6 ms·

"The second pillar of Russia’s power is, of course, its nuclear arsenal. Nuclear bombs do not win a conventional war, but one can destroy a country with them, i

"The second pillar of Russia’s power is, of course, its nuclear arsenal. Nuclear bombs do not win a conventional war, but one can destroy a country with them, in the blink of an eye. And here lies a great risk for the rest of the world. What will a dictator do when he realises that he cannot win the war by conventional means but by other means? That remains the most terrifying question today." -- I do wonder how operational Russia's nuclear arms currently are, though. The US has spent many billions on the maintenance of its nuclear weapons since the end of the Cold War. I'm highly skeptical that the Russians have been anywhere near as meticulous in keeping their own in good working order.

ceejayoz 5y ago
You only need a handful of them to work to remain a threat. It’s not like a tank battalion.
newsclues 5y ago
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00963402.2021.1885869 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00963402.2021.18...
cosmodisk 5y ago
Having read about this some years ago, I'd suggest that the majority are in a very poor shape because of lack on investment in maintenance, upgrades,etc. However, even if all their bombs are rusty and barely work, It'd be enough to drop just one of them on my country that would make it completely inhabitable.
- chillingeffect 5y ago
  This view of decaying Russian military predominates, but they're smart scientists and engineers. They also steal tech through spying. They're the pioneers of hypersonic weapons. https://www.19fortyfive.com/2021/08/russias-hypersonic-weapons-arsenal-all-four-platforms-explained/ https://www.19fortyfive.com/2021/08/russias-hypersonic-weapo...
- spywaregorilla 5y ago
  I'm not sure it's that simple. The bombs probably don't "barely work" at 10% of explosive power. It's more likely that 90% of them do not work at all, and 10% of them do. Numbers made up without basis. Russia starts to look very awkward if they launch a nuclear attack and it does not work. What happens next? The loss of credibility drops substantially with each attack. I think, for this reason, a nuclear attack on ukraine is not likely to happen.
  - jopsen 5y ago
    > What happens next? Anything could happen.
  - tpxl 5y ago
    Wont a conventional explosive wrapped around a nuclear payload (ie a dirty bomb) do a whole lot of damage from the radiation? The blasts don't concern me, cities can be rebuilt, but not if the land is radioactive for a hundred years.
    - spywaregorilla 5y ago
      Not an expert but I think no, that's not how that works. You can't detonate a nuclear weapon without the mechanism to enact the fission. A dirty bomb meaning just a normal explosion with some radioactivity in it, is probably... not actually that bad? At least, not in the context of how bad things are already. Hundred years sounds far too long.
    - gvb 5y ago
      Chernobyl was effectively a "dirty bomb." It was bad, but not nearly as bad as was predicted. Many people have visited the Chernobyl exclusion zone (legally and illegally) and found it is doing pretty well. (Most recent visitors were Russian soldiers - Russia actually invaded Ukraine through the Chernobyl exclusion zone.)
  - gigglesupstairs 5y ago
    This is a better view. It’s not just about what happens if it works but also about what of it does not. In both the scenarios though, Russia itself be facing an existential crisis since nuclear powers are dime a dozen at this point in the world and they will fight back. Edit: As spywaregorillla corrected me, there are only a few countries with nuclear weapons. 8 in number other than Russia.
- p_l 5y ago
  Strategic Rocket forces as well as Long Range Aviation (the strategic forces that carry nuclear deterrent), and the boomer forces, all have much stricter overview and for years had priority over everything else in terms of funding (as resources dried up in wake of soviet union collapse, Russia fell back on nuclear deterrent as the method of ensuring nobody attacks, so they were first for everything). I expect that corruption endemic in the ground forces (especially infantry) is much more in check with nuclear forces.
- lm28469 5y ago
  > It'd be enough to drop just one of them on my country that would make it completely inhabitable. Which country ? Even the craziest nuclear bomb as a total destruction radius of 50-100km
  - cosmodisk 5y ago
    Lithuania. Area:65000km2. Some mentioned Chernobyl plant explosion - we had identical nuclear plant that has been decommissioned since. If the same would have happened here,more or less entire country would be exclusion zone even today
rjzzleep 5y ago
The US didn't just spend billions on maintenance, they've been improving them. And in 2019 under Trump they pulled out of the nuclear treaty with Russia[1] [1] https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/02/politics/nuclear-treaty-inf-us-withdraws-russia/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/02/politics/nuclear-treaty-i...
- netsharc 5y ago
  Although why did Trump do it? To look tough? Or could it because he's owned by Putin, and Putin wanted to improve his nukes, but didn't want to break the treaty, but oh look, there's currently a supremely useful idiot/useful supreme idiot at the other side of that treaty. (Too harsh? This is a guy who makes decisions based not on pages of analysis but on what the last person whispered to him)
  - rjzzleep 5y ago
    Geez, you guys are really deep in your conspiracies aren't you? Trumps advisors were plenty warhawks themselves. Remember John Bolton and Pompeo? They wanted it torn up and there was no secret agenda of Russians involved. The way they justified it was to say that Russia doesn't abide by it anyway, therefore we're just making it official. But that's just the US perspective. It's possible that Russia was looking forward to it as well, who knows. But in John Boltons book he wrote that the Russians were surprised and he was quite proud of it as well.
dogweather 5y ago
Probably as operational as we've seen their conventional weapons. So, 50%?
DeWilde 5y ago
I wouldn't bet on it, out 4k+ that Russia has in their arsenal, only dozens are needed to trigger a MAD scenario. Also they have been investing in the nuclear program as well, creating devices like Poseidon[0] which could theoretically make an entire US coast unliveable. The only winning move in nuclear brinksmanship is not to play. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_System#:~:text=The%20Poseidon%20(Russian%3A%20%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B9%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BD%2C,delivering%20both%20conventional%20and%20nuclear https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_...
sharperguy 5y ago
I think if western intelligence truly believed that Russias nuclear arsenal was all talk, they would be less hesitant to use NATO troops to defend Ukraine. Why hesitate otherwise?
somenameforme 5y ago
Before ratifying the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty in 2000, Russia and formerly the USSR carried out a total of 715 nuclear tests. Since 2000 the US has regularly made allegations that Russia has been secretly carrying out various low yield nuclear tests. This was part of the justification stated for our pulling out of the intermedia rate nuclear forces treaty. They have also been developing novel nuclear weapons such as the Poseidon torpedo system [1] the creates artificial radioactive tsunamis through targeted underwater nuclear detonations. There was also a report from the Congressional Research Service about Russian arms exports and development from October 2021 [2]. It's filled with lots of interesting data, but a couple of interesting points: Russia is the world's second largest arm's exporter, behind only the US, accounting for 20% of all sales. Russia was also the driving force behind the modernization of the Chinese military. The only downside mentioned is that, "Despite producing modern and technologically advanced systems, Russia’s defense industry has numerous challenges, such as inefficiency, low production capacity, lack of a modern machinery base, limited innovation, and efforts to diversify into civilian and dual-use technologies." We're currently in the middle of a ongoing information war. Take everything you read, from any source, about current events with a grain of salt. Remember how different Iraq looked before, during, and then long after the war. Ironically, slightly dated sources can provide the most relevant information. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_... [2] - https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46937 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46937

ceejayoz 5y ago

You only need a handful of them to work to remain a threat. It’s not like a tank battalion.

newsclues 5y ago

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00963402.2021.1885869 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00963402.2021.18...

cosmodisk 5y ago

Having read about this some years ago, I'd suggest that the majority are in a very poor shape because of lack on investment in maintenance, upgrades,etc. However, even if all their bombs are rusty and barely work, It'd be enough to drop just one of them on my country that would make it completely inhabitable.

chillingeffect 5y ago
This view of decaying Russian military predominates, but they're smart scientists and engineers. They also steal tech through spying. They're the pioneers of hypersonic weapons. https://www.19fortyfive.com/2021/08/russias-hypersonic-weapons-arsenal-all-four-platforms-explained/ https://www.19fortyfive.com/2021/08/russias-hypersonic-weapo...
spywaregorilla 5y ago
I'm not sure it's that simple. The bombs probably don't "barely work" at 10% of explosive power. It's more likely that 90% of them do not work at all, and 10% of them do. Numbers made up without basis. Russia starts to look very awkward if they launch a nuclear attack and it does not work. What happens next? The loss of credibility drops substantially with each attack. I think, for this reason, a nuclear attack on ukraine is not likely to happen.
- jopsen 5y ago
  > What happens next? Anything could happen.
- tpxl 5y ago
  Wont a conventional explosive wrapped around a nuclear payload (ie a dirty bomb) do a whole lot of damage from the radiation? The blasts don't concern me, cities can be rebuilt, but not if the land is radioactive for a hundred years.
  - spywaregorilla 5y ago
    Not an expert but I think no, that's not how that works. You can't detonate a nuclear weapon without the mechanism to enact the fission. A dirty bomb meaning just a normal explosion with some radioactivity in it, is probably... not actually that bad? At least, not in the context of how bad things are already. Hundred years sounds far too long.
  - gvb 5y ago
    Chernobyl was effectively a "dirty bomb." It was bad, but not nearly as bad as was predicted. Many people have visited the Chernobyl exclusion zone (legally and illegally) and found it is doing pretty well. (Most recent visitors were Russian soldiers - Russia actually invaded Ukraine through the Chernobyl exclusion zone.)
- gigglesupstairs 5y ago
  This is a better view. It’s not just about what happens if it works but also about what of it does not. In both the scenarios though, Russia itself be facing an existential crisis since nuclear powers are dime a dozen at this point in the world and they will fight back. Edit: As spywaregorillla corrected me, there are only a few countries with nuclear weapons. 8 in number other than Russia.
p_l 5y ago
Strategic Rocket forces as well as Long Range Aviation (the strategic forces that carry nuclear deterrent), and the boomer forces, all have much stricter overview and for years had priority over everything else in terms of funding (as resources dried up in wake of soviet union collapse, Russia fell back on nuclear deterrent as the method of ensuring nobody attacks, so they were first for everything). I expect that corruption endemic in the ground forces (especially infantry) is much more in check with nuclear forces.
lm28469 5y ago
> It'd be enough to drop just one of them on my country that would make it completely inhabitable. Which country ? Even the craziest nuclear bomb as a total destruction radius of 50-100km
- cosmodisk 5y ago
  Lithuania. Area:65000km2. Some mentioned Chernobyl plant explosion - we had identical nuclear plant that has been decommissioned since. If the same would have happened here,more or less entire country would be exclusion zone even today

rjzzleep 5y ago

The US didn't just spend billions on maintenance, they've been improving them. And in 2019 under Trump they pulled out of the nuclear treaty with Russia[1] [1] https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/02/politics/nuclear-treaty-inf-us-withdraws-russia/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/02/politics/nuclear-treaty-i...

netsharc 5y ago
Although why did Trump do it? To look tough? Or could it because he's owned by Putin, and Putin wanted to improve his nukes, but didn't want to break the treaty, but oh look, there's currently a supremely useful idiot/useful supreme idiot at the other side of that treaty. (Too harsh? This is a guy who makes decisions based not on pages of analysis but on what the last person whispered to him)
- rjzzleep 5y ago
  Geez, you guys are really deep in your conspiracies aren't you? Trumps advisors were plenty warhawks themselves. Remember John Bolton and Pompeo? They wanted it torn up and there was no secret agenda of Russians involved. The way they justified it was to say that Russia doesn't abide by it anyway, therefore we're just making it official. But that's just the US perspective. It's possible that Russia was looking forward to it as well, who knows. But in John Boltons book he wrote that the Russians were surprised and he was quite proud of it as well.

dogweather 5y ago

Probably as operational as we've seen their conventional weapons. So, 50%?

DeWilde 5y ago

I wouldn't bet on it, out 4k+ that Russia has in their arsenal, only dozens are needed to trigger a MAD scenario. Also they have been investing in the nuclear program as well, creating devices like Poseidon[0] which could theoretically make an entire US coast unliveable. The only winning move in nuclear brinksmanship is not to play. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_System#:~:text=The%20Poseidon%20(Russian%3A%20%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B9%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BD%2C,delivering%20both%20conventional%20and%20nuclear https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_...

sharperguy 5y ago

I think if western intelligence truly believed that Russias nuclear arsenal was all talk, they would be less hesitant to use NATO troops to defend Ukraine. Why hesitate otherwise?

somenameforme 5y ago

Before ratifying the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty in 2000, Russia and formerly the USSR carried out a total of 715 nuclear tests. Since 2000 the US has regularly made allegations that Russia has been secretly carrying out various low yield nuclear tests. This was part of the justification stated for our pulling out of the intermedia rate nuclear forces treaty. They have also been developing novel nuclear weapons such as the Poseidon torpedo system [1] the creates artificial radioactive tsunamis through targeted underwater nuclear detonations. There was also a report from the Congressional Research Service about Russian arms exports and development from October 2021 [2]. It's filled with lots of interesting data, but a couple of interesting points: Russia is the world's second largest arm's exporter, behind only the US, accounting for 20% of all sales. Russia was also the driving force behind the modernization of the Chinese military. The only downside mentioned is that, "Despite producing modern and technologically advanced systems, Russia’s defense industry has numerous challenges, such as inefficiency, low production capacity, lack of a modern machinery base, limited innovation, and efforts to diversify into civilian and dual-use technologies." We're currently in the middle of a ongoing information war. Take everything you read, from any source, about current events with a grain of salt. Remember how different Iraq looked before, during, and then long after the war. Ironically, slightly dated sources can provide the most relevant information. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_... [2] - https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46937 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46937