You must log in or register to comment.

BastillianFig t1_j1r39xt wrote

Shot down but still killed 3 service members?


Miserable-Lizard OP t1_j1r5gtw wrote

The Russian army is incompetent.... Really showing the world not to fear conventional Russian military.


laineDdednaHdeR t1_j1rav7s wrote

Really starting to wonder how well maintained their nukes are. When you have to rely on getting weapons from North Korea, that should be an indicator.


rheumination t1_j1rc99z wrote

Suppose they are maintained horribly and 99 of 100 fail to reach their target. That’s still 60 nuked cities. That’s a lot of destruction. These aren’t little bombs like Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

“Russia possesses a total of 5,977 nuclear warheads as of 2022, the largest stockpile of nuclear warheads in the world”


cosmicrae t1_j1rvhrp wrote

I would (gently) suggest that you look around GitHub for a project titled OPEN-RISOP. That is a simulation of ~2100 warheads targeted on the USA. This is the red team approximation. There are three scenarios represented: Counter-Force, Counter-Value, and a combination of CF+CV. Counter-Force being an attack aimed at strategic assets and the immediate supporting facilities. Counter-Value is roughly what is being wrought upon Ukraine now. The trade off CF+CV is a blend of the two. It is also interesting that some targets (of which there are 9,000+) do not have a fallout pattern associated with them. My presumption is that those targets are neither hardened nor have a wide land area. An example is a natural gas compressor station. They do not need a warhead, but could be sufficiently damaged by a conventional cruise missile warhead.

Russia does not have enough nuclear warheads to hit every US target With one, because some of those warheads are assigned to targets in the EU and in other countries. So the ~2100 is a fair guess. That Russia is rapidly burning thru cruise missiles, is good, because that also goes into equations involving targeting. Some of the 9,000+ targets in the hypothetical OPEN-RISOP list are thermal power plants, the same type that are currently being hit in Ukraine.

The sooner that Russia gets out of the global strategic warfare game, the better for all of us.


GinTonicDev t1_j1tyr8w wrote

They don't need to hit cities in your country. They could literally throw their own nukes at their own cities to kill you. Heck, sending those rockets without any warhead at all in our direction would kill us all.


ukrokit t1_j1uiwoj wrote

Do you know how many nukes have been tested and how powerful they were?


W_Anderson t1_j1rk39s wrote

They aren’t all armed or even out of storage all at once l.


rheumination t1_j1rnent wrote

Sure. Point being is that it only takes one to ruin an entire multi city metro area and they have SIX THOUSAND. So if some fail, it is still a catastrophe.


dbernard456 t1_j1s3s7g wrote

Not mentionning that nukes that wont go supercritical will spread tons of highly radioactive stuff in the biosphere, which is almost worst than a nuked city.


unskilledplay t1_j1thilo wrote

I went down this rabbit hole recently. There isn't much radioactive material in a nuclear bomb. Almost all of the ionizing radiation is created during the explosion. This radiation is extremely dangerous but it decays quickly. Radiation in nuclear test sites isn't even detectible today.

There are models that show how ionizing radiation can have disastrous downstream effects but these are all effects that follow the seconds and hours after an explosion.

There hasn't been any detectible radiation in Hiroshima or Nagasaki for many decades.

The image I had in my head of a lifeless wasteland that is uninhabitable for thousands of years after a nuclear holocaust just isn't real. The only material that is radioactive for thousands of years is spent nuclear fuel, or HLW. Everything else decays quickly.

For scale, a nuclear power plant will use 24,000 kilograms of nuclear fuel per year. An advanced nuclear bomb will have about 4 kilograms before detonation.

The radiation and even the long distance radioactive fallout following a nuclear explosion is most definitely not worse than the explosion itself.


SirCB85 t1_j1ts40t wrote

The Dude you are answering to isn't talking about nuclear Fallout from a successfully detonating nuke, but the contamination from a nuke failing to ignite and spread its payload as a dirty bomb instead.


unskilledplay t1_j1upddt wrote

Is there a mechanism where a failed nuclear warhead can effectively become a dirty bomb? From what I've read, dirty bombs and ICBM warheads are wholly unrelated.


Dekarch t1_j1sg2ii wrote

Assuming they can hit the right country. Failure to launch or shortly after launch just dumps radioactive waste on Russia.

Failure at the reentry phase just destroys the warheads.


tubulerz1 t1_j1ru0x5 wrote

How do you know they have 6000 ?


rheumination t1_j1s3868 wrote

I looked it up. But that’s not exactly your point is it? Your point is can we trust the number?

Do we ever really know anything? Of course we cannot be certain of anything in life, especially Russians. However they blew up a ton of these bombs. So we know they can make them. The USSR was good at making LOTS of weapons. It’s not hard to imagine they made thousands of these. But I get your point, we can never really be sure if anything. Just like we can never be sure that they destroyed the warhead they said they would. So it’s entirely possible they have thousands more than this number too. Can you grant me that?


supershutze t1_j1tw78j wrote

You're making the mistake of assuming that they have 5977 delivery systems too.

Nuclear warheads sitting in a warehouse aren't going to do much good.


Therocknrolclown t1_j1s1cua wrote

Dangerous thinking


rheumination t1_j1s44bu wrote

Care to elaborate? Why so coy?


Therocknrolclown t1_j1s84k2 wrote

Oh I just mean, assuming any amount of there nuclear arsenal is our of commission, could lead to decisions being made that could endanger the entire world.


Szczup t1_j1umkld wrote

I wonder if it is coincidence that most of accounts glooming and worning about the strength of russian nuclear arsenal are those one created after February 2022.


rheumination t1_j1up2yw wrote

Dude, you cannot even spell “warning” correctly. I don’t think you’ve cracked a conspiracy with your big brain. If it helps you sleep better, I wish the Russians would become fertilizer for a bounty crop of Ukrainian sunflowers. But I’m a bot, sure Sherlock.


Bongressman t1_j1rt9ol wrote

But they wouldn't be launching hundreds, that is the literal end of the world. 1-2 would be more likely. So, the odds of failure go way up.


AggravatingCry5733 t1_j1rs68m wrote

Nope. im betting right now it’s all bullshit and we should just carpet bomb these assholes and get back to life better than before- Russian free


pete_68 t1_j1rigcb wrote

Cities are secondary. They'll target military sites. And I doubt any of their missiles would ever detonate on American soil. I think our defenses are much better than the public or the Russians know.


adarkuccio t1_j1rltg2 wrote

I REALLY doubt they'd target military sites, are you following what's happening in Ukraine?


BrandyNewFashioned t1_j1rmhgh wrote

If anything, they probably still have the same target maps they had in the 1960s. I wouldn't be surprised if they still have a warhead aimed at the closed army ammo plant to the north of where I live, despite everything having been demolished 20 years ago.

Then any nukes that don't fail midflight will probably miss and hit innocent towns, or fuckall wilderness.


krell_154 t1_j1sru27 wrote

They'd miss, but would probably hit Yellowstone in the process, thus destroying USA


Quackagate t1_j1s5z4c wrote

Either behind the bastards or lions led by donks podcasts brought up one time that if you change your targeting priority from military targets to civilians you only get like a 5%-increase in deaths in a full-scale nuclear war. This is because so many military bases are near large metro area


pete_68 t1_j1rmgln wrote

They would target military installations and manufacturers of weapons and infrastructure. Those would be the primary targets. They're not trying to invade the United States. Decimating our cities doesn't get them anything.


FarawayFairways t1_j1s96lt wrote

Every time I read comments like this (and yes they invariably come from Americans) I'm just relieved that the great hive mind of Reddit is no where near the decision making apparatus

Perhaps you'd be so good as to enlighten us as to your level of expertise in the field, because assurances like "I doubt" (any of their missiles work) and "I think" (we've got better defences than we know of) doesn't really fill me with any confidence

It's a really bad bet to place


stackjr t1_j1s35cn wrote

Just to be clear, shooting down a nuclear armed missile is no easy feat and the US military has failed to do so in many training exercises. Do not make the mistake of thinking we are untouchable in the US.


Mellevalaconcha t1_j1ropo6 wrote

Unless we are 110% sure that those nukes won't be an issue, we shouldn't act rashly, if we're lucky the bad conditions they're in will trigger one and it'll blow up on their faces


cosmicrae t1_j1rtr6l wrote

There was some stories back in 1989 … about the reliability of the Russian PALs. During perestroika, The US/west tried to assist in reducing the nuclear arsenal, and make it so that none of them would trigger without absolute control. That has been 30+ years ago, so my recollection may be hazy, but I know there were some efforts.

The problem with a warhead triggering accidentally, is that there could be massive amount of finger pointing about whose warhead just went off. Clancy wrote about the procedures in one of his books, that involve taking air samples of the debris, to try to determine the source(s) of the fissile material. If Clancy got the story right, we had better all hope that sanity prevails until such time as the details can be sorted out.

When Russia was using nuclear capable cruise missiles a few weeks back, there were substantial comments that the debris field around the impact contained no radioactive material. Apparently Ukraine (or someone with long range weapon identification capability) realized rather quickly what type they were, and wanted to tell equally quickly if they were a deliberate non-warhead payload, or a real payload that failed to detonate. Crappy world we live in when those questions need to be answered in minutes.


Alterscapes t1_j1ryr5l wrote

I read their nuclear stockpiles are close to this base.


memberzs t1_j1sb7rm wrote

I had a buddy that was former air force and had talked with people that did “start” inspections as part of his job was prepping g the base he was on for their inspection at a moments notice. That is truely a concern he heard not that they’d work, but who would recover it when they didnt.


Skeltzjones t1_j1sor5c wrote

It would be a very funny move for the US to call for a meeting to discuss concerns over Russia's nukes and whether they are competent enough to prevent a disaster, given how incompetent their military and government have shown themselves to be.


Infinite-Outcome-591 t1_j1urlm4 wrote

90% of their nukes won't go off. Zero maintenance!!


laineDdednaHdeR t1_j1urwpj wrote

Based on what data?

Look, I'm just as optimistic as anyone that Russia will fail miserably, but I'd like to know there's real proof they don't maintain their warheads.


mikeymumbelz t1_j1rvhyo wrote

Ukraine killed the vast majority of their actual soldiers.

Everyone currently fighting is (in majority) average Russians who have little to no combat experience and just want to survive to go back home.

Russia's biggest mistake (besides the invasion in general) was conscripting Russians who don't want to be there. It doesn't take a 5 Star general to know that's a bad strategy.


Radditbean1 t1_j1rj9sz wrote

They managed to shoot it down with their bodies. Their families will receive 5 potatoes each for their sacrifice for the motherland.


laxnut90 t1_j1rx76c wrote

They will actually recieve a Lada.

The potatoes would probably be more valuable.


OskaMeijer t1_j1rog40 wrote

Their new anti-air measure is catapults tossing conscripts.


Fit-Seaworthiness437 t1_j1ss8q4 wrote

Drone in air People on ground

Drone go boom in air Fall to ground where people are

People no move People die


BastillianFig t1_j1tnv5u wrote

Right.... if hit a civilian house then fair enough....

But it hit military personnel.

So clearly even if they did shoot it down they didn't shoot it down in the 300 + miles it flew but only once it got into the military. And then it still crashed and killed people in the base


PhDinDildos_Fedoras t1_j1r3n6o wrote

"Shot down" but videos just show it going in and exploding and satellite pictures show damage to bomber on tarmac.

Might have missed it a bit though.


Blastie2 t1_j1r4lpr wrote

Russians heroically intercepted Ukrainian drone with heavy bomber on tarmac.


Miserable-Lizard OP t1_j1r597k wrote

Lol one of the 99.9% that is willing to sacrifice everything for Putin... .


Blastie2 t1_j1rfy1h wrote

Indeed, it's like how the brave Russian tank crews are so eager to intercept javelin missile systems.


Izengrimm t1_j1r3zud wrote

With introductions like "Russia says" you can easily skip any following bunch of random words without losing anything important.


Candy_Badger t1_j1w254t wrote

Totally this. I simply skip articles starting with "Russia says".


Bubbagumpredditor t1_j1r4hcf wrote

And it just happened to crash into a warehouse full of munitions after being shot down?


Scarred4Life51 t1_j1rb4gz wrote

Probably a captured Ukrainian kamikaze drone that has been repurposed. Ukrainians probably figured out how to change the frequencies so they could use them without being noticed by the Russians.

Or maybe they didn't change anything. Why would Russians be looking for Iranian drones in their airspace?


Independent_Bag_3478 t1_j1vahvd wrote

If you are this uneducated, why do you even bother commenting?


Scarred4Life51 t1_j1vd959 wrote

Just tool a guess.

That's kinda how anyone without direct knowledge has to do. I just thought it would be poetic justice for Ukraine to use the same weapon that Russia used to attack a target inside Russia. Ukraine has captured and reused all kinds of weapons and equipment and reused it. Why not a Iranian drone?


Independent_Bag_3478 t1_j1vg2fa wrote

My point was the extent with which you are uneducated. It’s like someone who has no mathematical ability taking a stab at a calculus problem


Benson92 t1_j1rq52l wrote

US has provided switchblade drones to Ukraine. So it’s likely a US drone that was used.


ExtremeMuffin t1_j1s5fcr wrote

The attack happened 600kms (370 miles) from the Ukrainian border. The Switchblade has a 90 mile range.


bucknut86 t1_j1seotb wrote

I don’t even think the Switchblade 600s can go 90 miles. I think it’s like 40km/25 miles.


ExtremeMuffin t1_j1sm4kd wrote

I took the 90 mile range from their website.


bucknut86 t1_j1spy6q wrote

Gotcha, I looked at Wikipedia, lol. Regardless, not capable of 600 miles


Jerthy t1_j1semxe wrote

Ukrainians have multiple of their own drone programs, some weaponized, including suicide drones with 1000km range. It should be noted though that these were never officially unveiled and their real capabilities are unknown. Ukrainians are silent about what are they actually using for these strikes.

Their military industrial complex is far more capable than people like to give it credit for.

Also, as the other guy said, while switchblade can realistically fly undetected, it doesn't have anywhere near this range and being basically flying grenade, it can't do this much damage.


deez_treez t1_j1r6ru2 wrote

Whats a tie fighter doing out this far from home?


SupremeMisterMeme t1_j1rc730 wrote

Translation: The drone has reached its target and caused maximum damage.


Miserable-Lizard OP t1_j1r34r8 wrote


Ukrainian air force spokesperson Yurii Ihnat didn't directly acknowledge his country's involvement in Monday's incident in an interview on Ukrainian television, but said: "These are the consequences of Russian aggression."

He added: "If the Russians thought that the war wouldn't affect them deep behind their lines, they were deeply mistaken."


RikersTrombone t1_j1rhmze wrote

Ukraine better be careful, Russia might declare war.


stonk_fish t1_j1rd68u wrote

Such a Russian news article; “we have successfully intercepted a Ukrainian kamikaze drone deep in our own territory using the bodies of our soldiers, making sure that drone cannot strike anywhere else in the future.”


flopsyplum t1_j1ra6ns wrote

Just like they destroyed HIMARS vehicles?


Diligent-Kangaroo-33 t1_j1rx13p wrote

They can't stop a Ukrainian drone. That means they can't stop a nuclear first strike scenario using cruise missles.


StarKnight2020330 t1_j1s1br0 wrote

Large difference between the size of the 2 systems.


Diligent-Kangaroo-33 t1_j1s7fp3 wrote

Factor in stealth capabilities


StarKnight2020330 t1_j1saizr wrote

Again, large difference between a small drone and an ICBM


gulgin t1_j1sn2vr wrote

I don’t understand the argument here, but just for clarity shooting down a small drone is much easier than shooting down an ICBM in the terminal phase.


oldsouthnerd t1_j1sis0q wrote

At that distance it's basically got to be one of UA's long range kamikazee drones.

So what I'm reading here is that when a Russian kamikaze drone get's through Ukraine's defenses, it's news. And when a Ukrainian drone fails to get through Russia's air defenses, it's news.


Therocknrolclown t1_j1s19wj wrote

Yeah, war is two sided Russia. Ask the Egyptians


mu_taunt t1_j1rqrsf wrote

Hopefully it self destructed the second they opened it up.


dasnoob t1_j1sexg2 wrote

Bro it was a bomb. It blew up and killed soldiers. There is video of it happening. Russian saying they shot down a drone is just propaganda.


autotldr t1_j1r7nw6 wrote

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 89%. (I'm a bot)

> The Russian military reported Monday that it shot down a Ukrainian drone approaching an airbase deep inside Russia, the second time the facility has been targeted this month - again revealing weaknesses in Russia's air defences.

> It wasn't clear whether the drones had been launched from Ukraine or Russian territory.

> Haidai told Ukrainian television on Monday that Russian forces in the region are "Suffering huge losses and medical facilities are overwhelmed with wounded soldiers." The Russian army is redeploying paratroopers from the Kherson region to the area, he added.

Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Russian^#1 force^#2 Ukrainian^#3 Russia^#4 region^#5


Zez22 t1_j1ssbj7 wrote

Merry Christmas Mr Putin


Spare_Substance5003 t1_j1vkxvq wrote

Man, this will definitely upset the Russian enough to start a wa....nevermind.


[deleted] t1_j1r9eiz wrote



Commotion t1_j1r9qhp wrote

Despite Ukraine’s better-than-expected performance in the war, it is still notable that Ukraine can successfully strike hundreds of miles within Russian territory.


Jessica65Perth t1_j1spjdy wrote

They habe that many on paper. How many are actually ready for us is the question..It was alleged early in the Ukraine invasion many of Russias Tanks could not be used due to stole parts. The eorld however has to assume Rusdia has 6,000 Nukes read to go and act accordingly