comment: >
  
  how much are they producing? must be "a lot"
context: This is nothing major. The risk of them using this is still very low, at least for now >
  
  It's terrible of Russia to want to litter the seabed with more of its nuclear garbage. >
  
  Lol who cares? I grew up in the cold war and these headlines were pretty common, the same problem Russia and the rest of the nuclear powers had then still exists now, if a single one of those warheads is ever used in anger the offending country gets turned to glass.
  After 50 years of hearing these "stories" you pretty much get immune to them >
  
  Still, It's sad to think we're always a push of a few buttons away from a collapse of the world order, humans are insane >
  
  We're really not, though.  You would need every person in the launch chain to be suicidally crazy.   It's not just like the president of the US or putin can just unilaterally declare they want to do a first strike, they'd have to get everyone in the chain to go along with that.   Soviet missile base commanders have refused the order in the past on more than one occasion. >
  
  In the event one side even launched a single nuke how would it be crazy to retaliate? Isn't that essentially the protocol? >
  
  A single nuke - no. We know it because previously false alarms were sounded, and nobody was that eager to jump to conclusions over what can be an observation equipment malfunction.
  It will sure have HUGE political consequences but not the immediate doomsday. That, and most countries have very strict protocols of what nukes can be used for, essentially only allowing their launch in the event of a similarly dangerous event already underway. That’s not something exactly easy to miss. >
  
  You're right to some degree, the soviet reports i've read had the missiles under ten before sounding the false alarm. 
  By immediate though do you mean before that singular nuke touches the mainland? Because at that point i think it's rational to believe the country in question would follow through at that point, even if it was a malfunction >
  
  Thankfully we never got into a real fight like that. Hopefully never will. Most likely a response would require confirmation from multiple sources of undeniable intention of the enemy to inflict crippling damage (i.e. nukes are many, clearly flying towards strategic targets, and the leader of the opposing state is not on the phone saying it’s a mistake - no, it’s not sarcasm, that’s what direct lines are for).
  For Russia specifically, the alleged Dead Man Hand also requires a command from the Kremlin NOT to launch the missiles should it register multiple disturbances consistent with nuclear strikes. >
  
  Stupid Russia. We are going to get a whole species of Godzilla. >
  
  Seeing how corrupt the Russian military is I bet the plutonium was replaced with silly putty... >
  
  Just another example of Russian deterrence through fiction. >
  
  Never trust a Russian. >
  
  well im sure they have enough nukes to make a nuclear torpedo... 
  How theyr gona launch it towards Ukraina and not hitting everyone else then have a bigger issue.
  Not to mention if the people in said sub is even loyal enough to even launch it and not just drive the sub to ukraine and get warfunds for surrendering equipment. >
  
  Who caree this titles are just bait >
  
  Russia doesn't dare launch any of their rusting land-based missiles as decades of corruption and lack of maintenance has led to the risk of the missiles failing to achieve flight and landing on Russian territory, and likely in a fully armed state because, Russia be dumb. >
  
  Source about "lack of maintenance"? >
  
  Fair point.
  We see a lot of lack of maintenance in all in types of equipment from simple protective gear to the biggest ships, so one could assume that at least a part of the nuclear weapons is in a similar state. 
  But I think it's hard to estimate how much maintenance effort actually went into the nuclear arsenal. >
  
  That's not a valid comparison. 
  Russia is still a major global player in providing enriched uranium for nuclear power plants. To think they're not making weapons grade enriched materials shows (IMO) a complete lack of knowledge on the subject. 
  Nuclear weapons were made with tech from the 40s/50s, it's nothing that sanctions will prevent, and they can produce the necessary ores from domestic mines. 
  They basically have a private subsidy of their weapons program by selling energy grade uranium. >
  
  Maybe I wasn't making my point clear enough.
  I fully agree with you, it's completely possible that Russia's nuclear arsenal is in a much better state than other branches of the military.
  But I also think that after seeing the state of the rest of the military, including nuclear ships and submarines, it wouldn't be too surprising to learn that the ICBMs etc. are not in perfect shape.
  My main point is: We just don't know yet. >
  
  Blah blah blah >
  
  Oh, great.