Russia probably doesn't have a realistic nuclear threat

[FireDragon76]

Many in the US use Russia's nuclear arsenal as justification for abandonment of Ukraine. But I'm going to present some well thought out analysis as to why Russias's nuclear arsenal is probably more of a propaganda tool than reality:

A brief summary of the points

- Some of Russia's nuclear stockpile was lost during the collapse of the USSR
- Nuclear stockpiles degrade over time and require costly upkeep.
- Russia has lost technical expertise over the years due to emigration
- Russia has a far smaller military budget than the United States. The US spends more on nuclear weapons every year than the entire Russian military budget.
- The war in Ukraine has shown that Russian missiles aren't particularly reliable. 20 to 60 percent don't hit their targets.
- Corruption is rampant in the Russian military, including the sale of equipment and misappropriation of funds for weapons.
- Russians have a history of using bluffing as a propaganda tool and strategy, building impressive psychological terror weapons with no practical use
- Russians have never used nuclear weapons combatively, despite having opportunities and reasons to do so

Given all these things, if Russia were to use nuclear weapons on the United States, it's likely that the US would suffer some serious consequences, but the Russian population would be annihilated. And given there's no point in launching nuclear weapons unless you can be sure the enemy is annihilated, nuclear warfare over Ukraine isn't a realistic option for Russia.

 

[Laodicean60]

He says Russia's use of nukes is "technically yes," so that's all I need to hear. Who cares about "practically no"?

- Russia has lost technical expertise over the years due to emigration

But even the old technology is deadly.

Russia has a far smaller military budget than the United States. The US spends more on nuclear weapons every year than the entire Russian military budget.

Russia has about the same amount as the USA. Because of the war, Putin backed out of the START treaty.

- The war in Ukraine has shown that Russian missiles aren't particularly reliable. 20 to 60 percent don't hit their targets.

With atom bombs, so what if they're not accurate? It's not like throwing a grenade.

Russians have never used nuclear weapons combatively, despite having opportunities and reasons to do so

lol, because we know what happens after the button is pushed.

Many in the US use Russia's nuclear arsenal as justification for abandonment of Ukraine.

It's delusional thinking to think there's not a possibility of the use of nukes. I hope the EU calls Putin's bluff and watches the show.

Given all these things, if Russia were to use nuclear weapons on the United States, it's likely that the US would suffer some serious consequences, but the Russian population would be annihilated. And given there's no point in launching nuclear weapons unless you can be sure the enemy is annihilated, nuclear warfare over Ukraine isn't a realistic option for Russia.

I would question this statement because Russia has a lot of landmass, and they have preppers also. If we create enough pain on Nuclear power, they won't care if we are annihilated; they'll try to create as much damage as they can on their way out.

 

[Love365]

Make a deal with the Russians,
stop pretending they don’t have nukes.

China and North Korea have working nukes.
Russia could just buy one from them,
if they needed one.

 

[ozso]

Many in the US use Russia's nuclear arsenal as justification for abandonment of Ukraine. But I'm going to present some well thought out analysis as to why Russias's nuclear arsenal is probably more of a propaganda tool than reality:

A brief summary of the points

- Some of Russia's nuclear stockpile was lost during the collapse of the USSR
- Nuclear stockpiles degrade over time and require costly upkeep.
- Russia has lost technical expertise over the years due to emigration
- Russia has a far smaller military budget than the United States. The US spends more on nuclear weapons every year than the entire Russian military budget.
- The war in Ukraine has shown that Russian missiles aren't particularly reliable. 20 to 60 percent don't hit their targets.
- Corruption is rampant in the Russian military, including the sale of equipment and misappropriation of funds for weapons.
- Russians have a history of using bluffing as a propaganda tool and strategy, building impressive psychological terror weapons with no practical use
- Russians have never used nuclear weapons combatively, despite having opportunities and reasons to do so

Given all these things, if Russia were to use nuclear weapons on the United States, it's likely that the US would suffer some serious consequences, but the Russian population would be annihilated. And given there's no point in launching nuclear weapons unless you can be sure the enemy is annihilated, nuclear warfare over Ukraine isn't a realistic option for Russia.

How about what the US Department of Defense has had to say about it over the last few years, rather than Joe Schmoe's YouTube video? Let's hear Lloyd Austin and Mark Esper say Russia probably doesn't have a realistic nuclear threat.

 

[NBB]

You can't do anything on a presumption they don't work etc. Better believe they work, and probably avoid the 'end of the world'.

 

[RDKirk]

Given all these things, if Russia were to use nuclear weapons on the United States, it's likely that the US would suffer some serious consequences, but the Russian population would be annihilated. And given there's no point in launching nuclear weapons unless you can be sure the enemy is annihilated, nuclear warfare over Ukraine isn't a realistic option for Russia.

We discovered in the 90s that the Soviets already knew this to be true by the time of Yuri Andropov's term as General Secretary of the Communist Party in the early 80s. They knew that they had lost the "correlation of forces" necessary to win a nuclear war with "acceptable losses" and that the US had the ability to win a nuclear war with "acceptable losses" (as the Soviets considered what was "acceptable"). Not realizing this at the time, we were rather surprised that Andropov pulled Gorbachev out of relative obscurity and put him in line for leadership of the USSR. Later theory is, however, that because Gorbachev was younger and known to be more "cosmopolitan" than the other Soviet leaders, he might be best able to make a deal with the US.

But the Soviets yet did not roll over then, and there's no reason to think Putin would roll over now. He'd play that hand even if it were a bad hand. He'd at least bluff with it.

 

[RDKirk]

You can't do anything on a presumption they don't work etc. Better believe they work, and probably avoid the 'end of the world'.

It wouldn't be the "end of the world." The end of northern hemisphere domination of the world, for sure.

 

[ozso]

All Russa would have to do is drop one nuke. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

 

[FireDragon76]

He says Russia's use of nukes is "technically yes," so that's all I need to hear. Who cares about "practically no"?

But even the old technology is deadly.

With nuclear weapons, this isn't the case necessarily. The tritium in a hydrogen bomb would have to be replaced every five to ten years, because tritium degrades relatively quickly. Hydrogen bombs require sensitive circuitry to actually detonated: capacitors, resistors, and circuit boards degrade over time, especially if they are improperly cared for. There's literally thousands of parts in any nuclear missile, and if any number of them were to degrade, the missile might fail to destroy its intended target or might fail altogether.

Russia has about the same amount as the USA. Because of the war, Putin backed out of the START treaty.

Their nuclear stockpiles are probably exaggerations. Backing out of the START treaty doesn't necessarily mean they've built any nukes. Their war economy has been too busy fighting corruption to actually invest in anything but crude missiles, drones, and glide bombs, most of which actually miss their targets.

With atom bombs, so what if they're not accurate? It's not like throwing a grenade.

They could hit rural Pennsylvania instead of Washington. Or maybe straight into the Atlantic. That makes a huge difference in terms of the effectiveness. They might not even launch at all.

I would question this statement because Russia has a lot of landmass, and they have preppers also.

Preppers? Really? Despite what you see on the internet, there isn't much point in trying to survive that kind of nuclear attack that Russia would face from the US. The US and Britain sold "prepping" to their publics in the 1950's as a way to calm the public with a lie. But that idea became outdated by the 1970's, when scientists like Carl Sagan pointed out that a complete nuclear exchange (using stockpiles that were believed to have existed at the time) would result in the deaths of most of the world's population.

If we create enough pain on Nuclear power, they won't care if we are annihilated; they'll try to create as much damage as they can on their way out.

Putin has made it clear he values the survival of Russia, when he said there's no point in having a world if Russia isn't in it. There's no reason to think he's interested in a vainglorious gesture that would be suicidal for his country and himself. His actions may not be easily understood, but there is a rationality to them ultimately.

 

[FireDragon76]

All Russa would have to do is drop one nuke. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

That's not how nuclear war works. You either annihilate your opponent, or it isn't worth pursuing. It's called Mutually Assured Destruction.

Countries like North Korea are mostly interested in nuclear weapons to use as a propaganda tool, but with something like an Aegis defense system, to say nothing of the real threat of retaliatory strikes, they may have little or no practical usefulness. But they do serve to intimidate the American and Japanese publics, no doubt.

 

[ozso]

That's not how nuclear war works. You either annihilate your opponent, or it isn't worth pursuing. It's called Mutually Assured Destruction.

There's only been one occasion when nukes were used in war and that's exactly how it worked.

Countries like North Korea are mostly interested in nuclear weapons to use as a propaganda tool, but with something like an Aegis defense system, to say nothing of the real threat of retaliatory strikes, they may have little or no practical usefulness. But they do serve to intimidate the American and Japanese publics, no doubt.

The factor in N. Korea and Russia is, how stable is their leader? Last time around certain people went on and on that Trump was too hot tempered and unstable to have access to the launch codes. Now the same people are going with Putin can be trusted not to push the button, because they want the US to go to war with Russia over Ukraine.

 

[mindlight]

Many in the US use Russia's nuclear arsenal as justification for abandonment of Ukraine. But I'm going to present some well thought out analysis as to why Russias's nuclear arsenal is probably more of a propaganda tool than reality:

A brief summary of the points

- Some of Russia's nuclear stockpile was lost during the collapse of the USSR
- Nuclear stockpiles degrade over time and require costly upkeep.
- Russia has lost technical expertise over the years due to emigration
- Russia has a far smaller military budget than the United States. The US spends more on nuclear weapons every year than the entire Russian military budget.
- The war in Ukraine has shown that Russian missiles aren't particularly reliable. 20 to 60 percent don't hit their targets.
- Corruption is rampant in the Russian military, including the sale of equipment and misappropriation of funds for weapons.
- Russians have a history of using bluffing as a propaganda tool and strategy, building impressive psychological terror weapons with no practical use
- Russians have never used nuclear weapons combatively, despite having opportunities and reasons to do so

Given all these things, if Russia were to use nuclear weapons on the United States, it's likely that the US would suffer some serious consequences, but the Russian population would be annihilated. And given there's no point in launching nuclear weapons unless you can be sure the enemy is annihilated, nuclear warfare over Ukraine isn't a realistic option for Russia.

Stanley Baldwin in the 1930s had a phrase- the bomber always gets through. This was used as a justification for his parties appeasement during the rise of Hitler and his annexation of neighbors. People use the same kind of fear of technology today to avoid confronting evil men with false agendas.

Did you know that more people died in a conventional bombing raid on Tokyo than were killed by a nuclear bomb at Nagasaki or Hiroshima?

Even if, as you say, the Russian nuclear stockpile is degraded and mainly useless, it is too large not to be taken seriously. Also, Russia's geographical depth gives its military and elites some advantages in a nuclear war, though their people would be mainly annihilated. Maybe we could shoot down most of the missiles, or they would miss their target, maybe ours would be more precise, but life for everyone would be degraded by such a war, and I hope all sides stay rational enough to avoid one. Also, the West's conventional superiority gives it extra options.

 

[FireDragon76]

There's only been one occasion when nukes were used in war and that's exactly how it worked.

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki actually didn't end WWII, at least not in the manner we are discussing here. It was the decision of the Japanese government to surrender to the US, instead of to the Soviet Union, that ended WWII.

 

[mindlight]

It wouldn't be the "end of the world." The end of northern hemisphere domination of the world, for sure.

With China sitting on the fence and avoiding involvement - it would mean Chinese dominance - China remains North of the Equator.

 

[mindlight]

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki actually didn't end WWII, at least not in the manner we are discussing here. It was the decision of the Japanese government to surrender to the US, instead of to the Soviet Union, that ended WWII.

Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Manchuria all came together. In early to mid August 1945 and Japan had surrendered by the end of the month saying the war had taken a turn not necessarily to its advantage. There is a clear connection between these events.

 

[ozso]

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki actually didn't end WWII, at least not in the manner we are discussing here. It was the decision of the Japanese government to surrender to the US, instead of to the Soviet Union, that ended WWII.

Getting back to the current issue, it would be far more informative to tell us what the US Department of Defense under the last administration, determined regarding the level of a threat Putin is to the US.

 

[RDKirk]

With China sitting on the fence and avoiding involvement - it would mean Chinese dominance - China remains North of the Equator.

A nuclear war would not likely commence from a politically flat-footed stance.
In the most likely lead-up scenarios, China would not have been on the fence. For instance, China has not been exactly on the fence in this Ukraine-Russia war, and if it had gotten much hotter directly between the US and Russia, they would have staked a definite position.