this post was submitted on 29 May 2025
243 points (100.0% liked)

World News

346 readers
386 users here now

Please help and contribute as we vote on rules:
https://quokk.au/post/21590

Other Great Communities:

Rules

Be excellent to each other

founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS
top 38 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 62 points 1 month ago (6 children)

I’m not worried that Russia is going to launch a nuke and destroy humanity by starting World War III. I’m worried that a splinter group is going to seize control of a Russian nuke, fire it, and destroy humanity by starting World War III.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Honestly I doubt that Russia has maintained their arsenal. Nuclear warheads must be maintained because the fissile cores wear out due to the natural halflife of uranium. So after X number of years (super-dooper state secret stuff, but it's like every 10 years based on napkin math I did in my undergrad) the cores must be replaced.

All that said - I think Russia's nuclear program is likely not in a functional state. The rockets work. They'll do a publicized underground test every few years to show off capability. But something like nine in ten of their warheads will not reach criticality and misfire today if actually used. That's still not a fun scenario, tens of millions would die. But it's not nuclear apocalypse level that they use for defense posturing.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

People keep bringing this up, and it's likely true that most of them dont work anymore, but there is a no way in hell they haven't kept up maintenance on a few.

One tenth of their deployed ones would be 170, and even 17 would be enough to start a nuclear war.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

The takeaway should be that they likely don't have the resources to back up their posturing, and are unlikely to try starting a nuclear war because of it (in theory).

Terrorist sizing those warheads don't have to back anything up, their job is done as soon as the bomb goes off.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

90% chance the one they get is a dud, which is comforting.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

But even if they fire a dud, the receiving part will see an incoming ICBM and won't wait to check whether it's a dud out not.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago

This, this this.

IIRC (forgive me I haven't looked at this in ages) the USSR (lets face it, Russia is using their old shit, just like they're using in Ukraine) had tritium based weapons. The half-life of tritium is just over 12 years. The USSR fell apart in 1991, so to make math easy lets use 1990 as the year their arsenal all got a nice refresh. 35 years have passed since 1990. That means they are on their 3rd full refresh of nuclear fissile material since the fall of the USSR. The budget for Russias nuclear force is a fraction of the US's budget. There's no fucking way they've refreshed 5500 warheads 3 times since the Cold War.

For everyone else on here, it's not JUST the bombs they have to maintain either. Those missiles need changed out, fuel needs swapped in and out, components in those missiles go bad because of the radiation, the facilities themselves that house said missiles need maintenance, the subs need maintenance, etc etc etc.

Russia doesn't have 5500 nukes. What the actual number is, I have no fucking idea. But it's nowhere near that number. I'm sure people in intelligence services know.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

The rockets sorta work, iirc there's like a 20% published failure rate and that's backed up with the fun videos of icbms purging their tanks while doing backflips falling to earth.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

This is currently happening in the US. A deranged narcissistic mad man recently stole the presidency.

And we have a similar issue with a fascist with control of the nuclear arsenal in India, except he actually has popular support.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

woah woah woah, hold your horses dude. What made you think nuclear arsenal in India is in fascist control

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

This is the plot of a Tom Clancy novel… As a suggestion, its not the worst thing Ive read

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago (2 children)

On season 5 of "Jack Ryan", Jack discovers a secret plot from Iran to detonate a nuclear device in Riyadh and destabilize the world by invading Saudi Arabia. Can Jack and his unusually attractive Persian female counterpart stop the rogue fanatic group from launching world war three? Only on Prime® this fall!

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Theres 5 Seasons of Jack Ryan⁉️

I think I watched it, but it was just as boring as any other Prime content so I gave up and decided sleep was more entertaining.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

There are 4 seasons, I just made up a plot for a mythical season 5. I only know there are 4 seasons, as Amazon keeps reminding me to continue watching from somewhere in season 2 where I fell asleep multiple times.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

Are YOU Tom Clancy‽

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

unusually attractive Persian female counterpart

...played by Sofia Boutella, no doubt, who always absolutely kills every scene but inexplicably can't land a leading role.

I know what I said.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago

This is definitely something to worry about. I am also worried that we might be getting to the point where Kim will be getting Iskander's in exchange for more shells and equipment. Also, how many drones will it take to trade for just one plutonium core for Iran?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

Hopefully there are enough safety measures in place.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Can someone explain why we havent seized control of their nukes and just set them off without launching them?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

That requires invading them, but they have nukes.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

No it doesn’t. It just involves tricking stupid people.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

JFC they aren't giving up their nukes. You aren't going to do it with that 1 weird trick that diplomats hate.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

No no let's hear him out, I want to hear his plan. This oughta be good..

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Infiltrate with a small physical presence. Sabotage nuclear arsenal. Your spies pull back. Russia does a thing to trigger the sabotaged and poorly-maintained arsenal.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

There are 1700 targets to hit

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Well, I like your moxie at least.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 month ago

why would people think otherwise after watching Russia's spectacle of incompetence in Ukraine?

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 month ago

Nukes are insanely expensive to maintain. It doesn't just apply to the warhead and delivery vehicle.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

Hey Yuri, I'll bet you 5 rubles I can spit on that Lieutenant down there.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Propaganda

on one side Russia can't take over Ukraine and can't manage its nukes

On the other side Russia is the greatest threat to Europe and Europe must re arm.

Which one is it? JFC

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's both.

On the one hand it's the leadership's ineptitude and corruption making them fail at a lot of stuff.
On the other hand it's the total disregard for their own people's lives (and the sheer numbers) making them dangerous.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yes and their soldiers are incompetent alcoholics too 🤡

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Leave some brain cells for the rest of us bro

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Said a guy commenting under propaganda content in approving manner.

Y'all do understand that even if you like the "content" it is still propaganda slop?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

On one side, this toddler can't lift more than 5 lbs and can't manage its hands or feet.

On the other side, this toddler is the greatest threat to any pet it can get its hands on.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Russia can't even invade it's neighboring country without pulling out mothballed tanks from the 70's, and is being stopped by hand me down gear that is basically cold war era equipment.

Russia is also the greatest threat to Europe because they have actively said they want more territory, and are literally committing acts of war against countries in Europe all the time. Ergo, they're the greatest threat to Europe right now.

It's really not that difficult.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

All bling no basics.