No, both USA and Russia agreed to no more than 1.5k nukes in active service, and this is inspected regularly. And USA actually puts a lot of work into maintenance
They could be attached to delivery vehicles later. Easier to maintain just the warhead, than the rocket/missile you attach it to. Or if you have conventional weapons that use the same delivery vehicle you can just swap them out when you need them.
They don't work, anon. At least not nearly as many as they say on paper. Which presents other problems, funny enough. For instance if they couldn't afford to maintain a massive arsenal, which would they prioritize for service? Tactical warheads or strategic? In the case of the former, their throw weight becomes contingent on a lot of shit that ultimately reduces their range for two out of their three legs of their triad. In the case of the latter, then it means they'll need to prioritize what they're most likely to land hits against. Does that put the continental US "beyond" reach in favor of European and Asian targets?
That's not even getting into the true efficacy of their boomers. If they try to put underway and launch at sea, they will probably die before they get their missiles off.
Long story short it's very unlikely at this point that Russia's been able to maintain the stated nuclear stockpile they claim. The US spends more annually on maintaining our nukes than the Russian Federation spends on the entirety of their armed forces, and we're supposedly at something approaching parity, more or less? By any objective measure, at this point, that shit's fricking unlikely.
I wonder if the Sarmat would actually work since it's their newest missile and likely gets at least some maintenance. Or maybe they blew the annual maintenance budget on that kickass music video.
The Sarmats are probably few and far between, and in any event it's more or less a tweaked R-36M. Given what we've seen with Russian claims of recent weapons' capabilities in the arsenal, I wouldn't be surprised if Sarmat turned out to be little more than reverse-engineered R-36Ms (since those were originally made in Ukraine lmao).
Pity? It's a pity that stayed Nato's hand. Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Anon? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends. My heart tells me that Russia has some part to play in it, for good or evil, before this is over. The pity of Nato may rule the fate of many
>My heart tells me that Russia has some part to play in it, for good or evil
Definitely evil. Russia should have been invaded after 1945 when we still had the nuclear monopoly. Imagine how many hundreds of millions of lives would have been better off had that evil country been destroyed 70 years ago.
Without SU there would be no cold war. And the world would be in a much better place without the dozens of proxy and civil wars. Not nuking Soviet union was a great tragedy
nooks were meh until the mid 50s. Firebombing nipp cities did far greater damage then the big booms of nooks. It would have been like korean war where a intermix of WW2 era equipment was mish mashed with early cold war machines like B-29 and B-36s doing mass bombing raids into the SU and met with Mig-15s if there is any response
>what's stopping someone just nuking Russia?
Human sympathy. You could all be living in the American Planetary Empire right now had the burgers wanted it. If they didn't nuke them in the 40s/50s, they're not gonna now.
There is no realistic defense against a massed nuclear first strike. And yes, that also applies to USA, who could maybe defend against 1-3 ICBM at once.
The desense is MAD
Add a autonomous kill vehicle to every starlink satellite and ICBM's are no longer a threat. The US is leading in large satellite constellations, they could and should do it.
Reminder that a russian Kh-55 with a mock nuclear warhead entered from Ukraine, flew across half a Poland and fell in the center of it. And it was only found by a happenstance by a random passer-by in a forest.
Becoming a pariah basically. If Russia ever does use a tactical nuke that will be when they can pull the trigger and just turn the entire country into glass.
I wonder what will happen if intelligence was to determine Russia were about to imminently use nuclear weapons though, would that be sufficient justification to launch a preemptive attack?
>would that be sufficient justification to launch a preemptive attack?
I believe the USA has first strike protocol. Most countries only have retaliatory protocol. Like Russia's that would enable Russia to use nukes when the actual borders are threatened. Or China, which iirc has nuclear retaliation only against nuclear attack. But anyways what this means is that the USA assumes the right to use nuclear force offensively and not when directly threatened. So there doesn't even have to be a reasonable danger, they just could.
Would they? No. Remember a few months ago when Biden reacted to Putin's nuclear threats against Ukraine by saying America would respond with a CONVENTIONAL attack against Russia?
Even then nukes aren't the doomsday weapons people make them out to be. Fusion warheads (H bombs) have very little fallout, and fission weapons aren't /that/ destructive. A city hit with a modern nuke would be similar to the cities in WWII that got leveled by tons of conventional weapons. And using salted nukes against an enemy would have everyone turning a blind eye when smallpox reappears in your capital and the enemy starts lobbing zyklon artillery shells at you.
The same fricking question. Every fricking day. I'm going to copy-paste this lazy reply to a lazy question.
Nuclear attack especially against another nuclear armed nation leaves you vulnerable to a second strike attack that will most likely lead to escalation and mutually assured destruction. Even in the case of no second strike counterattack, or an attack against a country with no nuclear weapons, the use of such an extremely destructive weapon would most likely lead to public outcry from other nations and embargoes that would not be worth the usage of nuclear weapons. The actions of the nation would have to be truly heinous for it to be seen as justified.
Enjoy your spaghetti and basil, you lazy sonovabitch.
I doubt it will be "Russia" so much as about a dozen successor states, but all those smaller countries are going to be looking for security guarantees from their neighbors. I can totally see the US offering security guarantees in exchange for their ill-maintained nuclear stockpiles (And other Soviet WMDs in the attic): it's a once-in-a-lifetime chance to get some real NPT work accomplished.
yeah, the zerg-blitz tyranids tactics are so successful that the Nato are trying to copying that
by using the same liberated Russian to Zerg blitz tyranids with a Bigger WAAAH flag on the Chinese
>Also take away the White Nigerians women from Chang is a brilliant move
I read in the Journal of Foreign Affairs (I think 2012-ish) some guys at a big name university said that MAD no longer exists because, according to some computer simulations, the US could conduct a first strike on Russia with 95% chance of eliminating their counter strike ability. But the defense department (or maybe some other department) published a strongly worded response stating that MAD still existed because first nuclear strikes are completely against US policy and that anyone who understands the consequences of failure will realize that even 5% of suffering nuclear retaliation is unacceptably high.
pity
FPWP. Russia would out-nuke the rest of the world by the numbers given their current loadout.
No, both USA and Russia agreed to no more than 1.5k nukes in active service, and this is inspected regularly. And USA actually puts a lot of work into maintenance
Russia is no longer permitting these inspections.
Since a few months ago, and you can be damn sure USA keeps a close eye on the nuclear storages activity
This is cope
Location of each nuclear warhead storage is publicly known. And do you think USA doesn't have unused nukes in storage if their own?
>spy satellites don’t exist
Idiot.
Russia doesn't have nukes
Those are total warheads
Most are in storage, only about 1500 are supposed to be deployed at any one time
Black person, go and read that post again
You need to only count deliverable warheads for a real comparison.
why would you need non-deliverable warheads?
They could be attached to delivery vehicles later. Easier to maintain just the warhead, than the rocket/missile you attach it to. Or if you have conventional weapons that use the same delivery vehicle you can just swap them out when you need them.
No need for nukes.
Only on paper
But even if only a quarter of Russias nukes are functioning that's still enough to deter any direct attack from NATO.
For now
Not only are you wrong, but also go back
Wrong board
This. Despite what rhetoric Americans might propagate, Russia is still a significant threat for this reason alone.
>given their current loadout.
May we see it?
They don't work, anon. At least not nearly as many as they say on paper. Which presents other problems, funny enough. For instance if they couldn't afford to maintain a massive arsenal, which would they prioritize for service? Tactical warheads or strategic? In the case of the former, their throw weight becomes contingent on a lot of shit that ultimately reduces their range for two out of their three legs of their triad. In the case of the latter, then it means they'll need to prioritize what they're most likely to land hits against. Does that put the continental US "beyond" reach in favor of European and Asian targets?
That's not even getting into the true efficacy of their boomers. If they try to put underway and launch at sea, they will probably die before they get their missiles off.
Long story short it's very unlikely at this point that Russia's been able to maintain the stated nuclear stockpile they claim. The US spends more annually on maintaining our nukes than the Russian Federation spends on the entirety of their armed forces, and we're supposedly at something approaching parity, more or less? By any objective measure, at this point, that shit's fricking unlikely.
I wonder if the Sarmat would actually work since it's their newest missile and likely gets at least some maintenance. Or maybe they blew the annual maintenance budget on that kickass music video.
The Sarmats are probably few and far between, and in any event it's more or less a tweaked R-36M. Given what we've seen with Russian claims of recent weapons' capabilities in the arsenal, I wouldn't be surprised if Sarmat turned out to be little more than reverse-engineered R-36Ms (since those were originally made in Ukraine lmao).
>pity
>for russians
Pity? It's a pity that stayed Nato's hand. Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Anon? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends. My heart tells me that Russia has some part to play in it, for good or evil, before this is over. The pity of Nato may rule the fate of many
>My heart tells me that Russia has some part to play in it, for good or evil
Definitely evil. Russia should have been invaded after 1945 when we still had the nuclear monopoly. Imagine how many hundreds of millions of lives would have been better off had that evil country been destroyed 70 years ago.
Without SU there would be no cold war. And the world would be in a much better place without the dozens of proxy and civil wars. Not nuking Soviet union was a great tragedy
nooks were meh until the mid 50s. Firebombing nipp cities did far greater damage then the big booms of nooks. It would have been like korean war where a intermix of WW2 era equipment was mish mashed with early cold war machines like B-29 and B-36s doing mass bombing raids into the SU and met with Mig-15s if there is any response
Nato! Where was Nato when the Donbass fell? Where was Nato when the gas price tag closed in around us?! Where was Nat... no anon, we are alone.
>THE BEACONS! THE BEACONS OF NORAD ARE LIT!
>NATO calls for aid
Shit like this reminds me Tolkien had his head on straight about the value of life.
Of course. He was a Catholoc.
Nato? What the frick is a nato? What are you talking about?
>what's stopping someone just nuking Russia?
Human sympathy. You could all be living in the American Planetary Empire right now had the burgers wanted it. If they didn't nuke them in the 40s/50s, they're not gonna now.
>West is Bilbo and Russia is Gollum
At last I truly see!
>Tricksy Americaannnssss....
>Stealing our preciouuuussss slavic unity!
theyre perfectly capable of destroying themselves
There is no realistic defense against a massed nuclear first strike. And yes, that also applies to USA, who could maybe defend against 1-3 ICBM at once.
The desense is MAD
Add a autonomous kill vehicle to every starlink satellite and ICBM's are no longer a threat. The US is leading in large satellite constellations, they could and should do it.
Wasn't that an idea behind star wars? Brilliant pebbles etc
But that still leave submarine launched cruise missiles
Yes, and now it'll work. Eliminating the main threat the enemies of the US pose.
Reminder that a russian Kh-55 with a mock nuclear warhead entered from Ukraine, flew across half a Poland and fell in the center of it. And it was only found by a happenstance by a random passer-by in a forest.
They spotted it on radar but it landed in some random place and noone found it till weeks later.
No need to embellish the trust anon.
I didn't say they haven't spot it, but the fact is it flew unmolested and they didn't even bother to mount a serious search operation
That's how seriously everyone takes Russia's nuclear threats you see.
>Polish patriot battery defending polish sky
when?
>waste missile on obviously decoy warhead, giving your enemy valuable response time estimates and other data
My favorite was when the stupid slavoids had a missile hit fricking Hungary in the first month of the war and they were bragging about it.
It flew across Belarus, not Ukraine.
not to mention that Tu-141 flying over several NATO countries and crashing in Zagreb
that one was detected multiple times, it's just that no one did anything about it
>it's just that no one did anything about it
Yeah, that's the problem, it went down in some college campus IIRC, posing danger to people.
>we can't defend our country because it's so big
>better make it even bigger to help solve that problem
Turdies are the worst.
Becoming a pariah basically. If Russia ever does use a tactical nuke that will be when they can pull the trigger and just turn the entire country into glass.
I wonder what will happen if intelligence was to determine Russia were about to imminently use nuclear weapons though, would that be sufficient justification to launch a preemptive attack?
>would that be sufficient justification to launch a preemptive attack?
I believe the USA has first strike protocol. Most countries only have retaliatory protocol. Like Russia's that would enable Russia to use nukes when the actual borders are threatened. Or China, which iirc has nuclear retaliation only against nuclear attack. But anyways what this means is that the USA assumes the right to use nuclear force offensively and not when directly threatened. So there doesn't even have to be a reasonable danger, they just could.
Would they? No. Remember a few months ago when Biden reacted to Putin's nuclear threats against Ukraine by saying America would respond with a CONVENTIONAL attack against Russia?
Even then nukes aren't the doomsday weapons people make them out to be. Fusion warheads (H bombs) have very little fallout, and fission weapons aren't /that/ destructive. A city hit with a modern nuke would be similar to the cities in WWII that got leveled by tons of conventional weapons. And using salted nukes against an enemy would have everyone turning a blind eye when smallpox reappears in your capital and the enemy starts lobbing zyklon artillery shells at you.
Well, that's the neat part anon ...
Literally? Nothing.
The same fricking question. Every fricking day. I'm going to copy-paste this lazy reply to a lazy question.
Nuclear attack especially against another nuclear armed nation leaves you vulnerable to a second strike attack that will most likely lead to escalation and mutually assured destruction. Even in the case of no second strike counterattack, or an attack against a country with no nuclear weapons, the use of such an extremely destructive weapon would most likely lead to public outcry from other nations and embargoes that would not be worth the usage of nuclear weapons. The actions of the nation would have to be truly heinous for it to be seen as justified.
Enjoy your spaghetti and basil, you lazy sonovabitch.
Russia must be made a NATO member after they lose the war and enter a civil war. It would be an usefull ally against China.
I doubt it will be "Russia" so much as about a dozen successor states, but all those smaller countries are going to be looking for security guarantees from their neighbors. I can totally see the US offering security guarantees in exchange for their ill-maintained nuclear stockpiles (And other Soviet WMDs in the attic): it's a once-in-a-lifetime chance to get some real NPT work accomplished.
yeah, the zerg-blitz tyranids tactics are so successful that the Nato are trying to copying that
by using the same liberated Russian to Zerg blitz tyranids with a Bigger WAAAH flag on the Chinese
>Also take away the White Nigerians women from Chang is a brilliant move
I read in the Journal of Foreign Affairs (I think 2012-ish) some guys at a big name university said that MAD no longer exists because, according to some computer simulations, the US could conduct a first strike on Russia with 95% chance of eliminating their counter strike ability. But the defense department (or maybe some other department) published a strongly worded response stating that MAD still existed because first nuclear strikes are completely against US policy and that anyone who understands the consequences of failure will realize that even 5% of suffering nuclear retaliation is unacceptably high.
So he's saying that moscow isn't covered by AA?
Way too many alcoholics for full coverage.
Remember that time when that kid flew a light plane and landed in Red Square?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathias_Rust
like st pidorsburgs s-300s, they were mostly shipped to ukraine to do land strikes with their aa missiles
Why did he do that?
>hehe it's gonna be fun
>no wait, he's too close, he's gonna get caught in the blast if it blows
>maybe he's gonna snipe the cre-OH FRICK OH SHIT
Imagine the tinnitus
some of their nukes might work.
Whats stopping Russia from Nuking anyone else?
Nukes don't exist because the earth is flat.
the off chance that at least 1 soviet nuke might still work.
the thousands of nukes that will come back at you
>What is MAD
That's the number one reason why nukes never went off during the Cold War
Read a goddamn history book sometime
>needing nukes to win
lol, no, thats like slapping someone, its something only girls should do, no real man would ever slap an opponent...
>he doesn't backhand slap b***hes and pussy's
Pussy lol.
Closed fist backhands only or you are a literal vegana made of pussy parts.
We're not subhumans like Russoids