6 ms·

>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

>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.
- pavlov 3y ago
  In my opinion Putin’s Russia isn’t so much a country anymore as a group of individuals working to extract every possible benefit to themselves. In that context it seems possible that they’d lose the nuclear capacity and not even notice because the tradition of Potemkin villages is so pervasive.
  - ivan_gammel 3y ago
    This is incorrect assessment. The bureaucracy there may have sometimes wrong incentives but it still has skill and motivation to execute even very complex projects. If a project is political, stealing may still be acceptable, but not finishing it is a treason. This is why they have built Crimean bridge, Skolkovo and many other thing that other countries fail to deliver in time (see airport in Berlin).
- benj111 3y ago
  British nuclear subs have a safe with a letter from the prime minister with orders in case there is nuclear war and Comms are lost. It's quite possible that the British nuclear deterrent has default orders not to retaliate in the event of nuclear war. What's the difference between that at the subs ICBM tubes being empty? You don't need nukes. You just need others to believe you do.

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.

pavlov 3y ago
In my opinion Putin’s Russia isn’t so much a country anymore as a group of individuals working to extract every possible benefit to themselves. In that context it seems possible that they’d lose the nuclear capacity and not even notice because the tradition of Potemkin villages is so pervasive.
- ivan_gammel 3y ago
  This is incorrect assessment. The bureaucracy there may have sometimes wrong incentives but it still has skill and motivation to execute even very complex projects. If a project is political, stealing may still be acceptable, but not finishing it is a treason. This is why they have built Crimean bridge, Skolkovo and many other thing that other countries fail to deliver in time (see airport in Berlin).
benj111 3y ago
British nuclear subs have a safe with a letter from the prime minister with orders in case there is nuclear war and Comms are lost. It's quite possible that the British nuclear deterrent has default orders not to retaliate in the event of nuclear war. What's the difference between that at the subs ICBM tubes being empty? You don't need nukes. You just need others to believe you do.