Serious question. Whats stopping Putin from providing us with awesome 4k videos of nuclear testing.

Serious question. Whats stopping Putin from providing us with awesome 4k videos of nuclear testing.

Of course im not talking about using nukes against Ukraine, just a few nuclear test in siberia. You are not going to tell me he doesnt do it out of respect of international law and it seems like a smart response to Sweden and Finland move into NATO. He cant be afraid of an escalation because from his POV NATO cant do anything else other than a direct declaration of war.

Nuclear weapons thread

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    have you seen russian camera equpiment? you're lucky to get 1080p

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >1080p
      try 720

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        They just take an american test, add a grey and grain filter, and then slap a RT logo on it.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          it's just stupid enough to be something they would do

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Pretty much all of their Zirkon "pictures" are from american missiles or cgi of them where they shopped away the US signs and labels. Shit's hilarious.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Pretty much all of their Zirkon "pictures" are from american missiles or cgi of them where they shopped away the US signs and labels. Shit's hilarious.

            >Russians claim to be operating a deep-water scientific submarine.
            >National TV proudly shows heroic footage of the act.
            >It's actually just from the movie Titanic with a filter slapped on it.
            They were always this way.
            https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2007/aug/11/russia.television

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        have you seen russian camera equpiment? you're lucky to get 1080p

        Most of their videos seem to be 480p, and the edited ones even lower quality saturated with artifacts, so even 720p is hopeful at best.

        I am glad ukis are pushing out that smooth HD quality, though.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          This. I don't have anything saved, but there were a lot of cheap edits of Ukrainian flags posted over Russian tanks in tiny edited videos.

          Even that tank gif they love spamming is poor quality

  2. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Fear of escalation ? I mean at this point NATO is too far in to pull back no matter what monkass would do

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      The western military and political machine isn't going to back down because it doesn't need to. It's stronger in every way right up until some moron throws a tantrum and decides to end the human race, at which point meh. The climate is fricked if we let Russia and China run things anyway.

  3. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    You will get a blurry 480p dashcam video and you will be happy.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous
  4. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >from his POV NATO cant do anything else other than a direct declaration of war

    Nonsense. There is loads more equipment they could be providing to Ukraine for starters. If Russia starts atmospheric nuclear testing there would be Western airplanes and missile defence supplied to Ukraine to help them totally shut down their airspace to Russia.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >> shut down the airspace

      But the denial of airspace has been a thing since the start of the war…

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        West could do far far more to provide Ukriane with air defence. So far it's mostly been Soviet shit from Eastern NATO members and manpads. They could provide Patriots etc.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah, they could provide Patriots but the russia shit has already denied airspace; Patriots would just be an overkill with almost no effect.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            I assume Patriot is more capable at missile defence than s300 or whatever Ukraine is using.

            • 2 years ago
              Anonymous

              Even if it is, it wouldnt make a difference since the s-300 or whatever they are using right now already gets the job done. 4th generation planes would be out of the question since that would give russia and china extremely valuable intel on their capabilities. Maybe modern western armor is the only thing still that realistically could be supplied to ukraine and at the same time make a noticeable difference.

              • 2 years ago
                Anonymous

                what kind of usable intel would the Russians get out of a second hand f16?

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Ukraine is contesting their airspace, not senying it.

  5. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    The Russian Federation literally has not carried out a nuclear test in its entire existence. The last nuclear test was carried out by the Soviet Union in 1990.

    If I had to guess, it's because

    A. Russia doesn't want to expend a working bomb when it doesn't really have the time and money to produce a replacement.

    B. America would be obliged to respond in kind (presumably in the form of a nuclear test/offshore detonation of its own).

    C. If the Russians is planning to use nuclear weapons in an actual war, they can't afford to possibly clue NATO in to their intentions. The only possible hope for Russia to survive, let alone "win". a nuclear exchange would be to achieve complete strategic surprise and catch as much of the NATO nuclear triad on the ground as possible. This is why I find the notion that they would drop a nuke on Kiev or Kharkov in a vain effort to salvage their failing invasion of Ukraine to be rather ridiculous (although not entirely outside the realm of possibility), doing so would only give NATO ample warning to launch a First Strike.

    D. A nuclear test in Siberia would practically speaking, do nothing to actually dissuade Finland and Sweden from joining NATO and Ukraine from continuing to resist the invasion with tooth and nail.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      A) yeah thats a real possiblity and my main hypothesis
      B) that wouldnt happen, Biden would get lycnhed by his fellow democrats
      C) nuclear testing is a political move, not a military one.
      D) its not about dissuading finland and sweden; its about sending the message, its a flex to force NATO into talking

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >If the Russians is planning to use nuclear weapons in an actual war, they can't afford to possibly clue NATO in to their intentions. The only possible hope for Russia to survive, let alone "win". a nuclear exchange would be to achieve complete strategic surprise and catch as much of the NATO nuclear triad on the ground as possible. This is why I find the notion that they would drop a nuke on Kiev or Kharkov in a vain effort to salvage their failing invasion of Ukraine to be rather ridiculous (although not entirely outside the realm of possibility), doing so would only give NATO ample warning to launch a First Strike.

      anon... Russia has maybe 2k operational nuclear weapons, NATO has 45k+ across the globe and in multiple platforms, with dead man switches and in established protocol to carry out retaliation strikes if contact with gov't is lost. there is no conceivable way no matter how complete the surprise that russia doesn't cease to exist if it nukes a NATO country

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >45k
        where the frick are you getting this number

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          His ass.

          Surprised?

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >where the frick are you getting this number
          He'd tell you but then he'd have to kill you.

          Get on our (security clearance) level, pleb.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        If the US had x10 more nukes than the rest of humanity combined, Trump would've used them to destroy the CCP and the Kremlin already

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Power lies not in what you can destroy but in what you control. Why would you want to rule a radioactive ash heap?

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      I honestly don't think NATO nations would risk WWIII over Ukraine if it came down to the wire. Russians, yes, since they don't care if they get blown to shit. As long as Russians survive, and Russia as an idea survives, they see it as a win. If New York, London, Paris, and all the other big western cities get vaporized, it's a loss to the West since millions, if not billions, of individuals just died and their countries likely collapse

  6. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    The west can still dial up the sanctions a good deal, and send more shit to Ukraine. Also with how well some of the Russian equipment has worked, well, a squib would be rather embarrassing you know. Plus impossible to hide from seismographs, ultrasound listening stations and atmospheric isotope analysis in neighbouring countries.

  7. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >itt morons
    Open air test are banned, russia signed that treaty too.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Russia also signed a treaty promising never to invade Ukraine on the condition that it gave up its Soviet-inherited nuclear arsenal and never developed an independent nuclear weapons program. Their word of honor is worth less than toilet paper at this point.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      This, above ground testing has been banned for a long time

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Just as shelling civilians.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >Russia
        >Doing banned shit
        That's correct

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      They also signed a treaty to not frick with Ukrainian sovereignty if Ukraine gave up it’s nukes. Russia does not fulfill its commitments.

  8. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Because they're all talk and no walk. I genuinely wouldn't be shocked to discover they only have like 10 working nukes from the 70s with the means to fire only 2 of them.

  9. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Excellent digits, excellent question. Russia has pulled out of so many treaties and ignored the conditions of so many others, it does seem trivial for them to just ignore open air testing and pop off a few nukes as demonstrations. Would be quite kino to see a 20 megaton firecracker light off for the Fourth of July. Maybe Putin will grace the U.S. with a present or two this weekend ..?

    Of course. Some countries of the world might take some small offense at that. But, Russia has the balls of steel. I don't see how someone else's feefees could possibly affect their personal decisions. It would be sooooo intimidating. The world would cower in fear, shitting its pants and begging Russia to be in charge of everything.

    I wonder what could possibly be stopping them? Is it bathtub vodka stone blind fear? Or, maybe it's *performance issues* ... maybe they can't find any working nukes to test? Or so few that might work that they can't afford to waste any on testing?

    I wonder if we will ever find out.

  10. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    NATO would take that as Putin preparing for actual nuclear attack.
    Meaning NATO going Defcon 1, and then it is 50/50 if NATO decides that the overwhelming first strike is the only remaining option.

  11. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    trips and nukes fly

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      roll

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Here take mine

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      For nuclear testing you need at least quads.
      For actual nukes in small use you need quints.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      C'mon, baby. The slate needs a good cleanin'.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        So close

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Let the cleansing fires commence

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      roll

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      No nuclear armageddon for you

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Rolling for you anon

      >Captcha: GG0AD

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      rolling

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      It’s over chuds

  12. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    What reason does he have to do it? Open air testing is pointless nowadays. Propaganda? Everyone knows what nukes can do, there's plenty of test footage, it won't be very effective.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >> what reason

      Fear, nuclear testing is not a military move, its a political one. Fear of the russian military might was what kept the balance of power. Now everyone know russia military might is a joke, sweden and finland move is a reaction to that, they know the russian military threat is not as dangerous as previously thought. While there is nothing that can be done to revert sweden and finlan NATO entry; the fear of nuclear war would probably de escalate the situation more than worsen it (for the russians)

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >the fear of nuclear war would probably de escalate the situation more than worsen it
        lmao

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          That literally was the reason The USSR and NATO never engaged in open war during the cold war. The problem is that it seems the world has forgotten nukes still exist.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Russia is not USSR though.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            The only ones who seem to have forgotten are the Russians. Remember, they're the ones fantasizing about a nuclear tsunami wiping out the british isles using radioactive seawater.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >'escalate to deescalate' is a valid strategy for the Russians and not an excuse for America to finally end a 77-year-long case of radioactive blue balls
        Fool.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >> nuclear new balls
          I NEED MY 4K ULTRA HD NUKE VIDEOS

  13. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >shit cameras
    >shit nukes
    idk issa mystery

  14. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >The Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT) is the abbreviated name of the 1963 Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water, which prohibited all test detonations of nuclear weapons except for those conducted underground.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_Nuclear_Test_Ban_Treaty

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      So russia suddenly grew a love for International Treaties in the middle of the invasion of Ukraine?

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        nuke treaty, you don't frick around unless you're ready to go all in (they aren't)

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          They can always claim its not a test, but a military exercise and therefore out of the scope of the treaty. International Treaties have no real value.

  15. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Literally money. Nukes are expensive. A rigorous test is even more expensive. Also. It's very likely that a russian nuclear test will damage their position more than strengthen it. The data from a nuclear test is more or less public record to the every nation with sattelite and sensor eyes on Russia (hint: atm that's everyone). This data include isotope signatures, seismic signatures, radiation signatures (especially obvious if atmospheric, less obvious if underground but still evident in radiation generating isotopes in matter that inevitably seeps into atmo). All of these data points might reveal info the Russian state would rather not be known such as; the bomb was improperly maintained (ie; warhead was *old* and contains a lot of decay isotopes), the bomb was shoddily recycled, the refinement centrifuges in the recycling facility is poorly maintained/calibrated (yes, this is detectable through isotope signature), the bomb failed to detonate properly, the bomb tested is old or small (indicative of a much smaller nuclear arsenal than hypothesized by foreign intel). Even the timing of the test would be indicative of political agenda and motive beyond the simple fact that carrying out a nuclear test right now would more than anything else signal desperation and lack of options.

    TL;DR: They have little to gain and a lot to lose from conducting such a ham-fisted attempt at geopolitical posturing.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Now this is an answer.

      But
      >> they have little to gain and a lot to lose.

      Thats what everyone said before the invasion of Ukraine. Common sense dictated that Russia could achieve all of its objectives by just annexing the Oblast and separatist regions, thats why no one thought russia would try to take all of ukraine, because they had too much to lose from it.

      Just food for thought.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >thats why no one thought russia would try to take all of ukraine, because they had too much to lose from it.
        Sure, but russia also had extremely lot to gain from successful invasion. So it was practically a gamble from Putin, probably heavily based on faulty intel from bootlickers and Putins own delusions.

        I guess Putin could have even more delusions about nukes and on how the west would react on those, but one would think he is clever enough to realize that his intel has been compromised.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >ham-fisted attempt at geopolitical posturing.
      So, when can we expect the test?

  16. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Quality trips. Also NATO needs to pull their thumb out and perform nuclear tests on Moscow already.

  17. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Why would he want to accelerate? He's winning. The west is literally funding both sides of the war and being bled dry. Enjoy paying $6/gal for FREEDUM GAS and double digit inflation for FREEDUM PRICES while Russia, China, and India form a new hegemony. If he were to bait NATO into a direct conflict he might lose. If he just keeps bleeding us the day will come when Russia and China will take what they want and we will be powerless to act.
    >hurrrr vatBlack person
    >durrrr 'murica greatest country evah!
    >herpherpherp two moar weeks for the sanctions
    >derpderpderp The View told me Ukrainian forces were 3mi from Moscow
    We are watching the end of the petrodollar which is the end of American deficit spending and America as a global economic/military super power. All because our leaders...both sides...are ignorant, greedy, corrupt pieces of shit.
    >plot twist: they always were

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Coping isn't healthy

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >Russia, China, and India form a new hegemony

      Based economically illiterate schizo

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      m8 I'm sorry to tell you this but Russia is spending more on the war than NATO is donating to ukraine. They aren't bleeding NATO dry, NATO has sent less than 1% of it's yearly budget to ukraine.

  18. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    By the way, since this is a nuclear weapons thread here's something I've been wondering: What kinds of nuclear weapons have been developed recently? I mean, basically we got more or less immobile bombs that blow everything up, but anything besides that? Any developments in minituarization or nuclear powered weaponry? I know that a nuclear powered laser pulse is a thing. How about ionizing radiation weaponisation, as in long range surgical application - not neutron bomb style. How about nuclear propelled projectiles or advances in minituarization of nuclear reactors for military vessels (isn't technically a nuclear weapon but still fits in this thread by virtue of being a military application of nuclear power) Does any nuclear powered aircraft exist? Is that even possible? I'm not knowledgeable about reactor design but don't they need a stable supply of water to drive the steam turbine hence why we've only seen them on ships and subs?

    Sorry if this detracts from the main subject of Ukraine/Russia autismery and shitposting.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      I have to imagine there's some kind of 'shaped charge' kind of nuclear device that turns the reaction into a directed frick everything beam of some kind. Seems possible anyway.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah, I was thinking that too. It would probably be possible to direct the initial radiation burst with some kind of reflector/refractor casing but what would the applications be? Maybe penetrating underground command centers? Any armchair physicists in the thread that can tell me how much of a nuclear detonations energy is produced in the form of gamma radiation? That's the only thing that could possibly penetrate shielding I'd guess? Can this be reflected in any way by any materials? Does gamma ray lasers exist? The wavelength is extremely small so beam coherence length should be extremely long. What if you detonated simultaneous gamma ray beams distributed geographically by hundreds of miles and had them all intersect in a single location? Kinda like how radiotherapy uses many beams that intersect in a single point (the tumor in that case) to deliver enough energy to kill the tumor cells while avoiding irreparable energy deposit to adjecent tissue (the individual beam pathways), could that work?

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah, I was thinking that too. It would probably be possible to direct the initial radiation burst with some kind of reflector/refractor casing but what would the applications be? Maybe penetrating underground command centers? Any armchair physicists in the thread that can tell me how much of a nuclear detonations energy is produced in the form of gamma radiation? That's the only thing that could possibly penetrate shielding I'd guess? Can this be reflected in any way by any materials? Does gamma ray lasers exist? The wavelength is extremely small so beam coherence length should be extremely long. What if you detonated simultaneous gamma ray beams distributed geographically by hundreds of miles and had them all intersect in a single location? Kinda like how radiotherapy uses many beams that intersect in a single point (the tumor in that case) to deliver enough energy to kill the tumor cells while avoiding irreparable energy deposit to adjecent tissue (the individual beam pathways), could that work?

        A multi-stage device, especially a miniaturized one, is a shaped nuclear charge.

        The Tsar Bomba does the same thing but it's not in any way directed, just proximal, therefore huge and useless as a weapon.

        A W88 requires a careful shepherding of Xrays and 14MeV neutrons to start the pretty small physics package below it.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >A multi-stage device, especially a miniaturized one, is a shaped nuclear charge.
          The resultant blast is not shaped, nor is the radiation once the case vaporizes.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            The initial stage is *kinda* shaped in the sense that the initial burst of tritium assisted neutron radiation reflects off of the beryllium casing. Once the radiation heat pressure and thermal effects propagate the reflector is toast though. And the actual blast is in no way shaped, that's true. As far as I know there's microstages to a warhead detonation (details are pretty scarce for obvious reasons). Initial neutron flood-> tritium assisted neutron proliferation->first stage main fissile mass neutron generagion->reflection and subsequent prompt criticality in first stage main mass->first stage detonation proper->main stage something something I'm not anywhere near knowledgeable about this part to even guess.

            What I was wondering was if it was possible to reflect or focus the post prompt-criticality radiation wave. And weaponize it. Alternatively, how fast could you make a projectile go if you used a nuke as propellant? How would you even channel that energy into a projectile? Heat expansion seems the wrong way to go about it what with the dull and trite constraints of thermal expansion and heat conduction speeds. Radiation pressure?

            Hey, I know a nuke is supposed to generate an EMP if detonated in the upper strato(or litho??)sphere, could we somehow make a multi-stage nuclear bomb powered coilgun? The EMP (I think) is resultant from neutron radiation ionizing athmospheric gasses could this effect be concentrated or magnified by specific gasses or other materials?

            • 2 years ago
              Anonymous

              >Initial neutron flood-> tritium assisted...
              This isn't quite right.
              >What I was wondering was if it was possible to reflect or focus the post prompt-criticality radiation wave.
              Many forms of radiation, ionizing or otherwise, can be practically focused or directed. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Excalibur
              Neutron radiation is a counterexample, I think, but I could be mistaken.
              >Alternatively, how fast could you make a projectile go if you used a nuke as propellant?
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)
              Kinetic projectiles are an impractical use of a nuclear blast, IMO. Either put the nuke on/in your target or use directed radiation.

              • 2 years ago
                Anonymous

                I don't know you and I base this on literally nothing but I think you sound like a top bloke and know what you're talking about. Can you tell me more about the exact detonation-cascade of the warhead or tell me where I can read about it on my own? I know about project Excalibur and part of the merit of the project was the capacity to power a multitude (thousands in one design configuration if I recall correctly?) of laser nodes off of a single nuke. Now while that might be more practical, more efficient and all in all a smarter design, I want to know if you could channel the radiation pulse into a single stimulated emissions unit and create a fricking kame-hame-ha tier laser beam because that would just be cool as frick. Like how a shooting 1 big cartridge is funnier than plinking off 50 .22.

                And yea imparting the energy of a neutral vectored explosion to a single vector (not to mention single mass-entity) is impractical and probably not even practically applicable.... But it'd be cool as frick to shoot 10 tons of copper at the moon at a respectable fraction of the speed of light.

              • 2 years ago
                Anonymous

                >Can you tell me more about the exact detonation-cascade of the warhead
                No.
                >or tell me where I can read about it on my own?
                There is almost certainly open literature that covers this, however, I have never looked into it.
                >I want to know if you could channel the radiation pulse into a single stimulated emissions unit
                If you can make a bunch of small lasers, it follows that you could make one large one, though you might pay an efficiency penalty. Assuming X-ray is not the only radiation capable of being directed, you could then do it with a form of radiation that would better penetrate the atmosphere to weaponize it.
                >But it'd be cool as frick to shoot 10 tons of copper at the moon at a respectable fraction of the speed of light.
                This might be possible, but you'd have to use the earth's crust as a barrel and take measures to prevent the slug from vaporizing a) from the nuke b) from atmospheric heating.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          The Tsar bomb used a third stage.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      There was much discussion of neutron bombs towards the end of the Cold War, but supposedly those never advanced beyond the paper and all talk has supposedly dried up. Personally, I think that's bullshit, and someone's at least still kicking theories and computer simulations around.

      As for nuclear aircraft, I wanna say the SLAM was feasible, but canned for cost and because they couldn't resolve the whole radioactive exhaust issue. And if you can do nuclear-powered cruise missile bombers, why can't you do nuclear powered planes? Bigger problem there gets to be why you would want nuclear powered planes.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >they couldn't resolve the whole radioactive exhaust issue
        Issue? My brother in Christ that was a feature

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Touche.
          To me, I foresee that becoming a liability, since your allies are likely to start carping about how they can't grow anything in their fields and their citizens are starting to melt.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Nuclear propelled rockets were developed and tested

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        I was thinking along the same lines as an aircraft carrier. Given enough power an aircraft could stay in the air indefinitely right? What if you had an aircraft carrier, except it's not bound to sea geography and it has a cruise speed of 800mph at 20k feet altitude. That's what I want to see. I want to see the next level of air superiority and force projection mobility. I want to see a goddamn nuclear powered fortress of barad-dur buzzing Kremlin and blowing out windows in shillfarms while blasting fortunate son over 1 gigawatt loudspeakers. Please don't tell me it's impossible. Please tell me in some insane cold war-overreactionary situation it *might* be just *slightly* possible to become lurid, insane and awesome reality. Curing cancer and Mars colonization can wait, I want nuclear powered multi-mega ton flying aircraft carriers goddamn it.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >mfw

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      IIRC some country during the cold war came up with a design for a nuclear powered aircraft. Their solution for the problem of a nuclear reactor being far too heavy to become airborne was to simply do away with the reactor shielding. Needless to say, the design didn't get far.

  19. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    What Putin should have done at the very beginning of the war to tell the west to frick off from Ukraine was detonate a small nuke at one of their old testing sites and posted it across the web right after the missile barrage in February. That would have completely defanged any gov't officials who would want to push support for Ukraine with the threat of mutual annihilation, although it would have created a new doctrine of nuclear expansionism among the greater countries like UK, China, and the US.
    >Detonate a nuke after you invade a 3rd world shithole with no means of defending itself
    >No other nuclear country will bother you in your expansion in said country but will start cutting up other territories for their own like it's the 1900's Open Door Policy with early China.
    >Fiber Optic age becomes the new age of expansionism and nuclear arms race reignites, new alliances emerge with the US's+EU vs the Pan-Asian Coalition (Russia+China)

  20. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >Whats stopping Putin from providing us with awesome 4k videos of nuclear testing.
    Lack of functional nuclear weapons. They're nearly all in states of disrepair or have been cannibalized and sold on the black market.
    Of course, since I've been told that the CIA are fricking about in Ukraine now, who knows, maybe the traitors at Langley will give him some nukes to keep the fear funding rolling in. They'd be following right in FDR's footsteps in a way, in that Russia only has nukes because we gave it to them for free.
    I'm tired of pretending that the Russian state hasn't always been controlled opposition since 1917. That was the entire point of it, they killed the Tsar and held the world at gunpoint with nukes for half a century solely because people in America made them do it to destroy America from within. McCarthy was more right than he knew, he almost removed the tablecloth entirely and laid bare a global conspiracy: that the entire Cold War was manufactured.

  21. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Nukenerd here. Basically there are a few reasons why Russia wouldn’t go back to nuclear testing
    >The comprehensive test ban treaty everyone signed
    Of course we all know how Russia feels about signed documents. But then there’s also
    >cost and logistics
    Where are they going to test these nukes? They used to do that on the barren steppes of Kazakhstan when it was USSR clay, but obviously not anymore. They still have a lot of wilderness in the east, but all that fallout has to drift somewhere, and it’s going to piss off a lot of Russia’s neighbors including, of course, China.
    As for cost, let’s assume Putin just wants to explode a nuke for intimidation and doesn’t care about all the instrumentation and preparation needed. Like let’s say he just wants to flatten a few kilometers radius of pine trees.

    That’s still a huge operation that would in all likelihood cost more rubles than it would be worth, even if we assume Russia does it the Russian way and cuts corners on everything including having almost no test zone security or radiological safety measures.

    It’s also assuming Russia has warheads to spare. From what we’ve seen in Ukraine the Russian war machine is in bad shape and they’re full of shit. Based on that, what kind of shape can we expect their nuclear arsenal to be in? Remember nukes don’t have a long shelf life, you have to replace those cores regularly because they decay. How much do you want to bet they can only afford to do that for a fraction of their operational inventory?

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Given America's Enduring Stockpile costs and the end of Megatons to Megawatts, there is not a single 'spare' warhead in the Rooskie arsenal.

      I *don't* believe there are non-funcitonal junks that the Rooskie will fire. He's not that dumb.

      What's happening is an ever-decreasing number of verifiably functional warheads are switched with 'dummies' on an ever-decreasing number of functional launch systems.

      The US can barely rebuild a large number of warheads as it is. Even if you're Russia-sloppy, the ability to keep all those boosting gases and old frozen capacitors refreshed and functional is prohibitive.

      Russia did not and does not build haphazard nuclear devices the way they did with Chernobyl. I have no hard evidence of htis, but the Russian doesn't frick around with weapons that might be used against him. He changes the fricking railroad gauge and sends the wrong sized American locomotive back, no matter how many human wave attacks are annihilated by the Nazis.

      There's no fricking way Putin has over 50% of his claimed functional warheads. Ivan got the benefit of the MtoM program and all the Interpol/British/US/Israeli/Japanese scrutiny into her stockpile in the 1990s.

      That's one of the fundamental pillars of the
      >Putin is a KGB agent andRussia is still Communist
      theory which is 50% objectively correct and 50% meritable guesstimation.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >There's no fricking way Putin has over 50% of his claimed functional warheads. Ivan got the benefit of the MtoM program and all the Interpol/British/US/Israeli/Japanese scrutiny into her stockpile in the 1990s.
        >
        >That's one of the fundamental pillars of the
        is a KGB agent andRussia is still Communist
        >theory which is 50% objectively correct and 50% meritable guesstimation.

        By which I mean that the theory that the USSR just went Moon Nazi and let the West come in an fix her shit, even if they're not actually still Soviets, is 100% what Putin did.

        We bought his new Topols, his bullshit Satan, and that finally-modern submarine he's working on.

        We showed him the checklist sheets, how to do two-man accounting, and most importantly...

        We showed him all the fancy tools we have to prevent rebuilding of a warhead as far as possible. Even if we kept the Russian int he other room, the conceptual knowledge was transferred and digested.

        We did Ivan a big fricking favor in the 1990s, but yeah he doesn't have a single mole of properly-formed Plutonium to spare, though he's probably drowning raw nuclear products just like they were drowning in coke and steel by 1992, piling up in marshalling yards and huge mountains near coking plants.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Russia did not and does not build haphazard nuclear devices the way they did with Chernobyl. I have no hard evidence of htis, but the Russian doesn't frick around with weapons that might be used against him. He changes the fricking railroad gauge and sends the wrong sized American locomotive back, no matter how many human wave attacks are annihilated by the Nazis.
        Explain

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Ah frick forgot the
          >
          But whatever

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >tomgirl
        That's basically a guy who acts like a girl (what you'd call a "femboy"), the image is "tomboy"

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

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

      Given America's Enduring Stockpile costs and the end of Megatons to Megawatts, there is not a single 'spare' warhead in the Rooskie arsenal.

      I *don't* believe there are non-funcitonal junks that the Rooskie will fire. He's not that dumb.

      What's happening is an ever-decreasing number of verifiably functional warheads are switched with 'dummies' on an ever-decreasing number of functional launch systems.

      The US can barely rebuild a large number of warheads as it is. Even if you're Russia-sloppy, the ability to keep all those boosting gases and old frozen capacitors refreshed and functional is prohibitive.

      Russia did not and does not build haphazard nuclear devices the way they did with Chernobyl. I have no hard evidence of htis, but the Russian doesn't frick around with weapons that might be used against him. He changes the fricking railroad gauge and sends the wrong sized American locomotive back, no matter how many human wave attacks are annihilated by the Nazis.

      There's no fricking way Putin has over 50% of his claimed functional warheads. Ivan got the benefit of the MtoM program and all the Interpol/British/US/Israeli/Japanese scrutiny into her stockpile in the 1990s.

      That's one of the fundamental pillars of the
      >Putin is a KGB agent andRussia is still Communist
      theory which is 50% objectively correct and 50% meritable guesstimation.

      https://i.imgur.com/GFT360g.png

      >There's no fricking way Putin has over 50% of his claimed functional warheads. Ivan got the benefit of the MtoM program and all the Interpol/British/US/Israeli/Japanese scrutiny into her stockpile in the 1990s.
      >
      >That's one of the fundamental pillars of the
      is a KGB agent andRussia is still Communist
      >theory which is 50% objectively correct and 50% meritable guesstimation.

      By which I mean that the theory that the USSR just went Moon Nazi and let the West come in an fix her shit, even if they're not actually still Soviets, is 100% what Putin did.

      We bought his new Topols, his bullshit Satan, and that finally-modern submarine he's working on.

      We showed him the checklist sheets, how to do two-man accounting, and most importantly...

      We showed him all the fancy tools we have to prevent rebuilding of a warhead as far as possible. Even if we kept the Russian int he other room, the conceptual knowledge was transferred and digested.

      We did Ivan a big fricking favor in the 1990s, but yeah he doesn't have a single mole of properly-formed Plutonium to spare, though he's probably drowning raw nuclear products just like they were drowning in coke and steel by 1992, piling up in marshalling yards and huge mountains near coking plants.

      You're not a very good nukenerd. You make a lot of baseless or outright incorrect assumptions.
      All you need for a demonstrative test is enough fissile material. Even if Russia didn't have a warhead to spare from their dismantlement stream for a test, they do have tons (literally) of material and components on the shelf from retired weapons to make a demonstrative device. A Gadget or gun-assembled weapon is very simple to produce as long as you have the fissile material on hand, though the Russians are definitely sophisticated enough to build and fire a modern (if rudimentary) design from stockpiled material within a year.
      Also, have you not heard of a UGT? My dude, get with the times.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        That's a spicy meatball.

  22. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    The missiles dont work, they're too old

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Even if one works, the world is doomed moron.

  23. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Anon our existing nuclear tests are high speed and high resolution, it just looks grainy because it's a camera recording something 10 miles away.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Or radiation.

  24. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    They are signatory to a moratorium banning surface weapons testing.

  25. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    It would be better if they could get a Burevestnik actually functioning for more than a few minutes at a time instead of taking out a handful of scientists with each test.

  26. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Can I get some feedback on what these numbers mean? Got a geiger counter recently and have been checking some of the things i spend alot of time around. Also, yea I'm a filthy phone poster and can't be assed to go make a webm
    https://streamable.com/p50a2o

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      that looks quite unhealthy.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Well I kind of figured that, just looking for some examples with comparable levels of radiation.

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