So, it looks like the enduring operational inventory of R-36M2/SS-18 missiles will be around 50 in number? Do we have any estimate of the remaining life expectancy of these rockets? (and) Are there any end-of-life issues with the warheads associated with this system? -Frank

There is no reliable data on the number of R-36M2s. It seems to be lower than 56, but somewhat higher than 40. And some of the missiles could be used for space launches. The Rocket Forces plans to keep R-36M2 in service until 2014-2016.

I haven't seen anything that would suggest that there are any problems with warheads. They would certainly need to be replaced, but Russia does not seem to have problems with remanufacturing its warheads.

Is Russia now currently manufacturing (or remanufacturing) warheads for its SS-18 missiles? This issue is so politically confrontational now in American politics. Just curious...

Frank
USA

There's been almost no information about that, but as I understand, it is a normal practice for Russia to manufacture all kinds of warheads all the time - they are believed to have fairly short life spans, certainly shorter than those of missiles, for example. Russia has closed down two of its four warhead assembly facility, so one would assume there is enough work there to keep the two in operation (although a big part of their activity is dismantlement of those warheads that are being retired).

The general assumption in the United States is that there are no nuclear warheads in American production. That is why the Earth Penetrator Warhead project, under several program descriptions at the Department of Energy, is so controversial. I've always pondered that the W88 Trident warhead is quietly in limited production.

Retaining a small inventory of SS-18 missiles until the 2015-20 timeframe seems practical from Russia's defense needs. Given the SS-27 that may MIRV in the future, is a replacement for this very large multi-warhead missile probable? President Putin has mentioned such a program. Just curious…

Frank Shuler
USA

It's just easier to keep the SS-18 missiles in service than dismantle them. I'm not sure we will see them being replaced by another MIRVed (not to mention heavy) missile - these are just too impractical. If Russia really feels like it needs a MIRVed land-based missile, it could deploy the Bulava missile in silos. But again, that wouldn't make a lot of sense.

I could not agree with you more on the practical reason to maintain the SS-18 missiles. The American Minuteman III is being retained in inventory out to 2020 for the same basic reason. They are bought and paid for. Let "arm control agreements" account for their retirement when their economic (read political) life is done.

Forgive my ignorance. Is Bulava pronounced – Bu-la-va ?

How can Russia get to 1500 operational nuclear weapons long term without MIRVing some land-based ICBMs?

Has there been any "official" published information on the number of launch tubes on the new "Yuri Dolgoruki" Class SSBN? I have seen both 12 and 16 mentioned in the press.

Frank Shuler
USA

I'm not sure about Bulava, but it's probably [boo-la-VA].

Keeping 1500 warheads in service without (land-based) MIRVed missiles would be very difficult. Ruissa will probably have no more than 6 submarines - it's no more than 500 warheads (assuming 16 launchers per submarine, but there is no reliable number). 75 or so bombers could theoretically carry about 800 warheads, although the real number would be closer to 540. That would mean from 200 to about 500 warheads on land-based missiles. If all of them are single-warhead, Russia will have to deploy at least 160 of SS-27s in addition to the 40 it has today (SS-25s are being decommissioned). The production rate is about six a year, so make the calculation.

Agreed. Without MIRVed land-based weapons, Russia will never approach a long term inventory (after SS-19/18/25 missiles fall victim to age) of 1500 weapons. This only reinforces my primus that tactical weapons now need to be part of this treaty counting mix. If by my previous post, 3000 warheads are too high, perhaps 2500 initially could be agreed on in any post-Moscow 2012 agreement. It’s hard for me to imagine how politically the United States (2012 Moscow Treaty limits) can move from 2200 operational weapons and 2400 additional responsive reserve warheads out of a total inventory of almost 6000 nuclear devices, to anything smaller.

Frank Shuler
USA

I think that by 2012 the decision to go from 2200 to something like 220 would be fairly easy. People already talk about 500 warheads as all we need. It just takes time to get used to the idea.

Pavel, this is where I respectfully disagree. By 2012 the American arsenal of nuclear weapons is expected to number 6,000 devices, down from near 10,000 today. Russia is estimated by the joint US-Russian Nunn-Lugar Commission to number still maybe 20,000 units to fall to the 10,000 mark by 2012. Russia is actually doing a far better job in dismantling surplus warheads timely than the United States. How we go from 6,000 and 10,000 weapons respectively to 220 is beyond me. Both the United States and Russia will only “arms control” the weapons that have outlived their usefulness.

By 2012, Pakistan will have 220 warheads. The struggle for world nuclear disarmament will only continue.

Frank Shuler
USA

I meant "operational" warheads, the ones that are counted as deployed. As for the total numbers, I agree - dismantling several thousand warheads won't be easy, so they will be stored somewhere (awaiting dismantlement?).

A broader point is that nuclear weapons are increasingly irrelevant - 2200 won't buy anybody any more security than 220 (if at all). This doesn't mean, unfortunately, that Pakistan will not have 220 or so weapons in the future, just that it won't make it any more secure.

I could not agree with you more, my friend. Nuclear weapons don’t guarantee national security in any numbers. A practical lesson was the 1982 Falkland Islands War. Having nuclear weapons didn’t intimidate Argentina from taking the Malvinas’ nor aid the British in its recapture. Good men, on both sides, gave their lives for flag and country.

Nuclear weapons today remind me very much of the world preceding the Great War. The number of Dreadnaught battleships in their fleet determined the status of all the “great powers”. Did Austro-Hungary’s four modern dreadnaught battleships give her equality with Italy? Because the Imperial German Navy possessed twice the number of such ships in relation to France, was she twice as powerful? No.

We must strive to get our hands around all nuclear weapons, components, and fission materials and fashion a world treaty to safeguard their security.

Frank Shuler
USA