Ukraine - Take two

[hollohas]

If the condition of their standard war equipment is any indication, I can't imagine all 6k nukes are doing so hot these days...

[eddiememphis]

Not disagreeing with you, just correcting a slight point... the Russians *say* they have 6,300 nukes. Which would require consistent, extensive annual maintenance and costs to maintain... Nukes are not like conventional bombs that can sit in a warehouse for decades.

Point being, we don't know how many functioning nukes they have, but it's some small fraction of that. Still enough to cause impressive damage. If they haven't been maintaining everything else, it's not like their excessive inventory of nukes have had special treatment, especially since their intention is not to be used in the first place, but just to "exist" as a deterrent. And then there's all the Vlads injecting corruption into the mix.

If the world starts to end, I want to start a pool on how many viable nukes they have. I say... no more than 500.

Maybe.

I would bet they spend more on maintaining them than they do on AKs. One tends to take better care of your top of the line equipment than pedestrian items.

[hollohas]

So far I'm unimpressed by Russia's capabilities. However, we're giving them tons of experience fighting some of our top weapons and they probably even have most of those weapons by now. They'll quickly learn methods to defeat those weapons and copy them to make their own. The WEF wants everyone on an even playing field, might as well start with war tech.

[Gman]

Not disagreeing with you, just correcting a slight point... the Russians *say* they have 6,300 nukes. Which would require consistent, extensive annual maintenance and costs to maintain... Nukes are not like conventional bombs that can sit in a warehouse for decades.

Point being, we don't know how many functioning nukes they have, but it's some small fraction of that. Still enough to cause impressive damage. If they haven't been maintaining everything else, it's not like their excessive inventory of nukes have had special treatment, especially since their intention is not to be used in the first place, but just to "exist" as a deterrent. And then there's all the Vlads injecting corruption into the mix.

If the world starts to end, I want to start a pool on how many viable nukes they have. I say... no more than 500.

This. Russia hasn't maintained much of what they have. Their conventional weapons are largely in disrepair due to neglect and poor maintenance.

[hollohas]

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1490792461979078662

Nordsteam pipe from Russia ruptured off Sweden causing 3000ft-wide bubbles and sending prices spiking

[BushMasterBoy]

If you had an insider in the Kremlin, you could put calls on all these commodities and make a fortune in the market. Is that why the ruble is up since the start of the war? Maybe this is too embarrassing for Congress to investigate? They want to stick with the Jan. 6 debacle and it is pathetic.

[eddiememphis]

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1490792461979078662

Nordsteam pipe from Russia ruptured off Sweden causing 3000ft-wide bubbles and sending prices spiking

This is interesting.

[hollohas]

It's the shit eating psychopath grin at the end that says it all.

[Martinjmpr]

WRT Russian nukes, two points:

First off, as FoxTart pointed out, a nuclear weapon isn't like a bayonet or a club that you can put on a shelf and then take it down when you need it. They require regular maintenance and that maintenance is very expensive (just one example, the neutron generators that initiate the chain reaction have a short half-life and have to be replaced every few years.) Given the Russian propensity for corruption, how many of the rubles that were set aside for "nuke maintenance" do you think have been diverted to pay for some Russian general's private dacha or so he could play on the stock market? I'm going to guess a LOT. And that's just the nukes. The delivery systems (ICBMs, Cruise missiles and aircraft) ALSO require regular maintenance, service and upgrades. Given what we've seen with the deplorable condition of equipment and training among the conventional forces in Ukraine is there any reason to believe the Russian strategic forces are in any better shape? If anything I'd expect them to be in worse shape because for the last 30 years nobody has really believed they'd have to be employed in any serious manner.

Second point, Putin may be ready to die for his vision of a greater Russia, but what about all of the generals, admirals and high ranking civilians who would have to be the ones to give the orders, push the buttons, and launch those nukes? Are THEY willing to see their families incinerated for Putin's glory? I doubt it.

I'm not whistling past the graveyard and saying things can't turn really bad really quickly, but I think the specter of the unstoppable Russian juggernaut has been pretty thoroughly debunked by their humiliation in Ukraine. And given the resistance we've seen to Putin's draft, I seriously doubt that the average Russian, soldier or civilian, is willing to see their families die to satisfy Putin's ego.

[BushMasterBoy]

The Rus Strategic Rocket Force is very capable and well funded. I was stationed in Western Europe. I had almost unlimited access. I worked PEN -AIDS (penetration aids) AKA electronic countermeasures.

If you think the Rus can not destroy the 20th largest cities in the US, I would say you are dreaming. Sure we can destroy a 100 of the largest cities in Russia. Trust me when I say, they do have a great and effective ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile) force.

Just because the "Special Military Operation" in Ukraine is a huge failure does not mean a nuclear warhead on a missile cannot hit Kiev.

https://russianforces.org/current/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Rocket_Forces

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz-2#Soyuz-2.1b