Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

in my opinion, it was alaska , selling alaska is dumbest decision by russia emperor , American dig out huge amount of gas, gold,natural gas in Alaska. and Alaska give U.S. advantage to defend Russia and China's intercontinental missile. if Alaska were in russia, russia will have larger power in north pole and get rid fo U.S.

sepheronx wrote:Dunno if this site is accurate but: Russian strategic nuclear forces

Current status

In January 2015 Russia was estimated to have 499 strategic launchers and about 1900 nuclear warheads. In its September 2014 New START data exchange Russia reported 528 deployed launchers with 1643 New START-accountable nuclear warheads.

The Strategic Rocket Forces were estimated to have 305 operational missile systems that include missiles that can carry 1166 warheads. These include 46 R-36M2 (SS-18) missiles, 60 UR-100NUTTH (SS-19) missiles, 72 road-mobile Topol (SS-25) systems, 60 silo-based and 18 road-mobile Topol-M (SS-27) systems, and 49 RS-24 missiles.

[Strategic Rocket Forces...]
The Russian strategic fleet includes 8 operational strategic missile submarines with SLBMs, whose missiles can carry 128 missiles with 512 nuclear warheads. Five operational Project 667BDRM submarines are based in the Northern Fleet. These submarines carry 80 R-29RM (SS-N-23) launchers. One Project 955 submarine with 16 Bulava SLBMs on board is also based in the Northern Fleet. The only remaining Pacific Fleet base hosts two 667BDR (Delta III) submarines, which carry 36 R-29R (SS-N-18) missiles. (Two Project 955 submarines are expected to join the Pacific Fleet in 2015.)
[Strategic fleet...]
The Russian strategic aviation consists of 66 bombers that carry an estimated 200 long-range cruise missiles and bombs. The bombers are 11 Tu-160 (Blackjack) and 55 Tu-95MS (Bear H). The bombers can carry various modifications of the Kh-55 (AS-15) cruise missile and gravity bombs.
[Strategic aviation...]
As of February 2015, Russia had a network of early-warning radars and no operational early-warning satellites.
[Early warning and defense...]
[February 11, 2015] [#]

They left out some important info though:
Tu-22M is capable of carrying nuclear warheads both on Kh-22 and Kh-16.  There are over 50 Tu-22's in service for airforce (not mentioning of Navy) and Kh-22 has 600km range.  I don't know if Tu-22M3M has anything newer but still.  Also, they mentioned 8 active submarines but if you go to their section on submarines of SSBN nature they say 11.  Probably it is 12.  There are 3 active Delta III's, 6 Delta IV and 3 Borei with a possible 1 Typhoon class converted to use Bulava's, but I will opt this one out.

I am not sure much about the ICBM's in active service.  Topol, Topol M and UR-100 are only single warhead nuclear missiles but Yars carries multiple (4) warheads.  Soon there will be rail mobile launched ICBM's, more Borei's (to replace Delta 3's and Delta 4's that are going to be out of service (Delta 4's are staying much longer and going through overhauls, so it will be roughly 6 Delta4's and 8 Borei's total after time).  Replacement of UR-100 and Topols with YARS and the eventual avangard to replace the SS-18.

Ironically you left out quite a bit on the the modernization of the Tu-22M3, like some serious new firepower coming in the next few years. Here's a post from 'Austin' from the official Tu-22M3 thread:

Austin wrote:Note Kh-32 Range has almost double of Kh-22 variant and flies higher at 42 Km Altitude.

Range of Kh-32 is around 800 Km

For Tu-22M3M three new weapons are under development.

Kh-32M  ( modernised variant of Kh-32 )
Kh-SD ( Subsonic Stealthy 2000 km range missile )
Kh-MT ( Supersonic Ramjet 1000 km Range missile )

https://www.russiadefence.net/t820p60-tu-22m3-news#58122

I am a bit behind in the times regarding types of cruise missiles and upgrades to Russian aircrafts. Tu-22M3M with these new cruise missiles will be detremental to Russias security against US. Long range systems like these is what is keeping Russia safe for the time being.

There's an implicit agreement by our strategic defense systems that essentially states, "We can hurt each other sufficiently, so there's no reason to engage in an arms race to the point of bankrupting both of our nations and plunging the earth into a 7 year night."

Wrong. The whole premise of MAD is that each has the assured capability of completely destroying the other.

START to the current treaty allowed each side to go from 6,000 warheads each to between 1,200 and 1,500 warheads each. Still plenty, but if the US continues developing its ABM shields Russia will likely decide that 1,200 warheads is not enough and go back to 6,000 warheads.

With high capacity MARV warhead buses that would be rather easier than it used to be.

They are simply correct in their fear that they'll be rendered impotent against an American nuclear attack; that the unspoken arrangement of mutual annihilation would then be gone; yet another sign that Mother Russia is in decline.

Decline? Look in a mirror buddy... when there are other commercial centres establish themselves and the US isn't the economic centre of the world they wont be able to just print more money to solve their problems.... if any country is in decline it is the US.

The US developing ABM shields is reducing the concept of MAD to the point where one side might actually think they can fight and win a nuclear war. Whether they actually can or not is irrelevant because when they think they can win then they wont be afraid of finding out... this makes nuclear war actually very likely... which is what Russia and all sane sensible human being fear... when MAD fails you have war.

The easiest way to avoid this is simply to no sign anything after the Moscow Treaty expires and just build lots and lots of nuclear armed missiles... some 10 ton 20,000km range cruise missiles could be made cheaply in enormous numbers and deployed in their tens of thousands all over Russia and start buildign less appealing weapons like a nuclear jet engine powered supersonic cruise missile that blows irradiated air out the jet exhaust and can fly at mach 3 at low altitude and fly for years all over the US irradiating the entire country... ABM systems are designed to shoot down ballistic missiles... not low flying fast cruise missiles...

If the US could neutralize 1,000 Russian ICBM's, the fact is, an entire Russian nuclear assault is gone and the US has single, first strike capacity against the Motherland.

And if wishes were books you'd have about ten libraries of congress in this article...

That's because of a few well known facts on the ground:

1.) Nuclear weapons have incredibly high dud-rates. This is why multiple MIRV's are targeted at cities.

Moron. Nuclear weapons have incredibly low dud rates... have you ever in your life read about a nuclear weapon test where there was no explosion?

Cities are large area targets and so hitting them with one big powerful warhead is not actually that efficient... for the same reason you get better destructive coverage with a cluster bomb than much bigger standard bomb. A MIRV can hit multiple cities on its flight path with warheads released from the main weapon bus as it passes the target area. Most large area targets like cities will be targeted by multiple warheads from different weapons to ensure they are effectively destroyed.

2.) The Russian stockpile is the oldest of any major power and the dud-rate increases precipitously. We can conclude that somewhere between 30-50% will be duds. This means that the Russians need to double up on every target.

Moron... The Russian stockpile is the NEWEST and includes hypersonic glide vehicles intended specifically to evade ABM systems.

The Russians have been replacing their old soviet missiles with ukrainian parts to create all Russian weapons so their missiles and warheads are actually rather newer than the US missiles, which are also used against targets exactly the same way and are also very reliable.

3.) Russian nuclear "boomers" are trailed by American, French and British hunter subs. The Russians keep one or two boomers out at any time. They cannot escape the NATO boomers. Their subs would not launch all missiles before the NATO attack subs destroyed them.

So western SSNs trail the two Russian SSBNs at sea AND the ones in port too? How does that work?

they cannot escape the NATO boomers? Moron. A boomer is an SSBN that carries sub launched ballistic missiles.... NATO boomers would do everything they can to be no where near any Russian vessel of any kind.

Most modern Russian SSBNs can volley launch all their missiles very rapidly... most western SSNs would have to penetrate Russian ports to get at those Russian SSBNs by which time those SLBMs would be on their way.

4.) The Russian fleet is rusting and decaying.

Even in the 1990s the Russian SSBNs were fully capable of launching on command... now more than ever before.

5. )The Russian air-force has next to ZERO chance of getting their bombers or fast attack aircraft to the Homeland (bypassing Canadian and American missiles and fighters).

the Russian bombers will take 8 hours to fly over the pole to launch positions above Canada where their 5,000km range cruise missiles will take another 6-10 hours to get to their targets.

5 minutes into their flight the SLBMs will have hit and devastated much of North America... 25 minutes later another 600 odd detonations over Canada and North America and I don't think any interceptors or radars will be operational 7 and 1/2 hours later when the Bears launch their missiles or 10 hours later when 600 odd new nuclear detonations light up north america again...

This means that the Russian attack on the US is reliant upon it's ICBM's which are MORE than sufficient to do the job, regardless of how aging it is.

Regardless of how aging it is... it is 20 years younger than the youngest US ICBM system in service today...

—With just 500 launch vehicles (which is the full maximum extent of Russian launch capacity) with 8 MIRV's each (which is conservative), the Russians could land 4,000 nuclear warheads on the USA. Even if only 1,500 of them make their target, that's enough to end the nation forever and certainly enough to make the US rethink any nuclear attack EVEN if the American attack would result in a more thorough destruction of Russia (say, 3,500 American nukes vs. 1,500 Russian nukes -- dead is dead).

Current treaty obligations limit both sides to 1,200-1,500 warheads each... that includes all strategic weapons like ICBMs, SLBMs, and cruise missiles.

The US population is more concentrated in fewer places which means it would be easier to wipe out with fewer weapons.

But, if the US possesses a very reliable intercept capacity, and can launch 1,000 of them at the ICBM's before the MIRVs separate, they could potentially knock out a sizable portion of the fleet. Accounting for the dud-rate and other factors, if 75% of the remaining Russian ICBM's were prevented from destroying their targets (375 nukes make it), then the US has essentially neutralized the Russian attack, while having freedom to use its incredibly advanced submarine fleet and ICBM's to annihilate Russia totally while ensuring that SOMETHING of America survives (375 Russian nukes destroy the US, but something of the nation survives; 3,500 American nukes ensure complete Russian annihilation).

The US doesn't even have a bare bones defence capability... the current ABM system hasn't even proved as capable as the currently operational system around Moscow that has been in place and tested every year for the last half century or so.

With 50 interceptors the concept of shooting down 1,000 missiles is absurd. When the US announces it will build 1,000 ABM interceptors the Russians will simply start building missiles... probably 10s of thousands.

BTW with the ABM treaty no longer in effect the S-500 will be able to intercept ICBM warheads AND SLBM warheads, but the Russians are building them in numbers to the point where it is most likely them that will be shooting down BMs. Shooting down 1,000 ballistic missiles is absurd because there arent 1,000 ICBMs anywhere.

So, the US cannot allow reliable figures to be released on how successful its intercepts are. Such information would surely prompt the Russians to double-down on their nuclear deterrence and we'd be in a WMD race again.

There are plenty of spies within the US and the Russians have space tracking capability of their own... they can watch themselves and they know US ABM systems are crap.

The problem is that over time and with lots of money they wont remain crap and problems will be solved and eventually these systems will be a problem.

The American strike would be more thorough both for Russia and possibly for humanity.

More of the American warheads would be shot down.

The US's nuclear triad (ICBMs, Air Force and Navy) would have more successful launches due to the larger nature of the American forces and the more modern equipment.

US B-52s are original build from the 1960s.... Russian Tu-95s were built in the 1980s and 1990s... US Minuteman missiles are ancient, Russian missiles are Russian... ie post 1991 build. etc etc etc

Ballistic Missile Submarines (boomers) would do the trick, 14 total with nukes, seven deployed at any given time. They're beyond deadly. Their nuclear payloads capable of being launched in under 30 minutes.

Actually more like less than 15 minutes, but their lower flight speed means even S-400 should be able to engage many of them which greatly reduces their ability and performance.

1.) Each Ohio Class boomer has 24 Trident II SLBM that are MIRV'ed with between 6-8 W76 110kt nuclear warhead (5.5 times Nagasaki). Even if we went with the average (7 warheads), that's 1,176 nuclear strikes from the Ohio Class nuclear payload.

Yeah buddy the cold war is over... the Ohios with 24 missiles each armed with 7 warheads... which was their standard load means 24 x 7 which is a mere 168 warheads per boat which is of course pathetic compared with Akula that can carry 20 missiles with 10 warheads per missile as standard, which is obviously 200 warheads per boat.

Of course if you want to live in the past that is OK but with the Moscow Treaty in place limiting both sides to 1,200-1,500 warheads each that means each triad has between 400 and 500 warheads each...

2.) The US also operates 450 Minuteman III ICBMs that are MIRV'ed with 3 nuclear warheads (in the process if not concluded, the downgrade to 1 MIRV each). The exact type of warhead is classified, but the warheads are either the W78 or W87, with no less than 300kt of explosive yield (15x Nagasaki). That's a total maximum of 1,350 nuclear warheads, minimum of 450.

The total number of blasts would be insane, no less than 2,526. We haven't even counted any Air Force method, presuming that the Russians could/would destroy them in flight. Nevertheless, even if strikes were doubled and/or tripled up on cities, it would mean that no less than 1,000 locations would be wiped out by more than one (some with three or four) nuclear blasts. The destruction would be absolute.
===Total yield: no less than 30,000 times Nagasaki

Hilarious... both sides have 1,200 to 1,500 warheads and the greater accuracy of the older US warheads meant they tended to use smaller yield warheads so the 30,000 Nagasakis is just BS... the US yields will be rather lower than the Russian ones.

And your source for this is ..... hopes, dreams, wishes..???  

As i told .. US cannot shot down a Russian Bomber just because is near its coast and on international airspace..



Those old bombers carry modern nuclear cruise missiles ,that have the pentagon complaining . Having those bombers flying every day or week near US Coast.. is a major threat to US ,because they can do a first strike  and they will never know when any bomber will attack or if just another training exercise..no way to know their intentions and you cannot shot down a bomber on international airspace if its just flying there.  

But in real practice,  Is like having someone pointing a your face with an sniper rifle from distance that can aim at you from international zone... This is a retaliation that Russia does ..to US_NATO  militarization on its borders.. that also can do the same.. launch attacks from baltic states with cruise missiles with nuclear warheads and without warning.  


US can monitor the flights..and get close with their planes.... but if Russia do a preventive nuclear attack
without any warning.. can an American F-22 stop a nuclear cruise missile that only takes 1-2 seconds to be launched
from the plane. ,once it was launched? Not it can't. neither ABM defense or THAAD or patriots will intercept them. The cruise missiles will pick a flight path to avoid any land defense hugging terrain.. If Russia do a preventive strike, Americans will not know they are at war ,until a rain of nuclear missiles destroy its strategic military bases and submarines bases and COmmunications centers first.

This is why first strike capability is important. and if you decapitate a nation leadership . lets say a dozen of people. knowing where they are.. they will be unable to effectively strike back or do the same level of damage.

So people say.. NATO intercepted a bomber.. so what? if they decided to launch a missile ,even with they present , can the nukes be stopped if they launched first.. ? no.. pilots knows if they are ordered to bomb US with nukes ,that it will be to save their nation from a major nuclear war they aware will happen and they cannot avoid. so they are ready to sacrifice their lives for saving their nation.  The bombers will be shutdown.. yes.. but not before they launched their nuclear missiles. effectively allowing Russia to have a big head start.. in any nuclear interchange.

Don't you think the same scenario US can also create with their B-52 on russia ? They have B-52 bombers based in Germany . I got your point but it's slightly weak isn't it as Russia has to strike first for gaining that advantage and Russia's nuclear policy is againt first strike .

What's Russia's "Doomsday plan" In case of unavoidable nuclear exchange happen ? Something to save Russian people and enough asset to "start a new"

More like to save the majority of the political elite. Just like it was planned back in USSR times.

Russians have a massive underground complex in the Ural mountains that has been estimated to be approximately 400 square miles in size. In other words, it is roughly as big as the area inside the Washington D.C. beltway.


5,000 new emergency nuclear bomb shelters were scheduled to have been completed in the city of Moscow alone by the end of 2012. Moscow authorities say the measure is urgent as the shelters currently available in the city can house no more than half of its population. Political elite will be sitting in their bunkers but as reported these shelters are for Russian citizens also . Shelter that will be located all over the city 10 to 15 meters underneath apartment blocks, shopping centers, sport complexes and parks, as in case of attack people will need to reach the shelters within a minute. Meanwhile in US they have bunkers for political elite and uber rich ( 0.1% ) people . No room for serfs ! http://rt.com/news/prime-time/moscow-bomb-shelters-outskirts/

TR1 wrote:More like to save the majority of the political elite. Just like it was planned back in USSR times.

As with every country out there...

max steel wrote:Don't you think the same scenario US can also create with their B-52 on russia ? They have B-52 bombers based in Germany . I got your point but it's slightly weak isn't it as Russia has to strike first for gaining that advantage and Russia's nuclear policy is againt first strike .

Russia will change its policy withing a minute.. They are not going to wait a hundreds of Minutemans 2.. are in coalition course with moscow to retaliate.. IF Moscow receive hard solid proof ,the Americans are preparing for a nuclear strike..withing days .. by leaks and insiders they have inside the US government. (or should have). and
if they reconfirm that with Satellite images and by several other sources.. then the Russian Government will not
sit down and wait the American attack start.. Ideally Russia will have a routine of many bombers every week flying near US coast.. on "Training" so when the right time comes ,and they see war is inevitable ,that they will be able
to do the first strike.. or have at very least the bombers in position to attack first. Attacking first can give a massive
huge advantage of the one that hit first.. if for example Russia shut down US satellites NAvigarion and military the most important ones ,before a nuclear war start. Without satellites guidance. .the possibility to hit with any aceptable
error your targets is zero.. Ie.. a missile launched towards moscow.. could land in the baltics states..

So probably the first casualty in war , before any nuclear strike will be Satellites in space and Phones communications , and internet. Here is an interesting Report of How Russia is preparing anti nuclear bunkers for Civilians in Moscow and other parts of Russia..

here is the discussion of the report..



here is the full report..
http://www.infowars.com/russia-has-constructed-massive-underground-shelters-in-anticipation-of-nuclear-war/

Interesting report..
Specially for the people who were thinking that Russia thousands nuclear weapons
were "enough deterrence" to prevent a nuclear war with United States.. shows how US
military advisors simulated a nuclear war and considered acceptable the losing of many millions
of american lives if in the end they win.  


Could America Win a Nuclear War Against Russia?

During the Cold War the US was ready to sacrifice 40 million Americans to destroy Russia.

Henry Kissinger and Herman Kahn. In their books‚ Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy (Kissinger) and On Thermonuclear War (Kahn), they advocated a more ‘active’ nuclear strategy in order to more effectively defend the national interests of the United States. They argued that a new military strategy and doctrine should be based on assertions that:

-Nuclear war is possible.

-A nuclear war can and should be won, although a new definition of the level of ‘acceptable losses’ is needed. For Kahn even 40 million dead Americans would have been ‘acceptable losses’. (At that time the U.S. had a population of 200 million.)

-A nuclear first strike capability would enable a disarming surprise attack, thus limiting the retaliation possibilities of the adversary.

-Limited nuclear war should be part of military strategy (this last point wasn’t really new, since, during the Taiwan Strait crisis, Eisenhower threatened to use nuclear weapons as ‘bullets’ to destroy Chinese army bases).

Chills ran down my spine while reading the sober explanations of Kissinger and Kahn about the different scenarios of nuclear war and the tables, listing the numbers of the immediate dead, the mid-term dead, the dead from long-term sufferings, the injured, the contaminated, the survivors, the radiation effects and other devastating consequences of a nuclear war, are still engraved in my memory. The suggestion by Kahn to feed the elderly with contaminated food, for their life expectancy would not exceed the time it would take them to die as a consequence of contaminated food, took my notion of cynicism to a new level.

http://russia-insider.com/en/could-america-win-nuclear-war-against-russia/5651

Wondering what will "conspiracy" skeptic-tards will say about this.. that 2 of the major US
advisors have nuclear war books advocating for being genocide of up a hundreds of million of american lives in times of peace ,all for what? for allowing US complete global domination? Military advisors that many Neocons warmongers support.   If US is not evil power that ever existed in the planet.. no idea what else could be.. It can't be possible to be more evil than that.

Not fantasy ,but reality.. the serious concerns of Russia with US militarization and expansion to their borders and deploying missile launchers there ,that could be used offensively for a first nuclear massive strike against Russia.. There are Neocon warmongers in US in power, that will not mind losing so many millions of americans if they can neutralize Russia. After this nuclear strikes of thousands of missiles what very likely follow is a surprise invasion of a militarized
border.. from NATO countries to completely take control of Russia..,taking advantage of the chaos of the nation and destroyed military bases.

I have seen reports that that Russia is aware of this and also have studied about
the possibility of invasion to US west coast with China and take the war directly to their homeland and cut US access to the pacific sea ,completely destroying their economy and disbanding their nation.

In any case for any first strike on Russia.. can only be done after a united EU front against Russia. This is where Ukraine comes to the western help.. to provoke Russia to first invade them , and later destroy Russia world image with the help of their propaganda media and their False flag attacks on civilians , (as it was Mh-17 .."Putin's missile") and later blamed on Russia ,will be the order of the day.

They indeed do consider a theatre and ICBM tactical nuke exchange. In the late 70's a concept for US and NATO drill has been made based on using around 300 tactical nukes on

european soil after luring Soviet troops on german soil by attacking GDR and forcing Soviet Union to defend GDR from NATO by rolling on german soil. This concept was actually used in

exercises of early-mid 80's and even germans participated in this "battle royal" excersices where germans forces were meatshield bait to comprimise Soviet military capability and to

shrink its army size in a very short time to have military the upper hand afterwards. The most discussed and likely concept among think tanks is not the MAD and actual destruction in

case of NATO vs Russia war but a limited theatre used tactical nukes while not risking a full blown mutual desctruction and this concepts are the reason why in eastern Europe the

americans build ABM shields to comprimise russias capability in such a warfare. Like any person with even barely realistic view could imagine neither side wants to launch its entire

nuclear arsenal first because that would doom every country on earth, so the likelyness of nuclear arsenal use is limited to theatre based and tactical nukes. Since ABM shields can

handle the limited amounts that are used in such scenarios they are basing exactly this as their basis for further warmongering and planning with direct military confrontation with

russia on european soil and that is actually very dangerous to russia, because they need to rely on MAD otherwise they need to deploy nukes and ABM shields over canada, greenland

and iceland to assure the same scenario for the US and to assure MAD.

Pull from INF ithe moment they place . Russia can build hundreds of misssiles maneouvring missiles in the cost of a single usa abm shield . Keep them deployed .

Cant Russia place its S-400/500/2500/300 models in Cuba or any island nation in pacific to shoot down usa nukes earlier .?

the very term "conspiracy theorist" was coined by the CIA as a means of undermining anyone who would question the government. Fact .

max steel wrote:Pull from INF ithe moment they place . Russia can build hundreds of misssiles maneouvring missiles in the cost of a single usa abm shield . Keep them deployed .

Cant Russia place its S-400/500/2500/300 models in Cuba or any island nation in pacific to shoot down usa nukes earlier .?

the very term "conspiracy theorist" was coined by the CIA as a means of undermining anyone who would question the government. Fact .

Not in Cuba, if it wants to shoot down ICBM's they have to be on the trajectory of US nukes meaning they fly mainly over the northpole and close to greenland and iceland, best would be canada.

US Will Not Survive a Nuclear War Against Russia - Jean-Paul Baquiast

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/us/20150417/1021016791.html#ixzz3XZPXOHpx

Canada is usa sook puppet .

What about North Pole ? Will it help if we make an island like stuff to deploy those batteries .

placing S-400 and S-500's in arctic area at arctic bases. 40N6 and the upcoming 77N6-N should be enough to deal with any such threats. Maybe some Tor's or Pantsirs to deal with PGM's.

max steel wrote:Canada is usa sook puppet .

What about North Pole ? Will it help if we make an island like stuff to deploy those batteries .

As much i believe Russia have the best system of defense on the world..
I don't think Russia have a chance with their S-400 or S-500s or any other system based
on projectiles ,to stop a rain of Ballistic Missiles from space.. you could intercept a few of them..
but not many at same.. time.. specially because ICBMs today have from 8 to 12 warheads..

So to stop the attack of a single Ohio submarine.. with 24 trident missiles each one with 12 warheads and with many dozens decoys each missiles at least.. we are speaking about
24x12x12 = 3,456 interceptions that will be required to do for just 1 ohio attack ,in the case that all the missiles launched at same time and the decoys are identical on radars to the original ICBM missile.

All say , they way i look at this .. is that unless you do an early course or mid course interception ,(before an ICBM eject its warhead with decoys) the probabilities to stop
such attack is zero.  Is almost impossible to defeat such attack, using hit to kill air defenses defenses.   The same is true for Americans..  in my opinion , Neither Russia ,neither USA have
the capability to defend against a multi warhead ICBM on its final phase..  Unless you use a nuclear warhead ,but this nuclear attack could serve as a firewall to blind your own radars of any following attack from close distance.. will pass through the fire and hit its target..  

From this point of view.. US have a major advantage than Russia ,because they have
mid course interceptors and they can move their defenses very close to Russian borders..
either with Europe ABM shield or in the east using its Navy aegis.. destroyers..

So this explain Russia Bomber patrols near US coast.. to have a better position of firing a missile avoiding US navy defenses. This also explain why US is concerned about cruise missiles
with nuclear bomb capabilities..  SM-3 defenses are useless against cruise missiles flying low..
and they can penetrate US airspace close enough to their last target.

This is why Russia needs militarization of space.. and develop S-400s and S-500s that work from space.. that will allow Russia to intercept missiles not only mid course but also early course too.. it will be a huge blow to US offensive capabilities.. Effectively early course interception
is significantly easier and even a lazer gun mounted of a satellite or a simple Barrel Bomb with TNT deployed near the flight path of the missile ,will take care of it.

Apparently Russia is moving in that direction with their new national space station.

Putin Declares Russia Will Build Its Own Space Station by 2023
http://russia-insider.com/en/putin-says-russia-will-build-its-own-space-station-2023/5768

Instead of building so many useless surface warships ,that will NOT defend Russia in a nuclear
attack ,and maintain Soviets destroyers and Cruisers that cost a lot its operation ,Russia better take that money for a kick ass space defense station.. using a lazer gun or something like pantsirs gatlin gun in space to counter any ICBM and destroy its engines.. Nuclear weapons warheads to counter ICBM are not really needed. for mid course or earlier interception.. before warheads separates from the missile.

All said Moscow defenses will be next to useless no matter which system they invent..
a saturation attack will be impossible to stop at the final trajectory..   If the S-500
can intercept ballistic misisles at any altitude.. then deploying them at the borders of Russia
should be the key ..and try to do mid course interception. But for real peace of mind they need many satellites with anti ICBM capabiltities.. or several small space stations with rail guns or lazers will be nice. it will allow to shut down any ICBM as soon is climbing into space,where it cannot deploy its warheads or decoys.. and will be a major game changer..

Cruise missiles flying low can be a pain.. but they are much more easier to intercept with a network of defenses. than an ICBM on its final trajectory.. as Russia try to do.

Russia also has mid-course interceptors with them . Militarization of Space is not allowed under the treaty unless russia backs out like usa did with abm treaty . Usa has aegis destroyer near japan though . I KNOW NO ONE CAN STOP HUNDREDS OF NUKES TOGETHER LET ALONE THOUSAND .

If cruise missile can be intercepted with network of defenses then why russia rely on cruise missiles to neutralize usa abm shields in europe .

How russia will destroy aegis in its east btw?

Trident missiles have 7 warheads for a total of 168 actual warheads... it carried less than the 200 warheads of the Akula class (20 x 10).

BTW Trident is a conventional missile in the sense that it has a warhead bus that carries its warheads and releases them as it passes over targets so if you have a ship sailing in the area of the north pole and a trident warhead bus flys over you can hit it with one shot if you get it early enough in its trajectory... decoys and all.

Warhead “Super-Fuze” Increases Targeting Capability Of US SSBN Force

How US nuclear force modernization is undermining strategic stability: The burst-height compensating super-fuze

Austin wrote:Warhead “Super-Fuze” Increases Targeting Capability Of US SSBN Force

How US nuclear force modernization is undermining strategic stability: The burst-height compensating super-fuze

Bollox.

The assumption peddled in the second article is that Russian silo ICBMs would remain in their silos until the US warheads reached them.
I have never seen any detailed justification of this assumption. The time between launch and arrival at the target is over 10 minutes
at the least for ballistic missiles and well over an hour for cruise missiles even if they were to be fired at Russia's borders. The only way
a first strike would work if there was a coup in the Kremlin that had enough time to sabotage the command and control. This is about
as likely as pigs learning to fly through the icy wastes of Hell. Even Boris Yeltsin's bootlick comprador regime could not disable Russia's
nuclear deterrent. Sorry, Uncle Scumbag, your window for action never really opened and is certainly closed now.

The problem with hearing from a lot of sources...

is that many like to use liquid fuelled ICBMs used by the Soviet Union as evidence of their backwardness... obviously solid fuel is superior to anything else... the west invented solid fuel don't you know... in China.

I would add that with an interception capability of targets moving at 4.8km/s most models of S-400 should be able to defend an ICBM silo field from SLBM attack... certainly with S-500 the job would be even easier...

Because Silos need direct hits I would think even TOR could blunt an SLBM attack on a silo...