Hi! Short question: usually they deployed 9 msl (SS-25) to the sliding roof garages at one base. Does this mean that this time they start their readiness with only three and wait for another 6 to complete the unit? best regards from bernd reuter

Yes, this is exactly the case. A full regiment is nine missile. As I understand, mobile missiles go on patrol in groups of three.

According to Interfax Gen Nikolai Solovtsov said "We will soon begin replacing mono-blocks on Topol-M intercontinental missiles with multiple reentry vehicles".

As I understand, as long as START II is in force, and it will be until December 2009, Topol-M will have to carry single warhead.

well, an article on en.rian.ru says "in a few years" - so it seems they will wait till 2009. But isn't START-II obsolete, i mean i don't see russia downloading SS-18 and SS-19 missiles to one warhead or scrapping this missiles in that short time.

START I, right?

Frank Shuler
USA

Yes, of course, it's START I.

As I understand the following source, the US are also keeping some of there Minuteman MIRVed. There are or will remain 800 warheads on 500 missiles. This seems to be a response to the UR-100N and R-36M.
http://www.nukestrat.com/us/afn/mirv.htm

Martin

Here are the most recent numbers for the US strategic forces, updated today:
http://www.nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Nukeforce.html
So there are still up to 1050 warheads on the Minuteman III forces.
So neither the US nor Russia seem to really care about the "no MIRV" agreements.

Martin

It would seems so, Martin. The only thing one can safely say is that both are reducing their stockpiles, but surely not the types - MIRVs, for example. I was under the impression that SORT/2002 Moscow Treaty, or "sort of a treaty" had indirectly done away with some key arms control achievements of the 1970s-1980s. Perhaps Pavel Podvig might comment whether this is indeed so and educate us a bit?

I agree - the situation is pretty bad as far as nuclear arms reductions are concerned. Ivan Oelrich of FAS just posted a very good note on the situation in U.S. - http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2006/12/post_1.php

Regrettably, I agree the opportunity for Arms Control agreements has passed. Historically, all this reminds me of the Washington Naval Treaty of 1921-22. In these agreements, the “great powers” tried to negotiate the number and displacements of battleships in an attempt to enforce “arms control” on the world. For the first time in history, Great Britain agreed, by treaty, to reduce its Royal Navy to the size of another country. (USA) Japan was supposed to be “placated” by these treaties and the world left safe and predictable. We know the results.

While I do believe the time of nuclear arms agreements between Russia and America have ended, I’m less concerned than I would have ever thought imaginable. Russia in no longer “an enemy” and no threat to America.

Russia will build its nuclear arsenal to defend its national interest and so will the United States. I suspect the future American replacement arsenal (post 2012) to be reduced to the 2200 operational warheads called for in the 2012 Moscow Agreement, in total.

Frank Shuler
USA

It will be interesting to see how many warheads are fitted to each missile, and if this is limited to just the silo-based.

Hi! The generic line from SS-20 to SS-25 and to SS-27 is evident. So lets look to the warhead installation of SS-20: three, at about 350kt each

There were some comments about a unified warhead for both the topol-m and the bulava - are 6 x 100kt possible on the bulava and the topol-m ?(the throw weight seems to be quite small, but i quickly calculated warhead masses for slbms like r29r - and it looks like it was possible; the other story is the diameter of the topol-m missile)

Is already known at which launch site of Teykovo Base are the Topol-Ms are deployed? I think there are three sites with 27msl.