Unless you intend to actually use them while covering for the launch with alleged “drills”, just like they covered for the invasion with alleged military drills. Either way, you would still hit Russian troops in any case anyway.
Nukes need high explosives. The most modern ones use extremely stable explosives but some of the Cold War era accidents in the US often did go boom but not BOOOOOOOM.
Still bad exploding weapons-grade radioactive material. Thankfully not as bad as a nuclear explosion.
Sending a fissile bullet into a fissile shell to activate a hydrogen payload is certainly a delicate mechanism, but to take so much as a 1% chance of detonating a nuclear warhead that otherwise wouldn’t have gone off, escalating nuclear war across the entire earth, is a bad idea and you will never convince me otherwise.
I like to believe that throughout the last century the number of morons shooting any form of projectile at armed nuclear warheads was minimal, but you’re certainly making that harder to believe.
We know how the last “military drills” went. Better to launch some preemptive strikes on those positions, before they can fire them towards Ukraine.
i don’t think the nukes are where the drills take place, that would be quite stupid
Unless you intend to actually use them while covering for the launch with alleged “drills”, just like they covered for the invasion with alleged military drills. Either way, you would still hit Russian troops in any case anyway.
It also wouldn’t be very smart to shoot at potentially armed nukes, tbh.
It’s actually pretty difficult to detonate a nuke by shooting at it, if that’s what you’re getting at.
A certain set of things has to happen in a very specific order with tight timings (milliseconds) in order for it to actually explode.
Hence all the incidents in the US of accidentally dropped nukes on domestic territory and no boom boom.
Nukes need high explosives. The most modern ones use extremely stable explosives but some of the Cold War era accidents in the US often did go boom but not BOOOOOOOM.
Still bad exploding weapons-grade radioactive material. Thankfully not as bad as a nuclear explosion.
Pardon me sir, but I did say “boom boom” which is roughly equivalent to one “BOOOOOOOM”, assuming we’re using the metric system.
If we’re you’re using imperial boom scale, then frankly you disgust me.
Sending a fissile bullet into a fissile shell to activate a hydrogen payload is certainly a delicate mechanism, but to take so much as a 1% chance of detonating a nuclear warhead that otherwise wouldn’t have gone off, escalating nuclear war across the entire earth, is a bad idea and you will never convince me otherwise.
Its not 1%.
It’s not even 0.01%
You could try it once a second for the rest of your life, and it still wouldn’t go off.
You’d just damage it at the most. Maybe trigger a safety system which will need to be reset before it can be armed again.
Nobody is saying it’s a good idea, it’s just a complete non issue.
Bullshit, keep telling yourself that.
Oh, okay then. Yeah sure, I made it up. It’s a 90% chance and we’ve just been exceptionally lucky.
I like to believe that throughout the last century the number of morons shooting any form of projectile at armed nuclear warheads was minimal, but you’re certainly making that harder to believe.