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".
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.
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.
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?
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.
> 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.
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.)
>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
>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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
>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.
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.
>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
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
>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
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.
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
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.
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.
>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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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
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
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.
>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.
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.
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.
>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
>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.
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
>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).
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.
>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
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.
>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...)
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.
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.
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
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
>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.
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.
>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?
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.
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.
>These people are literally, ONTOLOGICALLY even, insane for actually using common sense to notice things and not falling for our gorrilionth NOOK fear mongering
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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?)
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.
>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”
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?
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.
>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?
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
>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
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.
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".
>thirdies
you do not know what this means
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.
It’s sort of a nice way of saying countries with flushing toilets
It's slang for "Third Worldists" which itself is a fancy way of saying anti-White, anti-civilization shitskins & their supporters.
The soviet union is dead. If you aren't western aligned you are third world by default
0
They would use it if they had any
Who knows.
Biden is mr fricking magoo. I wouldnt be surprised honestly
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.
i still can’t fricking believe corn pop was a real person
It's honestly hard not to root for the senile old fricker as he constantly stumbles into wins
It's like if Mr.Bean or Johnny English were a fricking statesman
>sauce: CNN
yah sure
Nobody knows, not even Russia
>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
about treefiddy
>Cropped Twitter screencap thread
I beg you guys not to reply to this shit
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?
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.
> 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.
Those inspections never at any point checked for functionality
Who is talking about “those inspections?”
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.)
>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
we know from tanks russian "deep storage" means abandoned and all valuable parts are stolen
moron, they have at most 3,000 tanks they can actually revive from their junk heaps, at the rate of 200 tanks per year
>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.
It doesn’t fricking matter if they don’t work. Simply having the illusion that they might work is enough for MAID to continue
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
Happened with alot of the NASA space travel shit as well ironically.
>reinvented
Is there any proof of this?
>please leak me nuclear test data to win a warthunder argument
No proof. Gotcha.
>congressional reporting of reurbished weapon numbers are a conspiracy
Ok, schizo.
>it's the Oppenheimer situation all over again
https://web.archive.org/web/20181205161703/https://www.weeklystandard.com/jonathan-v-last/the-fog-of-war
>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.
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.
>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.
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.
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
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
>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
>Fogbank
Fascinating, just read it
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.
It was some sort of aerogel, that's for sure
they spent like 70 million to synthesize it again, and at least say they were successful.
>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.
actually it was even better since we had more advances on aerogel since when the nukes were first invented.
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.
the swiss cheese problem
I swear to god everyone here watches the same videos
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
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.
Fogbank's back baby.
Russian reverse cargo cult at work, gentlemen.
Aerogel is not forgotten tech dumb dumb
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.
>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.
ahh yes, absolutely love have brainwashed slave labor doing extremely technical work on WMDs. such a winning combo
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
Anywhere between 5-50% and not even Russia knows.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Less than we fear but more than we hope.
>a sword cannot cut it's elf
Fricking big brain right here.
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.
nah
Maybe if you live in a city. It's ruralgays time, baby.
lmao, where do you think your machines and electricity come from?
You're going to die from fallout.
Literally not a problem 1 month after even downwind of the ground blast. Air bursts are pretty much clean.
>Source: Russian street smarts.
>source: basic common sense knowledge of fallout decay
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.
We'd still get gas, why would we not.
>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.
da comrade, we are of now being demoralized, off to gulag
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
Far less than they claim but still enough.
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
The feul might have degraded and not been replaced
According to Ukraine that big boom a couple days ago was solid fuel from the same time period.
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.
>5km/h
Just pack them onto a Russian tank and let it reverse it to the US
>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.
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.
>How can a giant tube of solid fuel go bad or be stolen
Haha. These are RUSSIANS we are talking about, anon.
he forgot the most important part:
most of the development of the essential tech was/is in Ukraine.
Nukes don't exist.
Less than 5%. Maybe even 0 since they haven't used any.
Sub 10%.
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.
>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
Only North Korea has functional nukes now.
>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.
>A lot of people like to live in his
Nice, ESL, homosexual. You're just too moronic for any other country to want.
Passivity and complacency are major factors towards misery and corruption. I wonder how do they measure up against the other extreme - fanaticism.
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
>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).
Literally nothing works in the Russian military, you think the nukes are somehow an exception?
What is the lifespan of a nuke? 30-40 years? ruskies rearmed around 2010, so they probably have a couple of working nukes.
Ten for a fusion bomb. Probably more for a fission firecracker, but those are exponentially weaker, bu and less useful.
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.
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.
How do you know they are functional, and not just metal caskets filled with "BOOM" flyers?
>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
Do you have proof that isn't from MSM?
>>>/x/
Ah. So, no proof.
>your proofs aren't proofing anything
>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
>I only trust “proof” from random Russian telegram channels
May I see it working? Why didn't israelitetin praise his glorious NOOK during his address? Funny he didn't mention it, no?
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.
>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...)
>Whatever happened to those laser-tanks they claimed to have around a year ago?
Those were shit failed experiments from the USSR days.
wtf is going on about working nukes, dont they test this shit on the sea all the time?
we just reposting bot accounts now?
>now
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.
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.
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
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
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?
>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.
>Pu-234 is 87yr half life.
Good thing all nuclear weapons use Pu-239
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.
>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
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.
Based on what we saw so far and my limited knowledge of nuclear weapons. Between 5% and 25%
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.
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.
hopefully just enough to remove mutts from the board
>These people are literally, ONTOLOGICALLY even, insane for actually using common sense to notice things and not falling for our gorrilionth NOOK fear mongering
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.
50% they work or they don't
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.
somewhere between zero and none
Shit thread
What does it matter if it isn’t even functional? People won’t be willing to call Russia bluff
Nobody here knows. Stupid thread.
Hahahahahaha!
They ain't got no nukes!
NATO should just invade!
Hahahahahahahaha!
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.
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.
Russia has Schrödinger Nukes.
That’s what I’m saying. Nobody on earth has the balls to gamble on their nukes not working
>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?)
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.
in any case they needn't worry about them
0.08730801405387317%
Higher than I expected.
It was a miscalculation, see
for a more accurate percentage.
I feel better all ready.
Shit, sorry, that should be 0.08365400702693659%
>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”
>t.
russian here
do people really believe this shit? do you want me to go to a supermarket and take photos?
> do you want me to go to a supermarket and take photos?
Yes.
>do you want me to go to a supermarket and take photos?
Yes. Are you homosexuals still buying bread on payment plans?
Keep going? Keep going.
>April 6, 2022
>It got any better
Yes. A buddy of mine from valdivostok said it's not at all uncommon.
Are you from moscow/leningrad ?
Mowscovites/St. Petersburgians need not apply. They're like the equivalent of visiting a tourist village in North Korea.
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?
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.
>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?
they probably keep one ready for special occasion
only have to check on it once every thirty years
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
Give it some time and you'll see by yourself
It is extremely fortunate for the Russian people that we most likely never will.
Frogs, explain yourselves.
200 sounds reasonable
so about tree fiddy (3.50%)
>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
0
go for it now
call their bluff
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.