Nobody wants to entertain the possibility of any sort of a nuclear device being deployed/employed. Period. With that statement gotten out of the way, what does anyone think about the possibility of the Russian nuclear arsenal being as outmoded and poorly maintained as some of their other weaponry? (And yes, I am painfully aware, as are the Ukrainians, that some of their stuff still works.)
I certainly wouldn't want to take the gamble, nor would (I suspect) any "thinking" person. But I can't be the only person wondering about it.
I think that Russia's nuclear arsenal is in top shape. The most functional component of the Russian military. Especially the strategic nuclear weapons that directly threaten the United States. Putin has been showcasing it for years.
There was a video that Russia put out like a couple or three years ago. A video animation of one of Russia's "new and improved" Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles striking Florida with a warhead. Not just any part of Florida, but close to Mar-a-Lago. This was when Trump was in office.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-14-2022).]
Personally, I think Putin is playing some kind of strategy-game.
For some reason (damned if I can figure it out) he seems to be throwing mostly his "junk" into Ukraine and keeping the good stuff in reserve.
Almost like he was waiting to spring a trap.
You may be right. General consensus is that he thought it was going to be a cakewalk. Maybe that was all for show. Maybe he's just trying to "sucker people in". Maybe it is all by design.
And, maybe a thought for another topic, but wouldn't it be funny if China "saw their chance", and invaded Russia?
[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 03-14-2022).]
Even if most of their ICBM's don't work, they'd still have more than enough to destroy the planet as we know it. They have almost 6000 nuclear warheads, just a couple dozen would be enough to wipe out our major population centers.
I think the point of using antique tanks, guns (I saw guys carrying Mosin Nagants, FFS) and conscripts was to deplete their oldest weapons and least effective soldiers so they could be replaced with new weapons and professional soldiers.
Soviet technology was far inferior to ours, but it tended to be very reliable and made to last.
While we're distracted by Russia/Ukraine, I think the chances would be much higher for an invasion by China of Taiwan.
Th locals here think it's more likely they would continue to sweet talk them into voluntarily joining China under some special agreement. And as always, mainland would use the contract language to gradually strangle the island into total submission.
The locals here think it's more likely they would continue to sweet talk them into voluntarily joining.
I suspect that no amount of "sweet talk" by China will have any effect on the Taiwanese people. They're fully aware of what's been transpiring in Hong Kong.
Personally, I think Putin is playing some kind of strategy-game.
For some reason (damned if I can figure it out) he seems to be throwing mostly his "junk" into Ukraine and keeping the good stuff in reserve.
Almost like he was waiting to spring a trap.
I think this is correct; He is playing and trying to get the West to do something....and he basically has a "Ace up his sleeve".....
My personal opinion is that Trump gave Putin access to either the US passwords, etc, or access to our military computer network- So we try to fight back and Putin shuts our military down....We will soon see.
I read something a long time ago that said nuclear weapons had a shelf life. IIRC that was around 8 years for "full effectiveness", but I've searched lately and can't find anything explaining it to me. I can't remember what book it was in, heck, it could have been almost anything.
Basically, it said that nukes stored for long periods of time would still be bad, but lose a certain amount of power each year if they weren't refreshed.
Does anyone have something that they can point me to on this?
Russia has it's issues, but I seem to remember that we were paying them to take us to space at one point. I'm sure they kept up with their nukes.
I read something a long time ago that said nuclear weapons had a shelf life. IIRC that was around 8 years for "full effectiveness", but I've searched lately and can't find anything explaining it to me. I can't remember what book it was in, heck, it could have been almost anything.
Basically, it said that nukes stored for long periods of time would still be bad, but lose a certain amount of power each year if they weren't refreshed.
Does anyone have something that they can point me to on this?
Russia has it's issues, but I seem to remember that we were paying them to take us to space at one point. I'm sure they kept up with their nukes.
Being curious myself, I fired up Google with keywords "stewardship", "pits", "plutonium", "Lawrence", "Livermore" and the phrase "nuclear stockpile". These caught my eye, but there's more that came back from Google. More beyond these two, but I recommend these for "starters." Even just the first one from the National Nuclear Security Administration could well satisfy your appetite. Depending on how hungry you are for knowledge about this topic.
In the quarter century since the US last exploded a nuclear weapon, an extensive research enterprise has maintained the resources and know-how needed to preserve confidence in the country’s stockpile.
Originally posted by cvxjet: ... My personal opinion is that Trump gave Putin access to either the US passwords, etc, or access to our military computer network...
Seriously?!
Dude... you just blew any credibility that you ever had with me. (I'm sure that you're just heartbroken...) That's the most nonsensical crap I've ever heard.
[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 03-15-2022).]
I read something a long time ago that said nuclear weapons had a shelf life.. ...
I would suspect that it's based upon the "half life" of radioactive materials. I think they would degrade a small amount, but not enough to matter, in the grand scheme of things.
Tritium has a half life of only about 12 years and at least used to be an important part of most nuclear weapons. This may be different now a days, but it required regular replacement to maintain potency and reliability. Not unlike girlfriends.
Just $.02 from an old retired gearjammer, donchaknow.
Russia is more invested in smaller or "battlefield" nuclear weapons than the U.S. (for sure) and (I can't imagine otherwise) either of the two other NATO nations that have nukes. The U.K. and France. The U.S has some of these low yield nuclear weapons. Russia has considerably more. That's based on some reading I undertook some days ago.
I'm getting more optimistic about this ending without any nuclear weapons being used. The Ukraine's newly famous President Zelensky(y) said a smart thing yesterday or the day before. That he was rethinking his commitment to the idea of getting Ukraine into the NATO alliance.
A WaPo reporter just checked in under the banner of "Ukraine’s Zelensky asks European leaders to do more but admits NATO membership is not in the cards." https://www.washingtonpost....ip-russian-invasion/
I've been a little nervous (frankly) that Putin might order his military to hit exactly one target inside Ukraine with a single, low yield nuclear weapon--a tactical or battlefield nuke. Something on the order of a single kiloton, which (according to Captain Obvious) would be kind of like a thousand tons of conventional explosive, but with a little "extra." That subtle nuclear "kick" that brings the "heat."
The atomic bombs that the U.S. used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki--about 15 or 20 kilotons, if memory serves me.
I guess I'm feeling more optimistic that such will not happen. Maybe because it hasn't already happened.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-15-2022).]
I've been a little nervous (frankly) that Putin might order his military to hit exactly one target inside Ukraine with a single, low yield nuclear weapon--a tactical or battlefield nuke. Something on the order of a single kiloton, which (according to Captain Obvious) would be kind of like a thousand tons of conventional explosive, but with a little "extra." That subtle nuclear "kick" that brings the "heat."
The atomic bombs that the U.S. used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki--about 15 or 20 kilotons, if memory serves me.
I guess I'm feeling more optimistic that such will not happen. Maybe because it hasn't already happened.
You do realize that with prevailing winds, the majority of that radioactive debris will be traveling directly to and over Russia don't you? I sincerely doubt the Russians will do that.
Edited: They may not be worth much in a fight but, they surely aren't that stupid.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 03-15-2022).]
You do realize that with prevailing winds, the majority of that radioactive debris will be traveling directly to and over Russia don't you? I sincerely doubt the Russians will do that.
Edited: They may not be worth much in a fight but, they surely aren't that stupid.
... if Putin went nuclear, he would almost certainly deploy a low-yield weapon with a narrow target. That would fit with what some experts view as a Russian military strategy of escalate to de-escalate — or bringing a crisis to [a] dramatic climax to force a settlement with the West that leans toward Russian terms.
Read-o-Meter under 5 minutes. "Listen to article" option instead of reading.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-16-2022).]
Originally posted by blackrams: There are always options, the trick is that everything must go perfectly to get the desired results. There are no perfect scenarios.
"Perfect is the enemy of good enough"
quote
I can't say "I'm Vlad to see you."
~ Volodymyr "Call me Volo" Zelensky(y)
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-16-2022).]
"As Russia Digs In, What’s the Risk of Nuclear War? ‘It’s Not Zero.’"
quote
A series of shifts in Russian statements [from 2014 to date] about using nuclear weapons has led some analysts to believe that the Kremlin sees a nuclear exchange as a viable strategy.
EXCERPT
quote
These policies are designed to address a problem that Soviet leaders never faced: a belief that, unlike during the Cold War, NATO would quickly and decisively win a conventional war against Russia.
The result is a reluctant but seemingly real embrace of limited nuclear conflict as manageable, even winnable. Russia is thought to have stockpiled at least 1,000 small, “nonstrategic” warheads in preparation, as well as hypersonic missiles that would zip them across Europe before the West could respond.
But Russian military strategists continue to debate how to calibrate such a strike so as to force back NATO without triggering a wider war, underscoring concerns that threading such a needle may be impossible — and that Moscow could try anyway.
...and it's now being reported that the Russian offense is in danger of buckling. Yesterday, they estimated ten days, at the outside. Not sure what they're thinking today. The headline was removed. (Was "front and center" on Drudge...)
Yesterday or the day before a reporter just returned from the region said it's a done deal, Ukrainian govt has lost.
Twenty days. You guys really believe what your media has been telling you? Geez.
So... what was your source? What makes "your guy" more credible than what I read? I never said that I bought into it. Just mentioned what was reported. Kind of like what you did. Eh?
Dude... you just blew any credibility that you ever had with me. (I'm sure that you're just heartbroken...) That's the most nonsensical crap I've ever heard.
I never had any credibility here anyway- I don't drink the Faux-Russia Cool-aid like most others here......So do you believe that Trump is "THE GREATEST PRESIDENT EVER!!!" or do you believe he is Jesus returned from heaven?
If you were a good little Trumper, you would be like Sour and believe that America is evil and Russia is "The greatest Christian country!!!"
sourmash can be a real sourpuss but in this case he isn't wrong. Notice what he didn't say. He didn't say Putin was Christian or a nice guy. He said he wasn't anti-Christian like the west. Putin isn't trying to snuff out the Christian faith like we see happening. So in this instance sourmash is right, but not very clear. Putin is still an evil SOB with the poisoning of his opponents, but he isn't targeting people because of their faith. A very small distinction.
So...You like "Good Christians" like the ones who raped and murdered all them damn dirty savage injuns because God said it was "Manifest destiny" to take the Americas and ...."Cleanse them"
Remember to NOT celebrate Thanksgiving....that is a celebration that includes the idea of religious freedom....for all religions and even non-religious....You obviously want to beat anyone >>Not like you<< into submission....
"good" christians.......(Absolute power corrupts......)
