Unlike conventional weapons, nuclear weapons require maintenance. They're good for about 7 to 8 years, after which the electronic components used to precisely time the explosive charges to force the precisely-milled bits of fissile materials into a critical mass get absolutely fried by radiation and must be replaced. Similarly for the fissile materials themselves, they either have to be replaced or re-machined, because of radioactive decay. And then if it's a missile, radioactivity irradiates the skin of nosecones and makes them brittle and subject to metal fatigue, so that vibration will crack them, the cracks will turn red hot, perhaps bits of skin will spall off and the rocket will either become uncontrollable or explode entirely. So if Putin hasn't maintained his nuclear arsenal, he may have a lot of duds on his hands. On the other hand, he may not. As for using them in Ukraine, the prevailing winds go from west to east, and fallout goes into the stratosphere, and may get rained out over Russian agricultural lands in Volgograd Oblast or Krasnodar Krai - or over the 'Stans or over China, so there's that, too - see, for reference: https://www.deepspace.ucsb.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Effects-of-Nuclear-Weapons-1977-3rd-edition-complete.pdf
"because we expect a power structure to be powerful in the future, we are willing—even if only begrudgingly—to comply with it it today. Once we cease to see its power in the future, it loses its sway in the present".
And: "Russia’s monetary wizards—who are usually very good at what they do—are worried that they’re losing traction".
Could the second be a symptom of the first?
Thank you for your exceptional analysisis (and tunes😊)!
Unlike conventional weapons, nuclear weapons require maintenance. They're good for about 7 to 8 years, after which the electronic components used to precisely time the explosive charges to force the precisely-milled bits of fissile materials into a critical mass get absolutely fried by radiation and must be replaced. Similarly for the fissile materials themselves, they either have to be replaced or re-machined, because of radioactive decay. And then if it's a missile, radioactivity irradiates the skin of nosecones and makes them brittle and subject to metal fatigue, so that vibration will crack them, the cracks will turn red hot, perhaps bits of skin will spall off and the rocket will either become uncontrollable or explode entirely. So if Putin hasn't maintained his nuclear arsenal, he may have a lot of duds on his hands. On the other hand, he may not. As for using them in Ukraine, the prevailing winds go from west to east, and fallout goes into the stratosphere, and may get rained out over Russian agricultural lands in Volgograd Oblast or Krasnodar Krai - or over the 'Stans or over China, so there's that, too - see, for reference: https://www.deepspace.ucsb.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Effects-of-Nuclear-Weapons-1977-3rd-edition-complete.pdf
"because we expect a power structure to be powerful in the future, we are willing—even if only begrudgingly—to comply with it it today. Once we cease to see its power in the future, it loses its sway in the present".
And: "Russia’s monetary wizards—who are usually very good at what they do—are worried that they’re losing traction".
Could the second be a symptom of the first?
Thank you for your exceptional analysisis (and tunes😊)!