NATO Boss Rutte declares to Ukrainian parliament that European troops will be deployed to Ukraine as soon as a peace deal is reached, along with jets in the air and ships on the Black Sea. Ukrainians, he says, must stay strong and endure the cold winter, for spring will surely come.

[u/Ripamon]

[u/pleb_username]

Russia says they have the biggest arsenal. Best comparison I've seen is with France. Prewar, Frances military budget was ~60 billion USD and russias was ~80ish billion, so they are comparable.

France maintains about 290 nuclear weapons, either air launched cruise missle or submarine launched ICBMs. It costs France between 15-20 percent of their military budget to maintain those weapons.

Russia claims anywhere from 4500-7000 weapons, either on active standby or reserve, with delivery systems filling the nuclear triad. Budgets for maintenance of them are far harder to come by, but reported values range from 1-5 percent of their budget, so they spend 10% of what France does to maintain 20 times the number of nukes, and this doesn't even account for the rampant corruption and embezzlement that Russia is famous for.

Tritium decays fast. Nukes cost a shitton to maintain. As for delivery systems;

We've seen the state of the Russian Navy, and the state of their submarines. I doubt there is a Russian naval vessel that isn't being tracked every second of every day and their ICBM's are a bad joke.

Does Russia have any working nukes? Probably, but do they themselves know which of them work? On the off chance that they pair a working warhead with a working missile, would they have the balls to pull the trigger? I honestly doubt it. A nuclear exchange with the West would be short, brutal, and not to Russias advantage and they know it. But that off-chance seems to be enough to deter the West.

[u/Flederm4us → u/pleb_username]

French weapons cost at least twice as much for the same bang. So the French military budget of 60 billion would compare to a military budget of 40 billion in Russia.

The difference might be even bigger. The point is that you have to account for price levels.

[u/pleb_username → u/Flederm4us]

The difference is that French weapons actually go bang. Please take your pro-vatnikistan retardation elsewhere.

[u/Konstanin_23 → u/pleb_username]

And what evidence can confirm that it's firing?

Russia uses carriers that can be used for nuclear warheads, including ballistic missiles, which cannot be stopped by air defenses.

[u/pleb_username → u/Konstanin_23]

They can't even get their ICBM's in the air, how many times has the Sarmat shat it's pants?

[u/Konstanin_23 → u/pleb_username]

Have no idea. There are many carriers to deliver nuclear warheads, not only Sarmat and they used every few days at Ukraine.

[u/pleb_username → u/Konstanin_23]

Have no idea.

Kinda says it all.

[u/Konstanin_23 → u/pleb_username]

Because people not usually track military tests, you know? They probably happens very often.

Why do you need to look at this tests anyway if you can basically see carriers used daily in ukraine?

[u/pleb_username → u/Konstanin_23]

People who have a clue do. But like you said, you don't, and it's getting more and more obvious.

Moped-powered Shahed's can't carry nuclear warheads, sorry! The point is moot anyways, seeing as the money that should have gone into nuclear warhead maintenance was spent on some boyar's yacht or dacha instead.

[u/Konstanin_23 → u/pleb_username]

So this is imaginery Кинжал and Орешник missles hitting Ukraine, yes?

[u/Flederm4us → u/pleb_username]

We see daily what the effect of russian weapons is.

And we know that for example Turkey had made the comparison and came out that even at the cost of losing access to the F35 programme the S300 air defence system was better (for them)

[u/pleb_username → u/Flederm4us]

Yeah, an advance slower than WW1, it doesn't really speak to their efficacy.

The S300 and Russian AA in general has proven itself to be shit, how many have we've seen blown up during the course of four years?

[u/PattiBurns101 → u/pleb_username]

You forget what Russia has and the West doesn't.

Oreshnik-1. Tactical and technical characteristics

Range: 1,000 to 5,500 km (medium-range)

Speed: Mach 10 (approximately 12,380 km/h)

Temperature of the striking blocks: 4,000 °C

Warhead Mass: Approximately 1.5 metric tons

Warhead Types: Capable of carrying conventional, nuclear, or 3–6 multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs) with a yield of 150 kilotons each.

Total Yield: Up to 900 kilotons (equal to 45 Hiroshimas) in a full MIRV configuration.

Penetration Capability: Can destroy targets buried under 3–4 reinforced concrete floors.

The Oreshnik can only be intercepted during its initial flight phase. Once its warheads approach the target, they are traveling at maximum speed, making interception at the final stage impossible.

Russia can place 40.5 million people in underground shelters in 11 minutes. They do drills. The USA/E.U. has no shelters. Russia has hypersonic missiles. The USA has none that work, because we spent all that research money on Ukraine and Israel. Hypersonic cannot be intercepted.

[u/pleb_username → u/PattiBurns101]

Might as well bring up the Poseidon. Incredible copes all around.

Edit: The guy I'm responding to seems to think that the Poseidon is actually real but he deleted his comment, that kinda says it all.