Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Share

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jan 31, 2012 9:20 pm

    What do you think?

    Should Russia go for less than the 1,500 warheads allowed in New Start to save money and benefit from the peace dividend?

    Or is it a time to maintain a MAD deterrent force in the face of growing expenditure in the west on ABM systems?

    Is it time to dust off more exotic weapons like nuclear powered cruise missiles?

    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 595
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 38
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  SOC on Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:48 pm

    GarryB wrote:What do you think?

    Usually I try not to after midnight, but what the hell unshaven

    Should Russia go for less than the 1,500 warheads allowed in New Start to save money and benefit from the peace dividend? Or is it a time to maintain a MAD deterrent force in the face of growing expenditure in the west on ABM systems?

    Depends on their strategy. If they believe fewer than 1500 warheads can get the job done, then go for fewer. If they feel that 1500 are required to maintain the balance and guarantee deterrence, then go for 1500. What irks me is when the press labels Russia's current modernization and replacement efforts as some covert plan to stage some military buildup hostile to the free world. I mean, damn, Topols are expiring (some are being extended, sure), so of course a new missile is going to be brought online to replace the things. China is no different, they're just modernizing everything all at once it seems these days. But they look different and eat strange food so it must really be part of a sinister world domination plot as well, go figure.

    Although my taste for spicy Chinese food would not necesarily look unkindly on our new Chinese overlords.

    Is it time to dust off more exotic weapons like nuclear powered cruise missiles?

    The USSR could've done nuke-powered missiles...Russia, not so much. All about the political geography. The USSR could've easily tested a mess of these all over the ranges in the Kazakh SSR. Now that Kazakhstan is independent, I'm not sure Russia could find an effective place to test some, or that Kazakhstan would necessarily oblige. That was a big debate when the USA was investigating the Pluto nuke-powered cruise missile: where in the hell do you test the damn things? The exhaust is going to be decidedly unhealthy to whatever it overflys. During wartime it's really no big deal, because if Russia is shooting these off then you've got inbound megatonnage to worry about as well so a few extra isotopes scattered about aren't really a problem, unfortunately. But peacetime is a whole different ballgame. At least, that was one of Pluto's problems. It was a ramjet, so maybe that meant a higher radioactive death zone behind it, I'd have to go back and reinvestigate nuke propulsion to see if there are any legitimately cleaner ideas. Although it's still certainly something you don't want crashing. Remember the Ukraine downing an airliner with an S-200? What if one of these goes off course during testing and crashes in or near a foreign population zone?

    Remember who the primary target is. It's still the USA. That's not a political statement, it's just the way the world is. What does the US lack? Continental air defenses. If you want an exotic, off-the-wall delivery system, well, the USSR almost got it dead on, but Chelomey's mouth was making promises his technology couldn't deliver. That's right, the Meteorit. One of the most badass and ignored weapon concepts of the entire Cold War. High speed and high altitude would make them damn near impossible for CONUS defenses to smack without tasking AEGIS ships all over the coastline and the Arctic. And then who's watching the CVBGs, or looking for ICBMs? Throw in Marabou and separating MIRVs and AEGIS may find a swarm of inbound Meteorits to be a very nasty suprise. Put 'em on new SSGNs and they've got survivable launch platforms (well...survivable until they fire).

    Arguably, one of the reasons for the end of the Cold War was the B-2. The USSR pretty much balked at the amount of money the IADS would require to keep up (I'm speaking in broad strokes here, be quiet and listen a minute). Now look at the state of the US economy. Want to be REALLY sneaky? Announce plans to introduce a modernized Meteorit program. Watch the US defense budget crap its pants over the new threat that there really is no plan to remotely counter over a large scale.

    And to be truly SUPER sneaky, couple this with the announcement of an INF pull-out, and hint at Meteorit GLCM variants for Kaliningrad or the Southwestern MD.

    So if you ask me, a high-speed/altitude nuclear-armed cruise missile is the way to go if you want something other than an ICBM.

    TheArmenian
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1506
    Points : 1669
    Join date : 2011-09-14

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  TheArmenian on Wed Feb 01, 2012 6:26 am

    SOC wrote:

    So if you ask me, a high-speed/altitude nuclear-armed cruise missile is the way to go if you want something other than an ICBM.

    OK. How about a subsonic but stealthy long range cruise missile? Something like the Kh-101/102?

    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 595
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 38
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  SOC on Wed Feb 01, 2012 8:55 am

    Ah, but they're already doing that with the Kh-101/102. One difference with Meteorit is a theoretically much larger warhead, giving it a different set of nuclear strike missions it can be used for. With enough accuracy and a penetrating warhead, an SSGN near the coast could use them as counterforce weapons, whereas a smaller missile like the Kh-101/102 doesn't have the punch for that type of role.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  GarryB on Wed Feb 01, 2012 6:10 pm

    What irks me is when the press labels Russia's current modernization and replacement efforts as some covert plan to stage some military buildup hostile to the free world.

    Bothers me too... in addition to needing replacement because they are old, many systems also need replacement because they are not Russian, so it makes sense to create an all Russian replacement so spares and support are not an issue with a foreign country... friendly or not friendly.

    It was a ramjet, so maybe that meant a higher radioactive death zone behind it, I'd have to go back and reinvestigate nuke propulsion to see if there are any legitimately cleaner ideas.

    There were several ideas including clean and not so clean options, but the stumbling block was the shielding of the reactor made the payload pitiful, and in the conventional jet models the flight speed plus the 90 tons of lead shielding meant the nuclear bomber was as vulnerable to conventional air defences as any other bomber but with a fraction of the payload.

    The beauty of a missile is to remove all that shielding as there is no crew.

    Problem of course is that an ICBM is a much faster and more efficient delivery system...

    The advantage of a nuke powered cruise missile is that you can launch it in any direction to get to its target area, and a ramjet model flying at mach 3 at low level the shockwave would be lethal to unprotected people on the ground... the exhaust is just gravy as you command your missile to zig zag all over your enemies territory for the next 10 years...

    Crazy weapon. On so many levels.

    Arguably, one of the reasons for the end of the Cold War was the B-2. The USSR pretty much balked at the amount of money the IADS would require to keep up (I'm speaking in broad strokes here, be quiet and listen a minute).

    I totally agree, though I would include the threat of the Cruise missile along with a fleet of 100 or more B-2s they were planning was going to mean more radar sites, more S-300 class systems, more Mig-31s... more more more... at a time when they had just spent a fortune to get ICBM parity finally in the 1980s.

    Now look at the state of the US economy. Want to be REALLY sneaky? Announce plans to introduce a modernized Meteorit program. Watch the US defense budget crap its pants over the new threat that there really is no plan to remotely counter over a large scale.

    I for one think the threat from Iran and the European ABM system is an example of a sneaky plan in operation.

    Of course it would be even sneakier to announce a plan and then outwardly go through the motions of implimenting that plan without ever actually spending any real money on it. Give it a huge budget but siphon the money off in devious ways to other programs like Health and Education.

    And to be truly SUPER sneaky, couple this with the announcement of an INF pull-out, and hint at Meteorit GLCM variants for Kaliningrad or the Southwestern MD.

    Of course perhaps they actually already are... Brahmos II with scramjet propulsion?

    Perhaps they can invent an all new class of ballistic missile?

    A sub delivered missile with a 10-12m long payload section that holds 5-6 cruise missiles. The SLBM could have a ballistic range of maybe 5-6,000km, but as it reenters it releases a heat resistent pod containing 6 cruise missiles that splits in half as it reenters... one half bursts open and hypersonic cruise missiles are ejected and remain at high altitude and high speed using scramjet propulsion to fly 3-4,000km to their target... they can afford to have a huge fuel capacity because the SLBM accelerates them and lifts them to altitude saving them a lot of energy that can be translated to range.
    The other half of the pod deploys a parachute and releases its cruise missiles which descend and fly at subsonic speed at very low altitude with stealthy designs and 5,000km ranges.

    This would mean a reach of up to 11,000km and a variety of threats for the defence to deal with without too much complication for the attacking force.

    In many ways I think hypersonic scramjet powered missiles are the future "warhead" of Russian ICBMs... designed specifically to defeat ABM systems.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5664
    Points : 6070
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  Austin on Sat Feb 25, 2012 11:23 am

    Russia and the United States: Pushing Tensions to the Limit?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  GarryB on Sat Feb 25, 2012 6:36 pm

    I disagree.

    The article seems to be trying to suggest that it was the distraction of islamic terrorism that saved Russia from further collapse and isolation, and that the admitted process of encirclement to "protect the world from Russia" only failed because the US was distracted.

    HELLO!

    The coloured revolutions failed because they were all promise and no substance. Turn away from Moscow and join us and everything will be OK, you will suddenly become a rich western country!!!

    It is pretty clear that turning to the west did little to solve the problems in the Ukraine, and the militarisation of Georgia against Russia has done little to improve things there either.

    The sad reality for the US is that their promises were empty and they could really do little to help either country in return for them turning their backs on Russia.

    Russia on the other hand could offer direct trade and energy and cooperation, which are not instant fixes either, but in the long term will allow both countries to grow and become better places to live.

    The US didn't drop the ball, the Russians woke up and started realising that the promises made by the west are empty.

    Give up communism and be welcomed into the international community... yeah right!

    Starting with Putin Russia has realised that it needs to sort its own problems out and there are no easy instant fixes. A lot of work needs to be done and Putin laid down most of the ground work for that.

    The article goes on to claim that Russia is upset about the ABM system because it means US bases in eastern europe, with concrete US support for those countries meaning a limit on Russian influence in those places.

    In other words Russia wants to expand its influence and recreate the Warsaw Pact, but US bases will prevent that...

    What a load of rubbish.

    As stated in the new Start treaty ABM systems are STRATEGIC systems and therefore have an effect on the strategic balance. America building a global ABM system means the new Start agreement limiting strategic nuclear weapons limits for each side suddenly become unbalanced, and the threat of nuclear war is increased rather than decreased (which should be everyones goal, but clearly isn't a goal for the US).

    Russia is in the middle of a conventional armed forces reform... a bit like Soviet forces in 1941... Except the Russians currently have a nuclear capability to deter aggression. An ABM system around the borders of Russia with no limits or restrictions might lead to some irrational moves that could lead to war and therefore make the world less safe rather than more safe.

    Russia opposes a European ABM system because it doesn't want to have to use its nuclear weapons, not so it can.

    The rest of the article is about US interference in Russian elections... which I think the FSB should actively track down all groups accepting foreign funds for political activities and put them in jail, and about Russia trying to disengage from the reset.

    Very simply the Russians don't care about the reset, that is US BS, what they want is the ABM system being built on their border to stop, and if it isn't stopped then they will take action to minimise the effects of the system... likely including withdrawing from certain treaties and repositioning certain forces.

    The article says:

    Moreover, Russia does not want Afghanistan to spin out of control, since unrest in the country most likely would spill over into Central Asia.

    Which is bollocks. There will be an internal conflict when the US etc leave unless Karzai can negotiate something before they leave. I rather suspect that even with US assistance that the US puppet government will not govern long and the Taleban will reclaim the country and will likely look inwards. It will likely get rid of the poppy fields and televisions and all evidence of western presence and then it will get on with things. It wont start invading neighbours like it didn't in the 1990s. It wont be a problem for anyone but the Afghan people.

    Russia also cannot compete with the United States when it comes to a military buildup.

    In terms of carrier groups... quite true. In terms of production of nuclear weapons... not true.

    They are developing new types of breeder reactors of a safer design that will create more fuel than it burns and will make the production of large amounts of weapons grade nuclear material fast and easy and relatively cheap.

    If that is what the US wants then I am sure they will feel much safer behind their ABM shield with the new Start treaty torn up and the INF treaty torn up...

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  GarryB on Sun Feb 26, 2012 4:09 pm

    I wonder how the US would feel about foreign countries interfering in US elections the way the US likes to interfere in elections around the planet.

    Perhaps the Russians should start supporting and arming fringe groups in the US?

    What goes around comes around... the irony is that the US is likely going to get to choose between Obama and someone like Gingrich or Romney... Wow... talk about the bestest and brightest!!!

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5664
    Points : 6070
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  Austin on Mon Feb 27, 2012 1:02 am

    Oh if any country tries to directly promote Democracy inside the US , they would probably put that country in the list of Terrorist Sate actively promoting to Undermine Democracy in US.

    But in US foreign fund do play a role via Special Interest Group which are recognised Lobbies and Business Lobbies.

    The best way to infulence US decision more favourible to Russia is to trap these business lobbies and Special Interest Group , these lobbies have many Congress and Senator on their payrole and they come in handy. This is besides direct state to state relationship.

    Russia needs to find a way to increase opportunities with US that influences every thing from top to bottom , thats the way China promotes it foreign policy with US if you have huge business and trade ties with US then you really do not need much lobbies it comes with the package.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  GarryB on Mon Feb 27, 2012 3:09 am

    Heheheehehehe... you said promote democracy...

    Lobby groups and funding NGOs is the opposite of democracy.

    I agree with the Egyptians and any foreign funded NGO that decides to interfere in Russian elections should get time in jail.

    But then look at that record... US spy is caught and arrested but claims to be terminally ill so is pardoned by Yeltsin... spy goes home and suddenly recovers...

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9422
    Points : 9914
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Russian Nuclear Forces numbers:

    Post  George1 on Mon Apr 09, 2012 7:30 am

    http://bos.sagepub.com/content/68/2/87.full.pdf+html


    Last edited by George1 on Sat Apr 11, 2015 12:01 pm; edited 4 times in total

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 734
    Points : 917
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  Mindstorm on Mon Apr 09, 2012 9:40 am


    The most clear example of what lowest level of reliability and lousy factual accuracy can achieve a publication relying on....newspapers data and low level uneducated guess-works as its main sources. Smile Smile

    One can only hope the similar level of understanding (or,for better say, lack of it) become more and more widespread among western analysts ...even if i have a seriosu doubt that outside works aimed to open public this remain true. Rolling Eyes

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9422
    Points : 9914
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  George1 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 4:38 am

    http://russianforces.org/missiles/

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  GarryB on Thu Apr 26, 2012 6:06 pm

    Much more respectable site...

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9422
    Points : 9914
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  George1 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 7:22 pm

    Tu-160 numbered at 11 from 13. It seems that modernization has begun.

    SS-29 production is satisfying

    SLBM will be dramatically increased when Borei's come into service

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Russian Nuclear Triad tested- October 19th.

    Post  TR1 on Fri Oct 19, 2012 6:52 pm

    The Russian nuclear triad was tested today:

    http://russianforces.org/blog/2012/10/successful_r-29r_slbm_launch_f.shtml

    R-29R was launched from 667BDR.

    http://russianforces.org/blog/2012/10/test_launch_of_a_topol_missile_2.shtml

    Topol was launched.

    http://russianforces.org/blog/2012/10/bombers_launch_cruise_missiles.shtml

    And the Strategi launched 4 cruise missiles.

    http://russianforces.org/blog/2012/10/bombers_launch_cruise_missiles.shtml

    In other news, Pantsir was tested against actual cruise missiles launched by Tu-95. The target was shot down.

    http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5664
    Points : 6070
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  Austin on Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:47 am

    Interview with RVSN Commander Colonel General Sergei Karakayev

    http://vpk.name/news/80831_raketnyie_garantii_bezopasnosti.html

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9422
    Points : 9914
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  George1 on Tue Jan 21, 2014 2:56 pm

    Russian strategic forces in January 2014

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5629
    Points : 6282
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  Viktor on Wed Oct 01, 2014 1:29 pm

    Russian nuclear forces just got bigger Very Happy

    New START September 2014 numbers

    Russia substantially increased the number of deployed launchers - from 498 to 528 - and deployed warheads - from 1512 to 1643. The total number of launchers increased as well, but not nearly as dramatically - from 905 in March 2014 to 911 in September 2014

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2505
    Points : 2638
    Join date : 2014-09-10
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  kvs on Sat Oct 11, 2014 8:17 am

    Viktor wrote:Russian nuclear forces just got bigger Very Happy

    New START September 2014 numbers

    Russia substantially increased the number of deployed launchers - from 498 to 528 - and deployed warheads - from 1512 to 1643. The total number of launchers increased as well, but not nearly as dramatically - from 905 in March 2014 to 911 in September 2014

    Great news! The whole missile shield boondoggle was predicated on continued arms reduction by Russia. Obama tried to
    get a new START agreement with Russia but that went nowhere. Russia should increase the number of launchers substantially
    even if that means breaking the existing treaty. Nuclear weapons in sufficient amounts is what has kept the global peace
    since WWII.

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sat Oct 11, 2014 11:49 am

    kvs wrote:
    Viktor wrote:Russian nuclear forces just got bigger Very Happy

    New START September 2014 numbers

    Russia substantially increased the number of deployed launchers - from 498 to 528 - and deployed warheads - from 1512 to 1643. The total number of launchers increased as well, but not nearly as dramatically - from 905 in March 2014 to 911 in September 2014

    Great news!   The whole missile shield boondoggle was predicated on continued arms reduction by Russia.   Obama tried to
    get a new START agreement with Russia but that went nowhere.   Russia should increase the number of launchers substantially
    even if that means breaking the existing treaty.   Nuclear weapons in sufficient amounts is what has kept the global peace
    since WWII.  

    Which nuclear treaty's should Russia leave in your opinion? I have a few that comes to mind, but I want to hear what others have to say and their reasons.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-18
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  Mike E on Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:04 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    kvs wrote:
    Viktor wrote:Russian nuclear forces just got bigger Very Happy

    New START September 2014 numbers

    Russia substantially increased the number of deployed launchers - from 498 to 528 - and deployed warheads - from 1512 to 1643. The total number of launchers increased as well, but not nearly as dramatically - from 905 in March 2014 to 911 in September 2014

    Great news!   The whole missile shield boondoggle was predicated on continued arms reduction by Russia.   Obama tried to
    get a new START agreement with Russia but that went nowhere.   Russia should increase the number of launchers substantially
    even if that means breaking the existing treaty.   Nuclear weapons in sufficient amounts is what has kept the global peace
    since WWII.  

    Which nuclear treaty's should Russia leave in your opinion? I have a few that comes to mind, but I want to hear what others have to say and their reasons.
    New START? There are a few that come to mind, but any is fine by me... Disarmament directly resulted in WW2 and gave both Germany and Japan time to plan, nowadays, with nuclear weapons, it doesn't do anything anyway!

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2505
    Points : 2638
    Join date : 2014-09-10
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  kvs on Mon Oct 13, 2014 7:00 am

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    kvs wrote:
    Viktor wrote:Russian nuclear forces just got bigger Very Happy

    New START September 2014 numbers

    Russia substantially increased the number of deployed launchers - from 498 to 528 - and deployed warheads - from 1512 to 1643. The total number of launchers increased as well, but not nearly as dramatically - from 905 in March 2014 to 911 in September 2014

    Great news!   The whole missile shield boondoggle was predicated on continued arms reduction by Russia.   Obama tried to
    get a new START agreement with Russia but that went nowhere.   Russia should increase the number of launchers substantially
    even if that means breaking the existing treaty.   Nuclear weapons in sufficient amounts is what has kept the global peace
    since WWII.  

    Which nuclear treaty's should Russia leave in your opinion? I have a few that comes to mind, but I want to hear what others have to say and their reasons.

    The INF and New START. In my view the missile defense shield violates the INF since it will use nuclear warheads on the
    interceptors no matter what is being claimed. These claims are the same retarded drivel as the claim that the missile
    shield is designed to protect Europe from Iran.

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Russia has strategic nuclear weapons far more advanced than the United States

    Post  nemrod on Sun Nov 16, 2014 4:21 am

    http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/572838/20141115/russia-nuclear-weapons-war-vladimir-putin.org#.VGh3VlS9_lY

    It is reasonable to think in the coming years that Russia will surpass US in every area, maybe except in warships area, because Russia has always been a continental super-power with intention to attack, colonize, slaughter,  steal, loot, and destroy other countries, contrary to the human-rights, women-rights western leaders.
    The shift of balance will hasten during the year 2015 -even though the US decline started in 2005, with the arrivals of Mi-35, and SU-35 - where several new russian weapons will be build up. Even though with the very powerfull Mig-35, and SU-35 Russia has nothing feared nowadays.



    Russia is in possession of strategic nuclear weapons far more advance than the United States, and it will continue to lead the game with its new generation of missiles, according to a comprehensive report from the Russian political newspaper, PRAVDA. Indeed, if World War 3 erupts, Russian Vladimir Putin will win hands down, the report suggested.
    The report titled Russia Prepares Nuclear Surprise For NATO, claims that Russia was able to amass its massive nuclear power because the U.S. had been dismissive and neglectful of achieving innovations in decades after winning the Cold War. Specifically, the U.S. had closed the possibility of developing high-precision long-range weapons that could eradicate enemies even without coming to direct contact. But Russia never stops innovating despite much criticism and the more accepted notion that the country is weak and the west is superior. At this point, Russia has "long-range cruise missiles of a new generation that will soon be deployed on submarines of the Black Sea Fleet and missile ships of the Caspian Flotilla," PRAVDA stated.

    And not only that - Russia's tactical nuclear weapons are far more superior to that of NATO's, the report said. NATO's member countries have only 260 tactical weapons. The U.S. has 200 bombs with an overall capacity of 18 megatons - located in Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Turkey. France has 60 atomic bombs, as outlined by the report. "Russia, according to conservative estimates, has 5,000 pieces of different classes" of tactical nuclear weapons "from Iskander warheads to torpedo, aerial and artillery warheads," the report from PRAVDA highlighted.

    The report seemed to have solid basis. Russia's plans of sending long-range bombers to the Gulf of Mexico are being widely reported. Defence Minister Sergey Shoigu declared that Russia has to maintain its military presence in the western Atlantic and eastern Pacific, including the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico. This included sending long-range bombers as part of the drills. Russia will also be sending more troops in Crimea. Shoigu noted that the deployments are in response to the "fomentation of anti-Russian moods on the part of NATO and reinforcement of foreign military presence next to our border," CNN reported.

    U.S. officials did not buy the idea that Russia has the capability of deploying long-range bombers. A source had reportedly told CNN that the U.S. found no security threat proving that such bold and destructive activity is happening. U.S. State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki echoed the same opinion.

    However, Pentagon retaliates with Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel announcing a proposal of an additional $1.5 billion to the $15 billion a year worth of maintenance to U.S.' nuclear arsenals.  He admitted that US Air Force and Navy were beleaguered with scandals over the years. These scandals resulted to the neglect of the country's nuclear programmes, rendering some infrastructure outdated and maintenance deteriorated, The Washington Post reported.  

    At one point, inspections of the nuclear weapons became burdensome for the force, Deputy Secretary of Defence Robert Work said. For a time, there was shortage of specialised tools for the maintenance. A single tool kit for intercontinental ballistic missiles had to be shipped from base to base to conduct maintenance.

    Hagel said that nuclear mission remains the military's most important job. Hence, Pentagon officials will now be working anew to improve the status of the government's nuclear programmes by modernising nuclear warheads, long-range bombers and ballistic missile submarines - with the billion worth boost to the annual maintenance budget.

    Members of the Congress agreed to the budget proposal. Republicans lauded it too. They said the $1.5 billion boost to the funding is just right. The nuclear programmes had suffered too much neglect because of "insufficient resources, indifferent leadership, and poor morale," Rep. Howard McKeon, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said.


    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Tue Nov 25, 2014 5:25 pm

    kvs wrote:
    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    kvs wrote:
    Viktor wrote:Russian nuclear forces just got bigger Very Happy

    New START September 2014 numbers

    Russia substantially increased the number of deployed launchers - from 498 to 528 - and deployed warheads - from 1512 to 1643. The total number of launchers increased as well, but not nearly as dramatically - from 905 in March 2014 to 911 in September 2014

    Great news!   The whole missile shield boondoggle was predicated on continued arms reduction by Russia.   Obama tried to
    get a new START agreement with Russia but that went nowhere.   Russia should increase the number of launchers substantially
    even if that means breaking the existing treaty.   Nuclear weapons in sufficient amounts is what has kept the global peace
    since WWII.  

    Which nuclear treaty's should Russia leave in your opinion? I have a few that comes to mind, but I want to hear what others have to say and their reasons.

    The INF and New START.    In my view the missile defense shield violates the INF since it will use nuclear warheads on the
    interceptors no matter what is being claimed.   These claims are the same retarded drivel as the claim that the missile
    shield is designed to protect Europe from Iran.

    I agree, the European Meat Shield probably consists of nuclear warheads (hence the reason for NATO's utter refusal for transparency), and the failed and dubious concept of 'Hit-to-Kill' warheads is nothing more than an expensive 'beard' or 'cover' for that.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 5:52 pm


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 03, 2016 5:52 pm