Russia amps up nuclear threat.

  • DarkThoughts@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    6 months ago

    We know how the last “military drills” went. Better to launch some preemptive strikes on those positions, before they can fire them towards Ukraine.

        • sugartits@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          It’s actually pretty difficult to detonate a nuke by shooting at it, if that’s what you’re getting at.

          A certain set of things has to happen in a very specific order with tight timings (milliseconds) in order for it to actually explode.

          Hence all the incidents in the US of accidentally dropped nukes on domestic territory and no boom boom.

          • ours@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            6 months ago

            Nukes need high explosives. The most modern ones use extremely stable explosives but some of the Cold War era accidents in the US often did go boom but not BOOOOOOOM.

            Still bad exploding weapons-grade radioactive material. Thankfully not as bad as a nuclear explosion.

            • sugartits@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              6 months ago

              Pardon me sir, but I did say “boom boom” which is roughly equivalent to one “BOOOOOOOM”, assuming we’re using the metric system.

              If we’re you’re using imperial boom scale, then frankly you disgust me.

          • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Sending a fissile bullet into a fissile shell to activate a hydrogen payload is certainly a delicate mechanism, but to take so much as a 1% chance of detonating a nuclear warhead that otherwise wouldn’t have gone off, escalating nuclear war across the entire earth, is a bad idea and you will never convince me otherwise.

            • sugartits@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              Its not 1%.

              It’s not even 0.01%

              You could try it once a second for the rest of your life, and it still wouldn’t go off.

              You’d just damage it at the most. Maybe trigger a safety system which will need to be reset before it can be armed again.

              Nobody is saying it’s a good idea, it’s just a complete non issue.

                • sugartits@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Oh, okay then. Yeah sure, I made it up. It’s a 90% chance and we’ve just been exceptionally lucky.

                  • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    I like to believe that throughout the last century the number of morons shooting any form of projectile at armed nuclear warheads was minimal, but you’re certainly making that harder to believe.

      • DarkThoughts@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Unless you intend to actually use them while covering for the launch with alleged “drills”, just like they covered for the invasion with alleged military drills. Either way, you would still hit Russian troops in any case anyway.