Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads

I would say take advantage of their stupidity and start producing a new ground launched hypersonic scramjet powered missile that could carry one or more nuclear warheads with a flight range of perhaps 5,000km and say four or five 2Kt nuclear warheads the size of 152mm artillery shells that could be released enroute to the target flying at 40km altitude with a small parachute that detonate on impact with the ground. The main missile warhead could be a 300Kt warhead as used in normal cruise missiles and be directed at a city in Europe or Asia while the secondary bombs could be released in flight on the way to that city target or released above the city target to spread the destruction.

Such a weapon would be a fraction of the cost of a ballistic weapon and yet pose a real challenge to intercept most f the time flying at mach 8 to 12 depending on where you try to intercept it.

For instance you could launch a missile at London and have the four or five small nukes released over other countries on the way to the target... just to spread the damage.

Such intermediate range cruise missiles are not restricted by treaty or agreement and while the west is agreement incapable then it makes sense to have the capacity.

It would also mean long range and sub launched missiles can be concentrated on targets further afield like the US.

Thunderbird, with its unlimited flight range and low flight profile will also be useful against very long range targets and Poseidon would also have global reach too.

The difference would be that if needed Russia could launch a hypersonic scramjet powered 5,000km range missile to hit a target in the west with a conventional HE warhead and not necessarily start a nuclear war.

Maybe obliterating the Eiffel Tower could be the message the west needs to hear.

The Germans talked about taking down the Crimean bridge, but the Germans really don't have an equivalent target worth hitting...

As per the latest NATzO summit, NATzO is doubling down in its confrontation against Russia.

Therefore, its safe to conclude that the current NATzO leadership is not concerned with Russia's current nuke stockpile of 5000+ warheads.

And since NATzO has expanded its cannon fodder members, its only justified that Russia increase its nuke arsenal by at least no less than 500,000 warheads with each warhead having no less than 1000 megatons of tnt.

Its important for Russia to achieve not just MAD, but an OVERKILL capability to ensure that no single NATzO cockroach survives in the event of a total war.

The beauty is that you can make as many as you like and fit the vast majority with conventional warheads that you can use in a conventional conflict, while nuclear warheads will be easy and cheap to develop with breeder reactors.

If they come to their senses then the nukes can be used as fuel to generate electricity.

There is no waste really.

Intermediate range missiles could be used from a MiG-31 or later MiG-41 to launch low earth orbit satellites.

Talk is cheap.

They also had to build a lot of Seawolf and Zumwalt etc.

It is a tactic... if you admit you are only going to make 189 F-22s then they get really expensive when you divide the development costs across so few aircraft.

They claim they will make 3,000 F-35s because it was super expensive so dividing the development costs by 3,000 airframes makes it seem almost cheap.

Was the same with the B-2 and will be the same moving forward... by lying about the numbers you intend to make you can pretend they will be much cheaper to buy than they will end up costing.

When they stop production at 20 or 30 because they are so expensive to make and to keep operational the costs will be enormous but they will claim it is because you didn't buy enough to make them cost effective.

ALAMO wrote:Talk is cheap.

..unlike the under-performing junk produced by the privately-owned for-profit US MIC and paid for by the plantation slaves aka taxpayers.

The-thing-next-door wrote:I read somewhere that they US wants to build over 100 B21s, how many treaties would this nullify if ever they were to reach such a number?

>Be in the middle of a recruitment crisis
>Field more expensive gear that requires 2SD above the mean IQ to operate, 1SD to maintain

The ongoing Invasion of Kursk is 100% sponsored and planned by NATO. NATO will try to extract as much experience from this incident to complement its future plans to breach into Russian territory.


Again, this is a demonstration that NATO is NOT Afraid of Russia's current nuclear arsenal.

Russia needs to increase its nukes to no less than 100 folds ASAP or develop an entirely new form of WMD that will ensure the COMPLETE DESTRUCTION of ALL NATO Territories where not a Single NATO cockroach will survive.

Russia is developing new nuclear weapons systems. Burevestnik, Poseidon, new SLBMs, ICBMs, RVs, etc.

Take a pill, go get some fresh air and take a few deep breaths.

Russia is developing new nuclear weapons systems. Burevestnik, Poseidon, new SLBMs, ICBMs, RVs, etc.

New systems do not translate to increased arsenal, what will happen is that warheads will just be transferred from old systems to new ones, Russia needs a Minimum of 100,000 nukes with each warhead having no less than 100 megatons of power.

You cannot win a WAR OF EXTERMINATION with a measly stockpile of 5000 nukes.

And there are 100,000 nuclear warheads. A Death Star right away. Let's not get carried away

The collapse of the INF treaty is useful in this regard, Putin promised to abide by the letter of the INF treaty as long as the US didn't deploy weapons that violated that treaty in Europe or Asia.

It seems the US is going to deploy ground launched Tomahawk cruise missiles and also a Standard based hypersonic missile in Europe and in Asia so Russia hands are now free to develop and deploy weapons that violate the INF treaty and the best part is that there are normally no limits on non strategic weapons, so they can make as many as they like... mounted in hypersonic cruise missiles they can have conventional and nuclear warheads because these weapons will be accurate enough to hit point targets without necessarily starting a nuclear war.

They can be used in conventional wars and in WWIII, which makes them flexible.

IRBMs can be used to launch nuclear warheads or to launch small satellites.

This is going to be very cost effective because as they approach expiry dates they can be given to allies to use against the west now too.

I hope these adjustments in the nuclear doctrine will include increasing nuke warheads to peak Soviet stockpile levels (Or even more) before the Traitor Gorbachev decided to bring them down.

NATO has expanded its territories since 1991 and therefore its only justified to increase Russia's nuclear capability to maintain MAD in the event of an all-out war. 100,000 nuke warheads should be the minimum stockpile goal.



https://t.me/DDGeopolitics/121626

I understand you are exaggerating because 100 MT and 100,000 warheads simply would bankrupt the Russian economy, but I agree in the sense that Russia should make it clear that this conflict in Ukraine is not a war... this is Russia being very very nice and obeying all the rules it can sensibly obey.


A conflict with HATO means a war of extermination and population centres will be legitimate and even desirable targets because depopulation of the enemy is a goal of such a war.

The chaos such attacks would create as Europeans flee to the rest of the world and the effect that will have on the european economy and war effort potential is militarily significant.

I suspect lots of Europeans will run to Hungary and Serbia in the hopes that their less hostile attitude to Russia would spare them, but when the brown stuff hits the radial finned air cooling and circulation system who knows what will happen...

When more and more breeder reactors come on line they will be able to massively boost their capacity to make nuclear weapons grade material...

And an important factor is that the precision of their weapons and the ability to defeat enemy air defences suggests lots and lots of small nuke warheads would probably be more lethal. Even conventionally armed hypesonic missiles will reach targets that would otherwise be relatively safe.

A Hypersonic impact/collision on a hard outer surface could be the mechanism to set off a simple nuclear warhead that consists of Uranium 235 at the front and the rear of the missile... impact at 3km per second crushes the two masses together... critical mass...

Plus in secret who knows what other new technologies are possible... their work with new reactor types and new technologies might lead to useful new weapons and systems... gamma ray lasers that penetrate walls and vehicles and destroy organic matter...

A hundred years ago the logic was that a energy weapon device was impractical because the power the device would need to kill the target would kill the operator first because they were closer to the source of the energy.

Focussed directed energy weapons like Lasers were a solution to that problem where the dangerous energy is directed in a beam at the target to protect the operator and also extend the range at which the dangerous energy is effective.

The main point behind Russia`s strategic missile campaign is to signal is that if NATO so desires, Russia can also engage in sub-threshold nuclear warfare against NATO - and win.

They did it a handful of times against several NATO ops centers in Ukraine. Imagine if 1 out 5 cruise missile is tipped with a sub kiloton micronuke...

hey did it a handful of times against several NATO ops centers in Ukraine. Imagine if 1 out 5 cruise missile is tipped with a sub kiloton micronuke... wrote:

In general, little is known about modern nuclear charges. The Russians have developed completely new warheads for the Yars, Bulava and Sarmat missiles. In addition, for the Poseidon. It is also not known what is happening in tactical nuclear weapons. Perhaps modern low-power charges have been developed, etc. In this case, nothing is known, compared to the means of delivery.