Spyke

Syndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.

View original on lemmy.world

32 replies

lemmy.world

I don't get what the deal is, I also have less than 10 nuclear warheads

37
lemmy.world

After seeing Russia’s non-nuclear weapons, I honestly don’t believe they have that many nuclear weapons.

I’m not saying they have none, but I don’t think they’ve kept up the maintenance required for 7,000.

29
lemmy.world

I mean, the actual number they have is irrelevant because there’s no way of knowing which ones are duds until it’s too late. If they were to launch a nuclear attack, the countries they’re attacking wouldn’t wait to see if it was a dud before responding. Because even if there’s only a 10% chance it detonates, that’s still 700 nukes detonating.

11

Mos likely a lot of them are really old and not ik workikg conditions but they like to keep up the illusion that they could just nuke the whole globe

10
modreply
sh.itjust.works

Same goes for the US. Most launch facilities are in subpar condition.

4
lemmy.world

I think that "subpar" are slightly different to US and Russia though.

9

Your username as two, wait three names in it, and none are jeff. I am confused, flabbergasted and quite possibly bamboozled.

6

Until someone with the button thinks they can win.

2

Well, we needed more than the other guys and they felt the same way.

5
lemmus.org

Wow ordered list in descending order. 100-120 is somehow higher in the list than 110-130

6

You reached the end