Iskander-M/K (SS-26 Stone):

franco wrote:

George1 wrote:Russia’s Eastern Military District gets brigade set of Iskander tactical missile systems

Can anyone update the number of Iskander units that have been delivered so far?

6 brigades or 72 firing units.

4 more brigades and 48 firing units planned.

thanks! you are great!!

Russia’s Eastern Military District Receives Iskander-M Missile Systems

A missile unit in Russia’s Southern Military District located in the East Siberian Republic of Buryatia received Iskander-M (NATO reporting name SS-26 Stone) tactical missile systems, the Defense Ministry said in a statement on Tuesday.

MOSCOW (Sputnik) — The Iskander is characterized by its high mobility and maneuverability, as it takes just 20 minutes to put the system in operational readiness.

The 9K720 Iskander-M entered into service in 2006 to replace the OTR-23 Oka missile system, retired following the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union.

In order to master the sophisticated weaponry, the unit's military personnel "passed theoretical and practical training courses" and "performed combat and electronic launches of cruise and ballistic missiles" in Russia's southern Astrakhan Region, the statement reads.

Another brigade of Iskanders under the district's command has been on duty in Russia's Jewish Autonomous Region in the Russian Far East since 2013.

Russia is currently performing a $325-billion rearmament program to achieve a 70-percent modernization of its military by 2020.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20151103/1029525064/russia-iskander-missiles-buryatia.html#ixzz3qQv4Dv25

In my mind if its unrelated to this radio command version i mentioned it will be broadly similar to Chinese WS33.

Would be a bit redundant to develop Smerch into Hermes... when they are developing Hermes...

I have a question about russians production of missiles.

We know that they produced thousand and thousands of missile during cold war and many variants.

Today they have like 70 iskander complexes and what I have read in the forum somewhere 300-400 missiles.

Aren't they losing their capabilities in balistic missiles even if Iskander is one of the best missiles today ?

Countries like China, Iran and north corea are doing their own missiles pretty acurate and produce them in mass.

In an article, a russian official said that they can do a longer range Iskander but it will need 5-6 years for reseach and design.

We know that balistic missiles are a big part of russian's war strategies.

So do they realy think that the Iskander, with its short range but very acurate precision is enough or are they planning to restart their balistic program to counter the US's ABM ?

I'm talking about balistic missiles, not cruise missiles.

Isos wrote:I have a question about russians production of missiles.

We know that they produced thousand and thousands of missile during cold war and many variants.

Today they have like 70 iskander complexes and what I have read in the forum somewhere 300-400 missiles.

Aren't they losing their capabilities in balistic missiles even if Iskander is one of the best missiles today ?

Countries like China, Iran and north corea are doing their own missiles pretty acurate and produce them in mass.

In an article, a russian official said that they can do a longer range Iskander but it will need 5-6 years for reseach and design.

We know that balistic missiles are a big part of russian's war strategies.

So do they realy think that the Iskander, with its short range but very acurate precision is enough or are they planning to restart their balistic program to counter the US's ABM ?

I'm talking about balistic missiles, not cruise missiles.

Russian SSM's limited to 500 km's under present treaty. And how many Iskander missiles were there 5 years ago?, 10 years ago?

franco wrote:

Isos wrote:I have a question about russians production of missiles.

We know that they produced thousand and thousands of missile during cold war and many variants.

Today they have like 70 iskander complexes and what I have read in the forum somewhere 300-400 missiles.

Aren't they losing their capabilities in balistic missiles even if Iskander is one of the best missiles today ?

Countries like China, Iran and north corea are doing their own missiles pretty acurate and produce them in mass.

In an article, a russian official said that they can do a longer range Iskander but it will need 5-6 years for reseach and design.

We know that balistic missiles are a big part of russian's war strategies.

So do they realy think that the Iskander, with its short range but very acurate precision is enough or are they planning to restart their balistic program to counter the US's ABM ?

I'm talking about balistic missiles, not cruise missiles.

Russian SSM's limited to 500 km's under present treaty. And how many Iskander missiles were there 5 years ago?, 10 years ago?

I know about the treaty. There was a treaty for ABMs and USA removed from it because there were more and more countries equiped with very long range missiles (Russia Israel Turkey China Iran North corea Pakistan India) adn they didn't feal safety. Russia is surrounded by these countries and does'nt have the capabilities to respond at an attack just with missiles (cf accident with Turkey, Iskander could reach just the east of turkey). Moreover, it was a treaty that disvantage just Russia because west countries have never used ballistic missiles like russia, they use them for a nuclear strike not conventionnal. For conventional attacks they use their planes. Usa use tomahawks with 1000+ Km range and have 2000 of them and a lot of vectors. Not the case with russian navy and Kalibr missiles. Just one Ohio class carries more tomahawks than all the russian's ship carry Kalibrs. They could at least convert Oscars and one or two borei to carry Kalibrs. But it's not the case (even if they plan to do so)

Russia should remove from this treaty, it's clearly a mistake they signed it.

Iskander is a new system. It was designed in the 90's but since the end of USSR, russian didn't do lot of things. They just put it in service in 2006. Since then there was just the cruise missiles for iskander that was created. If you compare to what chinese, Iran or north corea have done, its nothing. Even if Iran's missiles are not as good as russians, at least they do something and have a realy bad economy.

Chinese designed like hundreds of différents cruise and ballistic missiles last 20 years. They are not going to use and produce in mass all of them but they are going to have informations about what they are capable and know how new technologies works in missiles etc...

Russians had a big advantage in this domaine. Now Chinese missiles are as good as Iskander.

They had 0 Iskanders but they had thousand of SCUD and others modele. Even if Iskander is 10 times more acurate, 300 of them can't replace 10000 SCUDs or OKAs.
If you fire an Iskander at a target it will touch it but it will be replace or repaired quickly. If you fire 10 OKAs at one target it will touch it and you will have 10 more ready to fire to attack men who are repairing it.

70 Lunchers for a country big like russia is nothing. 10 in the north, 10 in the South, 10 here, 10 there. I don't know russian's strategies but I think in a war they will need to lunch a bbig part of their missiles the first day, specialy against nato they will need to target airports the first day. So if you have just 10 lunchers with 60 missiles it will be just not enough.

I believe present plans are to have 120 launchers by the end of 2018. And remember they are dual launchers.

In an article, a russian official said that they can do a longer range Iskander but it will need 5-6 years for reseach and design.

they would also need to withdraw from the INF treaty which prohibits Russia from land based missiles with a range of between 500km and 5,000km.

We know that balistic missiles are a big part of russian's war strategies.

they have both Tochka and iskander and the new models of Smerch have a rather significantly increased range as well.

The simple fact is that the old model Scuds required nuclear or chemical warheads to actually be effective. Iskander and Tochka can pretty much be relied upon to hit their targets with a single shot... of course they wont need to replace them one for one.

I would also add that the US has been buying and using Russian rockets for a decade now and have full design plans for them but have said it will take more than 6 years to develop their own version!!!!

So do they realy think that the Iskander, with its short range but very acurate precision is enough or are they planning to restart their balistic program to counter the US's ABM ?

I'm talking about balistic missiles, not cruise missiles.

The solution to an threat that has anti in its name is almost never the same with the anti removed.

The best solution to defeat an ABM system is a non BM... like a hypersonic cruise missile for instance....

I know about the treaty. There was a treaty for ABMs and USA removed from it because there were more and more countries equiped with very long range missiles (Russia Israel Turkey China Iran North corea Pakistan India) adn they didn't feal safety. Russia is surrounded by these countries and does'nt have the capabilities to respond at an attack just with missiles (cf accident with Turkey, Iskander could reach just the east of turkey). Moreover, it was a treaty that disvantage just Russia because west countries have never used ballistic missiles like russia, they use them for a nuclear strike not conventionnal. For conventional attacks they use their planes. Usa use tomahawks with 1000+ Km range and have 2000 of them and a lot of vectors. Not the case with russian navy and Kalibr missiles. Just one Ohio class carries more tomahawks than all the russian's ship carry Kalibrs. They could at least convert Oscars and one or two borei to carry Kalibrs. But it's not the case (even if they plan to do so)

The Soviets used a lot of ballistic missiles but they invariably had nuclear or chem or bio warheads... the HE versions used in afghanistan were largely ineffectual due to poor accuracy.

the cruise missiles the Russians are firing at Syria could just as easily be fired at Turkey and ship based SAMs could be used to disrupt turkish aircraft and their attempts to disrupt the attack.

Every new Russian built ship will be able to carry long range cruise missiles and most upgraded vessels will also get USUK launchers for the same, while air launched models will add further platforms able to carry conventionally armed cruise missiles...

For every hundred ballistic missile the Soviets had in the 1980s the Russians will probably have one ballistic missile now... the the accuracy increase means they don't need thousands, but hundreds of missiles, and they also don't need nuclear warheads... which actually makes them much more useful.

Without nuclear warheads they can actually be used in conflicts... the old Soviet missiles would need conventional warheads and their inaccuracy would make them totally ineffectual for any mission except petty revenge on a large urban area (like the V2 against London).

They had 0 Iskanders but they had thousand of SCUD and others modele. Even if Iskander is 10 times more acurate, 300 of them can't replace 10000 SCUDs or OKAs.
If you fire an Iskander at a target it will touch it but it will be replace or repaired quickly. If you fire 10 OKAs at one target it will touch it and you will have 10 more ready to fire to attack men who are repairing it.

OKA was what the Iskander evolved from and is banned by the INF treaty.

They wont withdraw from the INF treaty until the S-400 and S-350 and S-500 are in full production and Russian air defence is strong enough to deal with BMs and cruise missiles.

70 Lunchers for a country big like russia is nothing. 10 in the north, 10 in the South, 10 here, 10 there. I don't know russian's strategies but I think in a war they will need to lunch a bbig part of their missiles the first day, specialy against nato they will need to target airports the first day. So if you have just 10 lunchers with 60 missiles it will be just not enough.

You do realise those launchers are fully mobile and reloadable don't you?

Plus all those 3,000km range cruise missiles sitting in all the Russian Navies new corvettes and frigates and destroyers and cruisers.

I believe present plans are to have 120 launchers by the end of 2018. And remember they are dual launchers.

And fully reloadable...

When the US starts operational use of ABM systems in Europe I suspect the INF treaty will be torn to very small pieces and development and production of intermediate range missiles will immediately begin in Russia... they will be very hot export items too I suspect as their guidance will make conventional warheads effective so they could be easily exported when the MTCR agreement is torn up too... well how can the US claim the Russians violated the MTCR if they are placing 700km range SM-3 missiles in Europe?

They wont withdraw from the INF treaty until the S-400 and S-350 and S-500 are in full production and Russian air defence is strong enough to deal with BMs and cruise missiles.

I don't think they should wait to have S-500 to withdraw from the INF treaty because like I said West don't use balistic missiles and the treaty is between US and Russia, not between NATO and Russia.

Have a look at that summary of the INF treaty :

From wiki in french
USSR missiles banned :
RSD 10 : missiles, conteneur de lancement, lanceur, véhicule transporteur de missile et structure fixe de lanceur.
R 12 : missile, véhicule transporteur de missile, érecteur de missile, table de lancement et réservoir de propergol.
R 14 : missile
RK-55 : missile, conteneur de lancement et lanceur.
OTR-22 : missile, lanceur et véhicule transporteur de missile
OTR- 23 : missile, lanceur et véhicule transporteur de missile.

US missiles banned :
Pershing : missile, lanceur et abri d’aire de lancement.
BG M. 109G : missile, conteneur de lancement et lanceur.
Pershing IA : missile et lanceur.
Pershing JB : missile

Quantity :

Missile à portée intermédiaire URSS USA
Missiles déployés et non déployés 826 689
Nombre total de 2ème étage 650 282

Missiles à plus courte portée URSS USA
Missiles déployés et non déployés 926 178
Nombre total de deuxième étage 726 183

They didn't include cruise missiles lunched from sea because it would have destroyed US foreign Policy which is based on tomahawks ... That treaty is clearly against Russia's defence capabilities. US missiles have a range of 2000 km so what your saying is wrong. US have long range cruise missiles, NATO can easily have some 2000km range BM in 4-5years, plus other countries now have both (Iran, Israel, Pakistan, Turkey ...)

And there's a real threat from these countries. Iran, before 70's, was a foe. Israel is not a russia's friend neither pakistan. nd if china starts a war against US, there is a real chance that they try to attack others country for oil.

The best solution to defeat an ABM system is a non BM... like a hypersonic cruise missile for instance....

To counter the ABM in Poland, they put Iskanders in Kaliningrad ... A mega super hypersonic invisible cruise missile would be a solution too but Russia doesn't have it. Just a project that will need 10 times more work and money than a BM or normal cruise missile.

For every hundred ballistic missile the Soviets had in the 1980s the Russians will probably have one ballistic missile now... the the accuracy increase means they don't need thousands, but hundreds of missiles, and they also don't need nuclear warheads... which actually makes them much more useful.

You do realise those launchers are fully mobile and reloadable don't you?

I know that. My question was about the production capacity of missiles not the lethality of iskaders. Like I said someone here wrote (don't remember where in the forum) that russia has arround 400 missiles. I think it's not enough comparing to third world countries that produce thousands of missiles per year. Iskander was put in service in 2006, so in 10 years they produced just 400 missiles.

Plus all those 3,000km range cruise missiles sitting in all the Russian Navies new corvettes and frigates and destroyers and cruisers.

Sounds good but it's far from the reality. They need 4-5 years to build a gorshkov frigate. For a destroyer or a cruiser it will be 8-9-10 years if they don't improve their shipyard's capacities. And they don't produce a lot of big warships per year. They needed 4 vessels to fire 26 Kalibrs in Syria. Small corvettes like buyans without air defences need other warships to protect them. Using a Slava class to protect them during a big war is wasteful. If you don't protect them they will be sunked like Ossa class boats during Iran Irak war by helicopters.

I don't think they should wait to have S-500 to withdraw from the INF treaty because like I said West don't use balistic missiles and the treaty is between US and Russia, not between NATO and Russia.

The US doesn't have ballistic missiles like Honest John and Pershing II because of the INF treaty.

The thing is that IRBMs were too destabilising... there was no effective defence at the time and the very short flight times meant very little time was available to decide whether it was a computer glitch or a full scale attack. It put WWIII on a hair trigger which neither side was happy with.

Once S-400 is more widely deployed and S-500 is in service however there will be a defence against IRBMs and cruise missiles... and then it becomes irrelevant.

Russia has ship and air launched long range cruise missiles with both conventional and nuclear warheads... not having land based ballistic missiles in the IRBM range range is not that much of a problem in terms of defending themselves. Of course if the US builds an ABM system in Europe then the INF treaty and several others make little sense so the limits come off the cruise and ballistic missiles just like the limits came off the S-500 when the ABM treaty was withdrawn from by the US.

To counter the ABM in Poland, they put Iskanders in Kaliningrad ... A mega super hypersonic invisible cruise missile would be a solution too but Russia doesn't have it. Just a project that will need 10 times more work and money than a BM or normal cruise missile.

Why would you make 10 BMs to attack a BM defence system?

That would be like trying to burn down a fire proof house...

A hypersonic cruise missile is already in development... it is called Zircon and it is a replacement for Onyx. Every new Russian ship will be able to carry at least 8 and often more depending upon the size of the ship.

that russia has arround 400 missiles. I think it's not enough comparing to third world countries that produce thousands of missiles per year. Iskander was put in service in 2006, so in 10 years they produced just 400 missiles.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that they use cruise missiles rather more than they have used ballistic missiles though a few were used in Georgia. You are also forgetting that 1,000 Scuds might kill 50 or a hundred people, but one Iskander will likely destroy one target.

They only need four Corvettes to fire 26 missiles... forty four NATO corvettes couldn't do the same.

One Destroyer will carry more missiles than that... and a Cruiser will have 80 launch tubes for these weapons.

Every single vessel in the Russian fleet will be able to attack point targets on land thousands of kms from their position without starting a nuclear war... the soviets never had that capability and the modern Russian corvette can carry 8, Frigate 16, destroyer 32,and cruiser 80.

Even their container ships can carry hundreds...

And BTW which western helo will be sinking a Russian Corvette armed with Shtil-1 or the naval equivalent of S-350? That would be funny... but I guess NATO corvettes are invincible right?

The thing is that IRBMs were too destabilising... there was no effective defence at the time and the very short flight times meant very little time was available to decide whether it was a computer glitch or a full scale attack. It put WWIII on a hair trigger which neither side was happy with.

Yes they are but not against USA. They could destroy neighbour countries in a nuclear war but then US would know in the next minute there was an attack. So 4 min for the missile flight+2 for the call phone = 6min to know there was an attack.
And US don't care about these eastern countries. They use them like soviets used them. A supply in men and no man's land in case of war.

Once S-400 is more widely deployed and S-500 is in service however there will be a defence against IRBMs and cruise missiles... and then it becomes irrelevant.

I can't understand why you're saying that. S-400 are ready, S-500 almost. NATO doesn't have IRBMs so it will be benefic to withdraw from the INF treaty and start studying new balistic weapons or cruise missiles.

Why would you make 10 BMs to attack a BM defence system?

That would be like trying to burn down a fire proof house...

A hypersonic cruise missile is already in development... it is called Zircon and it is a replacement for Onyx. Every new Russian ship will be able to carry at least 8 and often more depending upon the size of the ship.

From what I've read on some article the ABM in europe is protecting just USA and is completly armless against russian's missiles (even Iranian's missiles ?)

The ONIX is 2-4 millions $. We can be sure Zircon will not be cheaper.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that they use cruise missiles rather more than they have used ballistic missiles though a few were used in Georgia. You are also forgetting that 1,000 Scuds might kill 50 or a hundred people, but one Iskander will likely destroy one target.

Well, I have to admit this one you're right.

They only need four Corvettes to fire 26 missiles... forty four NATO corvettes couldn't do the same.

Arleigh Burke and tico can carry like 60-70 tomahawks (with SAMs missiles) plus Ohio class 150 tomahawks. I was thinking about that,not some stupid dannish ships (all they know to do is hidding with their stupid strealthy structure) when I was talking about NATO.

One Destroyer will carry more missiles than that... and a Cruiser will have 80 launch tubes for these weapons.

Every single vessel in the Russian fleet will be able to attack point targets on land thousands of kms from their position without starting a nuclear war... the soviets never had that capability and the modern Russian corvette can carry 8, Frigate 16, destroyer 32,and cruiser 80.

I was NOT criticizing Russian vessels, but the very slow and poor production of them. Gorshkov production is very slow, Lider exist just on paper and it will take 10 years (even more) before the firt is put in service. They say they will buy 12 of them but we all know is unlikely to happen.

NATO doen't have anything like russian's corvette because they couldn't use them in their conflict in middle east or Africa ...

And BTW which western helo will be sinking a Russian Corvette armed with Shtil-1 or the naval equivalent of S-350? That would be funny... but I guess NATO corvettes are invincible right?

Well, all Buyan will be destroyed like all Nanushkas by any helo armed with AShM. Steregoushchy could survive longer with 12 missiles with 40 km range.
For me NATO= USA+UK+(1/2)FR+(1/2)GERMANY. They don't really use corvettes.
The rest no one cares, they are just lands where battles will be situated.



If we can come back to the subject, can you at least answer me about the production capabilities of BM of russia. Even if you says they use more cruise missiles, some areas are too far for naval cruise missiles like Russo-chinese border, ountries that the name finish by -stan (kazak, ouzbek ...) and I don't think Russians are planing a war without BM. They will try to coordinate their attack with one BM and one CM to maximise the chances and that's the idea told by a defector in the video made in Israel, I think it was posted here.

Yes they are but not against USA. They could destroy neighbour countries in a nuclear war but then US would know in the next minute there was an attack. So 4 min for the missile flight+2 for the call phone = 6min to know there was an attack.
And US don't care about these eastern countries. They use them like soviets used them. A supply in men and no man's land in case of war

Neither the US nor the Soviet Union cared about their European allies... for the US the western allies were land to fight on so they didn't have a war on US soil and for the soviet Union it was largely the same... a place to fight that was not Soviet soil.

The main reason, as I said for the INF treaty was that because at the time there was no defence and the very short flight time it put the soviets on a hair trigger... they would not have the luxury of taking time to decide if it was a mistake or a launch... this made everything very dangerous so both sides decided to ban the medium or intermediate range BMs.

Now that defences are entering service there is no so much a hair trigger so it is less of a problem.

I can't understand why you're saying that. S-400 are ready, S-500 almost. NATO doesn't have IRBMs so it will be benefic to withdraw from the INF treaty and start studying new balistic weapons or cruise missiles.

Upon deciding to do so they could have 3,000km range cruise missiles based in europe in 6 months or so... and now they could base them in former Soviet republics and Turkey... ie very close to Moscow.

From what I've read on some article the ABM in europe is protecting just USA and is completly armless against russian's missiles (even Iranian's missiles ?)

But will not always continue to be so... About Block 3 upgrade level it is supposed to be able to stop all sorts of threats including multiple targets.

The ONIX is 2-4 millions $. We can be sure Zircon will not be cheaper.

Not sure where that number came from.

Arleigh Burke and tico can carry like 60-70 tomahawks (with SAMs missiles) plus Ohio class 150 tomahawks. I was thinking about that,not some stupid dannish ships (all they know to do is hidding with their stupid strealthy structure) when I was talking about NATO.

Russia has no global empire to maintain... their Kirov class vessels will get 80 launch tubes for cruise missiles including hypersonic ones...

New build destroyers will have 32 launch tubes for a range of missile types and cruisers will have 80 launch tubes for such weapons.

Oscars will have 72 onyx launch tubes which could take cruise missiles too one suspects.

With the success of cruise missile attacks on Syria perhaps plans for a cruise missile Typhoon with the SS-N-20 tubes removed and replaced with cruise missile tubes might be revived.

Remember tubes can be reloaded and land air and sea platforms can all carry Russian cruise missiles.

I was NOT criticizing Russian vessels, but the very slow and poor production of them. Gorshkov production is very slow, Lider exist just on paper and it will take 10 years (even more) before the firt is put in service. They say they will buy 12 of them but we all know is unlikely to happen.

Russia could bankrupt itself and raise production speeds to Late Cold war levels but what would be the point of that?

Well, all Buyan will be destroyed like all Nanushkas by any helo armed with AShM. Steregoushchy could survive longer with 12 missiles with 40 km range.

All new Russian ships have Sigma battle management and communication system... any helicopter the Buyan detects will be shared with all russian platforms in the area... if the helicopter is not shot down with the Buyans 100mm main gun or Gibka then a supporting vessel will take it out.

3,000km range cruise missiles means they don't have to get anywhere near the target area to launch... and 99.9999% of its time will be spent as a patrol corvette for which it is over armed.

If we can come back to the subject, can you at least answer me about the production capabilities of BM of russia. Even if you says they use more cruise missiles, some areas are too far for naval cruise missiles like Russo-chinese border, ountries that the name finish by -stan (kazak, ouzbek ...) and I don't think Russians are planing a war without BM. They will try to coordinate their attack with one BM and one CM to maximise the chances and that's the idea told by a defector in the video made in Israel, I think it was posted here.

AFAIK in a nuclear war each missile will have multiple warheads and each warhead will have its target... so for instance 6 very different ICBMs from different silos plus say two warheads from two different subs mounted on two different SLBMs might be targeted at Washington. They will come in at different times from different directions, but will ensure the target is hit properly.

The average cruise missile will be launched after a 6-12 hour subsonic flight and adding subsonic flight for another 3 to 5 thousand kms means cruise missiles might not explode on target until days after the ICBMs and SLBMs have hit...

Major airfields will be destroyed and aircraft in no condition to intercept those CMs in flight however so they will probably get through too.

AFAIK in a nuclear war each missile will have multiple warheads and each warhead will have its target... so for instance 6 very different ICBMs from different silos plus say two warheads from two different subs mounted on two different SLBMs might be targeted at Washington. They will come in at different times from different directions, but will ensure the target is hit properly.

The average cruise missile will be launched after a 6-12 hour subsonic flight and adding subsonic flight for another 3 to 5 thousand kms means cruise missiles might not explode on target until days after the ICBMs and SLBMs have hit...

Major airfields will be destroyed and aircraft in no condition to intercept those CMs in flight however so they will probably get through too.

Sorry I wasn't clear. When I say that they have not enough missiles I was thinking about a conventional war. If it goes nuclear, it's the end of the world with or without Iskander.

And how many hours would a conventional war between Russia and NATO last before going nuke.

I believe a Soviet General described it best... the western belief in escalation is like two cowboys starting by swearing at each other and then throwing bottles and then chairs and tables and then throwing punches and only then going for their pistols to shoot the other guy.

What happens if you pick up and chair to throw at the other guy and he draws his pistol while you are holding the chair above your head...

When you both have nukes you either try to take his out or you use yours as effectively and decisively as you can and so does he.

Russia easily has the capacity to produce plenty of weapons of all sorts for its own use and export use.