[sbierwagen]

The comprehensive test ban treaty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Nuclear-Test-Ban...

The US also hasn't tested since 1992. Given the situation with B-2 heat exchangers, F-22 spare parts and FOGBANK, I would not be interested in betting large amounts of money that American nuclear weapons are fully functional either.

Interestingly enough, both the US and Russia routinely test fire ICBMs. So we know the rockets work, but not the warheads.

A very awkward exchange would be if Putin goes nuts and orders a first strike, we do a "use em or lose em" ICBM launch, and all the warheads fizzle over their intended targets. What then? Awkward coughing and shuffling of feet? Roll the tanks for a full-scale war in Europe? If the nuclear umbrella truly was the only thing preventing direct Great Power conflict, then do we shrug and institute 20th century-style mass conscription and blow the dust off all the century old war stockpiles?

[ouid]

I believe that much of the work done in our nuclear laboratories is verification that the nuclear weapons work. They do not fall tremendously out of disrepair, as fissile material does not degrade much over the timescale of 20 years, and the degradation that occurs is extremely well studied. Your hopefulness is, for better or worse, extraordinarily unlikely.

[jostmey]

Oh, I’m sure a significant fraction of nuclear weapons would work, and the results would be horrible. It’s just that large fraction might not work. I don’t think Putin would want to reveal this because it means he lacks the capacity to fully eliminate the United States

[nowandlater]

For the US, I highly recommend the Nuclear Posture Review, which is compiled by and details the current administration's policy as it relates to its nuclear stockpile and strategic purpose.

The last one, 2018: https://media.defense.gov/2018/Feb/02/2001872886/-1/-1/1/201...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Posture_Review