Another big proof of my recent pessimism!

MOSCOW, April 11 (RIA Novosti) – Russia needs to produce up to 30 intercontinental ballistic missiles a year to maintain a strategic nuclear balance with the United States, a senior security expert said Tuesday.

Alexei Arbatov, head of the international security center at the Russian Academy of Sciences, told RIA Novosti that if Russia continued to produce only 6-8 Topol-M missiles a year it would have only 150 such missiles and three nuclear submarines in 10-15 years.

No country currently has missiles like the Topol-M, which is capable of penetrating anti-missile defense systems, he said, “and is unlikely to possess them in the next 20 years.”

Arbatov also said Russia and the U.S. should boost strategic stability talks.

“We need a more radical treaty on strategic offensive reductions with a reliable control mechanism,” he said. “Such a treaty should fix a limit of 1,000 warheads for the two countries.”

Under the current agreement, Russia and the U.S. are to reduce their total number of warheads to 1,700-2,200 by December 31, 2012.

“By that time, Russia will have no more than 1,000 warheads anyway, but this gap [1,700-2,200] allows the U.S. to maintain nuclear dominance”, Arbatov said.

As I see some Russian experts also think that era of US nuclear dominance is approaching very fast if Putin and his clique don’t bring themselves to reason faster!

To dionis:

Did you really read this article, buddy??? I think you didn’t, because you answered me only with bull****s! You have a plenty of evidences there that Russian deterrence under Putin falls far behind any level of rationality and moreover its future is even more dark. You stated there aren’t any facts in this article. Well, look at them and answer following questions:

1. Russia still reduces its nuclear arsenal up to about 10% level of its 1990’s strength. This stupid activity only makes easy success of US first strike. Yes or no???
2. Russian early warning system is in shambles today and thus Russia is practically blind in the event of unexpected US attack. Yes or no???
3. The readiness level and training of Russian nuclear systems is inadequate and thus negligible. It makes Russian retaliation capability far more insecure. Yes or no???
4. US nuclear forces are now in process of hidden rearming. The best example is adaptation of ALL US SLBM warheads into hard target kill capability! Yes or no???
5. This US nuclear buildup is aimed primarly against Russia and China but not against terrorists or rouge states because of its great scope. Yes or no???
6. US first strike could supress all Russian nuclear forces and C3I systems. Precise proofs backed by simulations you should find at Intenational Security Website soon. Yes or no???
7. US NMD system is viewed as a hedge against a few Russian warheads remaining after US strike. All US propaganda about rouge states missiles threaten America is only an excuse to cheat various suckers. Yes or no???
8. Quote: “And unless they reverse course rapidly, Russia’s vulnerability will only increase over time.” That is exactly also my point of view and as we can see I am not alone in it, as you still suspect! Yes or no???
9. Serbia could withstand a long time NATO’s bombing campaign only because NATO didn’t attack with nuclear weapons, like Russia would! Yes or no???

Well, you should get sober and look seriously at this sad, incurious and precarious Russian reality!

@sferrin: Unmasked “adviser” has nothing interested to tell us, so he must clowning. 😀 😀 😀

@Austin: Yes, you are right! Descending with amount of warheads in US/Russia and its increasing number in India/Pakistan/China arsenals is potentially a big threat to Russia. US could rely more on its huge advantage in conventianal weapons over rest of the World but Russia won’t have enough money in foreseeable future to rebuild its convetional might up to Soviet levels. Thus nuclear weapon is essential for Russian security for a long time period because nuclear parity with PRC/Pakistan/India and contemporary their conventional advantage over Russian Army is a tragedy for Russia in the event of regional war with any of them! Therefore, as you wrote above, Russia must return to 6000 strategic warheads level as it was signed in START I treaty. Additionally Russian Army should possess a few thousands of offensive/defensive tactical and intermediate range nukes associated mainly with dual-use delivery vehicles such as tactical aircrafts, ships, submarines, balistic missiles, cruise missiles, ASMs, bombs and SAMs. In that situation Russia could maintain even small professional, conventional army as a rapid deployment forces with a huge mobility and C3I/PGM capabilities relied on nuclear delivery systems and infrastructure!
Unfortunately Austin, I think US are rather interested in dropping Russia into nuclear “second league” together with China/Pakistan/India! Later US could blackmail Russia as follows: “Well, Russia! Now you are comparable power with all those nuclear dwarfs but worse is that it seems any of them doesn’t like Russia much. So, only US/NATO can defend Russia against them but not gratis, of course! Thus you must carefully listen and do exactly what Uncle Sam tells you!” That is why Russia should rebuild its nuclear power unilaterally without US concord, aid or any new stupid treaty!

Of course, a relatively small number of intercontinental missiles in Russian arsenal must be aimed primarly at targets in CONUS! Remaining targets in Euroasia should be assigned to SRBMS, LR-INFs and tactical ALCMs/SLCMs. As I know SS-26 SRBM is in two versions: for Russian Army with a 400 km range and intended for export with range up to 280 km due to 300 km MCTR’s restriction. But even upgraded 500 km Tender isn’t a good choice as a sole INF system because of its still small range. Thus only real solution of this problem is to restore SS-20 missiles or its follow-on called SS-X-28. The SS-X-28 would have begun replacing SS-20 since 1988 but well known Gorbi’s stupidity prevented this. So, now its is time to resume its produciton. I also read somewhere there was some MITT’s project of Soviet Pershing II counterpart. I don’t rememeber its designation but it was missile with about 2000 km range, full mobile, very compact, made mainly with composite materials and with single terminal homing nuclear/neutron/EMP warhead. Maybe now it would be a better way than reviving SS-20 project? Russia should deal not only with second rank nuclear powers but also Russia should have an wide range of options for retaining “escalation dominance and thus de-escalation’s constraint” on conventional-tactical-INF-intercontinetal level in any future conflict with US/NATO/China on its periphery.

@Trident: As fas as I know all recent sources claim that Borey will carry only twelve SLBMs. There were some rumors about 20 missiles but it was rather long time ago. I think Borey was originally designed as 20 Barks carrier! Unfortunately some machinations made by MITT’s lobby against Makeyev Design Bureau during 1997-1998 period caused cancellation of entire Bark project. I suppose it was a big mistake because Bark was up to 75% ready and liquidation of this project caused long prolongation in Borey’s production. Moreover Russian SSBN patrols dropped from A HUNDRED in 1984 to THREE in 2005 but US patrols still remains at Cold War’s levels! Besides there was another and a quite good way: both Delta-IVs and Boreys should be equipped with Sineva (modernized SS-N-23 with some Bark’s innovations) missiles armed with ten 100 kT MIRV’s as a pure “city killers”. Such a simple move means 1320 warheads on nine Russian boomers in 2015 (three “hopefully” finished Boreys six overhauled Delta-IVs) but Russian rulers aren’t so clever to observe this possibility…Well, taken additionally into account also MIRV-ed land and air legs of its nuclear triad Russia could easily keep parity with US at 2200 warheads level under SORT treaty and it could be possible to expand this arsenal if Russian-Western relations deteriorate in the future!

@Vympel: We shall see about Tu-95Ms but I am quite sceptical whether there will be any of them in service for ten years. Maybe a few platforms will, but as I see in Tu-160’s aquisitions I am depressing: This droll Ivanov simply “buys” one old Tu-160 annually which rusted for ten years in the Zhukovsky plant as a “new and modern” superbomber!
As for H-101: if H-555 has a priority now I really doubt in present financial conditions Russia could buy another and much more expensive ALCM! That is why H-101/102 project was suspended indefinetly…

@Kojedub: I also have a good RIA Novosti article for you: Cold War an offspring of “hot war”
Read this carefully! It is about real Western altitude toward USSR/Russia from the past to present. Well, you will probably understand why Russia should begin production of 60 SLBMs a year like in Soviet times…In celebration of the 70th anniverary of the CC CPSU resolution about Stahanovism you could mount again at least one year long Stahanov movement to build 60 SLBMs! Later you will have a rest for a few years. 🙂

@Maxpain: You forgot about one essential fact: present Russia isn’t a parlametary democracy but an authoritarian regime headed by President of Russia = PUTIN. Because Putin rules for SEVEN years he had enough time to replace old Yeltsin’s clique with his own reliable group and he really did it! Unfortunately you are right: almost all Putin’s proteges are idiots but you don’t admit that Putin is mainly responsible for promoting this rabble and thus he is answerable for all their chuckle-headed activity, too! Besides it is nothing surprising because who are memebers of Putin’s clique? They are mainly narrow-minded sleuths from former KGB, as Putin.

@Trident: Bulava needn’t be a very accurate missile in my proposition because hitting a city isn’t a complicated task. The Poseidon SLBM had 500 meters CEP and it was enough for obliterating lagre urban areas with a lot of its small size multiple warheads. Moreover Poseidon could carry up to FOURTEEN MIRVs! So, why Bulava couldn’t deliver the same amount of warheads? Such a multiple strike even with one missile armed with 14 MIRVs against a huge city should burn it into ashes if Dr Postol’s “firestorm” model is correct. In present situation bankrupt Putin’s Russia must forget about nuclear parity with US and therefore Russia has to accept Chinese model of deterrence: targeting only a limited number of major US cities because it lacks thousands of accurate warheads needed for striking missile silos, command centers, lidership facilities, military and industrial infrastructure etc. I know it is a very risky strategy due to ridiculous number of delivery vehicles and a big US nuclear and conventional superiority but without major shift in present Russian posture (possible regime change and reviving Soviet military buildup, even on a relatively modest scale) nothing more can be done. Sad but true…

Poor Austin…can’t you understand one simple fact? All this twaddling about “hypersonic warheads” and “advanced decoys” is only a Putin’s swindle created due to one reason: to decrease amount of Russian strategic warheads as much as possible and thus keep secret from Russian public opinion all tragic financial situation of Russian Army! Maybe secondary goal is to fulfil some secret US demands relating to maximum reduction of Russian nukes in order to prevent its proliferation to the rouge states.
Though everyone knows the best way to avoid any ABM system is saturating it with huge number of warheads! Thus Russia should simply deploy as many ordinary nuclear warheads as possible on its delivery vehicles. I am sure this is the cheapest and most effective solution for Russia but nothing simliar happened so far. Do you know why? But more interesting question is: What would happen if Russia really began to do this???

My dear RPG-7V: I must tell that in fact you BELIVE in my “dark predictions” because you stated above that Russian nuclear power will fall somewhere between France and PRC deterrence! Isn’t a huge collaps for Russia to shrink its nuclear power from Soviet to French level??? I am sure it is an inexplicable catastrophe! 🙁
In my opinion after 2015 Russia will possess about 120 single warhead Topol-Ms, three Borey SSBNs armed with 36 Bulava missles (four MIRVs per missile) with 144 warheads and about 20 Tu-160s with associated 240 ALCMs. Taken together this gives us grand total of about 500 strategic nuclear warheads – thus well comparable with France and even UK deterrents but evidently smaller than expanded PRC arsenal not mention about FOUR TIMES bigger US arsenal! I am not a prophet of doom but I am rather a realist…