I was reading an article that claimed that there was a good chance
that Russia's nuclear arsenal was actually inoperative due to
Russia's economic woes and war in Ukraine.

The logic was that tritium has a short half-life, and costs a lot of
money to make.

Too bad that only the earliest hydrogen bombs used deuterium and
tritium and needed regular topping-up. Modern hydrogen bombs use
lithium-6 deuteride, and lithium-6, like deuterium, is stable.

So while the author used "basic physics" to reach his conclusions, he
neglected to check his facts even to the extent of peeking at Wikipedia.

John Savard

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:ceaace75-7ee0-426b-96ff-169e9dad577dn@googlegroups.com:

> I was reading an article that claimed that there was a good
> chance that Russia's nuclear arsenal was actually inoperative
> due to Russia's economic woes and war in Ukraine.
>
> The logic was that tritium has a short half-life, and costs a
> lot of money to make.
>
> Too bad that only the earliest hydrogen bombs used deuterium and
> tritium and needed regular topping-up. Modern hydrogen bombs use
> lithium-6 deuteride, and lithium-6, like deuterium, is stable.

What's the timeline on that? does Russia *have* any *modern* hydrogen
bombs? Or are they still working with old Soviet stock?
>
> So while the author used "basic physics" to reach his
> conclusions, he neglected to check his facts even to the extent
> of peeking at Wikipedia.

Both nuclear warheads (of all types) and missiles require a lot of
other mainteance, as well, which is, for the most part, high tech,
requiring a high degree of skill and a lot of money.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Saturday, October 29, 2022 at 7:17:21 PM UTC-4, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
> news:ceaace75-7ee0-426b...@googlegroups.com:
> > I was reading an article that claimed that there was a good
> > chance that Russia's nuclear arsenal was actually inoperative
> > due to Russia's economic woes and war in Ukraine.
> >
> > The logic was that tritium has a short half-life, and costs a
> > lot of money to make.
> >
> > Too bad that only the earliest hydrogen bombs used deuterium and
> > tritium and needed regular topping-up. Modern hydrogen bombs use
> > lithium-6 deuteride, and lithium-6, like deuterium, is stable.
> What's the timeline on that? does Russia *have* any *modern* hydrogen
> bombs? Or are they still working with old Soviet stock?
> >
> > So while the author used "basic physics" to reach his
> > conclusions, he neglected to check his facts even to the extent
> > of peeking at Wikipedia.
> Both nuclear warheads (of all types) and missiles require a lot of
> other mainteance, as well, which is, for the most part, high tech,
> requiring a high degree of skill and a lot of money.

This isn't an area where you want to bet your life on Russian corruption
or incompetence.

Pt

In article <fc63eebd-32d2-4e19-a8c8-96137f32753bn@googlegroups.com>,
pete...@gmail.com <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Saturday, October 29, 2022 at 7:17:21 PM UTC-4, Ninapenda
>Jibini wrote:
>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>> news:ceaace75-7ee0-426b...@googlegroups.com:
>> > I was reading an article that claimed that there was a good
>> > chance that Russia's nuclear arsenal was actually inoperative
>> > due to Russia's economic woes and war in Ukraine.
>> >
>> > The logic was that tritium has a short half-life, and costs a
>> > lot of money to make.
>> >
>> > Too bad that only the earliest hydrogen bombs used deuterium and
>> > tritium and needed regular topping-up. Modern hydrogen bombs use
>> > lithium-6 deuteride, and lithium-6, like deuterium, is stable.
>> What's the timeline on that? does Russia *have* any *modern* hydrogen
>> bombs? Or are they still working with old Soviet stock?
>> >
>> > So while the author used "basic physics" to reach his
>> > conclusions, he neglected to check his facts even to the extent
>> > of peeking at Wikipedia.
>> Both nuclear warheads (of all types) and missiles require a lot of
>> other mainteance, as well, which is, for the most part, high tech,
>> requiring a high degree of skill and a lot of money.
>
>This isn't an area where you want to bet your life on Russian corruption
>or incompetence.

Isn't this win-win? Either the Russians look bad or most of our
mundane, day to day problems suddenly become irrelevant.

--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

"pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in
news:fc63eebd-32d2-4e19-a8c8-96137f32753bn@googlegroups.com:

> On Saturday, October 29, 2022 at 7:17:21 PM UTC-4, Ninapenda
> Jibini wrote:
>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>> news:ceaace75-7ee0-426b...@googlegroups.com:
>> > I was reading an article that claimed that there was a good
>> > chance that Russia's nuclear arsenal was actually inoperative
>> > due to Russia's economic woes and war in Ukraine.
>> >
>> > The logic was that tritium has a short half-life, and costs a
>> > lot of money to make.
>> >
>> > Too bad that only the earliest hydrogen bombs used deuterium
>> > and tritium and needed regular topping-up. Modern hydrogen
>> > bombs use lithium-6 deuteride, and lithium-6, like deuterium,
>> > is stable.
>> What's the timeline on that? does Russia *have* any *modern*
>> hydrogen bombs? Or are they still working with old Soviet
>> stock?
>> >
>> > So while the author used "basic physics" to reach his
>> > conclusions, he neglected to check his facts even to the
>> > extent of peeking at Wikipedia.
>> Both nuclear warheads (of all types) and missiles require a lot
>> of other mainteance, as well, which is, for the most part, high
>> tech, requiring a high degree of skill and a lot of money.
>
> This isn't an area where you want to bet your life on Russian
> corruption or incompetence.
>
You don't want to bet against it, either.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On 10/30/2022 7:55 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> "pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:fc63eebd-32d2-4e19-a8c8-96137f32753bn@googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Saturday, October 29, 2022 at 7:17:21 PM UTC-4, Ninapenda
>> Jibini wrote:
>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>>> news:ceaace75-7ee0-426b...@googlegroups.com:
>>>> I was reading an article that claimed that there was a good
>>>> chance that Russia's nuclear arsenal was actually inoperative
>>>> due to Russia's economic woes and war in Ukraine.
>>>>
>>>> The logic was that tritium has a short half-life, and costs a
>>>> lot of money to make.
>>>>
>>>> Too bad that only the earliest hydrogen bombs used deuterium
>>>> and tritium and needed regular topping-up. Modern hydrogen
>>>> bombs use lithium-6 deuteride, and lithium-6, like deuterium,
>>>> is stable.
>>> What's the timeline on that? does Russia *have* any *modern*
>>> hydrogen bombs? Or are they still working with old Soviet
>>> stock?
>>>>
>>>> So while the author used "basic physics" to reach his
>>>> conclusions, he neglected to check his facts even to the
>>>> extent of peeking at Wikipedia.
>>> Both nuclear warheads (of all types) and missiles require a lot
>>> of other mainteance, as well, which is, for the most part, high
>>> tech, requiring a high degree of skill and a lot of money.
>>
>> This isn't an area where you want to bet your life on Russian
>> corruption or incompetence.
>>
> You don't want to bet against it, either.

Given their past results, I would not bet against them.

Lynn

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
news:tjnf3b$1o0a$1@gioia.aioe.org:

> On 10/30/2022 7:55 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> "pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:fc63eebd-32d2-4e19-a8c8-96137f32753bn@googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Saturday, October 29, 2022 at 7:17:21 PM UTC-4, Ninapenda
>>> Jibini wrote:
>>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>>>> news:ceaace75-7ee0-426b...@googlegroups.com:
>>>>> I was reading an article that claimed that there was a good
>>>>> chance that Russia's nuclear arsenal was actually
>>>>> inoperative due to Russia's economic woes and war in
>>>>> Ukraine.
>>>>>
>>>>> The logic was that tritium has a short half-life, and costs
>>>>> a lot of money to make.
>>>>>
>>>>> Too bad that only the earliest hydrogen bombs used deuterium
>>>>> and tritium and needed regular topping-up. Modern hydrogen
>>>>> bombs use lithium-6 deuteride, and lithium-6, like
>>>>> deuterium, is stable.
>>>> What's the timeline on that? does Russia *have* any *modern*
>>>> hydrogen bombs? Or are they still working with old Soviet
>>>> stock?
>>>>>
>>>>> So while the author used "basic physics" to reach his
>>>>> conclusions, he neglected to check his facts even to the
>>>>> extent of peeking at Wikipedia.
>>>> Both nuclear warheads (of all types) and missiles require a
>>>> lot of other mainteance, as well, which is, for the most
>>>> part, high tech, requiring a high degree of skill and a lot
>>>> of money.
>>>
>>> This isn't an area where you want to bet your life on Russian
>>> corruption or incompetence.
>>>
>> You don't want to bet against it, either.
>
> Given their past results, I would not bet against them.
>
Which them are we talking about? You would not bet against the
Russians based on their past results? You're saying their
achievments in Ukraine have impressed you with their competence?

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On 10/31/2022 2:47 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:tjnf3b$1o0a$1@gioia.aioe.org:
>
>> On 10/30/2022 7:55 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>> "pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:fc63eebd-32d2-4e19-a8c8-96137f32753bn@googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>> On Saturday, October 29, 2022 at 7:17:21 PM UTC-4, Ninapenda
>>>> Jibini wrote:
>>>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>>>>> news:ceaace75-7ee0-426b...@googlegroups.com:
>>>>>> I was reading an article that claimed that there was a good
>>>>>> chance that Russia's nuclear arsenal was actually
>>>>>> inoperative due to Russia's economic woes and war in
>>>>>> Ukraine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The logic was that tritium has a short half-life, and costs
>>>>>> a lot of money to make.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Too bad that only the earliest hydrogen bombs used deuterium
>>>>>> and tritium and needed regular topping-up. Modern hydrogen
>>>>>> bombs use lithium-6 deuteride, and lithium-6, like
>>>>>> deuterium, is stable.
>>>>> What's the timeline on that? does Russia *have* any *modern*
>>>>> hydrogen bombs? Or are they still working with old Soviet
>>>>> stock?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So while the author used "basic physics" to reach his
>>>>>> conclusions, he neglected to check his facts even to the
>>>>>> extent of peeking at Wikipedia.
>>>>> Both nuclear warheads (of all types) and missiles require a
>>>>> lot of other mainteance, as well, which is, for the most
>>>>> part, high tech, requiring a high degree of skill and a lot
>>>>> of money.
>>>>
>>>> This isn't an area where you want to bet your life on Russian
>>>> corruption or incompetence.
>>>>
>>> You don't want to bet against it, either.
>>
>> Given their past results, I would not bet against them.
>>
> Which them are we talking about? You would not bet against the
> Russians based on their past results? You're saying their
> achievments in Ukraine have impressed you with their competence?

I was specifically talking about 715 detonations of nuclear bombs by the
Russians over the years. They know what they are doing with nuclear
weapons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Lynn

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>On 10/31/2022 2:47 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:tjnf3b$1o0a$1@gioia.aioe.org:
>>
>>> On 10/30/2022 7:55 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>> "pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>> news:fc63eebd-32d2-4e19-a8c8-96137f32753bn@googlegroups.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Saturday, October 29, 2022 at 7:17:21 PM UTC-4, Ninapenda
>>>>> Jibini wrote:
>>>>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>>>>>> news:ceaace75-7ee0-426b...@googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>> I was reading an article that claimed that there was a good
>>>>>>> chance that Russia's nuclear arsenal was actually
>>>>>>> inoperative due to Russia's economic woes and war in
>>>>>>> Ukraine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The logic was that tritium has a short half-life, and costs
>>>>>>> a lot of money to make.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Too bad that only the earliest hydrogen bombs used deuterium
>>>>>>> and tritium and needed regular topping-up. Modern hydrogen
>>>>>>> bombs use lithium-6 deuteride, and lithium-6, like
>>>>>>> deuterium, is stable.
>>>>>> What's the timeline on that? does Russia *have* any *modern*
>>>>>> hydrogen bombs? Or are they still working with old Soviet
>>>>>> stock?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So while the author used "basic physics" to reach his
>>>>>>> conclusions, he neglected to check his facts even to the
>>>>>>> extent of peeking at Wikipedia.
>>>>>> Both nuclear warheads (of all types) and missiles require a
>>>>>> lot of other mainteance, as well, which is, for the most
>>>>>> part, high tech, requiring a high degree of skill and a lot
>>>>>> of money.
>>>>>
>>>>> This isn't an area where you want to bet your life on Russian
>>>>> corruption or incompetence.
>>>>>
>>>> You don't want to bet against it, either.
>>>
>>> Given their past results, I would not bet against them.
>>>
>> Which them are we talking about? You would not bet against the
>> Russians based on their past results? You're saying their
>> achievments in Ukraine have impressed you with their competence?
>
>I was specifically talking about 715 detonations of nuclear bombs by the
>Russians over the years. They know what they are doing with nuclear
>weapons.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

That was then, this is now. They used to have a large army; now, it is
getting smaller every day.

As was pointed out, they require significant maintenance, even when
using LiD in the secondary (and I don't believe they have a NIF equivalent.)

In article <ht98L.20665$TUR8.5682@fx17.iad>,
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>>On 10/31/2022 2:47 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:tjnf3b$1o0a$1@gioia.aioe.org:
>>>
>>>> On 10/30/2022 7:55 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>>> "pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:fc63eebd-32d2-4e19-a8c8-96137f32753bn@googlegroups.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Saturday, October 29, 2022 at 7:17:21 PM UTC-4, Ninapenda
>>>>>> Jibini wrote:
>>>>>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:ceaace75-7ee0-426b...@googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>>> I was reading an article that claimed that there was a good
>>>>>>>> chance that Russia's nuclear arsenal was actually
>>>>>>>> inoperative due to Russia's economic woes and war in
>>>>>>>> Ukraine.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The logic was that tritium has a short half-life, and costs
>>>>>>>> a lot of money to make.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Too bad that only the earliest hydrogen bombs used deuterium
>>>>>>>> and tritium and needed regular topping-up. Modern hydrogen
>>>>>>>> bombs use lithium-6 deuteride, and lithium-6, like
>>>>>>>> deuterium, is stable.
>>>>>>> What's the timeline on that? does Russia *have* any *modern*
>>>>>>> hydrogen bombs? Or are they still working with old Soviet
>>>>>>> stock?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So while the author used "basic physics" to reach his
>>>>>>>> conclusions, he neglected to check his facts even to the
>>>>>>>> extent of peeking at Wikipedia.
>>>>>>> Both nuclear warheads (of all types) and missiles require a
>>>>>>> lot of other mainteance, as well, which is, for the most
>>>>>>> part, high tech, requiring a high degree of skill and a lot
>>>>>>> of money.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This isn't an area where you want to bet your life on Russian
>>>>>> corruption or incompetence.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You don't want to bet against it, either.
>>>>
>>>> Given their past results, I would not bet against them.
>>>>
>>> Which them are we talking about? You would not bet against the
>>> Russians based on their past results? You're saying their
>>> achievments in Ukraine have impressed you with their competence?
>>
>>I was specifically talking about 715 detonations of nuclear
>bombs by the
>>Russians over the years. They know what they are doing with nuclear
>>weapons.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
>
>That was then, this is now. They used to have a large army; now, it is
>getting smaller every day.
>
Reportedly, the Russians are offering a deal in which grain
shipments will be left unmolested if the Ukrainians promise
to stop sinking Russian ships. Asking the enemy to pleeeease
spare one's ships is a classic power move.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

On Tue, 1 Nov 2022 13:53:21 -0000 (UTC), jdnicoll@panix.com (James
Nicoll) wrote:

>In article <ht98L.20665$TUR8.5682@fx17.iad>,
>Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>>>On 10/31/2022 2:47 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>> news:tjnf3b$1o0a$1@gioia.aioe.org:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/30/2022 7:55 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>>>> "pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:fc63eebd-32d2-4e19-a8c8-96137f32753bn@googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Saturday, October 29, 2022 at 7:17:21 PM UTC-4, Ninapenda
>>>>>>> Jibini wrote:
>>>>>>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:ceaace75-7ee0-426b...@googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>>>> I was reading an article that claimed that there was a good
>>>>>>>>> chance that Russia's nuclear arsenal was actually
>>>>>>>>> inoperative due to Russia's economic woes and war in
>>>>>>>>> Ukraine.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The logic was that tritium has a short half-life, and costs
>>>>>>>>> a lot of money to make.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Too bad that only the earliest hydrogen bombs used deuterium
>>>>>>>>> and tritium and needed regular topping-up. Modern hydrogen
>>>>>>>>> bombs use lithium-6 deuteride, and lithium-6, like
>>>>>>>>> deuterium, is stable.
>>>>>>>> What's the timeline on that? does Russia *have* any *modern*
>>>>>>>> hydrogen bombs? Or are they still working with old Soviet
>>>>>>>> stock?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So while the author used "basic physics" to reach his
>>>>>>>>> conclusions, he neglected to check his facts even to the
>>>>>>>>> extent of peeking at Wikipedia.
>>>>>>>> Both nuclear warheads (of all types) and missiles require a
>>>>>>>> lot of other mainteance, as well, which is, for the most
>>>>>>>> part, high tech, requiring a high degree of skill and a lot
>>>>>>>> of money.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This isn't an area where you want to bet your life on Russian
>>>>>>> corruption or incompetence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't want to bet against it, either.
>>>>>
>>>>> Given their past results, I would not bet against them.
>>>>>
>>>> Which them are we talking about? You would not bet against the
>>>> Russians based on their past results? You're saying their
>>>> achievments in Ukraine have impressed you with their competence?
>>>
>>>I was specifically talking about 715 detonations of nuclear
>>bombs by the
>>>Russians over the years. They know what they are doing with nuclear
>>>weapons.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
>>
>>That was then, this is now. They used to have a large army; now, it is
>>getting smaller every day.
>>
>Reportedly, the Russians are offering a deal in which grain
>shipments will be left unmolested if the Ukrainians promise
>to stop sinking Russian ships. Asking the enemy to pleeeease
>spare one's ships is a classic power move.

I'm not sure I am following you here.

There is, in historical Naval circles, a concept known as "Fleet in
Being". The core idea behind it is that naval vessels take a long long
time to replace, so it is best not to lose any of them. The easiest
way to do /that/ is to never let them leave Port in time of war.

The result is that they are built and not used except as a threat. A
bluff that neither side is willing to call because both sides are
running the same bluff and want to keep their fleets in existence.

So, this is probably a desire on Putin's part to keep his fleet
floating so he can /threaten/ to use it. But not use it, because that
would risk losing it.

Of course, he /could/ simply build a new home port in actual Russian
territory on the Black Sea and moving the fleet there. Sevastople is
fair game because the Crimea is still considered part of Ukraine by
most of the world.

WWII in the Pacific is, of course, clearly an exception. But there was
very little choice in that case on both sides, as the soldiers used to
seize and hold ground couldn't wade across the Pacific on their own
feet.

And, of course, Midway (and other battles) showed that winning a major
fleet action could severely impact the enemy. Even with those
new-fangled aircraft carriers lording it over the battleships.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
news:tjqdb4$1j95$1@gioia.aioe.org:

> On 10/31/2022 2:47 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:tjnf3b$1o0a$1@gioia.aioe.org:
>>
>>> On 10/30/2022 7:55 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
>>> wrote:
>>>> "pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>> news:fc63eebd-32d2-4e19-a8c8-96137f32753bn@googlegroups.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Saturday, October 29, 2022 at 7:17:21 PM UTC-4, Ninapenda
>>>>> Jibini wrote:
>>>>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>>>>>> news:ceaace75-7ee0-426b...@googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>> I was reading an article that claimed that there was a
>>>>>>> good chance that Russia's nuclear arsenal was actually
>>>>>>> inoperative due to Russia's economic woes and war in
>>>>>>> Ukraine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The logic was that tritium has a short half-life, and
>>>>>>> costs a lot of money to make.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Too bad that only the earliest hydrogen bombs used
>>>>>>> deuterium and tritium and needed regular topping-up.
>>>>>>> Modern hydrogen bombs use lithium-6 deuteride, and
>>>>>>> lithium-6, like deuterium, is stable.
>>>>>> What's the timeline on that? does Russia *have* any
>>>>>> *modern* hydrogen bombs? Or are they still working with old
>>>>>> Soviet stock?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So while the author used "basic physics" to reach his
>>>>>>> conclusions, he neglected to check his facts even to the
>>>>>>> extent of peeking at Wikipedia.
>>>>>> Both nuclear warheads (of all types) and missiles require a
>>>>>> lot of other mainteance, as well, which is, for the most
>>>>>> part, high tech, requiring a high degree of skill and a lot
>>>>>> of money.
>>>>>
>>>>> This isn't an area where you want to bet your life on
>>>>> Russian corruption or incompetence.
>>>>>
>>>> You don't want to bet against it, either.
>>>
>>> Given their past results, I would not bet against them.
>>>
>> Which them are we talking about? You would not bet against the
>> Russians based on their past results? You're saying their
>> achievments in Ukraine have impressed you with their
>> competence?
>
> I was specifically talking about 715 detonations of nuclear
> bombs by the Russians over the years. They know what they are
> doing with nuclear weapons.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_mass_dest
> ruction
>
And how long has it been since the last one? As has been discussed,
these things require maintenance. And it's never been clear -
perhaps even to the Soviets - how many would actually *work* in a
mass launch.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

In article <caf2mhtggiqmqnh07bvkr54l7vc4saeh15@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

> On Tue, 1 Nov 2022 13:53:21 -0000 (UTC), jdnicoll@panix.com (James
> Nicoll) wrote:
>
> >In article <ht98L.20665$TUR8.5682@fx17.iad>,
> >Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
> >>>On 10/31/2022 2:47 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> >>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
> >>>> news:tjnf3b$1o0a$1@gioia.aioe.org:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 10/30/2022 7:55 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> >>>>>> "pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in
> >>>>>> news:fc63eebd-32d2-4e19-a8c8-96137f32753bn@googlegroups.com:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Saturday, October 29, 2022 at 7:17:21 PM UTC-4, Ninapenda
> >>>>>>> Jibini wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
> >>>>>>>> news:ceaace75-7ee0-426b...@googlegroups.com:
> >>>>>>>>> I was reading an article that claimed that there was a good
> >>>>>>>>> chance that Russia's nuclear arsenal was actually
> >>>>>>>>> inoperative due to Russia's economic woes and war in
> >>>>>>>>> Ukraine.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The logic was that tritium has a short half-life, and costs
> >>>>>>>>> a lot of money to make.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Too bad that only the earliest hydrogen bombs used deuterium
> >>>>>>>>> and tritium and needed regular topping-up. Modern hydrogen
> >>>>>>>>> bombs use lithium-6 deuteride, and lithium-6, like
> >>>>>>>>> deuterium, is stable.
> >>>>>>>> What's the timeline on that? does Russia *have* any *modern*
> >>>>>>>> hydrogen bombs? Or are they still working with old Soviet
> >>>>>>>> stock?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> So while the author used "basic physics" to reach his
> >>>>>>>>> conclusions, he neglected to check his facts even to the
> >>>>>>>>> extent of peeking at Wikipedia.
> >>>>>>>> Both nuclear warheads (of all types) and missiles require a
> >>>>>>>> lot of other mainteance, as well, which is, for the most
> >>>>>>>> part, high tech, requiring a high degree of skill and a lot
> >>>>>>>> of money.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This isn't an area where you want to bet your life on Russian
> >>>>>>> corruption or incompetence.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> You don't want to bet against it, either.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Given their past results, I would not bet against them.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Which them are we talking about? You would not bet against the
> >>>> Russians based on their past results? You're saying their
> >>>> achievments in Ukraine have impressed you with their competence?
> >>>
> >>>I was specifically talking about 715 detonations of nuclear
> >>bombs by the
> >>>Russians over the years. They know what they are doing with nuclear
> >>>weapons.
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
> >>
> >>That was then, this is now. They used to have a large army; now, it is
> >>getting smaller every day.
> >>
> >Reportedly, the Russians are offering a deal in which grain
> >shipments will be left unmolested if the Ukrainians promise
> >to stop sinking Russian ships. Asking the enemy to pleeeease
> >spare one's ships is a classic power move.
>
> I'm not sure I am following you here.
>
> There is, in historical Naval circles, a concept known as "Fleet in
> Being". The core idea behind it is that naval vessels take a long long
> time to replace, so it is best not to lose any of them. The easiest
> way to do /that/ is to never let them leave Port in time of war.
>

This concept was not followed by the Royal Navy. BTW, I once saw a table
of ship losses for the European navies in the period 1793-1815; the
English list was about as long as the Spanish and French lists combined.
However, the English list was dominated by losses due to storms and
unknown rocks while the Spanish and French lists were dominated by
battle losses (mostly captured by the English).

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
-------------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com

On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 10:52:46 AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Nov 2022 13:53:21 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
> Nicoll) wrote:
>
> >In article <ht98L.20665$TUR8...@fx17.iad>,
> >Scott Lurndal <sl...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> writes:
> >>>On 10/31/2022 2:47 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> >>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >>>> news:tjnf3b$1o0a$1...@gioia.aioe.org:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 10/30/2022 7:55 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> >>>>>> "pete...@gmail.com" <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >>>>>> news:fc63eebd-32d2-4e19...@googlegroups.com:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Saturday, October 29, 2022 at 7:17:21 PM UTC-4, Ninapenda
> >>>>>>> Jibini wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
> >>>>>>>> news:ceaace75-7ee0-426b...@googlegroups.com:
> >>>>>>>>> I was reading an article that claimed that there was a good
> >>>>>>>>> chance that Russia's nuclear arsenal was actually
> >>>>>>>>> inoperative due to Russia's economic woes and war in
> >>>>>>>>> Ukraine.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The logic was that tritium has a short half-life, and costs
> >>>>>>>>> a lot of money to make.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Too bad that only the earliest hydrogen bombs used deuterium
> >>>>>>>>> and tritium and needed regular topping-up. Modern hydrogen
> >>>>>>>>> bombs use lithium-6 deuteride, and lithium-6, like
> >>>>>>>>> deuterium, is stable.
> >>>>>>>> What's the timeline on that? does Russia *have* any *modern*
> >>>>>>>> hydrogen bombs? Or are they still working with old Soviet
> >>>>>>>> stock?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> So while the author used "basic physics" to reach his
> >>>>>>>>> conclusions, he neglected to check his facts even to the
> >>>>>>>>> extent of peeking at Wikipedia.
> >>>>>>>> Both nuclear warheads (of all types) and missiles require a
> >>>>>>>> lot of other mainteance, as well, which is, for the most
> >>>>>>>> part, high tech, requiring a high degree of skill and a lot
> >>>>>>>> of money.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This isn't an area where you want to bet your life on Russian
> >>>>>>> corruption or incompetence.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> You don't want to bet against it, either.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Given their past results, I would not bet against them.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Which them are we talking about? You would not bet against the
> >>>> Russians based on their past results? You're saying their
> >>>> achievments in Ukraine have impressed you with their competence?
> >>>
> >>>I was specifically talking about 715 detonations of nuclear
> >>bombs by the
> >>>Russians over the years. They know what they are doing with nuclear
> >>>weapons.
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
> >>
> >>That was then, this is now. They used to have a large army; now, it is
> >>getting smaller every day.
> >>
> >Reportedly, the Russians are offering a deal in which grain
> >shipments will be left unmolested if the Ukrainians promise
> >to stop sinking Russian ships. Asking the enemy to pleeeease
> >spare one's ships is a classic power move.
> I'm not sure I am following you here.
>
> There is, in historical Naval circles, a concept known as "Fleet in
> Being". The core idea behind it is that naval vessels take a long long
> time to replace, so it is best not to lose any of them. The easiest
> way to do /that/ is to never let them leave Port in time of war.
>
> The result is that they are built and not used except as a threat. A
> bluff that neither side is willing to call because both sides are
> running the same bluff and want to keep their fleets in existence.
>
> So, this is probably a desire on Putin's part to keep his fleet
> floating so he can /threaten/ to use it. But not use it, because that
> would risk losing it.
>
> Of course, he /could/ simply build a new home port in actual Russian
> territory on the Black Sea and moving the fleet there. Sevastople is
> fair game because the Crimea is still considered part of Ukraine by
> most of the world.
>
> WWII in the Pacific is, of course, clearly an exception. But there was
> very little choice in that case on both sides, as the soldiers used to
> seize and hold ground couldn't wade across the Pacific on their own
> feet.
>
> And, of course, Midway (and other battles) showed that winning a major
> fleet action could severely impact the enemy. Even with those
> new-fangled aircraft carriers lording it over the battleships.
> --

'You go to war with the Navy you have, not the Navy you might
want or wish you had at a later time.'

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

On 11/1/2022 10:57 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:tjqdb4$1j95$1@gioia.aioe.org:
>
>> On 10/31/2022 2:47 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:tjnf3b$1o0a$1@gioia.aioe.org:
>>>
>>>> On 10/30/2022 7:55 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> "pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:fc63eebd-32d2-4e19-a8c8-96137f32753bn@googlegroups.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Saturday, October 29, 2022 at 7:17:21 PM UTC-4, Ninapenda
>>>>>> Jibini wrote:
>>>>>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:ceaace75-7ee0-426b...@googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>>> I was reading an article that claimed that there was a
>>>>>>>> good chance that Russia's nuclear arsenal was actually
>>>>>>>> inoperative due to Russia's economic woes and war in
>>>>>>>> Ukraine.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The logic was that tritium has a short half-life, and
>>>>>>>> costs a lot of money to make.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Too bad that only the earliest hydrogen bombs used
>>>>>>>> deuterium and tritium and needed regular topping-up.
>>>>>>>> Modern hydrogen bombs use lithium-6 deuteride, and
>>>>>>>> lithium-6, like deuterium, is stable.
>>>>>>> What's the timeline on that? does Russia *have* any
>>>>>>> *modern* hydrogen bombs? Or are they still working with old
>>>>>>> Soviet stock?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So while the author used "basic physics" to reach his
>>>>>>>> conclusions, he neglected to check his facts even to the
>>>>>>>> extent of peeking at Wikipedia.
>>>>>>> Both nuclear warheads (of all types) and missiles require a
>>>>>>> lot of other mainteance, as well, which is, for the most
>>>>>>> part, high tech, requiring a high degree of skill and a lot
>>>>>>> of money.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This isn't an area where you want to bet your life on
>>>>>> Russian corruption or incompetence.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You don't want to bet against it, either.
>>>>
>>>> Given their past results, I would not bet against them.
>>>>
>>> Which them are we talking about? You would not bet against the
>>> Russians based on their past results? You're saying their
>>> achievments in Ukraine have impressed you with their
>>> competence?
>>
>> I was specifically talking about 715 detonations of nuclear
>> bombs by the Russians over the years. They know what they are
>> doing with nuclear weapons.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_mass_dest
>> ruction
>>
> And how long has it been since the last one? As has been discussed,
> these things require maintenance. And it's never been clear -
> perhaps even to the Soviets - how many would actually *work* in a
> mass launch.

There is that. But, who wants to volunteer to be tested on by the
Russians ? Not me.

Lynn

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
news:tjru3c$rg3h$2@dont-email.me:

> On 11/1/2022 10:57 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:tjqdb4$1j95$1@gioia.aioe.org:
>>
>>> On 10/31/2022 2:47 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
>>> wrote:
>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>> news:tjnf3b$1o0a$1@gioia.aioe.org:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/30/2022 7:55 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> "pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:fc63eebd-32d2-4e19-a8c8-96137f32753bn@googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Saturday, October 29, 2022 at 7:17:21 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>> Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>>>>>>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:ceaace75-7ee0-426b...@googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>>>> I was reading an article that claimed that there was a
>>>>>>>>> good chance that Russia's nuclear arsenal was actually
>>>>>>>>> inoperative due to Russia's economic woes and war in
>>>>>>>>> Ukraine.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The logic was that tritium has a short half-life, and
>>>>>>>>> costs a lot of money to make.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Too bad that only the earliest hydrogen bombs used
>>>>>>>>> deuterium and tritium and needed regular topping-up.
>>>>>>>>> Modern hydrogen bombs use lithium-6 deuteride, and
>>>>>>>>> lithium-6, like deuterium, is stable.
>>>>>>>> What's the timeline on that? does Russia *have* any
>>>>>>>> *modern* hydrogen bombs? Or are they still working with
>>>>>>>> old Soviet stock?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So while the author used "basic physics" to reach his
>>>>>>>>> conclusions, he neglected to check his facts even to the
>>>>>>>>> extent of peeking at Wikipedia.
>>>>>>>> Both nuclear warheads (of all types) and missiles require
>>>>>>>> a lot of other mainteance, as well, which is, for the
>>>>>>>> most part, high tech, requiring a high degree of skill
>>>>>>>> and a lot of money.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This isn't an area where you want to bet your life on
>>>>>>> Russian corruption or incompetence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't want to bet against it, either.
>>>>>
>>>>> Given their past results, I would not bet against them.
>>>>>
>>>> Which them are we talking about? You would not bet against
>>>> the Russians based on their past results? You're saying their
>>>> achievments in Ukraine have impressed you with their
>>>> competence?
>>>
>>> I was specifically talking about 715 detonations of nuclear
>>> bombs by the Russians over the years. They know what they are
>>> doing with nuclear weapons.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_mass_d
>>> est ruction
>>>
>> And how long has it been since the last one? As has been
>> discussed, these things require maintenance. And it's never
>> been clear - perhaps even to the Soviets - how many would
>> actually *work* in a mass launch.
>
> There is that. But, who wants to volunteer to be tested on by
> the Russians ? Not me.
>
I wouldn't volunteer to be on the launch crew, who might well be in
more danger than the target.

But all things considered - Putin is now actually offering terms
(insane, stupid terms, but still) - if Putin felt he had working
nuclear missiles, the ability to launch them (and get them to the
target), and, most important, underlings who would follow the
orders (there are apparently *five* levels of command between him
and the launch buttons, all of which much unanimously agree to the
launch), I think he would have tried by now. And, if some British
tabloid reports are accurate (heh), he *has*, and been told "no" by
his own inner circle (who are *clearly* planning their exist
strategy, hoping to avoid war crimes trials).

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On 11/1/2022 3:45 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:tjru3c$rg3h$2@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 11/1/2022 10:57 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:tjqdb4$1j95$1@gioia.aioe.org:
>>>
>>>> On 10/31/2022 2:47 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:tjnf3b$1o0a$1@gioia.aioe.org:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/30/2022 7:55 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> "pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:fc63eebd-32d2-4e19-a8c8-96137f32753bn@googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Saturday, October 29, 2022 at 7:17:21 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>> Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:ceaace75-7ee0-426b...@googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>>>>> I was reading an article that claimed that there was a
>>>>>>>>>> good chance that Russia's nuclear arsenal was actually
>>>>>>>>>> inoperative due to Russia's economic woes and war in
>>>>>>>>>> Ukraine.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The logic was that tritium has a short half-life, and
>>>>>>>>>> costs a lot of money to make.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Too bad that only the earliest hydrogen bombs used
>>>>>>>>>> deuterium and tritium and needed regular topping-up.
>>>>>>>>>> Modern hydrogen bombs use lithium-6 deuteride, and
>>>>>>>>>> lithium-6, like deuterium, is stable.
>>>>>>>>> What's the timeline on that? does Russia *have* any
>>>>>>>>> *modern* hydrogen bombs? Or are they still working with
>>>>>>>>> old Soviet stock?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So while the author used "basic physics" to reach his
>>>>>>>>>> conclusions, he neglected to check his facts even to the
>>>>>>>>>> extent of peeking at Wikipedia.
>>>>>>>>> Both nuclear warheads (of all types) and missiles require
>>>>>>>>> a lot of other mainteance, as well, which is, for the
>>>>>>>>> most part, high tech, requiring a high degree of skill
>>>>>>>>> and a lot of money.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This isn't an area where you want to bet your life on
>>>>>>>> Russian corruption or incompetence.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You don't want to bet against it, either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given their past results, I would not bet against them.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Which them are we talking about? You would not bet against
>>>>> the Russians based on their past results? You're saying their
>>>>> achievments in Ukraine have impressed you with their
>>>>> competence?
>>>>
>>>> I was specifically talking about 715 detonations of nuclear
>>>> bombs by the Russians over the years. They know what they are
>>>> doing with nuclear weapons.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_mass_d
>>>> est ruction
>>>>
>>> And how long has it been since the last one? As has been
>>> discussed, these things require maintenance. And it's never
>>> been clear - perhaps even to the Soviets - how many would
>>> actually *work* in a mass launch.
>>
>> There is that. But, who wants to volunteer to be tested on by
>> the Russians ? Not me.
>>
> I wouldn't volunteer to be on the launch crew, who might well be in
> more danger than the target.
>
> But all things considered - Putin is now actually offering terms
> (insane, stupid terms, but still) - if Putin felt he had working
> nuclear missiles, the ability to launch them (and get them to the
> target), and, most important, underlings who would follow the
> orders (there are apparently *five* levels of command between him
> and the launch buttons, all of which much unanimously agree to the
> launch), I think he would have tried by now. And, if some British
> tabloid reports are accurate (heh), he *has*, and been told "no" by
> his own inner circle (who are *clearly* planning their exist
> strategy, hoping to avoid war crimes trials).

I highly suspect that the KGB are insanely loyal to Putin and would
enforce any of his edicts. Those military officers have families and
the KGB could arrest them.

Lynn

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
news:tjs1pb$rlkl$3@dont-email.me:

> On 11/1/2022 3:45 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:tjru3c$rg3h$2@dont-email.me:
>>
>>> On 11/1/2022 10:57 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
>>> wrote:
>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>> news:tjqdb4$1j95$1@gioia.aioe.org:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/31/2022 2:47 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:tjnf3b$1o0a$1@gioia.aioe.org:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/30/2022 7:55 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:fc63eebd-32d2-4e19-a8c8-96137f32753bn@googlegroups.co
>>>>>>>> m:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, October 29, 2022 at 7:17:21 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>> Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> news:ceaace75-7ee0-426b...@googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>>>>>> I was reading an article that claimed that there was a
>>>>>>>>>>> good chance that Russia's nuclear arsenal was actually
>>>>>>>>>>> inoperative due to Russia's economic woes and war in
>>>>>>>>>>> Ukraine.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The logic was that tritium has a short half-life, and
>>>>>>>>>>> costs a lot of money to make.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Too bad that only the earliest hydrogen bombs used
>>>>>>>>>>> deuterium and tritium and needed regular topping-up.
>>>>>>>>>>> Modern hydrogen bombs use lithium-6 deuteride, and
>>>>>>>>>>> lithium-6, like deuterium, is stable.
>>>>>>>>>> What's the timeline on that? does Russia *have* any
>>>>>>>>>> *modern* hydrogen bombs? Or are they still working with
>>>>>>>>>> old Soviet stock?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So while the author used "basic physics" to reach his
>>>>>>>>>>> conclusions, he neglected to check his facts even to
>>>>>>>>>>> the extent of peeking at Wikipedia.
>>>>>>>>>> Both nuclear warheads (of all types) and missiles
>>>>>>>>>> require a lot of other mainteance, as well, which is,
>>>>>>>>>> for the most part, high tech, requiring a high degree
>>>>>>>>>> of skill and a lot of money.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This isn't an area where you want to bet your life on
>>>>>>>>> Russian corruption or incompetence.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You don't want to bet against it, either.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Given their past results, I would not bet against them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which them are we talking about? You would not bet against
>>>>>> the Russians based on their past results? You're saying
>>>>>> their achievments in Ukraine have impressed you with their
>>>>>> competence?
>>>>>
>>>>> I was specifically talking about 715 detonations of nuclear
>>>>> bombs by the Russians over the years. They know what they
>>>>> are doing with nuclear weapons.
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_mas
>>>>> s_d est ruction
>>>>>
>>>> And how long has it been since the last one? As has been
>>>> discussed, these things require maintenance. And it's never
>>>> been clear - perhaps even to the Soviets - how many would
>>>> actually *work* in a mass launch.
>>>
>>> There is that. But, who wants to volunteer to be tested on by
>>> the Russians ? Not me.
>>>
>> I wouldn't volunteer to be on the launch crew, who might well
>> be in more danger than the target.
>>
>> But all things considered - Putin is now actually offering
>> terms (insane, stupid terms, but still) - if Putin felt he had
>> working nuclear missiles, the ability to launch them (and get
>> them to the target), and, most important, underlings who would
>> follow the orders (there are apparently *five* levels of
>> command between him and the launch buttons, all of which much
>> unanimously agree to the launch), I think he would have tried
>> by now. And, if some British tabloid reports are accurate
>> (heh), he *has*, and been told "no" by his own inner circle
>> (who are *clearly* planning their exist strategy, hoping to
>> avoid war crimes trials).
>
> I highly suspect that the KGB are insanely loyal to Putin and
> would enforce any of his edicts. Those military officers have
> families and the KGB could arrest them.
>
US nukes require two keys to arm, one in civilian hands, the other
in military. It takes both.

Soviet nukes required *three*, the Kremlin, the KGB (civilian) and
the GRU (military), none of whom trusted each other at all. Without
all three, their nukes couldn't be armed. I see no reason to
believe that the systems have been updated in any meaingful way.

And those army officers have soldiers to who can literally make war
on the FSB and the SVR (KGB hasn't existed since the USSR ceased
to), so they're well equipped to engage in saber rattling. And they
know full well what the consequences would be to Russia using a
nuclear weapon, and if they're sane, they're more afraid of western
retribution than they are of the FSB. And should be. The FSB will
only kill them (if they can). Realistically, both the FSB and the
military would be better off fightign a civil war than inviting
that retribution.

It isn't a question of whether or not Putin has stupidly insane,
fanatically loyal people in key positions, it's whether or not he
has them in *all* the positions needed to actually try to launch a
nuke.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 3:52:46 PM UTC, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Nov 2022 13:53:21 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
> Nicoll) wrote:
>
> >In article <ht98L.20665$TUR8...@fx17.iad>,
> >Scott Lurndal <sl...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> writes:
> >>>On 10/31/2022 2:47 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> >>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >>>> news:tjnf3b$1o0a$1...@gioia.aioe.org:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 10/30/2022 7:55 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> >>>>>> "pete...@gmail.com" <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >>>>>> news:fc63eebd-32d2-4e19...@googlegroups.com:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Saturday, October 29, 2022 at 7:17:21 PM UTC-4, Ninapenda
> >>>>>>> Jibini wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
> >>>>>>>> news:ceaace75-7ee0-426b...@googlegroups.com:
> >>>>>>>>> I was reading an article that claimed that there was a good
> >>>>>>>>> chance that Russia's nuclear arsenal was actually
> >>>>>>>>> inoperative due to Russia's economic woes and war in
> >>>>>>>>> Ukraine.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The logic was that tritium has a short half-life, and costs
> >>>>>>>>> a lot of money to make.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Too bad that only the earliest hydrogen bombs used deuterium
> >>>>>>>>> and tritium and needed regular topping-up. Modern hydrogen
> >>>>>>>>> bombs use lithium-6 deuteride, and lithium-6, like
> >>>>>>>>> deuterium, is stable.
> >>>>>>>> What's the timeline on that? does Russia *have* any *modern*
> >>>>>>>> hydrogen bombs? Or are they still working with old Soviet
> >>>>>>>> stock?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> So while the author used "basic physics" to reach his
> >>>>>>>>> conclusions, he neglected to check his facts even to the
> >>>>>>>>> extent of peeking at Wikipedia.
> >>>>>>>> Both nuclear warheads (of all types) and missiles require a
> >>>>>>>> lot of other mainteance, as well, which is, for the most
> >>>>>>>> part, high tech, requiring a high degree of skill and a lot
> >>>>>>>> of money.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This isn't an area where you want to bet your life on Russian
> >>>>>>> corruption or incompetence.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> You don't want to bet against it, either.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Given their past results, I would not bet against them.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Which them are we talking about? You would not bet against the
> >>>> Russians based on their past results? You're saying their
> >>>> achievments in Ukraine have impressed you with their competence?
> >>>
> >>>I was specifically talking about 715 detonations of nuclear
> >>bombs by the
> >>>Russians over the years. They know what they are doing with nuclear
> >>>weapons.
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
> >>
> >>That was then, this is now. They used to have a large army; now, it is
> >>getting smaller every day.
> >>
> >Reportedly, the Russians are offering a deal in which grain
> >shipments will be left unmolested if the Ukrainians promise
> >to stop sinking Russian ships. Asking the enemy to pleeeease
> >spare one's ships is a classic power move.
> I'm not sure I am following you here.
>
> There is, in historical Naval circles, a concept known as "Fleet in
> Being". The core idea behind it is that naval vessels take a long long
> time to replace, so it is best not to lose any of them. The easiest
> way to do /that/ is to never let them leave Port in time of war.
>
> The result is that they are built and not used except as a threat. A
> bluff that neither side is willing to call because both sides are
> running the same bluff and want to keep their fleets in existence.
>
> So, this is probably a desire on Putin's part to keep his fleet
> floating so he can /threaten/ to use it. But not use it, because that
> would risk losing it.
>
> Of course, he /could/ simply build a new home port in actual Russian
> territory on the Black Sea and moving the fleet there. Sevastople is
> fair game because the Crimea is still considered part of Ukraine by
> most of the world.
>
> WWII in the Pacific is, of course, clearly an exception. But there was
> very little choice in that case on both sides, as the soldiers used to
> seize and hold ground couldn't wade across the Pacific on their own
> feet.
>
> And, of course, Midway (and other battles) showed that winning a major
> fleet action could severely impact the enemy. Even with those
> new-fangled aircraft carriers lording it over the battleships.
> --
> "In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
> development was the disintegration, under Christian
> influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
> of family right."
A fleet in being is a threat, but it has to be a credible threat. If the enemy knows that it will never actually leave port, it might as well not be there. The track record of the Russian Navy in this context suggests that any ships that get involved in action with the Ukrainians will be sunk. This does not dissuade the Ukranian Navy from anything.

On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 1:25:23 AM UTC-4, mcdow...@sky.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 3:52:46 PM UTC, Paul S Person wrote:
> > On Tue, 1 Nov 2022 13:53:21 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
> > Nicoll) wrote:
> >
> > >In article <ht98L.20665$TUR8...@fx17.iad>,
> > >Scott Lurndal <sl...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > >>Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> writes:
> > >>>On 10/31/2022 2:47 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> > >>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > >>>> news:tjnf3b$1o0a$1...@gioia.aioe.org:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On 10/30/2022 7:55 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> > >>>>>> "pete...@gmail.com" <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > >>>>>> news:fc63eebd-32d2-4e19...@googlegroups.com:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Saturday, October 29, 2022 at 7:17:21 PM UTC-4, Ninapenda
> > >>>>>>> Jibini wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
> > >>>>>>>> news:ceaace75-7ee0-426b...@googlegroups.com:
> > >>>>>>>>> I was reading an article that claimed that there was a good
> > >>>>>>>>> chance that Russia's nuclear arsenal was actually
> > >>>>>>>>> inoperative due to Russia's economic woes and war in
> > >>>>>>>>> Ukraine.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> The logic was that tritium has a short half-life, and costs
> > >>>>>>>>> a lot of money to make.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Too bad that only the earliest hydrogen bombs used deuterium
> > >>>>>>>>> and tritium and needed regular topping-up. Modern hydrogen
> > >>>>>>>>> bombs use lithium-6 deuteride, and lithium-6, like
> > >>>>>>>>> deuterium, is stable.
> > >>>>>>>> What's the timeline on that? does Russia *have* any *modern*
> > >>>>>>>> hydrogen bombs? Or are they still working with old Soviet
> > >>>>>>>> stock?
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> So while the author used "basic physics" to reach his
> > >>>>>>>>> conclusions, he neglected to check his facts even to the
> > >>>>>>>>> extent of peeking at Wikipedia.
> > >>>>>>>> Both nuclear warheads (of all types) and missiles require a
> > >>>>>>>> lot of other mainteance, as well, which is, for the most
> > >>>>>>>> part, high tech, requiring a high degree of skill and a lot
> > >>>>>>>> of money.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> This isn't an area where you want to bet your life on Russian
> > >>>>>>> corruption or incompetence.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>> You don't want to bet against it, either.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Given their past results, I would not bet against them.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> Which them are we talking about? You would not bet against the
> > >>>> Russians based on their past results? You're saying their
> > >>>> achievments in Ukraine have impressed you with their competence?
> > >>>
> > >>>I was specifically talking about 715 detonations of nuclear
> > >>bombs by the
> > >>>Russians over the years. They know what they are doing with nuclear
> > >>>weapons.
> > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
> > >>
> > >>That was then, this is now. They used to have a large army; now, it is
> > >>getting smaller every day.
> > >>
> > >Reportedly, the Russians are offering a deal in which grain
> > >shipments will be left unmolested if the Ukrainians promise
> > >to stop sinking Russian ships. Asking the enemy to pleeeease
> > >spare one's ships is a classic power move.
> > I'm not sure I am following you here.
> >
> > There is, in historical Naval circles, a concept known as "Fleet in
> > Being". The core idea behind it is that naval vessels take a long long
> > time to replace, so it is best not to lose any of them. The easiest
> > way to do /that/ is to never let them leave Port in time of war.
> >
> > The result is that they are built and not used except as a threat. A
> > bluff that neither side is willing to call because both sides are
> > running the same bluff and want to keep their fleets in existence.
> >
> > So, this is probably a desire on Putin's part to keep his fleet
> > floating so he can /threaten/ to use it. But not use it, because that
> > would risk losing it.
> >
> > Of course, he /could/ simply build a new home port in actual Russian
> > territory on the Black Sea and moving the fleet there. Sevastople is
> > fair game because the Crimea is still considered part of Ukraine by
> > most of the world.
> >
> > WWII in the Pacific is, of course, clearly an exception. But there was
> > very little choice in that case on both sides, as the soldiers used to
> > seize and hold ground couldn't wade across the Pacific on their own
> > feet.
> >
> > And, of course, Midway (and other battles) showed that winning a major
> > fleet action could severely impact the enemy. Even with those
> > new-fangled aircraft carriers lording it over the battleships.
> > --
> > "In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
> > development was the disintegration, under Christian
> > influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
> > of family right."
> A fleet in being is a threat, but it has to be a credible threat. If the enemy knows that it will never actually leave port, it might as well not be there. The track record of the Russian Navy in this context suggests that any ships that get involved in action with the Ukrainians will be sunk. This does not dissuade the Ukranian Navy from anything.

The ships are actually in engaged in war crimes - they are one of the sources of the
missiles currently destroying civilian targets in Ukraine.

They are legitimate targets.

pt

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> on Tue, 1 Nov 2022 16:06:51
-0500 typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
>On 11/1/2022 3:45 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:tjru3c$rg3h$2@dont-email.me:
[snip]
>>>>> I was specifically talking about 715 detonations of nuclear
>>>>> bombs by the Russians over the years. They know what they are
>>>>> doing with nuclear weapons.
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_mass_d
>>>>> est ruction
>>>>>
>>>> And how long has it been since the last one? As has been
>>>> discussed, these things require maintenance. And it's never
>>>> been clear - perhaps even to the Soviets - how many would
>>>> actually *work* in a mass launch.
>>>
>>> There is that. But, who wants to volunteer to be tested on by
>>> the Russians ? Not me.
>>>
>> I wouldn't volunteer to be on the launch crew, who might well be in
>> more danger than the target.
>>
>> But all things considered - Putin is now actually offering terms
>> (insane, stupid terms, but still) - if Putin felt he had working
>> nuclear missiles, the ability to launch them (and get them to the
>> target), and, most important, underlings who would follow the
>> orders (there are apparently *five* levels of command between him
>> and the launch buttons, all of which much unanimously agree to the
>> launch), I think he would have tried by now. And, if some British
>> tabloid reports are accurate (heh), he *has*, and been told "no" by
>> his own inner circle (who are *clearly* planning their exist
>> strategy, hoping to avoid war crimes trials).
>
>I highly suspect that the KGB are insanely loyal to Putin and would
>enforce any of his edicts. Those military officers have families and
>the KGB could arrest them.

The issue is not necessarily whether the orders to launch will be
followed, but once given will the missiles launch, reach the target,
and detonate?

https://cdrsalamander.substack.com/p/want-a-nuke-wargame-ive-got-one-for

"Here is where the wargame starts. No one knows it but the
Russians right now, but at D+0 the Russians just tried to do an
airburst over Ukraine between Kyiv and the Donbass – they
actually tried twice – but neither missile detonated."

We have a few things to play out:

Red (Russia): What are your possible COAs from here?

Blue (USA/NATO): What will it take for you to know exactly what
happened here without inside sources? (judge will determine how
many turns Red gets before Blue/Green/White know)

Green (UKR): How long will it take for Ukrainian EOD to get there
and realize that is no normal warhead on that SS-21?

White (International Organizations/neutral nations/Pope/etc):
Possible reactions and timelines."

Now what?
--
pyotr filipivich
This Week's Panel: Us & Them - Eliminating Them.
Next Month's Panel: Having eliminated the old Them(tm)
Selecting who insufficiently Woke(tm) as to serve as the new Them(tm)

On Tue, 01 Nov 2022 09:53:42 -0700, Robert Woodward
<robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:

>In article <caf2mhtggiqmqnh07bvkr54l7vc4saeh15@4ax.com>,
> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 1 Nov 2022 13:53:21 -0000 (UTC), jdnicoll@panix.com (James
>> Nicoll) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <ht98L.20665$TUR8.5682@fx17.iad>,
>> >Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >>Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>> >>>On 10/31/2022 2:47 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> >>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >>>> news:tjnf3b$1o0a$1@gioia.aioe.org:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> On 10/30/2022 7:55 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> >>>>>> "pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >>>>>> news:fc63eebd-32d2-4e19-a8c8-96137f32753bn@googlegroups.com:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On Saturday, October 29, 2022 at 7:17:21 PM UTC-4, Ninapenda
>> >>>>>>> Jibini wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>> >>>>>>>> news:ceaace75-7ee0-426b...@googlegroups.com:
>> >>>>>>>>> I was reading an article that claimed that there was a good
>> >>>>>>>>> chance that Russia's nuclear arsenal was actually
>> >>>>>>>>> inoperative due to Russia's economic woes and war in
>> >>>>>>>>> Ukraine.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> The logic was that tritium has a short half-life, and costs
>> >>>>>>>>> a lot of money to make.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Too bad that only the earliest hydrogen bombs used deuterium
>> >>>>>>>>> and tritium and needed regular topping-up. Modern hydrogen
>> >>>>>>>>> bombs use lithium-6 deuteride, and lithium-6, like
>> >>>>>>>>> deuterium, is stable.
>> >>>>>>>> What's the timeline on that? does Russia *have* any *modern*
>> >>>>>>>> hydrogen bombs? Or are they still working with old Soviet
>> >>>>>>>> stock?
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> So while the author used "basic physics" to reach his
>> >>>>>>>>> conclusions, he neglected to check his facts even to the
>> >>>>>>>>> extent of peeking at Wikipedia.
>> >>>>>>>> Both nuclear warheads (of all types) and missiles require a
>> >>>>>>>> lot of other mainteance, as well, which is, for the most
>> >>>>>>>> part, high tech, requiring a high degree of skill and a lot
>> >>>>>>>> of money.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> This isn't an area where you want to bet your life on Russian
>> >>>>>>> corruption or incompetence.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>> You don't want to bet against it, either.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Given their past results, I would not bet against them.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> Which them are we talking about? You would not bet against the
>> >>>> Russians based on their past results? You're saying their
>> >>>> achievments in Ukraine have impressed you with their competence?
>> >>>
>> >>>I was specifically talking about 715 detonations of nuclear
>> >>bombs by the
>> >>>Russians over the years. They know what they are doing with nuclear
>> >>>weapons.
>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
>> >>
>> >>That was then, this is now. They used to have a large army; now, it is
>> >>getting smaller every day.
>> >>
>> >Reportedly, the Russians are offering a deal in which grain
>> >shipments will be left unmolested if the Ukrainians promise
>> >to stop sinking Russian ships. Asking the enemy to pleeeease
>> >spare one's ships is a classic power move.
>>
>> I'm not sure I am following you here.
>>
>> There is, in historical Naval circles, a concept known as "Fleet in
>> Being". The core idea behind it is that naval vessels take a long long
>> time to replace, so it is best not to lose any of them. The easiest
>> way to do /that/ is to never let them leave Port in time of war.
>>
>
>This concept was not followed by the Royal Navy. BTW, I once saw a table
>of ship losses for the European navies in the period 1793-1815; the
>English list was about as long as the Spanish and French lists combined.
>However, the English list was dominated by losses due to storms and
>unknown rocks while the Spanish and French lists were dominated by
>battle losses (mostly captured by the English).

That is another exception.

They didn't need to.

"Rule Britannia!
Britannia rule the waves"

They were also a seafaring people, dependent on shipping for trade.

Perhaps [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_in_being] would help make
the concept clearer.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Tue, 1 Nov 2022 22:25:20 -0700 (PDT), Andrew McDowell
<mcdowell_ag@sky.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 3:52:46 PM UTC, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Nov 2022 13:53:21 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
>> Nicoll) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <ht98L.20665$TUR8...@fx17.iad>,
>> >Scott Lurndal <sl...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >>Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> writes:
>> >>>On 10/31/2022 2:47 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> >>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >>>> news:tjnf3b$1o0a$1...@gioia.aioe.org:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> On 10/30/2022 7:55 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> >>>>>> "pete...@gmail.com" <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >>>>>> news:fc63eebd-32d2-4e19...@googlegroups.com:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On Saturday, October 29, 2022 at 7:17:21 PM UTC-4, Ninapenda
>> >>>>>>> Jibini wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>> >>>>>>>> news:ceaace75-7ee0-426b...@googlegroups.com:
>> >>>>>>>>> I was reading an article that claimed that there was a good
>> >>>>>>>>> chance that Russia's nuclear arsenal was actually
>> >>>>>>>>> inoperative due to Russia's economic woes and war in
>> >>>>>>>>> Ukraine.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> The logic was that tritium has a short half-life, and costs
>> >>>>>>>>> a lot of money to make.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Too bad that only the earliest hydrogen bombs used deuterium
>> >>>>>>>>> and tritium and needed regular topping-up. Modern hydrogen
>> >>>>>>>>> bombs use lithium-6 deuteride, and lithium-6, like
>> >>>>>>>>> deuterium, is stable.
>> >>>>>>>> What's the timeline on that? does Russia *have* any *modern*
>> >>>>>>>> hydrogen bombs? Or are they still working with old Soviet
>> >>>>>>>> stock?
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> So while the author used "basic physics" to reach his
>> >>>>>>>>> conclusions, he neglected to check his facts even to the
>> >>>>>>>>> extent of peeking at Wikipedia.
>> >>>>>>>> Both nuclear warheads (of all types) and missiles require a
>> >>>>>>>> lot of other mainteance, as well, which is, for the most
>> >>>>>>>> part, high tech, requiring a high degree of skill and a lot
>> >>>>>>>> of money.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> This isn't an area where you want to bet your life on Russian
>> >>>>>>> corruption or incompetence.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>> You don't want to bet against it, either.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Given their past results, I would not bet against them.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> Which them are we talking about? You would not bet against the
>> >>>> Russians based on their past results? You're saying their
>> >>>> achievments in Ukraine have impressed you with their competence?
>> >>>
>> >>>I was specifically talking about 715 detonations of nuclear
>> >>bombs by the
>> >>>Russians over the years. They know what they are doing with nuclear
>> >>>weapons.
>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
>> >>
>> >>That was then, this is now. They used to have a large army; now, it is
>> >>getting smaller every day.
>> >>
>> >Reportedly, the Russians are offering a deal in which grain
>> >shipments will be left unmolested if the Ukrainians promise
>> >to stop sinking Russian ships. Asking the enemy to pleeeease
>> >spare one's ships is a classic power move.
>> I'm not sure I am following you here.
>>
>> There is, in historical Naval circles, a concept known as "Fleet in
>> Being". The core idea behind it is that naval vessels take a long long
>> time to replace, so it is best not to lose any of them. The easiest
>> way to do /that/ is to never let them leave Port in time of war.
>>
>> The result is that they are built and not used except as a threat. A
>> bluff that neither side is willing to call because both sides are
>> running the same bluff and want to keep their fleets in existence.
>>
>> So, this is probably a desire on Putin's part to keep his fleet
>> floating so he can /threaten/ to use it. But not use it, because that
>> would risk losing it.
>>
>> Of course, he /could/ simply build a new home port in actual Russian
>> territory on the Black Sea and moving the fleet there. Sevastople is
>> fair game because the Crimea is still considered part of Ukraine by
>> most of the world.
>>
>> WWII in the Pacific is, of course, clearly an exception. But there was
>> very little choice in that case on both sides, as the soldiers used to
>> seize and hold ground couldn't wade across the Pacific on their own
>> feet.
>>
>> And, of course, Midway (and other battles) showed that winning a major
>> fleet action could severely impact the enemy. Even with those
>> new-fangled aircraft carriers lording it over the battleships.
>> --
>> "In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
>> development was the disintegration, under Christian
>> influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
>> of family right."
>A fleet in being is a threat, but it has to be a credible threat. If the enemy knows that it will never actually leave port, it might as well not be there. The track record of the Russian Navy in this context suggests that any ships that get involved in action with the Ukrainians will be sunk. This does not dissuade the Ukranian Navy from anything.

Being sunk when they venture from port is part of a long tradition,
going all the way back to Tsushima. If not before.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Wed, 2 Nov 2022 05:27:37 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 1:25:23 AM UTC-4, mcdow...@sky.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 3:52:46 PM UTC, Paul S Person wrote:
>> > On Tue, 1 Nov 2022 13:53:21 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
>> > Nicoll) wrote:
>> >
>> > >In article <ht98L.20665$TUR8...@fx17.iad>,
>> > >Scott Lurndal <sl...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> > >>Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> writes:
>> > >>>On 10/31/2022 2:47 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> > >>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> > >>>> news:tjnf3b$1o0a$1...@gioia.aioe.org:
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>> On 10/30/2022 7:55 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> > >>>>>> "pete...@gmail.com" <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> > >>>>>> news:fc63eebd-32d2-4e19...@googlegroups.com:
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>> On Saturday, October 29, 2022 at 7:17:21 PM UTC-4, Ninapenda
>> > >>>>>>> Jibini wrote:
>> > >>>>>>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>> > >>>>>>>> news:ceaace75-7ee0-426b...@googlegroups.com:
>> > >>>>>>>>> I was reading an article that claimed that there was a good
>> > >>>>>>>>> chance that Russia's nuclear arsenal was actually
>> > >>>>>>>>> inoperative due to Russia's economic woes and war in
>> > >>>>>>>>> Ukraine.
>> > >>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>> The logic was that tritium has a short half-life, and costs
>> > >>>>>>>>> a lot of money to make.
>> > >>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>> Too bad that only the earliest hydrogen bombs used deuterium
>> > >>>>>>>>> and tritium and needed regular topping-up. Modern hydrogen
>> > >>>>>>>>> bombs use lithium-6 deuteride, and lithium-6, like
>> > >>>>>>>>> deuterium, is stable.
>> > >>>>>>>> What's the timeline on that? does Russia *have* any *modern*
>> > >>>>>>>> hydrogen bombs? Or are they still working with old Soviet
>> > >>>>>>>> stock?
>> > >>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>> So while the author used "basic physics" to reach his
>> > >>>>>>>>> conclusions, he neglected to check his facts even to the
>> > >>>>>>>>> extent of peeking at Wikipedia.
>> > >>>>>>>> Both nuclear warheads (of all types) and missiles require a
>> > >>>>>>>> lot of other mainteance, as well, which is, for the most
>> > >>>>>>>> part, high tech, requiring a high degree of skill and a lot
>> > >>>>>>>> of money.
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>> This isn't an area where you want to bet your life on Russian
>> > >>>>>>> corruption or incompetence.
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> You don't want to bet against it, either.
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> Given their past results, I would not bet against them.
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>> Which them are we talking about? You would not bet against the
>> > >>>> Russians based on their past results? You're saying their
>> > >>>> achievments in Ukraine have impressed you with their competence?
>> > >>>
>> > >>>I was specifically talking about 715 detonations of nuclear
>> > >>bombs by the
>> > >>>Russians over the years. They know what they are doing with nuclear
>> > >>>weapons.
>> > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
>> > >>
>> > >>That was then, this is now. They used to have a large army; now, it is
>> > >>getting smaller every day.
>> > >>
>> > >Reportedly, the Russians are offering a deal in which grain
>> > >shipments will be left unmolested if the Ukrainians promise
>> > >to stop sinking Russian ships. Asking the enemy to pleeeease
>> > >spare one's ships is a classic power move.
>> > I'm not sure I am following you here.
>> >
>> > There is, in historical Naval circles, a concept known as "Fleet in
>> > Being". The core idea behind it is that naval vessels take a long long
>> > time to replace, so it is best not to lose any of them. The easiest
>> > way to do /that/ is to never let them leave Port in time of war.
>> >
>> > The result is that they are built and not used except as a threat. A
>> > bluff that neither side is willing to call because both sides are
>> > running the same bluff and want to keep their fleets in existence.
>> >
>> > So, this is probably a desire on Putin's part to keep his fleet
>> > floating so he can /threaten/ to use it. But not use it, because that
>> > would risk losing it.
>> >
>> > Of course, he /could/ simply build a new home port in actual Russian
>> > territory on the Black Sea and moving the fleet there. Sevastople is
>> > fair game because the Crimea is still considered part of Ukraine by
>> > most of the world.
>> >
>> > WWII in the Pacific is, of course, clearly an exception. But there was
>> > very little choice in that case on both sides, as the soldiers used to
>> > seize and hold ground couldn't wade across the Pacific on their own
>> > feet.
>> >
>> > And, of course, Midway (and other battles) showed that winning a major
>> > fleet action could severely impact the enemy. Even with those
>> > new-fangled aircraft carriers lording it over the battleships.
>> > --
>> > "In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
>> > development was the disintegration, under Christian
>> > influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
>> > of family right."
>> A fleet in being is a threat, but it has to be a credible threat. If the enemy knows that it will never actually leave port, it might as well not be there. The track record of the Russian Navy in this context suggests that any ships that get involved in action with the Ukrainians will be sunk. This does not dissuade the Ukranian Navy from anything.
>
>The ships are actually in engaged in war crimes - they are one of the sources of the
>missiles currently destroying civilian targets in Ukraine.
>
>They are legitimate targets.

And it appears Putin is ready to make a deal to keep them from being
destroyed.

Well, unless he's lying. Again.

--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote in
news:f925mht0k9nllbmssu7bth6smrb5p0ocn6@4ax.com:

> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> on Tue, 1 Nov 2022
> 16:06:51 -0500 typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
>>On 11/1/2022 3:45 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:tjru3c$rg3h$2@dont-email.me:
> [snip]
>>>>>> I was specifically talking about 715 detonations of nuclear
>>>>>> bombs by the Russians over the years. They know what they
>>>>>> are doing with nuclear weapons.
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_ma
>>>>>> ss_d est ruction
>>>>>>
>>>>> And how long has it been since the last one? As has been
>>>>> discussed, these things require maintenance. And it's never
>>>>> been clear - perhaps even to the Soviets - how many would
>>>>> actually *work* in a mass launch.
>>>>
>>>> There is that. But, who wants to volunteer to be tested on
>>>> by the Russians ? Not me.
>>>>
>>> I wouldn't volunteer to be on the launch crew, who might well
>>> be in more danger than the target.
>>>
>>> But all things considered - Putin is now actually offering
>>> terms (insane, stupid terms, but still) - if Putin felt he had
>>> working nuclear missiles, the ability to launch them (and get
>>> them to the target), and, most important, underlings who would
>>> follow the orders (there are apparently *five* levels of
>>> command between him and the launch buttons, all of which much
>>> unanimously agree to the launch), I think he would have tried
>>> by now. And, if some British tabloid reports are accurate
>>> (heh), he *has*, and been told "no" by his own inner circle
>>> (who are *clearly* planning their exist strategy, hoping to
>>> avoid war crimes trials).
>>
>>I highly suspect that the KGB are insanely loyal to Putin and
>>would enforce any of his edicts. Those military officers have
>>families and the KGB could arrest them.
>
> The issue is not necessarily whether the orders to launch
> will be
> followed, but once given will the missiles launch, reach the
> target, and detonate?
>
The issue is all that, and more. There are so many failure modes
between Putin giving the order and actual detonation.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.