One question in the back of my mind regarding the likelihoods here about Russia’s demonstrated maintenance performance in its military. Yes, strategic systems will have to have both a higher priority and, one might think, higher quality professionals performing all the tasks and management. But is that really a safe assumption?
Is there really any reason to believe that the corruption that has hamstrung a the Russian military in general is not also pervasive in strategic weapons? Seems to me that would be driven by the underlying culture of autocratic regimes which seem poorly suited to maintaining high quality and honest assessments of actual state.
One question in the back of my mind regarding the likelihoods here about Russia’s demonstrated maintenance performance in its military. Yes, strategic systems will have to have both a higher priority and, one might think, higher quality professionals performing all the tasks and management. But is that really a safe assumption?
Is there really any reason to believe that the corruption that has hamstrung a the Russian military in general is not also pervasive in strategic weapons? Seems to me that would be driven by the underlying culture of autocratic regimes which seem poorly suited to maintaining high quality and honest assessments of actual state.
Had this same thought. Seems worthy of discussion.
Interesting blog post that some of Russia’s most recent nuclear tech may not work well and may be motivated more to bargain with than to use.
https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1208662/hypersonic-glide-vehicles-what-are-they-good-for/
EDIT: Similar points made here: https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/russias-massively-powerful-nukes-are-strategic-duds/
both posts are prior to Ukraine invasion.
I think it would be a mistake to believe that everything in Russia’s nuclear arsenal is 100% working order.
Sounds there’s some amount of Potemkin bombs.