FloorGenAdm · 51-55, M
CookieCrumbs · F
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.
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.
View 1 more replies »
Ontheroad · M
@CookieCrumbs
This to me is the whole point. All it takes is for one bad actor in any of these games to bring it all down.
Peace and total denuclearization is the answer.
We don’t really want to find out if those things work or not.
This to me is the whole point. All it takes is for one bad actor in any of these games to bring it all down.
Peace and total denuclearization is the answer.
@CookieCrumbs Yes, I know that the 65% figure I mention here is just a guess ("...if I had to bet, I'd say that at least..."), and I don't know what is really going on here when it comes to how much of Russia's stockpile is still any good, but as I recall, most, if not all, of your objections here are actually addressed within the video.
It's not just the fact that Russia hasn't tested any of their nuclear weapons since 1991; it's everything else about that nation that is the real issue here. For example, the notorious corruption, theft, and deliberate falsification of documentation that exists within all levels of both their government and society as a whole. The very poor performance of their military in Ukraine, which, when investigated, came as no surprise to anyone from outside of Russia who had spent any amount of time living there, or who had the right connections (ex. journalists), or who knew anything about Russia's military.
And yes, I already had in mind "unreliability" being defined in a number of ways in which one of these devices could fail (ex. failure to launch, crashing just after launch, one or more of the components within the device failing to work, et cetera).
And let us not forget the obvious statement within the title here - "This will be an unpopular opinion". Opinion. My own. As I see it, based upon what I know and the information provided within the video.
It's not just the fact that Russia hasn't tested any of their nuclear weapons since 1991; it's everything else about that nation that is the real issue here. For example, the notorious corruption, theft, and deliberate falsification of documentation that exists within all levels of both their government and society as a whole. The very poor performance of their military in Ukraine, which, when investigated, came as no surprise to anyone from outside of Russia who had spent any amount of time living there, or who had the right connections (ex. journalists), or who knew anything about Russia's military.
And yes, I already had in mind "unreliability" being defined in a number of ways in which one of these devices could fail (ex. failure to launch, crashing just after launch, one or more of the components within the device failing to work, et cetera).
And let us not forget the obvious statement within the title here - "This will be an unpopular opinion". Opinion. My own. As I see it, based upon what I know and the information provided within the video.
AdmiralPrune · 46-50, M
CurrentName · 51-55, M
@AdmiralPrune
Exactly, that's the stupidest post I've seen here so far .
Exactly, that's the stupidest post I've seen here so far .
@AdmiralPrune Except, no, the use of just five percent of current stockpiles wouldn't change life on Earth forever, because nuclear weapons aren't as earth-shatteringly apocalyptic as we've all been led to believe they are.
AdmiralPrune · 46-50, M
@DLight Is that so? Show me your credentials.
PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M
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.
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.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment