9 ms·

Russia’s Nukes Probably Don’t Work – Here’s Why

54 points by nixass 3y ago

peepeepoopoo5 3y ago
What an extraordinarily reckless article.
- it_citizen 3y ago
  Because Putin might see it and nuke us to prove us wrong? I don't see why it would be reckless to consider the possibility of the poor state of the russian nuclear arsenal. The article even points that the tactical or battlefield nuclear weapons are probably just fine. It doesn't mean that the west is suddenly going to suddenly going to act as if russia didn't have nuclear weapons.
  - peepeepoopoo5 3y ago
    > Because Putin might see it and nuke us to prove us wrong? Way to twist things around. No, it's reckless because you're gambling about the end of the world.
    - it_citizen 3y ago
      Way to twist things around. The article does not suggest anything like that. Seems to me you are reading about a pretty factual article about the cost of maintenance of nukes but interpreting it as « let’s declare war to Russia, their arsenal probably doesn’t work ».
      - peepeepoopoo5 3y ago
        [flagged]
    - laserdancepony 3y ago
      Reporting on something, even a possibility, is not gambling on an outcome.
  - roughly 3y ago
    Because memes (in the Dawkinsian sense) get around and because people are not coldly rational, and if you’d like citations, I point you to the entirety of US foreign relations for the last two decades at least. The amount of times we’ve been pretty sure our opponent is weaker than they are ought be sufficient to suggest that speculating that our current opponent’s stock of weapons of mass destruction isn’t sufficient to end complex life on the planet carries risk.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - CuteDinosaur 3y ago
    > Because Putin might see it and nuke us to prove us wrong? God, what a reckless sentence.
    - TheLoafOfBread 3y ago
      Putin has nothing better to do than reading random blogs. He could also setup Twitter account and threaten nuking random countries when Medvedev is in drunken coma and can't do it himself.
      - it_citizen 3y ago
        Fun fact: it is said that Putin never uses the internet.
        majewsky 3y ago
        Well, not in the direct sense of the word "use", but other than that...
  - ufmace 3y ago
    Because it encourages people on our side to advocate for things that are a high risk of leading to a nuclear exchange. I've already seen a lot of people do this in a lot of places. It's probably not a good idea to encourage them.
    - it_citizen 3y ago
      I understand the dilemma, but should we forbid ourselves to discuss some topics? It kind of remember me how the possibility of covid lab leak got discredited early on in the Lancet without any proof and then backfired spectacularly, creating doubts about the scientific community in the population. I don’t think thought censorship ever helps, we have to push for nuanced views.
- lordnacho 3y ago
  Nah, it's just putting into words what everyone is already thinking. When has anyone made decisions about war without considering that their true strength might be lower than what they or the adversary believed? It's implicit in any threat that it might be a bluff.
rutierut 3y ago
I commented[0] the same thing a little while ago here on HN and the comments convinced me that tales like this shouldn't be thrown around so casually. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33297151 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33297151
- narag 3y ago
  Can a blog post trigger what an open war in Europe hasn't? Decision makers get their information from other, probably more accurate, sources. How many times have you heard the line "nobody expected that Russian army was so useless" in the past year? I'm sure some people knew. We don't know, we won't know until much later.
  - eastbound 3y ago
    It always sounded fun to me that the war decisions were not democratic. They can’t be: Disclosing military information would give an edge to the opponent. But then, when war is declared, when attacks are done, it must always surprise the voters themselves, otherwise it’s predictable.
cma 3y ago
> The entire military budget of the Russian Federation, about $70 bn, is around the same amount that just the U.S. Army spends on maintenance and operations alone. Should always at least try and adjust for purchasing power parity in these comparisons.
- bluquark 3y ago
  PPP is for comparing consumer lifestyles. World-tradeable goods like military hardware are precisely the kind of situation where PPP adjustments should not be made. Of course the sums are not directly comparable for other reasons, such as corruption in Russia and procurement dysfunction in the US. But those factors would need to be estimated explicitly. (EDIT: Thanks for the replies, I hadn't heard that there also exist specific estimates of "defense-sector PPP", so I acknowledge what I wrote above was wrong.)
  - benj111 3y ago
    A russian soldier is paid less than an American. A russian factory worker making military equipment is paid less than their American counterpart, leading to lower cost of that equipment. I don't see a problem describing that difference as ppp.
    - tomatotomato37 3y ago
      What a soldier or worker is paid only matters in a vacuum, you have to consider the pipeline from military budget to the actual good or service. That includes both commodities bought on the world market (E.G. steel) and corruption raising costs for the same good (which is a problem for both the US's military-industrial complex and Russia's oligarchy). That being said though when the budgets are off by an order of magnitude there's no way to make that back just via lowering wages a bit
      - benj111 3y ago
        What's the cost of commodities in building a tank? Yeah fine both an Abrams and a t90 have a few tonnes of steel in it. That doesn't account for a fraction of the final cost though. Maintenance requires labour. Labour has different prices in different countries. You can compare that labour cost.
mpweiher 3y ago
I've been arguing this for a while, for much the same reasons. Except this additional one: always buy the dip on fears of nuclear war! If the fears turn out to be unfounded, you win. If the fears turn out to be correct, well...the performance of your stocks may not be your primary concern. If the only way your corruption is likely to be found out is the end of the world, there really isn't much downside.
- rossdavidh 3y ago
  Yeah, I'm trying to think of a reason for a corrupt military official NOT to sell some of the nuclear fuel, or any other part. I cannot think of one. He's not likely to get caught, and if he is, well that means Russia fired their nukes, and so the fact that he's caught is not even the biggest of his worries. More worrisome is the risk of a corrupt Russian official selling nukes (or parts thereof) to some other organization.
  - pseudo0 3y ago
    The hard part would be finding a buyer. North Korea already has their own domestic capability, and Iran is using their current situation as a negotiating point. Beyond that, who would even want black market nuclear fuel? It theoretically could happen at small scales though, eg. The Apollo Affair where Israel's nuclear program was allegedly kick-started by the illicit diversion of nuclear fuel from the US. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Apollo_Affair https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Apollo_Affair
    - mdorazio 3y ago
      > Beyond that, who would even want black market nuclear fuel? Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations would absolutely want it for the dirty bomb potential.
  - lordnacho 3y ago
    But the corruption wouldn't necessarily be to sell the nuke materials. It could be something like allowing the maintenance team to staffed by nepobabies of important people, on the agreement that nothing is actually done. That way the general buys some favor with the state's money, the and the kids get an income for doing nothing.
marianatom 3y ago
Related note: American Patriots nailed Putin’s hypersonic Kinzhal missile. The world has changed https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/17/american-patriot-missile-shot-putins-hypersonic-kinzhal/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/17/american-patriot... subtext: Xi Jinping will be annoyed by this as well
- rossdavidh 3y ago
  That is an extraordinarily big deal, which I think should have gotten a lot more notice than it did.
- fuoqi 3y ago
  Sure, according to the Ukrainian sources, after the Ukrainian state persecutes anyone who publishes factual information which does not align with its propaganda campaign (like the bloggers who posted videos of "interception"). Meanwhile, the US side reluctantly admits [1] "minimal" damages from those "reportedly neutralised" Kinzhals. Also the Saudis would like to have a talk about miracle effectiveness of Patriots. [1]: https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/16/politics/patriot-missile-damage-ukraine/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/16/politics/patriot-missile-...
  - TheLoafOfBread 3y ago
    Saudis have also massive problem with nepotism and incompetency. Btw why would Russia suddenly arrested its scientist developing those unstoppable missiles? To give them Hero of Russia reward? https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russia-hypersonic-missile-scientists-arrested-treason-patriots-ukraine-rcna84857 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russia-hypersonic-missile...
  - hh3k0 3y ago
    > Meanwhile, the US side reluctantly admits [1] "minimal" damages from those "reportedly neutralised" Kinzhals. Ever heard of debris? A Patriot system so minimally damaged that it’s already repaired does in no way suggest, as you seem to imply, it being directly hit by Kinzhal missiles. Especially considering that it was actively targeted.
redwood 3y ago
The thing is, even if they don't work, what would we actually do differently? No one wants to invade Russia. But helping states in the free world that wish to remain free: we're doing that anyway
- bogeholm 3y ago
  > No one wants to invade Russia. History - and perhaps the game of Risk - has taught you well.
  - laserdancepony 3y ago
    Economy has taught us well. There is nothing to gain.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
PerryCox 3y ago
Russia has something like 4,000 nukes, only 1 or 2 really need to work to cause massive devastation. It's much more likely that more than 1 or 2 still work and that is more than enough.
- shaky-carrousel 3y ago
  Enough? Enough for what? This is not mutually assured destruction. If Russia and the US engage, this is a madman shooting a tank with a 9mm. It may cause some damage, but he's going to be obliterated in the process.
  - charliea0 3y ago
    More like a duel where one person has a revolver and the other a bazuka. Getting shot is better than exploding, but still very bad.
  - roughly 3y ago
    Where do you live, out of curiosity?
  - DennisP 3y ago
    Yes but Russian leadership doesn't necessarily believe that the nukes don't work. If they do a massive launch then we'll probably take at least some damage, and if we massively retaliate then we'll conduct a risky experiment to see who's right about nuclear winter.
  - rl3 3y ago
    >If Russia and the US engage, this is a madman shooting a tank with a 9mm. I don't know, losing for example New York City would be kind of rough. In reality probably every major US city. Your analogy doesn't quite check out.
  - FalconSensei 3y ago
    > If Russia and the US engage, this is a madman shooting a tank with a 9mm. It may cause some damage, but he's going to be obliterated in the process. But nuking Russia is still bad since it would cause trouble (nuclear winter for example?) for other countries/whole world
pavlov 3y ago
With the Soviet Union, we knew that nothing really worked over there except the nukes. With Putin’s Russia, we knew that everything sort of worked superficially in the oligarchic-capitalist way, but the evidence was dwindling whether the nukes actually work. By invading Ukraine he blew up his biggest asset: the fog of war around the actual competence of the paper-formidable Russian army, now shown to be less off a superpower and more of a paper tiger. With this new data at hand, it shouldn’t be taboo to ask questions about the nuclear arsenal.
- tarruda 3y ago
  > By invading Ukraine he blew up his biggest asset: the fog of war around the actual competence of the paper-formidable Russian army, now shown to be less off a superpower and more of a paper tiger. My thoughts exactly. Even if the nuclear arsenal does work, I can't see any incentives the current Russian government has to use it.
  - Applejinx 3y ago
    Exactly. The trouble is, if these people are that insane then the world is already ended. At some point they will be dissatisfied with the state of their empire building, and will go for their nukes, and if the retaliation isn't total, they will just continue to nuke, that being the only weapon they've got left. There is no way out of this. For that reason, there is no variation of the Russian government that can escalate to nukes and win, even if 99 out of 100, or 999 out of 1000, don't even launch and blow up where they stand. If they must empire-build and that is their only remaining option, they and we are already dead. I hope we're not, but it's not up to me. Our planet will continue to have humans as long as Russia doesn't nuke, even as they lose everything. It's pretty much on them, because much like the tritium in the nuke serves to ignite the explosion, Russia attacking serves to ignite retaliation, and there is no option other than retaliation, because if they nuke once they will continue to do so until nothing is left alive.
- ivan_gammel 3y ago
  Questions may be asked but it’s still pointless to ask them. Practical conclusions will be the same. Even if some part of Russian nukes won’t work, even if Russia has problems with execution of a strike due to communication or command issues, it is still: 1. capable of response, 2. capable of first strike, 3. any such strike will render significant part of the planet uninhabitable. Besides, we can be sure that it does not share its nuclear technology and nobody had stolen it. If there are 4000 nukes or just 500, it doesn’t really matter. Though I’m sure nuclear arsenal in Russia is maintained much better than anything else.
jzb 3y ago
Or maybe most of Russia’s nukes don’t work, but a handful of working nuclear missiles can still ruin a lot of people’s day. And it’s a Hell of an expensive bluff to call. I don’t doubt much of their arsenal is in decay, but I wouldn’t bet against a significant fraction of the arsenal being maintained.
- fauxpause_ 3y ago
  Launching a single nuke that might not work is a high risk low reward gamble too. It seems very unlikely to come up
- xen2xen1 3y ago
  Even if none of the warheads work, if very many missiles fly we all still die.
xt00 3y ago
Both the argument about why it’s reckless to speculate this and not knowing if the nukes will work is exactly why having nuclear weapons is a deterrent.. you can basically assume that it would be used as a weapon of last resort so if your plan is to completely take over a country then likely they will be used.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
progrus 3y ago
This argument is toxic.
- benj111 3y ago
  How so? Are we all supposed to pretend that we think that Russia's nukes work for... Reasons?
  - kergonath 3y ago
    We know they worked at some point. We have no idea how well they work now (though I assume that the CIA has a good idea of how they were maintained, judging from the leaks). So, it’s not pretending: statistically, some of them will work. Assuming they do not work at all is reckless. They have thousands of nuclear warheads; if only 1% of them work that’s still tenths of weapons able to delete a large city each. So regardless of the superiority one might feel, underestimating the opponents when the stakes are so high is… suboptimal.
    - goodSteveramos 3y ago
      Since WWII the west has perused a military strategy known as brinksmanship. They want to extract maximum possible concessions with threats of attack, and removing internal opposition to trivial wars is a means of maximizing the threat of war with the US.
    - benj111 3y ago
      There's a difference between reckless and toxic though. I don't think anyones advocating firing a few nukes at Russia on the basis they can't retaliate, so I don't see decision as being reckless.
- laserdancepony 3y ago
  Define your adjective, otherwise no one is able to follow. "Toxic" like in "toxic" masculinity or in toxic chemical?
  - 3y ago
rossdavidh 3y ago
More worrying to me than Russia launching its nukes, is that their military is so corrupt they may sell some of them on the black market to someone who will.
- secondcoming 3y ago
  Pakistan gave North Korea the know-how to build nukes. The USA has lost nukes. Russia isn't the only country to be worried about when it comes the black market. Is it even feasible for a terrorist group to transport and detonate a nuke?
- eastbound 3y ago
  There are geiger counters in every port of the world, and entire teams monitor nuclear weapon movements using emissions.
- diimdeep 3y ago
  You are living under the rock https://www.rt.com/news/576137-us-biden-arms-sales/ https://www.rt.com/news/576137-us-biden-arms-sales/
- aylmao 3y ago
  I personally don't worry about this, it's too outlandish to happen. That'd not only be cartoonishly corrupt, it'd also be cartoonishly dumb. You don't sell the ultimate weapon, much less in shady means to shady people— the risks are too high. In the west we see memes about Russia being all sorts of things, but we've got to remember they're a still a strong military power, a major geopolitical player, and overall a functioning country in spite of lots of interest for their demise, for a reason.
  - rl3 3y ago
    >I personally don't worry about this, it's too outlandish to happen. That'd not only be cartoonishly corrupt, it'd also be cartoonishly dumb. The serious argument is that their real life battlefield readiness amounts to a joke based on cartoonish[0] levels of corruption, so never say never. There's a considerably less serious one that has established historical precedent.[1][2][3][4] [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/russian-colonel-accused-stealing-engines-prized-t-90-tanks-2023-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/russian-colonel-accused-stea... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtmW0_MV2rk#t=144m53s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtmW0_MV2rk#t=144m53s [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtmW0_MV2rk#t=86m02s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtmW0_MV2rk#t=86m02s [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7xiK-snyJk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7xiK-snyJk (context) [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2191634 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2191634 (further context)
MrRiddle 3y ago
[dead]
TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
Russia has around 6000 warheads in all and 1600 strategic warheads. While there are a lot of cities in the EU and the US critical infra is concentrated in a much smaller number of locations. We know from Ukraine that Russia has no problem destroying civilian targets, and it's at least plausible that a nuclear first strike would be aimed at population centres, not - as doctrine has it - at missile sites followed by military and industrial targets. So even if only 10% of Russia's nukes still work, that's still a very bad day for everyone. And "work" isn't a binary. A nominal 1MT weapon that fizzles and produces "only" 25kT is still a huge problem.
- bsder 3y ago
  It's worse than this. Let's assume that 100% of the warheads never reach the US but 10% of them detonate domestically. Effectively, Russia nukes itself with 600 warheads. The world consequences will still be devastating.
  - hotpotamus 3y ago
    One of the more clever quips I heard was some scientist or other who said that there's really no need to go to the expense of building all the rockets under the nukes; you can just detonate them anywhere if you want to end the world.
  - it_citizen 3y ago
    Is that a risk? I don’t know much about warheads but is it realistic that nuclear warheads just detonate along the way? To the point where leaders might worry about it?
  - zamnos 3y ago
    How bad are we talking about? We're a long way from the 1980's when the Soviet arsenal was some 45,000 warheads and the USAs was similar magnitude. There was a paper in Nature late last year * that noted that a nuclear exchange between the Russia and the USA, even with the far reduced arsenals under New START (1,550 warheads each), would still lead to global famine that would kill some 5 billion people. But what if only Russia fired their missiles, 90% of them failed, and the remaining 10% exploded in their launcher? Most of those launch tubes are deep underground to protect them from first-strike by the USA, and would not release the same kind of soot as if they exploded in the air. Even an exchange between India and Pakistan would result in almost 30 million of dead **, but again, that's using math where nuclear weapons (one-hundred 15Kt warheads) are detonated on or above ground. I'm not remotely suggesting we try out and find out, I like not starving to death, tymv. The math, however, is interesting in a morbid curiosity sort of way. * https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-022-00573-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-022-00573-0 ** https://thebulletin.org/2022/10/nowhere-to-hide-how-a-nuclear-war-would-kill-you-and-almost-everyone-else/#section2 https://thebulletin.org/2022/10/nowhere-to-hide-how-a-nuclea...
pessimizer 3y ago
Liberals, you may have been surprised by the news that we're escalating a war with a nuclear power by sending F-16s. This is why you should go back to sleep. This guy says everything will be fine.
metalspot 3y ago
this kind of infantile analysis is about a step above flat earth conspiracy theories at best. it has no place whatsoever in intelligent conversation. a 50 year old bullet may not work. are you going to put a gun in your mouth and test it? (ironically, there is a name for that) it makes zero difference whether russia's nukes work or not. if they launch, then the US launches also, and the fallout and nuclear winter kills untold numbers. if russia really thinks their nukes will have a high failure rate, then they will just launch more, and the US will launch more in retaliation before they ever hit. the hot takes of twitter arm chair warriors have no place in reality. if you are even thinking of taking this bs seriously, please don't.
- Gunnerhead 3y ago
  Maybe I’m missing the joke, but what is the name for putting a gun in your mouth to test it?
  - jameskilton 3y ago
    Russian Roulette
  - leetrout 3y ago
    Russian Roulette https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_roulette https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_roulette
  - kbenson 3y ago
    I think what's being referred to is Russian roulette, which may not be in your mouth, and may not be because the bullets are old, but the core idea being that there's some chance that the bad outcome happens (gum fires). Given the subject, quite ironic. Or not, since maybe it's less ironic and more exactly what were talking about.
- goodSteveramos 3y ago
  Great points. I would add: >twitter arm chair warriors The people coming up with these insane warmongering narratives are not random everyday Americans. They are all US foreign policy apparatchiks. People working at “think tanks” in Washington DC or ex-CIA analysts writing for corporate media outlets. They are not a grass roots phenomena.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
henriquez 3y ago
> Russia’s nuclear saber-rattling is more maskirovka and politics than it is actual capability. Probably nothing will go wrong if we invade Russia, then? Not a great threat model.
aylmao 3y ago
This is dangerous rhetoric that feeds into the idea direct war with Russia is an option. In the current international climate, many might think it's a good idea. It is not.
- bloaf 3y ago
  No. This is a counter-claim to the conservative talking point that Biden is irresponsibly escalating towards nuclear war.
enbugger 3y ago
[flagged]
mannyv 3y ago
People don't like this, but it does change the calculus in Russia somewhat. It should make the Russians and their allies doubt their capabilities even more than they do now. If the strategic forces doubt they will work will they still launch? Nothing will change in the West. The gun is still loaded. But how many rounds do they have? That's a question the Russians and Chinese have to answer.
xaduha 3y ago
Putin had a perfect opportunity to perform a nuclear test during the height of nuclear saber-rattling. Why didn't he do that? I think that's when people stopped taking his threats seriously. NK is better at this than Putin.
- metalspot 3y ago
  Russia has ratified the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Nuclear-Test-Ban_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Nuclear-Test-Ban... the US has not. But both Russia and the US are bound by https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/jfk-in-history/nuclear-test-ban-treaty https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/jfk-in-history/nu... Russia is honoring its treaty commitments not to test nuclear weapons.
  - _kbh_ 3y ago
    > Russia is honoring its treaty commitments not to test nuclear weapons. Your assumption that Russia cares about following the treaties it signs upto is admirable but not reality. Russia never follows treaties when it doesn’t want to, so either they don’t want to test a nuke or can’t.
    - metalspot 3y ago
      i am not making any assumptions at all. only stating two objective facts: Russia has ratified multiple international test ban treaties, and it has honored those treaties so far. you are the one making assumptions and imputing negative intent. i do agree that it ultimately does come down to the point that they "don't want to," because of course a treaty is just words on paper, so it is always a choice whether to follow it or not. on the other hand, to assume that Russia's choice to abide by its treaty obligations is because their nukes "don't work" is a wild leap of fantasy based on no evidence or logic whatsoever. Russia is clearly massively outgunned both militarily and economically by the US/NATO and nobody disputes this. logically it is in Russia strategic interests to pressure the US into nuclear treaties that reduce US nuclear capacity so that Russia can be more competitive militarily at a lower cost. Russia would not be able to maintain even their war in Ukraine without the support or acquiescence of their allies and countries that see a benefit in remaining somewhat neutral (china, india, brazil, turkey, saudi arabia, iran, and many others). Russia would have zero chance whatsoever in direct all out warfare with US/NATO and they are well aware of this and so they have to play to the court of international opinion in order to stay alive. consequently, it is in Russia's interests to avoid escalation, especially nuclear escalation, as much as possible, and this is the course they have been following so far. i am not making any assumptions about Russian intent (which i know nothing about) but the objective facts of their strategic situation mean that launching (or testing) nukes would be suicidal and so, assuming that they are rational enough to have basic survival instincts, this seems highly unlikely unless it is a last ditch mutually assured destruction play where they know they are going to be conquered either way.
fauxpause_ 3y ago
Kind of buried the lede I think. The end states that tactical nukes are probably fine. Those are the ones most likely to be used. Although I think very unlikely still
diimdeep 3y ago
The more I read HN, the more I see that Tech competency is completely separate from Geo-politics, international relations, Economics and anyone can be independently and incredibly misled and naive at either of them. Strong polarization of believes that not backed by ground truths but just indoctrinated by mass media is staggering, and it will get much worse, the more quality of education will drop in western world and more censorship industrial complex get smarter at fabricating and bending reality according to interest of particular elites.
- hotpotamus 3y ago
  Does the state of the world lead you to believe that anyone is competent in politics or economics?
ivalm 3y ago
People keep talking of nuclear winter or complete destruction being the big unacceptable cost, but really even loss of 100k americans is an unacceptable loss. This doesn't mean we shouldn't help Ukranians, but an example of a devastating retaliation against US would simply be smuggling one tactical nuke and blowing it up in a major city. I also don't think that killing millions of russians is itself an acceptable loss of life. For all the horrors of ukranian war the total loss of life is less than many single cities.
tinglymintyfrsh 3y ago
One of those things no one ever wants to test. What is the equivalent of Pantex in Russia? Who services them?
tomatotomato37 3y ago
I don't know why, but a future where humanity bypasses the great filter and becomes an interstellar civilization, not because of peaceful intentions, but because we bamboozled our way through the apocalypse via poor maintainence practices seems oddly fitting
WheelsAtLarge 3y ago
PROBABLY! It's not very reassuring. We need to think of them as 100% functional and work towards reducing all the nukes in the world.
world-set-free 3y ago
Want to make a bet, Neolibs and cons? I bet you a million face papers you are wrong.
hollerith 3y ago
I tend to think that the nukes designed and made by the Putin regime do work because we know (because the Soviets successfully test 100s of nukes) that the ones designed and made by the Soviets worked, and no one is claiming that the Putin regime is much more corrupt than the Soviet regime was. (Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the Russian arsenal has been replaced: the only parts that survive from Soviet times, I think, is the fissionable material.)
oneTbrain23 3y ago
[flagged]
- b112 3y ago
  Writer seems to be ignorant that USA need to import uranium from Russia Uh, no. Canada has loads of uranium, and anything else Russia has, too.
- nixass 3y ago
  Wow, and you created new account just to write this.
- _kbh_ 3y ago
  > Writer seems to be ignorant that USA need to import uranium from Russia. Probably a price thing more than anything else, there's a lot of friendly countries that America can import Uranium from (such as Canada or Australia). > Russia has Sarmat in operation and similar hypersonic Khinzal missiles decimated 2 Patriots system (not just the launchers) and damaged the 3rd (still repairable) in Ukraine. Sarmat isn't comparable to kinzhal, kinzhal is a hypersonic weapon in name only. Thats why the American patriots had no problem intercepting all 6 thrown at Kyiv. Theres no proof that the kinzhal's inflected anything but superficial damage to one patriot when Russia threw everything it had. > None of USA hypersonic missiles tested beyond testing phase as this moment. Hypersonic missiles in the same vane as the kinzhal are actually 1950's technology, what the USA and other countries what are hypersonic glide vehicles, hypersonic glide vehicles do more then just fly in a straight line fast (like the kinzhal does) they actually move too. > Also American weaponry failed miserably in Ukraine as well with their Himars decimated and 1/3 suffered mud damages not even due to Russians intervention ??? theres no proof of any of this, HIMARs alone has likely killed thousands if not tens of thousands of Russian soldiers and destroyed a lot of ammo and weaponry. > Plus if you want to talk about corruptions, Ukrainians make Russians look like honest Abe. Funny that it appears that Russias military is the one thats a hollowed paper tiger, whereas Ukraines military seems to actually be using the equipment it has.
aftbit 3y ago
I doubt (most of) America's nukes work either. They are old and have not been tested in literal decades. Let's hope we never need to find out the fizzle rate on either side!

54 points by nixass 3y ago

peepeepoopoo5 3y ago

What an extraordinarily reckless article.

it_citizen 3y ago
Because Putin might see it and nuke us to prove us wrong? I don't see why it would be reckless to consider the possibility of the poor state of the russian nuclear arsenal. The article even points that the tactical or battlefield nuclear weapons are probably just fine. It doesn't mean that the west is suddenly going to suddenly going to act as if russia didn't have nuclear weapons.
- peepeepoopoo5 3y ago
  > Because Putin might see it and nuke us to prove us wrong? Way to twist things around. No, it's reckless because you're gambling about the end of the world.
  - it_citizen 3y ago
    Way to twist things around. The article does not suggest anything like that. Seems to me you are reading about a pretty factual article about the cost of maintenance of nukes but interpreting it as « let’s declare war to Russia, their arsenal probably doesn’t work ».
    - peepeepoopoo5 3y ago
      [flagged]
  - laserdancepony 3y ago
    Reporting on something, even a possibility, is not gambling on an outcome.
- roughly 3y ago
  Because memes (in the Dawkinsian sense) get around and because people are not coldly rational, and if you’d like citations, I point you to the entirety of US foreign relations for the last two decades at least. The amount of times we’ve been pretty sure our opponent is weaker than they are ought be sufficient to suggest that speculating that our current opponent’s stock of weapons of mass destruction isn’t sufficient to end complex life on the planet carries risk.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- CuteDinosaur 3y ago
  > Because Putin might see it and nuke us to prove us wrong? God, what a reckless sentence.
  - TheLoafOfBread 3y ago
    Putin has nothing better to do than reading random blogs. He could also setup Twitter account and threaten nuking random countries when Medvedev is in drunken coma and can't do it himself.
    - it_citizen 3y ago
      Fun fact: it is said that Putin never uses the internet.
      - majewsky 3y ago
        Well, not in the direct sense of the word "use", but other than that...
- ufmace 3y ago
  Because it encourages people on our side to advocate for things that are a high risk of leading to a nuclear exchange. I've already seen a lot of people do this in a lot of places. It's probably not a good idea to encourage them.
  - it_citizen 3y ago
    I understand the dilemma, but should we forbid ourselves to discuss some topics? It kind of remember me how the possibility of covid lab leak got discredited early on in the Lancet without any proof and then backfired spectacularly, creating doubts about the scientific community in the population. I don’t think thought censorship ever helps, we have to push for nuanced views.
lordnacho 3y ago
Nah, it's just putting into words what everyone is already thinking. When has anyone made decisions about war without considering that their true strength might be lower than what they or the adversary believed? It's implicit in any threat that it might be a bluff.

rutierut 3y ago

I commented[0] the same thing a little while ago here on HN and the comments convinced me that tales like this shouldn't be thrown around so casually. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33297151 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33297151

narag 3y ago
Can a blog post trigger what an open war in Europe hasn't? Decision makers get their information from other, probably more accurate, sources. How many times have you heard the line "nobody expected that Russian army was so useless" in the past year? I'm sure some people knew. We don't know, we won't know until much later.
- eastbound 3y ago
  It always sounded fun to me that the war decisions were not democratic. They can’t be: Disclosing military information would give an edge to the opponent. But then, when war is declared, when attacks are done, it must always surprise the voters themselves, otherwise it’s predictable.

cma 3y ago

> The entire military budget of the Russian Federation, about $70 bn, is around the same amount that just the U.S. Army spends on maintenance and operations alone. Should always at least try and adjust for purchasing power parity in these comparisons.

bluquark 3y ago
PPP is for comparing consumer lifestyles. World-tradeable goods like military hardware are precisely the kind of situation where PPP adjustments should not be made. Of course the sums are not directly comparable for other reasons, such as corruption in Russia and procurement dysfunction in the US. But those factors would need to be estimated explicitly. (EDIT: Thanks for the replies, I hadn't heard that there also exist specific estimates of "defense-sector PPP", so I acknowledge what I wrote above was wrong.)
- benj111 3y ago
  A russian soldier is paid less than an American. A russian factory worker making military equipment is paid less than their American counterpart, leading to lower cost of that equipment. I don't see a problem describing that difference as ppp.
  - tomatotomato37 3y ago
    What a soldier or worker is paid only matters in a vacuum, you have to consider the pipeline from military budget to the actual good or service. That includes both commodities bought on the world market (E.G. steel) and corruption raising costs for the same good (which is a problem for both the US's military-industrial complex and Russia's oligarchy). That being said though when the budgets are off by an order of magnitude there's no way to make that back just via lowering wages a bit
    - benj111 3y ago
      What's the cost of commodities in building a tank? Yeah fine both an Abrams and a t90 have a few tonnes of steel in it. That doesn't account for a fraction of the final cost though. Maintenance requires labour. Labour has different prices in different countries. You can compare that labour cost.

mpweiher 3y ago

I've been arguing this for a while, for much the same reasons. Except this additional one: always buy the dip on fears of nuclear war! If the fears turn out to be unfounded, you win. If the fears turn out to be correct, well...the performance of your stocks may not be your primary concern. If the only way your corruption is likely to be found out is the end of the world, there really isn't much downside.

rossdavidh 3y ago
Yeah, I'm trying to think of a reason for a corrupt military official NOT to sell some of the nuclear fuel, or any other part. I cannot think of one. He's not likely to get caught, and if he is, well that means Russia fired their nukes, and so the fact that he's caught is not even the biggest of his worries. More worrisome is the risk of a corrupt Russian official selling nukes (or parts thereof) to some other organization.
- pseudo0 3y ago
  The hard part would be finding a buyer. North Korea already has their own domestic capability, and Iran is using their current situation as a negotiating point. Beyond that, who would even want black market nuclear fuel? It theoretically could happen at small scales though, eg. The Apollo Affair where Israel's nuclear program was allegedly kick-started by the illicit diversion of nuclear fuel from the US. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Apollo_Affair https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Apollo_Affair
  - mdorazio 3y ago
    > Beyond that, who would even want black market nuclear fuel? Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations would absolutely want it for the dirty bomb potential.
- lordnacho 3y ago
  But the corruption wouldn't necessarily be to sell the nuke materials. It could be something like allowing the maintenance team to staffed by nepobabies of important people, on the agreement that nothing is actually done. That way the general buys some favor with the state's money, the and the kids get an income for doing nothing.

marianatom 3y ago

Related note: American Patriots nailed Putin’s hypersonic Kinzhal missile. The world has changed https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/17/american-patriot-missile-shot-putins-hypersonic-kinzhal/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/17/american-patriot... subtext: Xi Jinping will be annoyed by this as well

rossdavidh 3y ago
That is an extraordinarily big deal, which I think should have gotten a lot more notice than it did.
fuoqi 3y ago
Sure, according to the Ukrainian sources, after the Ukrainian state persecutes anyone who publishes factual information which does not align with its propaganda campaign (like the bloggers who posted videos of "interception"). Meanwhile, the US side reluctantly admits [1] "minimal" damages from those "reportedly neutralised" Kinzhals. Also the Saudis would like to have a talk about miracle effectiveness of Patriots. [1]: https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/16/politics/patriot-missile-damage-ukraine/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/16/politics/patriot-missile-...
- TheLoafOfBread 3y ago
  Saudis have also massive problem with nepotism and incompetency. Btw why would Russia suddenly arrested its scientist developing those unstoppable missiles? To give them Hero of Russia reward? https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russia-hypersonic-missile-scientists-arrested-treason-patriots-ukraine-rcna84857 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russia-hypersonic-missile...
- hh3k0 3y ago
  > Meanwhile, the US side reluctantly admits [1] "minimal" damages from those "reportedly neutralised" Kinzhals. Ever heard of debris? A Patriot system so minimally damaged that it’s already repaired does in no way suggest, as you seem to imply, it being directly hit by Kinzhal missiles. Especially considering that it was actively targeted.

redwood 3y ago

The thing is, even if they don't work, what would we actually do differently? No one wants to invade Russia. But helping states in the free world that wish to remain free: we're doing that anyway

bogeholm 3y ago
> No one wants to invade Russia. History - and perhaps the game of Risk - has taught you well.
- laserdancepony 3y ago
  Economy has taught us well. There is nothing to gain.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

PerryCox 3y ago

Russia has something like 4,000 nukes, only 1 or 2 really need to work to cause massive devastation. It's much more likely that more than 1 or 2 still work and that is more than enough.

shaky-carrousel 3y ago
Enough? Enough for what? This is not mutually assured destruction. If Russia and the US engage, this is a madman shooting a tank with a 9mm. It may cause some damage, but he's going to be obliterated in the process.
- charliea0 3y ago
  More like a duel where one person has a revolver and the other a bazuka. Getting shot is better than exploding, but still very bad.
- roughly 3y ago
  Where do you live, out of curiosity?
- DennisP 3y ago
  Yes but Russian leadership doesn't necessarily believe that the nukes don't work. If they do a massive launch then we'll probably take at least some damage, and if we massively retaliate then we'll conduct a risky experiment to see who's right about nuclear winter.
- rl3 3y ago
  >If Russia and the US engage, this is a madman shooting a tank with a 9mm. I don't know, losing for example New York City would be kind of rough. In reality probably every major US city. Your analogy doesn't quite check out.
- FalconSensei 3y ago
  > If Russia and the US engage, this is a madman shooting a tank with a 9mm. It may cause some damage, but he's going to be obliterated in the process. But nuking Russia is still bad since it would cause trouble (nuclear winter for example?) for other countries/whole world

pavlov 3y ago

With the Soviet Union, we knew that nothing really worked over there except the nukes. With Putin’s Russia, we knew that everything sort of worked superficially in the oligarchic-capitalist way, but the evidence was dwindling whether the nukes actually work. By invading Ukraine he blew up his biggest asset: the fog of war around the actual competence of the paper-formidable Russian army, now shown to be less off a superpower and more of a paper tiger. With this new data at hand, it shouldn’t be taboo to ask questions about the nuclear arsenal.

tarruda 3y ago
> By invading Ukraine he blew up his biggest asset: the fog of war around the actual competence of the paper-formidable Russian army, now shown to be less off a superpower and more of a paper tiger. My thoughts exactly. Even if the nuclear arsenal does work, I can't see any incentives the current Russian government has to use it.
- Applejinx 3y ago
  Exactly. The trouble is, if these people are that insane then the world is already ended. At some point they will be dissatisfied with the state of their empire building, and will go for their nukes, and if the retaliation isn't total, they will just continue to nuke, that being the only weapon they've got left. There is no way out of this. For that reason, there is no variation of the Russian government that can escalate to nukes and win, even if 99 out of 100, or 999 out of 1000, don't even launch and blow up where they stand. If they must empire-build and that is their only remaining option, they and we are already dead. I hope we're not, but it's not up to me. Our planet will continue to have humans as long as Russia doesn't nuke, even as they lose everything. It's pretty much on them, because much like the tritium in the nuke serves to ignite the explosion, Russia attacking serves to ignite retaliation, and there is no option other than retaliation, because if they nuke once they will continue to do so until nothing is left alive.
ivan_gammel 3y ago
Questions may be asked but it’s still pointless to ask them. Practical conclusions will be the same. Even if some part of Russian nukes won’t work, even if Russia has problems with execution of a strike due to communication or command issues, it is still: 1. capable of response, 2. capable of first strike, 3. any such strike will render significant part of the planet uninhabitable. Besides, we can be sure that it does not share its nuclear technology and nobody had stolen it. If there are 4000 nukes or just 500, it doesn’t really matter. Though I’m sure nuclear arsenal in Russia is maintained much better than anything else.

jzb 3y ago

Or maybe most of Russia’s nukes don’t work, but a handful of working nuclear missiles can still ruin a lot of people’s day. And it’s a Hell of an expensive bluff to call. I don’t doubt much of their arsenal is in decay, but I wouldn’t bet against a significant fraction of the arsenal being maintained.

fauxpause_ 3y ago
Launching a single nuke that might not work is a high risk low reward gamble too. It seems very unlikely to come up
xen2xen1 3y ago
Even if none of the warheads work, if very many missiles fly we all still die.

xt00 3y ago

Both the argument about why it’s reckless to speculate this and not knowing if the nukes will work is exactly why having nuclear weapons is a deterrent.. you can basically assume that it would be used as a weapon of last resort so if your plan is to completely take over a country then likely they will be used.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

progrus 3y ago

This argument is toxic.

benj111 3y ago
How so? Are we all supposed to pretend that we think that Russia's nukes work for... Reasons?
- kergonath 3y ago
  We know they worked at some point. We have no idea how well they work now (though I assume that the CIA has a good idea of how they were maintained, judging from the leaks). So, it’s not pretending: statistically, some of them will work. Assuming they do not work at all is reckless. They have thousands of nuclear warheads; if only 1% of them work that’s still tenths of weapons able to delete a large city each. So regardless of the superiority one might feel, underestimating the opponents when the stakes are so high is… suboptimal.
  - goodSteveramos 3y ago
    Since WWII the west has perused a military strategy known as brinksmanship. They want to extract maximum possible concessions with threats of attack, and removing internal opposition to trivial wars is a means of maximizing the threat of war with the US.
  - benj111 3y ago
    There's a difference between reckless and toxic though. I don't think anyones advocating firing a few nukes at Russia on the basis they can't retaliate, so I don't see decision as being reckless.
laserdancepony 3y ago
Define your adjective, otherwise no one is able to follow. "Toxic" like in "toxic" masculinity or in toxic chemical?
- 3y ago

rossdavidh 3y ago

More worrying to me than Russia launching its nukes, is that their military is so corrupt they may sell some of them on the black market to someone who will.

secondcoming 3y ago
Pakistan gave North Korea the know-how to build nukes. The USA has lost nukes. Russia isn't the only country to be worried about when it comes the black market. Is it even feasible for a terrorist group to transport and detonate a nuke?
eastbound 3y ago
There are geiger counters in every port of the world, and entire teams monitor nuclear weapon movements using emissions.
diimdeep 3y ago
You are living under the rock https://www.rt.com/news/576137-us-biden-arms-sales/ https://www.rt.com/news/576137-us-biden-arms-sales/
aylmao 3y ago
I personally don't worry about this, it's too outlandish to happen. That'd not only be cartoonishly corrupt, it'd also be cartoonishly dumb. You don't sell the ultimate weapon, much less in shady means to shady people— the risks are too high. In the west we see memes about Russia being all sorts of things, but we've got to remember they're a still a strong military power, a major geopolitical player, and overall a functioning country in spite of lots of interest for their demise, for a reason.
- rl3 3y ago
  >I personally don't worry about this, it's too outlandish to happen. That'd not only be cartoonishly corrupt, it'd also be cartoonishly dumb. The serious argument is that their real life battlefield readiness amounts to a joke based on cartoonish[0] levels of corruption, so never say never. There's a considerably less serious one that has established historical precedent.[1][2][3][4] [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/russian-colonel-accused-stealing-engines-prized-t-90-tanks-2023-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/russian-colonel-accused-stea... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtmW0_MV2rk#t=144m53s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtmW0_MV2rk#t=144m53s [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtmW0_MV2rk#t=86m02s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtmW0_MV2rk#t=86m02s [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7xiK-snyJk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7xiK-snyJk (context) [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2191634 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2191634 (further context)

MrRiddle 3y ago

[dead]

TheOtherHobbes 3y ago

Russia has around 6000 warheads in all and 1600 strategic warheads. While there are a lot of cities in the EU and the US critical infra is concentrated in a much smaller number of locations. We know from Ukraine that Russia has no problem destroying civilian targets, and it's at least plausible that a nuclear first strike would be aimed at population centres, not - as doctrine has it - at missile sites followed by military and industrial targets. So even if only 10% of Russia's nukes still work, that's still a very bad day for everyone. And "work" isn't a binary. A nominal 1MT weapon that fizzles and produces "only" 25kT is still a huge problem.

bsder 3y ago
It's worse than this. Let's assume that 100% of the warheads never reach the US but 10% of them detonate domestically. Effectively, Russia nukes itself with 600 warheads. The world consequences will still be devastating.
- hotpotamus 3y ago
  One of the more clever quips I heard was some scientist or other who said that there's really no need to go to the expense of building all the rockets under the nukes; you can just detonate them anywhere if you want to end the world.
- it_citizen 3y ago
  Is that a risk? I don’t know much about warheads but is it realistic that nuclear warheads just detonate along the way? To the point where leaders might worry about it?
- zamnos 3y ago
  How bad are we talking about? We're a long way from the 1980's when the Soviet arsenal was some 45,000 warheads and the USAs was similar magnitude. There was a paper in Nature late last year * that noted that a nuclear exchange between the Russia and the USA, even with the far reduced arsenals under New START (1,550 warheads each), would still lead to global famine that would kill some 5 billion people. But what if only Russia fired their missiles, 90% of them failed, and the remaining 10% exploded in their launcher? Most of those launch tubes are deep underground to protect them from first-strike by the USA, and would not release the same kind of soot as if they exploded in the air. Even an exchange between India and Pakistan would result in almost 30 million of dead **, but again, that's using math where nuclear weapons (one-hundred 15Kt warheads) are detonated on or above ground. I'm not remotely suggesting we try out and find out, I like not starving to death, tymv. The math, however, is interesting in a morbid curiosity sort of way. * https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-022-00573-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-022-00573-0 ** https://thebulletin.org/2022/10/nowhere-to-hide-how-a-nuclear-war-would-kill-you-and-almost-everyone-else/#section2 https://thebulletin.org/2022/10/nowhere-to-hide-how-a-nuclea...

pessimizer 3y ago

Liberals, you may have been surprised by the news that we're escalating a war with a nuclear power by sending F-16s. This is why you should go back to sleep. This guy says everything will be fine.

metalspot 3y ago

this kind of infantile analysis is about a step above flat earth conspiracy theories at best. it has no place whatsoever in intelligent conversation. a 50 year old bullet may not work. are you going to put a gun in your mouth and test it? (ironically, there is a name for that) it makes zero difference whether russia's nukes work or not. if they launch, then the US launches also, and the fallout and nuclear winter kills untold numbers. if russia really thinks their nukes will have a high failure rate, then they will just launch more, and the US will launch more in retaliation before they ever hit. the hot takes of twitter arm chair warriors have no place in reality. if you are even thinking of taking this bs seriously, please don't.

Gunnerhead 3y ago
Maybe I’m missing the joke, but what is the name for putting a gun in your mouth to test it?
- jameskilton 3y ago
  Russian Roulette
- leetrout 3y ago
  Russian Roulette https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_roulette https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_roulette
- kbenson 3y ago
  I think what's being referred to is Russian roulette, which may not be in your mouth, and may not be because the bullets are old, but the core idea being that there's some chance that the bad outcome happens (gum fires). Given the subject, quite ironic. Or not, since maybe it's less ironic and more exactly what were talking about.
goodSteveramos 3y ago
Great points. I would add: >twitter arm chair warriors The people coming up with these insane warmongering narratives are not random everyday Americans. They are all US foreign policy apparatchiks. People working at “think tanks” in Washington DC or ex-CIA analysts writing for corporate media outlets. They are not a grass roots phenomena.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

henriquez 3y ago

> Russia’s nuclear saber-rattling is more maskirovka and politics than it is actual capability. Probably nothing will go wrong if we invade Russia, then? Not a great threat model.

aylmao 3y ago

This is dangerous rhetoric that feeds into the idea direct war with Russia is an option. In the current international climate, many might think it's a good idea. It is not.

bloaf 3y ago
No. This is a counter-claim to the conservative talking point that Biden is irresponsibly escalating towards nuclear war.

enbugger 3y ago

[flagged]

mannyv 3y ago

People don't like this, but it does change the calculus in Russia somewhat. It should make the Russians and their allies doubt their capabilities even more than they do now. If the strategic forces doubt they will work will they still launch? Nothing will change in the West. The gun is still loaded. But how many rounds do they have? That's a question the Russians and Chinese have to answer.

xaduha 3y ago

Putin had a perfect opportunity to perform a nuclear test during the height of nuclear saber-rattling. Why didn't he do that? I think that's when people stopped taking his threats seriously. NK is better at this than Putin.

metalspot 3y ago
Russia has ratified the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Nuclear-Test-Ban_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Nuclear-Test-Ban... the US has not. But both Russia and the US are bound by https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/jfk-in-history/nuclear-test-ban-treaty https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/jfk-in-history/nu... Russia is honoring its treaty commitments not to test nuclear weapons.
- _kbh_ 3y ago
  > Russia is honoring its treaty commitments not to test nuclear weapons. Your assumption that Russia cares about following the treaties it signs upto is admirable but not reality. Russia never follows treaties when it doesn’t want to, so either they don’t want to test a nuke or can’t.
  - metalspot 3y ago
    i am not making any assumptions at all. only stating two objective facts: Russia has ratified multiple international test ban treaties, and it has honored those treaties so far. you are the one making assumptions and imputing negative intent. i do agree that it ultimately does come down to the point that they "don't want to," because of course a treaty is just words on paper, so it is always a choice whether to follow it or not. on the other hand, to assume that Russia's choice to abide by its treaty obligations is because their nukes "don't work" is a wild leap of fantasy based on no evidence or logic whatsoever. Russia is clearly massively outgunned both militarily and economically by the US/NATO and nobody disputes this. logically it is in Russia strategic interests to pressure the US into nuclear treaties that reduce US nuclear capacity so that Russia can be more competitive militarily at a lower cost. Russia would not be able to maintain even their war in Ukraine without the support or acquiescence of their allies and countries that see a benefit in remaining somewhat neutral (china, india, brazil, turkey, saudi arabia, iran, and many others). Russia would have zero chance whatsoever in direct all out warfare with US/NATO and they are well aware of this and so they have to play to the court of international opinion in order to stay alive. consequently, it is in Russia's interests to avoid escalation, especially nuclear escalation, as much as possible, and this is the course they have been following so far. i am not making any assumptions about Russian intent (which i know nothing about) but the objective facts of their strategic situation mean that launching (or testing) nukes would be suicidal and so, assuming that they are rational enough to have basic survival instincts, this seems highly unlikely unless it is a last ditch mutually assured destruction play where they know they are going to be conquered either way.

fauxpause_ 3y ago

Kind of buried the lede I think. The end states that tactical nukes are probably fine. Those are the ones most likely to be used. Although I think very unlikely still

diimdeep 3y ago

The more I read HN, the more I see that Tech competency is completely separate from Geo-politics, international relations, Economics and anyone can be independently and incredibly misled and naive at either of them. Strong polarization of believes that not backed by ground truths but just indoctrinated by mass media is staggering, and it will get much worse, the more quality of education will drop in western world and more censorship industrial complex get smarter at fabricating and bending reality according to interest of particular elites.

hotpotamus 3y ago
Does the state of the world lead you to believe that anyone is competent in politics or economics?

ivalm 3y ago

People keep talking of nuclear winter or complete destruction being the big unacceptable cost, but really even loss of 100k americans is an unacceptable loss. This doesn't mean we shouldn't help Ukranians, but an example of a devastating retaliation against US would simply be smuggling one tactical nuke and blowing it up in a major city. I also don't think that killing millions of russians is itself an acceptable loss of life. For all the horrors of ukranian war the total loss of life is less than many single cities.

tinglymintyfrsh 3y ago

One of those things no one ever wants to test. What is the equivalent of Pantex in Russia? Who services them?

tomatotomato37 3y ago

I don't know why, but a future where humanity bypasses the great filter and becomes an interstellar civilization, not because of peaceful intentions, but because we bamboozled our way through the apocalypse via poor maintainence practices seems oddly fitting

WheelsAtLarge 3y ago

PROBABLY! It's not very reassuring. We need to think of them as 100% functional and work towards reducing all the nukes in the world.

world-set-free 3y ago

Want to make a bet, Neolibs and cons? I bet you a million face papers you are wrong.

hollerith 3y ago

I tend to think that the nukes designed and made by the Putin regime do work because we know (because the Soviets successfully test 100s of nukes) that the ones designed and made by the Soviets worked, and no one is claiming that the Putin regime is much more corrupt than the Soviet regime was. (Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the Russian arsenal has been replaced: the only parts that survive from Soviet times, I think, is the fissionable material.)

oneTbrain23 3y ago

[flagged]

b112 3y ago
Writer seems to be ignorant that USA need to import uranium from Russia Uh, no. Canada has loads of uranium, and anything else Russia has, too.
nixass 3y ago
Wow, and you created new account just to write this.
_kbh_ 3y ago
> Writer seems to be ignorant that USA need to import uranium from Russia. Probably a price thing more than anything else, there's a lot of friendly countries that America can import Uranium from (such as Canada or Australia). > Russia has Sarmat in operation and similar hypersonic Khinzal missiles decimated 2 Patriots system (not just the launchers) and damaged the 3rd (still repairable) in Ukraine. Sarmat isn't comparable to kinzhal, kinzhal is a hypersonic weapon in name only. Thats why the American patriots had no problem intercepting all 6 thrown at Kyiv. Theres no proof that the kinzhal's inflected anything but superficial damage to one patriot when Russia threw everything it had. > None of USA hypersonic missiles tested beyond testing phase as this moment. Hypersonic missiles in the same vane as the kinzhal are actually 1950's technology, what the USA and other countries what are hypersonic glide vehicles, hypersonic glide vehicles do more then just fly in a straight line fast (like the kinzhal does) they actually move too. > Also American weaponry failed miserably in Ukraine as well with their Himars decimated and 1/3 suffered mud damages not even due to Russians intervention ??? theres no proof of any of this, HIMARs alone has likely killed thousands if not tens of thousands of Russian soldiers and destroyed a lot of ammo and weaponry. > Plus if you want to talk about corruptions, Ukrainians make Russians look like honest Abe. Funny that it appears that Russias military is the one thats a hollowed paper tiger, whereas Ukraines military seems to actually be using the equipment it has.

aftbit 3y ago

I doubt (most of) America's nukes work either. They are old and have not been tested in literal decades. Let's hope we never need to find out the fizzle rate on either side!