Putin condemned for claims he’s boosting nuclear arsenal this year

[Notchris]

Unless this is including new delivery methods, this is fairly pointless.

The last thing the Russian military needs is more nukes, with a stockpile in the thousands.. The rest of the military needs upgrades/proper maintenance.

40 nukes to throw into the already ludicrously massive stockpile is an odd decision.

Also Russia has subs off our coast that carry the new Buluva nuclear missiles.

With something around a 33% fail rate in tests, I doubt they'll be banking on the Bulava.

[ComputerNerd]

So Putin being a bully again ?
Sad sign of the times when that doesn't surprise me any more.

[Kellhound]

Lmao you know nothing of nuclear capability. Most of Russia's mobile launchers can move into place and fire in less than 5 minutes and are place all over Russian and even on trains all over Russia and not to mention silos and subs. The Yars RS24 and Topol M are the best in technology with range to hit anywhere in the USA. They carry 10 MIRV warheads that carry nuclear payloads 10x that of Hiroshima and shoot out of the earths atmosphere and re enter undetected. They carry 40 counter measures and are sub sonic so they can evade incoming missiles. Also Russia has subs off our coast that carry the new Buluva nuclear missiles. The USa is bad ass yes but if we launched and Russia launched we would be dead no questions asked. You act like if they fire we can shoot em all down lmao.

And the US has far more SLBMs deployed than Russia. The USN only uses the very well tested Trident II, a missile that can carry 14 100kt or 475kt warheads (currently they carry 8 warheads). If Russia decides to deploy more warheads and violate their treaty obligations, the US can easily have 2000+ warheads at sea at any given time in short order.

[Skandulous]

Unless this is including new delivery methods, this is fairly pointless.

The last thing the Russian military needs is more nukes, with a stockpile in the thousands.. The rest of the military needs upgrades/proper maintenance.

40 nukes to throw into the already ludicrously massive stockpile is an odd decision.



With something around a 33% fail rate in tests, I doubt they'll be banking on the Bulava.

The last 3 tests all hit no problem and the missile is in service on 3-4 subs that carry 16 a piece. 64 missiles even at 33% chance is still gonna kill millions.

And the US has far more SLBMs deployed than Russia. The USN only uses the very well tested Trident II, a missile that can carry 14 100kt or 475kt warheads (currently they carry 8 warheads). If Russia decides to deploy more warheads and violate their treaty obligations, the US can easily have 2000+ warheads at sea at any given time in short order.

i agree with you but what i was saying is the guy i quoted thinks Russias system is junk and they cant hit us which you know is untrue. If we both launched the world would be fucked.

[obdigore]

Lmao you know nothing of nuclear capability. Most of Russia's mobile launchers can move into place and fire in less than 5 minutes and are place all over Russian and even on trains all over Russia and not to mention silos and subs. The Yars RS24 and Topol M are the best in technology with range to hit anywhere in the USA. They carry 10 MIRV warheads that carry nuclear payloads 10x that of Hiroshima and shoot out of the earths atmosphere and re enter undetected. They carry 40 counter measures and are sub sonic so they can evade incoming missiles. Also Russia has subs off our coast that carry the new Buluva nuclear missiles. The USa is bad ass yes but if we launched and Russia launched we would be dead no questions asked. You act like if they fire we can shoot em all down lmao.

Now lots read what I wrote again, together this time.

and since they are almost all on mobile vehicles that current tech can target, Russia has extremely little second strike capability.

Russia has little SECOND STRIKE capability. Russia doesn't have a realistic hope of second strike, since most of their navy isn't floated. It's why Russia is freaking out of the 'missile defense shield' that NATO wants to put up in Russia. That tech isn't going to stop 50 or 100 missiles at a time, its going to stop the FEW that Russia would be able to launch if the US struck first.

The MAD doctrine doesn't work if one side can strike with impunity.

[Kellhound]

The last 3 tests all hit no problem and the missile is in service on 3-4 subs that carry 16 a piece. 64 missiles even at 33% chance is still gonna kill millions.



i agree with you but what i was saying is the guy i quoted thinks Russias system is junk and they cant hit us which you know is untrue. If we both launched the world would be fucked.

Russia doesn't keep their SSBNs out to sea as much as the US. It is very unlikely more than one of the 3 Borei SSBNs would be deployed at any given time.

- - - Updated - - -

Now lots read what I wrote again, together this time.



Russia has little SECOND STRIKE capability. Russia doesn't have a realistic hope of second strike, since most of their navy isn't floated. It's why Russia is freaking out of the 'missile defense shield' that NATO wants to put up in Russia. That tech isn't going to stop 50 or 100 missiles at a time, its going to stop the FEW that Russia would be able to launch if the US struck first.

The MAD doctrine doesn't work if one side can strike with impunity.

All road mobile and SLBMs are considered second strike, as are any airborne nuclear armed bombers. Also, the ABM system cannot stop ICBMs, they are too fast to intercept currently.

MAD requires ~1000 warheads, not a few.

[obdigore]

All road mobile and SLBMs are considered second strike, as are any airborne nuclear armed bombers. Also, the ABM system cannot stop ICBMs, they are too fast to intercept currently.

MAD requires ~1000 warheads, not a few.

That's my point. All of Russia's junk is hanging out in the wind, for all the satellites to see. Especially since they can't keep those things fueled because of the volatility of the fuel.

The few that the US (or, well, NATO I guess...) would miss wouldn't be enough to effectively second strike anything.

[Kellhound]

That's my point. All of Russia's junk is hanging out in the wind, for all the satellites to see. Especially since they can't keep those things fueled because of the volatility of the fuel.

The few that the US (or, well, NATO I guess...) would miss wouldn't be enough to effectively second strike anything.

Actually, Russian mobile ICBMs are solid fuel rockets, and it is not a given that the US can track them.

[Azrile]

Low oil prices, declining economy, increased arms spending. Its like the 80s all over again. Russia just needs to send conventional forces into Ukraine and it'll be complete.

Putin needs to read some history... heck.. even talk to people.. many of which are still alive the last time this happened.

Nobody is going to use nukes, and really nobody cares about 40 new nukes which may be able to avoid a missile defense system which may or may not be able to even stop the other thousand ´old nukes´..

It is just stupid saber-ratting and the only thing it is going to do is hurt the russian people as more sanctions get put on them. This will be worst than the 70´s because Russia doesn´t even have all the supporting countries around it. They will just squeeze the economy into submissions and 40 nukes sitting in some silo won´t matter one bit.

[obdigore]

Actually, Russian mobile ICBMs are solid fuel rockets

Really? I must have been reading an old article then because I was under the impression that the vast majority of what Russia would use to launch nuclear warheads needed liquid fueling, which being volatile, would take almost as much time to get in place as it would take a warhead launched from central europe or the western pacific to reach central Russia.

[Kellhound]

Really? I must have been reading an old article then because I was under the impression that the vast majority of what Russia would use to launch nuclear warheads needed liquid fueling, which being volatile, would take almost as much time to get in place as it would take a warhead launched from central europe or the western pacific to reach central Russia.

You are thinking of the silo based SS-18 Satan.

[Skandulous]

who cares about second strike when Russia posses First strike capability. Also the mobile launchers can fire from moving to still in 5 minutes. Theres no way to track and intercept over a dozen Russian nukes launching at the same time. Our nuclear arsenal is awesome yes but our missile defense shield here is very vulnerable to multiple Russian nukes. Nobody wins if we use nukes so i doubt it will ever happen. Last time Putin made threats like this was when we talked about the missile shield in Poland and guess what we gave in and didn't put it up. Putin is not stupid he knows what hes doing.

[Justwannabefriends]

It's honestly funny when all the military people just yell...Murica cuz we are better. Honestly put the blame where it belongs. When obama was moving military hardware into Poland under the banner of NATO, everyone said that was lies and bullshit. Really? So I guess the fact that he did in fact finally admit to doing it and the videos from throughout Europe of U.S. hardware on the move is finally no longer a secret. While Putin has a bit of a temper and likes to stir the pot, let's not forget the U.S. policies of pushing buttons then crying terrorism. Putin builds nukes. obama moves American military personnel and hardware into danger. It's what presidents do when they don't get their way. At what point will the U.S. fuck off and deal with internal problems? Well nixon saw that wouldn't happen with the petrodollar. So tell me how history never fails to repeat itself with so much warning out there?

[draganid]

putin is like an irl bond villain lol

[obdigore]

You are thinking of the silo based SS-18 Satan.

You appear to be correct.

Learn something new everyday, Thanks!

[Skandulous]

Really? I must have been reading an old article then because I was under the impression that the vast majority of what Russia would use to launch nuclear warheads needed liquid fueling, which being volatile, would take almost as much time to get in place as it would take a warhead launched from central europe or the western pacific to reach central Russia.

The Yars RS 24 is a 3 stage solid fuel rocket that hits mach 20 or 15k mph. Russia is in tests with the Sarmat which is supposed to be a 100 ton heavy thermonuclear ICBM but not much else is known.

[Theinquisition]

putin is like an irl bond villain lol

He just needs a fluffy white cat to pet all the time.

[minteK917]

well... they've used gas in ww1 though.

Thats kind of his point. They've used nukes in WW2, its the same reason why it wont be used again. Human warfare always had some kind of rules all the way back in recorded history. When things are considered just too awful, which is saying something. Nukes are just the ultimate version of this. Countries would rather surrender before commiting these kind of crimes generally.

[Kellhound]

who cares about second strike when Russia posses First strike capability. Also the mobile launchers can fire from moving to still in 5 minutes. Theres no way to track and intercept over a dozen Russian nukes launching at the same time. Our nuclear arsenal is awesome yes but our missile defense shield here is very vulnerable to multiple Russian nukes. Nobody wins if we use nukes so i doubt it will ever happen. Last time Putin made threats like this was when we talked about the missile shield in Poland and guess what we gave in and didn't put it up. Putin is not stupid he knows what hes doing.

We can track them just fine, we have been able to for decades, intercepting them is different. No ABM system has shown to be able to intercept ICBMs reliably.

- - - Updated - - -

The Yars RS 24 is a 3 stage solid fuel rocket that hits mach 20 or 15k mph. Russia is in tests with the Sarmat which is supposed to be a 100 ton heavy thermonuclear ICBM but not much else is known.

Even the Minuteman III hits MACH 23, and the Peacekeeper was 96 tons (and the SS-18 is 200 tons).

[Ulmita]

The Russian president was referring to delivery systems and not to new warheads. As a previous user pointed out, 40 new warheads are nothing, they already have some thousands that are not active and are waiting to be decommissioned which means they have access to thousands more if they wanted to. However, 40 new delivery systems is a MASSIVE upgrade in their second strike capabilities.

This came right after UK said they wanted to host American nukes on their ground. 40 new Yars should be enough to blanket nuke UK from top to buttom and ensure that nothing grows on that island for thousands of years.

Again, NATO is the aggressor here guys, Russians aren't moving their country into NATO rather NATO HAS move to its borders.

I've been saying this a lot. A war with Russia and NATO will look like this: Nuclear exchange between UK / US and Russia - simple as.

Russia should be pumping out those Yars, Bulavas and Borei subs LIKE NO TOMORROW.