Why US Let Russia Become the Biggest Nuclear Power

Russia has been quietly stockpiling nuclear weapons away in case of an all-out nuclear armageddon, but how did the rest of the world stand by and let Russia become the country with the largest nuclear stockpile? Check out today's epic new video to find out!

🔖 MY SOCIAL PAGES

💭 Find more interesting stuff on:

All videos are based on publicly available information unless otherwise noted.

[iamaloafofbread]

To those who think the U.S. is at any disadvantage. Remember this, the U.S. is well over 50 years in advance tech, and no matter what is shown, the U.S. is allowing people to see what they want people to see.

[filipcernota]

The funny thing is that US is probably drastically understating it's real stockpile and capabilities, whereas Russia is obviously overstating, considering they are using fridge-rebuilt chips into weapons and tanks from museums. If Russia strikes first, half of its stockpile will expolde in the launching site or miss the target by a continent and the other half will turn out to be non-existent.

[chriscepec]

The Russian nuclear arsenal scares me but not for the reasons shown here. Given how corrupt, lack of training and poorly maintained their air, land and sea forces are; I'm more scared of accidental destinations then Russian " Superior " weapons tech

[randy]

You're kidding yourself if you think the USA doesn't have a secret stash of tactical warheads. And you're also kidding yourself if you actually believe Russia is as strong as they claim.

[seanaugagnon]

"we need another video"
"What about Russia, nuclear and hypersonic missiles... That can dodge!"
"Haven't we done that like... Several dozen times?"
"Yes"
"Ok. Green light"

[alanholck]

The thing any country needs to consider when using nuclear weapons is ‘If I use this, how does it get me closer to my desired end stats?’ I think that for Russia the down side of using a nuke far outweighs any up side.

[psylinx]

I believe that we already have all of these technologies they're just never talked about. We really have no clue what the US has and I hope that we never have to use it.


George Davis

[TraTranc]

Some food for thought here: Russia currently maintains a nuclear stockpile of 5, 977 warheads; that’s more than the US, the UK, and France combined.

Russia also had a military budget of 66 billion US dollars in 2021; of those, approximately 8.6 billion are spent on nuclear modernization and maintenance.

By contrast, the US have 5428 nuclear weapons. The US yearly defense budget exceeds 801 billion US dollars; of those, approximately 50 billion per year are spent on nuclear modernization and maintenance.

One must understand that nuclear weapons are not eternal. You can’t just manufacture a nuke, stash it somewhere in a depot in Wyoming or Siberia, than take it out in 15 or 20 years, mount it on a missile, and expect it to work properly.

Nuclear weapons are precision instruments whose components (mainly electronics) are very sensitive to the passage of time; and they’re mounted very close to a decaying radioactive source. Which, by itself, is… decaying, which means that it will be less reliable as time passes.

On an average, the fissile material in a nuclear weapon must be changed and reconditioned every five years in order for a nuclear weapon to remain effective. And this, not mentioning the rotation and changes to all other components required for a nuclear weapon to work as it should.

Once upon a time, we did nuclear tests to make sure that the nukes still worked: we took a pair from each lot and blew them up somewhere in the desert or the ocean, and judging from how it worked, we could estimate the potential performance of all other nukes manufactured around the same time.

Nuclear tests are now banned, and we use complex laser-based computer scanning to ascertain the decay level of the fissile material, the state of electronics and components, such the beryllium reflectors, and the like.

All that process of nuclear maintenance is extremely expensive. The US, with less warheads than Russia, spends over 6 times more than Russia to keep them operational; and that, on top of all the other necessary maintenance, which is, maintenance of missiles, of launch control systems, and the like.

Now, after almost ten months of war in Ukraine; giving what we know about the status of Russian Armed Forces; what we know about how their military budget is squandered in corruption and inefficiency; ask yourselves: *do we really believe they have REALLY "modernized" their nuclear weapons, and do you really think the Russian nuclear deterrent is really as effective as the Russians say it is?*

I would be genuinely surprised to know that Russia really is capable to retaliate against a small-scale nuclear attack or launch a tactical nuke at a target close to its borders; let alone nuke a NATO Country.

Once again, those declarations are meant to boost national morale and try to demoralize the western public opinion.

*There will be no nuclear war with Russia, no matter how hard NATO pushes in its assistance to Ukraine.*

[laushadad]

Narrator states that US has no MIRVS, completely ignores the fact that half of the nuclear arsenal is on submarines with each Trident II carrying at least five warheads.

[ukraine_tbic]

“If Russian developments pan out as promised”

[miket]

Russia: Is it idiotic if I wanted to make all our weapons nuclear?
Common sense: I see now I've failed you.

[ezrakirkpatrick]

I'm curious as to what specifically defines "modernization" of nuclear weapons. Leaks from the FSB indicate that the Russians have not replaced the nuclear charges in their warheads for decades. You're supposed to replace them every ten years.
The United States uses supercomputers full-time to simulate their warheads' nuclear efficacy and deterioration. We can at least all agree that Russia isn't doing that.

[Xamufam]

US spends 60 billion dollar a year to maintain their nuclear armament russias entire millitary budget is 63-84 billion dollar, nuclear weapons can easily broken if they arent maintained

[nunyabusiness]

How many of the Russian nukes will fail to detonate? Given the abysmal performance/maintenance of their other military hardware I'd bet it's a significant percentage.

[Ganjor]

You don't get a Flamethrower to fight a single fly, and you don't need more than a thousand nukes to blow up a single Planet...

[stefanmaciolek]

Once both countries have the ability to end all life on the planet I don't really see how it matters who's got slightly better weapons.

[imreloadin]

Based on what we've seen in Ukraine I'd be surprised if Russian nukes were even capable of launching successfully at this point.

[BasicallyJesus]

My mans really just said "strategic strategy." Maybe it makes sense because there are strategic nukes, but it's still funny

[bigmarc]

"If Russian developments pan out as promised", I think this is the key point!

[captaincanada]

Technically NATO has the worlds largest stockpile of Nuclear Warheads, and better positioned geographically.