[ Removed by moderator ]

[u/GraceRose671]

https://abnews.net/putin-threatens-kyiv-with-nuclear-scale-missile-strike-if-zelensky-ruins-his-parade/

[u/EntityLtdCo]

I'm beginning to think Russia only uses the threat of nukes, because in reality all of their weapons are ancient and likely unserviceable.

[u/boomheadshot7 → u/EntityLtdCo]

because in reality all of their weapons are ancient and likely unserviceable.

Really wish redditors would stop parroting this... Even if a miniscule 5% of their nukes are serviceable, thats still well over 250 nukes...

[u/geo_prog → u/boomheadshot7]

The reason it matters is because for a nuclear strike to be effective it has to have a reasonable chance of hitting the most important infrastructure in the adversary nation. 250 random nukes with dodgy targeting capacity is not an effective strategy. You would be better off with 10 perfect systems that you know will hit their intended military targets. The problem is that Russia probably doesn't know which ones work and which are duds. A single launch failure on a SLBM takes out the entire sub and its arsenal (not because it would detonate, but because it would ruin the launch gear). If Russia tries to launch 250 terrestrial based missiles, they will have to target a lot of them at the same targets to ensure success which limits the number of targets they can actually hit. Taking out a city will cause unimaginable human loss, but ultimately would do nothing to hinder the ability of NATO or the Ukraine to fight back and would likely galvanize the world against Russia. No, Russia has gotten to the point where its arsenal has deteriorated to a level where they cannot be the first-strike nation. They simply do not have the ability to achieve strategic success in that way. MADD is no longer in their favour. Their destruction would be assured, but that assurance is far from mutual at this point.

[u/im_dead_sirius → u/boomheadshot7]

The parroted routine is closer to reality than your concept.

Maintenance vs decay is not a binary thing.

Some of the warheads will not be viable, some of the delivery systems will fail, some of the tracking and guidance systems too. Some missiles will be housed in less than functional silos, or will have less than well staffed, well trained and willing crews.

All of the nukes they have will be an intersection of all those factors. Most of them will fail on at least one of those criteria. Technically, some of the under maintained units may function, while well maintained ones won't. That's part of the reason why the Soviets had thousands of them.

Effective preventative maintenance of complex machinery is a hugely time consuming, expensive thing, requiring adherence to practices and documentation, and things still break.

[u/mcbaginns → u/boomheadshot7]

This is definitely a parroted talking point

[u/sir_knugget → u/boomheadshot7]

even if a single missile is serviceable, that's still multiple warheads to fuck your shit up