5 ms·

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 superficiall

by 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.
- benj111 3y ago
  >Though I’m sure nuclear arsenal in Russia is maintained much better than anything else. Why? I've previously mused whether there are any nuclear powers that merely pretend. After all it is a deterrent, when it gets to the point you have to use it you've already lost. The point of a nuke isn't to use it, it's to stop the other guy using theirs. A silo full of cardboard ICBMs is functionally as useful as a silo of actual icbms
  - kergonath 3y ago
    > A silo full of cardboard ICBMs is functionally as useful as a silo of actual icbms The other side still needs to believe that your nuclear weapons are a threat. Those cardboard missiles would need to be very realistic. At least some of them.
    - benj111 3y ago
      Yes. You still need to spend a fair amount in the theatre of it. So no it wouldn't literally be cardboard.
  - eastbound 3y ago
    So many countries work hard to gain nuclear capacity, it would be stupid for a country that already has it to not work to keep it.
iJohnDoe 3y ago
Well said. So far, this has been my take away about Russia. On the nuke side of things, the fear is that Putin will have nothing left to win the war and will resort to nukes; even if it’s the only one they think might have a chance of working. Separately, I think the article makes a good point about the costs of maintaining a nuclear arsenal. I doubt they’ve been doing a good job at this.

by pavlov 3y ago

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.

benj111 3y ago
>Though I’m sure nuclear arsenal in Russia is maintained much better than anything else. Why? I've previously mused whether there are any nuclear powers that merely pretend. After all it is a deterrent, when it gets to the point you have to use it you've already lost. The point of a nuke isn't to use it, it's to stop the other guy using theirs. A silo full of cardboard ICBMs is functionally as useful as a silo of actual icbms
- kergonath 3y ago
  > A silo full of cardboard ICBMs is functionally as useful as a silo of actual icbms The other side still needs to believe that your nuclear weapons are a threat. Those cardboard missiles would need to be very realistic. At least some of them.
  - benj111 3y ago
    Yes. You still need to spend a fair amount in the theatre of it. So no it wouldn't literally be cardboard.
- eastbound 3y ago
  So many countries work hard to gain nuclear capacity, it would be stupid for a country that already has it to not work to keep it.

iJohnDoe 3y ago

Well said. So far, this has been my take away about Russia. On the nuke side of things, the fear is that Putin will have nothing left to win the war and will resort to nukes; even if it’s the only one they think might have a chance of working. Separately, I think the article makes a good point about the costs of maintaining a nuclear arsenal. I doubt they’ve been doing a good job at this.