Current Affairs Ukraine

[peteblue]

Ignore a lot of the nonsense he mentioned, but the point that only a reasonably small percentage of their arsenal being operational isn't a bad one.

I remember @john jako mentioned something similar much earlier on. Nuclear weapons degrade over time unless maintained and that costs - a lot.

Maintaining our Vanguard class submarines and SLBMs is between 3-4.5% of our annual defence budget, so you're talking a min. £1.2-1.9bn per annum.

That's for four submarines, 200ish warheads on 60ish SLBMS - what would that work out per warhead as a conservative figure? It's far from cheap.

When you look at the US spending on their nuclear arsenal including ICBMs, I was told it comes to about £10m per weapon, maybe @Dylan will know more.

If you then consider the size of the Russian economy and their defence spending versus their arsenal number, can we expect they've maintained the pile?

So yes, they do have enough weapons to cause such mass destruction, but the point is that they are likely significantly outnumbered in reliable weapons.

You can then factor in the cost of the design and building of new missiles, submarines and missiles, which again are to be costly to maintain over the life.

That alone will be something the Russians will be aware of, and perhaps says a lot about the readiness and capability of the Russian armed forces.

You can bully smaller people, and Russia has always done it. You cannot bully people much more powerful than you. You can try, but ultimately you will just disappear…and Russia knows this….

 

[Deleted member 48881]

Not bad from UA ??

 

[Goat]

Thanks Boris, you heaving bellend.

 

[summerisle]

Deary me.

 

[Aberblue]

Once countries start talking about "secret weapons" you know they're in big trouble.

 

[Bluerover]

Once countries start talking about "secret weapons" you know they're in big trouble.

But I was scaremongering of course

 

[Bluerover]

Ignore a lot of the nonsense he mentioned, but the point that only a reasonably small percentage of their arsenal being operational isn't a bad one.

I remember @john jako mentioned something similar much earlier on. Nuclear weapons degrade over time unless maintained and that costs - a lot.

Maintaining our Vanguard class submarines and SLBMs is between 3-4.5% of our annual defence budget, so you're talking a min. £1.2-1.9bn per annum.

That's for four submarines, 200ish warheads on 60ish SLBMS - what would that work out per warhead as a conservative figure? It's far from cheap.

When you look at the US spending on their nuclear arsenal including ICBMs, I was told it comes to about £10m per weapon, maybe @Dylan will know more.

If you then consider the size of the Russian economy and their defence spending versus their arsenal number, can we expect they've maintained the pile?

So yes, they do have enough weapons to cause such mass destruction, but the point is that they are likely significantly outnumbered in reliable weapons.

You can then factor in the cost of the design and building of new missiles, submarines and missiles, which again are to be costly to maintain over the life.

That alone will be something the Russians will be aware of, and perhaps says a lot about the readiness and capability of the Russian armed forces.

Just one successful strike will cause havoc

 

[Bluerover]

To out things in context, TWO bombs in Nagasaki and Hiroshima saw 120,000 killed immediately with tens of thousands dying afterwards due to exposure. Allowing for some of his missiles being now beyond use, this lunatic has 1000 or more

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

More than a quarter of Russian forces in Ukraine 'combat ineffective', MOD says

The Ministry of Defence's update also said it is some of Russia's most elite units that have been hit the hardest.

www.forces.net

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

Clash Of Titans: As EU Moves To End Reliance On Russian Gas, Will Putin Seek To Strike First?

The European Union says it can drastically cut Russian natural gas imports this year and end them “well before” the decade is out. How realistic is that? And what if Russia moves to create economic havoc by cutting the EU off even earlier?

www.rferl.org

 

[WA Toffee]

Thanks Boris, you heaving bellend.

Yeah, I'm not convinced physics would permit a 500 metre high tsunami to wash over the entire UK.

 

[Yarrgh]

Once countries start talking about "secret weapons" you know they're in big trouble.

Did Russia just put the UK on double secret probation?

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

 

[Lobster Johnson]

Thanks Boris, you heaving bellend.

THAT is how you do scaremongering.

 

[Lobster Johnson]

Yeah, I'm not convinced physics would permit a 500 metre high tsunami to wash over the entire UK.

Especially with the North Sea being about 30 metres deep.