Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3080655.html

Straight from the horses mouth.

February's nuclear totals.

franco wrote:https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3080655.html

Straight from the horses mouth.

February's nuclear totals.  

So Russia even has less nukes?

That's fucking stupid.

What about tactical nukes?

miketheterrible wrote:

franco wrote:https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3080655.html

Straight from the horses mouth.

February's nuclear totals.  

So Russia even has less nukes?

That's fucking stupid.

What about tactical nukes?

Nope. AFAIK Russia is building up its strategic arsenal till limits. This si one. Second what is really difference between strategic 150kt form Bulava and 100kt tactical form Iskander?
Besides hypersonic airborne missiles can have similar effects against important targets.

miketheterrible wrote:

franco wrote:https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3080655.html

Straight from the horses mouth.

February's nuclear totals.  

So Russia even has less nukes?

That's fucking stupid.

What about tactical nukes?

Suspect the purpose is to meet the Treaty reduction goals. As for the other issue, quality over quantity. Not sure of the tactical weapons, not Treaty regulated. Any info out there would be just a guess.

If I'm correct, the treaty goals is 1,500 warheads maximum. In this case, Russia is below that, meaning they need to build some newer systems. Hopefully that number increases as newer systems come out.

miketheterrible wrote:

franco wrote:https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3080655.html

Straight from the horses mouth.

February's nuclear totals.  

So Russia even has less nukes?

That's fucking stupid.

What about tactical nukes?

The Russian Federation has fully fulfilled its obligations to reduce strategic offensive arms. As of February 5, 2018 our total potential is:

- 527 units for deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs and deployed heavy bombers;
- 1,444 units for warheads on deployed ICBMs, warheads on deployed SLBMs and nuclear warheads counted for deployed heavy bombers;
- 779 units for deployed and non-deployed launchers of ICBMs, deployed and non-deployed launchers of SLBMs, deployed and non-deployed heavy bombers.

Tactical nukes dont count on these numbers. Only ICBM-SLBM warheads and nuclear cruise missiles

The U.S. State Department released aggregate New START numbers from the 1 September 2018 data exchange. Russia declared 1420 deployed warheads, 517 deployed launchers, and 775 total launchers. In February 2018 the numbers were 1444, 527, and 779 respectively.

The U.S. numbers in September 2018 were 1398 warheads, 659 deployed and 800 total launchers (1350, 652, and 800 in February 2018).

franco wrote:
1 September 2018 data exchange. Russia declared 1420 deployed warheads,
. In February 2018 the numbers were 1444

so actually warhead numbers dropped in Russia

Most of the older missiles being retired are SS-19s and SS-18s with larger numbers of warheads each...

When Sarmat starts entering service they will redress the reduction and probably increase warhead numbers a little bit.

George1 wrote:SIPRI Yearbook 2018
Russian Nuclear Forces

RS-26 Rubezh not Yars-M

US nuclear general worries over Russia’s weapons outside New START

https://www.defensenews.com/smr/nuclear-arsenal/2019/02/26/us-nuclear-general-worries-over-russias-weapons-outside-new-start/

In testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee, the head of U.S. Strategic Command said Russia is developing a nuclear-armed, nuclear-powered underwater unmanned vehicle, an intercontinental-range cruise missile, and a hypersonic nuclear weapon, which Moscow wants to keep out of existing arms agreements.

Such weapons could pose a threat in the near future if the U.S. does not counter them, Hyten warned.

“I get concerned 10 years and beyond that with torpedoes, with cruise missiles, with hypersonic, that it can go completely in the other direction, that we would have a difficulty,” Hyten said. “I have no problem saying I can defend the nation today, and I think the commander after me can, but I worry about the commander after the commander after the commander.”

Hyten also warned that Russia is improving its ability to attack anywhere in the globe with little or no notice through its pursuit of nuclear-armed hypersonic missiles and nuclear-capable cruise missiles, when coupled with the newest intercontinental-range ballistic missiles.

Hyten noted the U.S. can conduct its own research into hypersonic weapons without violating the INF Treaty, which covers ballistic missiles. He also repeated calls for a space-based sensor to defend against them. Existing U.S. sensors can detect and locate a ballistic or hypersonic missile at launch.

One difference is the hypersonic missile “disappears and we don’t see it until the effect is delivered,” Hyten said. With a ballistic missile, it would take 30 minutes to strike a target, but a with a hypersonic weapon, Hyten said, “it could be half of that.”

So Avangard , Nuclear powered cruise missile and Posedian are out side the scope of start or are these weapons START compliant ?

Austin wrote:US nuclear general worries over Russia’s weapons outside New START

https://www.defensenews.com/smr/nuclear-arsenal/2019/02/26/us-nuclear-general-worries-over-russias-weapons-outside-new-start/

In testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee, the head of U.S. Strategic Command said Russia is developing a nuclear-armed, nuclear-powered underwater unmanned vehicle, an intercontinental-range cruise missile, and a hypersonic nuclear weapon, which Moscow wants to keep out of existing arms agreements.

Such weapons could pose a threat in the near future if the U.S. does not counter them, Hyten warned.

“I get concerned 10 years and beyond that with torpedoes, with cruise missiles, with hypersonic, that it can go completely in the other direction, that we would have a difficulty,” Hyten said. “I have no problem saying I can defend the nation today, and I think the commander after me can, but I worry about the commander after the commander after the commander.”

Hyten also warned that Russia is improving its ability to attack anywhere in the globe with little or no notice through its pursuit of nuclear-armed hypersonic missiles and nuclear-capable cruise missiles, when coupled with the newest intercontinental-range ballistic missiles.

Hyten noted the U.S. can conduct its own research into hypersonic weapons without violating the INF Treaty, which covers ballistic missiles. He also repeated calls for a space-based sensor to defend against them. Existing U.S. sensors can detect and locate a ballistic or hypersonic missile at launch.

One difference is the hypersonic missile “disappears and we don’t see it until the effect is delivered,” Hyten said. With a ballistic missile, it would take 30 minutes to strike a target, but a with a hypersonic weapon, Hyten said, “it could be half of that.”

Everything Russia does is always some threat to these bitches. That they provoke the Russian counter-measures (not threat) is never open for consideration.
Exceptionalistan gets to do what it pleases and the rest must abide. GTFO.

Note the linkage of the new Russian systems to treaty control. These a**wipes break critical treaties and then whinge about Russia not being constrained
by treaties. You f*cks can't have your cake and eat it too. If you don't want to be constrained by treaties, then don't expect the rest of the world to
behave differently.

I really hope that Russia does not sign any new treaties with these sociopathic clowns. They will only sign treaties that tie Russia's hands and feet. It
is much better to have everything uncertain and uncontrolled. This way the clowns can't cheat and their real threat to Russia is reduced.

Well I have read some Russian officials stating Avangard is compliant under New START.

Nuclear powered cruise missile with unlimited range could come under New START as well because they can fly beyond 5500 km.

Posedian I am not sure as such weapons may not be part of New START.

In any case Russia should not sign any New ARMS CONTROL agreement till they have an equivalent treaty to control ABM , ARMS CONTROL and ABM go hand in hand

Russian ICBM have Upload potential so they can up the numbers if they want to.

Let INF and START go to Hell

Austin wrote:Well I have read some Russian officials stating Avangard is compliant under New START.

New START does not control for gliders and only controls for total number of strategic warheads and delivery systems.

Nuclear powered cruise missile with unlimited range could come under New START as well because they can fly beyond 5500 km.

This is obvious since it is a strategic nuclear missile system. Russia is not planning to deploy 1,000 such systems since it does not need this much.

Posedian I am not sure as such weapons may not be part of New START.

The treaty cannot have anticipated such systems, but one could stretch the nuclear submarine based strategic nuclear missile category
to include them. Poseidon is basically a merging of a submarine and a missile without human operators.

In any case Russia should not sign any New ARMS CONTROL agreement till they have an equivalent treaty to control ABM , ARMS CONTROL and ABM go hand in hand

Russian ICBM have Upload potential so they can up the numbers if they want to.

Let INF and START go to Hell

Any new treaty should have the following:

1) All NATO nuclear and conventional attack systems that can be used against Russia must be controlled.

2) No NATO member can deploy ABM or IRBM systems anywhere.

3) All cruise missiles with ranges over 500 km are to be banned and scrapped and the remaining short range
cruise missiles have to be deployed no closer then 500 km to Russia's border whether on land or on sea.

4) Only strategic ICBMs are allowed but the total number of warheads must be under 2000 for both Russia
and NATO. If NATO wants America to have 2000 warheads it must fully disarm any nuclear warheads.
(BTW, both the UK and France can deploy ICBMs on their possessions outside Europe).

5) The total number of nuclear armed submarines in NATO and Russia must be the same.

So you catch my drift. There is no way NATO will agree to such fair terms. They will try to pretend
that NATO is some country club and not an US imperial alliance.

kvs agree

New Russian missile threat to homeland

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/feb/27/russian-missile-threat-to-us-homeland/


Seems Avangard take just 15 mins to reach any part of US due to its speed and US officially says Russia has 2000 Tactical nukes ...first official number from US plus many other things

Where did this guys live the last 50+ years? Since Russia deployed the first ICBM´s there missiles were a threat to Mordor on the Potomac.

Some Americans... especially in the US media, think that now the US has ABM systems it is safe...

Personally I would not bother with any nuclear treaty agreements with the US until it can prove it will stand by them and not withdraw at the next election.

With the INF treaty the Soviets got rid of a lot of operational systems, and I suspect any new treaty will greatly reduce their options in terms of defence... the US could just agree to terms because they are clearly behind with the plan to withdraw later on when they catch up in some areas...

If I was creating a new treaty requirement one is all non european troops in Europe must be removed from permanent bases in Europe before discussions even start. Soviet troops withdrew from eastern europe and US forces have moved in to replace them, when they should have been withdrawn to the US.

Nothing to talk about till then... and to be honest if Bernie Sanders wins the 2020 election... he might like that idea to save America a shit load of money pretending they are protecting the Europeans... from what exactly?

I got a book about NATO/Warsaw pact from the end of the 60´s. Even back then a german professor asked why 200 Mio. Amis should defend 220 Mio. Europeans against 180 Mio. Russians. The question is not new, but nobody in the west seems eager to get an answer.

Hole wrote:Where did this guys live the last 50+ years? Since Russia deployed the first ICBM´s there missiles were a threat to Mordor on the Potomac.

There is a belief in US that the existing ICBM strikes can be taken care by US Missile defense globally after a potential first strike on Russia.

Russian intelligence has provided evidence that recent NATO exercise included potential nuke strike on Russia a pre-emptive one.

Which lead Lavrov to state that https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2018/02/28/us-preparing-europe-use-nuclear-weapons-against-russia-lavrov-a60660

"Everyone understands that by doing this the U.S. military is preparing the military forces of European countries to use nuclear weapons against Russia,” he said in televised remarks.

Russian General Staff https://www.rt.com/news/386276-us-missile-shield-russia-strike/

American missile attack warning systems, he said, cover all possible trajectories of Russian ballistic missiles flying toward the United States, and are only expected to get more advanced as new low-orbit satellites complement the existing radar systems.

“Applying sudden disarming strikes targeting Russian or Chinese strategic nuclear forces significantly increases the efficiency of the US missile defense system,” Poznikhir added.

American ABM systems are not only creating an “illusion” of safety from a retaliatory strike but can themselves be used to launch a sneak nuclear attack on Russia.


US Top Official In NATO Recently Threatned Nuclear Strike on Russia

US Nato envoy's threat to Russia: stop developing missile or we'll 'take it out'

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/02/us-ambassador-nato-russia-kay-bailey-hutchison

“Getting them to withdraw would be our choice, of course. But I think the question was what would you do if this continues to a point where we know that they are capable of delivering. And at that point we would then be looking at a capability to take out a missile that could hit any of our countries in Europe and hit America in Alaska.”

Paul Craig Analysis Confirm the Same

Washington Plans to Nuke Russia and China

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/04/27/washington-plans-nuke-russia-china/

Americans are trash talking chimps. The retard that threatened to "take out" a Russian missile system demonstrated to the
world the level of himself and his associates. Obama's moronic statements on Russia's economy are another example.
I have been saying this for a while now, but the US leadership is composed of idiots. Why that is so is a complex problem
to dissect. But education is clearly not for everybody and the "elites" are not trying hard to get one even if they can pay
for better schools than the vast majority of Americans. The other problem is that nationalist superiority propaganda tends
to drive out dissenting opinions from the information space. Americans are caught in a circle jerk drinking their own koolaid.

This dumbing down in the USA is rapidly increasing the chance of nuclear war. Russia must wake the west up and put the
fear of God in it. That means going back to the 1980s with massive amounts of nuclear warheads. The risk of a nuclear
war from large warhead numbers is zero since anything that can trigger a launch will do so regardless of the number of warheads.
We are not talking about some sort of random noise induced launches.

They are living in an echo chamber.

Politician: "Can our ABM System shoot down russian missiles?"

MIC: "Of course. If you give us 100 Bill more."

Politician: "OK."

And then this a..hole goes pupblic and tells everybody that their ABM system is fantastic and that all citizens are absolutely save reagrding what the politicians are doing. And a few years later all people believe it.

The thing with ABM is it works 10 % of time but makes the one who has believe it will work 90 % of time.

That leads to fatal misccalculaton for a first strike against the advesary with the belief that if the adversary counter strikes the remaining weapons can be intercepted with 90 % probability or perhaps more.

Even the US General mentioned in testimony to congress that Hypersonic cannot be detected by EW system post the intial launch because it flies at lower altitude and EW does not work till it hits the target.

The Russian General Staff has laid out a new doctrine ,Awaiting the full speech on Red Star MOD Website but some glimpses here

https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1101914290112679937

The latest Russian Nuclear Notebook is now available with estimates for strategic and tactical nuclear forces and modernization programs.

Ηere: https://t.co/Mt8J4uxNV1