4 ms·

Without evidence, that comment is an opinion piece. Hopefully we never have to find out.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
hollerith 2y ago
Could it be that the source of your skepticism is the fact that you have over the last 2 years seen many comments here on HN asserting that Russia's military is probably incapable of maintaining an effective strategic nuclear capability whereas my comment is the first one you've seen that takes the opposite position? According to one comment I saw here a few weeks ago, Russia's nukes are probably made of wood. I suggest searching the web for "Russian nuclear weapons modernization", restricting yourself to credible news outlets.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- bamboozled 2y ago
  Still feels like an opinion, as the other commenter said, look at the state of their equipment when going against Ukraine, there is little indication their nukes or their silos, bombers are much better except your opinion. Opinions are fine, but the evidence against your opinion is currently stronger.
  - hollerith 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - racional 2y ago
      Also, you do realize that Russia is currently winning in Ukraine They are not "currently winning". By any objective measure, the war on the ground is currently a stalement. Only problem is that in the long term -- stalemates never work out for the occupiers. In Russia's case: If the situation continues as it does, and moving at the glacial pace that it does, and draining 10 percent of its GDP every year -- they will ultimately have to give up on their optional neocolonial adventure, pick up their toys and go home.
      - rainworld 2y ago
        [flagged]
        racional 2y ago
        Only one side has had meaningful advances. That's not true, as Ukraine has scored significant non-territorial advances (like forcing most of the occupier's fleet to retreat from Crimea) in the same time frame. Also you're setting an arbitrary time window of 1 year (when if we want to evaluate the conflict meaningfully, we need to look at how things are moving now compared to the start of the conflict. Which is definitely not the outcome Russia intended. And ignoring Russia's considerable losses in achieving the paltry gains that it has (which are very much part of the attrition equation), etc. What never works out is a smaller country winning a war of attrition against a (much) bigger opponent. You're missing the point -- the smaller country doesn't need to "win" the war of attrition (in terms of effecting a complete reversal) in order to win the conflict. It just needs to outlast the occupier. For which there are no end of precedents in history, recent and ancient. Including (ironically) the U.S. withdraw from Afghanistan, which is apparently what gave Putin the gigantic (for him) hard-on that inspired him to sign his country for the same inevitable fate in the first place (but with much higher cost and KIA/WIA rates to his people along the way). Did you catch Zelensky the other day? He knows where this is going. I don't see any significance to that quote. But it does seem pretty clear which side you're cheering for, in any case.
        rainworld 2y ago
        [flagged]
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        hollerith 2y ago
        >But it does seem pretty clear which side you're cheering for Whether Russia has the upper hand is an important question for deciding on what policies the NATO countries should pursue, but we cannot have a fruitful public discussion on the question if anyone giving evidence for one side of the question is shouted down as a traitor.
- 542354234235 2y ago
  One of the top results from a very reputable source. The title says it all. "Russia’s Nuclear Modernization Drive Is Only a Success on Paper" https://carnegieendowment.org/russia-eurasia/politika/2024/01/russias-nuclear-modernization-drive-is-only-a-success-on-paper?lang=en https://carnegieendowment.org/russia-eurasia/politika/2024/0...

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Could it be that the source of your skepticism is the fact that you have over the last 2 years seen many comments here on HN asserting that Russia's military is probably incapable of maintaining an effective strategic nuclear capability whereas my comment is the first one you've seen that takes the opposite position? According to one comment I saw here a few weeks ago, Russia's nukes are probably made of wood. I suggest searching the web for "Russian nuclear weapons modernization", restricting yourself to credible news outlets.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
bamboozled 2y ago
Still feels like an opinion, as the other commenter said, look at the state of their equipment when going against Ukraine, there is little indication their nukes or their silos, bombers are much better except your opinion. Opinions are fine, but the evidence against your opinion is currently stronger.
- hollerith 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - racional 2y ago
    Also, you do realize that Russia is currently winning in Ukraine They are not "currently winning". By any objective measure, the war on the ground is currently a stalement. Only problem is that in the long term -- stalemates never work out for the occupiers. In Russia's case: If the situation continues as it does, and moving at the glacial pace that it does, and draining 10 percent of its GDP every year -- they will ultimately have to give up on their optional neocolonial adventure, pick up their toys and go home.
    - rainworld 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - racional 2y ago
        Only one side has had meaningful advances. That's not true, as Ukraine has scored significant non-territorial advances (like forcing most of the occupier's fleet to retreat from Crimea) in the same time frame. Also you're setting an arbitrary time window of 1 year (when if we want to evaluate the conflict meaningfully, we need to look at how things are moving now compared to the start of the conflict. Which is definitely not the outcome Russia intended. And ignoring Russia's considerable losses in achieving the paltry gains that it has (which are very much part of the attrition equation), etc. What never works out is a smaller country winning a war of attrition against a (much) bigger opponent. You're missing the point -- the smaller country doesn't need to "win" the war of attrition (in terms of effecting a complete reversal) in order to win the conflict. It just needs to outlast the occupier. For which there are no end of precedents in history, recent and ancient. Including (ironically) the U.S. withdraw from Afghanistan, which is apparently what gave Putin the gigantic (for him) hard-on that inspired him to sign his country for the same inevitable fate in the first place (but with much higher cost and KIA/WIA rates to his people along the way). Did you catch Zelensky the other day? He knows where this is going. I don't see any significance to that quote. But it does seem pretty clear which side you're cheering for, in any case.
        rainworld 2y ago
        [flagged]
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        hollerith 2y ago
        >But it does seem pretty clear which side you're cheering for Whether Russia has the upper hand is an important question for deciding on what policies the NATO countries should pursue, but we cannot have a fruitful public discussion on the question if anyone giving evidence for one side of the question is shouted down as a traitor.
542354234235 2y ago
One of the top results from a very reputable source. The title says it all. "Russia’s Nuclear Modernization Drive Is Only a Success on Paper" https://carnegieendowment.org/russia-eurasia/politika/2024/01/russias-nuclear-modernization-drive-is-only-a-success-on-paper?lang=en https://carnegieendowment.org/russia-eurasia/politika/2024/0...