Grand Danois
Entertainer
But no quote on the Russian? 
Nuclear Arsenals of the world.
- Thread starter F-15 Eagle
- Start date
If you want references - you'll find a lot of them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons#_note-2But no quote on the Russian?
Grand Danois
Entertainer
IIRC The Bulletin figures are stockpiles*. The US is keeping a very high proportion of their nukes in operational or active reserve state (80-90%).
That costs a bundle: 35 billion 1998 Dollars.
http://www.brookings.edu/projects/archive/nucweapons/curspend.aspx
You are suggesting the Russians are keeping twice as many in that state on a smaller budget (the entire Russian defence budget is smaller than this)?
The reason why the US is comfortable reducing its arsenal is because the Russians is incapable of maintaning the same numbers as the US.
If you look at this table you have ballpark numbers for op & aa numbers for Russia:
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datab19.asp
* Oh! I see the Wiki article actually says stockpiles. And uses The Bulletin for its reference. Too bad The Bulletin went exclusive some time ago.
F-15 Eagle
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #24
Wikipedia is really not the best sources of information, anybody can just go on and put random crap for any reason. I would use other sites where nobody can edit them.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Yes, but it can give you some initial links and a list of phrases/terminology to Google.
I do not advice you to believe wiki. I said there are lot of references there. You can read all these referred sources youself.
Maintaining nukes are much cheaper than you might think. After all, Russia and USA have very comparable armies (in size), and Russian defence spending is less than 1/10 of USA ones. I cant see particular reason why Russia CAN maaintain comparable number of tanks or SAM's for 1/10 money but cant do the same with nuclear warheads.
Besides, relevant quote from your link "Tactical nuclear and dual-capable forces — $1.0 b"
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Ah there it is... you actually believe Russia has parity with 7-8% of the defence spending of the US? And twice the number of warheads with perhaps 10% of the budget?
You are suggesting that producing and maintaining a warhead in Russia costs something like 1/20th of what it costs to the US? The US stockpile cost the US 44.4 billion 2007 US Dollars in 1998. That is much more than the current Russian defence budget (31 billion Dollars, 2007).
You underestimate what it costs to maintain warheads. And that on top of tanks SAMs and whatnot.
US has put more emphasis on stratnukes. And I don't think you can derive tac nuke spending from that figure alone.
Last edited:
More or less yes. See number of strategic warheads (for these we have officiall numbers) - they are equal, yet Russia spend again 1/10 of USA for strategic forces.
This is a good question however - is it Russia spend too few, or USA spend much too much? My opinion - USA spend the money in a very ineffective way.
Well, lets better look at cost of maintaining tanks and aircrafts - i'm 100% sure what you will come to same figure - USA spend 5 to 10 times more money for same amount of tanks and aircrafts than Russia.
Again, the number of strategic nukes are equal on both sides. USA spend more money on strategic nukes than ENTIRE RUSSIAN DEFENCE BUDGET.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
You have to elaborate...
What elaborate? Tactical nukes by they nature do not require expencive specialised platforms like strategic nukes. They just use general purpose platfroms like guns and bombs. Warhead itself is very cheap to maintain.You have to elaborate...
Grand Danois
Entertainer
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datab19.asp and Atomic Bulletin. I mean the source give figures for both USA and Russia. If you believe one figure, then logically you should believe another too.Elaborate on this:
You have to elaborate...
Grand Danois
Entertainer
8,600 Russian nukes in 2002 is in the ballpark, with 18,000 including inactive reserve (de facto unusable as a weapon). This I have argued all along. No contradiction.
Unusable in the very moment. In case of need they could be restored to usable status within days. They called "reserve" not for nothing.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
There is a reason why something is called "active reserve".
Active reserve is warheads (or even complete weapon) ready to be installed within weapon (bomb, cruise missile, etc) and used. Rest is either dissasmbled warheads or warheads needed repair/check/etc. This can be made within days if it is really needed. As i said, they are called reserve for a reason. Just radiactive material reserve(plutonium, uranium, etc) measured in tons and Russia have it enouth to arm hundreds thousands warheads.There is a reason why something is called "active reserve".
F-15 Eagle
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #39
The U.S. has enough for hundreds of thousands of warheads too, though no one needs quit that many. 4000-15000 nukes is good enough in my opinion.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
None would be perfect in my opinion!!!
As far as strategic , Kato' estimate was on the money, 5/600 warheads ready to rock is plenty. More than enough death and sufficient redundency. Tactical nukes, well they dont play much of a part in deturrent so it depends on your doctrine.