Russia's nuclear weapons may be useless

  1. This states Russia may be too poor to maintain the weapons. But it also states that they may be maintained and could be functional lol. I feel like this article just fights itself

  2. I think what they are getting at is that if just a small percentage of those weapons work, the deterrence is still there.

  3. It’s more like, after seeing all the corruption etc, there’s a good chance they don’t work, but are you will to risk it. Plus all it takes is one to work to cause massive problems….

  4. Yeah, it’s like going to an Italian restaurant. You eat pasta & anti-pasta and leave hungry.

  5. You only need a few to function to kill tens of millions. But yes. The US nuclear budgets are enormous

  6. Well it sounds like there's another issue. If the tritium fades and the second stage of the nuclear reaction in an H-bomb can't happen, pretty obviously the first stage still can? It sounds that way. So even if you launch one of these hydrogen bombs without any tritium in it at all, you're still going to get a boom out of it?

  7. either way, I think we have to assume they're active and could be used at anytime and anywhere

  8. Till very recently Russia and Us would send inspectors to each others sites both got to choose when and where within reason, this was only halted earlier this year

  9. Exactly, this is what I've been trying to remind people of for a while now. US/NATO will have very good information on the state of Russia's nuclear arsenal, and the fact that they still respect Russia's capabilities is all the information we need to know that they're functional and dangerous.

  10. even if it is a 90% fail rate, that'd still be some 600 missiles that don't fail. Enough to destroy every major city in the US

  11. More plausibly, rather than all or nothing, Russia probably maintains a small proportion of its ridiculously high number of strategic nuclear weapons at readiness with fully updated Tritium, say 15-20%.

  12. If 90% don't work, that's still enough to wreak massive destruction upon North America and Europe. So it's a pretty stupid strategy to then just proceed as if that means there's no real threat there.

  13. And even if a warhead fails to properly create the necessary nuclear explosion, you'd likely still have a dirty bomb with all the associated contamination 😬

  14. So far the rule has been that the opposite sentiment of whatever bullshit Moscow is spreading is true. So that would mean that Russia has no nukes. But I’m not willing to bet on that. Is anyone?

  15. They literally did a Sarmat test several days ago, now I don’t know the results of said test, but I guarantee America and other intelligence agencies do.

  16. I've no idea why this reasoning is so prevalent. It doesn't matter if Russia has 10 or 10.000 nukes. It doesn't matter if 99% of them would be intercepted, the point of hoarding nukes is not to blow them up, it's just to ensure M.A.D.

  17. People with a lot more information and knowledge than you or I or this article have consistently played as if Russia has nukes. Maybe they know something these guys don’t, maybe they actually are careful when dealing with these situations.

  18. It speculates that Russia can't afford to maintain it's hydrogen bombs (icbm's) because of the war and sanctions. And are therefore bluffing when talking about nuclear threats against the west.

  19. Specifically tritium only has a life of 12.5 years and at some point in it's life its no longer useful and must be replaced. It's like the most expensive thing per gram to make. So how many nukes is Russia maintaining or is all the money going to yachts and they are sticking fake tritium into the nukes?

  20. Idk I mean they still have advanced fighter jets that can fly and working hypersonic missiles. Im going to go against the flow on this thread and say I think a good portion of their ICBMs do work.

  21. The number of Russian warheads he states is completely wrong, the SKY News article he links to has the correct numbers though.

  22. Ah, those thermonuclear weapons work fine in Russia? The military “inspected” them, and checked off every box. Who cares if they skimp on the most expensive parts, they won’t actually need to ever use them anyway? Nobody would pocket the hundreds of millions needed to produce those materials in Russia, would they? 👌🏼

  23. Exactly like that. Leaving their nukes in a state where all (or even the great majority) didn’t work, would be more stupid than leaving their conventional (non nuclear) missiles in a condition that wouldn’t launch, and leaving their tanks without starter batteries.

  24. They probably still have half of them in decent condition. I would be more concerned about how they store them if I lived in Russia.

  25. Russia has some of the best nuclear scientists in the world, they have an active nuclear market and export nuclear engineering. They also have an absolute fuckton of money. Russians are poor, but Russia is not poor. They’ve had many, many nuclear tests. Russias nuclear weapons are not useless, it’s extremely ignorant to even think that.

  26. If russia's nukes are evn temporarily out of tritium then we have to nuke them off the face of the earth and end that threat while the window is open.

  27. I hope to GOD they are. That would do the world some good. No one wants that. NO ONE. War is terrible, nuclear war is the end of life as we know it. We should go back to fist fighting. 1v1 winner take all.

  28. Not that I wanna find out, but from what we’ve seen, the amount of corruption in the Russian military is so astounding they couldn’t even keep tires on their trucks maintained enough to last more than a few days in the actual combat. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if general Ivan pocketed all the money destined for nuke maintenance, since it would be the last thing they would want to use. Hopefully I’m right …🤞🤞🤞

  29. Problem is all that fissile material is still around even if the warhead or rocketry is dysfunctional. In normal human history states, countries and even civilizations disappear, transition or get replaced but if theoretically Russia collapsed almost certainly any working warheads would be used against an aggressor and if it was an internal collapse all of that material would end up on black market, in hands of next Russian leader who history tells us will likely be more nationalistic and violent, or will be spread out across various new nations that come out of ashes likely with grievances or other bones to pick, most likely along ethnic lines. All bad outcomes. Keeping an incompetent strong man in place like Putin may be best option

  30. If Russia collapses and loses command and control of their nuclear weapons, the US could go in and secure them by force or just nuke them.

  31. My hope is that some clever people know where things are and when Russia collapses a lot of helicopters will be flying around with western special forces moving them to safety.

  32. The high cost of tritium has been discussed since the beginning of this years invasion of Ukraine. I personally believe that the assessment is correct. Ruzzia has few if any operational nukes. For a mafia boss, the choice between selling something instead of maintaining and never being able to use it is obvious.

  33. If there is anything of value to be stolen, Russian oligarchs have already stolen it. Doesn’t matter if it’s for nuclear weapons maintenance, tanks, airplanes, ships, rifles, or even tents or underwear for their soldiers. It’s obvious to everyone who really looks at the state of the Russian army now, that they were relying on the wests historic fear of their (on paper) nuclear arsenal, and weren’t prepared for a war on the scale that they’ve created for themselves in Ukraine.

  34. Russia has not used a nuke yet. That means they don't have any working ones, but are hurriedly trying to get some ready.

  35. The problem is we’re not talking about some formality, we’re talking about a physical item that can destroy you whether you acknowledge it’s existence or not. It’s also good to remember that Russia is deterred by NATO’s nukes. So they are not likely to attack NATO whatever happens in Ukraine. Not to mention their conventional force is weaker as well.

  36. Not as nuclear explosions, but the missiles/launches could certainly go wrong and still create a hell of a mess. Nuclear warheads require a very specific process to produce their intended explosive capabilities, though. You cant just 'accidentally' trigger that.

  37. This is not true. Modern nuclear weapons use Lithium Deuteride as a fission fuel. Tritium is no longer used as a fission fuel because of storage concerns.

  38. Not for nothing, but you've also gotta consider the US position on our warheads. Boosted warheads do need to be maintained actively. The tritium needs to be replenished and the helium-3 siphoned. Same thing for the ICBM fuel. It's caustic, expensive, and needs to be rotated regularly. Also the program for training and the airmen than man the silos is rife with cheating and bad discipline. For all the presumption of the other guys incompetence, it would truly shock you how many half-assed workers have laid hands on this weapon of war that we assume will work 100% of the time.

  39. There's a greater than 0% chance Russia will decide to pull the trigger and launch a nuke, only for it not to detonate and cause the single most awkward silence in human history.

  40. Even if Russia just has 100 actual strategic nuclear warheads that work that's an unacceptable loss of life for potentially hundreds of millions of people through direct and indirect deaths of a nuclear exchange resulting from the beliefs that their nukes don't work.

  41. I appreciate the explanation about Tritium production but as the article states in the end - we can't assume anything.

  42. The article is pure speculation. It basically states, 1) it’s very expensive to maintain functional nuclear weapons, and 2) Russia is struggling financially because of the war in Ukraine and may forgo regular maintenance rendering the weapons useless.

  43. Hey, how about the Russians transfer their old surplus nuclear missiles over to Ukraine in exchange for a promise from the Ukrainians to not invade Russia?

  44. I wouldn’t be surprised if Putin is quite unaware regarding the functionality of his nuclear arsenal. Corruption and no one would admit there’s a problem to be fixed. If you’re the messenger on Russia’s defunct nuclear capabilities, you disappear the next day.

  45. It is like the 1.5 million set of winter uniforms that went missing. Russia will hit the button, and find out the button isn't connected to anything.

  46. If they’re like anything else that Russia ever produced in its entire history, they’ll have a 99.5% fail rate. That still leaves quite a few nukes

  47. The state of the Russian nuclear "arsenal". 1% of the rockets actually work. 1% of the warheads actually work. Combined together, 1 in 10000 of the actual warheads will be effective.

  48. Considering that nuclear deterrence has kept things somewhat under control for 72 years, that suggests you’re very impatient and reckless.

  49. I personally believe they are useless or probably sold to others. If anything they may have like 1 or 2 they can get working. No way they have 4K working ones.

  50. You’re forgetting the part where if the west ever found out that the nukes were worthless, they would be able to easily destroy Russia using conventional or nuclear attack. In fact, Russia recognized its conventional military had become weaker than NATO after its collapse and in 1993 it dropped it’s “no first use” nuclear policy to make up for it. This isn’t just a MAD thing either, if Russia was getting bombarded by planes from a few US carrier groups, their government’s best chance for survival would be to nuke the ships.

  51. There is no question that most of the russian nuclear weapons will not work. Literally everything in the russian army is undermined by corruption and neglect. The nuclear arsenal won‘t be an exception. But some of it will work somewhat, and that‘s possibly enough not to risk a nuclear world war.

  52. Judging by their tanks and conventional missiles etc, they probably have some that are neglected and worthless and others (maybe a bit more than 50%, if we compare with conventional missiles) with the bare minimum amount of maintenance to get them to function properly. So, yeah, definitely, absofuckinglutely not worth risking a nuclear war. This seems to be NATO leadership’s opinion as well, by the way.

Leave a Reply

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

You may have missed