Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

-B0B- t1_ivdmir8 wrote

Should probably say "The Soviet Union/Russia", unless you're only counting nukes which were in the RSFSR

21

MrPickles113 t1_ivdpcud wrote

Russian source: trust me bro.

2

0mgt1red t1_ivdz9g2 wrote

Both sources are exactly that, none really discloses this type of data

7

talon38c t1_ivdqtwt wrote

Need to add China to that chart for the big picture.

2

StationOost t1_iveb23b wrote

China is at about 3% of these numbers (350 in 2022 as estimated by the US), so it might not even be a pixel in the chart.

7

talon38c t1_iw64vkn wrote

China is so secretive I doubt that anyone outside of the PLA even knows what the numbers are.

2

TheSn00pster t1_ivees8n wrote

One more 1993, and we could be done with them. 👀

2

jbeeziemeezi t1_iverla1 wrote

Guys let’s only be able to completely kill each other a little bit

2

Large_Assignment_957 t1_ivfujvr wrote

The USA is behind! We need to be able to obliterate the world more than Russia! More nukes!!!!!!!!!!

2

JiveTalkerFunkyWalkr t1_ivdv3y7 wrote

Where did all the 1985 nucs go? Used for reactors? Or just stored?

1

Biguwuiscute t1_ive9zss wrote

It’s not that complicated actually. A nuclear bomb is, extremely simplified, borderline critical uranium surrounded by explosives. Remove the explosives, and you almost have a fuel rod. So yes, nuclear energy.

3

685327592 t1_ivf1rx6 wrote

Fuel rods are enriched less than 5%, bombs are over 90%.

1

Ghostforever7 t1_ivebpii wrote

The thing that is so deceiving about this, is that it applies the stockpile is lower and better. The countries have less bombs, but the bombs are significantly more powerful than the ones first manufactured.

1

jerk_hobo t1_ivfn7wc wrote

Great. Now there are only enough warheads to destroy the Earth ten times.

1

Fummy t1_ivxy9wn wrote

You could probably destory a small fraction of the surface if you tried hard enough.

1

AshbyLaw t1_ivetlfx wrote

So the number of NATO bombs was growing exponentially, the USSR started to increase its number linearly and maybe this was a message like "we can do it too, so what now?"; NATO: "OK, understood", Russia: "nice, we will decrease too".

0

bremidon t1_ivfaj6e wrote

Are you not used to reading charts?

By the time the Soviets started their linear increase, NATO was already decreasing its stockpiles.

Having lived through it, I can assure you that the message was not: "we can do it too," but "we will bury you."

0

AshbyLaw t1_ivfh50b wrote

> Are you not used to reading charts? > > By the time the Soviets started their linear increase, NATO was already decreasing its stockpiles.

According to the chart USSR has a linear increase from the beginning while NATO decrease starts from 1967.

Maybe you considered the linear increase of USSR as starting from 1970 because after that the bars align to form a line?

1

bremidon t1_ivfpjgn wrote

Well, I was being nice to you.

Because if we take the drop from NATO into account, it's no longer a straight line and is therefore an exponential curve.

It's hard to say what kind of increase there might be in the beginning...you would have to eyeball it on a graph form that is not really well designed for it.

1

AshbyLaw t1_ivfy5iv wrote

> it's no longer a straight line and is therefore an exponential curve.

It doesn't matter for my point if USSR's increase was linear or exponential

1

Tjaames t1_ivdqtjo wrote

Yeah but I doubt even five of the Russian ones work

−2

jmihj t1_ive2j1k wrote

I can say the exact thing about american nukes

3