Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Russian Nuclear Posture superior to the US's?

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 05:56 PM
link   
The question naturally arises who is more prepared for nuclear war, so in that discussion I thought I'd share some numbers.

Without explaining the allocation of weapons...missile types and etc. I'll merely provide the various numbers of the totals....

(US) [Russia]

ICMBs (701) [800]
Warheads (2,451) [4,030]
SLBM (464) [592]
Warheads (3,776) [2,424]
Bombers (315) [117]
Warheads (1,731) [908]

Total (1,480) [1,509]
Warheads (7,958) [7,362]

So from the numbers, the US deploys more warheads but mostly in SLBM and Bombers which are not obsolete but pushing the envelope. SLBMs aren't so much obsolete as they are for different use - they are punishment against attack, useful for cities or airbases and other large targets. ICMBs are necessary for winning Nuclear War (considering the artillery duel strategy) and Russia beats the US by approximately 1.6:1

This advantage could mean a significant advantage over the US especially when considering Russia's potential for a missile shield using Nuclear tipped SAM-700s.

For those who feel the US is too aggressive in changing their policies to using Nuclear Weapons in conventional scenarios, you're a bit late.

Russia already changed to that policy in 1991. Russia expresses the courage to use Nuclear weapons in numerous conventional situations where they feel threatened or their national interests are threatened.

If you're interested in the total number of warheads since 1999.

US 12,070

Russia 22,500

A distinct advantage of about 2:1.

[edit on 8-3-2007 by The_Investor]

[edit on 8-3-2007 by The_Investor]

[edit on 8-3-2007 by The_Investor]




posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Hmmm you are incorrect about a few things.

The US's SLBM the Trident D-5 has counterforce ability. that is the ability to target the other sides Silo based missiles. Its CEP is less than 120 meters. yes they still can be used for "city busting" but are as accurate as thier land based firends. Given the superior state of the US SSBN's thier ability to be targeted is remote.

Using nuclear tipped ABM's would be a foolhardy proposition at best. You (depending on where they aere intercepted) EMP your own territory, and the effects may be as bad as the incomming missiles landing at any rate. Less upfront destruction but the fallout would be ugly.

You do not win a all out exchange you deal with the aftermath and thats about it.

The Russians may have more warheads, but how many are deliverable? And at the numbers you posted, we are taking about bouncing the rubble even half tahn number is enuf to wipe out both countries.



[edit on 3/8/07 by FredT]



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Hmmm you are incorrect about a few things.

The US's SLBM the Trident D-5 has counterforce ability. that is the ability to target the other sides Silo based missiles. Its CEP is less than 120 meters. yes they still can be used for "city busting" but are as accurate as thier land based firends. Given the superior state of the US SSBN's thier ability to be targeted is remote.

Using nuclear tipped ABM's would be a foolhardy proposition at best. You (depending on where they aere intercepted) EMP your own territory, and the effects may be as bad as the incomming missiles landing at any rate. Less upfront destruction but the fallout would be ugly.

You do not win a all out exchange you deal with the aftermath and thats about it.

The Russians may have more warheads, but how many are deliverable? And at the numbers you posted, we are taking about bouncing the rubble even half tahn number is enuf to wipe out both countries.



[edit on 3/8/07 by FredT]


I'm not sure how you get-off telling me I'm wrong when I pull this stratight from the book on "US National Security" for 2006-2007.

I already gave you the numbers on deliverable warheads the final totals show the disparity showing that the US deploys many more of their warheads than Russia which could be because Russia is not declaring other uses for their warheads which may be in a BMD roll.

SLBMs have very little if any counterforce capability considering their lack of ability to know their exact position without exposing themselves to attack. It is VERY unlikely submarines would provide capable deterrence against ICBMs - especially considering the majority of Russia's ICBMs are a few thousand kilometers inland which are out of the range of most SLBMS (about 3,500 km) since most Boomers aren't going to pull into the coasts of their targets to get that maximum range potential.

Especially since a Boomer's position during an exchange is crucial, most likely most boats will be 1,000 km out to sea already and so a large portion of Russia's Nuclear assets are out-side the US's sites.

But then, so are the US's a large porition of their ICBMs are outside the range of Russian boomers.

This again is because of the perceived use of submarine Nuclear weapons.

As for winning a Nuclear engagement it's of course possible Russia prepares for it and the use of Nukes in the upper-atmosphere to intercept ICBMs etc. is not going to have any harmful effects save minute amounts of un-used nuclear fuel from the inefficiencies of reaction. Most warheads are in the 90% yields however...so that's not much.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 06:47 PM
link   
One. This issue is all-ready being argued in several current threads.

Two. Russia's nuclear arsenal is largely inflated, as it does not identify how many of its components have the capability to perform as intended: Most-any member here can describe to you why the numbers will have been very exaggerated.
Further, its actual nuclear forces are in [declining] disarray -- So even if they had such a preposterous number, it would take quite a large amount of time to utilize such an arsenal.

Further, please research why we no longer perform high-altitude nuclear tests.
I believe fusing several thousand miles of telephone line, and more serious consequences was bad enough, for both respective countries.

Nuclear ABM's are blind-fold safety mechanisms; ie. it creates a [false] sense of security in the populace.
They only work to increase the survivability of state-figures, who presumably would all-ready be sheltered.

Edit: Minor typo.




[edit on 8-3-2007 by Iblis]



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Investor
I'm not sure how you get-off telling me I'm wrong when I pull this stratight from the book on "US National Security" for 2006-2007.



Because some of your comments are flawed IMHO. And If you are, using a book for a reference you are not citing your sources which is required here at ATS.



SLBMs have very little if any counterforce capability considering their lack of ability to know their exact position without exposing themselves to attack.



The CEP of the D-5 is almost the same as its land based counterpart the LGM-30 Minuteman III

www.globalsecurity.org...
www.globalsecurity.org...

A CEP of 120 meters for a D-5 indicates that the SSBN's are using inertial navigation to position themselves and how exposed do you need to be to extend an antenna and get a GPS fix eh?

Also the D-5 has a reported range of 7360 km. The Minuteman III is greater than that at 11000 km, but are silo located in the central US. And no, they do not need to sit right off the coast to hold most targets in Russia at risk. Did you forget that missiles can be launched from the Pole, the Pacific, etc?



The ten Trident submarines which originally operated out of Sub-Base Kings Bay in Georgia
were all loaded with the Trident-2 missiles, also known as D-5. Trident-2s have the accuracy and
quick delivery time necessary to decapitate underground command posts, as well as demolishing silos.
www.plrc.org...




As for winning a Nuclear engagement it's of course possible Russia prepares for it and the use of Nukes in the upper-atmosphere to intercept ICBMs etc. is not going to have any harmful effects save minute amounts


Sure thing. Scattering weapons grade plutonium in the upper atmosphere will be okay? Unless the Russians are going to deploy the nuclear tipped ABM's such large numbers that they are going to have one for each warhead, you are looking at area type effects that will cause physical damage to the incomming missiles and NOT total destruction. Thus lots of aerisolized weapons grade material in the atmoshpere.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 08:06 PM
link   
call me crazy but i've had this theory that the US and russia aren't stockpiling all of this trash for war against eachother or the world... its like they know a threat from beyond our planet is our there and they want to be ready. didn't reagan or someone else give a speech talking about interstellar war?



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 09:17 PM
link   
His speech was on the concept of weaponized space, not necessarily against 'aliens', though more likely as ABM, Anti-Satellite, or Orbital Bombardment systems.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 09:23 PM
link   
honestly, i dont see what the deal is about nuclear weapons, and why having alot is significant. Once the first nuclear weapon goes off, the world is done. Its just a matter of whos nukes get to their destinations first.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 10:42 PM
link   
FredT you attempt to make an argument but in all instances but one ignore everything I said for information that in turn is irrelevant (but potentially makes an ignorant teenager think you're smart).

Here's why:

First I'll agree with you about the range issue as I have seen reported ranges as high as 12,000 KM but the US is not keen on reporting actual ranges, suffice to say that operationally an Ohio Class is not going to be within its area of patrol (then again the NAVY is difficult on defining patrol as well) until around 1,000 KM of Russia.

That doesn't matter, you argue that the accuracy of the D-5 is 150 meters? This is completely wrong.

The accuracy is within about 250 meters which puts it well outside the limits of performing what is referred to as a 2-on-1 cross targeting.

This is consuming resources (that means the complete success of one submarine can only strike a limited number of hardened facilities, and that is about 90. Russia has 93 known hardened facilities and has a mobile launch force anyway).

The 2-on-1 cross targeting only works on the premise that the D-5 can have an accuracy of 150 meters, without that it may need as many as 10 and none of them may destroy any facility because now the cratering effect is not within range of the facility when the missile misses by more than 150 meters.

The thing you over looked and which is under-reported is the only time the missile receives such accuracy is with additional targeting vectors supplied by NAVSTAR.

This system is a remotely linked or "soft-lined" communication system to the in-transit missile and can be scrambled easily if not completely hacked and thus the wrong information is given (making your D-5 believe Berlin is Moscow).

Russian cyber warfare will be up to par to deal with this and hence the counter cyber terrorism units etc...that the US are working on.

This puts ICBMs at the advantage particularly for the Russian ICBMs because they are mobile and thus more survivable, because these ICBMs have a better accuracy (150 meters or less) upon launch. They require no inflight corrections. This command and communication system is governed by hard-line comms and prevents error or corruption.

As for "nuclear fall out" doesn't really exist in above ground tests. More radioactive material was left over after Fat Man and Little Boy because their yields were at best 17% - yet Nagasaki and Hiroshima are thriving.

Airbursts by efficient bombs 95% or greater are not going to leave much residue at all.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 10:45 PM
link   
Oh and to cover your argument of the incoming missile just being "aerosolized" no...doesn't work that way - those missiles can handle more than 12psi of over-pressure...they won't be destroyed anymore than concrete would be destroyed from a distance.

The missile itself may be destroyed, but the warhead will most likely survive.

I actually want to include a certain omission...the paper is inconsistent in its argument but then that's expected of such highly sensitive material. It does claim the internal guidance of the D-5 is capable enough to achieve a 150 meter accuracy yet it claims earlier it would require NAVSTAR to get better than a 250 meter accuracy. It's not adding new information it's simply a complete and obvious inconsistent argument.

[edit on 9-3-2007 by The_Investor]



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 12:49 AM
link   
Can someone find me a reference for the specifications they even give? This source was very liberal and may have been very very biased.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 01:16 AM
link   
More nukes isnt an "advantage". The ability to stop others is and I'd say the US has that although I'm far from an expert.

either way, neither side is good enough at stopping the others stuff so both still lose.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 02:01 AM
link   
Honestly, I don't see any supporting links or proof of these numbers, you may be entirely incorrect.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Connected
Honestly, I don't see any supporting links or proof of these numbers, you may be entirely incorrect.


Sarkesian "US National Security"

A well respected published book on US National Security - as opposed to what's that other source I'm debating? The "Pacific Life Research Center" which is actually arguing that Trident Missiles are a waste of money because war is bad...that's how credible that farse is...as I asked.

Where is the reference to its figures?

And to SenHeathen of course more nukes is an advantage but there's other factors, survivability may not be limited to numbers, mobility is how the Russians solve it, the US has theorized putting silos beneath lakes etc.

Submarines is another way, the debate here is how crucial of a role (other than deterrence) do submarines play? As its been explained to me SLBMs have less accuracy...even that Pacific Life paper understands that but that paper then makes the claim this is corrected in-flight and can be further corrected by NAVSAT.

But it unsubstantiates that claim AS FAR as I can tell.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 03:40 AM
link   
The Russian nuclear `stock pile` was never as high as the administraion wanted you to believe

why?

simple - the russians have 10+ years on thw US in the field of Bio weapons , they have a ready-to-deliver stockpile of 250 tons of weapnoized anthrax


so whereas the US has allways been `nuke nuke nuke` the russians have diversified and will deploy Biological and Chnemical agents on tehere ICMB`s

you have incoming and don`t have a clue whether the warhead is a 10Mt city buster or 10 tons of chimera`d ebola

1 will be cleaned up after the event in a short time the other will kill a country.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 05:59 AM
link   
You're arguing about 150m of CEP against 250m? Are you crazy? Or do I don't know anything about nukes?


Please correct me if i'm wrong but it doesn't matter what the CEP is between 150m and 250m... 100m more? HAHAHA. Hell, it's a nuke! It vaporize everything in at least over 400m area... so it doesn't matter. Unless the facility is underground and you need to dig your way to the bunker than explode, AKA nuclear bunker buster... does a submarine-launched version of those exist?

Thanks.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Nuke-noob here,wanting to know how many of these thousands on each side would need to "function as intended" for there to be a lack of humans in America and Russia after a showdown?

25 each?



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Investor

Originally posted by Connected
Honestly, I don't see any supporting links or proof of these numbers, you may be entirely incorrect.

Sarkesian "US National Security"


Ok you confused me... or I confused you...

Let me ask again. Where is the proof of the numbers you provided in your original post?



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Russia produced far fewer warheads than the us, only about 40,000 -vs- 70,000 US. The difference is that the US dismantled its old unusable warheads after their life spans were over. Nuke warheads only last about 12 years at best without rebuilding them, Russian/Soviet warheads rumored only lasted 6 years. The reason Russia has more total is that they have a lot of old warheads that will probably will "fissle", but why not throw them at an enemy anyway, in their reasoning.
Now deployed Strategic warheads, the US has a numerical advantage today. About 5,500 -vs- 3,800 Russian.
Whose is better is to have a discussion as to what each side favored in it's decisions and tradeoffs in their design, but frankly, it really doesn't matter much because of the overkill involved. How many warheads will kill either country? Count 100 targets in each country, cities, major airfields, ports. Only individual missile silos make a large number of targets, in the hundreds. Anything more than that is overkill, and each target usually has enough redundancy to assure success against any level of defense. In the Cold War, Moscow was suppose to recieve over 400 US/NATO warheads within it's city limits. 400 WARHEADS!! Some, or most THERMONUCLEAR!! Don't insult the intelligence of those on this board by trying to convince us that such a war could be "winnable" by either party, if such a war was between the US and Russia. Insignificant and stupid question when faced with the facts.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 12:57 PM
link   
All these numbers are disinfo. Nobody here knows the exact number of ordinance the USA has. Maybe Russia, but not USA. There is a LOT the USA doesn't let people know.






top topics



 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join


Help ATS Recover with your Donation.
read more: Help ATS Recover With Your Contribution