Question: We’ve seen sand-filled missiles due to corruption and cronyism, and they were actually transfered to the front line expecting to be live munitions. How many Russian ICBMs do you think are truly functional between the “new” ones and the 70yo cold war hulks?
To be clear, I don’t revel in the idea of a war between the Ruskies and NATO, but Putin is certain to be wondering this, too. How effective are his strategic assets, truly? I’m sure the CIA has figured that out and is guiding US response on that intel. They know exactly how far an insecure dictator can be pushed.
Yeah and what would that do. Sure a lot of people would die but it won’t help Russia win the war. If they shoot their load and they destroyed say two cities, then everyone else will know that’s it. Launching the missiles would be literally the last thing that they ever do. Mutually assured destruction not required.
The best way to survive is to constantly threaten but never actually act. Eventually someone will do something about putting oil just die of old age. There isn’t really a way there’s ends with him being victorious.
I suspect the reason that is because the sanctions haven’t really bitten home yet and no one really wants to inherit this nebulous mess where Russia’s position with NATO is not well understood, much better to wait and let him to out and out fail, then when they take power the only possible way is up.
Ok so I can finally reply to your question after days of appealing my permanent ban to noncredibledefense for my comment above. (Apparently it was too pro-russia and spreading false information)
Secondly you’re right, I don’t think anyone knows how many are truly functional, the US and Russia have the best ideas but both of those nations are rightfully very secretive about the true nature of the nukes.
I believe that if US truly believed the russian nuclear arsenal was a zero threat they would have already put troops in Ukraine. That’s mostly the reason why my opinion is that Russia has at least one likely operational nuclear device which could cause damage to the European continent.
Secondly risk is calculated by two factors, chance and effect.
As a European myself, the effect of russian nukes on Europe terrifies me because I live in a major city that would be a target if Russia ever went scorched earth. Although the chance is low the effect is high which puts the overall risk above zero which is too much especially with the majority of NATO residing in that continent.
“I know you’re joking, and I’m sorry to ruin the dream but to be clear nuclear fallout would be in the air and there won’t be laughing as several millions would die before that moment.”
“European families, is our life ruined now?”
“As a European myself, the effect of russian nukes on Europe terrifies me”
Sorry, we don’t allow Russian fear mongering in NCD.
ono russia has nukes, that’s scary, russia has nukes and they might even work, we have to stop all military aid because that would be eScAlaTiOn. have you seen these “new” “secret” documents, they say that sending 32 abrams is nuclear threshold, we are so lucky
i don’t care if you are true believer or an useful idiot, if you’re repeating hottest vatnik twitter talking points you are in a wrong place
honestly perun should be mandatory watching in this sub. this one in this case. maybe you have noticed that some western weapons sent earlier had a restriction that they couldn’t be used in russian 1991 borders. well as it happens F16 and any weapons mounted on them don’t have this restriction, which means that countries that sent them don’t think any of russian “red lines” around military aid are credible. putin doesn’t even want to escalate conventionally as it stands now because it would be unpopular domestically
having some vague nuclear threshold doesn’t make your position credible and makes diplomacy harder. nuclear strike in response to a nuclear strike on an ally, that’s a clear one. nuclear strike in response to disabling nuclear second strike capability, like C2, in nuclear way or not, this is also a clear one. “existence of a state is threatened” you’d expect this in some kind of total war, and we’re nowhere close to it. military aid is not it, screeching at top of your lungs that you’ll nuke london after atacms is delivered then doing nothing does not make your position credible. nukes are first of all tools of diplomacy and the right way to use them is in deterrence, this does not make a lot of sense if you want to be taken seriously
Question: We’ve seen sand-filled missiles due to corruption and cronyism, and they were actually transfered to the front line expecting to be live munitions. How many Russian ICBMs do you think are truly functional between the “new” ones and the 70yo cold war hulks?
To be clear, I don’t revel in the idea of a war between the Ruskies and NATO, but Putin is certain to be wondering this, too. How effective are his strategic assets, truly? I’m sure the CIA has figured that out and is guiding US response on that intel. They know exactly how far an insecure dictator can be pushed.
It only takes one or two
Yeah and what would that do. Sure a lot of people would die but it won’t help Russia win the war. If they shoot their load and they destroyed say two cities, then everyone else will know that’s it. Launching the missiles would be literally the last thing that they ever do. Mutually assured destruction not required.
The best way to survive is to constantly threaten but never actually act. Eventually someone will do something about putting oil just die of old age. There isn’t really a way there’s ends with him being victorious.
Anyone firing nukes at any other country would undoubtedly be devastating to the aggressor, even putler isn’t that stupid.
Personally I can’t believe how he hasn’t been JFK’d yet.
yeah, that’s the exact reason why you shouldn’t worry about nuclear war in any case
that’s because you don’t understand how politically apathetic russians are
I suspect the reason that is because the sanctions haven’t really bitten home yet and no one really wants to inherit this nebulous mess where Russia’s position with NATO is not well understood, much better to wait and let him to out and out fail, then when they take power the only possible way is up.
Ok so I can finally reply to your question after days of appealing my permanent ban to noncredibledefense for my comment above. (Apparently it was too pro-russia and spreading false information)
Secondly you’re right, I don’t think anyone knows how many are truly functional, the US and Russia have the best ideas but both of those nations are rightfully very secretive about the true nature of the nukes.
I believe that if US truly believed the russian nuclear arsenal was a zero threat they would have already put troops in Ukraine. That’s mostly the reason why my opinion is that Russia has at least one likely operational nuclear device which could cause damage to the European continent.
Secondly risk is calculated by two factors, chance and effect.
As a European myself, the effect of russian nukes on Europe terrifies me because I live in a major city that would be a target if Russia ever went scorched earth. Although the chance is low the effect is high which puts the overall risk above zero which is too much especially with the majority of NATO residing in that continent.
Sorry, we don’t allow Russian fear mongering in NCD.
i don’t care if you are true believer or an useful idiot, if you’re repeating hottest vatnik twitter talking points you are in a wrong place
honestly perun should be mandatory watching in this sub. this one in this case. maybe you have noticed that some western weapons sent earlier had a restriction that they couldn’t be used in russian 1991 borders. well as it happens F16 and any weapons mounted on them don’t have this restriction, which means that countries that sent them don’t think any of russian “red lines” around military aid are credible. putin doesn’t even want to escalate conventionally as it stands now because it would be unpopular domestically
having some vague nuclear threshold doesn’t make your position credible and makes diplomacy harder. nuclear strike in response to a nuclear strike on an ally, that’s a clear one. nuclear strike in response to disabling nuclear second strike capability, like C2, in nuclear way or not, this is also a clear one. “existence of a state is threatened” you’d expect this in some kind of total war, and we’re nowhere close to it. military aid is not it, screeching at top of your lungs that you’ll nuke london after atacms is delivered then doing nothing does not make your position credible. nukes are first of all tools of diplomacy and the right way to use them is in deterrence, this does not make a lot of sense if you want to be taken seriously