EDIT: For clarification, I feel that the current situation on the ground in the war (vs. say a year ago) might indicate that an attack on Russia might not result in instant nuclear war, which is what prompted my question. I am well aware of the “instant nuclear Armageddon” opinion.

Serious question. I don’t need to be called stupid. I realize nuclear war is bad. Thanks!

  • grrgyle@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    There’s also a risk that the weapons have been so poorly maintained that they’d fail silently or spectacularly, which would not be great for Russia’s end of the mutually part of mutually assured.

    • Revan343
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      I bet they fizzle. By weight, tritium is one of the most expensive substances on the planet; do you think the people in charge of refilling the nukes have actually been doing so, or just stealing the money?

    • credit crazy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      I do remember hearing that half of the users nukes were decoys that were only found out after the USSR fell so I do wonder if Russia is still bluffing with decoy nukes or if the decoy nukes were more prominent than we thought considering the a amount of fraudulent conventional weapons that the Ukraine war has revealed I suspect that Russia is still heavily dependent on bluffing with decoy nukes and the few that are intended to be real are poorly maintained or poorly made