What's new

Russia’s deployed nuclear capacity overtakes US for first time since 2000

senheiser

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Messages
4,037
Reaction score
-1
Country
Russian Federation
Location
Germany
Russia’s deployed nuclear capacity overtakes US for first time since 2000
Published time: October 06, 2014 18:19
Edited time: October 06, 2014 19:09
Get short URL


d2400b7fc583fa81588ec7a13783ad15.jpg

The nuclear submarine (APL) "Vladimir Monomakh" in the 55th Northern Machine Building Enterprise (FSUE) workshop "Sevmash" before being launched into the water in Severodvinsk.(RIA Novosti / A. Petrov)

Russia has 1,643 nuclear missiles ready to launch – one more than the US – according to an official State Department report. Both countries have been upgrading their active nuclear arsenals since the outbreak of the Ukrainian conflict.

The US report is based on official figures exchanged between the two countries as part of the New START disarmament treaty, and includes missiles deployed before September 1. The numbers show a significant increase from March, when data showed that Washington had a capacity of 1,585 payloads, and Moscow 1,512.


The current figures are in violation of the New START treaty, signed in 2010 by Barack Obama and then-President Dmitry Medvedev, during the short-lived reset in relations between the two states, which prescribe a limit of 1,550 deployed warheads.

Overall, the authoritative Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation believes Moscow has more than 8,000 warheads, and Washington over 7,000, although not all of them can be allocated to efficient delivery systems.

Russia recently announced a planned overhaul of its entire nuclear arsenal by 2020, as part of a wider rearmament program that has been budgeted at $700 billion.

Although Moscow has not provided a detailed breakdown of how it achieved the upgrade of nuclear capacity over the past months, experts on both sides of the Atlantic have speculated that the rise has been due to the armament of one – or possibly two – Borei-class nuclear submarines.



c8620dc8bf8b035eac84338a86037bdd.jpg

The Yars land-based mobile missile system.(RIA Novosti / Vadim Savitskii)


Those are equipped with Bulava missiles – widely considered one of the most expensive projects in Russia’s military history – which, after problem-plagued gestation, have finally been deemed ready for deployment.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has recently boasted that the supersonic missiles, which can rapidly change their trajectory, cannot be shot down by any missile defense system in the world, however sophisticated.

Russia has also invested in mobile Yars systems, and there are plans to revive the nuclear missile trains common in Soviet times.

Washington has expressed increasing alarm at the Kremlin’s rearmament drive, with emotions running high after the Obama administration accused Moscow of violating the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) in July, with its Iskander class missiles, prompting sharp denials and counter-accusations from Moscow.

“The Russian deception of negotiating a nuclear arms reduction while building up nuclear arms poses a direct threat to the United States,” Jim Inhofe, a member of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, wrote in an editorial last month, accusing the US of reducing its nuclear forces as Russia races ahead.

“It is too late to negotiate the Russians back into compliance. They have tested this capability and we have no way to know for certain whether they will deploy these systems.”

While the figures may look alarming, the total numbers for both countries remain far short of their 1980s peaks, when the Soviet Union alone possessed over 40,000 warheads.


“I don’t think we are on the verge of a new arms race. At least, Russia definitely won’t be part of it,. In our case, it’s just that the time has come for us to modernize our nuclear and conventional arsenals,”Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told RT last month.

“The US nuclear arsenal is somewhat younger than ours, but perhaps it is also time for them to upgrade it. I just hope that the US will abide by the provisions of the New START treaty, which are legally binding.”
 
.
difference between US and Russian nuclear capability is the ability of US to strike some of Russian nuclear infrastructure
while Russia does not posses the same capability

So I fail to see the need of US to have a bigger nuclear force , although it's already big enough to destroy the planet multiple times
 
. .
difference between US and Russian nuclear capability is the ability of US to strike some of Russian nuclear infrastructure
while Russia does not posses the same capability

So I fail to see the need of US to have a bigger nuclear force , although it's already big enough to destroy the planet multiple times


This is simply not true. Are you proposing that Russian submarines can not strike US submarines or that Russian ICBMs, cruise missiles, ect can not reach the continental US?
 
.
loool still talking/upgrading nuclear weapons? jeez.....no country will ever dare attack/go to war with a nuclear armed country, no matter what, even small north korea hasn't been atacked by us due to its nuclear weapons(even though thye are crude)despite its aggressive stance and even sinking of a south korean ship killing hundreds.
So all of these stuffs is just a waste of time/cash to be honest. They should invest in other more credible sectors in defence like Radars, elctronic sytems, sensors etc....
 
.
This is simply not true. Are you proposing that Russian submarines can not strike US submarines or that Russian ICBMs, cruise missiles, ect can not reach the continental US?

America has far more deadly weapons to hit back with though and much faster, either way one nuclear weapon on this planet is to much.
 
.
Doesn't matter. There are enough nukes to hit around the world many times over.
 
.
This is simply not true. Are you proposing that Russian submarines can not strike US submarines or that Russian ICBMs, cruise missiles, ect can not reach the continental US?

Considering the power of US navy and air force , then no , Russia has no chance
 
.
America has far more deadly weapons to hit back with though and much faster, either way one nuclear weapon on this planet is to much.


Deadlier, really explain to the readers what that means, are you involved in some black projects? It's obvious you are not. Now explain what makes US weapons more "deadly", because last time i checked both sides have very similar nuclear arsenals with similar delivery systems.
 
.
Considering the power of US navy and air force , then no , Russia has no chance


Russian bomber armed with long range cruise missiles regularly fly off the coast of the US, there is very little to stop those cruise missiles. Moreover, submarines can stay undetected and launch cruise missiles or sink other ships. With today's technology Russia can hit targets thousands of km away, sorry i doubt anything can stop or even effectively stop weapons that are heading towards them at mach 3 or a MARV traveling mach 20+ with 10 warheads. Try stoping that then come back and tell me how it goes.

In the mean time have you ever wondered why NATO did not lift a finger over Ukraine? The same NATO has gone to war with countless countries in the past 60 years. If Russia had no change NATO would have gone to war long ago.
 
.
The same NATO has gone to war with countless countries in the past 60 years.

So, you are saying that in the timeframe 1955-2015 NATO went to war numerous times? Really? Sure?

In fact, no military operations were conducted by NATO during the entire Cold War.

Following the end of the Cold War, the first operations, Anchor Guard in 1990 and Ace Guard in 1991, were prompted by the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait: Airborne Early Warning aircraft were sent to provide coverage of South Eastern Turkey, and later a quick-reaction force was deployed to the area.

Subsequent operations were:
Bosnia and Herzegovina intervention (1992), following UN Security Council Reolution 819
Kosovo intervention (1999), following UN Security Council Resolution 1199
Afghanistan War (2001), invocation of Article 5 following 9/11 attacks
Iraq training mission (2004), following UN Security Council Resolution 1546
Gulf of Aden anti-piracy (2009)
Libya intervention (2011), following UN Security Council Resolution 1973

See NATO - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


NATO’s essential purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of its members through political and military means.
Political - NATO promotes democratic values and encourages consultation and cooperation on defence and security issues to build trust and, in the long run, prevent conflict.
Military - NATO is committed to the peaceful resolution of disputes. If diplomatic efforts fail, it has the military capacity needed to undertake crisismanagement operations. These are carried out under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty - NATO’s founding treaty - or under a UN mandate, alone or in cooperation with other countries and international organizations.

The principle of collective defence is at the very heart of NATO’s founding treaty. NATO invoked Article 5 of the Washington Treaty for the first time in its history following the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the United States.

See NATO - Homepage
 
.
So, you are saying that in the timeframe 1955-2015 NATO went to war numerous times? Really? Sure?
In fact, no military operations were conducted by NATO during the entire Cold War.
Following the end of the Cold War, the first operations, Anchor Guard in 1990 and Ace Guard in 1991, were prompted by the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait: Airborne Early Warning aircraft were sent to provide coverage of South Eastern Turkey, and later a quick-reaction force was deployed to the area.
Subsequent operations were:
Bosnia and Herzegovina intervention (1992), following UN Security Council Reolution 819
Kosovo intervention (1999), following UN Security Council Resolution 1199
Afghanistan War (2001), invocation of Article 5 following 9/11 attacks
Iraq training mission (2004), following UN Security Council Resolution 1546
Gulf of Aden anti-piracy (2009)
Libya intervention (2011), following UN Security Council Resolution 1973
See NATO - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
NATO’s essential purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of its members through political and military means.
Political - NATO promotes democratic values and encourages consultation and cooperation on defence and security issues to build trust and, in the long run, prevent conflict.
Military - NATO is committed to the peaceful resolution of disputes. If diplomatic efforts fail, it has the military capacity needed to undertake crisismanagement operations. These are carried out under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty - NATO’s founding treaty - or under a UN mandate, alone or in cooperation with other countries and international organizations.
The principle of collective defence is at the very heart of NATO’s founding treaty. NATO invoked Article 5 of the Washington Treaty for the first time in its history following the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the United States.
Dont U see that it is lame excuse? In all the wars U mentioned the UN security council had mostly NATO countries, but they could have done the same with the Ukrine crisis as well but they held back. Reason? U figure it out...... I am not saying they are afraid of Russian military might but still.......
 
.
Dont U see that it is lame excuse? In all the wars U mentioned the UN security council had mostly NATO countries, but they could have done the same with the Ukrine crisis as well but they held back. Reason? U figure it out...... I am not saying they are afraid of Russian military might but still.......
That is besides the point. The point is, there were no NATO military operations prior to, say, 1990. And most of those are post 2000, post 9/11. Those who say NATO went to war over the past 60 years need to pay attention to history. I can understand it may appear that NATO has gone to war 'all the time' to a 20-30 old, ... but reality is a little different.
 
Last edited:
.
So, you are saying that in the timeframe 1955-2015 NATO went to war numerous times? Really? Sure?

In fact, no military operations were conducted by NATO during the entire Cold War.


Korean war, Vietnam, Gulf war, Afghanistan , Iraq, Libia, and many smaller conflicts were all drives by NATO, and no one ever said anything specifically about the cold war, although you are wrong either way.



Following the end of the Cold War, the first operations, Anchor Guard in 1990 and Ace Guard in 1991, were prompted by the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait: Airborne Early Warning aircraft were sent to provide coverage of South Eastern Turkey, and later a quick-reaction force was deployed to the area.


Your point? I can also post some obscure facts that do not relate to the topic, but again...where are you going with this random and unrelated operation?




Subsequent operations were:
Bosnia and Herzegovina intervention (1992), following UN Security Council Reolution 819
Kosovo intervention (1999), following UN Security Council Resolution 1199
Afghanistan War (2001), invocation of Article 5 following 9/11 attacks
Iraq training mission (2004), following UN Security Council Resolution 1546
Gulf of Aden anti-piracy (2009)
Libya intervention (2011), following UN Security Council Resolution 1973

See NATO - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Thank you for proving my point about NATO, but the security council means nothing to some NATO states.



NATO’s essential purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of its members through political and military means.





Correction NATO's purpose is safeguard it's own interests. I'm not sure how the mess NATO created in Iraq had anything to do with safeguarding the freedom and security of other NATO states but i guess that's the new narrative now.




Political - NATO promotes democratic values and encourages consultation and cooperation on defence and security issues to build trust and, in the long run, prevent conflict.


Like bombing Libya and arming middle eastern terrorists?





Military - NATO is committed to the peaceful resolution of disputes. If diplomatic efforts fail, it has the military capacity needed to undertake crisismanagement operations. These are carried out under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty - NATO’s founding treaty - or under a UN mandate, alone or in cooperation with other countries and international organizations.



I believe that....
 
.
Dont U see that it is lame excuse? In all the wars U mentioned the UN security council had mostly NATO countries, but they could have done the same with the Ukrine crisis as well but they held back. Reason? U figure it out...... I am not saying they are afraid of Russian military might but still.......

UN Security Council:
  • ten non-permanent members elected for two-year terms by the General Assembly (with end of term date)
Countries Elected Members of the Security Council see List of Countries Which Have Been Elected Members of the United Nations Security Council since 1946
Countries Never Elected Members of the Security Council List of Countries Which Have Been Elected Members of the United Nations Security Council since 1946

Often elected members:
10x: Brazil, Japan
9x: Argentina
7x: Colombia, India, Pakistan
6x: Canada (NATO), Italy (NATO)
5x : Australia, Belgium (NATO), Chile, Germany (NATO), Netherlands (NATO), Nigeria, Panama
4x: Denmark (NATO), Egypt, Mexico, Norway (NATO), Peru, Philippines, Poland (only recently NATO), Romania, Spain (NATO), Turkey (NATO), Venezuela, Yugoslavia,
3x Algeria, Austria, Bulgaria, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, Gabon, Ghana, Indonesia, Ireland, Jordan, Malaysia, Morocco, New Zealand, Portugal (NATO), Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Uganda, Ukraine, Zambia
2x Bangladesh, Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Côte d'Ivoire, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Republic of the Congo / Zaïre, Ethiopia, Finland, Greece (NATO), Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, Iraq, Jamaica, Kenya, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mali, Mauritius, Nepal, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, Togo, Tunisia, United Republic of Tanzania, Zimbabwe
1x Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Burundi, Cabo Verde, Chad, Congo, Croatia, Czech Republic, Djibouti ,Gambia, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Kuwait, Liberia, Lithuania (only recently NATO), Luxembourg (NATO), Madagascar, Malta, Mauritania, Namibia, Nicaragua, Niger, Oman, Paraguay, Qatar, Saudi Arabia (declined to take the seat - see A/68/599), Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia (only recently NATO), Slovenia (only recently NATO), Somalia, Sri Lanka (Ceylon),Sudan, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, United Arab Emirates, United Arab Republic, Uruguay, Viet Nam, Yemen

Never elected NATO: 3 (Estonia, Iceland, Latvia) of 28 members of both NATO and UN (11%)
Never elected non-NATO: 64 of 193-28=165 non-NATO UN countries (34%)

However, the latter category including numerous 'major' entities such as Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Micronesia, Liechtenstein, Fiji, Comoros, Barbados, Antigua and Barbuda ... would you elect them?

By comparison: the G-20 nations (number of times elected UNSC)
Argentina (10x), Australia (5x), Brazil (10x), Canada (4x, NATO), China (permanent UNSC member), France (NATO, permanent UNSC member), Germany (5x, NATO), India (7x), Indonesia (3x), Italy (6x, NATO), Japan (10x), Mexico (4x), Russia (permanent UNSC member), Saudi Arabia (1x, declined), South Africa (2x), South Korea (2x), Turkey (4x, NATO), UK (NATO, permanent USSC member), USA (NATO, permanent UNSC member).

Larger economies get a say more often and 7/20 of these are NATO.

Note also many frequently elected are Organization of American States. OAS-members include Brazil (10x), Argentina (9x), Colombia (7x), Chile (5x), Panama (5x), Mexico (4x), Peru (4x), Venezuela (4x), Costa Rica (3x), Cuba (3x), Equador (3x) , Bolivia (2x) etc. OAS purposes:
  1. To strengthen the peace and security of the continent;
  2. To promote and consolidate representative democracy, with due respect for the principle of nonintervention;
  3. To prevent possible causes of difficulties and to ensure the pacific settlement of disputes that may arise among the Member States;
  4. To provide for common action on the part of those States in the event of aggression;
  5. To seek the solution of political, juridical, and economic problems that may arise among them;
  6. To promote, by cooperative action, their economic, social, and cultural development;
  7. To eradicate extreme poverty, which constitutes an obstacle to the full democratic development of the peoples of the hemisphere; and
  8. To achieve an effective limitation of conventional weapons that will make it possible to devote the largest amount of resources to the economic and social development of the Member States."
OAS - Organization of American States: Democracy for peace, security, and development
 
Last edited:
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom