Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Ok-Roof-4974 t1_ixufjra wrote

“Blyat! What do you mean you forgot to switch out the warhead private Ivanovich!?”- how ww3 starts.

120

AndroChromie t1_ixwdnud wrote

"Maybe just maybe I forgot to switch some of them. You told me that some of the types of warheads have a shiny blank surface with numbers written on them and the other warheads are also shiny but don't have anything written on them.

Piotr was sick today with blyat all over and I don't know how to operate the crane, so I just removed the numbers from the warheads. Now they all look the same. I don't know which are which. Most of them are already sent far away on trucks so it's no problem no more, right?"

9

hackingdreams t1_iy22y9y wrote

They don't go nuclear without being armed. You're not "accidentally" arming a nuclear weapon.

That being said, a nuke falling into Ukraine's lap would certainly be a line being crossed...

2

asenz t1_ixvu8tm wrote

How is it that a nuclear power with such technological capabilities is left to use its nuclear weapons as a last resort to preserve its integrity? Why do you think the scenario you described above is not going to happen? Why wasn't Russia tackled with, in a more sensible manner during the transition period?

−11

Alternative_Demand96 t1_ixw0ewf wrote

Explain how Rusia could be handled better

10

Preussensgeneralstab t1_ixw2gi3 wrote

They probably could've gotten somewhat away with it if they only attacked Donetsk and Luhansk, dug in as hard as possible and basically repeat Crimea. However, Russia thought they were invincible, marched convoys after convoys into their doom. Russia made every mistake you can possibly do in war and they pay the price for it.

9

FrozenInsider t1_ixw6bd7 wrote

If Russia didnt commit so many war crimes, the western support for Ukraine would have been mostly non-existent. The war has been a total strategic failure. All Russia had to do for a victory was to not kill and torture so many civilians.

8

Preussensgeneralstab t1_ixw6xkt wrote

The war crimes PROBABLY were not the reason, although they are still a major motivator for the west and the people. The reason is still mostly:

1: Eastern Europe hates Russia with a burning passion

2: Western security depends on Russia losing the war. If Russia wins, the peaceful Europe will be over forever.

3: Ukraine losing will be bad for everyone

5

Pihkal1987 t1_ixw7gdr wrote

Hmm unfortunately you’re wrong. They have committed many atrocities but that only galvanized support for Ukraine publicly. The west would have come to Ukraines aid with or without those war crimes.

4

Mirathecat22 t1_ixualpz wrote

Could be. Could also be that like their regular military they were just a paper Tiger and didn’t really exist.

37

InMyMind4Life t1_ixu9j44 wrote

Or, there was never an nuclear warhead in them at the first place

35

Jaded_Prompt_15 t1_ixubka4 wrote

Waaaay back in the day when we had a mutual disarment some US and UN inspectors were there when Russia disarmed some nukes.

They said that only 10-25% were functional, but you couldn't tell which until you started dismantling them.

I don't think Russia is trying to fire nukes and failing.

I think they're actually checking them all now, and anything that won't work as a nuke is being launched.

76

critical_hit_misses t1_ixwbn61 wrote

Ones that have been shot down have had their nuclear payload replaced with ballast

5

HouseOfSteak t1_ixvr530 wrote

So they're firing a bunch of non-explosive plutonium-headed missiles at Ukraine, or something?

3

Z3t4 t1_ixxdq3c wrote

They replace the nuclear warhead with a conventional one.

2

Immortal_Tuttle t1_ixwehop wrote

Nope. They are just using training version of Kh-55 as a decoy. Training version has a concrete ballast instead of nuclear warhead. Also the markings are different - exactly to not launch a nuke instead of training missile.

3

hackingdreams t1_iy22vtn wrote

Or, they're really just that short on munitions that they're having to resort to firing empty shells of cruise missiles as kinetic kill weapons. It's not an implausible story in the slightest.

0

Intarhorn t1_ixul7vp wrote

Let's hope that is true, otherwise there is soon gonna be some unexpected nuclear explosions

28

exomeme t1_ixvzs1v wrote

On the other hand, a bunch of randos and conscripts handling nuclear warheads is a recipe to losing a few.

11

Mohingan t1_ixw3zca wrote

Which is exactly why the warheads would be removed and switched with conventional warheads weeks before ever being given to the front. No one is going to be like “hey here’s a nuke” plops it down off truck “mind taking the nuke off and switching it for me?” To anyone near the front

3

LevHB t1_ixwk7sp wrote

I would have agreed with you in the past. But now? It wouldn't surprise me if they secretly gutted all that in order to make some money, and the people in charge of the nuclear stockpile are way overworked, aren't supervised, and have forgot half of the information.

Regardless this is bad news no matter which way you look at it. People are saying it was a test of the response, well it doesn't matter what the reason they launched it was, they still got the data for the test, even if they didn't mean to do this.

The idea that they're using these as kinetic + fuel weapons doesn't make much sense to me.

6

rantottcsirke t1_ixvi9nk wrote

One of those idiots drunk on vodka will forget to remove one of them and boom, WW3.

18

DyslexicDarryl t1_ixw0fwr wrote

I'm pretty sure they won't detonate without the proper procedure and intention

12

monkywrnch t1_ixzi8ew wrote

Part of me wouldn't be surprised if they had been ordered to use nukes but just can't find a missile with an actual nuke on it

2

ArtisticWesterly t1_ixug22n wrote

or maybe they're testing their nuclear capable missiles to see if they still work?

13

taggospreme t1_ixw2xv3 wrote

That would make sense. To prove to everyone else that your nukes are still viable. But in this case I bet even they are wondering if they still work so they test it for themselves and play it off like a bluff/warning.

3

Lanca226 t1_ixvs0zb wrote

Are they so desperate for artillery that they're resorting to cannibalizing their nuclear arsenal?

13

mynextthroway t1_ixwgyfn wrote

Sounds like a plan to me. They must be getting close to the firing pin hitting an empty chamber.

5

Eurymedion t1_ixvmk1r wrote

This paired with Russian incompetence is an even bigger catastrophe waiting to happen. Jesus. I need a drink.

12

euphoriamine t1_ixw27ub wrote

Russians having nukes is like a toddler playing with a handgun

7

Superpolsen91 t1_ixubkz1 wrote

How much damage can those missiles when you take away the main purpose of those missiles?

6

PdPstyle t1_ixucl0n wrote

The rocket is simply a delivery device. You can put a different warhead on the end and still be devastating to whatever you hit.

42

LevHB t1_ixwnwsd wrote

I don't really buy that Russia has started using Kh-55 cruise missiles as just kinetic impact weapons. That's one hell of a waste of money to do relatively little damage. Yeah it'll still cause damage to whatever you hit, but it's going to be very very localised.

And have we seen anymore since then? I don't believe so.

This really seems like either a test, to see what the performance of the Kh-55 against Ukraine is like for a nuclear attack. Might be as a feint, or just training and decided to point it at Ukraine because why not (this is sadly the most hopeful), or worst of all because they might launch a nuclear attack soon.

I can't think of any other reasons. Some people have said by accident, but the Kh-55 is launched from a plane. Yeah ok I get that a pilot could accidentally launch it, but how do you accidentally load it? Training seems more likely given this, but that doesn't mean it also wasn't a test.

3

Submitten t1_ixwq2ht wrote

Saturate and deplete anti air missiles most likely.

2

LevHB t1_ixzvqhm wrote

Sure but on the night this one was launched there wasn't much else launched.

1

NarrMaster t1_ixx4tq6 wrote

Decoys, launched with missiles with real (conventional) explosives.

1

foodishlove t1_ixufgvi wrote

If large quantities of missiles are shot down by defensive systems then increasing the number of launched missiles is a strategy to overwhelm defensive capabilities to allow more missiles through. Defensive systems don’t differentiate between armed and inert missiles, so even the inert missiles can increase the effectiveness of the armed ones.

11

158862324 t1_ixuge0p wrote

Nuclear warheads vary widely in size, but I’d guess it’d be about the same as a tomahawk cruise missile. Like 500-1,000 lbs of TNT. Approximately 1/5 the force used in the Oklahoma City Bombing.

11

Todesfaelle t1_ixvumfo wrote

That's a impressive comparison I've never considered since I didn't think there was that much ordnance used in the bombing.

1

158862324 t1_ixw9hg8 wrote

As an American I feel it’s my patriotic duty to avoid metric.

2

LevHB t1_ixwp75u wrote

Huh? Where are you getting this number from?

This missile wasn't just a nuclear-capable missile with a normal warhead. This missile had no warhead, unless you count a lump of concrete ballast as a warhead. That's what made this so weird, Russia either launched a Kh-55 as a kinetic missile (+ whatever fuel is left behind), which would be really pathetic if true. Or they launched it as a test for how an actual nuclear armed one might go.

Or what I think might be most likely, perhaps this was a training exercise for the pilot, and they thought "why not fire it at Ukraine anyway". Which is still dangerous because they still got the data.

Or it's a pathetic feint. Or I've also heard it suggested that perhaps it was a distraction attempt, only problem is they barely launched much of an attack on that night.

So I don't know where you're getting the 500-1000lbs of TNT from?

Edit: the actual warheads are:

Nuclear: 5 to 150 kilotonnes of TNT

Conventional: 1000lbs HE (nice guess), or a few cluster bomb variants

Again so the Kh-55 can take a conventional warhead. So why the hell was a dummy nuke launched?

1

crazedizzled t1_ixum0m8 wrote

What would be the point of a nuke if it's the same yield as a tomahawk missile? That's just nonsense. Those warheads are likely 5-20KT, the typical yield of a tactical nuclear warhead.

−8

ElevatorRideWithNeal t1_ixuni5g wrote

I think he was saying if the nuc payload was replaced with TNT, the yield would be greatly reduced, and would only be a fraction of the capabilities of a Tomahawk.

11

crazedizzled t1_ixuobfl wrote

It was worded pretty weirdly if that is the case. But yes, the yield would be whatever conventional payload they have around that the missile can carry.

−12

darthmater t1_iy170k7 wrote

Must be their interpretation again, huh? Not you having two brain cells. It must be others that struggle, not you.

0

crazedizzled t1_iy192gv wrote

Lol are you stalking me now? Don't you have a dictionary to read or something?

1

darthmater t1_iy1gxxp wrote

I demanded an apology but I had not heard from you. So I looked if you were active, and laughed because you are suffering from the same fallacy here as you did with me.

So now I know you suffer from some sort of disability and will take the high road. I no longer request an apology from you.

0

crazedizzled t1_iy1pyux wrote

You're the one that sounds damaged. Take care friend

1

BubbaFattSaskatoon t1_ixveqxr wrote

Is Russia lighting all their matches and saving the ones that lit as successfully tested and functional?

6

Bankful t1_ixvn9b8 wrote

Normalizing the launch of nuclear-capable delivery vehicles so that the real deal would be dismissed as a ruse for the few minutes when it could be intercepted.

6

litivy t1_ixvx3yr wrote

This is the worst possibility. That and a live one being launched through incompetence.

6

mmm__donuts t1_ixvykrn wrote

Is it possible to tell a nuclear-capable cruise missile from a conventional one on radar? That seems like it would be difficult to do.

2

tito333 t1_ixw1ndh wrote

The Russians know that their nuclear missile storage sites are being monitored by every spy satellite imaginable. They can move the missiles around and no one can truly know when they won't remove the warhead.

3

mmm__donuts t1_ixw5y4w wrote

Do they generally store the nuclear-capable cruise missiles with the warheads attached? I imagine that makes the security a lot more complicated.

1

tito333 t1_ixzgftk wrote

They have a lot of missiles ready to go, same as the US with the ICBM silos in the Midwest.

1

mmm__donuts t1_ixzkeol wrote

Yes. I was asking about cruise missiles, not ICBMs.

1

tito333 t1_iy0d5jj wrote

From what I read in the WSJ, they keep them their nuclear missiles at storage sites, and it's possible for satellites to view when there's movement going on. https://www.wsj.com/video/series/wsj-explains/the-mechanics-of-russias-nuclear-arsenal-explained/916534DC-84D1-407A-B03C-F4957B70DAF4

1

mmm__donuts t1_iy5m4u5 wrote

I can't get through the paywall, but the blurb for the source you linked mentions warheads, not missiles. Additionally, when someone says "nuclear missiles" they almost always mean ICBMs, not cruise missiles.

1

LevHB t1_ixwl5g1 wrote

No. It looks the same from the outside. Will the difference in the inert concrete head vs nuclear warhead create slight differences in flight dynamics? Yes. Will it create some sort of difference that could be measured with any technology anyone on earth has? Extremely unlikely, especially since local weather, per missile build tolerances, per sensor tolerance, etc etc would all have a much bigger impact.

So I would go with a very simple no. No you cannot tell what's in it.

2

Ceratisa t1_ixw5e27 wrote

We calculate launch angle/trajectory using sophisticated algorithms to determine their destination. That's part of why we don't always prepare to fire a volley of nukes for every nuclear warhead capable missile Russia launches into Ukraine.

1

mmm__donuts t1_ixw5o5b wrote

>We calculate launch angle/trajectory using sophisticated algorithms to determine their destination.

For a cruise missile?

1

Ceratisa t1_ixw5t1r wrote

Cruise missiles are a common platform for nuclear capable delivery

2

mmm__donuts t1_ixw68j4 wrote

>Cruise missiles are a common platform for nuclear capable delivery

Yes. They're the one being referred to in this article. My question was whether it is possible to calculate their target from their launch trajectory since being able to change direction in flight is kind of the defining feature of a cruise missile.

2

Ceratisa t1_ixw6ovu wrote

Yes, without things like scramjets these missiles do still have limited ranges, so arc and height still matter. We also track launches with satellites and when possible, long range radars

2

mmm__donuts t1_ixwh7hq wrote

Cool. TIL. Is it possible to differentiate the nuclear-capable version of a cruise missile from its conventional counterpart based on these satellite or radar data? Or was the guy I responded to originally incorrect?

1

Ceratisa t1_ixwza4m wrote

No, you misunderstood what I was saying. We can guess if it's a nuclear missile based on flight path because of the destination itself. There are targets you'd nuke and targets you wouldn't and by calculating their destination we can make good educated guesses.

1

mmm__donuts t1_ixx2ny8 wrote

I'm still confused. Are you saying that we can make those guesses quickly enough to make decisions about what to shoot down and what to ignore based on an estimate of whether the payload is nuclear?

1

LevHB t1_ixwly98 wrote

>We calculate launch angle/trajectory using sophisticated algorithms to determine their destination.

It's a cruise missile, so no you cannot tell, unless it's a very simple missile with very very simple programming.

The reason you literally cannot tell, is that it's ambiguous until a later point in its journey. Before that a cruise missile aimed at another target could also have taken the same path up to that point.

And as far as can we tell whether a Kh-55 has a nuclear warhead, or a concrete warhead? No we cannot. They look the same from the outside. They might have ever so slightly different slight characteristics, but per-missile flight characteristics are going to vary more than whether they have a warhead, so again no one knows except those who launched it (well I hope they know).

1

monkywrnch t1_ixzik27 wrote

There's no ignoring an incoming missile... they would be attempting to intercept anything regardless if it's nuclear or not.

1

Korith_Eaglecry t1_ixw5py4 wrote

Next Week's news: A Russian denuclearized missile containing a nuclear warhead found lodged in Ukrainian school.

5

StugDrazil t1_ixvqd61 wrote

Oh this is finally getting good, this is the moment they have been waiting for.

4

agprincess t1_ixvp0jw wrote

Honestly they're wasting all their military tech anyways, it's a good silver lining their Nuclear armory is rotting too.

3

Odd-Specialist-4708 t1_ixw2pkn wrote

This is churn which works against rot

1

agprincess t1_ixxp1mh wrote

Well churn or rot, as long as there's fewer missiles to deliver nuclear warheads the better for everyone. Though admittedly, like everything in this war, at Ukrainian expense.

We can't save all Ukranians from this genocide but we can give them all the support we can and the world will owe them more than any possible Russian reparations for their declawing of the worlds former preeminent terrorist state.

1

lilrabbitfoofoo t1_ixw5rne wrote

The nuclear warheads likely haven't worked in decades, folks.

3

The_Love_Pudding t1_ixw8t8e wrote

They're testing one rocket if it actually flies. Safer without the warhead.

3

Gonergonegone t1_ixwwcm6 wrote

I'm all for Russia taking their nukes apart. Hate the reason though

2

conduitabc t1_ixw65t9 wrote

well at least they are removing the nuclear part

so we have that going for us, which is nice.

1

BangGearWatch t1_ixxppkc wrote

Jesus... what if they f*ckup. I mean, they're a disorganised mess... they'd never admit it was accidental.

0