this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2024
275 points (96.9% liked)
Funny
6827 readers
315 users here now
General rules:
- Be kind.
- All posts must make an attempt to be funny.
- Obey the general sh.itjust.works instance rules.
- No politics or political figures. There are plenty of other politics communities to choose from.
- Don't post anything grotesque or potentially illegal. Examples include pornography, gore, animal cruelty, inappropriate jokes involving kids, etc.
Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
After seeing Russia’s non-nuclear weapons, I honestly don’t believe they have that many nuclear weapons.
I’m not saying they have none, but I don’t think they’ve kept up the maintenance required for 7,000.
I mean, the actual number they have is irrelevant because there’s no way of knowing which ones are duds until it’s too late. If they were to launch a nuclear attack, the countries they’re attacking wouldn’t wait to see if it was a dud before responding. Because even if there’s only a 10% chance it detonates, that’s still 700 nukes detonating.
Deadliest game of bluff
Mos likely a lot of them are really old and not ik workikg conditions but they like to keep up the illusion that they could just nuke the whole globe
Same goes for the US. Most launch facilities are in subpar condition.
I think that "subpar" are slightly different to US and Russia though.
Yup. It's actually fascinating to read up on how the US maintains and tests nuclear weapons.