this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2024
267 points (98.9% liked)

World News

39145 readers
3701 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FlyingSquid 23 points 5 days ago (11 children)

Was it non nuclear or do none of their nukes work?

[–] [email protected] 24 points 5 days ago (8 children)

While i appreciate the whish that Russian nukes don't work, it would be exceptional for none of their 10.000 or so to work. Even if only 1 in 1.000 work, that is still enough to annihilate some 10-20 million people or so.

[–] peopleproblems 18 points 5 days ago (6 children)

Back at the beginning of the arms race, the US believed Russian propaganda that they had significantly more nukes than the US was capable of producing.

By the time the US had around 4000 nukes, later intelligence revealed Russia had 4. The US decided to maintain the policy of the arms race as it was very beneficial to the defense industry and research.

The cost to develop and maintain a working thermonuclear weapon is enormous, let alone fission bombs. Russia never had the resources to maintain an arsenal the West isn't capable of intercepting. You may recall the "Iron Dome" missile defence system that was removed from Europe.

The rocket platforms are expensive enough. The nuclear material requires time, maintenance, and a fuck load of power to produce.

I get the fear. China can do it, they have all the resources and knowledge to. Same with India.

Facts of nukes help: Tritium has a halflife of 12.3 years. Meaning after 12.3 years, the amount of tritium in a nuke is half. the 500lbs of tritium in the 60s is now 35lbs today. Obviously I dont know how much is needed to make a nuke, but it's not easy to concentrate tritium well. The most effective way is replacing control rods in nuclear reactors with lithium rods. But that's not the real issue. That's relatively minor.

The problem is weapons grade uranium or plutonium. You need to enrich those to very high % of U-235 to get a big enough blast to trigger the fusion reaction. To do that, enormous, power intensive centrifuge facilities are required. And it takes a long time to produce enough for a fission bomb.

Given that Putin operates on wealth, and the shit state of the Russian military? They didn't maintain any operational nukes after the Soviet Union fell.

[–] AngryCommieKender 5 points 5 days ago

They just need a centrifuge running the Kovarex refinement recipe. Unlimited U-235!

Just don't nuke the worms. It only makes them mad.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)