 10% miss their targets because lol GLONASS, but it doesn't really matter because that's still a few hundred warheads going off in the general vicinity of what the were meant to hit.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    could you imagine if they missed some small detail over the 30 years of no physical testing, and now the arsenal is bricked, and the world figures this out all at the same time...

    and the Scramble for Russia begins

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I think it might be damp

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    100% of the warheads probably work. The delivery methods are probably in various states of decay, but I’m sure *some* work which is enough to be a problem. I don’t understand why people get unreasonable upset when you talk about nukes. It’s not like they’re the guy with the launch codes.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yes. The real question is how many of those nukes are actually real and how many silos are just hollow mockups where the warhead maintenance money was funneled into the base commander's BMW payments instead.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    only one way to find out

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If even one nuke is working, it could spell the deaths of millions let alone the retributive response.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Short range yeah but anything beyond eastern europe no lol

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I know that nukes have lots of components that can fail and need replacement
    they were serviced in Kharkiv
    until 2014

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Yea, but there's no way Ukraine could actualy defend a city that close to the bor- blyat.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Not really.
      https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/russia/arsenal/structure.html

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I assure you, we would be in Moscow rn if we had serious doubt about russia's nuclear posture.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      don't be cappin bruh

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It’s likely that some of the older inventory has decayed, but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t a nuclear threat. Sure, the performance of Russian armed forces has been a huge fucking joke during the war, and now noboy is going to take them as a serious conventional military threat to the west anymore, but ”lmao they peobably don’t even have working nukes” is still stretching into dumb circlejerk territory.

    Obviously, this still doesn’t mean that others should bend under those stale ”muh nooks” tier threats that Monke throws around.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I can't wait for them to attempt to launch one, just for it to fail mid launch and crash back into the launcher. or better yet, veer wildly off target and hit China/India.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >veer wildly off target and hit China
      boy would Xi be mad

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I really do not get why this question always comes up.
    It would be insane to make plans on the assumption that Russia can not fire off nukes, what's the point of speculating?
    It would be like running at a criminal assuming their ghetto blaster will jam.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      These threads are nothing more than zoomer and reddit copium to soothe themselves from the fact that an enemy nation can vaporize them in an instant if Putin were ever insane enough to launch.

      The US and Russia have quite literally been inspecting each others arsenals for years. And guess what? The US definitely seems to think Russias nukes work. I think ill trust them over some reddit retard posting about how itll totally be fine bro

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Just like when they said Saddam Hussein had WMDs out the ass right

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The difference is the US and NATO are doing absolutely everything they can to avoid a direct conflict with Russia, instead of driving straight in. I wonder why?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I wonder why?
            There are many possible reasons that aren't working nukes.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              With the most obviously and likely one being that their nuclear weapons work and they dont want to risk nuclear war. But whatever helps you cope.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >whatever helps you cope
                I have no horse in this race, just pointing out the obvious because 4bong being as dramatic and entrenched as possible at all times is just fucking grating

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Pretty much the entire world has had the entrenched position for decades that nuclear war is going to be pretty catastrophic. Let me guess, you know better?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Let me guess, you know better?
                In a way yes

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Duh? If USA decided they truly had zero choice and had to do a first strike and did and it took out 90% of Russian nukes and then SMD took out more and then 98% of the rest didn't work and then most of the rest were aimed at counter force by luck and literally just one single warhead made it through and hit Houston... America would still consider that a massive loss worth hundreds of billions to trillions and it'd be a huge deal. Because we actually value our people and stuff. Avoiding that outcome would be worth lots and lots and lots.

            But it also wouldn't dent America's power an iota and there is no doubt how Russia would end up in that exchange. You're the one engaged in desperate cope because you can't accept Americans value themselves thousands of times more than orcs and are thus much more careful about even 0.1% damage. That doesn't mean we think they have 100% capability, merely that our leaders give a shit about doing their jobs.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >if i write a bunch of fanfiction that 99% of russian nukes wont work and several major u.s cities being vaporized doesnt matter that makes it fine

              These threads are just sad

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I'm pretty sure

                Duh? If USA decided they truly had zero choice and had to do a first strike and did and it took out 90% of Russian nukes and then SMD took out more and then 98% of the rest didn't work and then most of the rest were aimed at counter force by luck and literally just one single warhead made it through and hit Houston... America would still consider that a massive loss worth hundreds of billions to trillions and it'd be a huge deal. Because we actually value our people and stuff. Avoiding that outcome would be worth lots and lots and lots.

                But it also wouldn't dent America's power an iota and there is no doubt how Russia would end up in that exchange. You're the one engaged in desperate cope because you can't accept Americans value themselves thousands of times more than orcs and are thus much more careful about even 0.1% damage. That doesn't mean we think they have 100% capability, merely that our leaders give a shit about doing their jobs.

                's point is that the risk of even one city being vaporized does matter which is why we dont just go retard and take the risk by nuking the Russians.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >one of 2 countries with a robust space program
    >kept it's space capable manned rocket program going while the US did not
    Whatever ypu say about anything of thiers it is the one program that probably still functions well

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      their space program was all about waving their dick on the global stage. nukes werent vogue 90s to now

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      America didn't need theirs since they were putting resources towards Mars stuff, it's easier to get private companies to just launch stuff to the space station.

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I believe enough would work properly to be an issue for the west. I believe enough would work improperly to be an issue for Russia even without the west retaliating.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The warheads really are not remotely as difficult to maintain as the rest of the infrastructure. The US spends approximately 900 000 000 USD on warhead maintenance which isn't a lot. Budgetary wise, like in Russia, this falls within the responsibility of the ministry of energy not the department of defense.
    https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57240

    The delivery systems for tactical nukes have a higher failure rate possibly.
    Kalibr and Iskander sometimes fail, the recent model got a lot better, but it could very well be that additional quality assurance is being conducted before a launch.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      even if they send the money to maintain them it doesn't stop every single officer/soldier from stealing and selling everything in the silo and launcher
      the moskva didn't even have fire extinguishers because they keept being stolen

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >the US spends 60 billion a year for nukes
      That’s nearly the Russian defense budget and for a smaller arsenal on paper than the Russians. Something fishy is going on.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        To be precise, the DoD spent 26 Billion USD and the DoE 16 Billion USD. The DoE cost in Russia would be covered by Rosatom since they are responsible for the state and commercial nuclear reactor and nuclear warhead maintenance.
        The Russian Ministry of Defense and Roscosmos are responsible for the Missile infrastructure. It probably adds up.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    umm, sweaty, that's just russian disinformation

    we're going to launch nuclear war, and that's a good thing!

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >50 nukes on the US
    Even if 50 hit that'd just be a nice fresh start for the US after all the clean up and nuclear winters. In the mean time, Europe would have to learn to put-up or shut-up again, and the world might well come out for the better when a bunch of pissed off yuros have to stop their social agendas, and a bunch of pissed of burgers finally get their shit back together enough to wreck shit. This is assuming there's much left to wreck after Russia's several cities and militarily significant targets are wiped out in the MAD scenario that would play out. The only question there is how many other nations would be dragged into it.
    >answer:
    almost all of them in some way

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >nuclear winters.
      I keep seeing this shit come up and for fuck's sake I would give up one of my toes to get a sticky on top of PrepHole that reads NUCLEAR. WINTER. ISN'T. REAL.

      It was invented as a concept in the 60s when a bunch of scientists started bullshitting up some numbers about the volume of particulates that would enter the atmosphere during a nuclear exchange. Numbers that turned out to be wrong. The effect of a nuclear exchange on global temperature would be negligible, nukes just don't launch the dust and ash high enough into the atmosphere for it to remain there long enough to actually make a meaningful difference.

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    That assumes 10% work and the 5,000 figure is accurate. It's more like 1% of 2,000. Our missile defenses can handle 20 nukes without one single missile reaching its target.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    So assume the worst case scenario, interceptors largely fail and some 1000 warheads explode all over the US. Who is going to defend the country from invading chinks and mexican cartels?

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Nuclear war literally does not work that way, everything you know about nuclear war is fallout tier retarded Hollywood bullshit and ryssä abuses this like no tomorrow

    >Would You Like to Play a Game?
    A Primer on National Nuclear Strategy, and Individual Survival
    By Oppenheimer

    Few subjects have been less understood in the last century than global thermonuclear war. Pop culture and journalism have depicted it as ending human civilization at the least, and all life on Earth at the worst. In doing so, they have propagated myths and inaccuracies that have actually reduced the chances of individuals surviving.

    https://pastebin.com/cWs6A7rR

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Thanks for posting the link!

      However, I have to make one correction: I am *not* secretly OPpenheimer. A lot of the primer *is* based on things that he taught us, plus some outside research. I did finish it while he was still semi-active on PrepHole, and he was kind enough to glance over it and state that he didn't see any egregious errors in it. Any mistakes, however, are mine, and not OPpie's.

      t. A. Nonymous

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Even 10% of 5,000 is a civilization-ending outcome for the West.
    lol no. First, it's 1600 at best, not 5000. Most of Russia's nukes are short range tactical stuff, and only the 1600 are actually (theoretically) on strategic weapons kept ready for prompt use. The others are in 40-someodd depots around the country. In an all out nuclear war those would be targeted instantly by American ICBMs/SLBMs so they're all worthless from that point of view. Zero Russian aircraft are going anywhere in that scenario.

    And it's why America has never given up on the first strike option. If it's believed Russia is heading towards using them anyway, rational choice may be to hit first, which eliminates 80-90% itself. If there are a few hundred left, and only 10% of those work, and SMD cleans up some more, we end up with single or low double digit warheads coming down, with Russia-tier CEPs. Since plenty of those will have pre-programmed targets aiming for counter-force targets, it's quite conceivable that not a single city gets hit though that'd be down to luck. Even if a few do it's not civilization-ending remotely, it'll just make everyone super fucking mad.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >And it's why America has never given up on the first strike option. If it's believed Russia is heading towards using them anyway, rational choice may be to hit first, which eliminates 80-90% itself. If there are a few hundred left, and only 10% of those work, and SMD cleans up some more, we end up with single or low double digit warheads coming down, with Russia-tier CEPs. Since plenty of those will have pre-programmed targets aiming for counter-force targets, it's quite conceivable that not a single city gets hit though that'd be down to luck. Even if a few do it's not civilization-ending remotely, it'll just make everyone super fucking mad.

      Fanfiction.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Nice projection vatnik with all your warhammer fanfic lol. Meanwhile if you knew what you were talking about you'd know how scared the Soviets were that America was gaining a decisive successful first strike capability, why people criticized as "MAD disruptive" efforts like the AF&F fuses for Trident D5 SLBMs America did in 2009. That's specifically for targeting hardened silos.

        How about Russia just doesn't fuck around and find out on that one huh? Even a monke can figure this out: no using nukes offensively.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          More copium,
          - Your newest ICBM is from the 60s
          - Almost all hypersonic tests you recently did failed.
          - The Pentagon had for the longest time noone allocated for nuclear strategy any longer.
          - The Trident II lacks any sort of countermeasures for ABM.
          - The Ohio class submarine is relatively old and likely shadowed by Russian and Chinese hunters at all times.

          In case of war, I would order a first strike on the US without a second doubt.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >- The Ohio class submarine is relatively old and likely shadowed by Russian and Chinese hunters at all times.
            This one here was over the top. Next time, delete that paragraph and you'll have decent bait.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The MOTORS are from the 60s. Even then, they've been serviced, refurbished, and refueled since then - and they're solid fuel, so they don't corrode like the hypergolic missiles Russia uses. The guidance and warheads, meanwhile, are all modern.
            Air-breathing hypersonics are far more difficult compared to what other countries consider 'hypersonic' - but promise greater returns. Even then, they're so poor at turning and throw off such a large plasma trail that they may as well just be ICBMs.
            Why bother caring about nuclear strategy when the tactics haven't changed?
            Trident II has 12 MIRVs. They can't shoot them all down.
            Ohio-class subs are in better shape than their peers in Russia and China. far from being shadowed, they're likely helping to shadow.
            >8pos4j

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Get new pasta, this is so pathetic anon it's just childish. Like it's inconceivable you wouldn't know about the concept of "upgrades", refurbishment, or testing. You have to be at least sort of vaguely believable.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              https://i.imgur.com/zBkFBrc.jpg

              >- The Ohio class submarine is relatively old and likely shadowed by Russian and Chinese hunters at all times.
              This one here was over the top. Next time, delete that paragraph and you'll have decent bait.

              The MOTORS are from the 60s. Even then, they've been serviced, refurbished, and refueled since then - and they're solid fuel, so they don't corrode like the hypergolic missiles Russia uses. The guidance and warheads, meanwhile, are all modern.
              Air-breathing hypersonics are far more difficult compared to what other countries consider 'hypersonic' - but promise greater returns. Even then, they're so poor at turning and throw off such a large plasma trail that they may as well just be ICBMs.
              Why bother caring about nuclear strategy when the tactics haven't changed?
              Trident II has 12 MIRVs. They can't shoot them all down.
              Ohio-class subs are in better shape than their peers in Russia and China. far from being shadowed, they're likely helping to shadow.
              >8pos4j

              > The MOTORS are from the 60s

              They can't been updated and haven't been in a while Samefag 😛
              >"“That thing is so old that in some cases the [technical] drawings don’t exist anymore, or where we do have drawings, they’re like six generations behind the industry standard,” he said. “And there’s not only [no one] working that can understand them — they’re not alive anymore.”"

              https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/01/06/us-strategic-command-head-defends-icbm-replacement-program/

              US Silo ICBMs are ancient and need dire replacement, like it or not.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                We've only just gotten to that point, and it's not like the propellant is actively eating away at the rocket like with hypergolics.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >US Silo ICBMs are ancient and need dire replacement, like it or not.

                US nukes in silos are routinely rotated & changed-out. Ask anyone who lives around them.

                t. crane operator who worked wind farms around Minot, ND.

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Hmm let's think for a second:

    1) Believe anonymous preteen redditors or PrepHoleers
    2) Believe the Pentagon and the Association of American Scientists

    "
    But when it comes to the tactical weapons, the U.S. intelligence community can only offer its best guess, and different agencies have differing estimates. The ballpark figure they have settled on is between 1,000 and 2,000 tactical weapons (which, it should be noted, can be launched from ground launchers, ships and bombers but are not pre-deployed). After careful study, the Federation of American Scientists put its estimate at 1,912 — although it cautions that this could include weapons being retired or taken offline."

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/10/05/russia-nuclear-weapons-military-arsenal/

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Oof. When you say it like that... I'd almost choose Option 1. FAS, while they've done a decent job in some respects (particularly compiling a fairly good database on systems and weapons, conventional or otherwise, in the years before wiki effectively replaced them), has in other respects been the same bunch of anti-West academics (masquerading as anti-war) that they have been since they were first formed.

      That said, there's surprisingly not too much wrong with the WaPo article you linked. It lacks certain nuances that exist in reality, but at least for once they're not committing gross fallacies left and right.

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If they work, I fear for belgorod

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The question that also needs to be asked if the US nuclear arsenal is in any functional state, those Minuteman III are ancient, from the 60s. I guess some of them may work but I doubt it's overall more than 20%...

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >The question that also needs to be asked if the US nuclear arsenal is in any functional state
      the US spends $60 Billion a year making sure every single one works
      what is Russia's entire defense budget again?

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Nothing less than a treaty-breaking nuclear test would make me worried about Russia’s nuclear capabilities.

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Maybe. Probably not. We'd wipe them out in a conventional war. They wouldn't do shit anyway. Even the Russians themselves aren't really threatening with nukes. It's more for us, we're being conditioned for another Iraq.

  34. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Don’t want to make a new thread so I’ll ask here.
    What advantages does a tactical nuke have in comparison to a conventional warhead? Does a tactical nuke yield more explosive power than a conventional warhead of the same dimensions? Or is radiation the main advantage ?

  35. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Even if only 1% of them actually work, it’s enough to seriously fuck shit up.

  36. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They probably weren't even still in working order in the 90s

  37. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Can’t believe there are fucking retards ITT saying “ackshully nuclear war is not that bad”. Convince me this board isn’t completely astroturfed

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, the whole “Nukes are harmless” shilling on here is blatant fucking propaganda

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Same as the whole "Nuclear Winter is a real thing" that was shilled by the Soviets through useful idiots like Sagan. The Ruskies knew that they would not survive a decapitation strike. No Warsaw Pact country's population would have remained loyal once Moscow and Leningrad would have been turned to dust.

  38. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Every Russian weapon is good, same for the Ukranians and in general every Slav who are not a inbreed or something, same in the West, give weapons to morons and trannies and see the things happening.

  39. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The worst outcome for Putin is to decide to use a nuke & it fails to perform.

    So, if he does use a nuke he would have to have his nuke lab boys do lots of function checks.

    Putin might be insecure about his lab techs sabotaging the bomb.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      What if Putin already used a nuke but it was a dud?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/mgG0wO5.jpg

        The worst outcome for Putin is to decide to use a nuke & it fails to perform.

        So, if he does use a nuke he would have to have his nuke lab boys do lots of function checks.

        Putin might be insecure about his lab techs sabotaging the bomb.

  40. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Most of them are probably decrepit as fuck and it would take years to get them in working order. That being said Russia still has the largest nuclear arsenal on paper so I wouldn't chance it

  41. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Fuck around and find out.

  42. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >do you believe that Russian nukes work properly?
    big doubt on both the warheads and delivery systems

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I read that a few months ago, really good book.

  43. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    i suspect the warheads are fine, 99% reliable
    rockets? this is where the problems could be but probably still enough to be a credible deterrent

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      the fuel is probably fine... or was.
      they buy it from people who are competent.
      or did.
      but were they able to maintain the VERY valuable tritium in the nukes?
      that is one of the biggest factors in the power of the explosive, from what I understand.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *