5 ms·

This is a ridiculous statement

by JV00 1y ago

adastra22 1y ago
It is an informed statement. The Russian military had ALWAYS operated on grift and cronyism, all the way back to the napoleonic wars. When shit hits the fan, as in Crimea, WW1, WW2, and Ukraine, it turns out all those paper capabilities don’t exist. Even in the height of the Cold War, ICBM silos in Russia were often flooded and inoperable. Nuclear weapons are extremely sensitive and maintenance heavy devices. They have parts that need to be regularly checked and replaced or else the bomb will fissile. These parts are EXTREMELY precise and very high purity. The rockets have similar needs or else the engine will as likely blow up on launch. Maintenance cycles are on the order of 10-15 years. We are now 35 years out from the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the nuclear and space industries have experienced massive brain drain and almost complete elimination of operational and maintenance budgets. The likelihood that these strategic weapon systems have been adequately maintained is indistinguishable from zero.
- saubeidl 1y ago
  While all of this is true, all it takes is literally one nuke that works.
  - adastra22 1y ago
    It takes a lot more than one nuke that works. They would need hundreds of strikes, probably thousands to ensure they aren’t immediately annihilated in response. There is a game theory to nuclear warfare, and dropping one city buster on a nuclear armed adversary is the sovereign equivalent of suicide-by-cop.
    - docdeek 1y ago
      If this is the case, do France and the UK even have a nuclear deterrent? They have just over 500 weapons total between them - is there any chance that they are able to “ensure that they aren’t immediately anihalated” by a Russian response?
      - MattPalmer1086 1y ago
        Probably not. But we do not have a first strike doctrine. There is enough to ensure that attacking us would be a very, very bad idea.
      - mrguyorama 1y ago
        Uh yes? For reference, that number of nuclear weapons is where China decided to draw the line as a nuclear deterrence against the US until recently. A hundred modern nuclear weapons is plenty to fucking ruin a country, but no, it doesn't not take "just one". Most western countries would survive say, a smuggled terrorist nuke (or 4) just fine. Angry and mourning, but fine. France alone has enough deterrent in their nuclear weapons. The UK has theirs in submarines, to ensure even if you magically erased the entire British Islands, you still take tens of nukes up the ass. Nuclear deterrence is not complicated, and it's pretty well understood in public. I don't know why so many people here are so wildly off base. Meanwhile, all this was always intended to be roughly "backup" to the US's absurd stockpile, including tons of literal gravity drop nukes so we can cosplay Dr Strangelove as the world ends. And the ending of the IRBM treaty means the US has recently told our defense industry that it gets to play with the cool rockets again.
- throwaway_dang 1y ago
  Russia has its own satellite network, its own rockets, the most advance missiles in the world (and demonstrated usage), has continually bombed Kiev and other parts of Ukraine .. but sure, let's listen to you spout your detached-from-reality comments about nuclear war. Contrast this with many "advanced" nations such as UK, EU, Australia etc. that can't even get a rocket into space. There was a period recently where the US was relying on Soyuz rockets to get into space.
  - adastra22 1y ago
    Civilian rockets and military/strategic rockets are not even remotely similar. Totally different technology driven by vastly different needs. Russia hasn’t had a technological edge in military rocketry since the 1950’s.
    - MattPalmer1086 1y ago
      I believe they used a hypersonic missile before the US has fielded theirs?
      - mrguyorama 1y ago
        No, that's wrong. The Kinzhal is just a normal ballistic missile. If it is "hypersonic", so were the missiles the US has sitting in bunkers. China has the first real "hypersonic" weapon. Besides, Russia's super awesome hypersonic missile that will totally kill the west is regularly intercepted by the Patriot platform. Because it's just a normal ballistic missile, which is what the Patriot is designed to intercept.
        MattPalmer1086 1y ago
        I was referring to the Oreshnik, not the Kinzhal. But I'm no missile expert.
        Yizahi 1y ago

This is a ridiculous statement

by JV00 1y ago

This is a ridiculous statement

It is an informed statement. The Russian military had ALWAYS operated on grift and cronyism, all the way back to the napoleonic wars. When shit hits the fan, as in Crimea, WW1, WW2, and Ukraine, it turns out all those paper capabilities don’t exist. Even in the height of the Cold War, ICBM silos in Russia were often flooded and inoperable. Nuclear weapons are extremely sensitive and maintenance heavy devices. They have parts that need to be regularly checked and replaced or else the bomb will fissile. These parts are EXTREMELY precise and very high purity. The rockets have similar needs or else the engine will as likely blow up on launch. Maintenance cycles are on the order of 10-15 years. We are now 35 years out from the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the nuclear and space industries have experienced massive brain drain and almost complete elimination of operational and maintenance budgets. The likelihood that these strategic weapon systems have been adequately maintained is indistinguishable from zero.

saubeidl 1y ago
While all of this is true, all it takes is literally one nuke that works.
- adastra22 1y ago
  It takes a lot more than one nuke that works. They would need hundreds of strikes, probably thousands to ensure they aren’t immediately annihilated in response. There is a game theory to nuclear warfare, and dropping one city buster on a nuclear armed adversary is the sovereign equivalent of suicide-by-cop.
  - docdeek 1y ago
    If this is the case, do France and the UK even have a nuclear deterrent? They have just over 500 weapons total between them - is there any chance that they are able to “ensure that they aren’t immediately anihalated” by a Russian response?
    - MattPalmer1086 1y ago
      Probably not. But we do not have a first strike doctrine. There is enough to ensure that attacking us would be a very, very bad idea.
    - mrguyorama 1y ago
      Uh yes? For reference, that number of nuclear weapons is where China decided to draw the line as a nuclear deterrence against the US until recently. A hundred modern nuclear weapons is plenty to fucking ruin a country, but no, it doesn't not take "just one". Most western countries would survive say, a smuggled terrorist nuke (or 4) just fine. Angry and mourning, but fine. France alone has enough deterrent in their nuclear weapons. The UK has theirs in submarines, to ensure even if you magically erased the entire British Islands, you still take tens of nukes up the ass. Nuclear deterrence is not complicated, and it's pretty well understood in public. I don't know why so many people here are so wildly off base. Meanwhile, all this was always intended to be roughly "backup" to the US's absurd stockpile, including tons of literal gravity drop nukes so we can cosplay Dr Strangelove as the world ends. And the ending of the IRBM treaty means the US has recently told our defense industry that it gets to play with the cool rockets again.
throwaway_dang 1y ago
Russia has its own satellite network, its own rockets, the most advance missiles in the world (and demonstrated usage), has continually bombed Kiev and other parts of Ukraine .. but sure, let's listen to you spout your detached-from-reality comments about nuclear war. Contrast this with many "advanced" nations such as UK, EU, Australia etc. that can't even get a rocket into space. There was a period recently where the US was relying on Soyuz rockets to get into space.
- adastra22 1y ago
  Civilian rockets and military/strategic rockets are not even remotely similar. Totally different technology driven by vastly different needs. Russia hasn’t had a technological edge in military rocketry since the 1950’s.
  - MattPalmer1086 1y ago
    I believe they used a hypersonic missile before the US has fielded theirs?
    - mrguyorama 1y ago
      No, that's wrong. The Kinzhal is just a normal ballistic missile. If it is "hypersonic", so were the missiles the US has sitting in bunkers. China has the first real "hypersonic" weapon. Besides, Russia's super awesome hypersonic missile that will totally kill the west is regularly intercepted by the Patriot platform. Because it's just a normal ballistic missile, which is what the Patriot is designed to intercept.
      - MattPalmer1086 1y ago
        I was referring to the Oreshnik, not the Kinzhal. But I'm no missile expert.
        Yizahi 1y ago