First F-16s Arive In Ukraine

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Unknownparadox

Having great rocket engines doesn't mean that their nuclear weapons suddenly don't require regular, expensive maintenance. Physics don't change just because it's Russia and Putin is in charge.

Do you have some sort of proof they are not maintaining their nuclear weapons?

a reply to: YourFaceAgain

Totally agree. Even if all their nukes worked, nobody should be worried about the end of the world. Nuclear winter causing the extinction of the human race is an extremely outdated concept based on models from the 1950s and a lot of propaganda.

In the recent article June 29, 2023 6:00 AM EDT , from time magazine, this guy Tegmark is a professor doing AI research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Tells a very different story.

Unfortunately, peer-reviewed research suggests that explosions, the electromagnetic pulse, and the radioactivity aren’t the worst part: a nuclear winter is caused by the black carbon smoke from the nuclear firestorms.

Time

a reply to: Unknownparadox

Besides the fact that their budget doesn’t even come close to what would be required for it? That would be why there’s speculation that they won’t work well. No one is going to let evidence out that their biggest deterrent doesn’t work.

originally posted by: Unknownparadox
a reply to: YourFaceAgain

Totally agree. Even if all their nukes worked, nobody should be worried about the end of the world. Nuclear winter causing the extinction of the human race is an extremely outdated concept based on models from the 1950s and a lot of propaganda.

In the recent article June 29, 2023 6:00 AM EDT , from time magazine, this guy Tegmark is a professor doing AI research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Tells a very different story.

Unfortunately, peer-reviewed research suggests that explosions, the electromagnetic pulse, and the radioactivity aren’t the worst part: a nuclear winter is caused by the black carbon smoke from the nuclear firestorms.

Time

Did you read what you posted? It agrees with me. It says nuclear winter would kill a lot of people, not cause human extinction.

Why are people unable to distinguish between those two?

It also points out that there's no way to conclusively study this to get validated scientific results, for obvious reasons. All they can do is try to make projections based on computer models allowing for every conceivable factor they can imagine--which of course always leaves out things because the human mind simply isn't as imaginative as real life is. This is why experimentation is so highly valued over theory.

Love Max Tegmark by the way, but he's also out of his element there. When scientists stray out of their field, they tend to embarrass themselves. See Neil deGrasse Tyson. He likes to pontificate about subjects he knows nothing about and comically gets corrected by actual experts.

a reply to: YourFaceAgain

Did you read what you posted? It agrees with me.

It does not agree with you in any way shape fashion or form

Even if all their nukes worked, nobody should be worried about the end of the world.

A recent scientific paper estimates that over 5 billion people could starve to death, including around 99% of those in the US, Europe, Russia, and China

It’s important to note that huge uncertainties remain, so the actual humanitarian impact could be either better or worse – a reason to proceed with caution.

Better or worse. You're assuming better. You seem to be suggesting a nuclear war is a acceptable consequence. When it is not. If the some 6 or 8 thousands nuclear war heads didn't get you, depending on how many everyone else in the world has. Then you have the nuclear winter to deal with, while simultaneously dealing with billions possible trillions of dead corpses, there is animals too. In the water ways on the land, pretty much every where. And then there is the radiation.

Besides the fact that their budget doesn’t even come close to what would be required for it?

a reply to: Zaphod58
How do you know what their budget is? How do you know what it cost to maintain their nuclear weapons? You're comparing it to ours? Our system is set up to be high maintenance, and it isn't for safety purposes. It would probably be more prudent to worry about our nukes working. Since we have a history of throwing money down the military drain pipe.
Yahoo
There is plenty more examples. Didn't they just recently admit. That our nuclear silos are in poor shape?

originally posted by: Unknownparadox
a reply to: YourFaceAgain

Did you read what you posted? It agrees with me.

It does not agree with you in any way shape fashion or form

I like how you said that and then posted how it agreed with me. I said it wouldn't cause extinction and then they said over 35% of the human race would survive nuclear winter.

(Since you may not be able to understand where that number came from: current world population is 7.888 billion. Subtract 5 billion. Dividing the remainder by 7.888 billion gives you the surviving percentage.)

I also like the part where you posted where they also agreed with me that the entire subject is very loosely supported, as there are huge uncertainties, since they can't truly study this through experimentation and there's no telling how many factors they left out of their models.

Thanks for the affirmation.

a reply to: Unknownparadox

Nuclear maintenance is not high maintenance, and neither are a bunch of other systems. They aren't "designed" that way. As for the LCS, that was another case of trying to do too much with too little. The Navy wanted a system that would do everything by replacing a few modules, but couldn't settle on one design. So they ended up with one decent design, and one crappy design that had serious issues, crammed the same faulty components in both, and wound up getting the Little Crappy Ships.

As for the Russian costs, you can get a good idea of their budget, and what equipment they are buying. We know they have a lot they have to replace from Ukraine that's going to eat up their budget. You would also see them working on the missiles on satellite. I'm not the only one making the claims though. There are sources online about how older missiles and weapons may not work anymore.

lansinginstitute.org...

a reply to: Zaphod58

One wonders if there are undiscovered Y2K issues with the older strategic systems

Cheers

a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

Considering that we were using the extra large floppy disks until recently, I wouldn't be shocked.