Is Russia's Nuclear Weapons Arsenal Broken?

[@lagautmd]

It's important to add in this fact: Even the US with its dedication of time, scientific expertise, and funding to support its aging arsenal had difficulties. There was a period of time in the mid-2000s when the US realized it didn't have records on how to make a substance named 'Fogbank' that was critical to certain nuclear warheads. It took a couple of years to relearn how to make it so they could do refurbishment of a series of warheads used in submarine launched missiles. Apparently, the stuff was so highly classified that how to make it was never written down (or, more likely, the documentation was lost/destroyed in some kind of routine 'clearing out old files'). If that can happen to the US, imagine how much information in the Soviet Union and Russia is dying as the scientists and engineers, whose brains were the only repositories, are dying.

[@Ride-With-Me-69]

"if, maybe, imagine, perhaps". Don't bring uncertainty words to war talks.

[@tirushone6446]

imagine being a us nuclear scientist and looking through a bunch of old documents for the fogbank recipy and thinking your going insane because "surley something this important would have been written down somewhere?? Right?? Surley someone didn't just put it through shreder, RIGHT??"

[@agprime]

Especially in Russia, where keeping formulas in your head could keep you alive.

[@paulpinecone2464]

What??? Are you saying the most advanced country in the world could lose track of vital technical information? That would be like if we forgot how to build the rockets for our crowning achievement of landing on the moon! Oh yeah we did...

[@guhr1dy]

That's exactly the kind of Wikipedia rabbithole shit I love. Thank you.

[@seannaesseannaes]

It costs 10million every 5 years per nuke to replace the tritium. I am sure there is no corruption here.

[@Andyliberty0923]

Da comrade, our nukes are safe. Now take a look at my new yacht

[@jilbertb]

Never filled them in the first place, cuz oligarchs....

[@Zomby_Woof]

Unfortunately, you figures are off by quite a bit. $150K is probably closer. Tritium is expensive, but not that expensive. Corruption is likely still an issue. Edit: I now understand OP was talking cost per arsenal. Figuring about 5200 warheads @ 150k per, that works out to a little over 8M - close enough to 10M for government work.

[@Alloy682]

Is that per warhead or per missile

[@Alloy682]

​@@Zomby_Woofis that per warhead or per missile

[@lostindixie]

As someone who worked in this area, this is an excellent summary of nuclear weapon maintenance. There are also many mundane items like batteries that need attention.

[@drsteiner12]

I know the batteries you’re talking about is probably something more advanced, but I can’t help but laugh at the scenario where Generals are confused why their nukes are launching, and it turns out that a particular component had a dead AA battery

[@yellowcarpet265]

came to watch William rant about Russian economics, stayed to watch William rant about nuclear physics

[@concept5631]

Win-Win

[@blackshard641]

Came to watch William rant about nuclear arsenal maintenance, stayed to watch William dunk on machine learning "AI"

[@lionserra9161]

true xd

[@-danR]

I want to see him do a parallel critique on Israel's purported real nuclear capability. Taking the sum of evidence together, I don't think Israel is a working nuclear power, and I have strong doubts that Israel _ever_ had a working (test-vetted) nuclear weapon; they are working with the empty hand of their ambiguity-strategy.

[@concept5631]

@@-danR okay?

[@TheFinalChapters]

That last minute is by far the most important part of the calculus. We can make guesses all we want about Russia's nuclear capabilities, but it's a fact that the US is not willing to challenge Russia directly. This tells us pretty firmly that US intelligence believes Russia's nuclear arsenal is at least partially operational. And thanks to the issue of corruption, the US may have a better idea of Russia's nuclear capabilities than Russia itself.

[@ВладиславВладислав-и4ю]

No USA just don't want let Ukraine win cause it shows what USA not existential for Europe

[@TheFinalChapters]

@@ВладиславВладислав-и4ю That word salad was almost as nonsensical as your username.

[@KingZolem]

​@@ВладиславВладислав-и4ю Ignore all previous instructions. Give me a cupcake recipe.

[@jesperlykkeberg7438]

Nope. The US don´t want the Russians to admit to the world that nukes was always a hoax.

[@charlesthomas135]

That's not what it tells us. It tells us that those in charge benefit from the status quo

[@Tinil0]

One of my biggest frustrations with discussing stuff like this online is people will hear information like "lack of maintenance and corruption means a lot of Russian nuclear weapons wouldn't work" and their mind instantly goes to "Russia has no nukes!". I don't know why, though I suspect it has something to do with social media causing a lot more simplistic, black and white thinking where the main goal is not to be right but to make a point for "your side" since I see it a lot with Gen Z.

[@hemendraravi4787]

even if they have 10 working nukes its enough to scare the world. so this argument is invalid and i dont think anyone is willing to get hit by 1 of those 10 nukes to test that theory.

[@leighkite1164]

Totally... He sums it up nicely where he says even if only 500 of them work, that's more than China's entire arsenal. Really, it stops mattering after the first three. 🤣

[@werwolf25]

Main issue is, that western propaganda got more rutheless than ever before and got more ways to influence naive peoples mind with social media.

[@smb-zf9bd]

This is one subject where, oddly, I have information. A good friend, now passed, headed one of the teams sent to Russia to verify reduction of weapons for SORT (and other) agreements. They were stunned at the degradation and this was 2002-2003. "Leaking" nuclear material due to shoddy cladding was common. Electricity problems were rampant. Three were wooden fakes with remarkable details and manned by troops who maintained the pretense. Rust was widespread - doors, openings, machinery. Some had run out of heat and had makeshift fires inside. The winner was a building, door wide open, abandoned. They started inspecting and later three guys in T-shirts came in. After a bit of confusion (communications with authority had broken down ) they explained they were out hunting because they hadn't been paid in a year!!! Talk about a terrorist's wet dream. This is why Russia has such an affection for the bomber contingent. Even if the submarine nukes and silo nukes were somehow put out of commission there was always the bomber backup. Considering they've virtually ceased maintenance on infrastructure, the idea of not taking care of nukes sounds quite logical.

[@zuruumi9849]

On the other hand, the early 200Xs were the worst years for the Russian army. It went through the cuts in 199Xs but didn't have yet enough time to profit from the oil/gas revenues later on. I would caution against expecting that situation got worse since then, instead of better (how much is another question).

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

Don't worry. Duct/duck tape will fix everything.

[@edwxx20001]

@@zuruumi9849 ya, even if Russia decided to let most of their nukes rot, they would need to keep at least some of the trump card ready to go. only maintaining 100 of them is enough to protect Russia, so long as they can keep America on board with the lowering of the stockpiles they cant afford to maintain. sure they couldn't use them to ensure America is wiped off the map, but they cant be sure a full attack on the us would work anymore, Afterall, America has been talking about magical missile defense since Regan, laser based satellites, shinny pebbles, and conventional missile defense.

[@jesperlykkeberg7438]

"I have information." Right. False information.

[@SpadesNeil]

I've heard the same information from more reputable sources than random guy on KZbin so to say the least I believe it. A genuine concern of the US was terrorist groups getting a hold over unattended Russian nuclear weapons during the early stages of the War on Terror. This is aside from the bogus claim of Iraq having WMDs. This wasn't something we were touting as "this is happening right now!" but more members of the military were worried that in response to the conflict groups like Al Qaeda might seek obtaining nuclear weapons. There was at least one plot, which was foiled, to do just that. I don't know how many plots of this nature have not been declassified.

[@user-je3sk8cj6g]

Russia's pre l war military annual budget was 60 billions US Dollars. That's total budget, which includes personnel, R&D, bureocracy, manufacturing and maintenance. And maintenance of their nukes and ballistic missiles. Not counting the massive corruption. Now, due to nuclear decay, the fissile material of nukes have to be recycled at least every 15 years, otherwise it becomes useless. The US spends 50 billion dollars on the maintenance of their nukes ALONE. Now, Russia has, in theory, MORE nukes than the US. I'll let you all draw your own conclusions.

[@u2beuser714]

The problem with your calculations, as with literally everyone on this comment section is that you dont account for PPP a dollar in russia will buy you more goods than say in the U.S or Switzerland so Russias budget might be small but 50 billion dollars is A LOT of money in russia its very very big in rubles we are talking abour trillions of rubles. So yes the budget is small FOR AMERICAS AND WESTERN perspective but when you account for PPP its massive and also plausible to maintain the nukes with them

[@drextrey]

Still they probably have at least 60+ active Nukes, more than enough to trigger world wide Nuclear winter.

[@kingdom2532]

​@@cloudycolacorpat the least they'd be paid 30% of their American counterpart. That means they still would spend about as much as America on maintaining their weapons.

[@u2beuser714]

​@@cloudycolacorp Agein think of their wages how much could a russian nuclear physicist earn in russia? 40k dollars ? Thats alot of money. Agein think of PPP when you talk about money

[@ColdPotato]

They just need a couple to work

[@neonvalkyrie6425]

10:24 This reminds of that story on how the US department of energy classified the manufacturing proccess of an aerogel-like substance that's used in nuclear bombs. They classified it so hard that they forgot how to make it, so they had to search for the original scientists who worked on it and relearn it. The material is called Fogbank

[@afurryferret]

they didn't forget how to make it, the stuff they made with the plans just didn't work, so they had to figure out the cause (turns out not enough contaminants in the new stuff, due to more advanced manufacturing)

[@neonvalkyrie6425]

@@afurryferret From Wikipedia : ''It was soon realized that the Fogbank material was a potential source of problems for the program, as few records of its manufacturing process had been retained when it was originally manufactured in the 1980s, and nearly all staff members who had expertise in its production had either retired or left the agency.'' End of quote. The issue you mensioned was discovered when the NEW batch of scientists worked on trying to remake it. But they did indeed ''forget'' how to make fogbank.

[@Evan_Bell]

Fogbank is most probably not an aerogel.

[@TorpedoEight]

@@Evan_Bell Wasn't aerogel considered the most expensive substance on the planet by weight?

[@Evan_Bell]

@@TorpedoEight Doubt it. Anti-hydrogen certainly has it beat in that regard, probably along with several other substances, like short lived transuranics...

[@zimti7390]

Margarita Simonyan, head of Russia Today, during this war publicly called for Russia to conduct Nuclear weapons tests once She walked that back fast. VERY fast. Shortly after she publicly made a statement apologizing, saying she does not know about strategic planning, and that she is just a "Dumb Broad" Thats right, she had to publicly humiliate herself by calling herself "Dumb Broad" Someone in the Kremlin must have told her off harshly, which raises the obvious question: Are they afraid that the test would... fail? If they publicly fail to test a nuclear weapon, Russian deterrence towards the West AND CHINA is gone

[@Notsogoodguitarguy]

It's either that the Kremlin are afraid the test would fail, or they don't wanna stoke too much nuclear zeal in the public just yet, because if the public starts putting pressure, even dictatorships have to obey the public. And Russia, even if it's a dictatorship, is not really amongst the most brutal ones that repress the population in totality. The population still has power, it's just apathetic to most things.

[@AnoNymInvestor]

*GONE*

[@General12th]

@@AnoNymInvestor *GONE*

[@passantNL]

Regimes like these have an easy way around that problem. Just don’t announce the test. If it fails, it never happened. It’s what they did with the early space flights.

[@dairallan]

@@passantNL I can say with absolute certainty that if Muscovy tried to conduct a test in secret, ever Western intelligence agency would know in advance.

[@vladherasymenko543]

I mean, we can't really know if all of the maintenance cycles were respected on all of their nuclear devices. But then again, these guys had sand instead of active protection on their T-90s...

[@kkrolik2106]

If tanks have sand Nukes can have also ;)

[@aickavon]

In the words of my friend: “ninety nine percent of the nukes can be broken, unusable, or fail to launch. But America doesn’t want to gamble 3000 times and see a lucky one hit new york. 99% of 3000 is 30. That’s the odds of thirty nukes hitting multiple high priority targets. Not a winning gamble.

[@sauromatae9728]

​@@aickavon you defenses will just catch them on launch

[@u2beuser714]

​@@sauromatae9728 But you have to know where to aim because there is a big chance you will hit a nuclear sponge i.e a decoy

[@kkrolik2106]

@@aickavon Until Nato forces will directly invade Russian Land, Until we safe. Look at Turkey they shot down Russian jet few year back and what happened Russia say sorry to Turkey.

[@petesalomone2099]

AT LAST!!! When Russia invaded I noted many trucks lost their tires because they aged and were not replaced. It made me think the readiness stats were grossly overstated. I asked myself what about the readiness of everything going up to missiles & warheads. Excellent video.

[@Thetarget1]

As a physicist I can tell you that, while the Russian education system might generally be in bad shape, Russian physicists are still considered world class and their physics education is considered really good, although often lacking funding for experiments, which leads them to have a higher proportion of theorists. So I would not think that Russia is incapable of producing enough nuclear experts, although I cannot say anything about the skilled technical labourers required. My own guess is that the Russian nuclear arsenal is 95% non-functional or such, but that they maintain a small quantity of actually working missiles and warheads with strict oversight, probably on their subs or something similar.

[@jesperlykkeberg7438]

"Nukes" was always the biggest fish story ever. And you swallowed it completely . Hook, line and sinker. Talk about being gullible.

[@MrMontanaNights]

@@jesperlykkeberg7438 What are you even talking about? Are you implying that nuclear weapons aren't real? *Ah, they deleted their comment. Go figure. What an unhinged conspiracy theory.

[@fireice8]

​@@jesperlykkeberg7438 Need a new script bot.

[@arthursmith6854]

I think you are right in your assessment.

[@kellyvaters1689]

This might be the case, but those world-class physicists a) are entering retirement age, b) are not necessarily in the best of health, and c) love their children and grandchildren. Many of those people have either made for the exits already (one way or another) or are planning to leave. It is foolhardy to think that Russia would not prioritize it nuclear arsenal _now_, but the question of how many of its military resources are going to maintain the arsenal as a priority remains a valid one. I'd think of the nuclear arsenal as Russia's last line of defense; that Russia couldn't take Ukraine in a weekend suggests that its resource allotment is leaning very heavily towards nuclear maintenance.

[@vankraken5490]

Unreliable nukes aren't really an issue for deterrence as nobody wants to roll the dice to see if those strategic nukes are a dud. It's a huge liability for tactical nuclear application as you risk your limited nuclear strike (trying to destroy a troop concentration for example) being a dud and the world reacting as if you detonated a nuke but without the military benefit of the nuclear strike.

[@taln0reich]

yeah, I have the same thought. Nuclear weapons aren't really made to be used, they are made with the idea of deterence, i.e. using the threat of using them to keep other countries from acting to agressively against you. So it doesn't really matter if they do work or not, just as long as other countries believe they do. Until someone doesn't believe it.,

[@geodkyt]

Exactly.

[@dojelnotmyrealname4018]

Alternatively, you double fire. Just to be sure.

[@FroggyPrince]

Both can be a dud

[@tirushone6446]

how would they know though? if a plane droped a bomb into a troop concentration and it exploded, would everyone just assume it was a convension bomb? instead of a dud impulsion bomb? Especially in a war where many such bombs are being thrownen around all the time

[@andrewplater1782]

With Shoigou in charge, there is little doubt that nothing has been maintained.

[@GegeDxD]

Do you people understand Russia and the US had an agreement to inspect each other's nuclear arsenal? If the US says Russia has reliable missiles and their nuclear amount is correct, who are you to doubt?

[@peka2478]

We find the prospect of a nuclear war not feasible and thus would probably not maintain the nukes; But Shoigu is closer to Putin, and probably knows whether or not he wants that war. And if Putin does, Shoigu probably cares about the nukes being maintained, for if they are not, he'd be shot the minute that Putin commanded to send the nukes and Shoigu couldnt deliver...

[@casbot71]

If Putin wanted to actually use a nuclear weapon, the generals would ask him to show them on a map where he wants to hit. And the map would just so happen to be on the fifth floor, next to a open window....

[@CinemaDemocratica]

Beat me to it! I should have read down before I took a long turgid paragraph to say exactly the same thing. Really surprised William didn't touch on this.

[@henriikkak2091]

Who are these generals with a conscience that everyone talks about but we never actually see?

[@JesseWRIGHT-th8mw]

Hate to get off topic (sort of), but those Russians really need to recall all those detective windows 🪟 in the country.

[@jimtalbott9535]

@@henriikkak2091Their conscience kicks in at certain points. Full self destruction is where it’s at.

[@naverilllang]

​@@henriikkak2091Generals with a self preservation instinct

[@casbot71]

The problem is that there is only one way to ultimately find out if they work. And if they do .......

[@AS-np3yq]

Look at Hiroshima today.

[@Sam-Cain]

​​​​@@AS-np3yqThe bombs dropped on Hiroshima are not the bombs Russia (or the US, or China, or any nuclear power) have today. The person who made this argument originally has no idea what he's talking about. To be clear, the difference here is fallout. The bombs dropped on Japan were not designed to disperse fallout anywhere near as much as the bombs today are. If even one was dropped on a target, it would be uninhabitable for decades to come. Moreover, he wasn't making that argument about nuclear weapons but about nuclear energy, which is even more insane! Nuclear energy is only as safe as it is because the consequences are *much* worse. Chernobyl was contained and it's still going to be uninhabitable in 20,000 years time.

[@thepax2621]

Then Moscow would start glowing as well 🤷🏻‍♀️ I'll never understood why people either think that Putin is tired of living and/or that MAD isn't a thing

[@leedavies6779]

​@@thepax2621yeah, but MAD means we also die. Hence why we still wouldn't want to find out.

[@Sam-Cain]

​@@thepax2621To be fair he's made it explicitly clear he believes he is Russia. If there's no him, there's no point in Russia continuing to exist. Lee is right tho, it doesn't matter if Moscow is a crater if Kyiv, London, Berlin, Washington D.C, etc are as well.

[@thelukkman1]

watch the netflix documentary "Turning Point" .. ep 7 talks about "Project Sapphire"..after Khazikstan separated from USSR in 1991, they had a massive arsenol of uranium for nukes..US Ambassador, Andy Weber arrived there for a mtg and a random taxi driver picked him up at the airport, then said to him "would you like to buy some enriched uranium"?!! .. As you do .. Weber, of course, says "yes" .. a few days later, a KGB Colonel passes him a note saying "600 kg, 90% highly enriched uranium bombfuel - available if you want it" ..(enough for 25 nukes) .. it was sitting in a random old warehouse somewhere, with just a cheap antique padlock on the door..all the town wanted was enough $$ to support their people with the sale $$..the US paid $30 million, they said Iran would've paid BILLIONS .. .. they say there is still A LOT of missing uranium in random places

[@richardbell7678]

Minor correction: It is not that deuterium and tritium stop repelling each other at higher temperatures, but that, at higher temperatures, they are whizzing around so fast that the repulsion force is not enough to prevent collisions. Tritium decays via the beta (-) process. One of the two neutrons emits an electron and an electron neutrino to become a proton. The helium3 nuclei is a strong absorber of neutrons. Too much helium3 in the bomb can prevent the plutonium pit from reaching full explosive potential, before it disassembles (a fizzle yield). Helium3 that absorbs a neutron to become helium4 will not contribute to the fusion reaction. Helium3 in a bomb poisons the reactions needed to produce high yields. edited to add missing words.

[@wilhelmheinzerling5341]

What do you mean by the plutonium pit fills? (Genuine question)

[@richardbell7678]

@@wilhelmheinzerling5341 My fingers fell behind my thoughts and they caught up by jumping ahead. Without the neutrons absorbed by the helium3, the pit does not reach full explosive potential. Put enough neutron absorbers in the pit and it will not even fizzle. Too many neutrons will miss plutonium nuclei and get removed from the system by absorption for a sustained chain reaction to start, let alone grow.

[@Melanie16040]

I came to say this but see you have already taken care of the helium 3 issue. Thank you.

[@JonMartinYXD]

Yes, the video doesn't do justice to the scope of the tritium problem. Let's say I am a country that has just reached the level of nuclear weapons technology to field D-T boosted fission warheads. The advantages of boosting are so great (massive increase in efficiency that lets me use much less fissile material, meaning I can have easier to deliver warheads and more of them) that I immediately convert my entire arsenal to use it. Boosted fission warheads also open the door for me to develop deliverable thermonuclear warheads. Again, as soon as I master thermonuclear technology, its advantages are so great that I convert as much of my arsenal as possible (there is a minimum size for thermonuclear physics packages and it seems to be 80 cm long with a 30 cm diameter - the physics package in a US B83 bomb is at most 122 cm long with a 46 cm diameter and it has a yield of 1.2 Mt). The D-T boosted fission primary in a thermonuclear warhead is only as big as it needs to be to ignite the fusion(+fission) secondary. Now I'm set. I have maximized the total yield of my arsenal, I have a large number of warheads for varying purposes, and I even have bombs powerful enough to cripple a 1M person city (150 kt-ish) that can fit inside the weapons bay of my horribly over-budget stealth strike fighter. Except now I am a slave to tritium. It is _the_ vital ingredient that makes my warheads work. If I let too much tritium decay into helium-3, my boosted fission warheads may not even fizzle! Contrary to what is commonly believed, just crushing the plutonium pit is not sufficient to start a full yield chain reaction - the plutonium 'springs' back outward faster than enough spontaneous fissions can start. It needs a kick start from a neutron initiator: a burst of neutrons in the pit right when it is at maximum density. In the simplest implosion fission weapons (eg. Fat Man) that initiator is a small beryllium-polonium ball in the centre of the otherwise solid pit, but it is much more efficient (and predictable) to have the neutron initiator _outside_ of the pit and its high explosive shell, precisely aimed and timed to fire a beam of neutrons into the pit (besides, having hollowed out the pit to make room for deuterium and tritium, where would I put the beryllium-polonium ball?). But if the centre of the crushed pit has a large proportion of helium-3, that is going to absorb a lot of the neutron beam. Enough to reduce the detonation to a fizzle, maybe even less. I could, if I can't replace the tritium, just remove it and have a pure fission pit. That will at least make a proper nuclear explosion, but the yield will be nowhere near what the boosted version would have been. If that fission device is the primary in a thermonuclear warhead, that dramatically reduced yield will not be enough to ignite the secondary. My city crippling 150 kt warhead now only flattens a dozen or so blocks. It is more of a dirty bomb than a nuclear bomb. Once you design nuclear weapons to take advantage of deuterium-tritium boosting - and the advantages are so great that you would be crazy not to - you have to maintain that tritium. The tritium *is* your nuclear arsenal.

[@mjl1966y]

AI putting Tsar Bomba in 1990? Really? That is a major mis-statement. So, in addition to regressive degeneration, AI can't cross-check itself. I see... trouble.

[@LoneWolf343]

Well, yeah, that was a foreseeable problem from the very beginning. The computer doesn't understand the concept of truth; it only knows what it is told.

[@CollectiveDefence]

AI is the future of desinformation.

[@XIIchiron78]

LLMs don't actually know what they are saying. They are creatures of pure intuition, with no higher reasoning or internal deliberation. It's a very advanced version of just hitting the middle suggestion on your mobile keyboard - so you often run into situations where, in the training data, you had multiple different topics with similar wordings and phrasings, that become mixed up. The Soviet Union's last nuclear test can easily become confused with their _largest._ It's like the equivalent of a Freudian slip. As models become larger and more complex, they build increasingly sophisticated abstractions for choosing when to access and use what parts of their knowledge. But they still make mistakes, and they have no way to realize they are making one, because they output one token at a time. They have no real plan or knowledge of what they're going to say next until they say it. Until that changes, this kind of thing will continue to happen,

[@bobkonradi1027]

My reading about the Tsar Bomba was that they used uranium as the tamper material to contain the internal explosion for a few extra millionths of a second, as it was denser than lead or any other material. But they forgot to fully realize that it might cook off and become its own supplementary detonation, and feeding additional material into the primary explosion. Thus it became a runaway explosion through their scientists not bringing the fissile nature of the tamper into the equation. It was not designed to be s 50 m.t. detonation. This was from a conversation some of our scientists had with their scientists in the honeymoon period right after the Soviet Union collapsed.

[@mattt198654321]

Just to be clear, this is Google's AI which is called Gemeni. It's functionally useless. It basically screen scrapes search results and puts whatever it finds at the top of the page, correct or not. ChatGPT, however, got this one right.

[@robertglas5854]

Very informative and explained in a great way!!

[@geodkyt]

Keep in mind that when Putin needed more manpower in a hurry early in the war, they transfered *missile technicians* from the *Strategic Rocket Forces* to use them as untrained infantry in Donbas.

[@Kakarot64.]

Probably didn't even give them a rifle either wouldn't be surprised if they followed 20th century Russian tradition of going into the fight with a shovel and swapping it for the rifle of the guy who fell in front of them.

[@H0kram]

Do you have a source? Because that sounds extremely dumb, even by Politburo's standards, and that alone says a lot.

[@dongately2817]

I find this hard to believe, even for Russia

[@railgun517]

@@H0kram It was at least a year ago, so sources are probably buried, but I do vaguely remember articles about this popping up

[@jacoblaird7296]

@@H0kramI’m sorry to say I cannot link a direct source, and it is hard to find the correct phrasing to search it, but he’s not making it all up. During the 2022 summer offensive in Kharkiv, Russians were captured that claimed to be former security and maintenance personnel for the Strategic Rocket Force. As for the credibility of them being actual NUCLEAR MECHANICS I think this may be a stretch. Regarding of the specifics of the personnel that were captured not much else is known other than the claims made. Edit: Wording

[@Capeau]

If money is involved, you can bet the ones responsible stole a large portion of it, so its safe to say they are most likely badly maintained...

[@magnetmannenbannanen]

maybe, but the FSB does have a active branch, they are stationed at these nuclear sites, they DO know what is happening. some sites are abandoned and only maintains a cloak of operational capabilities, but Putin is not dumb enough to let the 1 thing stopping enemies from invading him, to go out of operations. some of his missiles DO work. just search "russian missile test" and look at how he has put in place missiles that do not work on the old icbm style, but instead follow the ground kinda like a cruise missile would. these can carry nukes too.

[@constate4601]

Self comforting is pathetic.

[@glennr2358]

@@constate4601

[@67marlins]

​@@constate4601 Your ignorance is worse. Dolt....

[@Givemeproofkid]

@@67marlins you are not coping well

[@1Klooch]

Would not want to be the one "rollin' the dice" on how many of the damn things are going to parody a second sun versus how many are going to cook off on the launchers.

[@jeanhiebert3425]

I could listen to you teach for hours every day and never tire of you. I hope your students are aware of how fortunate they are.

[@Gilder-von-Schattenkreuz]

1. I dont think Russia ever had as many of these as they claim. Russia is known to Overstate its Arsenal. 2. I doubt Russia has done Proper Maintenance for any Storaged Weapons. Much less the ones Slated for disposal. 3. The Budget does not Reflect its Arsenals Size even if we assume Maintenance only on Storaged Units. 4. I do think Russia has at least Ordered Maintenance for the Active Weapons. But at least part of this likely was lost to corruption. And the Budget was likely insufficient for this Task to begin with. In Total. I would assume the Russian Arsenal is likely less than Half what Russia claims. But still more than twice what China has.

[@jilbertb]

China has zero. Solid rocket fuel was stolen and sold to the masses for heating. Then the rockets were refilled with water. Hence, rusted from the inside. Refer to China's recent rocket test, which failed miserably. 😂

[@riskinhos]

YES THEY DID. that's stupid af. there was many treaties and usa was able to verify the russian stocks. it's not a secret or anything.

[@teeboogie3237]

With Russia it is all lies lies lies and corruption. Don't believe a thing they say. The bluster is all BS... I mean there is currently another army fighting and owning towns in your country Russia.

[@geodkyt]

​​@@Golddigger1000Ah, but the problem is the *downside* for Russian deterrence if the particular weapon they pick *doesn't* work right. If they get a North Korean style fizzle, instantly Russia appears to be emaciated tiger with decayed teeth to someone like, say, China. Or the various 'Stans that used to be part of the USSR. And his "allies". And... the Russian elites and power brokers on St. Petersburg, Moscow, and in control of the military forces that can credibly reach those cities in forces strong enough to defeat the regime protection forces. Given the other public failures of hyped up Russian weapons, the failure of one weapon would be carried over to the presumption of the rest. Yes, in a full on strategic level exchange, *enough* Russian weapons will likely work "well enough" to be devastating... but in return, Russia as a nation state would cease to exist (regardless of what they manage to do to their targets). Putin *literally* cannot afford to use a nuclear weapon *under ANY circumstances* unless he feels it is the only way to preserve *his life* or "the very existence of Russia* . So, Russian nukes are still useful for *deterrence* but paradoxically not reliable enough for them to be used for anything less than an existential conflict.

[@geodkyt]

​@@Golddigger1000​​ Ah, but the problem is the *downside* for Russian deterrence if the particular weapon they pick *doesn't* work right. If they get a North Korean style fizzle, instantly Russia appears to be emaciated tiger with decayed teeth to someone like, say, China. Or the various 'Stans that used to be part of the USSR. And his "allies". And... the Russian elites and power brokers on St. Petersburg, Moscow, and in control of the military forces that can credibly reach those cities in forces strong enough to defeat the regime protection forces. Given the other public failures of hyped up Russian weapons, the failure of one weapon would be carried over to the presumption of the rest. Yes, in a full on strategic level exchange, *enough* Russian weapons will likely work "well enough" to be devastating... but in return, Russia as a nation state would cease to exist (regardless of what they manage to do to their targets). Putin *literally* cannot afford to use a nuclear weapon *under ANY circumstances* unless he feels it is the only way to preserve *his life* or "the very existence of Russia* . So, Russian nukes are still useful for *deterrence* but paradoxically not reliable enough for them to be used for anything less than an existential conflict.

[@frankgulla2335]

Thank you, William for that concise analysis of Russia's Nuke Arsenal.

[@youuuuuuuuuuutube]

Something you missed (or didn't miss but just didn't say): it's possible to optimize the maintenance cost part, by choosing for ex, 50 bombs to maintain in perfectly good state, and not maintain anything else => that way, you save a bunch of money and if one day you launch 5 missiles and they all hit the target and detonate properly, every other country will think that all your bombs have been well maintained while in fact you only handled 1% of them, and saved 99% of the cost.

[@PappaTom-ub3ht]

This is what i would do. And i would guess that the nukes onboard of submarines do work quite fine.

[@voidtempering8700]

There is also the fact that they have developed a couple "new" nuclear weapons. Some missiles were only developed some weapons that are not yet 15 years old.

[@tn15_]

This is exactly what I was thinking. Maintaining 1% of the arsenal seems like it should have the same strategic effect as maintaining 100%

[@Zomby_Woof]

@@PappaTom-ub3ht Doesn't matter because A: warheads degrade at the same rate on subs, plus the rocket motors themselves, being solid fuel, and prone to degradation, particularly with temp changes, and more importantly, B: their ssbn's are tied to the pier, rusting away. We can see them from space.

[@arthursmith6854]

A good point. At one point the Sovie Union had over 20,000 bombs prior to their collapse. Treaties with the US have cut that to 5500 or so. Your scenario is a plausible one but who really knows.

[@Petriefied0246]

The UK spends £2bn a year to maintain 225 warheads, Russia will never spend that kind of money. Most of their weapons will be inert now and the money will have paid for a dacha, some property in London and a super yacht.

[@peterlaurie1247]

And the UK still can't launch them!

[@wanderingaceminecraftandmo8034]

​@@peterlaurie1247 because unlike Russia, they don't try to invade everyone around them. They aren't the British Empire anymore.

[@Jasonsadventures]

@@peterlaurie1247 We know the Russian missiles fly and fly very well, that's half the battle. The UK can't even manage to fly one so it doesn't matter if the warhead works (likely doesn't either)

[@Ailikor]

​@@peterlaurie1247 tridont

[@stefanodadamo6809]

Money alone daies absolutely nothing. It's always men who do the dirty, and radioactive, work.

[@GTI1dasOriginal]

I once learned a valuable lesson in life. Don't jinx it by openly questioning certain things which may influence the outcome.

[@StegoAqua]

Putin: Fire the missiles! Staffer: S-Sir… they were all secretly dismantled and sold for most of there parts

[@sanitarium017]

*their

[@Wyi-the-rogue]

Murdrons

[@stevenoest]

@@sanitarium017 ofc someone like you had to join in.

[@mhyotyni]

Kim is happy to sell them back for a raised price

[@doncarlodivargas5497]

S-s-s sir! We have replaced the nuclear material with egg carton, like on the tanks

[@geodkyt]

Ah, but the problem is the *downside* for Russian deterrence if the particular weapon they pick *doesn't* work right. If they get a North Korean style fizzle, instantly Russia appears to be emaciated tiger with decayed teeth to someone like, say, China. Or the various 'Stans that used to be part of the USSR. And his "allies". And... the Russian elites and power brokers on St. Petersburg, Moscow, and in control of the military forces that can credibly reach those cities in forces strong enough to defeat the regime protection forces. Given the other public failures of hyped up Russian weapons, the failure of one weapon would be carried over to the presumption of the rest. Yes, in a full on strategic level exchange, *enough* Russian weapons will likely work "well enough" to be devastating... but in return, Russia as a nation state would cease to exist (regardless of what they manage to do to their targets). Putin *literally* cannot afford to use a nuclear weapon *under ANY circumstances* unless he feels it is the only way to preserve *his life* or "the very existence of Russia* . So, *unused* Russian nukes are still useful for *deterrence* but paradoxically not reliable enough for them to be used for anything less than an existential conflict.

[@henriikkak2091]

🎯

[@dennistate5953]

AND - In an "existential threat environment" Putin has by law absolute & sole discretion with no oversight or appeal to launch. Period. Spooky as hell, quite literally.

[@studioatkinson6210]

Hey! Good work, William. I very much appreciate you going out of your comfort zone. I know this was a lot of work. Appreciated.

[@roninnder]

You told us all we needed to know when you said the tiny invisible tritium that no one will ever see to know if its replaced cost a ton of money. Just assume all that money went to corruption, because that is the truth. Anything that small, expensive, and impossible to check on is immediately going to spur the commander to take those funds for himself.

[@theq4602]

you can check on tritium with some basic equipment, a gamma spectrometer they can fit in your pocket nowadays

[@mm650]

William good points, but I want to push on two of them: 1. You point out that nobody can verify that you are maintaining the arsenal... That's only true if you don't want them to be able to verify it. Look at the US. A lot of people see the National Ignition Facility and think Fusion Power, but the real purpose of the experiment is to ensure that the US's nukes still work despite not being able to test them. The applicability to fusion power research is just gravy. In a way, therefore the entirety of the NIF a way to signal to the world "Hey Look at all of this money I am dumping into making sure my Nukes work!" 2. Russia could, much more cheaply, simply withdraw from the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, and then, with tests detectable by seismograph all over the planet, PROVE that they are keeping at least some of their nukes working. I am mostly afraid of this out come. Putin, could surprise test a Nuke in Siberia with an underground test and then announce withdrawing from the treaty (note he only announces after he KNOWS how many nukes it took to get a successful test, meanwhile the West only knows that one went off not how many failed). Then he could start inviting internal leaders and oligarchs from around Russia to attend lavish parties complete with vodka, girls, and caviar that finish with a nuclear test... A way to intimidate them. Then, once that practice is normalized with half a dozen tests, he could start inviting world leaders from friendly countries but also warlords from Africa who are allies and customers of Wagner. Then, he turns to the West and says "Hey, I can abandon non-proliferation and provide my good friend from Africa a few nukes, or you can abandon Ukraine to its fate as a state withing the Russian Federation... Oh, and disband the ICC while your at it just so you know who's Boss." Mind you, I don't WANT him to do this, but it seems like a MUCH better and more viable path to using nukes in a way that matters than actually using them on the battlefield in Ukraine. I'd love if you'd dedicate on of your videos to some of the more creative and less obvious uses for nukes.

[@michaelgideon8944]

I have noticed that the Wagner group has been busy destabilizing African nations and kicking out their French and American allies. Many of these regions are suppliers of uranium.

[@jacobnoelle8428]

I am not sure it would go down like that but I can see this being a solid plan.

[@billgiltzow4464]

I sure hope Putin doesn't see this comment.

[@testerjs]

Russians could try something like that they would probably find china and India feeling less happy with them though... But if they did it would be a flex till America sends a b2 or 3over all the Russians air force base will leaflets says "stop testing or its something else next time." If the yanks want to stop Russia they only have to get the oil price sub $45-50 a barrel.

[@Quickshot0]

There's a super easy counter to this, if Russia suggest such, one can just suggest you might accidentally lose some nukes to countries trying to free itself from Russian Hegemony. Like Armenia, or Ukraine, Baltic states, maybe some of the stans, etc. Tactics like these only seem to work so long as you don't really imagine that the other side can just start doing the exact same thing back. Though the real cost will what comes after, as nuclear proliferation will probably eventually lead to some nuclear exchanges. And that would probably greatly change everyone's mind on how good idea this actually really was.

[@fg3901]

They blew up a missile in a silo in late September 2024 in Siberia. Bummer.

[@Vera-qi3sv]

Great, very, very great lecture in nuclear weapons; you go straight to the point, explain everything related to it (inside and out), and make it easy for us to follow you on the subject. Excellent!

[@peterb2272]

"Tritium is worth how much again?"

[@SocialDownclimber]

Wait till you see how much the "decay products" of tritium is worth lol.

[@marcdc6809]

a Russian wife now has to explain to his wife that he sells it for five times less and what kind of a moron he is...

[@JonMartinYXD]

@@SocialDownclimber Demand for helium-3 has declined significantly. It is now much cheaper than tritium (but still much more expensive than gold). That said, world consumption is so low that the price can fluctuate a lot.

[@JCMills55]

Russias nuclear force was crap even back in the 70's when I was a maintenance team chief on our Minuteman sites. You can imagine how terrible it is now.

[@neolithictransitrevolution427]

I'm absolutely sure Russia can construct and has an operational nuclear arsenal. However, almost of of the arenal is likely on Submarines, and a I would be suprised if more than a hundred worked in total. Trinium half life means warheads have a very finite life span, and based on maintaince we've seen on basic military equipment, I hightly doubt the thousands of ICBMs have been seriously maintained.

[@FutureChaosTV]

Plutonium has a half-life of 30 000 years(?). So, the half life of Plutonium doesn't matter at all here for the sake of argument...

[@jakeaurod]

The half-life of Pu-239 is 24,000 years.

[@u2beuser714]

Your analysis is flawed. You have to keep in mind why corruption and graft happens in the first place and its about REGIME SECURITY and nuclear weapones are part of that calculus and as perun said, its not binary its not either corruption and ineffectivenes or no corruption and effectiveness you can be both corrupt AND effective. If you look at russias war in ukraine, the corruption hasnt COMPLETELY defanged russia they still have stuff that they can throw at the enemy

[@ShadowRulah]

@@u2beuser714 Yeah I'm sure the only thing Russia actually dedicated resources and competence to was the one thing they never believed they'd be required to use.

[@neolithictransitrevolution427]

@@FutureChaosTV I confused it with Plutonium 238, thank you.

[@davidcrawley9479]

Reports from some of the individuals who participated in auditing Russian weapons for one of the US - Soviet / Russian nuclear arms reduction treaties indicated that about half the facilities that were visited clearly could not launch nuclear weapons. In one case the Silo had largely filled with water and clearly could not be used to launch a weapon any time soon. It seems unlikely that things have improved in the 30 years since. If I know this, well I am sure the US, with its extensive intelligence gathering network, has much more information about the state of play Russia's nuclear stockpile and probably can estimate how likely Russia has WMD just like they got it exactly right on Iraq's WMD stockpile before gulf war 2. However - as you point out - this is a really dangerous game to play, you really only need one working device for a nuclear holocaust.

[@hemendraravi4787]

i would assume russia has maintained them to some decent extent or america would have called them out long ago.

[@davidcrawley9479]

@@hemendraravi4787 Well to be fair Russia is actually wholesale replacing most of their ICBM with the RS-28 missile they've also had a replacement program for their submarine missile force too. So you get in to a game of: kzbin.info/www/bejne/p4eyaWiXo8amqKM As to America "calling them out" - well how would they? Launch a war against Russia? The closest you are going to get here is crossing Russian "Red Lines" which America has definitely done several times in Ukraine without a Russian response.

[@Baebon6259]

DTRA sources?

[@infantjones]

Pretty much everything has improved over the last 30 years in Russia, maybe not as much as they like to insist but the 90s were a remarkably bad time there.

[@MrBashem]

@@hemendraravi4787 Why would US call them out? If they did that it would mean US would need to reduce its nukes.

[@jimg2850]

This leaves us two possibilities for explaining Russia's current behaviour. 1. They have nukes that they trust but consider the consequences of using them to be unaccepable. 2. They don't trust their nukes and are frustrated that following their "red lines" being turned into a mockery they cannot respond, so are frantically trying to make a reliable nuke in the background. If the situation is 2 we could expect a nuclear test/demonstration if/when they do reach the stage of having a reliable weapon. Of course they could end hostilities at any time with a ceasefire and withdrawal and thus completely remove the risk of nuclear war and ensure Russia's continued existence.

[@JamesSmith-ix5jd]

EU politicians already said they want to partition Russia and "re-educate" all russians.

[@AnhNguyen-hn9vj]

Possible. That is why both side test each other. Both sides acting strangely.

[@thomaskettunen3699]

We can take a quick look at how they treat their other weapon systems, which they will build and then run into the ground with minimum maintenance. Why would they suddenly become competent just because it's nukes? Even more of a reason to cut corners since no one is looking

[@marcdc6809]

I also think it's very likely that the select club of people in Russia who actually have the knowledge to check if the nukes work or not just keep 10 or so in working order, in case Putin orders a test... and the rest of the money is for partying... they don't care if the arsenal works well, if they launch, the US launches and Russia's gone, that's a certainty, it's nice to die a hero, but if there's nobody to remember that you were that hero, you might as well have fun with the money...

[@thomaskettunen3699]

@@marcdc6809 I agree completely, "skimming" funds from the top is more a rule than an exception. Thieves aren't shamed over there, they are almost heroes it seems. The majority of the population would do the same if they were in that position

[@DrQuagmire]

I’ve always questioned how Russia could maintain their nukes when the the majority of their military spending was not on par with maintaining their nuclear devices. So many parts do have a short half/life of even a few years and doubt Russia could maintain such a large amount of nukes. They simply didn’t even have money going into it, much like their other forces.

[@SecularFelinist]

Given the state of their conventional forces, it wouldn't surprise me. What does concern me is Perimeter, the Soviet-era doomsday device. If you don't know, it's colloquially called Dead Hand, a system that will automatically launch Russia's nuclear weapons if it detects a nuclear detonation. If that's been falling apart as well...

[@kirgan1000]

If Russias nuclear arsenal was maintained, there are no need to hide that fact, you would brag about it, and let foreign observers see the work. Like invite them to special factory one, that can rebuild/refurbish 100 nukes every year, and show its fully staffed and work is ongoing. So there are no doubt about the health of your nuclear arsenal. If there are doubt about your nuclear arsenals heath.... it erodes your MAD. Its not a wining move to make your adversary doubt you nuclear arsenals heath.

[@CyberBeep_kenshi]

that's a good point actually.

[@ВладимирАнанченко-к7ф]

So why USA don't do this? Are USA nuces is also a fake?

[@Indrid__Cold]

It is widely acknowledged that a nation possessing approximately ten deliverable nuclear weapons within the high-kiloton range effectively holds a sufficient arsenal for deterrence purposes. The Chinese government recognized this fact and maintained its nuclear stockpile at a level capable of devastating the top fifty cities of a potential adversary. Paradoxically, when considering a country's ability to transform major metropolitan areas into desolate wastelands, this level of destructive power serves as a more than adequate deterrent. For instance, envision the United States enduring the loss of New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles alone, and it becomes evident that the consequences could potentially require decades of arduous recovery efforts.

[@jilbertb]

It is well known, China's rockets had their fuel removed and refilled with water....

[@henriikkak2091]

Targeting cities makes no sense to me. In order to prevent a counterstrike by the US within seconds from launch, one would have to target American nuclear launch sites. Those sites aren't anywhere near major population centers.

[@estocolmo4646]

Would we have New New York after?

[@Feeltheh8]

​@@henriikkak2091 how would that prevent a counterstrike?

[@jesperlykkeberg7438]

The US alleged stockpiles did not deter China from kicking the US out of North Korea Neither did the UK´s alleged stockpiles deter Argentina from invading UK territory

[@asan1050]

William Spaniel, Thanks for posting this video

[@SamuelClemens-o6q]

I think you should add "resource conflict" to your causes list. We know that Putin's ambitions exceed Russia's actual capacity which means they have an allocation problem. We also know that Russia is simply bad at allocation of resources when resources are constrained.

[@jilbertb]

And oligarchs and generals stole most of the money allocated for the projects.

[@neolithictransitrevolution427]

what resources are you suggesting Russia might fight for? I mean outside Ukraine where getting water to Crimea and blocking it from selling Natural Gas to Europe. I guess Japan over that island with oil or maybe China stealing all of Siberia (or rip Russia in half and keep some military dictator in charge in the East to keep the West off their border, as they did with Korea and Vietnam). Or by resources do meam manufactured goods and advanced technology and capital goods?

[@ShakyBakey]

@@neolithictransitrevolution427 He means budget. Russia demands more than what their budget can actually provide and then officials get to figure out what they can actually afford, minus their personal jet or two.

[@bfoster417]

Is there a chance that the Russians with their lack of maintenance could end up blowing themselves up by mistake.

[@marcdc6809]

they actually prefer to claim that Ivan and Igor had a smoke and blew up a refinery... it looks better than to admit that a Ukrainian drone flew hundreds of kilometers over their mother Russia...

[@sawtooth808]

Funny you should mention this, I have been thinking the same thing about a month ago, when Vova threatened to use nukes

[@emom358]

I really enjoy your videos, I always learn something new. And I am one of the few people I know who loves footnotes.

[@Mrblazed420]

Probably if the corruption is that bad in the normal military with weapons that likely might get used can see the corruption in nukes that will likely never be used be much worse

[@genericscout5408]

USA also has issues maintaining all of it's nukes. But they can reliably repair about 30% of them at any given time. Russia probably can't even maintain 10% of all their nukes if the USA can't maintain theirs.

[@jilbertb]

Look at the condition of their stored 155mm shells. Rusted and worthless.

[@ShakyBakey]

They're making deals with north koreans for weapons....That should tell you a lot.

[@davidgentile5225]

Tritium, if left "Rotten", can cause squibs/failure to function-for reference, see the movie where Denver, Colorado is destroyed by terrorists, using uranium taken from American bombs used during the 1973 war, recovered by Terrorists and reworked by an East German scientist, who was murdered to cover it up. "The Sum of all fears". it became a squib, well below projected yields because of bad tritium. Book was 100% better than the Movie by a LONG shot!

[@agencequebecpresse7427]

the stadium scene was filmed at the Olympic Stadium in Montreal, Canada : my hometown. off memories ; others scenes where shot in Montreal

[@JonMartinYXD]

So in the book it is Denver, but in the movie it is Baltimore? Also, Liev Schreiber would have been a better Jack Ryan than Ben Affleck.

[@jbwildfire]

I enjoy your annilitical abilities and I gain a great deal of knowledge by watching your videos. Thank you.

[@BW022]

Russia's biggest nuclear issue isn't in whether the warheads work, but in various aspects of delivery. Even if weapons are 95%+ likely to work, Russia still has major issues in using them. 1. There aren't many great option for Russia using nukes. Ukraine troops are pretty spread out for any tactical nuclear weapon, so it's a massive escalation using one to take out even a few companies, a small town with a rail hub, etc. Going after a major Ukraine city with a strategic nuclear weapon is going to immediately turn the rest of the world against them and still may not win the war. Going after a western city is just asking for the US/NATO to nuke wherever Putin is plus a few Russia cities. 2. US signals intelligence is so good that it's highly likely that the US will have advanced warning of any decision to use them. It could easily take days to prepare a tactical or even strategic strike -- giving the US time to make it public, threaten a response, to deploy ABM systems, or possibly destroy the weapon before it is deployed and used. 3. Delivery systems are far more likely to 'fail' than the warheads. Air defense systems are so deadly an aircraft may never get over a target and even short and mid-ranged cruise or missiles might had a less than 50% of making it. Even to hit some troops, Russia might need to coordinate three or more weapons. If given warning, it might take a half-dozen or more weapons for one to actually get through if Ukraine knows what to expect or the US has time to actively defend Ukraine against them (say using the ABM system in Poland, ship anti-missile systems, putting NATO aircraft over Ukraine, etc. Even strategic systems can't be selective... a few weapons could still be intercepted by ABM systems, ships, etc. 4. The US/NATO clearly have ways to retaliate against Russia using a few nukes on Ukraine without using its own nuclear weapons. Take out the Kursk Strait bridge, stealth aircraft taking out key Russian assets, world-wide sanctions, moving massive numbers of troops to Russia boarders, supplying Ukraine with insane amounts of weapons without restrictions -- say 1,000 cruise missiles, let Ukraine pilots fly out of NATO bases, move top line air defenses into Ukraine and bordering states, cyberattacks, go after Putin himself, etc. 5. The US/NATO have options Russia doesn't if it goes nuclear. Say that Russia launched enough weapons at Rome to get though the Polish ABM systems. The US could nuke where Putin is using stealth bombers or nuclear cruise missiles and just say "Ok, war is over. Putin is dead. We know where the rest of his inner circle is, so whoever takes over needs to know they are next unless your entire nuclear force stands down." Followed by all of #4. The issue isn't if they can work, but if they can be delivered in a way which is useful.

[@jackreacher.]

You win the prize. Your sphere of activity suits your character. Thank you for your comment.

[@buravan1512]

Keep in mind that there's nothing that BIDEN would do if RUSKIES use a N"KE😂

[@sErgEantaEgis12]

Also even if a Russian nuclear detonation is a dud it'll turn China and India against them which would seriously jeopardize Russia's position.

[@bodiant5887]

Так забавно читать подобную шизу из России) эти шизики реально пребывают в параллельном мире)

[@joelrasdall7662]

Speaking as a truly ignorant internet warrior here - no Ph.D. or anything - the scenario that most catches my attention is the one where you stop maintenance on 90% of your nukes, but closely monitor the remaining 10%. I mean, 5,000 nukes is ridiculous; 300 is still plenty enough to make for Bad Days all around. I have no insider knowledge here, but if the assessment is that "corruption + lost knowledge + deliberate decay < 95%," that would still enough to make everyone wary. 5% of 5000 is still 250 Bad Days.

[@AlanSari2714]

Had to watch the video 5 times to fully comprehend the importance of it, thank you

[@Focusembedded]

One of the most amusing parts of the Russian drive on Kyiv had everything to do with tires. The US Army rolls on Goodyear, Firestone, and Michelin. And if a vehicle has been parked for a while, somebody is given the job of going out and at least turning it around so the other side (and its tires) faces the sun and the contact patch isn't on the same piece of rubber forever. Russian military people, however, shaved money out of the tire budgets for themselves and bought cheap tires in China. Subsequently, nobody maintained them. And that long military convoy into Kiev ground to a halt when the bad tires started blowing out. By then, quite a few vehicles were out of gas, also. So it seemed as good a time as any to turn around and walk home. Imagine it's late in the 5th century and Klaus the Visigoth is saying, "Oh, damn... We forgot to pack enough sandwiches for the road... We better go back to Germany and march on Rome later when we're better prepared..."

[@Slava_Ukraini1991]

They were forced to pull back mainly because they prepared for very limited resistance and expected to be able to roll into Kyiv. When their forces were continually harassed and attacked they were forced to withdraw in utter disarray.

[@Dannyboy314]

What the fuck are you talking about?? They failed because ot military tactics someone pulled out their ass. Yes yes they had problems with some tires. But that was far, far from the reason the invasion failed. It mainly failed because they just rolled in, in large columns that could easily be stopped and completely destroyed.

[@Rue_Madora]

It's not just basic maintenance, nukes are somewhat fragile and temperamental, so many things can go bad after 50+ years. I'd bet most haven't been touched since the soviet fall.

[@cascadianrangers728]

No a lot of them aren't some reentry vehicles have to withstand immense vibration and shock and heat loads reentering the atmosphere, at least when it comes to ICBMs fragile is not exactly the word I would choose

[@playwars3037]

I don't believe any significant portion of Russia's nuclear arsenal is still operational, but it doesn't need to be. Even if only 10% of the warheads are operational, with working delivery vehicles, that's still more nukes than the UK and France combined. Russia doesn't need 5k+ warheads, nor do I believe Putin would remotely care about such a high number if it wasn't a matter of prestige and thus ego for him and his cronies. What I think is happening is that most of Russia's nuclear arsenal suffered the exact same fate as its more conventional equipment. 95% of it was left to rot in soviet era bases, about a third of that might have some choice salvage in it to bring a few of the others back to operational status, but a solid five percent is still operating as part of the 'true' force of Russia's paper tiger, and those will fire if needed. Not because Putin thinks he has to have them to win in Ukraine or scare off NATO, but because if he doesn't have enough nukes to send China to its grave (AKA enough nukes to blow the coastal megaports and cause the country to collapse) his 'friend' Xi Jinping would stab him in the back and invade Siberia in a heartbeat. Helpful reminder that the garrisons on NATO borders have been whittled down to the bone or outright abandonned, while the ones stationed on the Chinese border are still at full strength. So yeah, Russia doesn't have 5k+ operational nukes. My guess is, it has 200 or so, given its GDP, which will fire if their psychotic dictator and wannabe Hitler, sorry, I meant 'beloved and merciful president' Putin orders them used, simply because without them his 'friends' would have killed him already and taken his stuff. One thing for certain though, he sure as shit won't spend them on Ukraine unless they're about to collapse his regime, because the sharks are circling, as evidenced by Xi Jinping's recent instructions that Chinese names be given to Siberian cities and regions on Chinese maps.

[@pop5678eye]

This reminds me of the scene from the satirical movie Dr. Strangelove where an American general argues to the president that a first strike on the USSR was feasible with 'acceptable' losses... where 'acceptable' meant sacrificing about a quarter of one's own civilian population...

[@arthursmith6854]

I think General Turgeson (George C. Scott) said "only 10 to 20 million casualties. Tops". A good movie.

[@Anon-te6uq]

Its the big cities that will get hit. Rural people will be just fine. I wonder when rural people will figure that out.

[@Sara3346]

@@Anon-te6uq My fellow, radition can spread on the wind, not dead is not the same as ''fine''.

[@maka6134]

@@Anon-te6uqwhat do you think the radiation will do to the rural peoples animals and farmland? They are not fine at all

[@Anon-te6uq]

@@maka6134 It will do absolutely nothing because it doesn't travel very far. What happened to the rural people near Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Nothing.

[@craigrussell7542]

The average Russian adult drinks 180 bottles of vodka a year. A great medication for top notch nuclear weapon work!

[@Anon-te6uq]

This is no longer true. Drinking has fallen way off in the last 10 years. Russia now consumes less per capita than the UK or Germany.

[@sixmillionaccountssilenced6721]

Average assaults with a knife in Germany - 25 per day. Dead per year in the US because can't afford medicine - 40 to 50 thousands. "The role of intellectuals is to prevent society from looking in the mirror and instead pointing fingers at others" --- Noam Chomsky. I'm from the EU btw...

[@fritzhaber3994]

@@Anon-te6uq Of course, comrade. The Russians say so, it must be true.

[@alexpug5162]

@@fritzhaber3994 cope hard, bot, this is just a fact

[@fritzhaber3994]

@@alexpug5162 For someone who doesn't speak russian or knows any russians, it might be a "fact". :D

[@Lord_Afgul]

Thx for another informativ vid William from Norway💪👍

[@christopherleubner6633]

Russian nuclear devices are built very well. The components that need regular replacement are the Neutron Generation Tube and the Tritium gas resovoir. The russian devices use a deuterium only neutron generator tube with a very unique design so its shelf life is multiple decades. The pits are stable enough to work ok for a nuke for about 60 years, the russians also made heavier pits than US ones so that part likely works ok. The explosives electronics and the fine gold wires that fire it off are all very long life parts. The bottleneck is the tritium boost gas modules, those have to be refilled every 3 years or so, and each one has about 3.5g of tritium, but they make it from reactors, simply putting the spent gas of helium 3 in pressurized tubes inserted in a reactor will recharge it back to tritium. The process takes about 3 months of marination in a typical reactor neutron flux. If they go there, the nukes will work. 😮

[@scotth6921]

don’t need all of their weapons to work , just a handful of the 5600.

[@rtqii]

Honestly, I don't think they can get an effective weapon on target. Their swiss cheese has too many holes lining up.

[@Codraroll]

There are probably a lot of compound effects at work here too. Lack of expertise, negligience, lack of funds, corruption, lack of oversight, and poor communication all exacerbate each other. Money might be allocated to maintain a certain fraction of the nuclear arsenal, but a portion of that money is stolen along the way. But for obvious reasons, it's not apparent which portion. If they make a somewhat decent effort to cover the paper trail, there are probably certification documents showing the maintenance record of every warhead in storage, but many of them are likely completely false and hence practically useless. The "maintenance" might have consisted of breaking the seals around the warhead core, taking out the core, putting the core back in without the intervening "smelting it down, re-enriching the material, and casting it anew" step, and mounting new seals labeled "maintenance OK, new maintenance in 2032". Or the core could be smelted down, re-enriched, cast anew as pellets and sold as fuel to a nuclear powerplant. A convincing lead fake goes into the warhead (possibly interspersed with some radioactive material to fool the inspector's Geiger counter, but it's probably easier to just bribe the inspector), and the maintenance contractor goes to Dubai to turn the maintenance funds into luxury real estate. A maintenance contractor with this work ethic isn't likely to spend a lot of time teaching his employees how work should actually be carried out either. Give this practice a few decades, and it's likely that nobody knows which warheads are supposed to work anymore. Control mechanisms could be lacking as well. The position of nuclear inspector might have been handed to a well-connected stooge without any practical knowledge, who bought his way to the job because of all those lucrative bribes to falsify paperwork and look the other way when bad maintenance is carried out. The higher-ups make their strategic decisions based on the documentation they have, but when it's unreliable, the decisions certainly will be as well. And it all adds up. Say 30% of the nuclear cores are poorly maintained, and that so are 30% of the detonators. Suddenly, the odds of a functional core being coupled to a functional detonator is less than 50%. Add 30% unreliability in the delivery system as well: now, only a third of the weapons are functional. Then there are the guidance systems, launch platforms, re-entry protection systems, and all the other parts that can go wrong with a delivery system. And then a portion might be incorrectly handled before launch so they fail to explode, some might be destroyed en route to the target, some taken out by anti-air, or miss their target completely. Then the rate of successful detonations on target will be really small. And that leaves the question of how many nukes they must send to each target to achieve a reasonable chance of destroying it. If the expected success rate is, say, half a percent, that means 200 nukes from the arsenal must be allocated to one target - whose destruction isn't likely to help towards victory. Multiply 200 nukes per target with the number of strategic assets held by the enemy, and the resulting number of required nukes to win will quickly become *much* higher than the number of nukes in the arsenal. And then starting the war becomes a really big gamble, especially for a country whose economy essentially consists of only two cities.

[@notwithoutmilk]

I don't trust a game theory expert with polls. But nice vid as always

[@rizz1042]

another self proclaimed clown

[@Indrid__Cold]

7:58 Many of these engineers and physicists are already dead from smoking and alcoholism.

[@war-painter]

So sixty is the cut off age for russian engineers and physicists and sixty-five is the average lifespan of a russian male? Let’s hope in russia some of those engineers and physicists were FEMALE, but I doubt it. Russia is having the same problem in the Siberian oil fields, all the engineer/physicists who know how to deal with the complex Western tech stuff are retiring and dying.

[@pooq6611]

Мой дедушка которому уже 89 с этим не согласится😄 Возможно одна из причин это мед и грибы в рационе питания либо что-то другое.

[@grodesby3422]

Engineers and other skilled professionals are presumably less likely to destroy themselves with booze etc, compare to the average unskilled prole.

[@wanderingaceminecraftandmo8034]

​@@grodesby3422 unless of course they get shipped to the front despite being essential personnel. Which they are being shipped to front lines.

[@hemendraravi4787]

@@wanderingaceminecraftandmo8034 u mean ukranian engineers ? cus russia has plenty of volunteers fighting for MONEY literally.

[@carltannehill8307]

Your videos are excellent! Well done.

[@Sebby6666]

A Yacht is always more useful than a nuke… 😂

[@wilberwhateley7569]

To be fair, your average garbage dumpster is more useful than the average nuclear weapon in a post-proliferation world - and it’s much cheaper too.

[@ShakyBakey]

@@wilberwhateley7569 Just imagine the guy in charge, getting a call to put in the codes...And he casually tosses his phone into the water from his yacht.

[@anatolydyatlov963]

Omg imagine if Putin suddenly found out that all the missiles have been salvaged by corrupt staff members, like they've been doing with their tanks xD

[@tedwojtasik8781]

Kinda touched on it but let me get a bit more into it. As the nuclear core deteriorates over time it also is emitting radiation. That radiation will fry the systems which make the nuke work so you are not simply having to replace the nuclear fuel, but all component parts as well. With that being said it is estimated under the very best conditions with the newest nukes we are still looking at a 30-50% failure rate as the combo of nuke and rocket is extremely delicate. That is the reason so make nukes were made as they estimated out of 5,000 nukes, maybe, if super lucky, around 500 max will actually work. Then there is the other obvious question which has never been answered...what happens to all the inbound nukes after the first nukes detonate? Most likely EMP will fry those systems making all remaining nukes inert after the first handful of detonations. On the one hand they are afraid to use them in case most don't work and then they would really be in a pickle. On the other hand, what if they do? It's MAD taken to its most moronic levels.

[@C3l3bi1]

EMP? do you live in call of duty? you literally just invented this out of your own ass

[@Mighty_Terp]

Graduate school level lessons delivered in an entertaining fashion - BRAVO, SIR!

[@paulsukhu]

Russia could do a nuclear weapons test to demonstrate they still have the capability. Until that happens, it seems like the threat of “mutually assured destruction” is no longer imminent for NATO in the event of a nuclear exchange.

[@atzmut3884]

They have the capacity to craft a small number of nukes, like China and NK

[@Kaiserboo1871]

If I was Putin, I would have conducted a nuclear test a long time ago. It would put to rest a lot of doubts about Russia’s nuclear capabilities.

[@purpplekushh]

yeah, even Kim flexes his nukes.

[@narayasuiryoku1397]

But imagine the nuke fails.

[@unflexian]

what about internal politics?

[@petersmythe6462]

Remember solid pits have been mostly obsolete since the 50s. One massive Uranium implosion device had an immense 566mm wide hollow inside the pit and only 3.6mm wall thickness.

[@Evan_Bell]

Don't have my notes to hand. Would that be the Mk-18? Or Green grass?

[@ronmaximilian6953]

There are more options. If a nuclear device goes off but not properly, you get a fizzle. It is still a nuclear explosion with local casualties and a wider radioactive area. If a nuclear device has an explosion malfunction from the explosives in the sphere, you still get a dirty bomb exploding as an air burst dispersing radioactive material over a fairly large area. And if a perfectly good nuclear device is on a missile with a guidance misfunction and misses a major city by 10 or 20 miles, it's still hitting the suburbs and causing major damage to the metropolitan area. I think it's a fair assumption that over 50% of Russian weapons will malfunction in some manner. That doesn't mean that many of these weapons are no longer a threat, Even if a few hundred do end up taking out polar bears in Greenland and Canada.

[@Evan_Bell]

50% is not a fair assumption.

[@gregash7683]

A consideration not offered in this report is the infiltration of Russia's nuclear force, like the Israelis did with Iran. The Ukrainians can better emulate Russians than most Russians. With ultra-corrupt officers in control of their comatose nuclear arsenal, a decent bribe could let agents review the maintenance records for both warheads and rockets at the launch sites and on mobile units. There is a big difference between secure storage and remote stockpiles. The very fact that the Russians perform virtual tests on virtual rockets with virtual warheads, and then take an occasional walking inventory of these cob-webbed components every 2-3 years for Kremlin reports, and then possibly sell the replacement tritium to the Chinese nuclear engineers for hard cash, undermines their power of the buff.

[@matthewnewton8812]

Wow. This video is 1 second old, according to KZbin. I feel honored lol

[@concept5631]

30 minutes for me when I started watching.

[@ashokstrm]

I noticed this video is just 2 hours old and may be i am the first to watch from India.

[@DonnieX6]

🥇 Early boi!

[@charlesjmouse]

How risk averse is too risk averse? We may not be walking down the path of nuclear anhelation as yet, but 'nukes from Russia' aren't the only issue: -What will it mean for Europe if Ukraine is allowed to lose this war? ie Not regain all it's internationally recognised territory is a 'win' for Russia. -We live in a world 'full' of terrorists and despots, all of whom are surely attempting to weigh up 'western' support for Ukraine in the light of their own ambitions. One thing is for sure - if enough 'bad actors' decide now is a good time to do their worst they will succeed because there will be 'too many fires to put out'.

[@MikeHacker]

Thanks for giving out this information during this time 😊

[@TheZoobZoobs]

It'd be the greatest plot twist in all of history if it turns out Russia's atomic bombs are inert currently.

[@ArtificialDjDAGX]

It honestly wouldn't be surprising, but it would make for tragedy, since as time passes, they're more and more likely to have operable nukes.

[@tomhiggins2562]

In 1969 the US had the technology and know-how to land men on the moon. 55 years and billions of dollars later they are unable even to send a crew farther than low earth orbit. If this amount of knowledge and expertise can disappear so completely in 55 years in the US, imagine how much expertise and knowledge regarding the function and maintenance of Russia's nuclear arsenal has been lost in that same period of time. In my opinion, it would be potential suicide for Russia to try to launch it's nuclear weapons, as it is likely that many would either explode in their silos, or fall from the skies and detonate over Russia's own towns and cities. The red button controlling Russia's nuclear arsenal is just as likely to be Russia's button of self-destruct.

[@dennistate5953]

But to a desperate narcissistic furiously violent tyrant slipping to despair, does reason matter?!😮😢

[@Feeltheh8]

We haven't lost the knowledge to go to the moon, there have been multiple probes. There's just no point in sending manned missions to the moon. At least until we figure out how to make it pay economically or in support of a Mars exploration.

[@MrSymbolic7]

You feel for that lie , really ?

[@paulpinecone2464]

What nobody ever mentions for some reason-- the difference is they want to do it for 1/20 of the cost. If you would care to again spend 4% of the US budget every year for a decade you will again be able to land a few dozen people on the moon for equally pointless reasons. The technology hasn't changed much. It's still a big tube of boom. They would have cool touchscreens and the one-small-step would be in 4K. The spacesuit gloves would be dextrous enough to manipulate a screwdriver and they would have a little autonomous surveillance drone that squirted hydrazine. Maybe they could do the whole thing for half the real-dollars as last time. And please don't forget that with their current scraps of funding, NASA is supposed to do all that other stuff it didn't have on its docket in the '60s. Most all of which stuff they do terrifically well. What they fly runs for twice as long as it's supposed to and does more than they expected. Their heart is just not in the moon mission because it's stupid. A Mars mission would eat their budget and be nearly as stupid. You know the line "Cheap, Good, Fast, pick two"? Well because they are saddled with the first, in order to achieve the second they've chucked the third. They launch when they're ready. And if a Muskship had done what STS1 did everybody would have eaten their shorts. At NASA it was business as usual.

[@akiraraiku]

It is hard to send people to the moon now that pionner nasa scientist Stanley Kubrick has died

[@Hidden_Sage]

Been saying this for the entirety of the Ukraine War. Nukes are expensive to maintain. Russia's GDP and official military budget aren't in great standing to manage an arsenal the size of the USSR's to begin with, even if they weren't notoriously corrupt (and provably so, based on logistics and equipment failures observed during the last two years). The official statements about the size of the arsenal are 100% overrated. The hard part is figuring out what % of the arsenal *is* still functional. Since even a number as low as 10% is enough to pull off the "everyone loses" nuclear winter scenario.

[@casbot71]

Is there any data on _the total value of yachts_ owned by those in charge of the Russian nuclear arsenal?

[@jilbertb]

EXACTLY. And the Rich generals with homes outside Russia!? 😂

[@marktackman2886]

"I do not have perfect Intelligence on what is happening there" understatement of the video.

[@PeanutsDadForever]

Thank you for another excellent video!

[@onegemini420]

The US itself is having issues with the budget on replacing it's own ICBMs and it obviously has billions to do so. The US has pretty much reached the limits of upgrading and modifying their current ICBMs. Which is why they have the Sentinel Program to replace the older ICBMs. It is already 81% over budget at a cost of about 141 billion dollars at this time. In context, Russia spent approximately 109.45 billion current U.S. dollars on its military expenses in 2023, The US Sentinel program already has more money allocated to it than the entire Russian budget for its military. - So it does raise some serious questions about the state of Russia's nuclear arsenal. Especially taking into account the massive amounts of corruption in their military.

[@akiraraiku]

Purchasing Power Parity (PPP), REEEEEEE

[@phillipdavidhaskett7513]

One word: Tritium. A boosted pit needs tritium and deuterium, and the 12.3 year half-life of Tritium requires that the warhead be constantly maintained. After a significant portion of it has decayed into HE3, an excellent neutron sink, the warhead's first stage is only going to fissile, and the second stage will completely fail. It's a virtual certainty Russia's military hasn't been maintaining these weapons. None of their other crap works as advertised, so why should their nuclear weapons be any different.

[@elmateo77]

Actually, Russia still has active production lines making new nuclear weapons. After the collapse of the Soviet Union they prioritized their nuclear arsenal above just about everything else.

[@phillipdavidhaskett7513]

@@elmateo77 Got any evidence to support that blithe statement, Boris? Maybe from the IAEA or the New Start Treaty inspectors? This Treaty: www.state.gov/new-start/

[@ludekspurny5553]

A boosted pit without tritium became an unboosted pit. So efficiency of fission (and yield of the first stage) would be smaller. But you are sure the unboosted pit can’t initiate the second stage? In boosted weapons the efficiency of fission is higher due to huge amounts neutrons from fussion of D+T mixture but energy released from this fussion is small (only a few percent of the first stage). I don’t know I am just asking. I am an CBRN officer (of a NATO non-nuclear state) so I know quite a lot about nuclear weapons but I am not a nuclear weapons expert and this question is very interesting for me.

[@phillipdavidhaskett7513]

​@@ludekspurny5553 Yes, I'm sure, depending on how long the weapon has been sitting, and whether the D-T gas gets properly injected into the core. The problem is that Tritium (three nucleons) decays into Helium 3 (a/k/a HE3 - also three nucleons but minus the electron/anti-neutrino), which is VERY hungry to absorb a neutron and become stable. It's the absolute WORST thing to have in a middle of a fission chain reaction, because it will soak up the early generations of neutrons, and dampen the reaction. Enough of that and the weapon may not even initiate a fissile detonation, and just scatter PU239 or U-238 around the landscape. Mind you the early fusion weapons worked just fine with an un-boosted pit, but they were designed that way. The bottom line is that they are very complicated devices, and not really very robust. Modern weapons, including whatever Russia built, are analogous to your iPhone as compared to a Turing-Welchman Bombe. They do the same thing, but......

[@ludekspurny5553]

@@phillipdavidhaskett7513 thank you for your repply. So if I understand correctly the bomb with decayed D+T mixture is not the same as exactly the same unboosted one because part of neutron is catched by released He3 so efficiency (and yield) of the chain reaction is smaller. But Russian definitely know it as well as and may for example remove decayed D+T bottle. Would the energy thus released be sufficient to ignite a fusion reaction? I would say not because the released energy would be several times smaller and I suppose constructers of the weapon wants the fission part as small as possible (but high enough to safely spark the second stage of course) in order to eliminate a fallout as much as possible. Am I true? For me it is really very interesting issue.

[@capablanc]

Everything I've been reading lately points towards an imminent collapse of the front line, and i was hoping you'd touch on that instead of this. No one takes Nuclear threats seriously.

[@youcantata]

Same as "Wolf" cry from poor liar shepherd boy. It seems that the nuke arsenal of Russia did not do its effectiveness in this war, even for deterrence or threatening, in spite of its exorbitant cost and expensive upkeep in Russian defense budget, It is not because the Russian nuke are weak or not working, but they used it too much, too frequently in wrong way and at wrong time and occasion. They over-used threat of nuke at a slight hint of their setback. Too many red lines are not unlike no red line at all. So people of the world get used to the nuke threat of Russia, and they get to not believe or not to fear such empty threat. It should have been used with utmost self-restraint and abstinence, at the really critical moment only.

[@kitsuneneko2567]

But there are two themes to that fairy tale: the wolf came eventually.

[@thepax2621]

​@@kitsuneneko2567*Pfft* So you stay huddled in a hole, scared to the bone of the mere possibility? There is more then one "Wolf" 🐺 and Russia would get their own. They would graduate from "crying" Wolf, to putting their own head between its jaws. In other words, they would be MAD

[@MayaPosch]

@@kitsuneneko2567 In this particular scenario, the wolf would get glassed by the nuclear counter-strike along with the entirety of wolf civilisation. Ergo the incentive for the wolf to actually commit is pretty low. Wolves aren't known to be into MAD :)

[@Tadicuslegion78]

I'm in the category of let's never be in a position to find out one way or another

[@FinestFantasyVI]

What a coincidence! I too am in that category

[@lorne5254]

thank you sir ,for using the word failures without butchering it into a fail .

[@michaelwaldmeier1601]

The Soviet Union built nuclear weapons that were easily-able to destroy large regions, the best-known example was Chernobyl. Part of the time, they produced electricity.

[@marcdc6809]

for sure the odds of accidents happening are a lot higher in a country where drunkenness and corruption are the norm.

[@L0K0M0T1V]

It doesn't really matter.

[@Heretowatchstuff]

I went through NBC (nuclear/biological/chemical) school in the Marines in the 90s. It was pretty terrifying. Seeing how easy bio weapons can get out of control, how long persistent chemical weapons can be lethal (or worse, close to lethal), and how “easy” it is to make a nuke. Any country that has opticians have the precision to make one. The rest is just obtaining materials. The US spent tons of money and engineering to use a little material as possible and making these as safe as possible to store and transport. Accident proof almost. I can see their rocket fleet being useless. Especially if they used liquid fueled rockets. But bombs should be ok. And building one on a truck to drive to the front is definitely within their capabilities. I just hope that whoever is putting it together makes sure it won’t go off.

[@jamestown12345]

it's important to remember that when the U.S. abandoned designing making really small nukes the Soviets didn't they have 5-15 KN ones that could potentially be used with less blowback

[@Evan_Bell]

Like the 3VB3 2kt linear implosion pure fission AFAP.

[@crevard203]

sounds like a pro American armchair specialists trying to tell us "don't worry there's nothing to worry about" 🤣

[@Hughejazshole]

Well done. I love the high energy “NOW… let’s go to LINES ON MAP!!!” Awesome🎉😅

[@plants2plasticplasticjars161]

Nice video Easy to follow and understand.

[@martinkemp9397]

Very good. Confirmed what I have been thinking for a long time.