U.S. sees no threat of Russia using nuclear weapons despite ...

[Tickle]

It never even crossed my mind that Russia would nuke USA. Now Reuters is giving me flash back of going under my school desk.

lol


U.S. sees no threat of Russia using nuclear weapons despite ...

https://www.reuters.com › world › us-sees-no-threat-russia

Is anyone here worried about russia nuking us?

[dumbcat]

1. Yes, I am

In my previous working career I participated in war gaming many such scenarios. It is a non-zero probability. Way more probable than I would like.

[LiberatedUSA]

2. When the government tells you to panic, have a picnic.

When the government says “no worries” you’re fucked.

[Kingofalldems]

13. So when Joe Biden speaks it is a lie?

[haele]

4. 1/2 life of the tritium used to trigger the chain reaction in a nuke explosion is a bit over 12 year

Given the Russian Army's track record of corruption and poor.maintenence on exhibit to the world over the past two months, I doubt that a quarter of their nukes can even be launched, much less produce a nuclear blast.
It takes a lot of money to maintain a nuclear arsenal. I don't see how Russia has actually spent enough money to maintain theirs since 1991 in addition to their expenditures on all their other armaments that were developed or wasted while being used in their regional conflicts. Especially considering at least a third of the money (if not almost half) spent on their military ended up skimmed off the top into pockets of Oligarchs, government functionaries, and Generals.

Haele

[Tickle]

5. thank you so much for this

haele. You have no idea with what you just said and how much it has calmed me down.

I hope everyone sees your post

[Disaffected]

10. We can take little comfort from that because

even if, as you surmise, that only 1/4 of their nukes could be launched and exploded, it would be enough to devastate NA and Europe. Add to that the radiation fallout from the retaliatory nuke strikes and we are f'ed, probably world-wide.

[dumbcat]

11. Please - tritium is in no way used to trigger the chain reaction in nukes

You know not of what you speak. Tritium is an isotpe of Hydrogen. It can play a role in nuclear fusion augmentation to a fission explosion, but has no role in triggering a reaction.

I actually know a little bit about this, but obviously cannot and will not discuss details. Trust me.

[EX500rider]

12. However the yield drops tremendously without the tritium

What is the effect of removing tritium from a nuclear warhead? A good example is revealed in unclassified information about the UK's Trident warhead. The full yield of the warhead is about 100 kilotons as designed and deployed. There is a version that only has the fission-stage boosted primary for relatively small engagements. But if the tritium is removed from the fission stage, then the yield drops to only 0.3 kt. Although 0.3 kt is not total disarmament, it is small enough to be militarily insignificant, especially when launched from a multibillion-dollar platform: a Trident submarine. Simply put, modern nuclear weapons without tritium are not military weapons.

https://www.sipri.org/commentary/topical-backgrounder/2020/starve-nuclear-weapons-death-tritium-freeze

[sarisataka]

23. I wonder if the author

Would mind a .3kt warhead going off in his home town?

That would be a significantly larger blast than the thermobaric weapons that were discussed in the news last month, with the addition of radiation. It sounds like a military weapon to me.

[EX500rider]

25. That's equal to 300 tons of TNT

A large local explosion for sure but peanuts compared to a working nuke.
For comparison the estimated yield of the harbor explosion in Beirut was around 1kt or 1,000 tons of TNT.

The nuclear device dropped on Hiroshima was in the range of 13-15 kilotons of TNT

Beirut:



https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54420033

[sarisataka]

28. Yes and it would be very foolish

To use an ICBM to deliver such a small payload.

However it is much more foolish, IMO, to dismiss an opponent's nuclear arsenal because "it may not work"

Who wants to be on the receiving end trying to guess if that warhead will only explode with .3kt? Or maybe that one was maintained so will deliver hundreds of kt or maybe anMt? Perhaps it isn't at full spec and only goes off with 50kt?

Making such calculations about lack of weapon effectiveness is a step on the path to believing a nuclear war is "winnable"

[EX500rider]

29. Certainly not a gamble I would want to take, just a forlorn hope if it did

[Disaffected]

15. How then does that detract from the

OP's contention that Russia's nukes may be inoperable?

[dumbcat]

35. Because the half-life of the tritium

has nothing to do with it. The OP's contention was not based on reality. Most people have very little idea of how a nuclear warhead works.

[Disaffected]

38. As I understand the OP,

he/she is saying, because fission nukes have to be maintained due in part to the fact that the tritium yield booster decays and has to be periodically manufactured and replenished i.e. maintenance is required which, may in fact, be lacking in the Russian military. For that reason the OP seems to be saying that we can discount the threat posed by Russians nukes (which I BTW do not agree with).

Whether or not tritium acts as a fission "trigger" or a "booster" is not really the point.

As to how a fission nuke works, there is a lot of publicly available information including the role of tritium as a fission yield booster. I don't believe we have a need for your supposedly classified information to understand the gist of it.

Here are a couple of relevant Wiki excerpts from:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boosted_fission_weapon

Fusion boosting is achieved by introducing tritium and deuterium gas. Solid lithium deuteride-tritide has also been used in some cases, but gas allows more flexibility (and can be stored externally) and can be injected into a hollow cavity at the center of the sphere of fission fuel, or into a gap between an outer layer and a "levitated" inner core, sometime before implosion. By the time about 1% of the fission fuel has fissioned, the temperature rises high enough to cause thermonuclear fusion, which produces relatively large numbers of neutrons, speeding up the late stages of the chain reaction and approximately doubling its efficiency.

........

Maintenance of gas boosted nuclear weapons:

Tritium is a radioactive isotope with a half-life of 12.355 years. Its main decay product is helium-3, which is among the nuclides with the largest cross-section for neutron capture. Therefore, periodically the weapon must have its helium waste flushed out and its tritium supply recharged. This is because any helium-3 in the weapon's tritium supply would act as a poison during the weapon's detonation, absorbing neutrons meant to collide with the nuclei of its fission fuel.[7]

Tritium is relatively expensive to produce because each triton - the tritium nucleus (triton (physics)) - produced requires production of at least one free neutron which is used to bombard a feedstock material (lithium-6, deuterium, or helium-3). Actually, because of losses and inefficiencies, the number of free neutrons needed is closer to two for each triton produced (and tritium begins decaying immediately, so there are losses during collection, storage, and transport from the production facility to the weapons in the field.) The production of free neutrons demands the operation of either a breeder reactor or a particle accelerator (with a spallation target) dedicated to the tritium production facility.[8][9]

[dumbcat]

42. OK, Fine

Nuclear warheads need to be maintained. Maybe Russia isn't doing it well. But I'm not placing any bets on the premise that old tritium will cause a nuc to fizzle.

I dunno, I guess my problem is that, to me, this whole discussion is mind-boggling.

[Calista241]

33. tritium isn't the trigger in nuclear weapons

But there is some speculation on the quality and reliability of Russia strategic rocket forces. We, the US, spend a huge amount of money every year maintaining our nuclear weapons.

Russia claims to spend about 1/4 the amount we do on nuclear weapon maintenance with a comparable sized inventory. Whether they're actually spending that money on weapon maintenance is up for debate.

[Karadeniz]

6. I've always been dubious of Putin's nuclear threats. Acting on them would give any number of

nations a valid reason to neutralize Russia's military and this Ukraine fiasco has shown the world that Putin's military is third rate... hence his now having to saber rattle nuclear weapons. But, Putin has shown himself to be an irrational megalomaniac, so there's a chance he would do something that would destroy Russia's reputation in the eyes of the rest of the world. Remember the Russian submarine commander who refused to push the button against American ships over Cuba? A bit of responsibility for a nuclear attack lies not with Putin, but with his military's obeying him. I know people here were worried about Trump's access to our nuclear arsenal... "We have nuclear weapons, why don't we use them?"... and I doubt our military would have obeyed his questionable authorization of a nuclear phallus.

[uponit7771]

7. Things must be going worse for RA than we think, petulant calls for nukes is a tell tale

[Mr.Bill]

8. What was really telling to me was

when they talked about their new hypersonic missile and told a lot of details such as the top speed it can reach. Why would they tell us that? Even the top speed of our aircraft carriers is classified.

The reason they are telling us is that it is absolute bullshit.

Their junk doesn't work and they know it, and they have put all to much of it on display in Ukraine.

[Wounded Bear]

9. A little, yes, but mainly because I'm in an obvious target area...

If it happens, I figure to be vaporized before I know it's coming anyway.

Is Putin suicidal about this? Tough to say. He has said he can't envision a world without Russia, and perhaps like Hitler he is willing to see Russia destroyed rather than extant without him. Not much to be done about that.

Frankly, our gov't kind of has to keep a bit of a lid on talk like this as they try their best to prevent it.

[Midnight Writer]

16. Not at all worried. We have the bestest Star Wars Missile Defense System money can buy.

[Crunchy Frog]

17. I won't start getting worried unless China does.

It might be a good idea for our government to inform China that they will be full participants in the event of a nuclear armageddon.

They shouldn't be under the impression that they could sit back and watch while Russia and the West obliterate each other.

[marie999]

53. If the US and Russia fire their nukes at each other, no one else has to.

That is enough to destroy everyone.

[Xolodno]

18. Absolutely.

We've been close to going to blows many times (and don't ever hear about it). One operator error, political mis-calculation, etc. and then it cascades to the next retaliation, then the next, then the next etc. unless someone is smart enough to break the cycle.

Add to that mess, you have sick fucks who actually think a nuclear exchange is winnable and certain amount of civilian casualties is acceptable. And they are in both countries and in both parties here. Even if you are one of the "lucky" ones that survive, have fun living under an authoritarian society because that's exactly the plan they have post nuclear holocaust. You won't even be able to vote for dog catcher for a very long time...if at all.

If I see the writing on the wall, I'll flee deep south to Mexico. I may be a poor beach comber, but I'll avoid the worst of the apocalyptical hell should I not get vaporized.

[Thunderbeast]

20. Go see the movie "On The Beach"

to see how flight to a "safe place" might work out.

[Xolodno]

24. I'll put on my list.

But couldn't help myself and read about it on Wikipedia.

That's more of the worst case scenario if we put out enough radiation. In a nuclear exchange there will probably be some long term dead zones in North America, Europe, etc. But severe radiation poisoning is probably unlikely, but after watching Chernobyl, if I new it was coming, get drunk off my ass, join an orgy and then take myself out.

But more realistically, cancer rates in the southern hemisphere will probably skyrocket.

[EX500rider]

41. Unlikely scenario even though I like the book

Most detonations in a nuclear war would be air bursts (which cause wider area damage) which create a lot less long term radiation then ground bursts, however near hard targets like the ICBM fields of the mid-west and NORAD etc will be no go zones for a LONG time. But lots of nukes have already gone off.

All told, of the over 2,000 nuclear explosions detonated worldwide between 1945 and 1996, 25 % or over 500 bombs were exploded in the atmosphere: over 200 by the United States, over 200 by the Soviet Union, about 20 by Britain, about 50 by France and over 20 by China.

[EX500rider]

27. "you have sick fucks who actually think a nuclear exchange is winnable"

[Thunderbeast]

19. Let's see...

A psychopath nearing 70 with a couple of reported terminal conditions, zero empathy for any known human, a lifelong professional grudge against the US, ....and he has nukes and poisons.

So...What's the concern?

[11 Bravo]

21. Putin has threatened to use nukes multiple times dating back to 2008.

Obviously, he has yet to do so.
He's a murderous thug, but I don't believe he's suicidal.

[CloudWatcher]

22. What does it say about Homo sapiens

How is it that we've allowed a few individuals to acquire the power to end life on the planet? We are all insane.

To answer your question, I would be somewhat surprised if Putin nuked us, but not shocked.

[Model35mech]

30. Such is government led by one man. Think Alexander the Great. It's been this way

for a very long time.

It's also human nature to have enemies, because being human we know humans and don't trust them. So we are always engaged in us vs them suspicions and rivalries. That isn't insanity so much as it's an evolution of behavior for life in an untrustworthy world.

Civilization itself is built around a ponzi scheme that concentrates power in a single person. The guy (usually a guy)with the most wealth/power consequently makes most of the decisions most of the time.

Unfortunately the guy with all the power often got there because of a power/wealth accumulating personality wanting more and more, which always requires building the base of the ponzi pyramid through conquests, mergers, and subjugations.

The only thing that's really changed in thousands of years is that our lethal capacity has grown to be truly enormous. The power people still desire to smash all those who stand in their way.

[CloudWatcher]

32. Tribalism

Yes, we're genetically wired for tribalism. I suspect we won't ever really be united until there is an external threat so our local "tribe" can be all humans.

Now if I only knew how to fake a decent SETI signal

But in the meantime, we're at real risk for destruction and allowing our innate preference for strong-men could be the death of us all.

[Model35mech]

47. Well it might seem like tribalism... but it's human nature.

We are wired to take care of Us. We are wired to take notice of who isn't Us.

Especially if they seem to place anyone like Us at some risk.

And when that happens we rally all the Us we can. We're mighty when we're united. But that usually happens when we think there is a risk to one of Us, or someone or something we identify with.

[Cosmocat]

26. My concern is his popping off a tactical nuke to try to deal with Ukraine

And things escalating from there.

[Calista241]

31. If a nuclear war were to kick off from Russia attacking someone with nuclear weapons

It wouldn't be us, at least initially. It'd be against a target in Ukraine, or possibly the UK, since Putin and everyone in Russia seems to have a burr up their asses about Boris Johnson going to Kyiv first.

News programs in Russia can't shut up about how they can nuke Britain in less than 200 seconds from launch to detonation. 200 seconds (just over 3 minutes) is probably not enough time for the UK government to make up their minds about destroying the world, and then actually going through the procedures to make it happen. Remember, cruise missiles can either be conventional or nuclear, and we likely won't know which until detonation.

Retaliation, if it happens, probably wouldn't come for some hours or perhaps a couple days later. In either case, we'd know well in advance of any nuclear conflict.

[ruet]

44. What Nonsense!

This is ignorant fearmongering at its worst. If Russia used a nuclear weapon on ANYONE, they would cease to exist within minutes. Not hours or days but minutes. Conversely, the US would cease to exist shortly thereafter. This reality is, precisely, the reason that a nuclear exchange will not happen. There is no gain valuable enough to offset the consequences.

[Model35mech]

48. Well, sort of...the rule that has ruled since WWII is

you NEVER put a nuclear attack on a nuclear capable nation. Of course that rule can be tested.

If you're going to go nuclear you have to deal with the risk of retaliation. You're right about the power of that problem.
No one wants to be retaliated via nukes.

And, telling everyone that you are thinking about nuking them makes retaliation -more- likely, because many nukes are mobile, and threatening a nuclear nation like the US will result in a game of scatter the nukes, on flying airplanes or aboard traveling SLBM subs, making survival of at least some of our retaliatory capacity higher, and raising rather than lowering the risk of a retaliation on any oppressor.

That's why we have a nuclear delivery triade, it makes the concept of retaliation more possible.

[EX500rider]

34. I got new batteries and tested my Geiger counter just in case.

Something I haven't done since the '80's
I don't think the chance is big but it is not zero.

[ruet]

46. Protip.

You will not survive a nuclear war. You were even less likely to in the 80's. If you survive the initial exchange you won't be long for this world after.

[EX500rider]

49. You may not....my milage may vary...

I know to stay under 3 feet of dirt for 2 weeks and have several months of canned food...and i have a geiger counter so i know when it is safe enough to come out.

[EX500rider]

50. And I still have my copy of :

Life after doomsday: A survivalist guide to nuclear war and other major disasters





https://www.amazon.com/Life-after-doomsday-survivalist-disasters/dp/0803747527/ref=sr_1_2?crid=1P95ZBPBRHCLD&keywords=life+after+doomsday&qid=1651535180&s=books&sprefix=life+after+doom%2Cstripbooks%2C91&sr=1-2

[48656c6c6f20]

36. We should give Pootin Chicken, Alaska

It has a 33% Russian population. If he won't use nukes just give it to him. If that isn't enough to appease him we can go to second on the list Lockghelly, WV.

[sl8]

39. Link:

The United States does not believe that there is a threat of Russia using nuclear weapons despite a recent escalation in Moscow's rhetoric, a senior U.S. defense official said on Friday.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-sees-no-threat-russia-using-nuclear-weapons-despite-rhetoric-official-2022-04-29/

[Initech]

40. I do not believe anything Putin says.

[Hekate]

43. I think that particular fear was burned out of me at age 14 during the Cuban Missile Crisis...

After a childhood of intermittent terror, I realized two things: we were still alive, and there was never going to be a darned (I didn’t cuss then) thing I could do about a foreign nation dropping a nuke on us so I needed to just get on with my life.

So — no. Not as such.

[Kingofalldems]

45. So why are you lol-ing about potential nuclear war?

[Just_Vote_Dem]

51. No

Rulers don't want the end of the world, they'll die too. Also, it's bad for business.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

52. Do I think the US is in danger of a missile strike from Russia? NO

I'm not so sure about areas in Europe.

Russian military is apparently not all it's cracked up to be so with certain half-life times discussed here I'd say that most likely Russian fusion and fission warheads would yield compromised but still rather dirty in terms of fallout. Even the primary ignition agents aren't trivial in terms of explosives.