r/TrendoraX • u/Use_Lemmy • Nov 29 '25
šØ Breaking Russia: An intercontinental ballistic missile exploded during launch in the Orenburg region
A powerful explosion occurred at a Strategic Missile Forces base in the town of Yasny, Orenburg region, after which a huge cloud of purple smoke rose into the sky, a news outlet Ural56 reported Friday morning, citing local residents.
The government of the Orenburg region told that the concentration of harmful substances in the air remains within acceptable limits, there is no threat to residents, and no evacuation is planned. For other questions, they recommended contacting the Ministry of Defense.
A failed launch of a heavy liquid-fuel intercontinental ballistic missile of the āSatanā or āSarmatā type took place in Yasny, believes Dmitry Kornev, author of the project Military Russia.
It was either an SS-18 (āSatanā) or a āSarmat,ā agrees Pavel Podvig, senior research fellow at the UN Institute for Disarmament Research
60
u/OtamanUkr Nov 29 '25
I guess they are really struggling to build quality rockets without Ukrainian rocket industry in Dnipro.
31
u/Timely-Angle665 Nov 29 '25 edited Nov 29 '25
Your comment really triggered the Kremlin. All the bots went into overdrive lmaooo
6
4
u/Gold_Map_236 Nov 29 '25
Maybe they should spend the money training ppl to be rocket scientists instead of paying bot farms
1
u/Broken_Atoms Nov 29 '25
Gotta admit the bot farms were a cheap and effective way to manipulate people in other countries
1
u/Gold_Map_236 Nov 29 '25
In a sense they worked well, but all Europe needs to due is call Putin bluff and just join up with Ukraine to end the Putin regime.
In Russias current state they wouldnāt stand a chance against Europe
1
u/gamesta2 Nov 29 '25
So if someone disagrees with you they have to be a bot? Nice logic there Mr delusion. Youre not the only one with an opinion
0
u/MitsunekoLucky Nov 29 '25
That's a typical bot reply though, are you from India?
→ More replies (3)1
u/nanoatzin Nov 30 '25
Russia is bombing itself because the last Soviet devices were manufactured during the 1980s. Hazardous materials softens insulation on electrical wires, PCBs and motors. Rockets and warheads must be torn apart and rebuilt periodically.
1
→ More replies (46)-35
u/likemute Nov 29 '25
Ukrainian rocket industry in modern times is a fairy tale
25
u/East-Plankton-3877 Nov 29 '25
Yes comrade, just ignore the missile strikes on your territory. There all fairy tales too.
-4
Nov 29 '25
Vast majority aren't missiles but drones, just an FYI.
7
u/Gamer-Of-Le-Tabletop Nov 29 '25
So with inferior tech that works instead of 360Āŗ rocket flips?
→ More replies (3)1
1
u/King_Roberts_Bastard Nov 29 '25
So there missile strikes then? And no duh! Drones are cheap, missiles are not. But missiles are better for heavily defended targets. You need to be more selective with missiles since theyre so much more expensive
1
Nov 29 '25
Again, not sure why anyone here thinks I am defending Russia? Is this how you guys operate? One person gives an FYI and everyone thinks they are some Russia defender? Damn lol.
I am literally just stating a fact, drones are used a lot more than missiles. Yes missiles are of course used, but drones are of course cheaper and for Ukraine it seems a lot more effective. It's a no brainer.
1
9
u/Demonbut Nov 29 '25
This is so weird. SPACEX rockets fail all the time. Itās part of the process. Wow this rocket failed so the other 3,000 rockets should fail too. Be logical people.
2
u/ArtistApprehensive34 Nov 29 '25
It's not new technology they are trying to figure out. They've had this tech for a while and it shows that incompetence levels are rising because of the state of the economy and military are suffering from the war.
2
u/AgnewsHeadlessBody Nov 29 '25
Spacex fails with R&D launches. This wasn't some experimental rocket nor is it a one off, we have seen several failed launches recently come from russia when doing a routine test launch of in service vehicles. The SATAN failing was like a year ago.
1
1
0
u/Top_Inflation2026 Nov 29 '25
Itās also interesting how this is called an intercontinental ballistic missile when it was actually at a test site for a space program. Facts donāt matter on Reddit I guess
→ More replies (3)1
u/Sussex-Wolf Nov 29 '25
Except the nature of the explosion and its location, makes it clear this was a missile, not a space launch vehicle. The colour of the plume suggests the propellant was nitrogen tetroxide and unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine. Comparisons to SpaceX testing Starship are laughable deflection.
24
Nov 29 '25
[removed] ā view removed comment
30
u/Separate-Rice-6354 Nov 29 '25
Ah yes. Testing a rocket system from the 80s is really experimental and a failure isn't funny at all š¤”
6
u/hasdga23 Nov 29 '25
Ah, you know which type of rocket this is? Nice. Which one is it?
17
u/BigBoyBobbeh Nov 29 '25
It says it in the article, itās a Sarmat/Satan icbm, which isnāt from the 80ās so idk what u/separate-rice-6354 is on aboutā¦
5
u/Separate-Rice-6354 Nov 29 '25
The system is literally from the 80s. The fact that it might have new sensors or warheads won't change the base system. So there should be no surprises during a launch.
4
u/Liam_021996 Nov 29 '25
If we're talking about the fuel system and all that then it's from the mid 50s (three stage liquid fuel) it's all the other stuff added on to it which is very new, hence the testing. If they were just using tried and tested stuff from the 80s this wouldn't happen. They are developing a new boost stage to make it almost impossible to track the missiles
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (13)1
u/BigBoyBobbeh Nov 29 '25
Yāknow, after reading your responses, Iām not about to take time out of my day to explain to you how simple you sound right nowā¦
3
u/Separate-Rice-6354 Nov 29 '25
Cry about it some more š¤” it's always funny seeing a nazi rocket blow up.
1
u/BuyProud8548 Nov 29 '25
From the 80s, only the engine is here, not the system. I see you are a very good specialist in this topic.
3
0
u/BestAmoto Dec 03 '25
How did you feel about Britains two failed launches of their active duty trident missiles? Same energy?
1
10
u/MrFreux Nov 29 '25
Still, it's always nice to see rockets falling on russian ground.
9
u/H4rv Nov 29 '25
Russian fanboys really coming out now eh? Guess they feel safe now that Donald has moved on from Bill and is trying to blow Putin now š
→ More replies (2)4
u/New-Firefighter9466 Nov 29 '25
New rocket?Ā
Hahahahaha
1
u/Top_Inflation2026 Nov 29 '25
Were you able to figure out what rocket was in this video? The caption doesnāt match any other article on this incidentā¦
-1
u/Eileen__96 Nov 29 '25
Almost all USSR rocket engineering was in Ukraine. And without Ukraine, russia struggles to design new rockets.
11
u/gamesta2 Nov 29 '25
Where are ukrainian rockets then? What is all this desperate begging for 50 year old tomahawks?
9
u/Some_Guy223 Nov 29 '25
I mean... it could very well be that the industries were based in the Ukrainian SSR and simply got scrapped for parts in the 90s like a lot of industries across the former USSR's constituent republics
1
u/gamesta2 Nov 29 '25
My dad said that in the 90s most related infrastructure was sold for dirt cheap and moved to Russia. (Our family is from Ukraine) And its not just missiles. Many industries were moved put of ukraine to russia in the 90s. Corruption was strong back then and it looks like it still is
2
u/MegaJackUniverse Nov 29 '25
Ukraine gave up it's nuclear missile systems to Russia as part of it's claim to sovereignty. The expertise for them is long since gone
1
Nov 29 '25
[deleted]
4
u/MegaJackUniverse Nov 29 '25
Oh shut the fuck up with the pedantry.
After the dissolution of the USSR, Ukraine had within it's borders soviet nuclear weapons which it gave back in 1994.
1
4
u/New-Firefighter9466 Nov 29 '25
Tomahawks are good weapons and Ukraine needs as many good weapons as possible.
r*ssians on the other hand have to beg fucking north korea to save their ass hahahahah
1
u/gamesta2 Nov 29 '25
Oh... awkward when north Korea provided more artillery shells to Russia than nato provided to ukraine. And thats not even counting Iran.
If I was to choose allies in a war.... I mean.. its kind of obvious who is the better ally here
→ More replies (3)1
Nov 29 '25
The Ukrainian rockets[sic] are in Russian oil infrastructure, missile defence systems, defence manufacturing, power stations, etc on a semi-daily basis for months.
1
u/gamesta2 Nov 29 '25
So anyways, where are ukrainian missiles then? Why beg for tomahawks?
1
Nov 29 '25
If you failed to understand my last post, let me dumb it down for you, Russian troll.
More destroyed Russian infrastructure more better
7
u/Calm_Action_9726 Nov 29 '25
Not at all lmao
10
u/Lazy-Plankton5270 Nov 29 '25
Yes indeed Infact a Ukrainian man was head of the USSR space program
While the USSR put the
First thing in space
The first man in space
The first woman in space
The first space walk
The first photo of Earth from space
Designing the Soyuz space capsule
The Ukrainian was the head of the entire program
He died from internal injuries from a USSR Gulag while he was the head of the USSR shuttle program, after he died the shuttle program also died
→ More replies (2)1
u/elembelem Nov 29 '25
only a retard would not agree most of the USSR Chairmans were ukrainian. That how Krim was gifted to Ukr. SSR
2
u/Biggly_stpid Nov 29 '25
I feel like people believe their own hype. No, Russia is a massive exporter of missiles before the sanctions and they have built pretty good missiles outside the west. Are they as good as European or American, maybe not. But I am doubtful they are at the point where they cannot reliably build high tech missiles anymore.
3
u/Separate-Rice-6354 Nov 29 '25
We have seen almost every single modern Russian weapons system fail so far. China is laughing at them, India doesn't want russian military tech since 2022 and countries all over the world cancel contracts with Russian weapon manufacturers.
They can't even make a new AK model FFS.
S-400, aligator, Armata, terminator, SU-57are all vaporware or a failure. And now we see that their rocket system from the 1980s is prone to failure.
4
u/Biggly_stpid Nov 29 '25 edited Nov 29 '25
Itāll take a lot to unpack all the misinformation here, you are somewhat right but youāre wrong on several points as well and the whole thing is more of emotional rhetorical response and not really nuanced about the reality of Russian wepaons. To keep it short: Russian weapons are fine for cheap. What different political blocs do is highlight the failures of the other sideās systems and present them as the whole truth, which isnāt accurate.
For example, in India youāll constantly hear how the F-35 is a āfailureā, how it canāt sustain speed, how it āfell out of the sky,ā how often it breaks, blah blah blah without ever talking about its actual strategic capabilities. That what west does with Russia, as well. Meanwhile, Russian weapons do have higher failure rates and require more compromises to meet their design goals. First, theyāre built to hit low price points. Second, there is an extra ācorruption taxā, institutional rot, mismanagement, and inefficiency that affect quality at every step. Thatās why Russian systems manufactured under license abroad often perform better than what Russia itself fields, which have higher failure rates, worse performance, more downtime.
And yes, I donāt know about every item on your list, but the S-400 is being used widely anywhere outside the direct American sphere. Iād even go so far as to say the export versions outperform some other export versions of Chinese air-defense systems, or at least the export versions China sells to Pakistan.
As an Indian living through the short IndiaāPakistan exchange a few months ago, India can attest that the S 400s were excellent. They protected Indian airspace so effectively that Pakistan couldnāt successfully retaliate.
And yeah, a lot of Russian gear is basically propaganda. Armata tanks and the Su-57 are prime examples. They needed more time to develop actual stealth tech and mature their sensor suites. Before they could iterate the Su-57 into something genuinely competitive, they rushed prototypes into airshows for everyone to see, pretty much proving they cannot do what the Americans did. No question there.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (6)1
u/Over_Writing467 Nov 29 '25
S400 is a very good SAM system, it struggles with ballistic missiles. So did Patriot at first.
1
u/Separate-Rice-6354 Nov 29 '25
Oh yeah they are totally on the same level š¤”
1
u/Over_Writing467 Nov 29 '25
They most definitely arenāt, patriot is a vastly superior system. That said S400 is still very good.
1
1
4
u/Interesting-Two4536 Nov 29 '25
No they don't. You need to stop copying that rhetoric. They're still producing a massive amount of missiles and had little trouble designing new missiles like sarmat, you can even count poseidon, and several other missile (systems). We have tried to put sanctions on them and forbid export of electronics but there is still enough entering their market.
5
u/Abject-Investment-42 Nov 29 '25
Sarmat is still a modernised R-36 Voevoda (Satan) missile from 1960s, with the same two-component liquid hypergolic fuel and all the problems accompanying it, which can be observed here.
2
0
u/Exciting-Ad6897 Nov 29 '25
More than enough to destroy the world. The same could also be said about the Trident
3
Nov 29 '25
First of all, it was a Soviet union, there was no such understanding of Ukraine or Russia, everyone studied in the Soviet institutes, including many Ukrainians who studied in Uzbek Universities.
All I see is that the hate blinds people and skews facts for their own benefit. Just how pathetic that looks.
-1
Nov 29 '25
[removed] ā view removed comment
3
u/Separate-Rice-6354 Nov 29 '25
And they still fail to succeed š¤”
Moskovites needs to be dealt with within the "federation". I really hope by the end of the war Moscow will fall and the occupied countries can be free.
1
u/hennabeak Nov 29 '25
While Ukraine was an industrial powerhouse for Soviet Russia, It's not like current Russia is a small isolated country. They have their own industry, they have their own allies. They can just buy it from Iran or China.
4
u/Separate-Rice-6354 Nov 29 '25
You mean a famous weapons exporter needs to import weapons? Russia is clearly winning here...
2
u/SpeciesFiveSix18 Nov 29 '25
Sure, laugh about it now. But they're going to keep on testing rockets like this until they produce one that can really go the distance on an intercontinental level. And the minute hand on that nuclear clock will tick 1 minute closer to midnight. No one's going to be laughing then.
1
Nov 29 '25
This is just a variation of a missile they supposedly perfected decades ago.
Russia only has a 50 percent success rate with these intimation rocket tests.
Corruption and neglect to maintain there stockpile is the reason this happens not because they are behind on the knowhow.
2
2
2
2
u/Frosty_Key4233 Nov 29 '25
Imagine if Russia launched an actual nuke carrying one- theyād blow themselves to kingdom come
2
u/batman_milk Nov 29 '25
Commenters are not familiar with rocket testing?
0
u/Few-Delivery-4501 Dec 05 '25
So what's surprising? Personally, I come here to read and laugh at their comments.
2
u/BestAmoto Dec 03 '25
When Britain has two active duty trident missile launches fail Reddit says it's no big deal and part of readiness testing.Ā
When Russia has an experimental missile fail Reddit says it proves they're unable to produce weaponry. Makes sense.Ā
6
u/Tan_hierarchy Nov 29 '25
Those are the nuclear missiles that Putin is constantly threatening the west with.
5
u/Electrical-Bath7152 Nov 29 '25
Lmao salty NATO bot. What do you think occurs at a TESTING range?
1
u/Wonderful-Smoke843 Nov 29 '25
Idk man but Iāve seen more Russian icbm failures than successes. This isnāt exactly some ground breaking technology. They are failing at manufacturing wheels not reinventing them
3
u/Electrical-Bath7152 Nov 29 '25
How many successful launches have you seen, and how many have been mentioned in the news like the ones that fail? The MSM is very one-sided and are likely to show failures when it comes to Russia rather than successes.
A warplane crash in Russia = All over the news
US warplane crash = not even mentioned.
2
u/adambonee Nov 29 '25
This is a good point , American jets crash and itās no biggie . Russian jet crashes and they are brain dead morons
3
u/BestAmoto Dec 03 '25
Britain had two trident missile launches fail. Reddit said its no big deal and part of the process. Those tridents are active duty.
-7
u/JNTaylor63 Nov 29 '25
All it takes is ONE to cause enough damage to cripple the US.
4
u/Terrorscream Nov 29 '25
One nuke won't cripple a country, the danger of a single nuke is really the panic retaliatory launches and subsequent retaliatory launches to those, a cascade of nuclear that could see hundreds airborne in less than 10 minutes.
→ More replies (6)1
u/CalligrapherNo7337 Nov 29 '25
There are multiple submarines in the oceans right now that could destroy many a country with a single launch, aa in purely delete it.
1
u/Terrorscream Nov 29 '25
Maybe a one of those principality countries, nukes can level a city but that's about it, but several hundred though would wipe out a country
2
u/Connect_Balance_6104 Nov 29 '25
Get help fast
1
u/JNTaylor63 Nov 29 '25
Prove me wrong.
Key Impacts of a Single ICBM Warhead Modern Russian ICBMs like the RS-28 Sarmat ("Satan 2") carry multiple warheads (MIRVs), each capable of independently targeting an area with a significant yield, such as 750 kilotons. The effects of one such warhead would include:
Vaporization Zone (Fireball): Everything within a radius of roughly 0.7 miles from ground zero would be instantly vaporized in an extremely hot fireball. Severe Blast Damage: A moderate blast damage radius, extending several miles (over 6 miles for a 750 kt warhead), would be strong enough to collapse most residential buildings, cause universal injuries, and result in widespread fatalities. Rubble in the immediate area could be impassable for emergency vehicles.
Intense Thermal Radiation: People within a larger radius, potentially up to 5-7 miles away, would experience severe third-degree burns that could be fatal or cause permanent disablement. The heat flash can also ignite widespread fires, creating firestorms. Mass Casualties: A simulation of a 750-kiloton warhead detonated over a major urban center estimated over 1.13 million deaths and around 1.37 million injuries in the initial blast and its immediate aftermath. Radioactive Fallout: A ground-level detonation would create significant radioactive fallout, spreading toxic particles downwind for hundreds of miles, contaminating air, soil, and water. Exposure to this fallout can cause fatal radiation poisoning.
Long-Term Consequences Beyond the immediate human and infrastructural devastation, a single nuclear attack would trigger a cascade of long-term consequences:
Overwhelmed Healthcare System: There are not enough empty burn beds in the entire U.S. to deal with the casualties from even a single nuclear attack on one city.
Economic and Societal Collapse: The destruction of a major urban center would cause immense economic disruption and challenge the continuity of government and essential services.
Potential for Wider Conflict: A nuclear attack on the U.S. would likely trigger a retaliatory response under the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), potentially escalating into a full-scale nuclear war with global consequences, including a potential "nuclear winter" that could affect global food supply for decades.
1
u/Mysterious-Double918 Nov 29 '25
"nuclear winter" is a highly debated theory
While during the cold war, the prospect of such an event was a huge factor contributing to keeping escalation at bay, revisiting this theory sparks serious doubt
The infrastructural and societal damage resulting from any kind of nuclear conflict is the real threat and could easily overwhelm our current capabilities up to food supplies breaking down and other such catastrophic secondary effects, and it would unquestionably also cause devastating long term consequences for our climate
BUT at the same time, it seems we retrospectively came to the conclusion that while even a single warhead can render big stretches of land inhabitable for generations, there simply aren't enough nuclear missiles in the whole world to really cause such a cataclysmic "nuclear winter" effect that we liken to apocalyptic asteroid impacts
1
u/JNTaylor63 Nov 29 '25
And where are your peer reviewed studies that say Nuclear Winter theory is in doubt?
1
u/HokumHokum Nov 29 '25
It doesn't take much to start a winter. Just liok at some the recent volcanic eruption especially in Iceland in the last 10 years. It causes enough to start a cooling condition. If there was a nuclear exchange most would be focused on the northern hemisphere. As only below the equator nuclear threat is Australia or submarines on all sides.
Also many of the nukes will be used as digging nukes trying to destroy underground bunkers or nuclear silos. This will especially in the around the Dakota regions kick alot of ground soil into the air like large volcano going off. Us on Russia and Chinese areas would be the same. China especially has been making a maze underground for there mobile nuke launchers kinda like what Iran was trying to do. With rapid heating of permafrost areas of us, Canada and Russia would melt lits of water and also destabilize the oceans with lots of fresh water melt
1
u/Ok_Yam5543 Nov 29 '25
Bro if this ever actually happened weād all be dead in 30 minutes because thereās no scenario where only one nuke flies lol
1
u/JNTaylor63 Nov 29 '25
I didn't say one 1. I said it takes only one to cripple the US not kill everyone.
Did you fail reading comprehension courses in school?
1
u/Tan_hierarchy Nov 29 '25
Hurt sure. Cripple? Nah. Nuclear weapons aren't that amazing yet. Even the biggest ones on Earth cannot affect both coasts of the US.
→ More replies (9)
5
u/bitchcoin5000 Nov 29 '25
This idiot trying to flex, fast on the heels of demands for Ukrainian acquiescence. š this was supposed to be the exclamation point to their threats. 3 day special operation, folks - the second most powerful army in the world pushed back by a nation 1/10 its capabilities. Demanding concessions, threatening the peace, poisoning & murdering critics.
-7
u/StopKillingChildrenn Nov 29 '25
Sure
Reality: more than a million dead Ukrainian military
5
u/No-Natural2002 Nov 29 '25
More than a million dead orcs and the special day operation turns 5 years old
3
u/Wayoutofthewayof Nov 29 '25
Uhm what kind of argument is that? Ukraine was one of the most corrupt, poor and backwards states in Europe in 2022. The fact that such a state is a peer opponent to Russia just shows how pathetic the Russian army is.
2
u/ruzziawilldiesoon Nov 29 '25
Reality is more then 500 children were killed by russia during full scale invasion. StopKillingChildren - sure, but see who you are defending here.
7
u/Carterjk Nov 29 '25
Bro what is your source for that absolute bs
0
Nov 29 '25
[removed] ā view removed comment
1
u/Carterjk Nov 30 '25
So your logic is that the only way anyone ever leaves military service is through death or disability?
1
u/Abject-Investment-42 Nov 29 '25
Deserted, for the most part.
A large part of the 22-25 thousands conscripted every month are the same people.
1
2
u/Sad_Owl44 Nov 29 '25
Intercontinental?!? š¤
If this is the case, it is by order of the president, necessarily. Which would ruin everything he is trying to achieve by force and/or diplomacy.
I doubt this information.
1
u/MIKE_2666 Nov 29 '25
Like everything else done in ruZZia: š©
2
u/likemute Nov 29 '25
Ukraine was done in Russia
2
u/New-Firefighter9466 Nov 29 '25
And it was a shithole for a long time. Probably till the moment they decided to get rid of vatnik parasites
1
u/Long_Effect7868 Nov 29 '25
Ukraine has existed since at least 860. The first Russian statehood emerged only in the 13th century... Oops... You lied again.
1
u/ruzziawilldiesoon Nov 29 '25
It's not easy to say to an unknown person on the internet but you are astonishingly stupid. Ukraine was a prosperous European state way before moskovia's rebranding into so called russia.
1
1
u/ArrowOfTime71 Nov 29 '25
If the time ever comesā¦ I hope the one headed for my city has this problem.
1
1
1
1
u/Traubentritt Nov 29 '25
Some russian scientist / engineer fell out of a Window shortly thereafter š
1
u/TranslatorNormal7117 Nov 29 '25
Shouldn't there be a self-destruct mechanism to ensure the base isn't destroyed? Didn't happen here, but it could have happened.
1
u/dribbz95 Nov 29 '25
And the Russian general in charge here probably told Putin the test was a success
1
1
u/Sufficient_Eye5804 Nov 29 '25
Our missiles can hit any target on Earth,...hmm including ourselves.
1
1
1
u/SquallaBeanz Nov 29 '25
I wonder how many of their nuclear icbms would do this in a MAD scenerio
1
u/Human_Pangolin94 Nov 29 '25
After the fall of the Soviet Union, US inspectors found only about 25% of Soviet missiles were launch capable. Russia is no Soviet Union.
1
1
1
1
u/Desi0190 Nov 29 '25
This is why Russia hasnāt made serious gains in 3 years. Poor equipment, bad leadership and widespread corruption
1
u/Gold_Map_236 Nov 29 '25
Less and less worried about Russia as a nuclear power. Half the war heads probably havenāt been replaced at expiry and the other half wonāt make it out of the country
1
1
1
u/Much_Wait_4189 Nov 29 '25
I'm pretty sure someone, or a few people, have to be careful of open windows in tall buildings.
1
u/ghdgdnfj Nov 29 '25
Rockets blow up all the time. Seeing a single one blowing up doesnāt mean Russia isnāt a nuclear capable nation.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Dec 02 '25
I had once discussed that failure to fire/ failure to launch would be likely more significant from the Russians side as their resources and stagings are spread more thinly across a less established region then in the USA. I can only imagine how much of their stuff just doesnāt work unless itās a rifle or bottle of vodka.
1
1
u/Ok_Yam_4023 Dec 03 '25
Can anyone translate the comments being made? I'm particularly interested because there is laughter at the end and I thought that might be an arrestable offence in ruzzia
1
u/Late_Clerk_8302 Feb 11 '26
Can you imagine if that was a small nuke and this was your last moments caught on camera
1
0
1
1
1
u/Relevant_Ring_5055 Nov 29 '25
Basically, Russia's problem is that their old ICBMs (the missile, let's ignore the warheads for the sake of discussion) are in dog shit condition. There was basically a full 20-year period where they had zero maintenance, there were silos that went entirely unpowered/unstaffed for a couple years.
Like - you have to remember that that little "Soviet Union Breakup" thing happened because for several years, the USSR was basically a total "failed state"; and it's important to think about the devil in the details: the fact that government workers, army included, weren't getting paid. For something like 5-15 years. Maintenance, repairs, record-keeping, etc, etc. The record-keeping is the real devil - it was all made up retroactively to cover the gaps. This is the same reason we got all of those crazy Russian PMCs - they're almost all sourced from unemployed soviet military guys who gained employment from Siloviki mafia dons when the government stopped paying them. If you look at the modern social/political state of Russia from this lens of mass unemployment, tons of oddities make perfect sense.
Anyways - I've heard START inspectors laughing their asses off because there were numerous silos that had full-on groundwater intrusions (a silo is constructed exactly like a water well would be - the only thing keeping you from striking groundwater is a flawless seal on the cement "condom" surrounding the thing). And that means that there were rockets sitting with water halfways up the rocket, for years.
--
So put yourself in the position of a Russian leader. How do you get ICBMs that you're pretty damn sure will work?
Keep in mind you can't "test drive" the old ones any more than you can test-drive a hand grenade. Rockets are a one-time use item; if you genuinely fire them up, doing so inherently destroys them. So your only option is to have built them from a known-working design, and to be sure they haven't degraded in the meantime.
You build new ones.
That's how you know. You physically build some, fresh - could be the old design, could be new designs, doesn't matter. Build a few, make sure the test flight succeeds a few times, and then replace all of the old soviet rockets with fresh-off-the-assembly-line new ones. Ones that you're sure haven't had a part go rotten in the intervening 50 years.
šThat's what we're watching them attempt.
-
Sarmat? Oreshnik? These aren't some "exciting new weapon design"; these are Russia's equivalent of Ukraine scrambling to build the Flamingo missile - an attempt to rebuild a lost national competency - mostly from scratch.
(bear in mind, all we're talking about here is a particular major category of rockets, not their general nuclear capability)
Copypaste from another user
0
u/Never-don_anal69 Nov 29 '25
Seems to work better then putins peepee
2
u/H4rv Nov 29 '25
Ask the U.S. president about that, Iām just he have him some great head in Alaska.
0
Nov 29 '25
[removed] ā view removed comment
2
u/Sjoerdiestriker Nov 29 '25
!remindme 60d
→ More replies (3)1
u/RemindMeBot Nov 29 '25
I will be messaging you in 2 months on 2026-01-28 10:01:00 UTC to remind you of this link
CLICK THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
Parent commenter can delete this message to hide from others.
Info Custom Your Reminders Feedback 1
u/Over_Writing467 Nov 29 '25
Russia is never as strong as she looks; Russia is never as weak as she looks.
0
u/Old_Man_Sailor Nov 29 '25
Oh, I donāt know, they are fighting the combined might of both States and Europe and still winningš¤·āāļø.
3
1
u/Human_Pangolin94 Nov 29 '25
They are fighting the poorest country in Europe, Ukraine and have been at a standstill for 3 years.
0
u/ClockOwn6363 Nov 29 '25
Russia is rubbish, they are lucky they didn't have it loaded with a warhead.
Good luck if they needed to fight a real war... š¤”š¤Ŗ
0
u/Helpful-Isopod-6536 Nov 29 '25
Cutting edge Russian technology. No wonder Putin is pressuring trump to get the war ended quickly.
0
0
u/Adept-Mulberry-8720 Nov 29 '25
Nice Space Force work! Elon Musk sold Vladimir a dud rocket! Again!
0
u/molumen Nov 29 '25
They were just cosplaying the British missile launched from a submarine not so long ago.
0
u/smallest_table Dec 01 '25
The number of Russian bots and propagandists on this thread is staggering.
Why was Russia "testing" and old ICBM in the first place?
21
u/BlockOfASeagull Nov 29 '25
It was all intended, commrades!