Current and future size of American & Russian nuclear arsenals

[SkolZkiy]

What I suspect happened in that sort of situation is that they get the info from a forum, and then find some way to confirm it. At least if we're talking about relatively major news outlets.

I'm talking about interfax and RIAN and some others

 

[Spetsznaz]

THERE WILL Always be nukes

However downsizing them will depend on how much America is willing to downsize and how much Russia is willing to downsize?

 

[F-15 Eagle]

THERE WILL Always be nukes

However downsizing them will depend on how much America is willing to downsize and how much Russia is willing to downsize?

I agree, though I don't think Russia will ever want to go below 1500-1675 deployed nukes, so that means the U.S. wont ether.

Russia needs to have a nuclear overkill ability because thats pretty much their only defense. Just 1000 nukes is enough to wipe out the human race...which means we go the way of the dinosaurs.

 

[Spetsznaz]

I agree, though I don't think Russia will ever want to go below 1500-1675 deployed nukes, so that means the U.S. wont ether.

Russia needs to have a nuclear overkill ability because thats pretty much their only defense. Just 1000 nukes is enough to wipe out the human race...which means we go the way of the dinosaurs.

Nuclear weapons are not Russia's only defense

Another factor is that if other country's will nukes begin to openly, announce they are downsizing, and it will seem that only Russia and America aren't, they will (In my opinion) have to no choice but to downsize with everyone else.

However I do agree that going below 1400-1500 nukes is not realistic.

 

[Chrom]

Nuclear weapons are not Russia's only defense

Another factor is that if other country's will nukes begin to openly, announce they are downsizing, and it will seem that only Russia and America aren't, they will (In my opinion) have to no choice but to downsize with everyone else.

However I do agree that going below 1400-1500 nukes is not realistic.

Most recent news about new START treaties suggest what agreement was reached at max 700 carriers for each side (i.e. missiles), and max ~ 2000 warheads on them.

This can be seen as realtive benefical for russian side, as these numbers could be relative easely maintained with current manufacturing rate on one side , and still leave enough warheads to destroy whole civilization on the other side - regardless of any: ABM in foreseeable future.

These numbers suggest slight downsizing from current warheads numbers for both Russia and USA.

 

[Feanor]

That would make sense. Current ICBM production in Russia is peaked at ~30 annually. Raising it further requires major investment into production facilities. With a lifespan of maybe 25 years, that gives us a sustained ~750 ICBMs. (- a few for test firing, etc.)

 

[SkolZkiy]

and how many ICBM and SLBM had been made in US last years??

 

[Feanor]

I don't think the US still has ICBM serial production.

 

[Spetsznaz]

That would make sense. Current ICBM production in Russia is peaked at ~30 annually. Raising it further requires major investment into production facilities. With a lifespan of maybe 25 years, that gives us a sustained ~750 ICBMs. (- a few for test firing, etc.)

Feanor I am stupid

I tired to research this but...ehh

When you say that the Nuclear weapons have a lifespan of 25 years. Does that mean that after 25 the Nuke is going to have a high failure rate, or it will become outdated, or both

I am sorry I am not the best with Nuclear Weapons

 

[Feanor]

Technical reliability issues as well as basic aging of the missile. 25 years is sort of average of what it seems like we're getting out of our ICBMs.

 

[dragonfire]

When you say that the Nuclear weapons have a lifespan of 25 years. Does that mean that after 25 the Nuke is going to have a high failure rate, or it will become outdated, or both

I am sorry I am not the best with Nuclear Weapons

After 25 yrs the relevance of the delivery system would depend on the the simple factor of whether the system can sucesfuly complete the delivery task assigned to it or not.

To understand if it has become outdated @ that time frame is completely dependent on the detection and defensive technology the targeted nation has for e.g if Russia has been targeted and if it has the capability of identifying the launch and take sucesful defensive action by destroying the incoming vehicle either by a missile based anti ballistic missile technology or some other relevant technology which succesfuly intercepts and destroys the incoming vehicle. Another point about relevance is if the attacking nation has a better delivery system, which probably has a better targeting system and better range and better avoidance and stealth systems. Now if the system was targeted against Somalia (or some other nation) which cannot detect and destroy the ICBM then the system is still relevant.

Shelf life of a a missile is dependent on the shelf life of the components if any component is supposed to last only 25 yrs then using it beyond tht time frame is inviting serious consequences. And any usage beyond such time frame should be done only after proper audit of all systems. Otherwise the attacking nation is inviting serious consequences against itself (what if it explodes on launch, or hits somehwere else etc etc)

 

[Spetsznaz]

After 25 yrs the relevance of the delivery system would depend on the the simple factor of whether the system can sucesfuly complete the delivery task assigned to it or not.

To understand if it has become outdated @ that time frame is completely dependent on the detection and defensive technology the targeted nation has for e.g if Russia has been targeted and if it has the capability of identifying the launch and take sucesful defensive action by destroying the incoming vehicle either by a missile based anti ballistic missile technology or some other relevant technology which succesfuly intercepts and destroys the incoming vehicle. Another point about relevance is if the attacking nation has a better delivery system, which probably has a better targeting system and better range and better avoidance and stealth systems. Now if the system was targeted against Somalia (or some other nation) which cannot detect and destroy the ICBM then the system is still relevant.

Shelf life of a a missile is dependent on the shelf life of the components if any component is supposed to last only 25 yrs then using it beyond tht time frame is inviting serious consequences. And any usage beyond such time frame should be done only after proper audit of all systems. Otherwise the attacking nation is inviting serious consequences against itself (what if it explodes on launch, or hits somehwere else etc etc)

Okay but a Nuclear warhead is ONE PART OF THE ICBM why cant they just update the delivery system and leave the actually part of the ICBM that has the Nuclear materiel in it.

 

[Chrom]

Okay but a Nuclear warhead is ONE PART OF THE ICBM why cant they just update the delivery system and leave the actually part of the ICBM that has the Nuclear materiel in it.

Yes, warhead after set amount of time become unreliable, detonation power falls or even completely diminishes.

Exact time is different for each particular design, from several years to several decades. For most ICBM ones it is about 10-20 years.

For example plutonium in warheads may require repackaging due to half decay period.

 

[Chrom]

That would make sense. Current ICBM production in Russia is peaked at ~30 annually. Raising it further requires major investment into production facilities. With a lifespan of maybe 25 years, that gives us a sustained ~750 ICBMs. (- a few for test firing, etc.)

It will be less than 750 ICBM's. About 150-200 "missiles" will be on bombers, rest 600 will be split between naval and land ICBM's.