I stand corrected. I was going off of my older knowledge and didnt realize they had downsized the amount of warheads they had significantly to be more on par with the US (RU: 5,977, US: 5, 428). Either way, there is no reason to be so much less on the nuclear upkeep.
Doesn't sound impossible or even that illogical. Russian salaries are lower, the technology is way different.
Ah yes, because if there is one thing I want to skimp on, its the nuclear engineers. Chernobyl was a fluke after all, its not like Russia has a history of nuclear incidents and destroying their own nuclear submarines through incompetence.
Either way, I can believe a lower maintenance cost due to the reasons you mentioned. But the wild difference? No, that cant be explained by simple differences in salary. My theory that they are skimping on warhead maintenance is also not without merit, considering the carrier that is falling apart at anchor (it cant move well due to bad engines), the cargo plane just spotted flying with significant amounts of fouling, their various vehicles in Ukraine with shoddy maintenance work showing, etc. And when you consider their newest ICBM suffered a catastrophic failure on not one, but two separate test launches? Something tells me some of those nukes are long past their half-life and will probably be several megatons short on their blasting power if detonated.
Ah yes, because if there is one thing I want to skimp on, its the nuclear engineers.
I'm confused by why you think that not paying Russians salaries common in America (which has a higher cost of living) is "skimping". And I'm pretty sure many more people are employed than just engineers.
Chernobyl was a fluke after all, its not like Russia has a history of nuclear incidents
10 points if you manage to name the (supposed) country in which Chernobyl is located.
Regardless, Chernobyl was a nuclear reactor, not a nuclear weapon, and it was made a disaster because of the communist system, not because RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA.
My theory that they are skimping on warhead maintenance is also not without merit
My theory that <RUSSIA BAD> is also not without merit.
Yeah, I don't know, I haven't inspected them, but you haven't given any reason to believe it.
If the warheads are in bad condition, which may be the cast, stealing of funds allocated will be the more likely reason than not enough allocated.
Double? You sure?
Doesn't sound impossible or even that illogical. Russian salaries are lower, the technology is way different.
I stand corrected. I was going off of my older knowledge and didnt realize they had downsized the amount of warheads they had significantly to be more on par with the US (RU: 5,977, US: 5, 428). Either way, there is no reason to be so much less on the nuclear upkeep.
Ah yes, because if there is one thing I want to skimp on, its the nuclear engineers. Chernobyl was a fluke after all, its not like Russia has a history of nuclear incidents and destroying their own nuclear submarines through incompetence.
Either way, I can believe a lower maintenance cost due to the reasons you mentioned. But the wild difference? No, that cant be explained by simple differences in salary. My theory that they are skimping on warhead maintenance is also not without merit, considering the carrier that is falling apart at anchor (it cant move well due to bad engines), the cargo plane just spotted flying with significant amounts of fouling, their various vehicles in Ukraine with shoddy maintenance work showing, etc. And when you consider their newest ICBM suffered a catastrophic failure on not one, but two separate test launches? Something tells me some of those nukes are long past their half-life and will probably be several megatons short on their blasting power if detonated.
I'm confused by why you think that not paying Russians salaries common in America (which has a higher cost of living) is "skimping". And I'm pretty sure many more people are employed than just engineers.
10 points if you manage to name the (supposed) country in which Chernobyl is located.
Regardless, Chernobyl was a nuclear reactor, not a nuclear weapon, and it was made a disaster because of the communist system, not because RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA.
My theory that <RUSSIA BAD> is also not without merit.
Yeah, I don't know, I haven't inspected them, but you haven't given any reason to believe it.
If the warheads are in bad condition, which may be the cast, stealing of funds allocated will be the more likely reason than not enough allocated.