comment
stringlengths 1
9.86k
| context
sequencelengths 0
530
|
|---|---|
>
There have been a few party systems in the United States over the course of its existence.
Usually, it plays out like this:
The United States faces a split over an important difference in policy (Constitution vs Articles of Confederation, banking and tariffs, slavery, Civil Rights)
The parties start defining themselves over this central issue (Federalists vs Democratic-Republicans, Whigs vs Democrats, Democrats vs Republicans, Democrats vs Republicans vs Southern Democrats)
Once a new central issue arises, either a new party springs up and subsumes one of the two existing parties, as the previous split no longer adequately defines the party coalitions, or one of the two existing parties incorporates the issue into their platform and absorbs the new party.
The best example of this is the Whigs, a party that differentiated themselves from Democrats on economic grounds, but who didn't really have a reason to exist when economic differences became less important than views on slavery.
In general, since both parties are already pretty ideologically diverse, its very difficult to make a meaningful third party run | [
"The closest comparison I can think of is En Marche ! From France, but I don’t think that would be a proper comparison.\nEdit: To clarify, Emanuel Macrons party did not exist in any meaningful way before his campaign. He won the presidential election just over a year after the founding of the party and they had no or very little political representation in governing bodies. The situation is different now, but 2015 the party was not even founded.",
">\n\nSinn Féin in Ireland might be a partial example. They’ve always been sidelined as a fringe party with no real power in the Republic of Ireland, but in 2020 they had an unexpected massive wave of support and won the most seats of any party (not a majority, but still significant). \nBut the two main parties (Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael) basically pretended Sinn Féin didn’t exist, and spent every waking hour trying to delegitimize them. They essentially united in an effort to ensure that a strong third party couldn’t have any influence in government, as that would threaten the status quo of their duopoly on power. \nIf a third party candidate won the presidency in the United States, you would likely see a similar response from Congress. The Republicans and Democrats would team up to oppose any change to the status quo and kill the momentum of a third party. \nCabinet appointments would be held up by Congress unless the nominees were from the establishment of either main party. Legislation would likely be introduced to make it harder for a third party to establish itself in Congress or a future presidential election. Each party would likely even refuse to support positive legislation that aligns with its own platform, for fear that any positive development’s under a third-party presidency will threaten the two-party system in the long term. \nBasically the only power the President would have is in foreign policy, where Congress has ceded its authority so representatives aren’t responsible for tough decisions. But even that night be brief. Maybe the only positive outcome of a third party President is that Congress might pass legislation to reclaim its foreign policy / military responsibilities and make it harder for future presidents to green-light foreign military escapades without any democratic oversight. \nIMO, in the American system, it is MUCH more important for a third party to establish itself in Congress than the White House. A good Congress can keep a bad President in check much more easily than can a good President keep a bad Congress in check.",
">\n\nI'd say Ross Perot's candidacy is probably the reason Bill Clinton was able to defeat George Bush Sr. \nI don't know if Perot actually intended to win or if he intended to be a spoiler candidate, but he seemed to siphon more Republican votes than Democratic votes, thus resulting in a Democratic win.",
">\n\nThe turnout in 1992 was about 6% higher than 1988 and 1996.\nI have to imagine that a good portion of Perot voters wouldn't have voted for Clinton or Bush at all. They'd have stayed home.",
">\n\nWhen it happened in Canada it didn’t work out very well. I can’t source it for you at the moment, but if you research ‘Canada Elects NDP’ it should pop up. They were and are always the 3rd party underdogs. They won the election and were basically caught with their pants down.",
">\n\nI believe you may be talking about Bob Rae’s NDP government in the province of Ontario, not all of Canada. The NDP has never formed a national government but it has been in government in 6 out of 10 provinces at one time or another.",
">\n\nThey did make federal Opposition one election.",
">\n\nSomething the Bloc Québécois has done as well! It's generally more an indication that either the Cons or the Liberals have fielded a poor candidate than anything of course.",
">\n\nI suppose.\nBring on preferential voting"
] |
>
In 1974 the USA wound up with a strange situation in which a person appointed to fill the vacant Vice Presidency moved up to President after Richard Nixon had to scandalously resign. Then a billionaire insider (Nelson Rockefeller) was appointed to be Gerald Ford's vice president.
So we had an un-elected President and Vice President from a very unpopular and deeply incriminated party running the country--and running for (not)re-election as incumbents.
I remember it; it was a comparatively quiet and peaceful time. The government continued to function and honestly it was a small window of economic stability in between energy crises and then tax cut recessions. But there were people openly asking if the rich people were just going to run off with the country. Nobody seemed particularly prepared or inclined to do anything about it if it happened--by then the government had figured out how to infiltrate and discredit any large public demonstrations.
In retrospect it's clear they didn't take over because they already had. Why suspend elections when you can just swing them your way through a series of amazing coincidences and backroom deals with foreign nations?
Sorry, I realize that doesn't help you very much. But perhaps you'll hear the first verse of that rhyme in your own nation's history and stop the poem before it can finish. | [
"The closest comparison I can think of is En Marche ! From France, but I don’t think that would be a proper comparison.\nEdit: To clarify, Emanuel Macrons party did not exist in any meaningful way before his campaign. He won the presidential election just over a year after the founding of the party and they had no or very little political representation in governing bodies. The situation is different now, but 2015 the party was not even founded.",
">\n\nSinn Féin in Ireland might be a partial example. They’ve always been sidelined as a fringe party with no real power in the Republic of Ireland, but in 2020 they had an unexpected massive wave of support and won the most seats of any party (not a majority, but still significant). \nBut the two main parties (Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael) basically pretended Sinn Féin didn’t exist, and spent every waking hour trying to delegitimize them. They essentially united in an effort to ensure that a strong third party couldn’t have any influence in government, as that would threaten the status quo of their duopoly on power. \nIf a third party candidate won the presidency in the United States, you would likely see a similar response from Congress. The Republicans and Democrats would team up to oppose any change to the status quo and kill the momentum of a third party. \nCabinet appointments would be held up by Congress unless the nominees were from the establishment of either main party. Legislation would likely be introduced to make it harder for a third party to establish itself in Congress or a future presidential election. Each party would likely even refuse to support positive legislation that aligns with its own platform, for fear that any positive development’s under a third-party presidency will threaten the two-party system in the long term. \nBasically the only power the President would have is in foreign policy, where Congress has ceded its authority so representatives aren’t responsible for tough decisions. But even that night be brief. Maybe the only positive outcome of a third party President is that Congress might pass legislation to reclaim its foreign policy / military responsibilities and make it harder for future presidents to green-light foreign military escapades without any democratic oversight. \nIMO, in the American system, it is MUCH more important for a third party to establish itself in Congress than the White House. A good Congress can keep a bad President in check much more easily than can a good President keep a bad Congress in check.",
">\n\nI'd say Ross Perot's candidacy is probably the reason Bill Clinton was able to defeat George Bush Sr. \nI don't know if Perot actually intended to win or if he intended to be a spoiler candidate, but he seemed to siphon more Republican votes than Democratic votes, thus resulting in a Democratic win.",
">\n\nThe turnout in 1992 was about 6% higher than 1988 and 1996.\nI have to imagine that a good portion of Perot voters wouldn't have voted for Clinton or Bush at all. They'd have stayed home.",
">\n\nWhen it happened in Canada it didn’t work out very well. I can’t source it for you at the moment, but if you research ‘Canada Elects NDP’ it should pop up. They were and are always the 3rd party underdogs. They won the election and were basically caught with their pants down.",
">\n\nI believe you may be talking about Bob Rae’s NDP government in the province of Ontario, not all of Canada. The NDP has never formed a national government but it has been in government in 6 out of 10 provinces at one time or another.",
">\n\nThey did make federal Opposition one election.",
">\n\nSomething the Bloc Québécois has done as well! It's generally more an indication that either the Cons or the Liberals have fielded a poor candidate than anything of course.",
">\n\nI suppose.\nBring on preferential voting",
">\n\nThere have been a few party systems in the United States over the course of its existence.\nUsually, it plays out like this:\n\nThe United States faces a split over an important difference in policy (Constitution vs Articles of Confederation, banking and tariffs, slavery, Civil Rights)\nThe parties start defining themselves over this central issue (Federalists vs Democratic-Republicans, Whigs vs Democrats, Democrats vs Republicans, Democrats vs Republicans vs Southern Democrats)\nOnce a new central issue arises, either a new party springs up and subsumes one of the two existing parties, as the previous split no longer adequately defines the party coalitions, or one of the two existing parties incorporates the issue into their platform and absorbs the new party.\n\nThe best example of this is the Whigs, a party that differentiated themselves from Democrats on economic grounds, but who didn't really have a reason to exist when economic differences became less important than views on slavery.\nIn general, since both parties are already pretty ideologically diverse, its very difficult to make a meaningful third party run"
] |
>
Gerald Ford is an interesting case.
He was elected to be a House Rep, was re-elected to House Rep while a Majority Leader, and was elected as Majority Leader by his House Rep peers (all democratically elected members). He then was promoted to VP when Agnew resigned, fulfilling his role as House Majority Leader; which is a predictable part of the title.
So Ford was democratically chosen to be VP, just not directly. He's promotion was still beholden to voters.
It looks like Nelson Rockefeller had some federal government work and was also NY's governor for a bit, fairly recent to his appointment to VP. So while this still was definitely not elected directly nor indirectly, he wasn't just a rich insider; he had creditenials of plenty of presidential candidates. | [
"The closest comparison I can think of is En Marche ! From France, but I don’t think that would be a proper comparison.\nEdit: To clarify, Emanuel Macrons party did not exist in any meaningful way before his campaign. He won the presidential election just over a year after the founding of the party and they had no or very little political representation in governing bodies. The situation is different now, but 2015 the party was not even founded.",
">\n\nSinn Féin in Ireland might be a partial example. They’ve always been sidelined as a fringe party with no real power in the Republic of Ireland, but in 2020 they had an unexpected massive wave of support and won the most seats of any party (not a majority, but still significant). \nBut the two main parties (Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael) basically pretended Sinn Féin didn’t exist, and spent every waking hour trying to delegitimize them. They essentially united in an effort to ensure that a strong third party couldn’t have any influence in government, as that would threaten the status quo of their duopoly on power. \nIf a third party candidate won the presidency in the United States, you would likely see a similar response from Congress. The Republicans and Democrats would team up to oppose any change to the status quo and kill the momentum of a third party. \nCabinet appointments would be held up by Congress unless the nominees were from the establishment of either main party. Legislation would likely be introduced to make it harder for a third party to establish itself in Congress or a future presidential election. Each party would likely even refuse to support positive legislation that aligns with its own platform, for fear that any positive development’s under a third-party presidency will threaten the two-party system in the long term. \nBasically the only power the President would have is in foreign policy, where Congress has ceded its authority so representatives aren’t responsible for tough decisions. But even that night be brief. Maybe the only positive outcome of a third party President is that Congress might pass legislation to reclaim its foreign policy / military responsibilities and make it harder for future presidents to green-light foreign military escapades without any democratic oversight. \nIMO, in the American system, it is MUCH more important for a third party to establish itself in Congress than the White House. A good Congress can keep a bad President in check much more easily than can a good President keep a bad Congress in check.",
">\n\nI'd say Ross Perot's candidacy is probably the reason Bill Clinton was able to defeat George Bush Sr. \nI don't know if Perot actually intended to win or if he intended to be a spoiler candidate, but he seemed to siphon more Republican votes than Democratic votes, thus resulting in a Democratic win.",
">\n\nThe turnout in 1992 was about 6% higher than 1988 and 1996.\nI have to imagine that a good portion of Perot voters wouldn't have voted for Clinton or Bush at all. They'd have stayed home.",
">\n\nWhen it happened in Canada it didn’t work out very well. I can’t source it for you at the moment, but if you research ‘Canada Elects NDP’ it should pop up. They were and are always the 3rd party underdogs. They won the election and were basically caught with their pants down.",
">\n\nI believe you may be talking about Bob Rae’s NDP government in the province of Ontario, not all of Canada. The NDP has never formed a national government but it has been in government in 6 out of 10 provinces at one time or another.",
">\n\nThey did make federal Opposition one election.",
">\n\nSomething the Bloc Québécois has done as well! It's generally more an indication that either the Cons or the Liberals have fielded a poor candidate than anything of course.",
">\n\nI suppose.\nBring on preferential voting",
">\n\nThere have been a few party systems in the United States over the course of its existence.\nUsually, it plays out like this:\n\nThe United States faces a split over an important difference in policy (Constitution vs Articles of Confederation, banking and tariffs, slavery, Civil Rights)\nThe parties start defining themselves over this central issue (Federalists vs Democratic-Republicans, Whigs vs Democrats, Democrats vs Republicans, Democrats vs Republicans vs Southern Democrats)\nOnce a new central issue arises, either a new party springs up and subsumes one of the two existing parties, as the previous split no longer adequately defines the party coalitions, or one of the two existing parties incorporates the issue into their platform and absorbs the new party.\n\nThe best example of this is the Whigs, a party that differentiated themselves from Democrats on economic grounds, but who didn't really have a reason to exist when economic differences became less important than views on slavery.\nIn general, since both parties are already pretty ideologically diverse, its very difficult to make a meaningful third party run",
">\n\nIn 1974 the USA wound up with a strange situation in which a person appointed to fill the vacant Vice Presidency moved up to President after Richard Nixon had to scandalously resign. Then a billionaire insider (Nelson Rockefeller) was appointed to be Gerald Ford's vice president.\nSo we had an un-elected President and Vice President from a very unpopular and deeply incriminated party running the country--and running for (not)re-election as incumbents.\nI remember it; it was a comparatively quiet and peaceful time. The government continued to function and honestly it was a small window of economic stability in between energy crises and then tax cut recessions. But there were people openly asking if the rich people were just going to run off with the country. Nobody seemed particularly prepared or inclined to do anything about it if it happened--by then the government had figured out how to infiltrate and discredit any large public demonstrations. \nIn retrospect it's clear they didn't take over because they already had. Why suspend elections when you can just swing them your way through a series of amazing coincidences and backroom deals with foreign nations?\nSorry, I realize that doesn't help you very much. But perhaps you'll hear the first verse of that rhyme in your own nation's history and stop the poem before it can finish."
] |
>
Small correction: He was Minority Leader. Republicans didn't retake the House following the Great Depression until the 90s. Next in line for the Presidency after the VP is usually the Speaker of the House, who almost always comes from the Majority party (Democrats at the time), rather than the minority. He was chosen for VP essentially because the Democrats in Congress were worried about what would happen if they forced a Democrat in the position, both because Nixon would throw a shitfit, and because it would be seen as usurping the will of the voters, who had, state-wide, almost unanimously chosen a Republican as Vice President. It coming out later that Nixon used dirty tricks to help secure that vote in the election, which ended up getting him removed from office, made their worries a tad ironic. | [
"The closest comparison I can think of is En Marche ! From France, but I don’t think that would be a proper comparison.\nEdit: To clarify, Emanuel Macrons party did not exist in any meaningful way before his campaign. He won the presidential election just over a year after the founding of the party and they had no or very little political representation in governing bodies. The situation is different now, but 2015 the party was not even founded.",
">\n\nSinn Féin in Ireland might be a partial example. They’ve always been sidelined as a fringe party with no real power in the Republic of Ireland, but in 2020 they had an unexpected massive wave of support and won the most seats of any party (not a majority, but still significant). \nBut the two main parties (Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael) basically pretended Sinn Féin didn’t exist, and spent every waking hour trying to delegitimize them. They essentially united in an effort to ensure that a strong third party couldn’t have any influence in government, as that would threaten the status quo of their duopoly on power. \nIf a third party candidate won the presidency in the United States, you would likely see a similar response from Congress. The Republicans and Democrats would team up to oppose any change to the status quo and kill the momentum of a third party. \nCabinet appointments would be held up by Congress unless the nominees were from the establishment of either main party. Legislation would likely be introduced to make it harder for a third party to establish itself in Congress or a future presidential election. Each party would likely even refuse to support positive legislation that aligns with its own platform, for fear that any positive development’s under a third-party presidency will threaten the two-party system in the long term. \nBasically the only power the President would have is in foreign policy, where Congress has ceded its authority so representatives aren’t responsible for tough decisions. But even that night be brief. Maybe the only positive outcome of a third party President is that Congress might pass legislation to reclaim its foreign policy / military responsibilities and make it harder for future presidents to green-light foreign military escapades without any democratic oversight. \nIMO, in the American system, it is MUCH more important for a third party to establish itself in Congress than the White House. A good Congress can keep a bad President in check much more easily than can a good President keep a bad Congress in check.",
">\n\nI'd say Ross Perot's candidacy is probably the reason Bill Clinton was able to defeat George Bush Sr. \nI don't know if Perot actually intended to win or if he intended to be a spoiler candidate, but he seemed to siphon more Republican votes than Democratic votes, thus resulting in a Democratic win.",
">\n\nThe turnout in 1992 was about 6% higher than 1988 and 1996.\nI have to imagine that a good portion of Perot voters wouldn't have voted for Clinton or Bush at all. They'd have stayed home.",
">\n\nWhen it happened in Canada it didn’t work out very well. I can’t source it for you at the moment, but if you research ‘Canada Elects NDP’ it should pop up. They were and are always the 3rd party underdogs. They won the election and were basically caught with their pants down.",
">\n\nI believe you may be talking about Bob Rae’s NDP government in the province of Ontario, not all of Canada. The NDP has never formed a national government but it has been in government in 6 out of 10 provinces at one time or another.",
">\n\nThey did make federal Opposition one election.",
">\n\nSomething the Bloc Québécois has done as well! It's generally more an indication that either the Cons or the Liberals have fielded a poor candidate than anything of course.",
">\n\nI suppose.\nBring on preferential voting",
">\n\nThere have been a few party systems in the United States over the course of its existence.\nUsually, it plays out like this:\n\nThe United States faces a split over an important difference in policy (Constitution vs Articles of Confederation, banking and tariffs, slavery, Civil Rights)\nThe parties start defining themselves over this central issue (Federalists vs Democratic-Republicans, Whigs vs Democrats, Democrats vs Republicans, Democrats vs Republicans vs Southern Democrats)\nOnce a new central issue arises, either a new party springs up and subsumes one of the two existing parties, as the previous split no longer adequately defines the party coalitions, or one of the two existing parties incorporates the issue into their platform and absorbs the new party.\n\nThe best example of this is the Whigs, a party that differentiated themselves from Democrats on economic grounds, but who didn't really have a reason to exist when economic differences became less important than views on slavery.\nIn general, since both parties are already pretty ideologically diverse, its very difficult to make a meaningful third party run",
">\n\nIn 1974 the USA wound up with a strange situation in which a person appointed to fill the vacant Vice Presidency moved up to President after Richard Nixon had to scandalously resign. Then a billionaire insider (Nelson Rockefeller) was appointed to be Gerald Ford's vice president.\nSo we had an un-elected President and Vice President from a very unpopular and deeply incriminated party running the country--and running for (not)re-election as incumbents.\nI remember it; it was a comparatively quiet and peaceful time. The government continued to function and honestly it was a small window of economic stability in between energy crises and then tax cut recessions. But there were people openly asking if the rich people were just going to run off with the country. Nobody seemed particularly prepared or inclined to do anything about it if it happened--by then the government had figured out how to infiltrate and discredit any large public demonstrations. \nIn retrospect it's clear they didn't take over because they already had. Why suspend elections when you can just swing them your way through a series of amazing coincidences and backroom deals with foreign nations?\nSorry, I realize that doesn't help you very much. But perhaps you'll hear the first verse of that rhyme in your own nation's history and stop the poem before it can finish.",
">\n\nGerald Ford is an interesting case. \nHe was elected to be a House Rep, was re-elected to House Rep while a Majority Leader, and was elected as Majority Leader by his House Rep peers (all democratically elected members). He then was promoted to VP when Agnew resigned, fulfilling his role as House Majority Leader; which is a predictable part of the title.\nSo Ford was democratically chosen to be VP, just not directly. He's promotion was still beholden to voters. \nIt looks like Nelson Rockefeller had some federal government work and was also NY's governor for a bit, fairly recent to his appointment to VP. So while this still was definitely not elected directly nor indirectly, he wasn't just a rich insider; he had creditenials of plenty of presidential candidates."
] |
>
It coming out later that Nixon used dirty tricks to help secure that vote in the election
Obviously Nixon cheated and broke the law several times including related to the election, but you would have a had time convincing me that that alone is how he wound up with 60% of the popular vote and >500 electoral votes (all but MA and DC). | [
"The closest comparison I can think of is En Marche ! From France, but I don’t think that would be a proper comparison.\nEdit: To clarify, Emanuel Macrons party did not exist in any meaningful way before his campaign. He won the presidential election just over a year after the founding of the party and they had no or very little political representation in governing bodies. The situation is different now, but 2015 the party was not even founded.",
">\n\nSinn Féin in Ireland might be a partial example. They’ve always been sidelined as a fringe party with no real power in the Republic of Ireland, but in 2020 they had an unexpected massive wave of support and won the most seats of any party (not a majority, but still significant). \nBut the two main parties (Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael) basically pretended Sinn Féin didn’t exist, and spent every waking hour trying to delegitimize them. They essentially united in an effort to ensure that a strong third party couldn’t have any influence in government, as that would threaten the status quo of their duopoly on power. \nIf a third party candidate won the presidency in the United States, you would likely see a similar response from Congress. The Republicans and Democrats would team up to oppose any change to the status quo and kill the momentum of a third party. \nCabinet appointments would be held up by Congress unless the nominees were from the establishment of either main party. Legislation would likely be introduced to make it harder for a third party to establish itself in Congress or a future presidential election. Each party would likely even refuse to support positive legislation that aligns with its own platform, for fear that any positive development’s under a third-party presidency will threaten the two-party system in the long term. \nBasically the only power the President would have is in foreign policy, where Congress has ceded its authority so representatives aren’t responsible for tough decisions. But even that night be brief. Maybe the only positive outcome of a third party President is that Congress might pass legislation to reclaim its foreign policy / military responsibilities and make it harder for future presidents to green-light foreign military escapades without any democratic oversight. \nIMO, in the American system, it is MUCH more important for a third party to establish itself in Congress than the White House. A good Congress can keep a bad President in check much more easily than can a good President keep a bad Congress in check.",
">\n\nI'd say Ross Perot's candidacy is probably the reason Bill Clinton was able to defeat George Bush Sr. \nI don't know if Perot actually intended to win or if he intended to be a spoiler candidate, but he seemed to siphon more Republican votes than Democratic votes, thus resulting in a Democratic win.",
">\n\nThe turnout in 1992 was about 6% higher than 1988 and 1996.\nI have to imagine that a good portion of Perot voters wouldn't have voted for Clinton or Bush at all. They'd have stayed home.",
">\n\nWhen it happened in Canada it didn’t work out very well. I can’t source it for you at the moment, but if you research ‘Canada Elects NDP’ it should pop up. They were and are always the 3rd party underdogs. They won the election and were basically caught with their pants down.",
">\n\nI believe you may be talking about Bob Rae’s NDP government in the province of Ontario, not all of Canada. The NDP has never formed a national government but it has been in government in 6 out of 10 provinces at one time or another.",
">\n\nThey did make federal Opposition one election.",
">\n\nSomething the Bloc Québécois has done as well! It's generally more an indication that either the Cons or the Liberals have fielded a poor candidate than anything of course.",
">\n\nI suppose.\nBring on preferential voting",
">\n\nThere have been a few party systems in the United States over the course of its existence.\nUsually, it plays out like this:\n\nThe United States faces a split over an important difference in policy (Constitution vs Articles of Confederation, banking and tariffs, slavery, Civil Rights)\nThe parties start defining themselves over this central issue (Federalists vs Democratic-Republicans, Whigs vs Democrats, Democrats vs Republicans, Democrats vs Republicans vs Southern Democrats)\nOnce a new central issue arises, either a new party springs up and subsumes one of the two existing parties, as the previous split no longer adequately defines the party coalitions, or one of the two existing parties incorporates the issue into their platform and absorbs the new party.\n\nThe best example of this is the Whigs, a party that differentiated themselves from Democrats on economic grounds, but who didn't really have a reason to exist when economic differences became less important than views on slavery.\nIn general, since both parties are already pretty ideologically diverse, its very difficult to make a meaningful third party run",
">\n\nIn 1974 the USA wound up with a strange situation in which a person appointed to fill the vacant Vice Presidency moved up to President after Richard Nixon had to scandalously resign. Then a billionaire insider (Nelson Rockefeller) was appointed to be Gerald Ford's vice president.\nSo we had an un-elected President and Vice President from a very unpopular and deeply incriminated party running the country--and running for (not)re-election as incumbents.\nI remember it; it was a comparatively quiet and peaceful time. The government continued to function and honestly it was a small window of economic stability in between energy crises and then tax cut recessions. But there were people openly asking if the rich people were just going to run off with the country. Nobody seemed particularly prepared or inclined to do anything about it if it happened--by then the government had figured out how to infiltrate and discredit any large public demonstrations. \nIn retrospect it's clear they didn't take over because they already had. Why suspend elections when you can just swing them your way through a series of amazing coincidences and backroom deals with foreign nations?\nSorry, I realize that doesn't help you very much. But perhaps you'll hear the first verse of that rhyme in your own nation's history and stop the poem before it can finish.",
">\n\nGerald Ford is an interesting case. \nHe was elected to be a House Rep, was re-elected to House Rep while a Majority Leader, and was elected as Majority Leader by his House Rep peers (all democratically elected members). He then was promoted to VP when Agnew resigned, fulfilling his role as House Majority Leader; which is a predictable part of the title.\nSo Ford was democratically chosen to be VP, just not directly. He's promotion was still beholden to voters. \nIt looks like Nelson Rockefeller had some federal government work and was also NY's governor for a bit, fairly recent to his appointment to VP. So while this still was definitely not elected directly nor indirectly, he wasn't just a rich insider; he had creditenials of plenty of presidential candidates.",
">\n\nSmall correction: He was Minority Leader. Republicans didn't retake the House following the Great Depression until the 90s. Next in line for the Presidency after the VP is usually the Speaker of the House, who almost always comes from the Majority party (Democrats at the time), rather than the minority. He was chosen for VP essentially because the Democrats in Congress were worried about what would happen if they forced a Democrat in the position, both because Nixon would throw a shitfit, and because it would be seen as usurping the will of the voters, who had, state-wide, almost unanimously chosen a Republican as Vice President. It coming out later that Nixon used dirty tricks to help secure that vote in the election, which ended up getting him removed from office, made their worries a tad ironic."
] |
>
The main thing that's people generally look at for the '72 election for why McGovern lost so badly is how Eagleton's psychiatric history was leaked and how poorly McGovern handled it. Knowing what we know about Nixon, I would be very unsurprised if he had a hand in some of that, especially considering they specifically were tapping the DNC in Watergate...and that's just what they've been caught on. Add on the calls we have for '68 with the Vietnamese, and there's a decent chance that without his illegal shit, Nixon loses '72. | [
"The closest comparison I can think of is En Marche ! From France, but I don’t think that would be a proper comparison.\nEdit: To clarify, Emanuel Macrons party did not exist in any meaningful way before his campaign. He won the presidential election just over a year after the founding of the party and they had no or very little political representation in governing bodies. The situation is different now, but 2015 the party was not even founded.",
">\n\nSinn Féin in Ireland might be a partial example. They’ve always been sidelined as a fringe party with no real power in the Republic of Ireland, but in 2020 they had an unexpected massive wave of support and won the most seats of any party (not a majority, but still significant). \nBut the two main parties (Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael) basically pretended Sinn Féin didn’t exist, and spent every waking hour trying to delegitimize them. They essentially united in an effort to ensure that a strong third party couldn’t have any influence in government, as that would threaten the status quo of their duopoly on power. \nIf a third party candidate won the presidency in the United States, you would likely see a similar response from Congress. The Republicans and Democrats would team up to oppose any change to the status quo and kill the momentum of a third party. \nCabinet appointments would be held up by Congress unless the nominees were from the establishment of either main party. Legislation would likely be introduced to make it harder for a third party to establish itself in Congress or a future presidential election. Each party would likely even refuse to support positive legislation that aligns with its own platform, for fear that any positive development’s under a third-party presidency will threaten the two-party system in the long term. \nBasically the only power the President would have is in foreign policy, where Congress has ceded its authority so representatives aren’t responsible for tough decisions. But even that night be brief. Maybe the only positive outcome of a third party President is that Congress might pass legislation to reclaim its foreign policy / military responsibilities and make it harder for future presidents to green-light foreign military escapades without any democratic oversight. \nIMO, in the American system, it is MUCH more important for a third party to establish itself in Congress than the White House. A good Congress can keep a bad President in check much more easily than can a good President keep a bad Congress in check.",
">\n\nI'd say Ross Perot's candidacy is probably the reason Bill Clinton was able to defeat George Bush Sr. \nI don't know if Perot actually intended to win or if he intended to be a spoiler candidate, but he seemed to siphon more Republican votes than Democratic votes, thus resulting in a Democratic win.",
">\n\nThe turnout in 1992 was about 6% higher than 1988 and 1996.\nI have to imagine that a good portion of Perot voters wouldn't have voted for Clinton or Bush at all. They'd have stayed home.",
">\n\nWhen it happened in Canada it didn’t work out very well. I can’t source it for you at the moment, but if you research ‘Canada Elects NDP’ it should pop up. They were and are always the 3rd party underdogs. They won the election and were basically caught with their pants down.",
">\n\nI believe you may be talking about Bob Rae’s NDP government in the province of Ontario, not all of Canada. The NDP has never formed a national government but it has been in government in 6 out of 10 provinces at one time or another.",
">\n\nThey did make federal Opposition one election.",
">\n\nSomething the Bloc Québécois has done as well! It's generally more an indication that either the Cons or the Liberals have fielded a poor candidate than anything of course.",
">\n\nI suppose.\nBring on preferential voting",
">\n\nThere have been a few party systems in the United States over the course of its existence.\nUsually, it plays out like this:\n\nThe United States faces a split over an important difference in policy (Constitution vs Articles of Confederation, banking and tariffs, slavery, Civil Rights)\nThe parties start defining themselves over this central issue (Federalists vs Democratic-Republicans, Whigs vs Democrats, Democrats vs Republicans, Democrats vs Republicans vs Southern Democrats)\nOnce a new central issue arises, either a new party springs up and subsumes one of the two existing parties, as the previous split no longer adequately defines the party coalitions, or one of the two existing parties incorporates the issue into their platform and absorbs the new party.\n\nThe best example of this is the Whigs, a party that differentiated themselves from Democrats on economic grounds, but who didn't really have a reason to exist when economic differences became less important than views on slavery.\nIn general, since both parties are already pretty ideologically diverse, its very difficult to make a meaningful third party run",
">\n\nIn 1974 the USA wound up with a strange situation in which a person appointed to fill the vacant Vice Presidency moved up to President after Richard Nixon had to scandalously resign. Then a billionaire insider (Nelson Rockefeller) was appointed to be Gerald Ford's vice president.\nSo we had an un-elected President and Vice President from a very unpopular and deeply incriminated party running the country--and running for (not)re-election as incumbents.\nI remember it; it was a comparatively quiet and peaceful time. The government continued to function and honestly it was a small window of economic stability in between energy crises and then tax cut recessions. But there were people openly asking if the rich people were just going to run off with the country. Nobody seemed particularly prepared or inclined to do anything about it if it happened--by then the government had figured out how to infiltrate and discredit any large public demonstrations. \nIn retrospect it's clear they didn't take over because they already had. Why suspend elections when you can just swing them your way through a series of amazing coincidences and backroom deals with foreign nations?\nSorry, I realize that doesn't help you very much. But perhaps you'll hear the first verse of that rhyme in your own nation's history and stop the poem before it can finish.",
">\n\nGerald Ford is an interesting case. \nHe was elected to be a House Rep, was re-elected to House Rep while a Majority Leader, and was elected as Majority Leader by his House Rep peers (all democratically elected members). He then was promoted to VP when Agnew resigned, fulfilling his role as House Majority Leader; which is a predictable part of the title.\nSo Ford was democratically chosen to be VP, just not directly. He's promotion was still beholden to voters. \nIt looks like Nelson Rockefeller had some federal government work and was also NY's governor for a bit, fairly recent to his appointment to VP. So while this still was definitely not elected directly nor indirectly, he wasn't just a rich insider; he had creditenials of plenty of presidential candidates.",
">\n\nSmall correction: He was Minority Leader. Republicans didn't retake the House following the Great Depression until the 90s. Next in line for the Presidency after the VP is usually the Speaker of the House, who almost always comes from the Majority party (Democrats at the time), rather than the minority. He was chosen for VP essentially because the Democrats in Congress were worried about what would happen if they forced a Democrat in the position, both because Nixon would throw a shitfit, and because it would be seen as usurping the will of the voters, who had, state-wide, almost unanimously chosen a Republican as Vice President. It coming out later that Nixon used dirty tricks to help secure that vote in the election, which ended up getting him removed from office, made their worries a tad ironic.",
">\n\n\nIt coming out later that Nixon used dirty tricks to help secure that vote in the election\n\nObviously Nixon cheated and broke the law several times including related to the election, but you would have a had time convincing me that that alone is how he wound up with 60% of the popular vote and >500 electoral votes (all but MA and DC)."
] |
>
Yeah they were still playing defense for secretly getting the South Vietnamese to spike Lyndon Johnson's peace plan. They actually secretly negotiated to kill more Americans so that they could swing the election. (And that was only the first time. They did it again in 1980, secretly negotiating with Iran to keep Americans in captivity until after Jimmy Carter left office.)
And the only reason they outran the Vietnam thing is because the public and justice had to focus on getting an arch-criminal out of the Vice President's slot first. And then Watergate caught up to them before the treason did. | [
"The closest comparison I can think of is En Marche ! From France, but I don’t think that would be a proper comparison.\nEdit: To clarify, Emanuel Macrons party did not exist in any meaningful way before his campaign. He won the presidential election just over a year after the founding of the party and they had no or very little political representation in governing bodies. The situation is different now, but 2015 the party was not even founded.",
">\n\nSinn Féin in Ireland might be a partial example. They’ve always been sidelined as a fringe party with no real power in the Republic of Ireland, but in 2020 they had an unexpected massive wave of support and won the most seats of any party (not a majority, but still significant). \nBut the two main parties (Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael) basically pretended Sinn Féin didn’t exist, and spent every waking hour trying to delegitimize them. They essentially united in an effort to ensure that a strong third party couldn’t have any influence in government, as that would threaten the status quo of their duopoly on power. \nIf a third party candidate won the presidency in the United States, you would likely see a similar response from Congress. The Republicans and Democrats would team up to oppose any change to the status quo and kill the momentum of a third party. \nCabinet appointments would be held up by Congress unless the nominees were from the establishment of either main party. Legislation would likely be introduced to make it harder for a third party to establish itself in Congress or a future presidential election. Each party would likely even refuse to support positive legislation that aligns with its own platform, for fear that any positive development’s under a third-party presidency will threaten the two-party system in the long term. \nBasically the only power the President would have is in foreign policy, where Congress has ceded its authority so representatives aren’t responsible for tough decisions. But even that night be brief. Maybe the only positive outcome of a third party President is that Congress might pass legislation to reclaim its foreign policy / military responsibilities and make it harder for future presidents to green-light foreign military escapades without any democratic oversight. \nIMO, in the American system, it is MUCH more important for a third party to establish itself in Congress than the White House. A good Congress can keep a bad President in check much more easily than can a good President keep a bad Congress in check.",
">\n\nI'd say Ross Perot's candidacy is probably the reason Bill Clinton was able to defeat George Bush Sr. \nI don't know if Perot actually intended to win or if he intended to be a spoiler candidate, but he seemed to siphon more Republican votes than Democratic votes, thus resulting in a Democratic win.",
">\n\nThe turnout in 1992 was about 6% higher than 1988 and 1996.\nI have to imagine that a good portion of Perot voters wouldn't have voted for Clinton or Bush at all. They'd have stayed home.",
">\n\nWhen it happened in Canada it didn’t work out very well. I can’t source it for you at the moment, but if you research ‘Canada Elects NDP’ it should pop up. They were and are always the 3rd party underdogs. They won the election and were basically caught with their pants down.",
">\n\nI believe you may be talking about Bob Rae’s NDP government in the province of Ontario, not all of Canada. The NDP has never formed a national government but it has been in government in 6 out of 10 provinces at one time or another.",
">\n\nThey did make federal Opposition one election.",
">\n\nSomething the Bloc Québécois has done as well! It's generally more an indication that either the Cons or the Liberals have fielded a poor candidate than anything of course.",
">\n\nI suppose.\nBring on preferential voting",
">\n\nThere have been a few party systems in the United States over the course of its existence.\nUsually, it plays out like this:\n\nThe United States faces a split over an important difference in policy (Constitution vs Articles of Confederation, banking and tariffs, slavery, Civil Rights)\nThe parties start defining themselves over this central issue (Federalists vs Democratic-Republicans, Whigs vs Democrats, Democrats vs Republicans, Democrats vs Republicans vs Southern Democrats)\nOnce a new central issue arises, either a new party springs up and subsumes one of the two existing parties, as the previous split no longer adequately defines the party coalitions, or one of the two existing parties incorporates the issue into their platform and absorbs the new party.\n\nThe best example of this is the Whigs, a party that differentiated themselves from Democrats on economic grounds, but who didn't really have a reason to exist when economic differences became less important than views on slavery.\nIn general, since both parties are already pretty ideologically diverse, its very difficult to make a meaningful third party run",
">\n\nIn 1974 the USA wound up with a strange situation in which a person appointed to fill the vacant Vice Presidency moved up to President after Richard Nixon had to scandalously resign. Then a billionaire insider (Nelson Rockefeller) was appointed to be Gerald Ford's vice president.\nSo we had an un-elected President and Vice President from a very unpopular and deeply incriminated party running the country--and running for (not)re-election as incumbents.\nI remember it; it was a comparatively quiet and peaceful time. The government continued to function and honestly it was a small window of economic stability in between energy crises and then tax cut recessions. But there were people openly asking if the rich people were just going to run off with the country. Nobody seemed particularly prepared or inclined to do anything about it if it happened--by then the government had figured out how to infiltrate and discredit any large public demonstrations. \nIn retrospect it's clear they didn't take over because they already had. Why suspend elections when you can just swing them your way through a series of amazing coincidences and backroom deals with foreign nations?\nSorry, I realize that doesn't help you very much. But perhaps you'll hear the first verse of that rhyme in your own nation's history and stop the poem before it can finish.",
">\n\nGerald Ford is an interesting case. \nHe was elected to be a House Rep, was re-elected to House Rep while a Majority Leader, and was elected as Majority Leader by his House Rep peers (all democratically elected members). He then was promoted to VP when Agnew resigned, fulfilling his role as House Majority Leader; which is a predictable part of the title.\nSo Ford was democratically chosen to be VP, just not directly. He's promotion was still beholden to voters. \nIt looks like Nelson Rockefeller had some federal government work and was also NY's governor for a bit, fairly recent to his appointment to VP. So while this still was definitely not elected directly nor indirectly, he wasn't just a rich insider; he had creditenials of plenty of presidential candidates.",
">\n\nSmall correction: He was Minority Leader. Republicans didn't retake the House following the Great Depression until the 90s. Next in line for the Presidency after the VP is usually the Speaker of the House, who almost always comes from the Majority party (Democrats at the time), rather than the minority. He was chosen for VP essentially because the Democrats in Congress were worried about what would happen if they forced a Democrat in the position, both because Nixon would throw a shitfit, and because it would be seen as usurping the will of the voters, who had, state-wide, almost unanimously chosen a Republican as Vice President. It coming out later that Nixon used dirty tricks to help secure that vote in the election, which ended up getting him removed from office, made their worries a tad ironic.",
">\n\n\nIt coming out later that Nixon used dirty tricks to help secure that vote in the election\n\nObviously Nixon cheated and broke the law several times including related to the election, but you would have a had time convincing me that that alone is how he wound up with 60% of the popular vote and >500 electoral votes (all but MA and DC).",
">\n\nThe main thing that's people generally look at for the '72 election for why McGovern lost so badly is how Eagleton's psychiatric history was leaked and how poorly McGovern handled it. Knowing what we know about Nixon, I would be very unsurprised if he had a hand in some of that, especially considering they specifically were tapping the DNC in Watergate...and that's just what they've been caught on. Add on the calls we have for '68 with the Vietnamese, and there's a decent chance that without his illegal shit, Nixon loses '72."
] |
>
An unpopular party cannot win an election. If they win, they're ipso facto popular. | [
"The closest comparison I can think of is En Marche ! From France, but I don’t think that would be a proper comparison.\nEdit: To clarify, Emanuel Macrons party did not exist in any meaningful way before his campaign. He won the presidential election just over a year after the founding of the party and they had no or very little political representation in governing bodies. The situation is different now, but 2015 the party was not even founded.",
">\n\nSinn Féin in Ireland might be a partial example. They’ve always been sidelined as a fringe party with no real power in the Republic of Ireland, but in 2020 they had an unexpected massive wave of support and won the most seats of any party (not a majority, but still significant). \nBut the two main parties (Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael) basically pretended Sinn Féin didn’t exist, and spent every waking hour trying to delegitimize them. They essentially united in an effort to ensure that a strong third party couldn’t have any influence in government, as that would threaten the status quo of their duopoly on power. \nIf a third party candidate won the presidency in the United States, you would likely see a similar response from Congress. The Republicans and Democrats would team up to oppose any change to the status quo and kill the momentum of a third party. \nCabinet appointments would be held up by Congress unless the nominees were from the establishment of either main party. Legislation would likely be introduced to make it harder for a third party to establish itself in Congress or a future presidential election. Each party would likely even refuse to support positive legislation that aligns with its own platform, for fear that any positive development’s under a third-party presidency will threaten the two-party system in the long term. \nBasically the only power the President would have is in foreign policy, where Congress has ceded its authority so representatives aren’t responsible for tough decisions. But even that night be brief. Maybe the only positive outcome of a third party President is that Congress might pass legislation to reclaim its foreign policy / military responsibilities and make it harder for future presidents to green-light foreign military escapades without any democratic oversight. \nIMO, in the American system, it is MUCH more important for a third party to establish itself in Congress than the White House. A good Congress can keep a bad President in check much more easily than can a good President keep a bad Congress in check.",
">\n\nI'd say Ross Perot's candidacy is probably the reason Bill Clinton was able to defeat George Bush Sr. \nI don't know if Perot actually intended to win or if he intended to be a spoiler candidate, but he seemed to siphon more Republican votes than Democratic votes, thus resulting in a Democratic win.",
">\n\nThe turnout in 1992 was about 6% higher than 1988 and 1996.\nI have to imagine that a good portion of Perot voters wouldn't have voted for Clinton or Bush at all. They'd have stayed home.",
">\n\nWhen it happened in Canada it didn’t work out very well. I can’t source it for you at the moment, but if you research ‘Canada Elects NDP’ it should pop up. They were and are always the 3rd party underdogs. They won the election and were basically caught with their pants down.",
">\n\nI believe you may be talking about Bob Rae’s NDP government in the province of Ontario, not all of Canada. The NDP has never formed a national government but it has been in government in 6 out of 10 provinces at one time or another.",
">\n\nThey did make federal Opposition one election.",
">\n\nSomething the Bloc Québécois has done as well! It's generally more an indication that either the Cons or the Liberals have fielded a poor candidate than anything of course.",
">\n\nI suppose.\nBring on preferential voting",
">\n\nThere have been a few party systems in the United States over the course of its existence.\nUsually, it plays out like this:\n\nThe United States faces a split over an important difference in policy (Constitution vs Articles of Confederation, banking and tariffs, slavery, Civil Rights)\nThe parties start defining themselves over this central issue (Federalists vs Democratic-Republicans, Whigs vs Democrats, Democrats vs Republicans, Democrats vs Republicans vs Southern Democrats)\nOnce a new central issue arises, either a new party springs up and subsumes one of the two existing parties, as the previous split no longer adequately defines the party coalitions, or one of the two existing parties incorporates the issue into their platform and absorbs the new party.\n\nThe best example of this is the Whigs, a party that differentiated themselves from Democrats on economic grounds, but who didn't really have a reason to exist when economic differences became less important than views on slavery.\nIn general, since both parties are already pretty ideologically diverse, its very difficult to make a meaningful third party run",
">\n\nIn 1974 the USA wound up with a strange situation in which a person appointed to fill the vacant Vice Presidency moved up to President after Richard Nixon had to scandalously resign. Then a billionaire insider (Nelson Rockefeller) was appointed to be Gerald Ford's vice president.\nSo we had an un-elected President and Vice President from a very unpopular and deeply incriminated party running the country--and running for (not)re-election as incumbents.\nI remember it; it was a comparatively quiet and peaceful time. The government continued to function and honestly it was a small window of economic stability in between energy crises and then tax cut recessions. But there were people openly asking if the rich people were just going to run off with the country. Nobody seemed particularly prepared or inclined to do anything about it if it happened--by then the government had figured out how to infiltrate and discredit any large public demonstrations. \nIn retrospect it's clear they didn't take over because they already had. Why suspend elections when you can just swing them your way through a series of amazing coincidences and backroom deals with foreign nations?\nSorry, I realize that doesn't help you very much. But perhaps you'll hear the first verse of that rhyme in your own nation's history and stop the poem before it can finish.",
">\n\nGerald Ford is an interesting case. \nHe was elected to be a House Rep, was re-elected to House Rep while a Majority Leader, and was elected as Majority Leader by his House Rep peers (all democratically elected members). He then was promoted to VP when Agnew resigned, fulfilling his role as House Majority Leader; which is a predictable part of the title.\nSo Ford was democratically chosen to be VP, just not directly. He's promotion was still beholden to voters. \nIt looks like Nelson Rockefeller had some federal government work and was also NY's governor for a bit, fairly recent to his appointment to VP. So while this still was definitely not elected directly nor indirectly, he wasn't just a rich insider; he had creditenials of plenty of presidential candidates.",
">\n\nSmall correction: He was Minority Leader. Republicans didn't retake the House following the Great Depression until the 90s. Next in line for the Presidency after the VP is usually the Speaker of the House, who almost always comes from the Majority party (Democrats at the time), rather than the minority. He was chosen for VP essentially because the Democrats in Congress were worried about what would happen if they forced a Democrat in the position, both because Nixon would throw a shitfit, and because it would be seen as usurping the will of the voters, who had, state-wide, almost unanimously chosen a Republican as Vice President. It coming out later that Nixon used dirty tricks to help secure that vote in the election, which ended up getting him removed from office, made their worries a tad ironic.",
">\n\n\nIt coming out later that Nixon used dirty tricks to help secure that vote in the election\n\nObviously Nixon cheated and broke the law several times including related to the election, but you would have a had time convincing me that that alone is how he wound up with 60% of the popular vote and >500 electoral votes (all but MA and DC).",
">\n\nThe main thing that's people generally look at for the '72 election for why McGovern lost so badly is how Eagleton's psychiatric history was leaked and how poorly McGovern handled it. Knowing what we know about Nixon, I would be very unsurprised if he had a hand in some of that, especially considering they specifically were tapping the DNC in Watergate...and that's just what they've been caught on. Add on the calls we have for '68 with the Vietnamese, and there's a decent chance that without his illegal shit, Nixon loses '72.",
">\n\nYeah they were still playing defense for secretly getting the South Vietnamese to spike Lyndon Johnson's peace plan. They actually secretly negotiated to kill more Americans so that they could swing the election. (And that was only the first time. They did it again in 1980, secretly negotiating with Iran to keep Americans in captivity until after Jimmy Carter left office.)\nAnd the only reason they outran the Vietnam thing is because the public and justice had to focus on getting an arch-criminal out of the Vice President's slot first. And then Watergate caught up to them before the treason did."
] |
>
The USA has a third party that is small and that is the Libertarian Party. It’s best if we don’t let them win. | [
"The closest comparison I can think of is En Marche ! From France, but I don’t think that would be a proper comparison.\nEdit: To clarify, Emanuel Macrons party did not exist in any meaningful way before his campaign. He won the presidential election just over a year after the founding of the party and they had no or very little political representation in governing bodies. The situation is different now, but 2015 the party was not even founded.",
">\n\nSinn Féin in Ireland might be a partial example. They’ve always been sidelined as a fringe party with no real power in the Republic of Ireland, but in 2020 they had an unexpected massive wave of support and won the most seats of any party (not a majority, but still significant). \nBut the two main parties (Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael) basically pretended Sinn Féin didn’t exist, and spent every waking hour trying to delegitimize them. They essentially united in an effort to ensure that a strong third party couldn’t have any influence in government, as that would threaten the status quo of their duopoly on power. \nIf a third party candidate won the presidency in the United States, you would likely see a similar response from Congress. The Republicans and Democrats would team up to oppose any change to the status quo and kill the momentum of a third party. \nCabinet appointments would be held up by Congress unless the nominees were from the establishment of either main party. Legislation would likely be introduced to make it harder for a third party to establish itself in Congress or a future presidential election. Each party would likely even refuse to support positive legislation that aligns with its own platform, for fear that any positive development’s under a third-party presidency will threaten the two-party system in the long term. \nBasically the only power the President would have is in foreign policy, where Congress has ceded its authority so representatives aren’t responsible for tough decisions. But even that night be brief. Maybe the only positive outcome of a third party President is that Congress might pass legislation to reclaim its foreign policy / military responsibilities and make it harder for future presidents to green-light foreign military escapades without any democratic oversight. \nIMO, in the American system, it is MUCH more important for a third party to establish itself in Congress than the White House. A good Congress can keep a bad President in check much more easily than can a good President keep a bad Congress in check.",
">\n\nI'd say Ross Perot's candidacy is probably the reason Bill Clinton was able to defeat George Bush Sr. \nI don't know if Perot actually intended to win or if he intended to be a spoiler candidate, but he seemed to siphon more Republican votes than Democratic votes, thus resulting in a Democratic win.",
">\n\nThe turnout in 1992 was about 6% higher than 1988 and 1996.\nI have to imagine that a good portion of Perot voters wouldn't have voted for Clinton or Bush at all. They'd have stayed home.",
">\n\nWhen it happened in Canada it didn’t work out very well. I can’t source it for you at the moment, but if you research ‘Canada Elects NDP’ it should pop up. They were and are always the 3rd party underdogs. They won the election and were basically caught with their pants down.",
">\n\nI believe you may be talking about Bob Rae’s NDP government in the province of Ontario, not all of Canada. The NDP has never formed a national government but it has been in government in 6 out of 10 provinces at one time or another.",
">\n\nThey did make federal Opposition one election.",
">\n\nSomething the Bloc Québécois has done as well! It's generally more an indication that either the Cons or the Liberals have fielded a poor candidate than anything of course.",
">\n\nI suppose.\nBring on preferential voting",
">\n\nThere have been a few party systems in the United States over the course of its existence.\nUsually, it plays out like this:\n\nThe United States faces a split over an important difference in policy (Constitution vs Articles of Confederation, banking and tariffs, slavery, Civil Rights)\nThe parties start defining themselves over this central issue (Federalists vs Democratic-Republicans, Whigs vs Democrats, Democrats vs Republicans, Democrats vs Republicans vs Southern Democrats)\nOnce a new central issue arises, either a new party springs up and subsumes one of the two existing parties, as the previous split no longer adequately defines the party coalitions, or one of the two existing parties incorporates the issue into their platform and absorbs the new party.\n\nThe best example of this is the Whigs, a party that differentiated themselves from Democrats on economic grounds, but who didn't really have a reason to exist when economic differences became less important than views on slavery.\nIn general, since both parties are already pretty ideologically diverse, its very difficult to make a meaningful third party run",
">\n\nIn 1974 the USA wound up with a strange situation in which a person appointed to fill the vacant Vice Presidency moved up to President after Richard Nixon had to scandalously resign. Then a billionaire insider (Nelson Rockefeller) was appointed to be Gerald Ford's vice president.\nSo we had an un-elected President and Vice President from a very unpopular and deeply incriminated party running the country--and running for (not)re-election as incumbents.\nI remember it; it was a comparatively quiet and peaceful time. The government continued to function and honestly it was a small window of economic stability in between energy crises and then tax cut recessions. But there were people openly asking if the rich people were just going to run off with the country. Nobody seemed particularly prepared or inclined to do anything about it if it happened--by then the government had figured out how to infiltrate and discredit any large public demonstrations. \nIn retrospect it's clear they didn't take over because they already had. Why suspend elections when you can just swing them your way through a series of amazing coincidences and backroom deals with foreign nations?\nSorry, I realize that doesn't help you very much. But perhaps you'll hear the first verse of that rhyme in your own nation's history and stop the poem before it can finish.",
">\n\nGerald Ford is an interesting case. \nHe was elected to be a House Rep, was re-elected to House Rep while a Majority Leader, and was elected as Majority Leader by his House Rep peers (all democratically elected members). He then was promoted to VP when Agnew resigned, fulfilling his role as House Majority Leader; which is a predictable part of the title.\nSo Ford was democratically chosen to be VP, just not directly. He's promotion was still beholden to voters. \nIt looks like Nelson Rockefeller had some federal government work and was also NY's governor for a bit, fairly recent to his appointment to VP. So while this still was definitely not elected directly nor indirectly, he wasn't just a rich insider; he had creditenials of plenty of presidential candidates.",
">\n\nSmall correction: He was Minority Leader. Republicans didn't retake the House following the Great Depression until the 90s. Next in line for the Presidency after the VP is usually the Speaker of the House, who almost always comes from the Majority party (Democrats at the time), rather than the minority. He was chosen for VP essentially because the Democrats in Congress were worried about what would happen if they forced a Democrat in the position, both because Nixon would throw a shitfit, and because it would be seen as usurping the will of the voters, who had, state-wide, almost unanimously chosen a Republican as Vice President. It coming out later that Nixon used dirty tricks to help secure that vote in the election, which ended up getting him removed from office, made their worries a tad ironic.",
">\n\n\nIt coming out later that Nixon used dirty tricks to help secure that vote in the election\n\nObviously Nixon cheated and broke the law several times including related to the election, but you would have a had time convincing me that that alone is how he wound up with 60% of the popular vote and >500 electoral votes (all but MA and DC).",
">\n\nThe main thing that's people generally look at for the '72 election for why McGovern lost so badly is how Eagleton's psychiatric history was leaked and how poorly McGovern handled it. Knowing what we know about Nixon, I would be very unsurprised if he had a hand in some of that, especially considering they specifically were tapping the DNC in Watergate...and that's just what they've been caught on. Add on the calls we have for '68 with the Vietnamese, and there's a decent chance that without his illegal shit, Nixon loses '72.",
">\n\nYeah they were still playing defense for secretly getting the South Vietnamese to spike Lyndon Johnson's peace plan. They actually secretly negotiated to kill more Americans so that they could swing the election. (And that was only the first time. They did it again in 1980, secretly negotiating with Iran to keep Americans in captivity until after Jimmy Carter left office.)\nAnd the only reason they outran the Vietnam thing is because the public and justice had to focus on getting an arch-criminal out of the Vice President's slot first. And then Watergate caught up to them before the treason did.",
">\n\nAn unpopular party cannot win an election. If they win, they're ipso facto popular."
] |
>
It literally could not happen in America. The two corporations (RNC and DNC) have captured the electoral process so thoroughly that, legally, it simply cannot happen.
Yes, in theory it could … just as there could theoretically be a general strike where the US workers demanded basic healthcare and time off, but in both cases, it is so implausible because of corporate capture of the nation’s institutions that it delves into sheer fantasy.
And this, children, is how you know you live in a dystopian corporate state, a totalitarian government kept in power by debt/wage peonage.
Society is atomized — kept separate to prevent organizing by the peons — and workers are being steadily pushed downward so that poverty or near-poverty is now the norm for most Americans.
Wait until you see what AI and automation have in store for you. Time is on the oppressors’ side. | [
"The closest comparison I can think of is En Marche ! From France, but I don’t think that would be a proper comparison.\nEdit: To clarify, Emanuel Macrons party did not exist in any meaningful way before his campaign. He won the presidential election just over a year after the founding of the party and they had no or very little political representation in governing bodies. The situation is different now, but 2015 the party was not even founded.",
">\n\nSinn Féin in Ireland might be a partial example. They’ve always been sidelined as a fringe party with no real power in the Republic of Ireland, but in 2020 they had an unexpected massive wave of support and won the most seats of any party (not a majority, but still significant). \nBut the two main parties (Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael) basically pretended Sinn Féin didn’t exist, and spent every waking hour trying to delegitimize them. They essentially united in an effort to ensure that a strong third party couldn’t have any influence in government, as that would threaten the status quo of their duopoly on power. \nIf a third party candidate won the presidency in the United States, you would likely see a similar response from Congress. The Republicans and Democrats would team up to oppose any change to the status quo and kill the momentum of a third party. \nCabinet appointments would be held up by Congress unless the nominees were from the establishment of either main party. Legislation would likely be introduced to make it harder for a third party to establish itself in Congress or a future presidential election. Each party would likely even refuse to support positive legislation that aligns with its own platform, for fear that any positive development’s under a third-party presidency will threaten the two-party system in the long term. \nBasically the only power the President would have is in foreign policy, where Congress has ceded its authority so representatives aren’t responsible for tough decisions. But even that night be brief. Maybe the only positive outcome of a third party President is that Congress might pass legislation to reclaim its foreign policy / military responsibilities and make it harder for future presidents to green-light foreign military escapades without any democratic oversight. \nIMO, in the American system, it is MUCH more important for a third party to establish itself in Congress than the White House. A good Congress can keep a bad President in check much more easily than can a good President keep a bad Congress in check.",
">\n\nI'd say Ross Perot's candidacy is probably the reason Bill Clinton was able to defeat George Bush Sr. \nI don't know if Perot actually intended to win or if he intended to be a spoiler candidate, but he seemed to siphon more Republican votes than Democratic votes, thus resulting in a Democratic win.",
">\n\nThe turnout in 1992 was about 6% higher than 1988 and 1996.\nI have to imagine that a good portion of Perot voters wouldn't have voted for Clinton or Bush at all. They'd have stayed home.",
">\n\nWhen it happened in Canada it didn’t work out very well. I can’t source it for you at the moment, but if you research ‘Canada Elects NDP’ it should pop up. They were and are always the 3rd party underdogs. They won the election and were basically caught with their pants down.",
">\n\nI believe you may be talking about Bob Rae’s NDP government in the province of Ontario, not all of Canada. The NDP has never formed a national government but it has been in government in 6 out of 10 provinces at one time or another.",
">\n\nThey did make federal Opposition one election.",
">\n\nSomething the Bloc Québécois has done as well! It's generally more an indication that either the Cons or the Liberals have fielded a poor candidate than anything of course.",
">\n\nI suppose.\nBring on preferential voting",
">\n\nThere have been a few party systems in the United States over the course of its existence.\nUsually, it plays out like this:\n\nThe United States faces a split over an important difference in policy (Constitution vs Articles of Confederation, banking and tariffs, slavery, Civil Rights)\nThe parties start defining themselves over this central issue (Federalists vs Democratic-Republicans, Whigs vs Democrats, Democrats vs Republicans, Democrats vs Republicans vs Southern Democrats)\nOnce a new central issue arises, either a new party springs up and subsumes one of the two existing parties, as the previous split no longer adequately defines the party coalitions, or one of the two existing parties incorporates the issue into their platform and absorbs the new party.\n\nThe best example of this is the Whigs, a party that differentiated themselves from Democrats on economic grounds, but who didn't really have a reason to exist when economic differences became less important than views on slavery.\nIn general, since both parties are already pretty ideologically diverse, its very difficult to make a meaningful third party run",
">\n\nIn 1974 the USA wound up with a strange situation in which a person appointed to fill the vacant Vice Presidency moved up to President after Richard Nixon had to scandalously resign. Then a billionaire insider (Nelson Rockefeller) was appointed to be Gerald Ford's vice president.\nSo we had an un-elected President and Vice President from a very unpopular and deeply incriminated party running the country--and running for (not)re-election as incumbents.\nI remember it; it was a comparatively quiet and peaceful time. The government continued to function and honestly it was a small window of economic stability in between energy crises and then tax cut recessions. But there were people openly asking if the rich people were just going to run off with the country. Nobody seemed particularly prepared or inclined to do anything about it if it happened--by then the government had figured out how to infiltrate and discredit any large public demonstrations. \nIn retrospect it's clear they didn't take over because they already had. Why suspend elections when you can just swing them your way through a series of amazing coincidences and backroom deals with foreign nations?\nSorry, I realize that doesn't help you very much. But perhaps you'll hear the first verse of that rhyme in your own nation's history and stop the poem before it can finish.",
">\n\nGerald Ford is an interesting case. \nHe was elected to be a House Rep, was re-elected to House Rep while a Majority Leader, and was elected as Majority Leader by his House Rep peers (all democratically elected members). He then was promoted to VP when Agnew resigned, fulfilling his role as House Majority Leader; which is a predictable part of the title.\nSo Ford was democratically chosen to be VP, just not directly. He's promotion was still beholden to voters. \nIt looks like Nelson Rockefeller had some federal government work and was also NY's governor for a bit, fairly recent to his appointment to VP. So while this still was definitely not elected directly nor indirectly, he wasn't just a rich insider; he had creditenials of plenty of presidential candidates.",
">\n\nSmall correction: He was Minority Leader. Republicans didn't retake the House following the Great Depression until the 90s. Next in line for the Presidency after the VP is usually the Speaker of the House, who almost always comes from the Majority party (Democrats at the time), rather than the minority. He was chosen for VP essentially because the Democrats in Congress were worried about what would happen if they forced a Democrat in the position, both because Nixon would throw a shitfit, and because it would be seen as usurping the will of the voters, who had, state-wide, almost unanimously chosen a Republican as Vice President. It coming out later that Nixon used dirty tricks to help secure that vote in the election, which ended up getting him removed from office, made their worries a tad ironic.",
">\n\n\nIt coming out later that Nixon used dirty tricks to help secure that vote in the election\n\nObviously Nixon cheated and broke the law several times including related to the election, but you would have a had time convincing me that that alone is how he wound up with 60% of the popular vote and >500 electoral votes (all but MA and DC).",
">\n\nThe main thing that's people generally look at for the '72 election for why McGovern lost so badly is how Eagleton's psychiatric history was leaked and how poorly McGovern handled it. Knowing what we know about Nixon, I would be very unsurprised if he had a hand in some of that, especially considering they specifically were tapping the DNC in Watergate...and that's just what they've been caught on. Add on the calls we have for '68 with the Vietnamese, and there's a decent chance that without his illegal shit, Nixon loses '72.",
">\n\nYeah they were still playing defense for secretly getting the South Vietnamese to spike Lyndon Johnson's peace plan. They actually secretly negotiated to kill more Americans so that they could swing the election. (And that was only the first time. They did it again in 1980, secretly negotiating with Iran to keep Americans in captivity until after Jimmy Carter left office.)\nAnd the only reason they outran the Vietnam thing is because the public and justice had to focus on getting an arch-criminal out of the Vice President's slot first. And then Watergate caught up to them before the treason did.",
">\n\nAn unpopular party cannot win an election. If they win, they're ipso facto popular.",
">\n\nThe USA has a third party that is small and that is the Libertarian Party. It’s best if we don’t let them win."
] |
>
You realize that both the RNC and DNC have been "defeated" several times, even recently, right? Literally all someone has to do is win more votes lol.
Obama ran against the party apparatus as a populist and won the primary in 2008 and Trump ran against the party apparatus as a populist and won the primary in 2016. It is literally a popularity contest.
Like, it really isn't corporations or cabals or conspiracies or anything like that. Its people voting for what their preferences are. The fact that you don't like the outcome doesn't mean that it isn't democratic.
If you think that this is a dystopian existence, I hate to tell you this, but we're currently experiencing the highest standards of living of any society in human history. The idea that people are being "pushed into poverty" just isn't borne out in the data, as in absolute terms both American and global poverty has been steadily declining for almost a century straight.
Existing fundamentally sucks. It used to be that the default state was starvation, poverty, insecurity, and death, and anything that avoided those things was gravy.
I get that theres tons of people telling you to be righteously indignant at everyone who disagrees with you, but saying "its all rigged by some unstoppable and evil enemy" is a childish view that people resort to because actually trying to understand the complicated dynamics in political systems is too difficult | [
"The closest comparison I can think of is En Marche ! From France, but I don’t think that would be a proper comparison.\nEdit: To clarify, Emanuel Macrons party did not exist in any meaningful way before his campaign. He won the presidential election just over a year after the founding of the party and they had no or very little political representation in governing bodies. The situation is different now, but 2015 the party was not even founded.",
">\n\nSinn Féin in Ireland might be a partial example. They’ve always been sidelined as a fringe party with no real power in the Republic of Ireland, but in 2020 they had an unexpected massive wave of support and won the most seats of any party (not a majority, but still significant). \nBut the two main parties (Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael) basically pretended Sinn Féin didn’t exist, and spent every waking hour trying to delegitimize them. They essentially united in an effort to ensure that a strong third party couldn’t have any influence in government, as that would threaten the status quo of their duopoly on power. \nIf a third party candidate won the presidency in the United States, you would likely see a similar response from Congress. The Republicans and Democrats would team up to oppose any change to the status quo and kill the momentum of a third party. \nCabinet appointments would be held up by Congress unless the nominees were from the establishment of either main party. Legislation would likely be introduced to make it harder for a third party to establish itself in Congress or a future presidential election. Each party would likely even refuse to support positive legislation that aligns with its own platform, for fear that any positive development’s under a third-party presidency will threaten the two-party system in the long term. \nBasically the only power the President would have is in foreign policy, where Congress has ceded its authority so representatives aren’t responsible for tough decisions. But even that night be brief. Maybe the only positive outcome of a third party President is that Congress might pass legislation to reclaim its foreign policy / military responsibilities and make it harder for future presidents to green-light foreign military escapades without any democratic oversight. \nIMO, in the American system, it is MUCH more important for a third party to establish itself in Congress than the White House. A good Congress can keep a bad President in check much more easily than can a good President keep a bad Congress in check.",
">\n\nI'd say Ross Perot's candidacy is probably the reason Bill Clinton was able to defeat George Bush Sr. \nI don't know if Perot actually intended to win or if he intended to be a spoiler candidate, but he seemed to siphon more Republican votes than Democratic votes, thus resulting in a Democratic win.",
">\n\nThe turnout in 1992 was about 6% higher than 1988 and 1996.\nI have to imagine that a good portion of Perot voters wouldn't have voted for Clinton or Bush at all. They'd have stayed home.",
">\n\nWhen it happened in Canada it didn’t work out very well. I can’t source it for you at the moment, but if you research ‘Canada Elects NDP’ it should pop up. They were and are always the 3rd party underdogs. They won the election and were basically caught with their pants down.",
">\n\nI believe you may be talking about Bob Rae’s NDP government in the province of Ontario, not all of Canada. The NDP has never formed a national government but it has been in government in 6 out of 10 provinces at one time or another.",
">\n\nThey did make federal Opposition one election.",
">\n\nSomething the Bloc Québécois has done as well! It's generally more an indication that either the Cons or the Liberals have fielded a poor candidate than anything of course.",
">\n\nI suppose.\nBring on preferential voting",
">\n\nThere have been a few party systems in the United States over the course of its existence.\nUsually, it plays out like this:\n\nThe United States faces a split over an important difference in policy (Constitution vs Articles of Confederation, banking and tariffs, slavery, Civil Rights)\nThe parties start defining themselves over this central issue (Federalists vs Democratic-Republicans, Whigs vs Democrats, Democrats vs Republicans, Democrats vs Republicans vs Southern Democrats)\nOnce a new central issue arises, either a new party springs up and subsumes one of the two existing parties, as the previous split no longer adequately defines the party coalitions, or one of the two existing parties incorporates the issue into their platform and absorbs the new party.\n\nThe best example of this is the Whigs, a party that differentiated themselves from Democrats on economic grounds, but who didn't really have a reason to exist when economic differences became less important than views on slavery.\nIn general, since both parties are already pretty ideologically diverse, its very difficult to make a meaningful third party run",
">\n\nIn 1974 the USA wound up with a strange situation in which a person appointed to fill the vacant Vice Presidency moved up to President after Richard Nixon had to scandalously resign. Then a billionaire insider (Nelson Rockefeller) was appointed to be Gerald Ford's vice president.\nSo we had an un-elected President and Vice President from a very unpopular and deeply incriminated party running the country--and running for (not)re-election as incumbents.\nI remember it; it was a comparatively quiet and peaceful time. The government continued to function and honestly it was a small window of economic stability in between energy crises and then tax cut recessions. But there were people openly asking if the rich people were just going to run off with the country. Nobody seemed particularly prepared or inclined to do anything about it if it happened--by then the government had figured out how to infiltrate and discredit any large public demonstrations. \nIn retrospect it's clear they didn't take over because they already had. Why suspend elections when you can just swing them your way through a series of amazing coincidences and backroom deals with foreign nations?\nSorry, I realize that doesn't help you very much. But perhaps you'll hear the first verse of that rhyme in your own nation's history and stop the poem before it can finish.",
">\n\nGerald Ford is an interesting case. \nHe was elected to be a House Rep, was re-elected to House Rep while a Majority Leader, and was elected as Majority Leader by his House Rep peers (all democratically elected members). He then was promoted to VP when Agnew resigned, fulfilling his role as House Majority Leader; which is a predictable part of the title.\nSo Ford was democratically chosen to be VP, just not directly. He's promotion was still beholden to voters. \nIt looks like Nelson Rockefeller had some federal government work and was also NY's governor for a bit, fairly recent to his appointment to VP. So while this still was definitely not elected directly nor indirectly, he wasn't just a rich insider; he had creditenials of plenty of presidential candidates.",
">\n\nSmall correction: He was Minority Leader. Republicans didn't retake the House following the Great Depression until the 90s. Next in line for the Presidency after the VP is usually the Speaker of the House, who almost always comes from the Majority party (Democrats at the time), rather than the minority. He was chosen for VP essentially because the Democrats in Congress were worried about what would happen if they forced a Democrat in the position, both because Nixon would throw a shitfit, and because it would be seen as usurping the will of the voters, who had, state-wide, almost unanimously chosen a Republican as Vice President. It coming out later that Nixon used dirty tricks to help secure that vote in the election, which ended up getting him removed from office, made their worries a tad ironic.",
">\n\n\nIt coming out later that Nixon used dirty tricks to help secure that vote in the election\n\nObviously Nixon cheated and broke the law several times including related to the election, but you would have a had time convincing me that that alone is how he wound up with 60% of the popular vote and >500 electoral votes (all but MA and DC).",
">\n\nThe main thing that's people generally look at for the '72 election for why McGovern lost so badly is how Eagleton's psychiatric history was leaked and how poorly McGovern handled it. Knowing what we know about Nixon, I would be very unsurprised if he had a hand in some of that, especially considering they specifically were tapping the DNC in Watergate...and that's just what they've been caught on. Add on the calls we have for '68 with the Vietnamese, and there's a decent chance that without his illegal shit, Nixon loses '72.",
">\n\nYeah they were still playing defense for secretly getting the South Vietnamese to spike Lyndon Johnson's peace plan. They actually secretly negotiated to kill more Americans so that they could swing the election. (And that was only the first time. They did it again in 1980, secretly negotiating with Iran to keep Americans in captivity until after Jimmy Carter left office.)\nAnd the only reason they outran the Vietnam thing is because the public and justice had to focus on getting an arch-criminal out of the Vice President's slot first. And then Watergate caught up to them before the treason did.",
">\n\nAn unpopular party cannot win an election. If they win, they're ipso facto popular.",
">\n\nThe USA has a third party that is small and that is the Libertarian Party. It’s best if we don’t let them win.",
">\n\nIt literally could not happen in America. The two corporations (RNC and DNC) have captured the electoral process so thoroughly that, legally, it simply cannot happen.\nYes, in theory it could … just as there could theoretically be a general strike where the US workers demanded basic healthcare and time off, but in both cases, it is so implausible because of corporate capture of the nation’s institutions that it delves into sheer fantasy.\nAnd this, children, is how you know you live in a dystopian corporate state, a totalitarian government kept in power by debt/wage peonage.\nSociety is atomized — kept separate to prevent organizing by the peons — and workers are being steadily pushed downward so that poverty or near-poverty is now the norm for most Americans.\nWait until you see what AI and automation have in store for you. Time is on the oppressors’ side."
] |
>
Obama ran against the party apparatus as a populist
he was the party apparatus's second-choice candidate, he didn't "run against them".
Trump ran against the party apparatus as a populist and won the primary in 2016
and after the primary the entire conservative half of the US from top to bottom switched from giving trump the finger to kissing trump's ass. | [
"The closest comparison I can think of is En Marche ! From France, but I don’t think that would be a proper comparison.\nEdit: To clarify, Emanuel Macrons party did not exist in any meaningful way before his campaign. He won the presidential election just over a year after the founding of the party and they had no or very little political representation in governing bodies. The situation is different now, but 2015 the party was not even founded.",
">\n\nSinn Féin in Ireland might be a partial example. They’ve always been sidelined as a fringe party with no real power in the Republic of Ireland, but in 2020 they had an unexpected massive wave of support and won the most seats of any party (not a majority, but still significant). \nBut the two main parties (Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael) basically pretended Sinn Féin didn’t exist, and spent every waking hour trying to delegitimize them. They essentially united in an effort to ensure that a strong third party couldn’t have any influence in government, as that would threaten the status quo of their duopoly on power. \nIf a third party candidate won the presidency in the United States, you would likely see a similar response from Congress. The Republicans and Democrats would team up to oppose any change to the status quo and kill the momentum of a third party. \nCabinet appointments would be held up by Congress unless the nominees were from the establishment of either main party. Legislation would likely be introduced to make it harder for a third party to establish itself in Congress or a future presidential election. Each party would likely even refuse to support positive legislation that aligns with its own platform, for fear that any positive development’s under a third-party presidency will threaten the two-party system in the long term. \nBasically the only power the President would have is in foreign policy, where Congress has ceded its authority so representatives aren’t responsible for tough decisions. But even that night be brief. Maybe the only positive outcome of a third party President is that Congress might pass legislation to reclaim its foreign policy / military responsibilities and make it harder for future presidents to green-light foreign military escapades without any democratic oversight. \nIMO, in the American system, it is MUCH more important for a third party to establish itself in Congress than the White House. A good Congress can keep a bad President in check much more easily than can a good President keep a bad Congress in check.",
">\n\nI'd say Ross Perot's candidacy is probably the reason Bill Clinton was able to defeat George Bush Sr. \nI don't know if Perot actually intended to win or if he intended to be a spoiler candidate, but he seemed to siphon more Republican votes than Democratic votes, thus resulting in a Democratic win.",
">\n\nThe turnout in 1992 was about 6% higher than 1988 and 1996.\nI have to imagine that a good portion of Perot voters wouldn't have voted for Clinton or Bush at all. They'd have stayed home.",
">\n\nWhen it happened in Canada it didn’t work out very well. I can’t source it for you at the moment, but if you research ‘Canada Elects NDP’ it should pop up. They were and are always the 3rd party underdogs. They won the election and were basically caught with their pants down.",
">\n\nI believe you may be talking about Bob Rae’s NDP government in the province of Ontario, not all of Canada. The NDP has never formed a national government but it has been in government in 6 out of 10 provinces at one time or another.",
">\n\nThey did make federal Opposition one election.",
">\n\nSomething the Bloc Québécois has done as well! It's generally more an indication that either the Cons or the Liberals have fielded a poor candidate than anything of course.",
">\n\nI suppose.\nBring on preferential voting",
">\n\nThere have been a few party systems in the United States over the course of its existence.\nUsually, it plays out like this:\n\nThe United States faces a split over an important difference in policy (Constitution vs Articles of Confederation, banking and tariffs, slavery, Civil Rights)\nThe parties start defining themselves over this central issue (Federalists vs Democratic-Republicans, Whigs vs Democrats, Democrats vs Republicans, Democrats vs Republicans vs Southern Democrats)\nOnce a new central issue arises, either a new party springs up and subsumes one of the two existing parties, as the previous split no longer adequately defines the party coalitions, or one of the two existing parties incorporates the issue into their platform and absorbs the new party.\n\nThe best example of this is the Whigs, a party that differentiated themselves from Democrats on economic grounds, but who didn't really have a reason to exist when economic differences became less important than views on slavery.\nIn general, since both parties are already pretty ideologically diverse, its very difficult to make a meaningful third party run",
">\n\nIn 1974 the USA wound up with a strange situation in which a person appointed to fill the vacant Vice Presidency moved up to President after Richard Nixon had to scandalously resign. Then a billionaire insider (Nelson Rockefeller) was appointed to be Gerald Ford's vice president.\nSo we had an un-elected President and Vice President from a very unpopular and deeply incriminated party running the country--and running for (not)re-election as incumbents.\nI remember it; it was a comparatively quiet and peaceful time. The government continued to function and honestly it was a small window of economic stability in between energy crises and then tax cut recessions. But there were people openly asking if the rich people were just going to run off with the country. Nobody seemed particularly prepared or inclined to do anything about it if it happened--by then the government had figured out how to infiltrate and discredit any large public demonstrations. \nIn retrospect it's clear they didn't take over because they already had. Why suspend elections when you can just swing them your way through a series of amazing coincidences and backroom deals with foreign nations?\nSorry, I realize that doesn't help you very much. But perhaps you'll hear the first verse of that rhyme in your own nation's history and stop the poem before it can finish.",
">\n\nGerald Ford is an interesting case. \nHe was elected to be a House Rep, was re-elected to House Rep while a Majority Leader, and was elected as Majority Leader by his House Rep peers (all democratically elected members). He then was promoted to VP when Agnew resigned, fulfilling his role as House Majority Leader; which is a predictable part of the title.\nSo Ford was democratically chosen to be VP, just not directly. He's promotion was still beholden to voters. \nIt looks like Nelson Rockefeller had some federal government work and was also NY's governor for a bit, fairly recent to his appointment to VP. So while this still was definitely not elected directly nor indirectly, he wasn't just a rich insider; he had creditenials of plenty of presidential candidates.",
">\n\nSmall correction: He was Minority Leader. Republicans didn't retake the House following the Great Depression until the 90s. Next in line for the Presidency after the VP is usually the Speaker of the House, who almost always comes from the Majority party (Democrats at the time), rather than the minority. He was chosen for VP essentially because the Democrats in Congress were worried about what would happen if they forced a Democrat in the position, both because Nixon would throw a shitfit, and because it would be seen as usurping the will of the voters, who had, state-wide, almost unanimously chosen a Republican as Vice President. It coming out later that Nixon used dirty tricks to help secure that vote in the election, which ended up getting him removed from office, made their worries a tad ironic.",
">\n\n\nIt coming out later that Nixon used dirty tricks to help secure that vote in the election\n\nObviously Nixon cheated and broke the law several times including related to the election, but you would have a had time convincing me that that alone is how he wound up with 60% of the popular vote and >500 electoral votes (all but MA and DC).",
">\n\nThe main thing that's people generally look at for the '72 election for why McGovern lost so badly is how Eagleton's psychiatric history was leaked and how poorly McGovern handled it. Knowing what we know about Nixon, I would be very unsurprised if he had a hand in some of that, especially considering they specifically were tapping the DNC in Watergate...and that's just what they've been caught on. Add on the calls we have for '68 with the Vietnamese, and there's a decent chance that without his illegal shit, Nixon loses '72.",
">\n\nYeah they were still playing defense for secretly getting the South Vietnamese to spike Lyndon Johnson's peace plan. They actually secretly negotiated to kill more Americans so that they could swing the election. (And that was only the first time. They did it again in 1980, secretly negotiating with Iran to keep Americans in captivity until after Jimmy Carter left office.)\nAnd the only reason they outran the Vietnam thing is because the public and justice had to focus on getting an arch-criminal out of the Vice President's slot first. And then Watergate caught up to them before the treason did.",
">\n\nAn unpopular party cannot win an election. If they win, they're ipso facto popular.",
">\n\nThe USA has a third party that is small and that is the Libertarian Party. It’s best if we don’t let them win.",
">\n\nIt literally could not happen in America. The two corporations (RNC and DNC) have captured the electoral process so thoroughly that, legally, it simply cannot happen.\nYes, in theory it could … just as there could theoretically be a general strike where the US workers demanded basic healthcare and time off, but in both cases, it is so implausible because of corporate capture of the nation’s institutions that it delves into sheer fantasy.\nAnd this, children, is how you know you live in a dystopian corporate state, a totalitarian government kept in power by debt/wage peonage.\nSociety is atomized — kept separate to prevent organizing by the peons — and workers are being steadily pushed downward so that poverty or near-poverty is now the norm for most Americans.\nWait until you see what AI and automation have in store for you. Time is on the oppressors’ side.",
">\n\nYou realize that both the RNC and DNC have been \"defeated\" several times, even recently, right? Literally all someone has to do is win more votes lol. \nObama ran against the party apparatus as a populist and won the primary in 2008 and Trump ran against the party apparatus as a populist and won the primary in 2016. It is literally a popularity contest.\nLike, it really isn't corporations or cabals or conspiracies or anything like that. Its people voting for what their preferences are. The fact that you don't like the outcome doesn't mean that it isn't democratic.\nIf you think that this is a dystopian existence, I hate to tell you this, but we're currently experiencing the highest standards of living of any society in human history. The idea that people are being \"pushed into poverty\" just isn't borne out in the data, as in absolute terms both American and global poverty has been steadily declining for almost a century straight.\nExisting fundamentally sucks. It used to be that the default state was starvation, poverty, insecurity, and death, and anything that avoided those things was gravy.\nI get that theres tons of people telling you to be righteously indignant at everyone who disagrees with you, but saying \"its all rigged by some unstoppable and evil enemy\" is a childish view that people resort to because actually trying to understand the complicated dynamics in political systems is too difficult"
] |
>
It depends on who the third party more closely aligns with and their relative location on the political spectum (eg. more centrist or more radical). It also matters if the political environment is divisive or if they work together. And unfortunately I have to mention that it also matters if people are given a reason to doubt or dispute the elections. That's not saying anything about Nigerian elections as much as it is about modern elections as a whole.
I wish I knew more about them to speculate but it could go all sorts of different directions. | [
"The closest comparison I can think of is En Marche ! From France, but I don’t think that would be a proper comparison.\nEdit: To clarify, Emanuel Macrons party did not exist in any meaningful way before his campaign. He won the presidential election just over a year after the founding of the party and they had no or very little political representation in governing bodies. The situation is different now, but 2015 the party was not even founded.",
">\n\nSinn Féin in Ireland might be a partial example. They’ve always been sidelined as a fringe party with no real power in the Republic of Ireland, but in 2020 they had an unexpected massive wave of support and won the most seats of any party (not a majority, but still significant). \nBut the two main parties (Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael) basically pretended Sinn Féin didn’t exist, and spent every waking hour trying to delegitimize them. They essentially united in an effort to ensure that a strong third party couldn’t have any influence in government, as that would threaten the status quo of their duopoly on power. \nIf a third party candidate won the presidency in the United States, you would likely see a similar response from Congress. The Republicans and Democrats would team up to oppose any change to the status quo and kill the momentum of a third party. \nCabinet appointments would be held up by Congress unless the nominees were from the establishment of either main party. Legislation would likely be introduced to make it harder for a third party to establish itself in Congress or a future presidential election. Each party would likely even refuse to support positive legislation that aligns with its own platform, for fear that any positive development’s under a third-party presidency will threaten the two-party system in the long term. \nBasically the only power the President would have is in foreign policy, where Congress has ceded its authority so representatives aren’t responsible for tough decisions. But even that night be brief. Maybe the only positive outcome of a third party President is that Congress might pass legislation to reclaim its foreign policy / military responsibilities and make it harder for future presidents to green-light foreign military escapades without any democratic oversight. \nIMO, in the American system, it is MUCH more important for a third party to establish itself in Congress than the White House. A good Congress can keep a bad President in check much more easily than can a good President keep a bad Congress in check.",
">\n\nI'd say Ross Perot's candidacy is probably the reason Bill Clinton was able to defeat George Bush Sr. \nI don't know if Perot actually intended to win or if he intended to be a spoiler candidate, but he seemed to siphon more Republican votes than Democratic votes, thus resulting in a Democratic win.",
">\n\nThe turnout in 1992 was about 6% higher than 1988 and 1996.\nI have to imagine that a good portion of Perot voters wouldn't have voted for Clinton or Bush at all. They'd have stayed home.",
">\n\nWhen it happened in Canada it didn’t work out very well. I can’t source it for you at the moment, but if you research ‘Canada Elects NDP’ it should pop up. They were and are always the 3rd party underdogs. They won the election and were basically caught with their pants down.",
">\n\nI believe you may be talking about Bob Rae’s NDP government in the province of Ontario, not all of Canada. The NDP has never formed a national government but it has been in government in 6 out of 10 provinces at one time or another.",
">\n\nThey did make federal Opposition one election.",
">\n\nSomething the Bloc Québécois has done as well! It's generally more an indication that either the Cons or the Liberals have fielded a poor candidate than anything of course.",
">\n\nI suppose.\nBring on preferential voting",
">\n\nThere have been a few party systems in the United States over the course of its existence.\nUsually, it plays out like this:\n\nThe United States faces a split over an important difference in policy (Constitution vs Articles of Confederation, banking and tariffs, slavery, Civil Rights)\nThe parties start defining themselves over this central issue (Federalists vs Democratic-Republicans, Whigs vs Democrats, Democrats vs Republicans, Democrats vs Republicans vs Southern Democrats)\nOnce a new central issue arises, either a new party springs up and subsumes one of the two existing parties, as the previous split no longer adequately defines the party coalitions, or one of the two existing parties incorporates the issue into their platform and absorbs the new party.\n\nThe best example of this is the Whigs, a party that differentiated themselves from Democrats on economic grounds, but who didn't really have a reason to exist when economic differences became less important than views on slavery.\nIn general, since both parties are already pretty ideologically diverse, its very difficult to make a meaningful third party run",
">\n\nIn 1974 the USA wound up with a strange situation in which a person appointed to fill the vacant Vice Presidency moved up to President after Richard Nixon had to scandalously resign. Then a billionaire insider (Nelson Rockefeller) was appointed to be Gerald Ford's vice president.\nSo we had an un-elected President and Vice President from a very unpopular and deeply incriminated party running the country--and running for (not)re-election as incumbents.\nI remember it; it was a comparatively quiet and peaceful time. The government continued to function and honestly it was a small window of economic stability in between energy crises and then tax cut recessions. But there were people openly asking if the rich people were just going to run off with the country. Nobody seemed particularly prepared or inclined to do anything about it if it happened--by then the government had figured out how to infiltrate and discredit any large public demonstrations. \nIn retrospect it's clear they didn't take over because they already had. Why suspend elections when you can just swing them your way through a series of amazing coincidences and backroom deals with foreign nations?\nSorry, I realize that doesn't help you very much. But perhaps you'll hear the first verse of that rhyme in your own nation's history and stop the poem before it can finish.",
">\n\nGerald Ford is an interesting case. \nHe was elected to be a House Rep, was re-elected to House Rep while a Majority Leader, and was elected as Majority Leader by his House Rep peers (all democratically elected members). He then was promoted to VP when Agnew resigned, fulfilling his role as House Majority Leader; which is a predictable part of the title.\nSo Ford was democratically chosen to be VP, just not directly. He's promotion was still beholden to voters. \nIt looks like Nelson Rockefeller had some federal government work and was also NY's governor for a bit, fairly recent to his appointment to VP. So while this still was definitely not elected directly nor indirectly, he wasn't just a rich insider; he had creditenials of plenty of presidential candidates.",
">\n\nSmall correction: He was Minority Leader. Republicans didn't retake the House following the Great Depression until the 90s. Next in line for the Presidency after the VP is usually the Speaker of the House, who almost always comes from the Majority party (Democrats at the time), rather than the minority. He was chosen for VP essentially because the Democrats in Congress were worried about what would happen if they forced a Democrat in the position, both because Nixon would throw a shitfit, and because it would be seen as usurping the will of the voters, who had, state-wide, almost unanimously chosen a Republican as Vice President. It coming out later that Nixon used dirty tricks to help secure that vote in the election, which ended up getting him removed from office, made their worries a tad ironic.",
">\n\n\nIt coming out later that Nixon used dirty tricks to help secure that vote in the election\n\nObviously Nixon cheated and broke the law several times including related to the election, but you would have a had time convincing me that that alone is how he wound up with 60% of the popular vote and >500 electoral votes (all but MA and DC).",
">\n\nThe main thing that's people generally look at for the '72 election for why McGovern lost so badly is how Eagleton's psychiatric history was leaked and how poorly McGovern handled it. Knowing what we know about Nixon, I would be very unsurprised if he had a hand in some of that, especially considering they specifically were tapping the DNC in Watergate...and that's just what they've been caught on. Add on the calls we have for '68 with the Vietnamese, and there's a decent chance that without his illegal shit, Nixon loses '72.",
">\n\nYeah they were still playing defense for secretly getting the South Vietnamese to spike Lyndon Johnson's peace plan. They actually secretly negotiated to kill more Americans so that they could swing the election. (And that was only the first time. They did it again in 1980, secretly negotiating with Iran to keep Americans in captivity until after Jimmy Carter left office.)\nAnd the only reason they outran the Vietnam thing is because the public and justice had to focus on getting an arch-criminal out of the Vice President's slot first. And then Watergate caught up to them before the treason did.",
">\n\nAn unpopular party cannot win an election. If they win, they're ipso facto popular.",
">\n\nThe USA has a third party that is small and that is the Libertarian Party. It’s best if we don’t let them win.",
">\n\nIt literally could not happen in America. The two corporations (RNC and DNC) have captured the electoral process so thoroughly that, legally, it simply cannot happen.\nYes, in theory it could … just as there could theoretically be a general strike where the US workers demanded basic healthcare and time off, but in both cases, it is so implausible because of corporate capture of the nation’s institutions that it delves into sheer fantasy.\nAnd this, children, is how you know you live in a dystopian corporate state, a totalitarian government kept in power by debt/wage peonage.\nSociety is atomized — kept separate to prevent organizing by the peons — and workers are being steadily pushed downward so that poverty or near-poverty is now the norm for most Americans.\nWait until you see what AI and automation have in store for you. Time is on the oppressors’ side.",
">\n\nYou realize that both the RNC and DNC have been \"defeated\" several times, even recently, right? Literally all someone has to do is win more votes lol. \nObama ran against the party apparatus as a populist and won the primary in 2008 and Trump ran against the party apparatus as a populist and won the primary in 2016. It is literally a popularity contest.\nLike, it really isn't corporations or cabals or conspiracies or anything like that. Its people voting for what their preferences are. The fact that you don't like the outcome doesn't mean that it isn't democratic.\nIf you think that this is a dystopian existence, I hate to tell you this, but we're currently experiencing the highest standards of living of any society in human history. The idea that people are being \"pushed into poverty\" just isn't borne out in the data, as in absolute terms both American and global poverty has been steadily declining for almost a century straight.\nExisting fundamentally sucks. It used to be that the default state was starvation, poverty, insecurity, and death, and anything that avoided those things was gravy.\nI get that theres tons of people telling you to be righteously indignant at everyone who disagrees with you, but saying \"its all rigged by some unstoppable and evil enemy\" is a childish view that people resort to because actually trying to understand the complicated dynamics in political systems is too difficult",
">\n\n\nObama ran against the party apparatus as a populist \n\nhe was the party apparatus's second-choice candidate, he didn't \"run against them\". \n\nTrump ran against the party apparatus as a populist and won the primary in 2016\n\nand after the primary the entire conservative half of the US from top to bottom switched from giving trump the finger to kissing trump's ass."
] |
> | [
"The closest comparison I can think of is En Marche ! From France, but I don’t think that would be a proper comparison.\nEdit: To clarify, Emanuel Macrons party did not exist in any meaningful way before his campaign. He won the presidential election just over a year after the founding of the party and they had no or very little political representation in governing bodies. The situation is different now, but 2015 the party was not even founded.",
">\n\nSinn Féin in Ireland might be a partial example. They’ve always been sidelined as a fringe party with no real power in the Republic of Ireland, but in 2020 they had an unexpected massive wave of support and won the most seats of any party (not a majority, but still significant). \nBut the two main parties (Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael) basically pretended Sinn Féin didn’t exist, and spent every waking hour trying to delegitimize them. They essentially united in an effort to ensure that a strong third party couldn’t have any influence in government, as that would threaten the status quo of their duopoly on power. \nIf a third party candidate won the presidency in the United States, you would likely see a similar response from Congress. The Republicans and Democrats would team up to oppose any change to the status quo and kill the momentum of a third party. \nCabinet appointments would be held up by Congress unless the nominees were from the establishment of either main party. Legislation would likely be introduced to make it harder for a third party to establish itself in Congress or a future presidential election. Each party would likely even refuse to support positive legislation that aligns with its own platform, for fear that any positive development’s under a third-party presidency will threaten the two-party system in the long term. \nBasically the only power the President would have is in foreign policy, where Congress has ceded its authority so representatives aren’t responsible for tough decisions. But even that night be brief. Maybe the only positive outcome of a third party President is that Congress might pass legislation to reclaim its foreign policy / military responsibilities and make it harder for future presidents to green-light foreign military escapades without any democratic oversight. \nIMO, in the American system, it is MUCH more important for a third party to establish itself in Congress than the White House. A good Congress can keep a bad President in check much more easily than can a good President keep a bad Congress in check.",
">\n\nI'd say Ross Perot's candidacy is probably the reason Bill Clinton was able to defeat George Bush Sr. \nI don't know if Perot actually intended to win or if he intended to be a spoiler candidate, but he seemed to siphon more Republican votes than Democratic votes, thus resulting in a Democratic win.",
">\n\nThe turnout in 1992 was about 6% higher than 1988 and 1996.\nI have to imagine that a good portion of Perot voters wouldn't have voted for Clinton or Bush at all. They'd have stayed home.",
">\n\nWhen it happened in Canada it didn’t work out very well. I can’t source it for you at the moment, but if you research ‘Canada Elects NDP’ it should pop up. They were and are always the 3rd party underdogs. They won the election and were basically caught with their pants down.",
">\n\nI believe you may be talking about Bob Rae’s NDP government in the province of Ontario, not all of Canada. The NDP has never formed a national government but it has been in government in 6 out of 10 provinces at one time or another.",
">\n\nThey did make federal Opposition one election.",
">\n\nSomething the Bloc Québécois has done as well! It's generally more an indication that either the Cons or the Liberals have fielded a poor candidate than anything of course.",
">\n\nI suppose.\nBring on preferential voting",
">\n\nThere have been a few party systems in the United States over the course of its existence.\nUsually, it plays out like this:\n\nThe United States faces a split over an important difference in policy (Constitution vs Articles of Confederation, banking and tariffs, slavery, Civil Rights)\nThe parties start defining themselves over this central issue (Federalists vs Democratic-Republicans, Whigs vs Democrats, Democrats vs Republicans, Democrats vs Republicans vs Southern Democrats)\nOnce a new central issue arises, either a new party springs up and subsumes one of the two existing parties, as the previous split no longer adequately defines the party coalitions, or one of the two existing parties incorporates the issue into their platform and absorbs the new party.\n\nThe best example of this is the Whigs, a party that differentiated themselves from Democrats on economic grounds, but who didn't really have a reason to exist when economic differences became less important than views on slavery.\nIn general, since both parties are already pretty ideologically diverse, its very difficult to make a meaningful third party run",
">\n\nIn 1974 the USA wound up with a strange situation in which a person appointed to fill the vacant Vice Presidency moved up to President after Richard Nixon had to scandalously resign. Then a billionaire insider (Nelson Rockefeller) was appointed to be Gerald Ford's vice president.\nSo we had an un-elected President and Vice President from a very unpopular and deeply incriminated party running the country--and running for (not)re-election as incumbents.\nI remember it; it was a comparatively quiet and peaceful time. The government continued to function and honestly it was a small window of economic stability in between energy crises and then tax cut recessions. But there were people openly asking if the rich people were just going to run off with the country. Nobody seemed particularly prepared or inclined to do anything about it if it happened--by then the government had figured out how to infiltrate and discredit any large public demonstrations. \nIn retrospect it's clear they didn't take over because they already had. Why suspend elections when you can just swing them your way through a series of amazing coincidences and backroom deals with foreign nations?\nSorry, I realize that doesn't help you very much. But perhaps you'll hear the first verse of that rhyme in your own nation's history and stop the poem before it can finish.",
">\n\nGerald Ford is an interesting case. \nHe was elected to be a House Rep, was re-elected to House Rep while a Majority Leader, and was elected as Majority Leader by his House Rep peers (all democratically elected members). He then was promoted to VP when Agnew resigned, fulfilling his role as House Majority Leader; which is a predictable part of the title.\nSo Ford was democratically chosen to be VP, just not directly. He's promotion was still beholden to voters. \nIt looks like Nelson Rockefeller had some federal government work and was also NY's governor for a bit, fairly recent to his appointment to VP. So while this still was definitely not elected directly nor indirectly, he wasn't just a rich insider; he had creditenials of plenty of presidential candidates.",
">\n\nSmall correction: He was Minority Leader. Republicans didn't retake the House following the Great Depression until the 90s. Next in line for the Presidency after the VP is usually the Speaker of the House, who almost always comes from the Majority party (Democrats at the time), rather than the minority. He was chosen for VP essentially because the Democrats in Congress were worried about what would happen if they forced a Democrat in the position, both because Nixon would throw a shitfit, and because it would be seen as usurping the will of the voters, who had, state-wide, almost unanimously chosen a Republican as Vice President. It coming out later that Nixon used dirty tricks to help secure that vote in the election, which ended up getting him removed from office, made their worries a tad ironic.",
">\n\n\nIt coming out later that Nixon used dirty tricks to help secure that vote in the election\n\nObviously Nixon cheated and broke the law several times including related to the election, but you would have a had time convincing me that that alone is how he wound up with 60% of the popular vote and >500 electoral votes (all but MA and DC).",
">\n\nThe main thing that's people generally look at for the '72 election for why McGovern lost so badly is how Eagleton's psychiatric history was leaked and how poorly McGovern handled it. Knowing what we know about Nixon, I would be very unsurprised if he had a hand in some of that, especially considering they specifically were tapping the DNC in Watergate...and that's just what they've been caught on. Add on the calls we have for '68 with the Vietnamese, and there's a decent chance that without his illegal shit, Nixon loses '72.",
">\n\nYeah they were still playing defense for secretly getting the South Vietnamese to spike Lyndon Johnson's peace plan. They actually secretly negotiated to kill more Americans so that they could swing the election. (And that was only the first time. They did it again in 1980, secretly negotiating with Iran to keep Americans in captivity until after Jimmy Carter left office.)\nAnd the only reason they outran the Vietnam thing is because the public and justice had to focus on getting an arch-criminal out of the Vice President's slot first. And then Watergate caught up to them before the treason did.",
">\n\nAn unpopular party cannot win an election. If they win, they're ipso facto popular.",
">\n\nThe USA has a third party that is small and that is the Libertarian Party. It’s best if we don’t let them win.",
">\n\nIt literally could not happen in America. The two corporations (RNC and DNC) have captured the electoral process so thoroughly that, legally, it simply cannot happen.\nYes, in theory it could … just as there could theoretically be a general strike where the US workers demanded basic healthcare and time off, but in both cases, it is so implausible because of corporate capture of the nation’s institutions that it delves into sheer fantasy.\nAnd this, children, is how you know you live in a dystopian corporate state, a totalitarian government kept in power by debt/wage peonage.\nSociety is atomized — kept separate to prevent organizing by the peons — and workers are being steadily pushed downward so that poverty or near-poverty is now the norm for most Americans.\nWait until you see what AI and automation have in store for you. Time is on the oppressors’ side.",
">\n\nYou realize that both the RNC and DNC have been \"defeated\" several times, even recently, right? Literally all someone has to do is win more votes lol. \nObama ran against the party apparatus as a populist and won the primary in 2008 and Trump ran against the party apparatus as a populist and won the primary in 2016. It is literally a popularity contest.\nLike, it really isn't corporations or cabals or conspiracies or anything like that. Its people voting for what their preferences are. The fact that you don't like the outcome doesn't mean that it isn't democratic.\nIf you think that this is a dystopian existence, I hate to tell you this, but we're currently experiencing the highest standards of living of any society in human history. The idea that people are being \"pushed into poverty\" just isn't borne out in the data, as in absolute terms both American and global poverty has been steadily declining for almost a century straight.\nExisting fundamentally sucks. It used to be that the default state was starvation, poverty, insecurity, and death, and anything that avoided those things was gravy.\nI get that theres tons of people telling you to be righteously indignant at everyone who disagrees with you, but saying \"its all rigged by some unstoppable and evil enemy\" is a childish view that people resort to because actually trying to understand the complicated dynamics in political systems is too difficult",
">\n\n\nObama ran against the party apparatus as a populist \n\nhe was the party apparatus's second-choice candidate, he didn't \"run against them\". \n\nTrump ran against the party apparatus as a populist and won the primary in 2016\n\nand after the primary the entire conservative half of the US from top to bottom switched from giving trump the finger to kissing trump's ass.",
">\n\nIt depends on who the third party more closely aligns with and their relative location on the political spectum (eg. more centrist or more radical). It also matters if the political environment is divisive or if they work together. And unfortunately I have to mention that it also matters if people are given a reason to doubt or dispute the elections. That's not saying anything about Nigerian elections as much as it is about modern elections as a whole.\nI wish I knew more about them to speculate but it could go all sorts of different directions."
] |
I wonder what prior inspections revealed. | [] |
>
Sorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr? | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed."
] |
>
The paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.
Edit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?"
] |
>
Out of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes? | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts."
] |
>
They dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?"
] |
>
Unless you’re selling them. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them"
] |
>
oh I don't like this answer | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them."
] |
>
This world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer"
] |
>
The Power of power | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror."
] |
>
"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?" | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power"
] |
>
Maybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\""
] |
>
After their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more."
] |
>
I'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work.
But if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power.
That's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine."
] |
>
Don't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.
Also Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail"
] |
>
I'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.
When the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said."
] |
>
I am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.
But it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.
Anywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes."
] |
>
Russia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet."
] |
>
reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.
Not like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s
Your point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct."
] |
>
And the consequences are what exactly? | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door."
] |
>
This treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.
So in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?"
] |
>
Also stuff like this:
Nuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program
Initial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other."
] |
>
Meanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it) | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC."
] |
>
The article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.
Not exactly that big of a secret. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)"
] |
>
It's technically classified information. But everyone knows. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret."
] |
>
The better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows."
] |
>
And this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain."
] |
>
And stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws."
] |
>
Exactly just like [REDACTED] | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place."
] |
>
It’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance.
If most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone? | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]"
] |
>
last time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes)
the last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before) | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?"
] |
>
Weren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less "nuclear" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians.
I tried finding a source but I can't find one now. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)"
] |
>
almost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)
so yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now."
] |
>
almost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)
Yes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live"
] |
>
Hey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech."
] |
>
If I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do."
] |
>
The whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them."
] |
>
lol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war.
The sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere."
] |
>
Inspections would reveal they are inoperable | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better."
] |
>
The war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.
It would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable"
] |
>
I once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too."
] |
>
I don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India.
Meanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes."
] |
>
UK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well). | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military"
] |
>
The UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.
Also the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well)."
] |
>
The UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea."
] |
>
Ahh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system."
] |
>
Honestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now."
] |
>
Lotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying "what did you expect?"
Of course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one.
Honestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking."
] |
>
The problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.
This treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.
Prepare for a return to that norm. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people."
] |
>
The tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s.
Fwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm."
] |
>
I really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests.
No treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.
But I guess you never know. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing."
] |
>
A significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know."
] |
>
Q, is that you? | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything."
] |
>
How did you know, Picard? | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?"
] |
>
“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.” | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?"
] |
>
Yeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran... | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”"
] |
>
I mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.
It's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran..."
] |
>
Consequences?? Let me guess… sanctions.
Of course they blocked inspections.. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense."
] |
>
Of course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections.."
] |
>
Remember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea? | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps."
] |
>
never gave a reason
Wikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)
In December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?"
] |
>
Who gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security."
] |
>
So what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table.
Should I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea? | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much."
] |
>
If nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?"
] |
>
So true. Although trying to live in a post apocalyptic world for a few months/years before I die of radiation sickness sounds like an interesting experience | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?",
">\n\nIf nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts."
] |
>
I would recommend reading the book, "The Road". Its reads like something a middle schooler could understand... but it really sets the scene when it comes to how fucked up shit could get.
Edit: Also the film, "The Divide"... thats kinda where I stole the whole "lucky ones died in the blast" from. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?",
">\n\nIf nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts.",
">\n\nSo true. Although trying to live in a post apocalyptic world for a few months/years before I die of radiation sickness sounds like an interesting experience"
] |
>
The Road is also written by one of America’s greatest writers, who happens to still be alive.
It is highly readable, and stark. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?",
">\n\nIf nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts.",
">\n\nSo true. Although trying to live in a post apocalyptic world for a few months/years before I die of radiation sickness sounds like an interesting experience",
">\n\nI would recommend reading the book, \"The Road\". Its reads like something a middle schooler could understand... but it really sets the scene when it comes to how fucked up shit could get.\nEdit: Also the film, \"The Divide\"... thats kinda where I stole the whole \"lucky ones died in the blast\" from."
] |
>
Ooooooh. And what are we going to do about it? Send them a harshly worded email? | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?",
">\n\nIf nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts.",
">\n\nSo true. Although trying to live in a post apocalyptic world for a few months/years before I die of radiation sickness sounds like an interesting experience",
">\n\nI would recommend reading the book, \"The Road\". Its reads like something a middle schooler could understand... but it really sets the scene when it comes to how fucked up shit could get.\nEdit: Also the film, \"The Divide\"... thats kinda where I stole the whole \"lucky ones died in the blast\" from.",
">\n\nThe Road is also written by one of America’s greatest writers, who happens to still be alive. \nIt is highly readable, and stark."
] |
>
Russia is behaving like the “drug addict in denial” of the family of nations right now. Saying ridiculous, alarming things just to provoke an argument. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?",
">\n\nIf nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts.",
">\n\nSo true. Although trying to live in a post apocalyptic world for a few months/years before I die of radiation sickness sounds like an interesting experience",
">\n\nI would recommend reading the book, \"The Road\". Its reads like something a middle schooler could understand... but it really sets the scene when it comes to how fucked up shit could get.\nEdit: Also the film, \"The Divide\"... thats kinda where I stole the whole \"lucky ones died in the blast\" from.",
">\n\nThe Road is also written by one of America’s greatest writers, who happens to still be alive. \nIt is highly readable, and stark.",
">\n\nOoooooh. And what are we going to do about it? Send them a harshly worded email?"
] |
>
Great, grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over my head so it looks like I may die with it hanging over my head. Oh well, it's been an enjoyable 30 some years without it. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?",
">\n\nIf nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts.",
">\n\nSo true. Although trying to live in a post apocalyptic world for a few months/years before I die of radiation sickness sounds like an interesting experience",
">\n\nI would recommend reading the book, \"The Road\". Its reads like something a middle schooler could understand... but it really sets the scene when it comes to how fucked up shit could get.\nEdit: Also the film, \"The Divide\"... thats kinda where I stole the whole \"lucky ones died in the blast\" from.",
">\n\nThe Road is also written by one of America’s greatest writers, who happens to still be alive. \nIt is highly readable, and stark.",
">\n\nOoooooh. And what are we going to do about it? Send them a harshly worded email?",
">\n\nRussia is behaving like the “drug addict in denial” of the family of nations right now. Saying ridiculous, alarming things just to provoke an argument."
] |
>
Quick question here, but does Russia get to inspect American nukes? | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?",
">\n\nIf nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts.",
">\n\nSo true. Although trying to live in a post apocalyptic world for a few months/years before I die of radiation sickness sounds like an interesting experience",
">\n\nI would recommend reading the book, \"The Road\". Its reads like something a middle schooler could understand... but it really sets the scene when it comes to how fucked up shit could get.\nEdit: Also the film, \"The Divide\"... thats kinda where I stole the whole \"lucky ones died in the blast\" from.",
">\n\nThe Road is also written by one of America’s greatest writers, who happens to still be alive. \nIt is highly readable, and stark.",
">\n\nOoooooh. And what are we going to do about it? Send them a harshly worded email?",
">\n\nRussia is behaving like the “drug addict in denial” of the family of nations right now. Saying ridiculous, alarming things just to provoke an argument.",
">\n\nGreat, grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over my head so it looks like I may die with it hanging over my head. Oh well, it's been an enjoyable 30 some years without it."
] |
>
Yea, that is how the treaty works | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?",
">\n\nIf nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts.",
">\n\nSo true. Although trying to live in a post apocalyptic world for a few months/years before I die of radiation sickness sounds like an interesting experience",
">\n\nI would recommend reading the book, \"The Road\". Its reads like something a middle schooler could understand... but it really sets the scene when it comes to how fucked up shit could get.\nEdit: Also the film, \"The Divide\"... thats kinda where I stole the whole \"lucky ones died in the blast\" from.",
">\n\nThe Road is also written by one of America’s greatest writers, who happens to still be alive. \nIt is highly readable, and stark.",
">\n\nOoooooh. And what are we going to do about it? Send them a harshly worded email?",
">\n\nRussia is behaving like the “drug addict in denial” of the family of nations right now. Saying ridiculous, alarming things just to provoke an argument.",
">\n\nGreat, grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over my head so it looks like I may die with it hanging over my head. Oh well, it's been an enjoyable 30 some years without it.",
">\n\nQuick question here, but does Russia get to inspect American nukes?"
] |
>
So refusing inspection is a violation but threatening to use it is not? | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?",
">\n\nIf nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts.",
">\n\nSo true. Although trying to live in a post apocalyptic world for a few months/years before I die of radiation sickness sounds like an interesting experience",
">\n\nI would recommend reading the book, \"The Road\". Its reads like something a middle schooler could understand... but it really sets the scene when it comes to how fucked up shit could get.\nEdit: Also the film, \"The Divide\"... thats kinda where I stole the whole \"lucky ones died in the blast\" from.",
">\n\nThe Road is also written by one of America’s greatest writers, who happens to still be alive. \nIt is highly readable, and stark.",
">\n\nOoooooh. And what are we going to do about it? Send them a harshly worded email?",
">\n\nRussia is behaving like the “drug addict in denial” of the family of nations right now. Saying ridiculous, alarming things just to provoke an argument.",
">\n\nGreat, grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over my head so it looks like I may die with it hanging over my head. Oh well, it's been an enjoyable 30 some years without it.",
">\n\nQuick question here, but does Russia get to inspect American nukes?",
">\n\nYea, that is how the treaty works"
] |
>
Most of their weapons are expired, most of their delivery systems are vulnerable or hardly work, the threats haven’t had the usual effect…so their last card is to obscure their inventory and hope that the lack of information scares us.
This tactic, however, relies heavily on fear that the aforementioned problems aren’t accurate.
The US still plays the “talk softly, carry a big stick” strategy…but it may be time to talk louder so the Russians are constantly reminded how fucked they are. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?",
">\n\nIf nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts.",
">\n\nSo true. Although trying to live in a post apocalyptic world for a few months/years before I die of radiation sickness sounds like an interesting experience",
">\n\nI would recommend reading the book, \"The Road\". Its reads like something a middle schooler could understand... but it really sets the scene when it comes to how fucked up shit could get.\nEdit: Also the film, \"The Divide\"... thats kinda where I stole the whole \"lucky ones died in the blast\" from.",
">\n\nThe Road is also written by one of America’s greatest writers, who happens to still be alive. \nIt is highly readable, and stark.",
">\n\nOoooooh. And what are we going to do about it? Send them a harshly worded email?",
">\n\nRussia is behaving like the “drug addict in denial” of the family of nations right now. Saying ridiculous, alarming things just to provoke an argument.",
">\n\nGreat, grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over my head so it looks like I may die with it hanging over my head. Oh well, it's been an enjoyable 30 some years without it.",
">\n\nQuick question here, but does Russia get to inspect American nukes?",
">\n\nYea, that is how the treaty works",
">\n\nSo refusing inspection is a violation but threatening to use it is not?"
] |
>
Inspections were going on both ways till last year. Why do you think their weapons expired in the last year. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?",
">\n\nIf nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts.",
">\n\nSo true. Although trying to live in a post apocalyptic world for a few months/years before I die of radiation sickness sounds like an interesting experience",
">\n\nI would recommend reading the book, \"The Road\". Its reads like something a middle schooler could understand... but it really sets the scene when it comes to how fucked up shit could get.\nEdit: Also the film, \"The Divide\"... thats kinda where I stole the whole \"lucky ones died in the blast\" from.",
">\n\nThe Road is also written by one of America’s greatest writers, who happens to still be alive. \nIt is highly readable, and stark.",
">\n\nOoooooh. And what are we going to do about it? Send them a harshly worded email?",
">\n\nRussia is behaving like the “drug addict in denial” of the family of nations right now. Saying ridiculous, alarming things just to provoke an argument.",
">\n\nGreat, grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over my head so it looks like I may die with it hanging over my head. Oh well, it's been an enjoyable 30 some years without it.",
">\n\nQuick question here, but does Russia get to inspect American nukes?",
">\n\nYea, that is how the treaty works",
">\n\nSo refusing inspection is a violation but threatening to use it is not?",
">\n\nMost of their weapons are expired, most of their delivery systems are vulnerable or hardly work, the threats haven’t had the usual effect…so their last card is to obscure their inventory and hope that the lack of information scares us.\nThis tactic, however, relies heavily on fear that the aforementioned problems aren’t accurate.\nThe US still plays the “talk softly, carry a big stick” strategy…but it may be time to talk louder so the Russians are constantly reminded how fucked they are."
] |
>
They don't have access to any data so it's pretty safe to just disregard any opinion that says stuff like "they aren't working anymore, they are expired" etc etc. It's pretty much talking out of their asses. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?",
">\n\nIf nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts.",
">\n\nSo true. Although trying to live in a post apocalyptic world for a few months/years before I die of radiation sickness sounds like an interesting experience",
">\n\nI would recommend reading the book, \"The Road\". Its reads like something a middle schooler could understand... but it really sets the scene when it comes to how fucked up shit could get.\nEdit: Also the film, \"The Divide\"... thats kinda where I stole the whole \"lucky ones died in the blast\" from.",
">\n\nThe Road is also written by one of America’s greatest writers, who happens to still be alive. \nIt is highly readable, and stark.",
">\n\nOoooooh. And what are we going to do about it? Send them a harshly worded email?",
">\n\nRussia is behaving like the “drug addict in denial” of the family of nations right now. Saying ridiculous, alarming things just to provoke an argument.",
">\n\nGreat, grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over my head so it looks like I may die with it hanging over my head. Oh well, it's been an enjoyable 30 some years without it.",
">\n\nQuick question here, but does Russia get to inspect American nukes?",
">\n\nYea, that is how the treaty works",
">\n\nSo refusing inspection is a violation but threatening to use it is not?",
">\n\nMost of their weapons are expired, most of their delivery systems are vulnerable or hardly work, the threats haven’t had the usual effect…so their last card is to obscure their inventory and hope that the lack of information scares us.\nThis tactic, however, relies heavily on fear that the aforementioned problems aren’t accurate.\nThe US still plays the “talk softly, carry a big stick” strategy…but it may be time to talk louder so the Russians are constantly reminded how fucked they are.",
">\n\nInspections were going on both ways till last year. Why do you think their weapons expired in the last year."
] |
>
No one has access to viability data, however, Russia would be spending many more billions per year on their arsenal if they actually had the number of functional weapons they claim. Because the treaties only allow nations to count warheads, without testing their function, means that expired warheads would be counted the same as active warheads. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?",
">\n\nIf nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts.",
">\n\nSo true. Although trying to live in a post apocalyptic world for a few months/years before I die of radiation sickness sounds like an interesting experience",
">\n\nI would recommend reading the book, \"The Road\". Its reads like something a middle schooler could understand... but it really sets the scene when it comes to how fucked up shit could get.\nEdit: Also the film, \"The Divide\"... thats kinda where I stole the whole \"lucky ones died in the blast\" from.",
">\n\nThe Road is also written by one of America’s greatest writers, who happens to still be alive. \nIt is highly readable, and stark.",
">\n\nOoooooh. And what are we going to do about it? Send them a harshly worded email?",
">\n\nRussia is behaving like the “drug addict in denial” of the family of nations right now. Saying ridiculous, alarming things just to provoke an argument.",
">\n\nGreat, grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over my head so it looks like I may die with it hanging over my head. Oh well, it's been an enjoyable 30 some years without it.",
">\n\nQuick question here, but does Russia get to inspect American nukes?",
">\n\nYea, that is how the treaty works",
">\n\nSo refusing inspection is a violation but threatening to use it is not?",
">\n\nMost of their weapons are expired, most of their delivery systems are vulnerable or hardly work, the threats haven’t had the usual effect…so their last card is to obscure their inventory and hope that the lack of information scares us.\nThis tactic, however, relies heavily on fear that the aforementioned problems aren’t accurate.\nThe US still plays the “talk softly, carry a big stick” strategy…but it may be time to talk louder so the Russians are constantly reminded how fucked they are.",
">\n\nInspections were going on both ways till last year. Why do you think their weapons expired in the last year.",
">\n\nThey don't have access to any data so it's pretty safe to just disregard any opinion that says stuff like \"they aren't working anymore, they are expired\" etc etc. It's pretty much talking out of their asses."
] |
>
Not saying you are wrong, but there's always the possibility (albeit VERY small possibility) that the russians somehow figured out how to maintain nuclear weapons at a fraction of the cost it takes the west to. We have to account for all possible scenarios when it comes to nukes and that's one of them. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?",
">\n\nIf nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts.",
">\n\nSo true. Although trying to live in a post apocalyptic world for a few months/years before I die of radiation sickness sounds like an interesting experience",
">\n\nI would recommend reading the book, \"The Road\". Its reads like something a middle schooler could understand... but it really sets the scene when it comes to how fucked up shit could get.\nEdit: Also the film, \"The Divide\"... thats kinda where I stole the whole \"lucky ones died in the blast\" from.",
">\n\nThe Road is also written by one of America’s greatest writers, who happens to still be alive. \nIt is highly readable, and stark.",
">\n\nOoooooh. And what are we going to do about it? Send them a harshly worded email?",
">\n\nRussia is behaving like the “drug addict in denial” of the family of nations right now. Saying ridiculous, alarming things just to provoke an argument.",
">\n\nGreat, grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over my head so it looks like I may die with it hanging over my head. Oh well, it's been an enjoyable 30 some years without it.",
">\n\nQuick question here, but does Russia get to inspect American nukes?",
">\n\nYea, that is how the treaty works",
">\n\nSo refusing inspection is a violation but threatening to use it is not?",
">\n\nMost of their weapons are expired, most of their delivery systems are vulnerable or hardly work, the threats haven’t had the usual effect…so their last card is to obscure their inventory and hope that the lack of information scares us.\nThis tactic, however, relies heavily on fear that the aforementioned problems aren’t accurate.\nThe US still plays the “talk softly, carry a big stick” strategy…but it may be time to talk louder so the Russians are constantly reminded how fucked they are.",
">\n\nInspections were going on both ways till last year. Why do you think their weapons expired in the last year.",
">\n\nThey don't have access to any data so it's pretty safe to just disregard any opinion that says stuff like \"they aren't working anymore, they are expired\" etc etc. It's pretty much talking out of their asses.",
">\n\nNo one has access to viability data, however, Russia would be spending many more billions per year on their arsenal if they actually had the number of functional weapons they claim. Because the treaties only allow nations to count warheads, without testing their function, means that expired warheads would be counted the same as active warheads."
] |
>
Russia will naturally have cheaper maintainance due to the lower wages than the west. So you can never do a 1:1 budget comparison. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?",
">\n\nIf nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts.",
">\n\nSo true. Although trying to live in a post apocalyptic world for a few months/years before I die of radiation sickness sounds like an interesting experience",
">\n\nI would recommend reading the book, \"The Road\". Its reads like something a middle schooler could understand... but it really sets the scene when it comes to how fucked up shit could get.\nEdit: Also the film, \"The Divide\"... thats kinda where I stole the whole \"lucky ones died in the blast\" from.",
">\n\nThe Road is also written by one of America’s greatest writers, who happens to still be alive. \nIt is highly readable, and stark.",
">\n\nOoooooh. And what are we going to do about it? Send them a harshly worded email?",
">\n\nRussia is behaving like the “drug addict in denial” of the family of nations right now. Saying ridiculous, alarming things just to provoke an argument.",
">\n\nGreat, grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over my head so it looks like I may die with it hanging over my head. Oh well, it's been an enjoyable 30 some years without it.",
">\n\nQuick question here, but does Russia get to inspect American nukes?",
">\n\nYea, that is how the treaty works",
">\n\nSo refusing inspection is a violation but threatening to use it is not?",
">\n\nMost of their weapons are expired, most of their delivery systems are vulnerable or hardly work, the threats haven’t had the usual effect…so their last card is to obscure their inventory and hope that the lack of information scares us.\nThis tactic, however, relies heavily on fear that the aforementioned problems aren’t accurate.\nThe US still plays the “talk softly, carry a big stick” strategy…but it may be time to talk louder so the Russians are constantly reminded how fucked they are.",
">\n\nInspections were going on both ways till last year. Why do you think their weapons expired in the last year.",
">\n\nThey don't have access to any data so it's pretty safe to just disregard any opinion that says stuff like \"they aren't working anymore, they are expired\" etc etc. It's pretty much talking out of their asses.",
">\n\nNo one has access to viability data, however, Russia would be spending many more billions per year on their arsenal if they actually had the number of functional weapons they claim. Because the treaties only allow nations to count warheads, without testing their function, means that expired warheads would be counted the same as active warheads.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but there's always the possibility (albeit VERY small possibility) that the russians somehow figured out how to maintain nuclear weapons at a fraction of the cost it takes the west to. We have to account for all possible scenarios when it comes to nukes and that's one of them."
] |
>
People don't seem to understand this. And it is not just labor. Parts too. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?",
">\n\nIf nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts.",
">\n\nSo true. Although trying to live in a post apocalyptic world for a few months/years before I die of radiation sickness sounds like an interesting experience",
">\n\nI would recommend reading the book, \"The Road\". Its reads like something a middle schooler could understand... but it really sets the scene when it comes to how fucked up shit could get.\nEdit: Also the film, \"The Divide\"... thats kinda where I stole the whole \"lucky ones died in the blast\" from.",
">\n\nThe Road is also written by one of America’s greatest writers, who happens to still be alive. \nIt is highly readable, and stark.",
">\n\nOoooooh. And what are we going to do about it? Send them a harshly worded email?",
">\n\nRussia is behaving like the “drug addict in denial” of the family of nations right now. Saying ridiculous, alarming things just to provoke an argument.",
">\n\nGreat, grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over my head so it looks like I may die with it hanging over my head. Oh well, it's been an enjoyable 30 some years without it.",
">\n\nQuick question here, but does Russia get to inspect American nukes?",
">\n\nYea, that is how the treaty works",
">\n\nSo refusing inspection is a violation but threatening to use it is not?",
">\n\nMost of their weapons are expired, most of their delivery systems are vulnerable or hardly work, the threats haven’t had the usual effect…so their last card is to obscure their inventory and hope that the lack of information scares us.\nThis tactic, however, relies heavily on fear that the aforementioned problems aren’t accurate.\nThe US still plays the “talk softly, carry a big stick” strategy…but it may be time to talk louder so the Russians are constantly reminded how fucked they are.",
">\n\nInspections were going on both ways till last year. Why do you think their weapons expired in the last year.",
">\n\nThey don't have access to any data so it's pretty safe to just disregard any opinion that says stuff like \"they aren't working anymore, they are expired\" etc etc. It's pretty much talking out of their asses.",
">\n\nNo one has access to viability data, however, Russia would be spending many more billions per year on their arsenal if they actually had the number of functional weapons they claim. Because the treaties only allow nations to count warheads, without testing their function, means that expired warheads would be counted the same as active warheads.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but there's always the possibility (albeit VERY small possibility) that the russians somehow figured out how to maintain nuclear weapons at a fraction of the cost it takes the west to. We have to account for all possible scenarios when it comes to nukes and that's one of them.",
">\n\nRussia will naturally have cheaper maintainance due to the lower wages than the west. So you can never do a 1:1 budget comparison."
] |
>
while true
there's a HUGE difference between russians and even the UK's
Who has a fraction of the nukes that russia has | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?",
">\n\nIf nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts.",
">\n\nSo true. Although trying to live in a post apocalyptic world for a few months/years before I die of radiation sickness sounds like an interesting experience",
">\n\nI would recommend reading the book, \"The Road\". Its reads like something a middle schooler could understand... but it really sets the scene when it comes to how fucked up shit could get.\nEdit: Also the film, \"The Divide\"... thats kinda where I stole the whole \"lucky ones died in the blast\" from.",
">\n\nThe Road is also written by one of America’s greatest writers, who happens to still be alive. \nIt is highly readable, and stark.",
">\n\nOoooooh. And what are we going to do about it? Send them a harshly worded email?",
">\n\nRussia is behaving like the “drug addict in denial” of the family of nations right now. Saying ridiculous, alarming things just to provoke an argument.",
">\n\nGreat, grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over my head so it looks like I may die with it hanging over my head. Oh well, it's been an enjoyable 30 some years without it.",
">\n\nQuick question here, but does Russia get to inspect American nukes?",
">\n\nYea, that is how the treaty works",
">\n\nSo refusing inspection is a violation but threatening to use it is not?",
">\n\nMost of their weapons are expired, most of their delivery systems are vulnerable or hardly work, the threats haven’t had the usual effect…so their last card is to obscure their inventory and hope that the lack of information scares us.\nThis tactic, however, relies heavily on fear that the aforementioned problems aren’t accurate.\nThe US still plays the “talk softly, carry a big stick” strategy…but it may be time to talk louder so the Russians are constantly reminded how fucked they are.",
">\n\nInspections were going on both ways till last year. Why do you think their weapons expired in the last year.",
">\n\nThey don't have access to any data so it's pretty safe to just disregard any opinion that says stuff like \"they aren't working anymore, they are expired\" etc etc. It's pretty much talking out of their asses.",
">\n\nNo one has access to viability data, however, Russia would be spending many more billions per year on their arsenal if they actually had the number of functional weapons they claim. Because the treaties only allow nations to count warheads, without testing their function, means that expired warheads would be counted the same as active warheads.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but there's always the possibility (albeit VERY small possibility) that the russians somehow figured out how to maintain nuclear weapons at a fraction of the cost it takes the west to. We have to account for all possible scenarios when it comes to nukes and that's one of them.",
">\n\nRussia will naturally have cheaper maintainance due to the lower wages than the west. So you can never do a 1:1 budget comparison.",
">\n\nPeople don't seem to understand this. And it is not just labor. Parts too."
] |
>
As a sidenote, this is why I hate 'he said she said' journalism.
The US says Russia violated the treaty, Russia of course says they have not, and it's the job of the journalist to determine who is telling the truth.
As much as I highly doubt Russia is the truthful one here it's the job of the newspaper to investigate and actually pick a side. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?",
">\n\nIf nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts.",
">\n\nSo true. Although trying to live in a post apocalyptic world for a few months/years before I die of radiation sickness sounds like an interesting experience",
">\n\nI would recommend reading the book, \"The Road\". Its reads like something a middle schooler could understand... but it really sets the scene when it comes to how fucked up shit could get.\nEdit: Also the film, \"The Divide\"... thats kinda where I stole the whole \"lucky ones died in the blast\" from.",
">\n\nThe Road is also written by one of America’s greatest writers, who happens to still be alive. \nIt is highly readable, and stark.",
">\n\nOoooooh. And what are we going to do about it? Send them a harshly worded email?",
">\n\nRussia is behaving like the “drug addict in denial” of the family of nations right now. Saying ridiculous, alarming things just to provoke an argument.",
">\n\nGreat, grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over my head so it looks like I may die with it hanging over my head. Oh well, it's been an enjoyable 30 some years without it.",
">\n\nQuick question here, but does Russia get to inspect American nukes?",
">\n\nYea, that is how the treaty works",
">\n\nSo refusing inspection is a violation but threatening to use it is not?",
">\n\nMost of their weapons are expired, most of their delivery systems are vulnerable or hardly work, the threats haven’t had the usual effect…so their last card is to obscure their inventory and hope that the lack of information scares us.\nThis tactic, however, relies heavily on fear that the aforementioned problems aren’t accurate.\nThe US still plays the “talk softly, carry a big stick” strategy…but it may be time to talk louder so the Russians are constantly reminded how fucked they are.",
">\n\nInspections were going on both ways till last year. Why do you think their weapons expired in the last year.",
">\n\nThey don't have access to any data so it's pretty safe to just disregard any opinion that says stuff like \"they aren't working anymore, they are expired\" etc etc. It's pretty much talking out of their asses.",
">\n\nNo one has access to viability data, however, Russia would be spending many more billions per year on their arsenal if they actually had the number of functional weapons they claim. Because the treaties only allow nations to count warheads, without testing their function, means that expired warheads would be counted the same as active warheads.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but there's always the possibility (albeit VERY small possibility) that the russians somehow figured out how to maintain nuclear weapons at a fraction of the cost it takes the west to. We have to account for all possible scenarios when it comes to nukes and that's one of them.",
">\n\nRussia will naturally have cheaper maintainance due to the lower wages than the west. So you can never do a 1:1 budget comparison.",
">\n\nPeople don't seem to understand this. And it is not just labor. Parts too.",
">\n\nwhile true\nthere's a HUGE difference between russians and even the UK's\nWho has a fraction of the nukes that russia has"
] |
>
Journalists should uncover all leads and disclose everything. Choosing sides is what they absolutely should NOT do. We have 24hr news organizations that prove this only causes sensationalism and chaos. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?",
">\n\nIf nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts.",
">\n\nSo true. Although trying to live in a post apocalyptic world for a few months/years before I die of radiation sickness sounds like an interesting experience",
">\n\nI would recommend reading the book, \"The Road\". Its reads like something a middle schooler could understand... but it really sets the scene when it comes to how fucked up shit could get.\nEdit: Also the film, \"The Divide\"... thats kinda where I stole the whole \"lucky ones died in the blast\" from.",
">\n\nThe Road is also written by one of America’s greatest writers, who happens to still be alive. \nIt is highly readable, and stark.",
">\n\nOoooooh. And what are we going to do about it? Send them a harshly worded email?",
">\n\nRussia is behaving like the “drug addict in denial” of the family of nations right now. Saying ridiculous, alarming things just to provoke an argument.",
">\n\nGreat, grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over my head so it looks like I may die with it hanging over my head. Oh well, it's been an enjoyable 30 some years without it.",
">\n\nQuick question here, but does Russia get to inspect American nukes?",
">\n\nYea, that is how the treaty works",
">\n\nSo refusing inspection is a violation but threatening to use it is not?",
">\n\nMost of their weapons are expired, most of their delivery systems are vulnerable or hardly work, the threats haven’t had the usual effect…so their last card is to obscure their inventory and hope that the lack of information scares us.\nThis tactic, however, relies heavily on fear that the aforementioned problems aren’t accurate.\nThe US still plays the “talk softly, carry a big stick” strategy…but it may be time to talk louder so the Russians are constantly reminded how fucked they are.",
">\n\nInspections were going on both ways till last year. Why do you think their weapons expired in the last year.",
">\n\nThey don't have access to any data so it's pretty safe to just disregard any opinion that says stuff like \"they aren't working anymore, they are expired\" etc etc. It's pretty much talking out of their asses.",
">\n\nNo one has access to viability data, however, Russia would be spending many more billions per year on their arsenal if they actually had the number of functional weapons they claim. Because the treaties only allow nations to count warheads, without testing their function, means that expired warheads would be counted the same as active warheads.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but there's always the possibility (albeit VERY small possibility) that the russians somehow figured out how to maintain nuclear weapons at a fraction of the cost it takes the west to. We have to account for all possible scenarios when it comes to nukes and that's one of them.",
">\n\nRussia will naturally have cheaper maintainance due to the lower wages than the west. So you can never do a 1:1 budget comparison.",
">\n\nPeople don't seem to understand this. And it is not just labor. Parts too.",
">\n\nwhile true\nthere's a HUGE difference between russians and even the UK's\nWho has a fraction of the nukes that russia has",
">\n\nAs a sidenote, this is why I hate 'he said she said' journalism.\nThe US says Russia violated the treaty, Russia of course says they have not, and it's the job of the journalist to determine who is telling the truth.\nAs much as I highly doubt Russia is the truthful one here it's the job of the newspaper to investigate and actually pick a side."
] |
>
Bruh. They already violated nuclear treaties when they invaded Ukraine. I dont think they care about these things.
(Ukraine gave up their nuclear arsenal in the 90s in exchange for russia promising to not attack Ukraine) | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?",
">\n\nIf nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts.",
">\n\nSo true. Although trying to live in a post apocalyptic world for a few months/years before I die of radiation sickness sounds like an interesting experience",
">\n\nI would recommend reading the book, \"The Road\". Its reads like something a middle schooler could understand... but it really sets the scene when it comes to how fucked up shit could get.\nEdit: Also the film, \"The Divide\"... thats kinda where I stole the whole \"lucky ones died in the blast\" from.",
">\n\nThe Road is also written by one of America’s greatest writers, who happens to still be alive. \nIt is highly readable, and stark.",
">\n\nOoooooh. And what are we going to do about it? Send them a harshly worded email?",
">\n\nRussia is behaving like the “drug addict in denial” of the family of nations right now. Saying ridiculous, alarming things just to provoke an argument.",
">\n\nGreat, grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over my head so it looks like I may die with it hanging over my head. Oh well, it's been an enjoyable 30 some years without it.",
">\n\nQuick question here, but does Russia get to inspect American nukes?",
">\n\nYea, that is how the treaty works",
">\n\nSo refusing inspection is a violation but threatening to use it is not?",
">\n\nMost of their weapons are expired, most of their delivery systems are vulnerable or hardly work, the threats haven’t had the usual effect…so their last card is to obscure their inventory and hope that the lack of information scares us.\nThis tactic, however, relies heavily on fear that the aforementioned problems aren’t accurate.\nThe US still plays the “talk softly, carry a big stick” strategy…but it may be time to talk louder so the Russians are constantly reminded how fucked they are.",
">\n\nInspections were going on both ways till last year. Why do you think their weapons expired in the last year.",
">\n\nThey don't have access to any data so it's pretty safe to just disregard any opinion that says stuff like \"they aren't working anymore, they are expired\" etc etc. It's pretty much talking out of their asses.",
">\n\nNo one has access to viability data, however, Russia would be spending many more billions per year on their arsenal if they actually had the number of functional weapons they claim. Because the treaties only allow nations to count warheads, without testing their function, means that expired warheads would be counted the same as active warheads.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but there's always the possibility (albeit VERY small possibility) that the russians somehow figured out how to maintain nuclear weapons at a fraction of the cost it takes the west to. We have to account for all possible scenarios when it comes to nukes and that's one of them.",
">\n\nRussia will naturally have cheaper maintainance due to the lower wages than the west. So you can never do a 1:1 budget comparison.",
">\n\nPeople don't seem to understand this. And it is not just labor. Parts too.",
">\n\nwhile true\nthere's a HUGE difference between russians and even the UK's\nWho has a fraction of the nukes that russia has",
">\n\nAs a sidenote, this is why I hate 'he said she said' journalism.\nThe US says Russia violated the treaty, Russia of course says they have not, and it's the job of the journalist to determine who is telling the truth.\nAs much as I highly doubt Russia is the truthful one here it's the job of the newspaper to investigate and actually pick a side.",
">\n\nJournalists should uncover all leads and disclose everything. Choosing sides is what they absolutely should NOT do. We have 24hr news organizations that prove this only causes sensationalism and chaos."
] |
>
You mean the same country that signed a treaty agreement with Ukraine where Ukraine gave up their nuclear arms if Russia promised not to invade?! No way!!
Nothing will happen anyway.
The corporations that were supposed to leave Russia still haven't left. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?",
">\n\nIf nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts.",
">\n\nSo true. Although trying to live in a post apocalyptic world for a few months/years before I die of radiation sickness sounds like an interesting experience",
">\n\nI would recommend reading the book, \"The Road\". Its reads like something a middle schooler could understand... but it really sets the scene when it comes to how fucked up shit could get.\nEdit: Also the film, \"The Divide\"... thats kinda where I stole the whole \"lucky ones died in the blast\" from.",
">\n\nThe Road is also written by one of America’s greatest writers, who happens to still be alive. \nIt is highly readable, and stark.",
">\n\nOoooooh. And what are we going to do about it? Send them a harshly worded email?",
">\n\nRussia is behaving like the “drug addict in denial” of the family of nations right now. Saying ridiculous, alarming things just to provoke an argument.",
">\n\nGreat, grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over my head so it looks like I may die with it hanging over my head. Oh well, it's been an enjoyable 30 some years without it.",
">\n\nQuick question here, but does Russia get to inspect American nukes?",
">\n\nYea, that is how the treaty works",
">\n\nSo refusing inspection is a violation but threatening to use it is not?",
">\n\nMost of their weapons are expired, most of their delivery systems are vulnerable or hardly work, the threats haven’t had the usual effect…so their last card is to obscure their inventory and hope that the lack of information scares us.\nThis tactic, however, relies heavily on fear that the aforementioned problems aren’t accurate.\nThe US still plays the “talk softly, carry a big stick” strategy…but it may be time to talk louder so the Russians are constantly reminded how fucked they are.",
">\n\nInspections were going on both ways till last year. Why do you think their weapons expired in the last year.",
">\n\nThey don't have access to any data so it's pretty safe to just disregard any opinion that says stuff like \"they aren't working anymore, they are expired\" etc etc. It's pretty much talking out of their asses.",
">\n\nNo one has access to viability data, however, Russia would be spending many more billions per year on their arsenal if they actually had the number of functional weapons they claim. Because the treaties only allow nations to count warheads, without testing their function, means that expired warheads would be counted the same as active warheads.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but there's always the possibility (albeit VERY small possibility) that the russians somehow figured out how to maintain nuclear weapons at a fraction of the cost it takes the west to. We have to account for all possible scenarios when it comes to nukes and that's one of them.",
">\n\nRussia will naturally have cheaper maintainance due to the lower wages than the west. So you can never do a 1:1 budget comparison.",
">\n\nPeople don't seem to understand this. And it is not just labor. Parts too.",
">\n\nwhile true\nthere's a HUGE difference between russians and even the UK's\nWho has a fraction of the nukes that russia has",
">\n\nAs a sidenote, this is why I hate 'he said she said' journalism.\nThe US says Russia violated the treaty, Russia of course says they have not, and it's the job of the journalist to determine who is telling the truth.\nAs much as I highly doubt Russia is the truthful one here it's the job of the newspaper to investigate and actually pick a side.",
">\n\nJournalists should uncover all leads and disclose everything. Choosing sides is what they absolutely should NOT do. We have 24hr news organizations that prove this only causes sensationalism and chaos.",
">\n\nBruh. They already violated nuclear treaties when they invaded Ukraine. I dont think they care about these things. \n(Ukraine gave up their nuclear arsenal in the 90s in exchange for russia promising to not attack Ukraine)"
] |
>
thing is, whether he will actually do it or not, threatening nuclear war is the only stick putin still has to shake.. so far all of his threats have been really empty and his army has been proven completely ineffective and disorganized at best..
if he allows an inspection rn and it’s anything like the results of the last one, he may lose his one and only playing card. at that point, it just becomes a war of attrition - waiting for either putin’s health to take him out, or hopefully some enrgaged russian citizens. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?",
">\n\nIf nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts.",
">\n\nSo true. Although trying to live in a post apocalyptic world for a few months/years before I die of radiation sickness sounds like an interesting experience",
">\n\nI would recommend reading the book, \"The Road\". Its reads like something a middle schooler could understand... but it really sets the scene when it comes to how fucked up shit could get.\nEdit: Also the film, \"The Divide\"... thats kinda where I stole the whole \"lucky ones died in the blast\" from.",
">\n\nThe Road is also written by one of America’s greatest writers, who happens to still be alive. \nIt is highly readable, and stark.",
">\n\nOoooooh. And what are we going to do about it? Send them a harshly worded email?",
">\n\nRussia is behaving like the “drug addict in denial” of the family of nations right now. Saying ridiculous, alarming things just to provoke an argument.",
">\n\nGreat, grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over my head so it looks like I may die with it hanging over my head. Oh well, it's been an enjoyable 30 some years without it.",
">\n\nQuick question here, but does Russia get to inspect American nukes?",
">\n\nYea, that is how the treaty works",
">\n\nSo refusing inspection is a violation but threatening to use it is not?",
">\n\nMost of their weapons are expired, most of their delivery systems are vulnerable or hardly work, the threats haven’t had the usual effect…so their last card is to obscure their inventory and hope that the lack of information scares us.\nThis tactic, however, relies heavily on fear that the aforementioned problems aren’t accurate.\nThe US still plays the “talk softly, carry a big stick” strategy…but it may be time to talk louder so the Russians are constantly reminded how fucked they are.",
">\n\nInspections were going on both ways till last year. Why do you think their weapons expired in the last year.",
">\n\nThey don't have access to any data so it's pretty safe to just disregard any opinion that says stuff like \"they aren't working anymore, they are expired\" etc etc. It's pretty much talking out of their asses.",
">\n\nNo one has access to viability data, however, Russia would be spending many more billions per year on their arsenal if they actually had the number of functional weapons they claim. Because the treaties only allow nations to count warheads, without testing their function, means that expired warheads would be counted the same as active warheads.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but there's always the possibility (albeit VERY small possibility) that the russians somehow figured out how to maintain nuclear weapons at a fraction of the cost it takes the west to. We have to account for all possible scenarios when it comes to nukes and that's one of them.",
">\n\nRussia will naturally have cheaper maintainance due to the lower wages than the west. So you can never do a 1:1 budget comparison.",
">\n\nPeople don't seem to understand this. And it is not just labor. Parts too.",
">\n\nwhile true\nthere's a HUGE difference between russians and even the UK's\nWho has a fraction of the nukes that russia has",
">\n\nAs a sidenote, this is why I hate 'he said she said' journalism.\nThe US says Russia violated the treaty, Russia of course says they have not, and it's the job of the journalist to determine who is telling the truth.\nAs much as I highly doubt Russia is the truthful one here it's the job of the newspaper to investigate and actually pick a side.",
">\n\nJournalists should uncover all leads and disclose everything. Choosing sides is what they absolutely should NOT do. We have 24hr news organizations that prove this only causes sensationalism and chaos.",
">\n\nBruh. They already violated nuclear treaties when they invaded Ukraine. I dont think they care about these things. \n(Ukraine gave up their nuclear arsenal in the 90s in exchange for russia promising to not attack Ukraine)",
">\n\nYou mean the same country that signed a treaty agreement with Ukraine where Ukraine gave up their nuclear arms if Russia promised not to invade?! No way!!\nNothing will happen anyway. \nThe corporations that were supposed to leave Russia still haven't left."
] |
>
Last inspection was done in 2020 just before the pandemic. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?",
">\n\nIf nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts.",
">\n\nSo true. Although trying to live in a post apocalyptic world for a few months/years before I die of radiation sickness sounds like an interesting experience",
">\n\nI would recommend reading the book, \"The Road\". Its reads like something a middle schooler could understand... but it really sets the scene when it comes to how fucked up shit could get.\nEdit: Also the film, \"The Divide\"... thats kinda where I stole the whole \"lucky ones died in the blast\" from.",
">\n\nThe Road is also written by one of America’s greatest writers, who happens to still be alive. \nIt is highly readable, and stark.",
">\n\nOoooooh. And what are we going to do about it? Send them a harshly worded email?",
">\n\nRussia is behaving like the “drug addict in denial” of the family of nations right now. Saying ridiculous, alarming things just to provoke an argument.",
">\n\nGreat, grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over my head so it looks like I may die with it hanging over my head. Oh well, it's been an enjoyable 30 some years without it.",
">\n\nQuick question here, but does Russia get to inspect American nukes?",
">\n\nYea, that is how the treaty works",
">\n\nSo refusing inspection is a violation but threatening to use it is not?",
">\n\nMost of their weapons are expired, most of their delivery systems are vulnerable or hardly work, the threats haven’t had the usual effect…so their last card is to obscure their inventory and hope that the lack of information scares us.\nThis tactic, however, relies heavily on fear that the aforementioned problems aren’t accurate.\nThe US still plays the “talk softly, carry a big stick” strategy…but it may be time to talk louder so the Russians are constantly reminded how fucked they are.",
">\n\nInspections were going on both ways till last year. Why do you think their weapons expired in the last year.",
">\n\nThey don't have access to any data so it's pretty safe to just disregard any opinion that says stuff like \"they aren't working anymore, they are expired\" etc etc. It's pretty much talking out of their asses.",
">\n\nNo one has access to viability data, however, Russia would be spending many more billions per year on their arsenal if they actually had the number of functional weapons they claim. Because the treaties only allow nations to count warheads, without testing their function, means that expired warheads would be counted the same as active warheads.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but there's always the possibility (albeit VERY small possibility) that the russians somehow figured out how to maintain nuclear weapons at a fraction of the cost it takes the west to. We have to account for all possible scenarios when it comes to nukes and that's one of them.",
">\n\nRussia will naturally have cheaper maintainance due to the lower wages than the west. So you can never do a 1:1 budget comparison.",
">\n\nPeople don't seem to understand this. And it is not just labor. Parts too.",
">\n\nwhile true\nthere's a HUGE difference between russians and even the UK's\nWho has a fraction of the nukes that russia has",
">\n\nAs a sidenote, this is why I hate 'he said she said' journalism.\nThe US says Russia violated the treaty, Russia of course says they have not, and it's the job of the journalist to determine who is telling the truth.\nAs much as I highly doubt Russia is the truthful one here it's the job of the newspaper to investigate and actually pick a side.",
">\n\nJournalists should uncover all leads and disclose everything. Choosing sides is what they absolutely should NOT do. We have 24hr news organizations that prove this only causes sensationalism and chaos.",
">\n\nBruh. They already violated nuclear treaties when they invaded Ukraine. I dont think they care about these things. \n(Ukraine gave up their nuclear arsenal in the 90s in exchange for russia promising to not attack Ukraine)",
">\n\nYou mean the same country that signed a treaty agreement with Ukraine where Ukraine gave up their nuclear arms if Russia promised not to invade?! No way!!\nNothing will happen anyway. \nThe corporations that were supposed to leave Russia still haven't left.",
">\n\nthing is, whether he will actually do it or not, threatening nuclear war is the only stick putin still has to shake.. so far all of his threats have been really empty and his army has been proven completely ineffective and disorganized at best..\nif he allows an inspection rn and it’s anything like the results of the last one, he may lose his one and only playing card. at that point, it just becomes a war of attrition - waiting for either putin’s health to take him out, or hopefully some enrgaged russian citizens."
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.