How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Beleg85]

41 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

Really, a fantasy writer couldn't dream up this stuff any better..

Some time before the war Kremlin demanded withdrawal of "all" NATO forces from Bulgaria and Romania - that means, withdrawal of militaries from their own countries. It took them several days to specify it was about "Western" Nato forces.

Level of ****up Russian diplomacy has become. They cannot even construct believable threats.

[mosuri]

1 hour ago, Aragorn2002 said:

On the other hand Germany played an important role in the Finnish independence war in 1918. The Germans need some time but will become a military powerhouse again. In the mean time countries like the US, UK, Sweden, Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands can and will come to your aid if needed. Are you personally in favor of NATO membership?

I am in favor of the NATO membership 100%, but at the same time I will not expect a free ride. It does not remove the need for having an army, even if it would significantly raise the threshold of Russian aggression towards us.

[Aragorn2002]

2 hours ago, mosuri said:

I am in favor of the NATO membership 100%, but at the same time I will not expect a free ride. It does not remove the need for having an army, even if it would significantly raise the threshold of Russian aggression towards us.

Wise words. He who wants peace, prepares for war. Especially with the Russians as neighbour.

Edited July 24, 2022 by Aragorn2002

[akd]

@sburke @Kinophile

Maj. Leonid Makhonin, Rosgvardiya Special Purpose Center "Vityaz":

 

Edited July 24, 2022 by akd

[Homo_Ferricus]

Been hungry for a debrief of the initial airborne ops around Hostomel. "War in Ukraine" YT channel did one a couple weeks ago that I just found. A bit clumsy as far as debriefs go, but some interesting stuff in there that I wasn't aware of:

• Majority of the troops that landed in the helis were actually 45th Spetsnaz Brigade, not actual VDV, though there were numbers of VDV volunteers in the grouping. (According to Haiduk below 45th SB is actually under VDV Command)
• Of 2 or 3 helis that were shot down in the initial assault, one of them contained the commander of the grouping which significantly contributed to their post-landing paralysis.
• There actually WAS a landing at Vasylkiv that was rather successful from the start (I recall lots of rumors and conflicting info about Vasylkiv in those first days as things were happening). Though that grouping of ~200 Russians were eventually surrounded and neutralized by the 72nd Brigade that was brought up from the south.
• No mention of the Ukrainians retaking the airfield overnight...
• The planned IL-76 landings at Hostomel and Vasylkiv were cancelled since they weren't secure. Not clear if those planes ever took off, but pretty much 100% that no IL-76 were shot down at this point.
• Pardon me if this is old news to the forum at large....

We still don't know much about the author(s) of this channel--clearly it's someone who is from the region (probably Ukrainian?) who is knowledgeable in military, political, economic affairs. He often presents and pushes information that is contrary to a lot of what is said both in the mainstream AND on this forum. Often taking a more pessimistic position that things in Ukraine are worse than many portray (state of economy, competence of military leadership, logistical capacities, etc.)

Curious how some of our more hardcore observers/contributors here feel about his data and opinions.

 

Edited July 24, 2022 by Homo_Ferricus

[chrisl]

8 hours ago, panzermartin said:

I think Russia has been more active in the nuclear front than the West , with newer platforms, advanced warheads etc. So it might come as a surprise that they are in fact ahead of the competition in that macabre department. If I was Russia and I knew my conventional army can never be enough to counter NATO, I would keep a sizeable force enough for neighboring police (that came out not even enough to take Ukraine) and invest more in asymmetrical measures like nuclear than in my conventional army. So the state of their army might not be a 100% reflection on that. Plus they are famous for their reliable rocket tech. Nuclear are not a BTR that is left to rust, it is a deadly serious national security asset that demands strict monitoring. 

You can think that, but there's not much to support it.

Your second to last sentence shows a confusion that's also common in most press reports.  Delivery systems and warheads are distinct from each other.  If the warheads don't go "boom" the delivery systems don't matter. 

Russia hasn't done a nuclear test that went "boom" since 1990.  They talk a lot, but the impression I get is that it's all powerpoint.  The latest wunderweapon is this hypersonic missile.  Without a warhead it's just a kinetic energy weapon.  It's also a non-trivial thing to do.  Russia is good at rockets - they've managed to maintain a very reliable launch program for 30 years post-USSR and have some of the most reliable launch vehicles you can get.  I have no doubt that they can make something go hypersonic.  The hard part is controlling it as a maneuver vehicle in the atmosphere, and there's no evidence that they've been able to do that.  We've spent the last 5 months looking at their "precision" guidance capability, their "advances" in armor and APS, their AD radar systems, etc, and there's not much there.  

Given that they haven't done a test that went "boom" since 1990, it's a pretty good bet that they haven't developed anything new in the warhead department.  They could possibly have developed a new fission bomb in the ~10 kT range - that's not that hard to do and they have a lot of materials laying around, but that stuff is also tracked (and leaves tracks) and I can't find anything indicating that there's anything new.  This congressional report from 2022 notes a lot of delivery system development, but given the actual resources available to Russia to do that, it's probably a lot of powerpoint and staged demos.  And delivery systems don't mean much if the warheads don't go "boom".

Warheads take a lot of maintenance.  The US spends ~$20B/year on "stockpile stewardship", which translates in real terms into "how do we make sure the bombs will explode without actually exploding one".  That's about 1/3 of the total Russian military budget.  You can make the argument that US engineers cost proportionally more, but it's a weak one. The US doesn't have anywhere near the level of corruption in the political and military budgets that Russia has, and has a lot of controls to make sure they're actually getting what they're paying for.  And the bright Russian scientists and engineers can come to the US and make US engineer and scientist salaries.  And even with all that, the US nuclear weapons development program nearly died about 20 years ago due to lack of interest from scientists and engineers not being interested in working on it (there was an NYT article or series on it that I haven't been able to find). Russia faces much worse problems in getting the technical people necessary to maintain their weapons systems and keeping them trained and making sure they're actually doing the work.  

You're correct that "it is a deadly serious national security asset that demands strict monitoring", but I suspect most of the monitoring is coming from the outside through arms control agreements (and maybe a bit of espionage), which do nothing to make sure the bombs will work, just that there aren't more than there are supposed to be and that the material is accounted for.  The corruption within Russia is pervasive enough that unless you can show me something concrete, it's likely at least as bad in the nuke maintenance department as it is with the truck tires.  At least someone is going to see if the truck tires go flat in the lot.

And as has already been pointed out (more by other posters) - a nuclear arsenal only works if it's not going "boom" outside of tests.  Actually pushing a button to launch nukes in anger is an indication that your nuclear strategy failed, because you'll stop existing less than 60 minutes later, along with your country in any meaningful sense. If Putin wanted to make a real nuclear threat, he'd set one off on a test range.  But he'd also want to be really, really sure that it went off, because if it doesn't, the threat fizzles as fast as the bomb does.

[Haiduk]

34 minutes ago, Homo_Ferricus said:

Majority of the troops that landed in the helis were actually 45th Spetsnaz Brigade, not actual VDV, though there were numbers of VDV volunteers in the grouping.

There was combined forces of 45th special forces and 31st air-assaault (and maybe some small number of FSB/Rosgvardia elite special forces). 45th Spetsnaz brihade also belongs to VDV command. 

Edited July 24, 2022 by Haiduk

[Letter from Prague]

The other thing that is good to know (not that I'm advocating for starting a nuclear war) is that the warheads and delivery systems aren't necessarily compatible. You can't take just any warhead and put it in any missile.

There is often quoted numer "Russia has 6000 nuclear warheads" and that might be true, but not whole truth. Most of the warheads don't actually have a delivery system. While the ICBMs with multiple warheads are the most scary part of an arsenal, most of the warheads are supposed to be deployed in form of bombs dropped from bombers. Those are definitely not usable on anyone who is not letting Russian bombers just fly around.

[Zeleban]

45 minutes ago, Homo_Ferricus said:

С нетерпением ждал отчета о первоначальных воздушно-десантных операциях вокруг Гостомеля. Канал "Война в Украине" пару недель назад сделал один, который я только что нашел. Немного неуклюже, что касается дебрифинга, но есть кое-что интересное, о чем я не знал:

• Большинство военнослужащих, приземлившихся на вертолете, на самом деле были 45-й бригадой спецназа, а не ВДВ, хотя в группе было несколько добровольцев ВДВ.
• Из 2-3 вертолетов, сбитых при первом штурме, в одном находился командир группы, что существенно способствовало их послепосадочному параличу.
• На самом деле БЫЛА посадка в Василькове, которая с самого начала была достаточно удачной (вспоминаю много слухов и противоречивой информации о Василькове в те первые дни, как дела шли). Хотя эта группировка из примерно 200 русских в конечном итоге была окружена и нейтрализована 72-й бригадой, переброшенной с юга.
• Никаких упоминаний о том, что украинцы за ночь отбили аэродром...
• Запланированные посадки Ил-76 в Гостомеле и Василькове были отменены из-за небезопасности. Неясно, взлетали ли когда-либо эти самолеты, но практически на 100% не было сбито ни одного Ил-76.
• Простите меня, если это старая новость для форума в целом....

Мы до сих пор мало что знаем об авторе (авторах) этого канала - ясно, что это кто-то из региона (вероятно, украинец?), кто разбирается в военных, политических, экономических делах. Он часто представляет и продвигает информацию, противоречащую многому из того, что говорится как в мейнстриме, так и на этом форуме. Часто занимая более пессимистическую позицию, что в Украине дела обстоят хуже, чем многие изображают (состояние экономики, компетентность военного руководства, логистические возможности и т.

Любопытно, как некоторые из наших наиболее ярых наблюдателей/участников здесь относятся к его данным и мнениям.

 

I have not seen anywhere on this forum that someone claimed the genius of the Ukrainian command

[Zeleban]

55 минут назад, Homo_Ferricus сказал:

С заключением ожидался отчет о первоначальных воздушно-десантных операциях вокруг Гостомеля. Канал "Война в Украине" пару недель назад сделал один, который я только что нашел. Немного неуклюже, что касается дебрифинга, но есть кое-что интересное, о чем я не знал:

• Большинство военнослужащих, приземлившихся на вертолетах, на самом деле были 45-й бригадой спецназа, а не ВДВ, хотя в группе было несколько добровольцев ВДВ.
• Из 2-3 вертолетов, сбитых при первом штурме, в одном командире группы, что значительно увеличилось после посадочного паралича.
• На самом деле БЫЛА посадка в Василькове, которая с самого начала была достаточно удачной (вспоминаю много слухов и противоречивой информации о Василькове в те первые дни, как дела шли). Хотя эта группировка примерно из 200 русских в конечном итоге была окружена и нейтрализована 72-й бригадой, переброшенной с юга.
• Никоим образом не упоминавшийся том, что украинцы за ночь отбили аэродром...
• Запланированные посадки Ил-76 в Гостомеле и Василькове были сняты из-за небезопасности. Неясно, когда-либо были обнаружены эти самолеты, но практически на 100% не было сбито ни одного Ил-76.
• Простите меня, если это старая новость для форума в целом....

Мы до сих пор мало что знаем об авторе (авторах) этого канала - ясно, что это кто-то из региона (вероятно, украинец?), кто разбирается в военных, атакующих, экономических делах. Он часто представляет и продвигает информацию, противоречащую многому из того, что говорится как в мейнстриме, так и на этом. Часто занималась более пессимистической оценкой, что в Украине дела обстоят хуже, чем многие заболевания (состояние экономики, надежность достоверности, логистические возможности и т.

Любопытно, как некоторые из наших наиболее ярых наблюдателей/участников здесь относятся к его данным и мнениям.

 

Regarding the strength of the 4th National Guard Brigade. As far as I know, on February 24 this brigade was in eastern Ukraine. In the places of its deployment there were rear and reserve units (several hundred people) They were also transferred to reinforce the special unit of the SBU "Alpha". but the main role in the fight against the Russian airborne assault was played by our artillery. I remember well their shooting on the first day of the war, judging by the loudness of the sound of the shots, as well as the fact that the rustle of shells flying towards Gostomel was perfectly audible, they were located very close to my house

Edited July 24, 2022 by Zeleban

[G.I. Joe]

1 hour ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Wise words. He who wants peace, prepares for war. Especially with the Russians as neighbour.

It does say a lot when your neighbours' national anthems have titles like "Poland's Cause is Not Yet Lost" and "Ukraine Has Not Yet Perished..."

[sburke]

10 hours ago, panzermartin said:

I think Russia has been more active in the nuclear front than the West , with newer platforms, advanced warheads etc. So it might come as a surprise that they are in fact ahead of the competition in that macabre department. If I was Russia and I knew my conventional army can never be enough to counter NATO, I would keep a sizeable force enough for neighboring police (that came out not even enough to take Ukraine) and invest more in asymmetrical measures like nuclear than in my conventional army. So the state of their army might not be a 100% reflection on that. Plus they are famous for their reliable rocket tech. Nuclear are not a BTR that is left to rust, it is a deadly serious national security asset that demands strict monitoring. 

Russia has a lower GDP than Italy. 

List of countries by GDP (nominal) - Wikipedia

Does it never occur to you that financially Russian really isn't capable of supporting a nuclear arsenal of that size?  There is a reason the US has had to help deal with Russia getting rid of all its nuclear material that @Ultradavediscussed several hundred pages ago.  Frankly if I was a Russian commander, I'd be very afraid to hit that launch button as there is no telling how badly it will malfunction.

You really need to ground your view of Russian military development in a realistic perspective on what a corruption ridden 11th rated GDP country is ACTUALLY capable of doing.

 

[Taranis]

1 hour ago, Homo_Ferricus said:

Been hungry for a debrief of the initial airborne ops around Hostomel. "War in Ukraine" YT channel did one a couple weeks ago that I just found. A bit clumsy as far as debriefs go, but some interesting stuff in there that I wasn't aware of:

• Majority of the troops that landed in the helis were actually 45th Spetsnaz Brigade, not actual VDV, though there were numbers of VDV volunteers in the grouping. (According to Haiduk below 45th SB is actually under VDV Command)
• Of 2 or 3 helis that were shot down in the initial assault, one of them contained the commander of the grouping which significantly contributed to their post-landing paralysis.
• There actually WAS a landing at Vasylkiv that was rather successful from the start (I recall lots of rumors and conflicting info about Vasylkiv in those first days as things were happening). Though that grouping of ~200 Russians were eventually surrounded and neutralized by the 72nd Brigade that was brought up from the south.
• No mention of the Ukrainians retaking the airfield overnight...
• The planned IL-76 landings at Hostomel and Vasylkiv were cancelled since they weren't secure. Not clear if those planes ever took off, but pretty much 100% that no IL-76 were shot down at this point.
• Pardon me if this is old news to the forum at large....

We still don't know much about the author(s) of this channel--clearly it's someone who is from the region (probably Ukrainian?) who is knowledgeable in military, political, economic affairs. He often presents and pushes information that is contrary to a lot of what is said both in the mainstream AND on this forum. Often taking a more pessimistic position that things in Ukraine are worse than many portray (state of economy, competence of military leadership, logistical capacities, etc.)

Curious how some of our more hardcore observers/contributors here feel about his data and opinions.

 

I also wonder who he is. I like his videos because he often brings analyzes to see interesting information and allows us to have a vision that is sometimes different from ours, which in turn allows us to be fairer and to open our minds (and good sum up). However, as you notice, I find that it is often very negative on the Ukrainian side. For example, he said basically that the HIMARS would not change much, then the same for the attack on the ammunition depots, and yet we see that the Russians are currently in difficulty. It is interesting because it provides economic data or "exclusivities" and sometimes brings us out of our echo chamber. This remains a good source but as always you should not rely solely on one.

[Grigb]

23 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

I have not seen anywhere on this forum that someone claimed the genius of the Ukrainian command

It does command significantly more competent than RU. Not only did it derail the initial RU invasion, forcing RU to run back twice. It grinded RU Eastern offensive to a halt even before it could reach the main defensive line Slavyanks-Kramatorks.

The issue of UKR High Command is UKR Armed Forces still bears legacy of USSR/Pre-maidan age. A lot was done in 8 years. But a lot more will need to be done. For example, UKR army still uses USSR-based tanks. Survivability of the crew of these tanks is bad, especially against modern AT weapons. No need to argue here, quote from LDNR experience:

Quote

The battles for Debaltseve with the participation of hastily equipped with the same T-64 and T-72 tank units of the NM Corps convinced many that “it works both ways” and both sides tanks are a “helpless iron boxes”, a “mass graves for the crew” 

Yet UKR has to fight a major war with these mobile crematoriums. As such there are issues no doubt about it. But given the successes above they are not as critical as RU tools want us to believe.

[panzermartin]

52 minutes ago, chrisl said:

You can think that, but there's not much to support it.

Your second to last sentence shows a confusion that's also common in most press reports.  Delivery systems and warheads are distinct from each other.  If the warheads don't go "boom" the delivery systems don't matter. 

Russia hasn't done a nuclear test that went "boom" since 1990.  They talk a lot, but the impression I get is that it's all powerpoint.  The latest wunderweapon is this hypersonic missile.  Without a warhead it's just a kinetic energy weapon.  It's also a non-trivial thing to do.  Russia is good at rockets - they've managed to maintain a very reliable launch program for 30 years post-USSR and have some of the most reliable launch vehicles you can get.  I have no doubt that they can make something go hypersonic.  The hard part is controlling it as a maneuver vehicle in the atmosphere, and there's no evidence that they've been able to do that.  We've spent the last 5 months looking at their "precision" guidance capability, their "advances" in armor and APS, their AD radar systems, etc, and there's not much there.  

Given that they haven't done a test that went "boom" since 1990, it's a pretty good bet that they haven't developed anything new in the warhead department.  They could possibly have developed a new fission bomb in the ~10 kT range - that's not that hard to do and they have a lot of materials laying around, but that stuff is also tracked (and leaves tracks) and I can't find anything indicating that there's anything new.  This congressional report from 2022 notes a lot of delivery system development, but given the actual resources available to Russia to do that, it's probably a lot of powerpoint and staged demos.  And delivery systems don't mean much if the warheads don't go "boom".

Warheads take a lot of maintenance.  The US spends ~$20B/year on "stockpile stewardship", which translates in real terms into "how do we make sure the bombs will explode without actually exploding one".  That's about 1/3 of the total Russian military budget.  You can make the argument that US engineers cost proportionally more, but it's a weak one. The US doesn't have anywhere near the level of corruption in the political and military budgets that Russia has, and has a lot of controls to make sure they're actually getting what they're paying for.  And the bright Russian scientists and engineers can come to the US and make US engineer and scientist salaries.  And even with all that, the US nuclear weapons development program nearly died about 20 years ago due to lack of interest from scientists and engineers not being interested in working on it (there was an NYT article or series on it that I haven't been able to find). Russia faces much worse problems in getting the technical people necessary to maintain their weapons systems and keeping them trained and making sure they're actually doing the work.  

You're correct that "it is a deadly serious national security asset that demands strict monitoring", but I suspect most of the monitoring is coming from the outside through arms control agreements (and maybe a bit of espionage), which do nothing to make sure the bombs will work, just that there aren't more than there are supposed to be and that the material is accounted for.  The corruption within Russia is pervasive enough that unless you can show me something concrete, it's likely at least as bad in the nuke maintenance department as it is with the truck tires.  At least someone is going to see if the truck tires go flat in the lot.

And as has already been pointed out (more by other posters) - a nuclear arsenal only works if it's not going "boom" outside of tests.  Actually pushing a button to launch nukes in anger is an indication that your nuclear strategy failed, because you'll stop existing less than 60 minutes later, along with your country in any meaningful sense. If Putin wanted to make a real nuclear threat, he'd set one off on a test range.  But he'd also want to be really, really sure that it went off, because if it doesn't, the threat fizzles as fast as the bomb does.

Good points thanks. You might be correct that a lot of warheads are of questionable condition. I don't know how time will treat such complicated devices. But I would bet their rocket fleet is in good shape and the platforms can achieve all the stages of flight most of the time. 

The real question is, how many of the warheads are needed to go boom to erase a big country from the map and If it's logical to bet on these chances at all. If say 100 are launched and only 3 out of 10 goes boom, you will still have most big cities wiped from the map. 

I guess until we hear again about resuming nuclear test detonations we are still away from that scenario. 

[chrisl]

1 minute ago, panzermartin said:

Good points thanks. You might be correct that a lot of warheads are of questionable condition. I don't know how time will treat such complicated devices. But I would bet their rocket fleet is in good shape and the platforms can achieve all the stages of flight most of the time. 

The real question is, how many of the warheads are needed to go boom to erase a big country from the map and If it's logical to bet on these chances at all. If say 100 are launched and only 3 out of 10 goes boom, you will still have most big cities wiped from the map. 

I guess until we hear again about resuming nuclear test detonations we are still away from that scenario. 

Again - if you're pushing that big button, your arsenal has already failed to work properly and you've already lost, no matter how much damage you might do to whoever is on the receiving end.

The arsenal only works as long as whoever it might be pointed at thinks that it could explode.  Right now it's working for Russia, because NATO is being very cautious about giving Ukraine weapons that can reach into Russia.  

As Ukraine continues to demonstrate that it will reliably only target military targets (which could include things like rail yards and fuel depots) within Russia, and only to the extent that they affect logistics into Ukraine, you can expect to see NATO donating longer range stuff.  

Putin can saber rattle, but he can't push the button for multiple reasons.  And he can't really even escalate by firing one on the test range because of the risk that it fails and renders his arsenal useless.

[Butschi]

11 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

Good points thanks. You might be correct that a lot of warheads are of questionable condition. I don't know how time will treat such complicated devices. But I would bet their rocket fleet is in good shape and the platforms can achieve all the stages of flight most of the time. 

The real question is, how many of the warheads are needed to go boom to erase a big country from the map and If it's logical to bet on these chances at all. If say 100 are launched and only 3 out of 10 goes boom, you will still have most big cities wiped from the map. 

I guess until we hear again about resuming nuclear test detonations we are still away from that scenario. 

And that is really the point. Even if 90% of one side don't go boom are intercepted or whatever and all the warheads of the other side explode on target, so one side can technically say they have won, they will still have lost millions. Congrats for your great victory. Nuclear war means that both sides lose, just maybe one side loses more badly than the other.

Edited July 24, 2022 by Butschi

[Aragorn2002]

34 minutes ago, G.I. Joe said:

It does say a lot when your neighbours' national anthems have titles like "Poland's Cause is Not Yet Lost" and "Ukraine Has Not Yet Perished..."

[panzermartin]

Historically, are we aware what percentage of nuclear tests were a failure on both sides of the curtain? It would be a good first indication. 

[Vet 0369]

2 hours ago, mosuri said:

I am in favor of the NATO membership 100%, but at the same time I will not expect a free ride. It does not remove the need for having an army, even if it would significantly raise the threshold of Russian aggression towards us.

Let us not forget that the reason Finland joined with the Axis during WWII, was because the Allies took too much time arguing about whether or not it would piss off The USSR which was attacking The unaligned Finland at the time. When the Western Allies (U.K. And U.S.) finally decided to help Finland, Germany have already offered to protect Finland from USSR aggression, and Finland had accepted.

[panzermartin]

3 hours ago, Grigb said:

And if I tell you that RU is not heading there because it was already there from the beginning? You do know that they had concentration camps simultaneously with Germans?

Yes I know they had. But back then Greece (and again in the 60s) also had concetration camps for communists, Belgians had zoos with humans from African colonies, South Africa had apartheid and Blacks could be shot for going to school in US. But we don't have these anymore (ok apart from Blacks being shot) and neither have the Russians. 

Russia is not Nazi Germany but it can become if the conditions grow worse and some "gifted" preacher emerges.

 

[chrisl]

7 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

Historically, are we aware what percentage of nuclear tests were a failure on both sides of the curtain? It would be a good first indication. 

This is publicly available: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests_of_the_Soviet_Union

We also have substantially better remote sensing capability for detecting tests now than we did 30 years ago.

[dan/california]

There is BDA, and then there is a guided video tour of the still burning wreckage. 

[panzermartin]

And another malfunction of (russian?) hardware. Or maybe violence is a feature in russian made robots : 

 

[Ultradave]

The US spends a LOT on testing, both computer modeling and non-nuclear physical testing, plus the money spent on maintenance, to ensure the nuclear arsenal is "ready."  This is because we also, while not ratifying the CTBT, abide by it and have not tested a nuclear weapons in a long time. I know that people who do that work will say the verification that they do assures the weapons will work. I don't know much about the Russians, unfortunately.

Someone a bit back (sorry I didn't quote it), mentioned observer verification. What was said is correct. They are verifying launch vehicles and warheads, but not anything about whether they will work or not. That's a very involved process (see above about spending a LOT  )

Part of the research work I did was to come up with better ways for inspectors to verify stored, disassembled warheads. Say you can't physically touch them, weigh them, take a sample, etc, but you CAN from a reasonably close distance read the gamma radiation they give off. Can you then verify that the entire warhead is there? You want to know that it hasn't been opened and the whole inside taken out and left only a shell so that it appears visually to be whole. Verifying non-diversion of nuclear material. Securing this material is something we (the US) spent quite a bit helping the Russians to improve. It's been a good investment. Turns out this is an extremely hard problem to solve and requires some sophisticated mathematical techniques to converge to a reasonable answer. One of my technical papers could be summarized as: "Here are 4 new ways we tried to solve this and none were completely satisfactory. One was sort of ok, but not great"  It actually went over pretty well, because no one had tried these before but several in the audience had wondered. Negative data is still good data, and people won't waste time!

Dave