6 ms·

Force replenishment in the event of nuclear war is a moot question, but if someone can go from 100 to 1,000 warheads in a couple months, that has a lot of relev

Force replenishment in the event of nuclear war is a moot question, but if someone can go from 100 to 1,000 warheads in a couple months, that has a lot of relevance in a growing crisis--what would Russia have done in 2022 if Ukraine had kept the ability to manufacture them and was able to build 100/year?

chasd00 2y ago
That's a good point, i read this thread top to bottom because this topic has always been fascinating to me. Others have brought up how war wouldn't go from 0 to missiles flying immediately, there would be a crisis and build-up period. So I can see something like that ability to mass produce nuclear weapons and demonstrate it acting as a deterrent and therefore be useful.I can't think of an instance off the top of my head where a massive arms build up caused the other side to back down though. To your specific point, I think if Ukraine had the keys to even one nuclear weapon and Russia believed they'd use it the invasion would never have happened in the first place.
scott_w 2y ago
I know you asked a slightly different question but I watched a video about Ukraine’s nukes and the reality is they could never deploy them without Russia. The codes always stayed with Moscow and Russia would have forcibly maintained a presence on Ukrainian soil to protect their nukes. Ukraine returning the nukes was a pragmatic move that, at the time, removed Russian military presence from Ukrainian territory. Think about it another way: the USA maintains nuclear weapons on other country’s territory. They sure as hell staff those sites with US troops!
- ClumsyPilot 2y ago
  If USA maintains nukes in Turkey that does not mean they have enough troops in Turkey to protect the base against the entire Turkish military, should they decide to steamroll it. They rely on nuclear codes more than they rely on tanks to stop nukes falling into the wrong hands.
  - northwest65 2y ago
    They don't actually have to. The 5th and 6th fleet coupled with the various large air bases in the vicinity would have little trouble it pancaking the entire site before the Turks managed to make off with anything if it really came down to it. It's tanks all the way down.
  - scott_w 2y ago
    Turkey allows those troops to be there. Ukraine did not want Russian troops on their soil. Forcibly ejecting those troops would have likely triggered a confrontation with a far more competent Russian military than the one we see today.
- Retric 2y ago
  Replacing the electronics is fairly trivial compared to building an atomic weapon from scratch. Arming codes gives a nation time to recover or destroy them, but it’s not a long term solution.
  - scott_w 2y ago
    How do you do that when the Russian military won't let you near the weapons?
    - Retric 2y ago
      Ukraine had physical control of these weapons. They handed them over in 1994, 3 years after the fall of the USSR for assurances Russia would respect their borders. More generally a handful of soldiers isn’t the full might of a countries military. Bribes, blockade until they run out of supplies, or just shoot them.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Everything I read stated that Russian military was in possession of the weapons, but they were located within Ukraine. Perhaps bribery was an option, but Russia had the ability to destroy them at any time, either by scuttling them or bombing them.
        Retric 2y ago
        Operational control yes, but the assumption was these weapons where sitting in a friendly territory. Ukraine definitely had enough control for diplomacy to come into play. ~1,700 nuclear warheads spread across a large number of different sites is a nightmare to try and secure when the country was effectively falling apart. As to bombing 130 nuclear silos with non nuclear ordnance is problematic and doesn’t destroy the enriched uranium which means building a bomb from the wreckage isn’t nearly as expensive as starting from scratch. None of this came into play because the Ukraine government was still reasonably friendly at the time.

chasd00 2y ago

That's a good point, i read this thread top to bottom because this topic has always been fascinating to me. Others have brought up how war wouldn't go from 0 to missiles flying immediately, there would be a crisis and build-up period. So I can see something like that ability to mass produce nuclear weapons and demonstrate it acting as a deterrent and therefore be useful.I can't think of an instance off the top of my head where a massive arms build up caused the other side to back down though. To your specific point, I think if Ukraine had the keys to even one nuclear weapon and Russia believed they'd use it the invasion would never have happened in the first place.

scott_w 2y ago

I know you asked a slightly different question but I watched a video about Ukraine’s nukes and the reality is they could never deploy them without Russia. The codes always stayed with Moscow and Russia would have forcibly maintained a presence on Ukrainian soil to protect their nukes. Ukraine returning the nukes was a pragmatic move that, at the time, removed Russian military presence from Ukrainian territory. Think about it another way: the USA maintains nuclear weapons on other country’s territory. They sure as hell staff those sites with US troops!

ClumsyPilot 2y ago
If USA maintains nukes in Turkey that does not mean they have enough troops in Turkey to protect the base against the entire Turkish military, should they decide to steamroll it. They rely on nuclear codes more than they rely on tanks to stop nukes falling into the wrong hands.
- northwest65 2y ago
  They don't actually have to. The 5th and 6th fleet coupled with the various large air bases in the vicinity would have little trouble it pancaking the entire site before the Turks managed to make off with anything if it really came down to it. It's tanks all the way down.
- scott_w 2y ago
  Turkey allows those troops to be there. Ukraine did not want Russian troops on their soil. Forcibly ejecting those troops would have likely triggered a confrontation with a far more competent Russian military than the one we see today.
Retric 2y ago
Replacing the electronics is fairly trivial compared to building an atomic weapon from scratch. Arming codes gives a nation time to recover or destroy them, but it’s not a long term solution.
- scott_w 2y ago
  How do you do that when the Russian military won't let you near the weapons?
  - Retric 2y ago
    Ukraine had physical control of these weapons. They handed them over in 1994, 3 years after the fall of the USSR for assurances Russia would respect their borders. More generally a handful of soldiers isn’t the full might of a countries military. Bribes, blockade until they run out of supplies, or just shoot them.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      Everything I read stated that Russian military was in possession of the weapons, but they were located within Ukraine. Perhaps bribery was an option, but Russia had the ability to destroy them at any time, either by scuttling them or bombing them.
      - Retric 2y ago
        Operational control yes, but the assumption was these weapons where sitting in a friendly territory. Ukraine definitely had enough control for diplomacy to come into play. ~1,700 nuclear warheads spread across a large number of different sites is a nightmare to try and secure when the country was effectively falling apart. As to bombing 130 nuclear silos with non nuclear ordnance is problematic and doesn’t destroy the enriched uranium which means building a bomb from the wreckage isn’t nearly as expensive as starting from scratch. None of this came into play because the Ukraine government was still reasonably friendly at the time.