3 ms·
Nuclear weapons of their ancestors, which since then require a lot of money and maintenance to remain nuclear weapons. To put it another way, around 8 years ag
by tomatotomato37 4y ago
Nuclear weapons of their ancestors, which since then require a lot of money and maintenance to remain nuclear weapons.
To put it another way, around 8 years ago the U.S. found its own nuclear arsenal had deteriorated due to the usual organization reasons, to the point that only a singular wrench existed for servicing the MinuteMan warhead and thus had to be constantly FedEx-ed between bases like a stupid game of hot potato[1]. In response, the U.S. is undertaken one of the largest overhaul of it's arsenal ever, that's planned to take place over the next 30 years. The first decade of this program is estimated to have cost $348 billion dollars and will ultimately come out to around trillion once all is said and done[2].
The current entire military budget of Russia is $65 billion. A budget they have masterfully used to buy cheap Chinese tires, moldy MREs, cardboard ERA, and funny tank cages. Despite this, they claim to maintain an aresenal of 4500 warheads, or around 700 more than the global hyperpower that ran out of wrenches.
[1]https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-wrench-nuclear-bases/story?id=26916107 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-wrench-nuclear-bases/stor...
[2]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renovation_of_the_nuclear_weapon_arsenal_of_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renovation_of_the_nuclear_we...
- effie 4y agoYou can't compare budgets between US and Russia. Price of materials, labor and skill are much lower in Russia. And with nuclear weapons, the exact number of them is not that important. Even if Russia's working warhear number is 1/10 of the declared one, it is still a valid deterrent.