3 ms·

I remember reading some persuasive arguments that Russia probably only has a small amount of Soviet era nukes left for the same reason. They are extremely expen

by dmix 3y ago

I remember reading some persuasive arguments that Russia probably only has a small amount of Soviet era nukes left for the same reason. They are extremely expensive to maintain, increasingly so as they age. And the Ruskies aren't exactly flush with money given the rest of their huge military demands. But IRL you don't need that many to create a strong deterrence. Even just the SLBM fleet alone should probably be sufficient to scare anyone away (not that I think that should be the only platform, just saying).

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> the SLBM fleet alone There are fewer SLBMs and they’re more expensive (and difficult) to maintain. Were I forced to wager, I’d bet on a given SLBM failing over an ICBM. Balancing that are the larger number of ICBMs, and the fact that nobody wants to wager.
- dmix 3y ago
  I guess I was factoring in how much more effective an SLBM is (in stealth of platform, short flight time, and therefore accuracy) vs something that has to fly a thousand KM with plenty of time to prep your own response. But yeah no doubt the platform makes it more expensive. As good as ICBM MIRVs are and assuming a minor nuclear war is as bad as a bit one, if I had to choose to reduce capability on a tighter budget I'd make it about that. The fear of the unpredictability and small response times via having it potentially parked next door adds to the deterrence.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    I thought similarly. The problem is an SLBM-only force is usually survivable. That opens the field to sacrificing a few bases and cities for vaporising the adversary. Creating a MAD SLBM force is still so expensive that nobody does it.
    - tivert 3y ago
      > Creating a MAD SLBM force is still so expensive that nobody does it. Not even the US? I was under the impression that the US had enough SLBM to implement MAD, so that the land and bomber-based forces were pretty much redundant.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > the US had enough SLBM to implement MAD 1,750 warheads, per New START [1], on a few hundred missiles. That’s enough to wreak havoc. But given missile defense and offshore basing, reality for most of our adversaries, it leaves a lot of the enemy’s fighting capacity intact. [1] https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/103rd-congress-1993-1994/reports/199307rethinkingtrident.pdf https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/103rd-congress-1993-...
        tivert 3y ago
        > 1,750 warheads, per New START [1], on a few hundred missiles. That’s enough to wreak havoc. But given missile defense and offshore basing, reality for most of our adversaries, it leaves a lot of the enemy’s fighting capacity intact. Even if that's the correct interpretation of the capabilities, it doesn't mean MAD can't be implemented. It just means it needs countervalue targets (cities and industry) vs only counterforce targets (military).
  - TMWNN 3y ago
    >As good as ICBM MIRVs are and assuming a minor nuclear war is as bad as a bit one, if I had to choose to reduce capability on a tighter budget I'd make it about that. This is what the UK did, in shrinking its nuclear forces to Trident submarines.
flashback2199 3y ago
The country that is still launching the same platform for manned space that they did in the 50s can't figure out how to do that but with warheads -- doubt! Makes a good story though!
- foota 3y ago
  I think there's a handful of Soyuz launches per year, and those don't have a nuclear warhead that needs to be maintained.
  - flashback2199 3y ago
    Yeah, sorry, I don't believe for a second that Russia has failed to maintain their only playing card. What a joke. US military industrial complex folks will make up any story to excuse their audit-free slovenly spending.
    - stouset 3y ago
      > Yeah, sorry, I don't believe for a second that Russia has failed to maintain their only playing card. Have you, uh, been paying attention to Ukraine?
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - c0pium 3y ago
      Huh? How would the Russian arsenal being degraded and not effective in any way argue for more US defense spending?
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - elzbardico 3y ago
        Well, that's the genius in the Military Industrial Complex propaganda. Russia is either pathetically weak and so we can push their buttons at our heart content or it is a all powerful evil entity and we need to spend like a trillion to close the missile gap.
User23 3y ago
Russia’s arms industry is largely domestic. They can always pay for domestic labor and materials in Rubles so money, by which you presumably mean dollars, isn’t a constraint. If you doubt me just look how little the sanctions have actually hurt them militarily.
- irjustin 3y ago
  The problem usually is in advanced electronics. Russia doesn't have everything it needs to build+maintain these systems. Obviously with sanctions these parts are near impossible to come by in quantity, but if you're looking to maintain a few missiles it shouldn't be too hard to smuggle it.
  - elzbardico 3y ago
    You don't need 3nm technology for missile systems. Russia is stuck at 140nm/70nm with no visible path forward but this is more than enough for this kind of application. They don't have now access to super-computing for running complicated simulations, and will probably have to do some live testing in the coming years if the Chinese doesn't sell them a few supercomputers.
    - irjustin 3y ago
      > You don't need 3nm technology for missile systems. > Russia is stuck at 140nm/70nm with no visible path forward but this is more than enough for this kind of application. Latest fab processes isn't the problem I was referring to (but it could be part of it). It's the knowledge+expertise for controls systems. This could be guidance, detonation, communications, etc. If any of those systems were imported they're now forced to either source the chips or develop it in country. Developing it on shore is way more than a "140nm/70nm" process. You'll have to reverse engineer the current chip to communicate with all the other chips it has to communicate with. What if the chip you need to replace uses a smaller fab process? You possibly have to replace the sub-system. Well now you better hope you have the expertise to build that system AND have it work with all the other systems. How long would that take? How expensive is it just to maintain your capabilities vs before? Again, for the few missiles, smuggling seems way better. Your ROI on black market cost for missile parts that never get used is amazing vs say a fleet of tanks.
credit_guy 3y ago
> I remember reading some persuasive arguments that Russia probably only has a small amount of Soviet era nukes left for the same reason. They are incorrect. Russia has many thousands of nukes. If there's a possibility of defects, it's for the hydrogen part, but the plutonium part will work absolutely fine. One can envision that Russia's megaton bombs don't work anymore, but Russia still has thousands of Hiroshima-sized well functioning bombs, and most people in this world don't care if they die form a 20 kT bomb or from a 2 MT bomb.
- leptons 3y ago
  That's fine but the delivery system is older than old, and there's very little chance most of their "well functioning" bombs would even make it off the ground.
- bbatha 3y ago
  > plutonium part will work absolutely fine. Plutonium pits need to be constantly rebuilt. Plutonium is one of the most corrosive materials on earth and phase changes at the drop of hat, it has 7 stable phases and only the one the bomb was designed for will do the job.
  - credit_guy 3y ago
    That's not quite true. Plutonium is definitely not one of the most corrosive materials. It does have some peculiarities [1]. But they are not that relevant for plutonium pits, and the 7 stable phases are not that relevant either. Plutonium pits are made of an alloy of plutonium and gallium, which makes plutonium take the delta phase, and it makes it about 20 times more stable than unalloyed plutonium. Is it perfectly stable in this form? No, because plutonium decays, so after decades things can happen. But after how many decades? People don't know for sure, but it's many decades. The US decided to start rebuilding 30 pits per year from 2026 on and 80 from 2030. At more than 5000 nukes in the inventory, each pit would be rebuilt after more than six decades. Keep in mind that right now we are not doing that at all, and haven't been doing it for about 3 decades. Bottom line, Russia's plutonium weapons are fine (unfortunately). [1] https://sgp.fas.org/othergov/doe/lanl/pubs/00818031.pdf https://sgp.fas.org/othergov/doe/lanl/pubs/00818031.pdf [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium%E2%80%93gallium_alloy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium%E2%80%93gallium_allo... [3] https://discover.lanl.gov/publications/national-security-science/2021-winter/pit-production-explained/ https://discover.lanl.gov/publications/national-security-sci...
jdewerd 3y ago
That was the hopeful speculation flying around when Russia surprised to the downside in Ukraine, but the counterpoint is that the nuclear forces are the best funded part of the Russian military [1] and, due to arms reduction treaties and inspections, possibly one of the most inspected / least corruption rotted. That Perun video also talks about tritium [2] and estimates that they probably have enough. [1] https://youtu.be/xBZceqiKHrI?t=2162 https://youtu.be/xBZceqiKHrI?t=2162 [2] https://youtu.be/xBZceqiKHrI?t=2504 https://youtu.be/xBZceqiKHrI?t=2504
tivert 3y ago
> I remember reading some persuasive arguments that Russia probably only has a small amount of Soviet era nukes left for the same reason. They probably have none: https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002-10/features/breakdown-breakout-us-russian-warhead-production-capabilities https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002-10/features/breakdown-b...: > The substantial capabilities of the Russian warhead production complex have been of concern to some U.S. policymakers and nuclear weapons experts. The Russian complex is very large relative both to the U.S. complex and to the projected size of Russia’s nuclear weapons stockpile. Because of manufacturing and technology problems that limit the lifetime of Russian warheads to 10-15 years and because of stockpile management practices that emphasize routine rebuilding of nuclear warheads, the Russian complex also maintains high levels of production. The fear, then, is that Russia could use its large and active production infrastructure to offset arms reductions by quickly building new nuclear warheads in large numbers—that it has a “breakout capability.” Russia’s secretive nuclear weapons policies and uncertainties about the technical capabilities and operational practices of its nuclear weapons complex further exacerbate these fears. > ... > Russian warheads are reported to have a shelf life of approximately 10 years (with newer warheads having a life of 15 years), presumably because the warheads’ conventional high explosives degrade and their fissile components deteriorate.7 > The deployment cycle for Russian warheads is reported to be three years long.8 After three years of deployment, warheads are removed from their delivery systems and shipped to a serial production facility for modernization and refurbishment. Refurbished warheads are placed in storage prior to a new cycle of operational deployment.

by dmix 3y ago

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> the SLBM fleet alone There are fewer SLBMs and they’re more expensive (and difficult) to maintain. Were I forced to wager, I’d bet on a given SLBM failing over an ICBM. Balancing that are the larger number of ICBMs, and the fact that nobody wants to wager.

dmix 3y ago
I guess I was factoring in how much more effective an SLBM is (in stealth of platform, short flight time, and therefore accuracy) vs something that has to fly a thousand KM with plenty of time to prep your own response. But yeah no doubt the platform makes it more expensive. As good as ICBM MIRVs are and assuming a minor nuclear war is as bad as a bit one, if I had to choose to reduce capability on a tighter budget I'd make it about that. The fear of the unpredictability and small response times via having it potentially parked next door adds to the deterrence.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  I thought similarly. The problem is an SLBM-only force is usually survivable. That opens the field to sacrificing a few bases and cities for vaporising the adversary. Creating a MAD SLBM force is still so expensive that nobody does it.
  - tivert 3y ago
    > Creating a MAD SLBM force is still so expensive that nobody does it. Not even the US? I was under the impression that the US had enough SLBM to implement MAD, so that the land and bomber-based forces were pretty much redundant.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > the US had enough SLBM to implement MAD 1,750 warheads, per New START [1], on a few hundred missiles. That’s enough to wreak havoc. But given missile defense and offshore basing, reality for most of our adversaries, it leaves a lot of the enemy’s fighting capacity intact. [1] https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/103rd-congress-1993-1994/reports/199307rethinkingtrident.pdf https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/103rd-congress-1993-...
      - tivert 3y ago
        > 1,750 warheads, per New START [1], on a few hundred missiles. That’s enough to wreak havoc. But given missile defense and offshore basing, reality for most of our adversaries, it leaves a lot of the enemy’s fighting capacity intact. Even if that's the correct interpretation of the capabilities, it doesn't mean MAD can't be implemented. It just means it needs countervalue targets (cities and industry) vs only counterforce targets (military).
- TMWNN 3y ago
  >As good as ICBM MIRVs are and assuming a minor nuclear war is as bad as a bit one, if I had to choose to reduce capability on a tighter budget I'd make it about that. This is what the UK did, in shrinking its nuclear forces to Trident submarines.

flashback2199 3y ago

The country that is still launching the same platform for manned space that they did in the 50s can't figure out how to do that but with warheads -- doubt! Makes a good story though!

foota 3y ago
I think there's a handful of Soyuz launches per year, and those don't have a nuclear warhead that needs to be maintained.
- flashback2199 3y ago
  Yeah, sorry, I don't believe for a second that Russia has failed to maintain their only playing card. What a joke. US military industrial complex folks will make up any story to excuse their audit-free slovenly spending.
  - stouset 3y ago
    > Yeah, sorry, I don't believe for a second that Russia has failed to maintain their only playing card. Have you, uh, been paying attention to Ukraine?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - c0pium 3y ago
    Huh? How would the Russian arsenal being degraded and not effective in any way argue for more US defense spending?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - elzbardico 3y ago
      Well, that's the genius in the Military Industrial Complex propaganda. Russia is either pathetically weak and so we can push their buttons at our heart content or it is a all powerful evil entity and we need to spend like a trillion to close the missile gap.

User23 3y ago

Russia’s arms industry is largely domestic. They can always pay for domestic labor and materials in Rubles so money, by which you presumably mean dollars, isn’t a constraint. If you doubt me just look how little the sanctions have actually hurt them militarily.

irjustin 3y ago
The problem usually is in advanced electronics. Russia doesn't have everything it needs to build+maintain these systems. Obviously with sanctions these parts are near impossible to come by in quantity, but if you're looking to maintain a few missiles it shouldn't be too hard to smuggle it.
- elzbardico 3y ago
  You don't need 3nm technology for missile systems. Russia is stuck at 140nm/70nm with no visible path forward but this is more than enough for this kind of application. They don't have now access to super-computing for running complicated simulations, and will probably have to do some live testing in the coming years if the Chinese doesn't sell them a few supercomputers.
  - irjustin 3y ago
    > You don't need 3nm technology for missile systems. > Russia is stuck at 140nm/70nm with no visible path forward but this is more than enough for this kind of application. Latest fab processes isn't the problem I was referring to (but it could be part of it). It's the knowledge+expertise for controls systems. This could be guidance, detonation, communications, etc. If any of those systems were imported they're now forced to either source the chips or develop it in country. Developing it on shore is way more than a "140nm/70nm" process. You'll have to reverse engineer the current chip to communicate with all the other chips it has to communicate with. What if the chip you need to replace uses a smaller fab process? You possibly have to replace the sub-system. Well now you better hope you have the expertise to build that system AND have it work with all the other systems. How long would that take? How expensive is it just to maintain your capabilities vs before? Again, for the few missiles, smuggling seems way better. Your ROI on black market cost for missile parts that never get used is amazing vs say a fleet of tanks.

credit_guy 3y ago

> I remember reading some persuasive arguments that Russia probably only has a small amount of Soviet era nukes left for the same reason. They are incorrect. Russia has many thousands of nukes. If there's a possibility of defects, it's for the hydrogen part, but the plutonium part will work absolutely fine. One can envision that Russia's megaton bombs don't work anymore, but Russia still has thousands of Hiroshima-sized well functioning bombs, and most people in this world don't care if they die form a 20 kT bomb or from a 2 MT bomb.

leptons 3y ago
That's fine but the delivery system is older than old, and there's very little chance most of their "well functioning" bombs would even make it off the ground.
bbatha 3y ago
> plutonium part will work absolutely fine. Plutonium pits need to be constantly rebuilt. Plutonium is one of the most corrosive materials on earth and phase changes at the drop of hat, it has 7 stable phases and only the one the bomb was designed for will do the job.
- credit_guy 3y ago
  That's not quite true. Plutonium is definitely not one of the most corrosive materials. It does have some peculiarities [1]. But they are not that relevant for plutonium pits, and the 7 stable phases are not that relevant either. Plutonium pits are made of an alloy of plutonium and gallium, which makes plutonium take the delta phase, and it makes it about 20 times more stable than unalloyed plutonium. Is it perfectly stable in this form? No, because plutonium decays, so after decades things can happen. But after how many decades? People don't know for sure, but it's many decades. The US decided to start rebuilding 30 pits per year from 2026 on and 80 from 2030. At more than 5000 nukes in the inventory, each pit would be rebuilt after more than six decades. Keep in mind that right now we are not doing that at all, and haven't been doing it for about 3 decades. Bottom line, Russia's plutonium weapons are fine (unfortunately). [1] https://sgp.fas.org/othergov/doe/lanl/pubs/00818031.pdf https://sgp.fas.org/othergov/doe/lanl/pubs/00818031.pdf [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium%E2%80%93gallium_alloy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium%E2%80%93gallium_allo... [3] https://discover.lanl.gov/publications/national-security-science/2021-winter/pit-production-explained/ https://discover.lanl.gov/publications/national-security-sci...

jdewerd 3y ago

That was the hopeful speculation flying around when Russia surprised to the downside in Ukraine, but the counterpoint is that the nuclear forces are the best funded part of the Russian military [1] and, due to arms reduction treaties and inspections, possibly one of the most inspected / least corruption rotted. That Perun video also talks about tritium [2] and estimates that they probably have enough. [1] https://youtu.be/xBZceqiKHrI?t=2162 https://youtu.be/xBZceqiKHrI?t=2162 [2] https://youtu.be/xBZceqiKHrI?t=2504 https://youtu.be/xBZceqiKHrI?t=2504

tivert 3y ago

> I remember reading some persuasive arguments that Russia probably only has a small amount of Soviet era nukes left for the same reason. They probably have none: https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002-10/features/breakdown-breakout-us-russian-warhead-production-capabilities https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002-10/features/breakdown-b...: > The substantial capabilities of the Russian warhead production complex have been of concern to some U.S. policymakers and nuclear weapons experts. The Russian complex is very large relative both to the U.S. complex and to the projected size of Russia’s nuclear weapons stockpile. Because of manufacturing and technology problems that limit the lifetime of Russian warheads to 10-15 years and because of stockpile management practices that emphasize routine rebuilding of nuclear warheads, the Russian complex also maintains high levels of production. The fear, then, is that Russia could use its large and active production infrastructure to offset arms reductions by quickly building new nuclear warheads in large numbers—that it has a “breakout capability.” Russia’s secretive nuclear weapons policies and uncertainties about the technical capabilities and operational practices of its nuclear weapons complex further exacerbate these fears. > ... > Russian warheads are reported to have a shelf life of approximately 10 years (with newer warheads having a life of 15 years), presumably because the warheads’ conventional high explosives degrade and their fissile components deteriorate.7 > The deployment cycle for Russian warheads is reported to be three years long.8 After three years of deployment, warheads are removed from their delivery systems and shipped to a serial production facility for modernization and refurbishment. Refurbished warheads are placed in storage prior to a new cycle of operational deployment.