...Wait, we're supposed to believe that it's the rebels who are
wrong?
On Wed, 14 Jan 2026 15:26:03 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
...Wait, we're supposed to believe that it's the rebels who are
wrong?
You know the old saying: ?One side?s ?terrorist? is the other side?s
?freedom fighter??. If the insurgency succeeds, then it was right all
along, otherwise it was wrong. Mostly.
Side-Eyeing Science Fiction's Love of Empire
...Wait, we're supposed to believe that it's the rebels who are wrong?
https://reactormag.com/side-eyeing-science-fictions-love-of-empire/
Empires of various sorts and durations constitute a lot of human
history right back into prehistory.
Reading a book on the early history of Mesopotamia just made me sad.
The first city-states in the world, the beginnings of civilization,
and they spent centuries warring against each other. Time after time,
a strong king would arise who unified a bunch of them into something >resembling the beginnings of empire and some kind of peace within its >borders, only for it to fall to bits again after his death, and
everybody to go back to warring against each other again.
Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Reading a book on the early history of Mesopotamia just made me sad.
The first city-states in the world, the beginnings of civilization,
and they spent centuries warring against each other. Time after time,
a strong king would arise who unified a bunch of them into something >>resembling the beginnings of empire and some kind of peace within its >>borders, only for it to fall to bits again after his death, and
everybody to go back to warring against each other again.
Sadly, this is the story of so many places. China is one of the most >fascinating.
Side-Eyeing Science Fiction's Love of Empire
...Wait, we're supposed to believe that it's the rebels who are wrong?
https://reactormag.com/side-eyeing-science-fictions-love-of-empire/
Very early on in Second Foundation we see the leaders of that
organization squabbling among themselves, fighting turf wars like any
other bureaucrats.
I think that one of the reasons "Foundation's Edge" disappointed some
people was that Asimov had changed his mind about Empire while writing >"Second Foundation", or perhaps earlier.
On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 01:35:43 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
Reading a book on the early history of Mesopotamia just made me sad.Sadly, this is the story of so many places. China is one of the most fascinating.
The first city-states in the world, the beginnings of civilization,
and they spent centuries warring against each other.
begin fnord
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> writes:
Very early on in Second Foundation we see the leaders of that
organization squabbling among themselves, fighting turf wars like any
other bureaucrats.
Suppose he modelled them on faculty politics at Boston University?
In article <10kbehb$11og5$1@dont-email.me>,
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
I think that one of the reasons "Foundation's Edge" disappointed some
people was that Asimov had changed his mind about Empire while writing
"Second Foundation", or perhaps earlier.
I think a bigger reason was that FE wasn't edited by John W. Campbell,
if indeed it was edited at all. If you liked the earlier stuff
(fixups of stort stories and novellas that Campbell bought and argued
over with Asimov), the "flabby" later books are what made people say
Asimov had succumbed to the Brain Eater.
On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 11:02:11 -0500 (EST), Scott Dorsey wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 01:35:43 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
Reading a book on the early history of Mesopotamia just made me sad.Sadly, this is the story of so many places. China is one of the most
The first city-states in the world, the beginnings of civilization,
and they spent centuries warring against each other.
fascinating.
China at least was able to achieve centuries-long episodes of >largely-peaceful conditions at a time -- most of the strife came from
foreign invasions. To the point where they automatically assumed that >foreigners must be ?barbarians?.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Reading a book on the early history of Mesopotamia just made me sad.
The first city-states in the world, the beginnings of civilization,
and they spent centuries warring against each other. Time after time,
a strong king would arise who unified a bunch of them into something >>resembling the beginnings of empire and some kind of peace within its >>borders, only for it to fall to bits again after his death, and
everybody to go back to warring against each other again.
Sadly, this is the story of so many places. China is one of the most fascinating.
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Reading a book on the early history of Mesopotamia just made me sad.
The first city-states in the world, the beginnings of civilization,
and they spent centuries warring against each other. Time after time,
a strong king would arise who unified a bunch of them into something
resembling the beginnings of empire and some kind of peace within its
borders, only for it to fall to bits again after his death, and
everybody to go back to warring against each other again.
Sadly, this is the story of so many places. China is one of the most
fascinating.
Europe's existential "Forever War" hits closer to home for me:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LfdXoL3Xck>
Wars and rumors of war are foretold by Saint Matthew the Apostle.
--
Don.......My cat's )\._.,--....,'``. https://crcomp.net/reviews.php telltale tall tail /, _.. \ _\ (`._ ,. veritas liberabit vos tells tall tales.. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' Make 1984 fiction again.
Wars and rumors of war are foretold by Saint Matthew the Apostle.
And about due for another Warring States period.
On Sat, 17 Jan 2026 16:29:40 -0000 (UTC), Don wrote:
Wars and rumors of war are foretold by Saint Matthew the Apostle.
Wow, it's like nobody else thought that wars would happen ...
On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 08:31:52 -0800, Paul S Person wrote:
And about due for another Warring States period.
Which current authoritarian leader, notable for his doctrinaire and
erratic ideas of Government, looks to be pushing his country to the
brink of civil war?
On 18/01/26 11:25, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 08:31:52 -0800, Paul S Person wrote:
And about due for another Warring States period.
Which current authoritarian leader, notable for his doctrinaire and
erratic ideas of Government, looks to be pushing his country to the
brink of civil war?
I can't imagine just one person being able and therefore responsible for
such erratic behaviour perhaps leading to slaughter and sometimes
genocide. There has to be sufficient political and media support behind
the figurehead of the industrial military complex, its financiers and
its not so secret "police".
On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 08:31:52 -0800, Paul S Person wrote:
And about due for another Warring States period.
Which current authoritarian leader, notable for his doctrinaire and
erratic ideas of Government, looks to be pushing his country to the
brink of civil war?
I can't imagine just one person being able and therefore responsible for
such erratic behaviour perhaps leading to slaughter and sometimes
genocide. There has to be sufficient political and media support behind
the figurehead of the industrial military complex, its financiers and
its not so secret "police".
In article <10khosd$346jd$3@dont-email.me>, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 18/01/26 11:25, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 08:31:52 -0800, Paul S Person wrote:
What I find fascinating about Trump is that he has a very pre-WWI concept
of diplomacy. He doesn't think about countries but about individual kings. >Europe doesn't work that way and it seems to really confuse him.
On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 08:31:52 -0800, Paul S Person wrote:
And about due for another Warring States period.
Which current authoritarian leader, notable for his doctrinaire and
erratic ideas of Government, looks to be pushing his country to the
brink of civil war?
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:<noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
In article <10khosd$346jd$3@dont-email.me>, Titus G
conceptOn 18/01/26 11:25, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 08:31:52 -0800, Paul S Person wrote:
What I find fascinating about Trump is that he has a very pre-WWI
kings.of diplomacy. He doesn't think about countries but about individual
Europe doesn't work that way and it seems to really confuse him.
You're giving him far to much credit. He's simply in it for the graft.
What I find fascinating about Trump is that he has a very pre-WWI concept
of diplomacy. He doesn't think about countries but about individual kings. Europe doesn't work that way and it seems to really confuse him.
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
In article <10khosd$346jd$3@dont-email.me>, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 18/01/26 11:25, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 08:31:52 -0800, Paul S Person wrote:
What I find fascinating about Trump is that he has a very pre-WWI concept >>of diplomacy. He doesn't think about countries but about individual kings. >>Europe doesn't work that way and it seems to really confuse him.
You're giving him far to much credit. He's simply in it for the graft.
At one point, apparently, there were lawyers who, when their clients
were being attacked in defiance of stated Policy, were able to call
the central authorities and have the locals corrected.
If that is still the case and disrespect for the central government
grows, how long will it take before the central government is seen as >irrelevant and each province behaves independently? And then how long
until they start fighting each other for resources?
The only change is that we may be moving into a similar phase in the
USA. The level of propaganda from certain parts of the Federal
Government is really getting out of hand. And their apparent
unwillingness to recognize State's Rights will inevitably have an
effect.
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
In article <10khosd$346jd$3@dont-email.me>, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 18/01/26 11:25, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 08:31:52 -0800, Paul S Person wrote:
What I find fascinating about Trump is that he has a very pre-WWI concept
of diplomacy. He doesn't think about countries but about individual kings. >> Europe doesn't work that way and it seems to really confuse him.
You're giving him far to much credit. He's simply in it for the graft.
This has always been the case, and it's one of the downsides of
monarchies.
On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 12:53:58 -0500 (EST), Scott Dorsey wrote:
This has always been the case, and it's one of the downsides of
monarchies.
It?s been amusing and slightly mystifying, to see the preoccupation in
the USA with ?kings?, and avoiding coming under their reach. Those of
us who stayed in the British Empire found a way to keep the king under control, by setting up a Constitutional Monarchy. Meanwhile, the USA
seems to be falling under the sway of a dictator, almost without
realizing it.
On 1/18/2026 1:14 PM, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 12:53:58 -0500 (EST), Scott Dorsey wrote:
This has always been the case, and it's one of the downsides of
monarchies.
It?s been amusing and slightly mystifying, to see the preoccupation in
the USA with ?kings?, and avoiding coming under their reach. Those of
us who stayed in the British Empire found a way to keep the king under
control, by setting up a Constitutional Monarchy. Meanwhile, the USA
seems to be falling under the sway of a dictator, almost without
realizing it.
Oh, most of it realize it, the problem is too many Americans WANT it.
I have written to my legislators in regard to this matter and hope
they can make progress into treating this boil on the USA's
derriere. I hope that some Republican voters will do the same with
their representatives.
On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 22:19:12 -0800, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
I have written to my legislators in regard to this matter and hope
they can make progress into treating this boil on the USA's
derriere. I hope that some Republican voters will do the same with
their representatives.
That?s assuming your checks and balances still work. The ease with
which this dicator and his cohorts have managed to sweep them aside
does not bode well.
On 1/18/26 08:29, Scott Lurndal wrote:<noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
In article <10khosd$346jd$3@dont-email.me>, Titus G
conceptOn 18/01/26 11:25, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 08:31:52 -0800, Paul S Person wrote:
What I find fascinating about Trump is that he has a very pre-WWI
graft.of diplomacy. He doesn't think about countries but about individual kings.
Europe doesn't work that way and it seems to really confuse him.
You're giving him far to much credit. He's simply in it for the
But he is really confused. He has demonstrated that he has no idea of
the proper role of a president in our constitutional republic nor do
many of
his followers. A childlike idea of power to be exercised at will.
On 2026-01-18, Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:concept
What I find fascinating about Trump is that he has a very pre-WWI
kings.of diplomacy. He doesn't think about countries but about individual
Europe doesn't work that way and it seems to really confuse him.
That confusion is very much mutual. Nobody here knows how to deal
with a USA that is ruled by a capricious king.
On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 22:19:12 -0800, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
I have written to my legislators in regard to this matter and hope
they can make progress into treating this boil on the USA's
derriere. I hope that some Republican voters will do the same with
their representatives.
That?s assuming your checks and balances still work. The ease with
which this dicator and his cohorts have managed to sweep them aside
does not bode well.
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Reading a book on the early history of Mesopotamia just made me sad.
The first city-states in the world, the beginnings of civilization,
and they spent centuries warring against each other. Time after time,
a strong king would arise who unified a bunch of them into something
resembling the beginnings of empire and some kind of peace within its
borders, only for it to fall to bits again after his death, and
everybody to go back to warring against each other again.
Sadly, this is the story of so many places. China is one of the most
fascinating.
Europe's existential "Forever War" hits closer to home for me:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LfdXoL3Xck>
Wars and rumors of war are foretold by Saint Matthew the Apostle.
--
Don.......My cat's )\._.,--....,'``. https://crcomp.net/reviews.php telltale tall tail /, _.. \ _\ (`._ ,. veritas liberabit vos tells tall tales.. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' Make 1984 fiction again.
On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 17:25:55 -0000 (UTC), Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> wrote:
On 2026-01-18, Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
What I find fascinating about Trump is that he has a very pre-WWI
concept of diplomacy. He doesn't think about countries but about
individual kings. Europe doesn't work that way and it seems to
really confuse him.
That confusion is very much mutual. Nobody here knows how to deal
with a USA that is ruled by a capricious king.
Treat it as what it is -- a failed State which is run by petulant 5-year-olds.
2026 is a real puzzle: if the Dems take Congress, then they will be
blamed for MAGA for every single problem caused by Trump and
probably lose in 2028. If the Republicans increase control, then
they will probably start Vance in 2028 on 8 years in the Oval
Office.
There really aren't any good solutions.
On Mon, 19 Jan 2026 07:31:44 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D?Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
That?s assuming your checks and balances still work. The ease with
which this dicator and his cohorts have managed to sweep them aside
does not bode well.
That's the great weakness: too much depends on people behaving
sensibly, sanely, and politely.
On Mon, 19 Jan 2026 07:31:44 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D?Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 22:19:12 -0800, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
I have written to my legislators in regard to this matter and hope
they can make progress into treating this boil on the USA's
derriere. I hope that some Republican voters will do the same with
their representatives.
That?s assuming your checks and balances still work. The ease with
which this dicator and his cohorts have managed to sweep them aside
does not bode well.
That's the great weakness: too much depends on people behaving
sensibly, sanely, and politely.
Petulant 5-year-olds, sadly, are not known for behaving sensibly,
sanely and politely. And that is who is running the country.
On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 17:25:55 -0000 (UTC), Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> wrote:
On 2026-01-18, Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
What I find fascinating about Trump is that he has a very pre-WWI
concept of diplomacy. He doesn't think about countries but about
individual kings.
Europe doesn't work that way and it seems to really confuse him.
That confusion is very much mutual. Nobody here knows how to deal with
a USA that is ruled by a capricious king.
Treat it as what it is -- a failed State which is run by petulant 5-year-olds.
On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 17:25:55 -0000 (UTC), Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> wrote:
On 2026-01-18, Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
What I find fascinating about Trump is that he has a very pre-WWI
concept of diplomacy. He doesn't think about countries but about
individual kings.
Europe doesn't work that way and it seems to really confuse him.
That confusion is very much mutual. Nobody here knows how to deal with
a USA that is ruled by a capricious king.
Treat it as what it is -- a failed State which is run by petulant 5-year-olds.
I am horribly wondering if the tritium in Russia's ICBMs is still good. Russia has not tested a nuclear weapon since 1990. I would very much
not like seeing them testing a few of them on Berlin.
I am horribly wondering if the tritium in Russia's ICBMs is still good.
Russia has not tested a nuclear weapon since 1990. I would very much
not like seeing them testing a few of them on Berlin.
I am horribly wondering if the tritium in Russia's ICBMs is still good.
Russia has not tested a nuclear weapon since 1990. I would very much
not like seeing them testing a few of them on Berlin.
I assume they don't have any.
IIRC, the USA spent some effort to get handling of liquid deuterium
and tritium right and first built a bomb using that,
On 2026-01-21, Ignatios Souvatzis <u502sou@bnhb484.de> wrote:
IIRC, the USA spent some effort to get handling of liquid deuterium
and tritium right and first built a bomb using that,
No, no, the search term you are looking for is a "tritium-boosted"
device.
On 2026-01-19, Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
I am horribly wondering if the tritium in Russia's ICBMs is still good.
Tritium has a civilian market. *Glances at watch face* So there's
incentive to syphon off tritium and sell it. That said, as far as
I know, a tritium-boosted warhead will still explode without tritium,
it just has a lower yield.
There's the question how much the delivery systems have deteriorated,
e.g. whether the ICBMs would still make it out of the silo. But
Russia has a lot of nuclear-capable delivery systems--all the
ballistic and cruise missles they shoot at Ukraine are nuclear-capable--
so I expect they would be able to field _some_ working ones.
Russia has not tested a nuclear weapon since 1990. I would very much
not like seeing them testing a few of them on Berlin.
I live about 60 km downwind of Ramstein Air Base...
I am horribly wondering if the tritium in Russia's ICBMs is still good. >Russia has not tested a nuclear weapon since 1990. I would very much
not like seeing them testing a few of them on Berlin.
On 2026-01-21, Ignatios Souvatzis <u502sou@bnhb484.de> wrote:
I am horribly wondering if the tritium in Russia's ICBMs is still good. >>> Russia has not tested a nuclear weapon since 1990. I would very much
not like seeing them testing a few of them on Berlin.
I assume they don't have any.
IIRC, the USA spent some effort to get handling of liquid deuterium
and tritium right and first built a bomb using that,
No, no, the search term you are looking for is a "tritium-boosted"
device.
On 2026-01-19, Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
I am horribly wondering if the tritium in Russia's ICBMs is still good.
Tritium has a civilian market. *Glances at watch face* So there's
incentive to syphon off tritium and sell it. That said, as far as
I know, a tritium-boosted warhead will still explode without tritium,
it just has a lower yield.
There's the question how much the delivery systems have deteriorated,
e.g. whether the ICBMs would still make it out of the silo. But
Russia has a lot of nuclear-capable delivery systems--all the
ballistic and cruise missles they shoot at Ukraine are
nuclear-capable--so I expect they would be able to field _some_
working ones.
Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> wrote:
On 2026-01-19, Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
I am horribly wondering if the tritium in Russia's ICBMs is still good.
Tritium has a civilian market. *Glances at watch face* So there's >>incentive to syphon off tritium and sell it. That said, as far as
I know, a tritium-boosted warhead will still explode without tritium,
it just has a lower yield.
Yeah and also sell of the replacement instead of putting it in a ICBM. >Similar to how say a lot of Russion body armor turned out to either
not actually exist or the expensive parts had been sold off and
replaced by inferior products (like egg crates).
Getting back to what would happen - the main decay product of tritium
is He-3 which has a very large neutron capture cross-section - meaning
it acts as a "poison" for the nuclear reaction rather than boosting
it. This is why the bomb has to be flushed and then refilled, not just
topped up.
So it's not just the lack of boosting, the resulting He-3 actively
removes neutrons needed for fission to happen. We also have to
remember that 1960+ era nuclear weapon from US/Russia/China uses WAY
less fissile material than the old non-boosted designs. So that's two
factors working against it.
I wouldn't be surprised if at least in case of severe poisoning it
could (often?) end up as a non-nuclear dirty bomb - but this is just
based on informed reasoning rather than actual calculations so could
be completely wrong.
There's more than enough public information that someone could do the >calculation for various known warheads and find out if there's a point
beyond where fission can be sustained on each design but I'm not up to
that. I fully expect a number of countries have done these
calculations.
Would I want to RELY on them not exploding though? Nope, especially
not ALL of them not exploding.
There's the question how much the delivery systems have deteriorated,
e.g. whether the ICBMs would still make it out of the silo. But
Russia has a lot of nuclear-capable delivery systems--all the
ballistic and cruise missles they shoot at Ukraine are
nuclear-capable--so I expect they would be able to field _some_
working ones.
The three consecutive RS-28 Sarmat testing failures doesn't exactly
fill you with confidence in their newest ICBMs. AFAIK it's only been
tested successfully once, the initial test that lead them to declare
it "operational". There was some successful partial tests before that
though.
Still, that's a 75% failure rate on "full tests". And that abysmal
failure rate is on test flights where they have the luxury of waiting
and fixing things until there's no known problems instead of "we need
to launch NOW"...
Yes, they have older R-36M (being retired and replaced by RS-28) and a
bunch of other ICBM and IRBM systems so SOME will undoubtedly fly.
Very hard to tell how many, I suspect that Russia has no idea either
(though they may think they have).
Torbjorn Lindgren <tl@none.invalid> writes:
Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> wrote:
On 2026-01-19, Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
I am horribly wondering if the tritium in Russia's ICBMs is still good. >>>Tritium has a civilian market. *Glances at watch face* So there's
incentive to syphon off tritium and sell it. That said, as far as
I know, a tritium-boosted warhead will still explode without tritium,
it just has a lower yield.
Yeah and also sell of the replacement instead of putting it in a ICBM.
Similar to how say a lot of Russion body armor turned out to either
not actually exist or the expensive parts had been sold off and
replaced by inferior products (like egg crates).
Getting back to what would happen - the main decay product of tritium
is He-3 which has a very large neutron capture cross-section - meaning
it acts as a "poison" for the nuclear reaction rather than boosting
it. This is why the bomb has to be flushed and then refilled, not just
topped up.
So it's not just the lack of boosting, the resulting He-3 actively
removes neutrons needed for fission to happen. We also have to
remember that 1960+ era nuclear weapon from US/Russia/China uses WAY
less fissile material than the old non-boosted designs. So that's two
factors working against it.
I wouldn't be surprised if at least in case of severe poisoning it
could (often?) end up as a non-nuclear dirty bomb - but this is just
based on informed reasoning rather than actual calculations so could
be completely wrong.
There's more than enough public information that someone could do the
calculation for various known warheads and find out if there's a point
beyond where fission can be sustained on each design but I'm not up to
that. I fully expect a number of countries have done these
calculations.
Would I want to RELY on them not exploding though? Nope, especially
not ALL of them not exploding.
There's the question how much the delivery systems have deteriorated,
e.g. whether the ICBMs would still make it out of the silo. But
Russia has a lot of nuclear-capable delivery systems--all the
ballistic and cruise missles they shoot at Ukraine are
nuclear-capable--so I expect they would be able to field _some_
working ones.
The three consecutive RS-28 Sarmat testing failures doesn't exactly
fill you with confidence in their newest ICBMs. AFAIK it's only been
tested successfully once, the initial test that lead them to declare
it "operational". There was some successful partial tests before that
though.
Still, that's a 75% failure rate on "full tests". And that abysmal
failure rate is on test flights where they have the luxury of waiting
and fixing things until there's no known problems instead of "we need
to launch NOW"...
Yes, they have older R-36M (being retired and replaced by RS-28) and a
bunch of other ICBM and IRBM systems so SOME will undoubtedly fly.
Very hard to tell how many, I suspect that Russia has no idea either
(though they may think they have).
They also have the UR-100N (AKA RS-18A, NATO SS-19) with a hypersonic
glide vehicle as the payload. The glide vehicle travels
at mach 20+; alone without a warhead; the glide vehicle
impact is equivalent to 42,000 pounds of TNT (at Mach 25) even if the
nuclear payload is missing or fails to detonate.
The Zircon nuclear capable hypersonic cruise missile is another
potential delivery vehicle, although the Ukranians claim to have
intercepted them with Patriot missiles.
On 1/22/2026 1:09 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Torbjorn Lindgren <tl@none.invalid> writes:
Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> wrote:
On 2026-01-19, Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
I am horribly wondering if the tritium in Russia's ICBMs is still good. >>>>Tritium has a civilian market. *Glances at watch face* So there's
incentive to syphon off tritium and sell it. That said, as far as
I know, a tritium-boosted warhead will still explode without tritium,
it just has a lower yield.
Yeah and also sell of the replacement instead of putting it in a ICBM.
Similar to how say a lot of Russion body armor turned out to either
not actually exist or the expensive parts had been sold off and
replaced by inferior products (like egg crates).
Getting back to what would happen - the main decay product of tritium
is He-3 which has a very large neutron capture cross-section - meaning
it acts as a "poison" for the nuclear reaction rather than boosting
it. This is why the bomb has to be flushed and then refilled, not just
topped up.
So it's not just the lack of boosting, the resulting He-3 actively
removes neutrons needed for fission to happen. We also have to
remember that 1960+ era nuclear weapon from US/Russia/China uses WAY
less fissile material than the old non-boosted designs. So that's two
factors working against it.
I wouldn't be surprised if at least in case of severe poisoning it
could (often?) end up as a non-nuclear dirty bomb - but this is just
based on informed reasoning rather than actual calculations so could
be completely wrong.
There's more than enough public information that someone could do the
calculation for various known warheads and find out if there's a point
beyond where fission can be sustained on each design but I'm not up to
that. I fully expect a number of countries have done these
calculations.
Would I want to RELY on them not exploding though? Nope, especially
not ALL of them not exploding.
There's the question how much the delivery systems have deteriorated,
e.g. whether the ICBMs would still make it out of the silo. But
Russia has a lot of nuclear-capable delivery systems--all the
ballistic and cruise missles they shoot at Ukraine are
nuclear-capable--so I expect they would be able to field _some_
working ones.
The three consecutive RS-28 Sarmat testing failures doesn't exactly
fill you with confidence in their newest ICBMs. AFAIK it's only been
tested successfully once, the initial test that lead them to declare
it "operational". There was some successful partial tests before that
though.
Still, that's a 75% failure rate on "full tests". And that abysmal
failure rate is on test flights where they have the luxury of waiting
and fixing things until there's no known problems instead of "we need
to launch NOW"...
Yes, they have older R-36M (being retired and replaced by RS-28) and a
bunch of other ICBM and IRBM systems so SOME will undoubtedly fly.
Very hard to tell how many, I suspect that Russia has no idea either
(though they may think they have).
They also have the UR-100N (AKA RS-18A, NATO SS-19) with a hypersonic
glide vehicle as the payload. The glide vehicle travels
at mach 20+; alone without a warhead; the glide vehicle
impact is equivalent to 42,000 pounds of TNT (at Mach 25) even if the
nuclear payload is missing or fails to detonate.
The Zircon nuclear capable hypersonic cruise missile is another
potential delivery vehicle, although the Ukranians claim to have
intercepted them with Patriot missiles.
Wikipedia agrees about the claimed speeds for the Avengard hypersonic >vehicle.
However, I have questions as to whether Mach 25 is achievable in a glide >vehicle - LEO orbital velocity is about Mach 18. How are you going
to make the vehicle go down?
However, I have questions as to whether Mach 25 is achievable in a glide vehicle - LEO orbital velocity is about Mach 18. How are you going
to make the vehicle go down?
On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 16:48:19 -0500, Cryptoengineer wrote:
However, I have questions as to whether Mach 25 is achievable in a glide vehicle - LEO orbital velocity is about Mach 18. How are you going
to make the vehicle go down?
Mach 25 is about LEO orbital speed.
| Sysop: | Jacob Catayoc |
|---|---|
| Location: | Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines |
| Users: | 5 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 25:44:29 |
| Calls: | 117 |
| Calls today: | 117 |
| Files: | 368 |
| D/L today: |
561 files (257M bytes) |
| Messages: | 70,949 |
| Posted today: | 26 |