What percentage of the Russian nuclear arsenal is functional?

What percentage of the Russian nuclear arsenal is functional?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I like how thirdies, when all their other bluster, threats, and kvetching fails, eventually resort to just calling anyone who doesn't support their genocidal imperialism "crazy".

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >thirdies
      you do not know what this means

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        NTA but third world originally meant "not aligned to the West or the soviet bloc". But because most places like that were kind of shitholes, it's entered colloquial use as shorthand for a place that's underdeveloped, corrupt, poor and pretty shitty. Under the colloquial usage, Russia is most certainly third world.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        It’s sort of a nice way of saying countries with flushing toilets

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        It's slang for "Third Worldists" which itself is a fancy way of saying anti-White, anti-civilization shitskins & their supporters.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        The soviet union is dead. If you aren't western aligned you are third world by default

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    0
    They would use it if they had any

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Who knows.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Biden is mr fricking magoo. I wouldnt be surprised honestly

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        it's not the only test they failed. They had two more in the early and mid months of the first year of the war. The third stayed longer in living memory because it happened during corn pop Joe's visit.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          i still can’t fricking believe corn pop was a real person

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        It's honestly hard not to root for the senile old fricker as he constantly stumbles into wins

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          It's like if Mr.Bean or Johnny English were a fricking statesman

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >sauce: CNN
      yah sure

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Nobody knows, not even Russia

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >if we don't know the state of our equipment, there sure as shit can be no security leaks telling our enemies about the state of our equipment
      Genius

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    about treefiddy

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Cropped Twitter screencap thread
    I beg you guys not to reply to this shit

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The problem is how do you know without checking them? And Russia has what, like 8000 nukes in storage that are supposedly "ready to go" and like 40,000 more that were deactivated? You really think Russian inspectors are going to bother to check and see which ones are still functional when they get paid the same to simply say they did?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      It costs $10,000,000 a year to maintain 1 nuke. From how poorly the Russian military is trained and equipped, I will assume the majority of their nukes do not work.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      > The problem is how do you know without checking them
      Don’t tell nobody but the us HAS been “checking them” for 30 years. Funny thing is that after the us spooky bois or assets in the RF military check them, they have a 100% chance of failure rate.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Those inspections never at any point checked for functionality

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Who is talking about “those inspections?”

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      These numbers are radically off. They are allowed 1,600 ready to go and have nothing like 40,000. Nukes go bad and are very expensive. The US spends more than Russia's entire defense budget on then and we know a decent number of their 1,200 allowed aren't functional at any given moment. The idea that Russia maintains 33% weapons on 1.8% of the budget is laughable. All their launch vehicles are now past retirement and they made a vulnerable liquid fueled rocket to replace them. This bespeaks serious problems with brain drain and lack of technical knowledge.

      I wouldn't say they have none, but they likely have a much more limited amount in usable vehicles than they do on paper. This doesn't really matter when anything more than 20 is a huge risk to the US's limited interception capabilities between the dedicated interceptors in Alaska and Aegis and just one can do so much damage. It's only relevant to the idea that an attack might be effectively thwarted by counter force attacks, and this still required that their C&C is so degraded that a launch order is given but its execution is so slow that very few weapons are launched before counter force destroys the arsenal. In that case, it's possible for total interception, but only if we're talking a very small number getting off the ground (and of course warheads or vehicles failing after launch could be part of this.)

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >and have nothing like 40,000.
        I'm talking about their reserves from the height of the cold war that it's not like they 100% dismantled, they're just in deep storage

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          we know from tanks russian "deep storage" means abandoned and all valuable parts are stolen

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          moron, they have at most 3,000 tanks they can actually revive from their junk heaps, at the rate of 200 tanks per year

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >like 8000 nukes in storage that are supposedly "ready to go"
      Nukes don't stay "ready to go" unless they're actively maintained because the nuclear material deteriorates.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        It doesn’t fricking matter if they don’t work. Simply having the illusion that they might work is enough for MAID to continue

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      What percentage of the Russian nuclear arsenal is functional?

      0%. Because Russia has every single incentive to flex their nuclear arsenal right now. If for no other reason than to back up their nuclear saber rattling. Yet every single test has failed. They can't even maintain a fricking tank, let alone something sophisticated as nuclear warheads. Honestly, it is time for a USA First Strike. Just put the Russians out of their misery and end the constant humiliations.

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The U.S. maintains their nukes with a budget as big as the Russian military. The russians are spending less along with having systematic corruption on all aspects of the military. The amount of functional nukes/missiles is way less than what they officially report.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The US doesn't have nukes either. Not any fusion ones, anyway. The forgot how to make a key aerogel and their nukes have likely rotted away by this point.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >they forgot
        Anon doesn't realize people can pass down their knowledge and also keep documentations on how it works and made. The U.S. does have nukes and they spend about the entire annual budget of the russian military to maintain that many nukes. Maintaining nukes is expensive and the Russians do not have the money to maintain it. Along with people stealing or cutting corners too much due to corruption.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          They didnt pass down the knowledge, that was his point. As the old scientists retired the knowledge to make it was lost

          What he left out is that US scientists reinvented the process for manufacturing it and the modern process is far cheaper while giving a better product than earlier. Look up Fogbank.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Happened with alot of the NASA space travel shit as well ironically.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >reinvented
            Is there any proof of this?

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >please leak me nuclear test data to win a warthunder argument

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                No proof. Gotcha.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >congressional reporting of reurbished weapon numbers are a conspiracy
                Ok, schizo.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >it's the Oppenheimer situation all over again

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              https://web.archive.org/web/20181205161703/https://www.weeklystandard.com/jonathan-v-last/the-fog-of-war

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >They didnt pass down the knowledge, that was his point. As the old scientists retired the knowledge to make it was lost
            But they did, though? Just because a scientist retires or dies does not mean their knowledge is all lost. Because they all have apprentices or documentations on how the process is done and it will be pass down to the next person that is up for the position. Unless you're saying that the scientists works alone and have nobody working with them, the idea of them "forgetting" is not possible. The scientists also can modernize the idea and improve it too which can pass down to the next person.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              The 1960s era process of creation was flawed, and this was not taken into account when the 1990s program was restarted. They produced substances using what they thought was an accurate replication of the Fogbank procedures, but actually lacked crucial impurities from the more primitive and slapdash equipment of the 60s. Once they introduced the impurities back in it worked like it used to.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >he thinks engineering/science types document things willingly
              That's charmingly naive.
              Some of them do(often only when their research grant is threatened), but a lot of them just don't care. The absentminded professor stereotype exists for a reason, they're basically very smart kids with the world's most expensive sandbox. Practical results are a side effect for them.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Well that and we are just lazy, we perfer the term "tribal knowledge" when it comes to unwritten troubleshooting or error correction that almost everyone thats working on a program knows.
                It kind of becomes assumed common sense and we dont think about it until we hire a new guy and train them then once again forget to write it down.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                There's a difference in drawing kickass schematics and the soul annihilating process of getting the bullshit to work. Do you have any idea how fricking tedious it would be to document every step of what you do and troubleshoot it? That's what CAD fricks don't understand, you need tolerances to the max everywhere because you WILL have to fix shit on the fly. Real Life isn't Lego most shit is held together by duct tape and prayer

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Go read why we can't build F-1 engines from the Saturn V based on the detailed drawings and get back to me - process knowledge isn't always written down

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >Because they all have apprentices or documentations on how the process is done and it will be pass down to the next person that is up for the position.
              Fricking lmao

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Fogbank
            Fascinating, just read it

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I may be moronic, but wasnt polystyrene used as the first fogbank? At least I think I remember reading that it was used as plasma generator.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              It was some sort of aerogel, that's for sure

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        they spent like 70 million to synthesize it again, and at least say they were successful.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >The forgot how to make a key aerogel
        We forgot, realized we forgot, and decided to make a new version that's on par with the old one.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          actually it was even better since we had more advances on aerogel since when the nukes were first invented.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          The actual story is even funnier. It's not that we forgot, it's that modern materials are too pure so when we followed the old recipe there was a bunch of trace contaminants that were missing which turned out to be important.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            the swiss cheese problem

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              The actual story is even funnier. It's not that we forgot, it's that modern materials are too pure so when we followed the old recipe there was a bunch of trace contaminants that were missing which turned out to be important.

              I swear to god everyone here watches the same videos

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                while i knew about the fogbank thing for a while (it was first posted around a few years ago) we are all at the mercy of The Algorithm

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            No they forgot due to lack of documention, tried to reverse engineer it from scratch, said reverse engineering failed because it was too pure and it confused them, then they relized the impurities they removed were actually nessary.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Fogbank's back baby.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Russian reverse cargo cult at work, gentlemen.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Aerogel is not forgotten tech dumb dumb

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      When comparing expenditures, it's good to remember that a large part of it is wages.
      I.e. Russia can afford to do things a lot cheaper by relying on brainwashed slave labor.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >cheaper
        Which means they are cutting corners when it comes to maintenance and also keeping things in check. People are paid high wages in those jobs are not paid high for no good reasons. Maintaining nukes is a complicated process.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        ahh yes, absolutely love have brainwashed slave labor doing extremely technical work on WMDs. such a winning combo

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I am now demoralised. The Ukraina is ready to start a nuclear war only to kill poor Donbass orphaned children in cancer clinics. No more trillions to israelitelensky, we must take care of our own people first!
    Z

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Anywhere between 5-50% and not even Russia knows.

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I'll take a wild guess and say 2. As I recall their firing mechanisms are actually pretty complicated and need to be maintained, so they're all just dirty bombs at best now, assuming their rockets even fricking work too.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Jokes on you, the rockets got ripped off and flung towards a pedestrian bridge on the other side of Ukraine from the fighting.
      >Verification not required.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Worst part is the Tritium, It decays quickly and once it rots it neutron crossection is insane.
      Basically good tritum makes a nuclear bomb into a hydrogen bomb but bad tritium poisons it into a dirty bomb.
      The US spends the entire annual militrary budget of russia basically changing tritium.
      Addtionally there is no real way to check it it was changed outside of test firing some nukes.
      So If i was going to steal something Id steal the nuclear mx money as well as its extemely high vaule, the only way you would get caught is if nuclear war as you cant test fire them and if that happened and you be dead anyway at that point.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Actually I think they mainly use lithium deuteride rather than tritium since it's stable.
        Lithium deuteride then turns into tritium if hit by neutrons from both the fission and fusion reaction.

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Less than we fear but more than we hope.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >a sword cannot cut it's elf
      Fricking big brain right here.

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    It really doesn't matter.
    If nukes are used, we're all fricked.
    If you don't understand this, you need to do more research.
    Just the after effects of emp would be devastating.
    Any nuclear power plants within yeild range that don't have an analog means of being shut down, will meltdown.
    Among the various other effects to consider, this alone is enough to jeopardize the planet.
    All it takes is a few going off in the right places and we're all fricked.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      nah

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Maybe if you live in a city. It's ruralgays time, baby.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        lmao, where do you think your machines and electricity come from?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        You're going to die from fallout.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Literally not a problem 1 month after even downwind of the ground blast. Air bursts are pretty much clean.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Source: Russian street smarts.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >source: basic common sense knowledge of fallout decay

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I'll be happily dead not having to live in a radioactive frickhole.
        you'll be finding out the hard way how much food one person can grow without any gas, diesel, fertilizer, seed, feed, sneed and external labour.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          We'd still get gas, why would we not.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >jeopardize the planet
      You absolute vantaBlack person, this planet has survived much more than all the nuclear warheads of mankind going off at the same time.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      da comrade, we are of now being demoralized, off to gulag

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Da comrade we need to be of afraid of nuclear weapon
      nuclear power plant also dangerous because same technology as weapon, very of dangerous buy russia gas instead is much of safer

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Far less than they claim but still enough.

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Devil's advocate. Even if most of their nukes are non operational, most, there's a very good chance the solid fuel rockets (due to sheer lack of parts to steal) are probably still capable of launching multiple independently re-entering dirty bombs in the general direction of CONUS and Europe. Right? How can a giant tube of solid fuel go bad or be stolen, not like it rusts in a silo

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The feul might have degraded and not been replaced

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        According to Ukraine that big boom a couple days ago was solid fuel from the same time period.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Do you know why the old fuel was still there.
          It was literally too unstable to dispose of or transport safely.
          Old fuel is an issue becuase it crystalizes and detonates uncontrolablly.
          Ukrainian have been concerned about that fuel for years due to it being stupidly toxic and unstable.
          Basically old missile fuel would explode in the silo or on takeoff.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >5km/h

            Just pack them onto a Russian tank and let it reverse it to the US

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >a very good chance the solid fuel rockets (due to sheer lack of parts to steal) are probably still capable of launching multiple independently re-entering dirty bombs in the general direction of CONUS and Europe. Right?
      No. Just look at the last Sarmat ICBM failure, and the more than 75% failure rate of the SLBM Bulava, before they rushed it into service without fixing it. Their rockets are unreliable at best.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Russia never had the capability to hit america with a nuke, Europe yes, us no. China is possibly the only one who might, and most countries hit with nuclear subs.
      There's no way a Soviet rust bucket with 40 years of no maintenance is going to get near striking range let alone fire, and if it did the payload wouldn't work.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >How can a giant tube of solid fuel go bad or be stolen
      Haha. These are RUSSIANS we are talking about, anon.

  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    he forgot the most important part:

    most of the development of the essential tech was/is in Ukraine.

  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Nukes don't exist.

  18. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Less than 5%. Maybe even 0 since they haven't used any.

  19. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Sub 10%.

  20. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The general rule with the Russian military is 'if you don't see it they don't have it'. This is a country so used to pumping out propaganda instead of honest news that they built a large part of their cold war strategic doctrine around 'Maskirovka' or lying through their teeth. We do know that they had functional nuclear weapons - they conducted several warhead tests after all - but we can assume (with Russias tendency to lie) that the actual number of warheads they have is well below the number claimed, and that the number of those that are even potentially functional is a lot lower than that. Remember that Russia has had approximately no money since the mid '70s, and nukes require constant and very expensive maintenance - and that any Russian who could potentially do that maintenance can make about 20 times more money than they'd be paid for that work if they immigrate to the EU and become a professional cleaner.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >We do know that they had functional nuclear weapons - they conducted several warhead tests after all
      notably there have been no (successful) russian nuclear tests since the 80s

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Only North Korea has functional nukes now.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >and that any Russian who could potentially do that maintenance can make about 20 times more money than they'd be paid for that work if they immigrate to the EU and become a professional cleaner.
      I disagree. A lot of people like to live in his country with his family and friends and would never become an inmigrant. Even for a lot of money.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >A lot of people like to live in his
        Nice, ESL, homosexual. You're just too moronic for any other country to want.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Passivity and complacency are major factors towards misery and corruption. I wonder how do they measure up against the other extreme - fanaticism.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        If you actually lived in a country people migrate to you would understand that this is not at all the case
        70% of the global population wants to move to the west and the other 30% already live here

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >This is a country so used to pumping out propaganda instead of honest news that they built a large part of their cold war strategic doctrine around 'Maskirovka' or lying through their teeth.
      This reminds of the supposed missile gap in the 60's, where it turned out that both the USAF and the CIA overestimated the amount of ICBMs the soviets had. The reports of both services stated between 20 - 12 missiles, when in reality the Soviets had 4 in total, with half of those being untested prototypes. The US enjoyed nuclear numerical supremacy for most of the first half of the 20th century (they also had first strike capability at least until the mid-60s).

  21. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Literally nothing works in the Russian military, you think the nukes are somehow an exception?

  22. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    What is the lifespan of a nuke? 30-40 years? ruskies rearmed around 2010, so they probably have a couple of working nukes.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Ten for a fusion bomb. Probably more for a fission firecracker, but those are exponentially weaker, bu and less useful.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Tritium has a half life of 12 years, so probably between 6 and 12 years, depending on the specific design specifications.

      For the other parts who can say, but fine mechanical parts are fragile and don't last forever even if you don't use them.

  23. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The new Satan 2 are definitely functional, the rest of their nuclear arsenal is probably small tactical nukes dropped from planes and the stuff they launch from submarines. The real problem is if the operators or automatic systems are capable of launching them in time if a strike happens.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      How do you know they are functional, and not just metal caskets filled with "BOOM" flyers?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >The new Satan 2 are definitely functional
      Then why did it just fail a launch test?
      https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ukraine-situation-report-russian-icbm-test-failed-during-bidens-visit-to-kyiv

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Do you have proof that isn't from MSM?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >>>/x/

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >I only trust “proof” from random Russian telegram channels

            Ah. So, no proof.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >your proofs aren't proofing anything

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >no proof
              Other than mainstream sources?
              What proof would you even need Ivan?

              We all know you just accept anything you like and reject anything you don’t so why bother with the autism? Is it cuz you’re paid to be here?

              This you?

              Ira shill farms

              -SEO Sky
              Caнкт-Пeтepбypг, Кoмeндaнтcкий пp., 4a, БЦ «Cтpoйдoм», oфиc 409, St Petersburg, Russia, 197227

              -Marketingovoye Agentsvo Didzhital Risech
              Kuybysheva St
              St Pete 197046

              -Pravda basement
              Grivtsova Ln
              St Pete’s 190000

              -Serm / PR set
              пpocпeкт Юpия Гaгapинa
              Saint Petersburg 196135

              -Gubment coordination building
              yлицa Caвyшкинa
              Saint Petersburg 197374

              -Grifon
              Лигoвcкий пpocпeкт
              Saint Petersburg 191040

              -ResearchMe
              Bolshaya Sadovaya Street
              Moscow 123001

              agentstvo kreativnih
              Зeлeнoгpaдcкaя yлицa
              Moscow 125475

              Direct for business
              Nevski prospekt
              Saint Petersburg 191167

              Ksentra
              2-я Звeнигopoдcкaя yлицa
              Moscow 123022

              Direkt info
              Tverskaya Street
              Moscow 125009

              yлицa Opджoникидзe
              Moscow 115419

              Agentsvo Internet Issledovaniy
              Obukhovsky Oborony Avenue
              Saint Petersburg 192029

              Shillfarm
              Domodedovo
              Moscow Oblast 142000

              Russ int tech
              5-й Дoнcкoй пpoeзд
              Moscow 119334

              Russian promo farm
              Marata Street
              Saint Petersburg 191002

              Online market intelligence
              yлицa Щeпкинa
              Moscow 129090

              IRA building
              Cyздaльcкaя yлицa
              Moscow 111672

              Prodvizheniye Sayta
              Зapeчнaя yлицa
              Saint Petersburg 194355

              Artics internet solutions
              Rentgena Street
              Saint Petersburg 197101

              Alfa marketing
              Caдoвaя yлицa
              Severnyy
              Belgorod Oblast 308519

              Klever Lab
              yлицa Hapимaнoвa
              Rostov-on-Don
              Rostov Oblast344000

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >I only trust “proof” from random Russian telegram channels

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          May I see it working? Why didn't israelitetin praise his glorious NOOK during his address? Funny he didn't mention it, no?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The claims about what this missile can do are so fricking ridiculous. It's like the 100 megaton nuclear powered super torpedo.

      They do have a new launch vehicle. It appears to have problems. It can't launch 24 hypersonic glide vehicles or shoot down interceptors with lasers or circle the south pole or any of that other ridiculous shit they've made up. This is the same state saying they are working on a hypersonic fighter with scramjets that can enter space but has only been able to make a handful of copies of its 1990s wunderwaffen.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >or shoot down interceptors with lasers
        Whatever happened to those laser-tanks they claimed to have around a year ago?
        (god, why the frick am I even asking...)

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Whatever happened to those laser-tanks they claimed to have around a year ago?
          Those were shit failed experiments from the USSR days.

  24. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    wtf is going on about working nukes, dont they test this shit on the sea all the time?

  25. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    we just reposting bot accounts now?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >now

  26. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Ok hear me out. What if Russia or the USSR before it never had a large nuclear arsenal? Soviet Union spent years recreating one nuke from stolen US data. They might have built some, then figured out how prohibitively expensive it is to keep them working or mass producing. They had enough for publicized tests and the rest is just dummies.
    Working nukes? Around 10, in various sizes.
    Something similar might be true for the US. Why go through all the trouble of maintaining thousand of nukes when you can just build a few and LARP with fancy looking missiles as deterrent.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      For the US, because somebody is contracted selling incredibly expensive nuke components, and that somebody is very good friends with the people responsible for contracting them.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Don't forget, also because the military-industrial complex has a vested interest in making their enemies appear strong so Russia was painted as having billions of functioning nukes

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      the US shits it's pants and overcompensates for threats that are only perceived, we definitely went full moron, built the whole arsenal, and are maintaining it, although not as well as we feel like we should. Russia's arsenal may in fact be a potemkin village in the current year, but I think it was at least mostly real until the mid 80-s

  27. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Pu-234 is 87yr half life. We're at 30 year old nukes that have lost 20% of their fissile material. Are you telling me these nukes still function?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >https://www.quora.com/How-long-do-nuclear-weapons-last-How-often-are-they-made
      >How long do nuclear weapons last?
      >About 12 years. That’s the half-life time for Tritium, which is used to boost the fission bomb.
      >So they tend to change out the Tritium bottle after 10 years or so
      If this is true it's unlikely Russia has working nooks.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Pu-234 is 87yr half life.
      Good thing all nuclear weapons use Pu-239

  28. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    We don’t know.
    It’s safe to assume that they are able to destroy a Western city or two in a nuclear exchange though, and that is obviously unacceptable.

    Wish Oppenheimer was here to give his two cents on Russian nuclear capabilities.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >We don’t know.
      >It’s safe to assume that they are able to destroy a Western city or two in a nuclear exchange though,
      There's no evidence that proves this and enough to say they can't. They are losing to the NATO salvation army, all of their military is destroyed, you're telling me they miraculously have a few corruption free nukes lying around with the launch systems to fire them intercontinental?

      Faaaaat fricking chance

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Well, they still have a space program, despite their frickups with the ISS the past few years.
        If you can build and maintain disposable orbital rockets that don't kill their cosmonauts after launching you can also maintain liquid or solid fuelled ICBMs.
        And presumably, you can also maintain a few nuclear warheads in such a state that they will work when used.
        Even if this amounts to less than 10 total fully functioning ICBMs, that's still a massive threat the West.

  29. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Based on what we saw so far and my limited knowledge of nuclear weapons. Between 5% and 25%

  30. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I love how much Russia resembles 40k.

    They have outdated technology that they can replicate in limited numbers, everything else is essentially magic to them left by an bygone era.

  31. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Unless I’m mistaken, nukes require regular maintenance— so there’s a very good chance that they have NO operational nukes. Unless they have some new-ish units.

  32. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    hopefully just enough to remove mutts from the board

  33. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >These people are literally, ONTOLOGICALLY even, insane for actually using common sense to notice things and not falling for our gorrilionth NOOK fear mongering

  34. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I find it far fetched to say they have 0 nukes. All they have to do is spend a small amount to maintain a few of them. Im sure they have no where near as many as they claim and they arent as strong as NATOs nukes but to think they have zero functional nukes seems crazy to me.

  35. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    50% they work or they don't

  36. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Maintenance of gas boosted nuclear weapons

    Tritium is a radioactive isotope with a half-life of 12.355 years. 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.

    Tritium is relatively expensive to produce because each triton - the tritium nucleus - produced requires production of at least one free neutron which is used to bombard a feedstock material (lithium-6, deuterium, or helium-3). Actually, because of losses and inefficiencies, the number of free neutrons needed is closer to two for each triton produced (and tritium begins decaying immediately, so there are losses during collection, storage, and transport from the production facility to the weapons in the field.) The production of free neutrons demands the operation of either a breeder reactor or a particle accelerator (with a spallation target) dedicated to the tritium production facility.

  37. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    somewhere between zero and none

  38. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Shit thread

  39. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    What does it matter if it isn’t even functional? People won’t be willing to call Russia bluff

  40. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Nobody here knows. Stupid thread.

  41. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Hahahahahaha!
    They ain't got no nukes!
    NATO should just invade!
    Hahahahahahahaha!

  42. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Russia is still weakened and has an elongated border next to NATO. I want Ukraine to win because I think their cause is noble, but ultimately if they lose then the overall situation still leaves Russia contained & handicapped. Something which benefits Western nations and their peoples.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Even if Russia wins and Ikraine is officially "neutral", they will be hostile to Russia for the next century after this.
      If a NATO-Russia war breaks out Ukraine WILL allow NATO to move through their country to attack Russia.
      Putin has already lost, even if he hasn't calculated this reality, yet.

  43. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Russia has Schrödinger Nukes.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      That’s what I’m saying. Nobody on earth has the balls to gamble on their nukes not working

  44. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >What percentage of the Russian nuclear arsenal is functional?
    Unknown even the Russians don't know. The last two they tried to test did not work, so I guess that is the circuitry or tritium gone.

    Valery Solovey, an expert on the president and former professor at Moscow’s prestigious Institute of International Relations [MGIMO], a training school for spies and diplomats said: “[Putin’s] decision on the use of tactical nuclear weapons [in the Ukraine conflict] would no doubt face resistance.“I don't know how effective the resistance will be but I will indicate [that] nuclear tests were supposed to be held over the past two weeks, one in the Barents sea, underwater, and the second underground, in Arkhangelsk region.

    “Both times the tests were not held.”

    He alleged: “The reason is that before the launch, or more accurately, before the use of tactical nuclear weapons, it is necessary to make sure these weapons are fully operable…“They had to be tested.”

    But both times the potentially dangerous were “disrupted”.

    “The president got reports that there was an emergency situation, that it didn't work out” - implying technical failings.

    Last leak said the Russians estimate 84% of their 1500 or so don't work. They think that they have one nuclear subs worth but where trying to repurpose some of the warheads to other platforms (Ukarine?)

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Unironic, are there any proofs Russia attempted nuclear tests recently?
      They did use strategic missiles with conventional warheads in some of the missile attacks IIRC, also some kind of test for their warhead delivery systems?

      Performing a nuclear test when no one besides perhaps North Korea has performed one in decades seems in line with their posturing however.

  45. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    in any case they needn't worry about them

  46. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    0.08730801405387317%

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Higher than I expected.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        It was a miscalculation, see

        Shit, sorry, that should be 0.08365400702693659%

        for a more accurate percentage.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          I feel better all ready.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Shit, sorry, that should be 0.08365400702693659%

  47. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >proceeds to vote for people who’ll give 1 billion in handouts to rich bankers and whatever other people aren’t paying you enough to afford the groceries that they jacked up in prices
    >I’m sorry “tax cuts for hard working americans”

  48. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >t.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous
    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      russian here
      do people really believe this shit? do you want me to go to a supermarket and take photos?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        > do you want me to go to a supermarket and take photos?
        Yes.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >do you want me to go to a supermarket and take photos?
        Yes. Are you homosexuals still buying bread on payment plans?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Keep going? Keep going.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous
            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Keep going? Keep going.

              >April 6, 2022

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >It got any better

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Yes. A buddy of mine from valdivostok said it's not at all uncommon.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Are you from moscow/leningrad ?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Mowscovites/St. Petersburgians need not apply. They're like the equivalent of visiting a tourist village in North Korea.

  49. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    people always talk about nukes being expensive but how expensive they really are? like how much compared to russian gdp? is maintaining 1000 nukes around 10% of their gdp?

  50. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    On the subject of NOOKS I remain convinced that the US is largely immune to conventional ICBM exchange by way of MKVs. The fact that the project was """defunded""" in FY 2009 shortly after some test footage made it onto the internet only for Raytheon to admit in 2015 that they were in fact working on a MKV program followed by a "whoops no we aren't please forget we said that haha" seals it for me.

  51. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >What percentage of the Russian nuclear arsenal is functional?
    nuclear weapons have strict shelf life defined by physics, they are also the safest place to embezzle from because no one is ever going to use one, right?

  52. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    they probably keep one ready for special occasion
    only have to check on it once every thirty years

  53. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I don't really know so I looked up how many nukes each country claims to have and how much they spend on their respective nuclear programs
    UK has 225 nuclear warheads, only 120 deployed, they spend around 6,8 billion on them in 2021
    Russia has around 5,977 nukes total, of them 1,588 are deployed, in 2021 they spent a whooping 8.6 billion on them
    USA meanwhile spend 44 billion on them, and they are the only country with comparable amount of nukes to Russia
    Of course in Russia costs are likely reduced due to wages and uranium being mined in house, but I don't think its that much cheaper assuming best case scenario without pocketing money
    So while I don't think Russia has no working nukes at all, I doubt it has nearly as much as they claim to have in working condition

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous
  54. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Give it some time and you'll see by yourself

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      It is extremely fortunate for the Russian people that we most likely never will.

  55. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Frogs, explain yourselves.

  56. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    200 sounds reasonable
    so about tree fiddy (3.50%)

  57. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >da captain bannonovich, if enemy finds out fort tellerovich is a scam they know we don't of have nuclear weaponry, that's why we keep of fighting in Ukraine

  58. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    0
    go for it now
    call their bluff

  59. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I think I would die of laughter if Russia finally decides to NOOOOOK and it turns out to be a wet fart that they try desperately to pass off as a conventional weapon as NATO pivots from "logistical support" to "gang rape" and China takes the opportunity to become the hegemon of basically all of central Eurasia's natural resources.

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