3 ms·

And I could date Natalie Portman. Facts are russia is corrupt and bankrupt, they havent serviced/maintained nuke arsenal since forever. They cant even make new

by rasz 2y ago

And I could date Natalie Portman. Facts are russia is corrupt and bankrupt, they havent serviced/maintained nuke arsenal since forever. They cant even make new ICBMs anymore, their fifth try blew up on launch pad https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/09/23/russia-sarmat-icbm-disaster/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/09/23/russia-sarma... just like four previous attempts.

mc32 2y ago
Out of 6,000 units, even 1% of theirs working would be devastating (you know they have MIRVs), not to mention what launching ours would do. This is a stupid thought.
- Mountain_Skies 2y ago
  >This is a stupid thought. It's a consequence of social media, where people believe if they make a statement that gets enough up arrow clicks, physical reality changes to match their desired outcome. Most of the time it's of little consequence, especially when the people posting and voting have little actual connection to the subject matter, but things are quite different when the outcome involves nuclear detonations.
exabrial 2y ago
> Natalie Portman Meh. > Facts are russia is corrupt and bankrupt, they havent serviced/maintained nuke arsenal since forever. They cant even make new ICBMs anymore, their fifth try blew up on launch pad https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/09/23/russia-sarma https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/09/23/russia-sarma... just like four previous attempts. Yep ^ it's unlilkely they have very few in a launch-able state. Although, they don't have a detonate a nuke to make parts of the world unlivable. They have plenty of radioactive material; simply detonating a salted conventional bomb would be pretty nasty.
datavirtue 2y ago
If anyone tried launching their ICBMs half of them would blow up in their face. So we have that going for us (the peoples of all states).
- reducesuffering 2y ago
  Wow only 500 nuclear warheads raining down than 1,000? Quite the improvement.
  - datavirtue 2y ago
    My point was that the error rate is also a deterrent for the launcher.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > only 500 nuclear warheads raining down than 1,000 Try 3,000 instead of 6,000 [1]. [1] https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/nuclear-weapons-who-has-what-glance https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/nuclear-weapons-who-h...

by rasz 2y ago

mc32 2y ago

Out of 6,000 units, even 1% of theirs working would be devastating (you know they have MIRVs), not to mention what launching ours would do. This is a stupid thought.

Mountain_Skies 2y ago
>This is a stupid thought. It's a consequence of social media, where people believe if they make a statement that gets enough up arrow clicks, physical reality changes to match their desired outcome. Most of the time it's of little consequence, especially when the people posting and voting have little actual connection to the subject matter, but things are quite different when the outcome involves nuclear detonations.

exabrial 2y ago

> Natalie Portman Meh. > Facts are russia is corrupt and bankrupt, they havent serviced/maintained nuke arsenal since forever. They cant even make new ICBMs anymore, their fifth try blew up on launch pad https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/09/23/russia-sarma https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/09/23/russia-sarma... just like four previous attempts. Yep ^ it's unlilkely they have very few in a launch-able state. Although, they don't have a detonate a nuke to make parts of the world unlivable. They have plenty of radioactive material; simply detonating a salted conventional bomb would be pretty nasty.

datavirtue 2y ago

If anyone tried launching their ICBMs half of them would blow up in their face. So we have that going for us (the peoples of all states).

reducesuffering 2y ago
Wow only 500 nuclear warheads raining down than 1,000? Quite the improvement.
- datavirtue 2y ago
  My point was that the error rate is also a deterrent for the launcher.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > only 500 nuclear warheads raining down than 1,000 Try 3,000 instead of 6,000 [1]. [1] https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/nuclear-weapons-who-has-what-glance https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/nuclear-weapons-who-h...