That’s a pretty big leap. The absence of explosive testing doesn’t mean the weapons haven’t been maintained.

Saying “I think 65% probably don’t work” is an opinion, not a conclusion supported by evidence.

I will copy-paste here information that is available when you search for it:

———
The biggest gap is that it assumes “not recently tested” = “probably doesn’t work.” That’s not how modern nuclear arsenals are maintained.

Here are the main problems with the argument:

1. It ignores stockpile stewardship.
The U.S. stopped full-scale nuclear explosive testing in 1992, but it didn’t stop evaluating its weapons. Instead, it uses:
* sophisticated computer simulations,
* non-nuclear experiments,
* inspections and replacement of aging components,
* surveillance of deployed warheads.
Russia follows similar maintenance practices, though with less public transparency.
2. It treats nuclear weapons like ordinary ammunition.
Nuclear warheads aren’t simply left in storage for decades. Components that age—such as tritium gas, electronics, neutron generators, seals, and conventional explosives—are periodically replaced or refurbished.
3. It offers an unsupported number.
The claim that “65%” wouldn’t work is just a guess. No evidence or analysis is given to justify that figure.
4. It overlooks reliability requirements.
Nuclear deterrence depends on adversaries believing the weapons will work. Nuclear states spend enormous resources maintaining that credibility because a large-scale failure would undermine their strategic position.
5. It assumes a binary outcome.
Reliability isn’t simply “works” or “doesn’t work.” A warhead could:
* fail to launch,
* fail to detonate,
* produce a lower-than-designed yield,
* or function exactly as intended.
Those are different failure modes with different probabilities.

There is one point behind the claim that has some merit: aging is a real issue. Materials degrade over decades, which is why every nuclear power invests heavily in maintenance and life-extension programs. But acknowledging aging is very different from concluding that most weapons are nonfunctional.

The issue is only 5% of those nukes would be enough to change life on earth forever.

The American arsenal that is possible. The US has not built a ballistic missile since the disco era and are half a century old at this point.

Most of the US deterrent now is believe it or not is a B61 gravity bomb. Basically a Korean war era bomb that needs to be flown and dropped directly over a target. Glide bomb modifications might improve the standoff range a bit.

It is why the US built Stealth bombers. It is the only way that is not suicide. The only real missiles the US has that are a serious threat are sub launched missiles. Tomahawks can carry a nuclear warhead but they are not very effective against modern air defense systems.



After the illegal dissolution of the USSR Yeltsin and co compensated for the collapse of the red Army by relying almost entirely on strategic missiles. So the Russians have a big edge there.

Russia is even developing the first ICBMs that can be recalled after launch.