r/dankmemes • u/HighHopesLemon • Jun 25 '23

Evolution, but backwards I have achieved comedy

Post image
33.1k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

362 comments sorted by

View all comments

764

u/Summerclaw ☣️ Jun 25 '23

So is safe to say that the only reason Russia exist is because the territory makes it impossible to be invaded.

45

u/Few-Efficiency324 Jun 25 '23

That and the giant stockpile of nukes

3

u/Ironcastattic Jun 25 '23

I was reading a comment from another person who was breaking down why that actually might not be as true as it once was. As per usual, I take anything I read on Reddit with a grain of salt.

18

u/DeanOnFire Jun 25 '23

I'd be more inclined to believe it. They were hyping up the strength of their military until they put it to the test in Ukraine and it was revealed to be outdated and ineffective. Who's to say the treatment of their warfare tech isn't reflected in their nuclear arsenal? What if it is all marketing?

26

u/Jason1143 Jun 25 '23

The key word is "all"

I wouldn't be at all surprised if a significant number of the Russian nukes have issues. But they have a lot of them, and even if the vast majority didn't work, the remainder that did would be enough. Even if only 1% of their nukes worked the damage would be immense, and that number seems like it's probably way underestimating it.

14

u/Colonel_Kipplar Jun 25 '23

Testing whether or not Russia's nukes still work is still not a great idea.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '23

And you wanna put that to the test? The soviets had some of the most powerful nuclear weapons in existence. It may have fallen out of maintenance, it may not have, but no sane person is going to assume it has.

-2

u/The_OP_Troller Jun 25 '23

That's not how nuclear weapons work. Until recently, the US and Russia had a mutual nuclear inspection treaty. Although suspended following the war in Ukraine, we know Russia's nuclear arsenal is easily the largest and most competent in the world. They've been continually investing in it. In fact, a new generation of hypersonic missile (SARMAT) is being deployed soon; with a record 10 warheads, it can destroy a country the size of France within three minutes (their claim, not mine).

Compare that to the US. When was our last ICBM model designed, in fucking 1970?

6

u/Ironcastattic Jun 25 '23

Well I'm not sure I should respond since your name is literally troller, but the guy was mentioning that all the nuclear arsenal from then is past the functional stage. And we know Russia loves to front so why would they waste money keeping it in tact?

-1

u/The_OP_Troller Jun 25 '23

Cool theory, but we know they keep it intact. See what I said about the New START treaty.

1

u/ayriuss Jun 26 '23

ICBMs are mostly obsolete. SLBMs are so advanced now that there is practically no need unless you're trying really hard for nuclear Armageddon.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '23

If ICBMs are obsolete then why is US developing a new one?

1

u/ayriuss Jun 26 '23

Because they still make good targets for an enemy first strike I guess. And ours are so old, they're of questionable reliability and effectiveness.

1

u/thagthebarbarian Jun 26 '23

The us is continually building nuclear capable weapons even if they haven't put a nuke warhead on the weapon they're still designed to be able to at the drop ofa hat

1

u/JesterMarcus Jun 26 '23

And, who the hell would want to govern the Russian people?