Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Rexia2022 t1_je3ivxx wrote

I'm really starting to doubt any Russian nukes actually work after it turned out the Moskova, their black sea flagship, went down because it's defenses either didn't work, were turned off because they interfered with Comms or had been scavenged for parts.

I wouldn't roll the dice on it, but it's really hard to believe they have anything that functions as intended at this point.

10

GodlordHerus t1_je3pyp2 wrote

I've seen people share this idea all over and just don't get it?

I agree that the Russian state is run by a bunch of corrupt Lunatics. But so is the DPRK and they have at least 50 functional ICBMs with a nearly non-existent economic system

Russia on paper has about 6000 nuclear warheads. ~1000 of which are deployed. Even if we say that 90% of them arn't working that's still 100 deployed and 600 war heads. It only takes 100 strategic weapons to kill most of Europe

I don't get why down play the gravity of the situation.

Being honest make people frightened. But at least people know the reality of the situation and why the current Russian government is a threat to everyone and needs to be stopped.

15

ArmChairAnalyst86 t1_je3voqr wrote

You're right to feel the way you do. Russia decided to spend all of its money building missles to counter US ABM systems instead of its actual military and it's amounted to what? I can nuke you better than you can nuke me? Oxymoron.

On paper the Russian ballistic missle fleet is easily the largest and most capable in the world. This is borne from necessity, as all of their existing missles suddenly became much less reliable due to aforementioned ABM system. So they rolled out Yars, Bulava, SARMAT II, Kinzhal, Iskander, Avangard, and Zircon. New missles built after 2000. Limited quantities but deployed in respectable numbers none the less. Some not fully deployed yet and no doubt affected by sanctions. Plus they got their old stocks, what still works anyway.

How many new missles by America entered into active service since 70s? Zero. They field two missles. Minuteman and Trident since the cold war, plus the world's most formidable bomber fleet. Missles have been updated but max at 3 MIRV. Bulava and Yars 6 to 10 MIRV. Russia has a bomber fleet but they'd never make it past water. It's all missles for them.

The Russians know that to hit the north American fortress it will either take massive quantities of missles and warheads to ensure they get through or missles that could theoretically defeat ABM today and near future. Whether they can or not, or whether they work as intended, is up for speculation but that's it on paper.

3

0utlook t1_je3zn63 wrote

They nuke half a continent on the other side of the globe and still lose the war. There is no victory for anyone post nuclear war. Those not blessed by the quick death of the exchange itself will be left poisoned on a dying Earth.

Flee to the southern hemisphere all ya want. You'll still die with the oceans.

3

ArmChairAnalyst86 t1_je53z1n wrote

Yep. That's why it probably never happens. Humans are too self preserving to go through with it. The danger is if one side decides that self-preservation isn't a priority.

None the less, nuclear brinkmanship is an old game.

2

0utlook t1_je5cp8s wrote

It isn't though. We haven't even been at it a solid century yet. I wager it's a rubbish idea all around, and move we fight with drone fleets and astroid bases out around Jupiter.

1

Omevne t1_jebnfi6 wrote

We almost did launch the nukes, a close call could happen again and we need to be unlucky just once.

1

ArmChairAnalyst86 t1_jebx7se wrote

That is why this development is so concerning. If Russia decided to be very irresponsible, which they likely will, and stop sharing scheduled tests and similar events, the west has an extremely short window of time to determine whether it's a legit threat or not.

NK doesn't announce theirs, obviously, but they aren't in a state of hybrid conflict with the west in the same manner as Russia is. Besides, their missle game is nowhere near the Russians.

To me it makes this more than posturing and saber rattling if they follow through with it. It is just one more signal we are regressing hard into the cold war, and it's not as cold as it once was.

1

ExParrot1337 t1_je40jc0 wrote

Also up till a couple of years ago, strategic arms treaties meant that US inspectors were looking at all those warheads and missiles regularly. I am prepared to accept they might notice a fault that would turn a 1Mt warhead into a 50kt warhead and 'forget' to tell the Russians but if there was the slightest chance they were in dangerous shape, you bet they'd flag that up the chain.

Betting the Russian arsenal is in as poor shape as the rest of the military is a dumb idea.

1

Erazerhead-5407 t1_je3mntp wrote

I couldn’t agree with you more. Their soldiers are not trained. They’re sent out without adequate equipment. It’s the most disorderly army I’ve ever seen. Russians are losing entire generations of family members and are tired of it. I’m with you in believing their arsenal is probably defective or useless.

1