How about spending less time saber rattling and more time fixing your 3rd world shithole of country of cowards.
this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2025
409 points (100.0% liked)
Ukraine
10970 readers
133 users here now
News and discussion related to Ukraine
Community Rules
πΊπ¦ Sympathy for enemy combatants is prohibited.
π»π€’No content depicting extreme violence or gore.
π₯Posts containing combat footage should include [Combat] in title
π·Combat videos containing any footage of a visible human involved must be flagged NSFW
β Server Rules
- Remember the human! (no harassment, threats, etc.)
- No racism or other discrimination
- No Nazis, QAnon or similar
- No porn
- No ads or spam (includes charities)
- No content against Finnish law
π³ Defense Aid π₯
π³ Humanitarian Aid βοΈβοΈ
πͺ Volunteer with the International Legionnaires
See also:
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
If this was a SpaceX clip, the camera would cut to cheering employees.
If the fire end starts pointing towards space, you are having a bad problem and will not be going to space today
I've been saying this since before the Ukrain War, all bark no bite. Everything has a shelf life, and without maintenance that time period is even shorter. I can't image how well the technical components can hold up. Much less you account for things like spiders or rats dying over specific traces on the circuit board, shorting it out as soon as you apply power.
This goes for every nation that built a shit ton of weapons just to store them somewhere while the infrastructure decays. Is the infrastructure really there for a nuclear response, or is it all a game of chicken?
I canβt image how well the technical components can hold up.
I recently got back from the Smithsonian affiliate Atomic Testing Museum. Two things caught my eye in the exhibits that gave me a similar realization about Russian nuclear readiness.
#1 The USA is currently undergoing a nuclear warhead modernization program refurbishing the existing inventory of nuclear warheads and the result of this "will extend the life of the warhead by as much as 25 to 30 years". I understand this to mean that the useful life of a nuclear warhead sitting on the shelf is less than 30 years. That means nearly 100% of the warheads that were ready to use when I was born are now non-viable, unless they've undergone refurbishment sometime in my lifetime.
#2 at its peak count, the USA has had about 31,000 nuclear warheads at one time. Over the many years since, that number has been reduced to about 2,500 in inventory right now. There are an additional 2000 warheads that are not considered "ready to go" that are schedule to be dismantled and disposed of.
The treaties reducing nuclear warhead stockpiles wasn't about peace, it was about cost! The US government, even with its incredibly high budgets decided to drop from 31,000 warheads to just 2500 because they are just so expensive to maintain, which it has carried on with the maintenance of the warhead.
Now, Russia has just a tiny fraction of the USA's military budget, and much more corruption. What are the chance any of Russian's warhead have been maintained? If the USA's warheads only have a 30 year shelf life, and Russia's are the same, that would mean that an unmaintained warhead would have had to be be built in the early 1990s (right when the Soviet Union was collapsing), which doesn't seem likely.
This leads me to guess that the vast majority of Russia's current warhead stockpile probably don't work!
I like the idea that the only thing that has stopped Russia from starting world war 3 is their poor maintenance. If the occasionally swept up, we'd all be floating ash right now.
Well, if the two continents are only 100 feet apart, it worked great.
For when Russia targets Sarah Palins house in Alaska?
Sadly, the technicians that would have been able to prevent this were blown up by drones during a failed meatwave offensive in Ukraine last year.
And all that unnecessary "maintenance" money was siphoned off to an offshore account in 1996.
Who would have thought soviet ICBMs were so fragile!
It seems any time I read about some big Soviet (USSR) research/innovation/accomplishment, the scientists and engineers making those achievement were.. Ukranian. Makes me wonder if Putin wants to conquer Ukraine to indenture all of that talent again because Russia has been stagnating since the collapse of the USSR.
That's just a theory of mine, take it as you will.
They should've consulted me. I have thousands of hours in KSP. They needed more struts. Possibly atleast two more boosters.
They probably haven't unlocked enough of the tech tree yet for those.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
Fake news, this was a successful test for an extremely short range missile
/S
NATO propagandists will try to bury this footage because they don't have a hypersonic missile that can turn in such a small radius like this. Besides that, with this newly demonstrated capability, the odds that Ukraine could shoot down this missile drop just about all the way to zero!
load more comments
(3 replies)
Why does everyone like to turn the camera away when the thing is about to blow up?
ICBM the cameraman
Probably concentrating on if they need to do some evasive action to survive.
Tbh, bar the little twitch at the explosion point it was very good camera work. Not moving too much and keeping it all in frame
Looks like the same issue I remember seeing on a different launch, I think also Russian, where a tech installed a sensor upside down. That thing had no idea where it was or was going.
If only the missile knew where it wasn't
load more comments
(1 replies)
oh my, I think that might be one "oopsie" and even possibly a "daisy".
Intra Courtyard Ballistic Missile
I got over a thousand hours in KSP. The issue is the pointy end has to point at space without tipping over.
It's the faring bug that's causing the payload to catch the wind. Some more fins at the bottom should help.
The answer is always more struts
Do these guys not have an emergency destruct? Or do they like dropping missiles on their heads, you know, recreationally
Yea, it almost looked like the FTS attempted to activate, but failed to destroy the missile.
load more comments
(3 replies)
I wasn't aware that Elon Musk was a consultant for the Russian Armed Forces.
Then you haven't been paying attention
4th October 1957: Launches first satellite into orbit.
19th August 1960: Launches first animals into orbit.
12th April 1961: Launches first human into orbit.
Some time passes.
Now: Whatever the fuck this was.
That patch of grass 15 m from the launch site really had it coming.
Mouahaha it really warms my heart every time the kremlin tries to sabre rattle and everything just go haywire π
Neit, was not failure, was demonstration of missile extreme manouvering capability. Fligh ended in big bang, so was great success comrade!
Anyone speak Russian? Why do they constantly sound like they're saying "yeah boy" I'm sure they're not saying it just it sounds very similar
Π΅Π±Π°ΡΡ (yebat') - fuck
ΠΠ° Π½Ρ Π½Π°Ρ ΡΠΉ (da nu nahhuy) - well, fuck
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
view more: next βΊ