Does Russia have any nuclear weapons?

[Walt]

Russia's spokespeople, Jordan Peterson, trump, and the like, will tell you that Russia has a powerful nuclear arsenal... But they also claimed that Russia had a powerful conventional military. It turns out that the Russian military wears toy helmets and armor, and most of their missiles fail.

Nuclear missiles are a lot harder to maintain than helmets. They are one of the most difficult military technologies to maintain. The last time anyone saw any evidence the USSR had nuclear weapons was 32 years ago, and Russia has let a lot decay since then. Inspectors of Russian nuclear weapons often comment that the weapons do not seem operational. And many of the missiles obviously do not work.

Even if the weapons themselves work, the order to use them is given by generals, not Putin. Putin gives the order to the generals, and the generals give the order to the soldiers who launch them. In America, the President can give orders directly into the system. This means, in Russia, generals can override Putin.

Let's say Putin decides he might lose power, and that is worthy of firing nuclear weapons over. His generals would probably disagree.

No one wants to risk this, including Putin. If Putin tries to launch nuclear weapons, and fails, he is a deadman. Not just that, but a laughing stock.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

The Soviet Union had a substantial nuclear arsenal, but who knows how much stuff that corrupt Russian generals sold off to terror groups?

 

[Celticguy]

guess we will find out soon enough.

 

[Stone]

Russia's spokespeople, Jordan Peterson, trump, and the like, will tell you that Russia has a powerful nuclear arsenal... But they also claimed that Russia had a powerful conventional military. It turns out that the Russian military wears toy helmets and armor, and most of their missiles fail.

Nuclear missiles are a lot harder to maintain than helmets. They are one of the most difficult military technologies to maintain. The last time anyone saw any evidence the USSR had nuclear weapons was 32 years ago, and Russia has let a lot decay since then. Inspectors of Russian nuclear weapons often comment that the weapons do not seem operational. And many of the missiles obviously do not work.

Even if the weapons themselves work, the order to use them is given by generals, not Putin. Putin gives the order to the generals, and the generals give the order to the soldiers who launch them. In America, the President can give orders directly into the system. This means, in Russia, generals can override Putin.

Let's say Putin decides he might lose power, and that is worthy of firing nuclear weapons over. His generals would probably disagree.

No one wants to risk this, including Putin. If Putin tries to launch nuclear weapons, and fails, he is a deadman. Not just that, but a laughing stock.

Dumb kpft

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

The Soviet Union had a substantial nuclear arsenal, but who knows how much stuff that corrupt Russian generals sold off to terror groups?

Shit. I didn't think of that. OTOH how many terror groups have the expertise and knowledge to maintain them, as per the OP?

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

guess we will find out soon enough.

Pardon me, sir. I have a question. You seem like a fairly reasonable right wing person. If Putin uses a technical nuke or dirty bomb in Ukraine, what do you think the U.S.'s response should be?

 

[PostmodernProphet]

the batteries are dead.....

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Shit. I didn't think of that. OTOH how many terror groups have the expertise and knowledge to maintain them, as per the OP?

Probably none as that isn't low level tech, but that wouldn't stop the idiots from buying the stuff,
even with no serious means of delivering the ordinance short of stolen bakery trucks.

 

[Stone]

Pardon me, sir. I have a question. You seem like a fairly reasonable right wing person. If Putin uses a technical nuke or dirty bomb in Ukraine, what do you think the U.S.'s response should be?

What exactly is a technical nuke? Must be something like a tacticality.

 

[Celticguy]

Pardon me, sir. I have a question. You seem like a fairly reasonable right wing person. If Putin uses a technical nuke or dirty bomb in Ukraine, what do you think the U.S.'s response should be?

Well my avian friend, what would Putin's reasonable response be were the situation was reversed ?

But to answer your question, Biden would need to try and get Congress to declare a war and he can declare martial law and cancel the elections and roll tanks into UKR. And what I suspect was the real question, no nuclear response.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

What exactly is a technical nuke? Must be something like a tacticality.

Yeah, that was a typo all right. I confess to lazy proofreading.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Well my avian friend, what would Putin's reasonable response be were the situation was reversed ?

But to answer your question, Biden would need to try and get Congress to declare a war and he can declare martial law and cancel the elections and roll tanks into UKR. And what I suspect was the real question, no nuclear response.

Well, I see this is at least my second mistake of the evening. I mistyped "tactical" nuke. This time I mistook you for a reasonable RWer. My apologies.

 

[Stone]

Yeah, that was a typo all right. I confess to lazy proofreading.

No biggy,...I do it all the time. Just screwin around a little.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Probably none as that isn't low level tech, but that wouldn't stop the idiots from buying the stuff,
even with no serious means of delivering the ordinance short of stolen bakery trucks.

It's more likely that they'd manage to blow themselves up, although detonating an atomic weapon isn't as easy as lighting a firecracker, of course.

 

[Celticguy]

Well, I see this is at least my second mistake of the evening. I mistyped "tactical" nuke. This time I mistook you for a reasonable RWer. My apologies.

is it so impossible to think there isnt anything Biden would not do to avoid prison time for he and his son ?

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

No biggy,...I do it all the time. Just screwin around a little.

?

 

[ExpressLane]

Russia's spokespeople, Jordan Peterson, trump, and the like, will tell you that Russia has a powerful nuclear arsenal... But they also claimed that Russia had a powerful conventional military. It turns out that the Russian military wears toy helmets and armor, and most of their missiles fail.

Nuclear missiles are a lot harder to maintain than helmets. They are one of the most difficult military technologies to maintain. The last time anyone saw any evidence the USSR had nuclear weapons was 32 years ago, and Russia has let a lot decay since then. Inspectors of Russian nuclear weapons often comment that the weapons do not seem operational. And many of the missiles obviously do not work.

Even if the weapons themselves work, the order to use them is given by generals, not Putin. Putin gives the order to the generals, and the generals give the order to the soldiers who launch them. In America, the President can give orders directly into the system. This means, in Russia, generals can override Putin.

Let's say Putin decides he might lose power, and that is worthy of firing nuclear weapons over. His generals would probably disagree.

No one wants to risk this, including Putin. If Putin tries to launch nuclear weapons, and fails, he is a deadman. Not just that, but a laughing stock.

We know North Korea has nukes because they have recently blown some up and North Korea barely has food.

 

[ExpressLane]

What exactly is a technical nuke? Must be something like a tacticality.

technically it isn't strategic.

 

[ExpressLane]

If Putin used a nuke nuclear fallout would likely land on NATO nations and that could start a war between NATO and Russia.

 

[Matt Dillon]

If Putin used a nuke nuclear fallout would likely land on NATO nations and that could start a war between NATO and Russia.

This is true. Why Putin would destroy the farmland that feeds Russia doesn't make sense to me.