So the Tula gets new missiles - and recently another Delta IV returned from overhaul. How long will they remain in service ? Does that all mean that in 2015 all left for the russian rocket forces are 5 borei class submarines and 100 icbms ? Ok, russia has now this super gigaton nuclear warhead called gazprom, but pavel, i ask you as somebody who has much more knowledge about this things,is this enough to destroy "any potential aggressor" as putin said ?

To be understood,reducing the number of nuclear warheads is a very good thing, and i don't see a massive buildup in china. Britain is also reducing their stockpile. But i don't believe it's good for the world if the us has twice as much warheads deployed as the rest of the world together...

In reality, looks stupid to have single-warhead Topol-m while other powers are free to deploy multiple warheads in its rockets. Topol-m are expensive and must be fully exploited via MIRV. To have a single warhead on it to “look peaceful” is just another stupid liberal thinking.

Pavel, a nice quote of yours in today's Vedomosti (Dec. 19), sort of a bottom-line to the debates on 'disarming strike'.
I am wondering about the point in the article that the number of ICBMs will decrease at least three times by 2015 but the number of warheads less sharply. In my reading, it is entirely possible that the number of warheads would go down even sharper.
Another point is about decomissioning some 200 Topols in 2007-2008; so many things in Russia are now being postponed until after 2008 - I will not be surprised if that retirement will also follow this pattern. Just in order to make the numbers look better and to avoid the accusation that on Putin's 'watch' the nuclear 'parity' was lost.

Are You sure about only 6 topol m in 2007, because I read this article
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20061215/56980585.html

and look this part:
Solovtsov said his forces conducted six ICBM launches in 2006, and 12 launches are scheduled for 2007.

I think that sineva is not include in this number of 17 ICBM. Meybe other six missiles would have been new bulava, as they are solid missiles like topol m.

Perhaps it is perverse to see the reduction of the russian stockpile as a problem. i mean imagine just one nuclear warhead hitting wall street, the economical damage would be devastating. times are changing, as putin said "we are coming with money this time, not with weapons". a much smaller but still effective force is perhaps a better fit for the 21st century. all those billions russia earns today are much better spent on economic and demographic development. i'm sure that russia today has the money to play on the same level as the united states as far as nuclear weapons are concerned(a 60 billion dollars budget surplus says all about this). But there is perhaps no moral justification for such a big force. Nuclear weapons didn't stop the fall of the soviet union, for example. I would only like to see that the us follows this example. Nuclear weapons don't win the iraq either.

In the new strategic paradigm facing Russia today, multiple-warhead ICBMs are more of a liability than a strategic asset. The simple truth, Russia will have no greater strategic advantage with a Topol-M (SS-27) missile equipped with a dozen warheads as it would with just one. A land based MIRVed Topol-M becomes only a target; not a deterrence. By 2016-18, Russia will have a modern nuclear force composed of 1500 nuclear warheads dispersed across a host of modern delivery systems; submarines, silo-ICBMs, TEL-ICBMs and a modernized bomber force complete with new strategic cruise missiles. New command-and-control, intelligence gathering, and modern communication satellites will complete her arsenal.

I would wager in the future, the Topol-M missiles will remain a single warhead weapon.

Frank Shuler
USA

The optimal force must be:
1- Cheap: That mean small and multipurpose.
2- Survivable: So, it must have hardened, mobile and “stealth” (as far as possible) vectors.
3- Flexible: To act efficiently in several scenarios with the same assets. That means that Topol-m should deploy both single and multiple warheads to maximizing flexibility. It’s naive and inefficient to have the most powerful vector of the arsenal loading suboptimal blocks.

Single warhead Topol-m are as target as MIRV Topol-M. Considering that other powers are plenty of multi-warhead strategic vectors, a fleet with mixed charges seems to be more efficient than single warheads ICBM.

Pavel:

["When all 60 missiles are in Tatishchevo, the Rocket Forces will begin deployment of silo-based Topol-Ms in former SS-18 silos in Uzhur."]

I thought the conversion cost of a SS-18 silo was far too expensive for SS-27 installations? Seems like I've read this in several Russian Defense publications. Any thoughts?

Frank Shuler
USA

MIRV'ed missiles are only a liability when the other guy fires first.

Vincent:

And a waste of time and rubles if he doesn't.

Frank Shuler
USA

Is there something known on how many of the phased out missiles will possibly be used as space launchers?

Martin

A single warhead Topol-m is as target as a MIRV one. Just let us MIRV them.

Anonymous:

I think the political/military thinking on MIRV ICBMs has changed with the times. In the past, the thought was to maximize the national investment by placing the highest number of warheads that could be practically placed on a missile to improve “the cost”. Why have one expensive missile carrying one warhead when it could just as easy carry ten? Now multiple warhead ICBMs are considered first strike weapons. They really only make sense if the host country intends to launch a military preemptive first-strike on its adversaries’ silo ICBM force. You need MIRV accuracy and mass to ensure a strike truly “kills” the opposing silo. For example, the SS-18/R-36 system was specially created to destroy the US Minuteman ICBM force. (opposed to holding American cities at risk) I think today, MIRV land-based ICBMs have had their time. As soon as the Russian SS-18/19 fleet stands down, the US Minutemen system will be totally downloaded to one warhead and the future American replacement ICBM as well.

Frank Shuler
USA

Martin:

I would venture a guess that as many SS-18/19 rockets as mechanically possible could be retained. There would be no treaty limitations in the post-2015 time frame that would suggest any kind of limit that I could think of.

Pavel, any thoughts?

Frank Shuler
USA

Three 200 kt warheads are more efficient than a single 1 Mt warhead in “depopulating” cities. This converts MIRVed Topol-m in counter-value weapon and this is the rationality behind MIRVing Topol-m.
On the other hand, who are able to assure that “Minutemen system will be totally downloaded to one warhead”? Looking at the US behaviour in the past, we should not expect them to behave in such a way. On the contrary, they are persistently trying to maximize its strategic edge. Strategic planning must be based in rational trends; not in (frequently void) good will words.

Who cares about the number of missiles and warheads as far as there are still plenty enough for a "comfortable" overkill?
Do the number of MIRV contributes to the challenges of this century? Does this make islamic terrorists start thinking to stop their intentions?
Nowaday world is cut into calculable sections. Who wants or will attack Russia? or China? or US? Countries? - The US are not even able to control Iraq. Their hesitation to invade Iran is a good advice to refrain from the next madness. Of what help are 500 ICBMs in those plans? Could the US (or someone else) afford an attack with nuclear arms to Iran...before the very eyes of the Superpower No. One, CNN? Could they afford a land war against North-Korea as Rumsfeld boasted? All that is impractible madness.
So ICBMs are just to show other predictable countries: Hey don't think you could finish me in a rush. And for that purpose 100 are sufficient...and as worth as 500 vintaged Minutemans. -
Yes Russia and US will have a dominance but the challenges are not coming from countries...which by the way have far less destruction potential...as one gentleman said: a single 350kt on wall street will have an impact on everything what we all (including russia) want to keep and get familiar with.
And so the question for future challenges is, how to place warheads on smart and flexible delivery systems which would be taken serious by terrorist groups...maybe supported by suspicious countries. -
So in summary I think Russia's strategy to maintain an effective but leaner ICBM force and to concentrate on economics (Superpower Gaszprom)will help to stabilize this country and in a not far away future they can really afford to spend enormous resources in everything what they want to maintain a powerful nation. bernd reuter

Anonymous:

Agree completely on your assessment of warhead yields. Three 200kt warheads would create far more damage on a city strike than a corresponding 1mt weapon, especially if fused for airburst. However, if you’re in a city being hit by a 550kt SS-27 warhead, does it really matter? Both weapons hold the city at the same risk.

Of course, you are right in your assertion on future US Minuteman intentions. Without a treaty there are no “guarantees”. However, it is interesting to watch the changes in the Minuteman force as the Russian inventories of SS18/19s continue to drop. There is a request in the Defense Budget (2007-8) by the US Air Force to decrease the number of Minuteman missiles from 500 to 450. These numbers are expected to fall to 300 by the 2015 timeline in discussion here and most “experts” think only 150 replacement nuclear ICBMs will be built to replace Minuteman in the 2025 timeframe. At that time, the much modified and modernized Minuteman III ICBM will be 55 years old.

Frank Shuler
USA

I believe it would be a mistake to MIRV the Topol M if it means replacing the single maneuverable MARV warhead, especially if there are only going to be 100 Topol M's. It is now that much more important that the RV's be able to penetrate ABM systems.
Also, 100 ICBM's is a rediculously low number, unless Russia IS planning a liquid fuel SS-19 replacement that could carry 5-8 of the "special" Topol-M MARV warhead.

Well, Russia, in its present state, does not have the money to compete with American forces--the defense budgets are simply too big in America. So the real question is how to limit US funding on nuclear weapons while maximizing Russia's funding. Would more warheads maximize the Russian forces efficiency, or would it provoke the Americans to build (or maintain) more warheads themselves? With American concentration on conventional war or COIN ops versus terrorists, wouldn't it be wise to play on America's willingness to spend less money on defense? Without a building or large Russian threat, American assets would probably be diverted to other, more immediate areas, such as exotic ways of detecting IEDs and better drone surveillance (e.g., UAVs).

Actually, I think Russia would be fine with as little as 500 warheads. The real issue is how many launchers. Mirved missiles may increase the number of warheads, but survivability and therefore credibility of the deterrent is reduced. So I would say 500 launchers all with single maneuverable rv's would be a far more credible deterrent than 1500 non-maneuverable warheads on 250 or so launchers. I still must say that this is affordable for Russia if those launchers are all Topol-M's and the SLBM's along with the incredibly expensive SSBN's(which sit at pierside most of the time for lack of funds) are eliminated. An ideal mix in my view would be 450 Topol-M (w/single 550kt Marv)and 50 SS-18/19 replacements (with 25-50MT single warhead Marv's) The only new warhead even being considered in the US is the Reliable replacement warhead which is a technological throwback to the 1940's and has a yield of only 100kt. Nobody in the US congress or current administration has the will or desire to create anything like the Topol-M or a Marv re-entry vehicle. Even the vaunted w-87 and W-88 warhead designs (the most powerful and advanced in the US rv arsenal) are over 20 years old and are less powerful and less advanced than the 550kt Topol-M warhead, and no maneuverable rv exists or is being planned. So in fact, I believe that Russia can have a superior deterrent to the US while spending only a fraction of the cost, especially since deterrence does not factor in to the "global war on terror".

When I wrote here a few months ago about a necessity of MIRV-ing of Russian nuclear arsenal as a sole way to preserve its efficiency you were laughing with me.

Now I am laughing with you, guys! :)

The optimal configutation involves a mix of Topol-M with the single MARV and with MIRV. This maximizes flexibility for a given number of launchers and permit to cover different deterrent scenarions.
The percentage of the mix is to be determined by the evolving global security situation.

I can’t find much fault with the logic expressed here but I’ll add some additional thoughts and opinions.

Jon:

I don’t think there is any current plan on building a new liquid-fueled SS-19 replacement. Good decision or bad, it just doesn’t seem to be an option being considered. Russia has a plan; long term and comprehensive. The Kremlin’s conclusion is the same reached by the United States; the need for a triad delivery system is still relevant in today's world and must be kept in the future. A goal of 1500 weapons seems to be the objective with modern delivery systems: submarines, silo & TEL launched ICBMs and bomber weapons.

Please don’t be seduced into the ol’ mass-equals-size argument with nuclear weapons. The US Reliable Replacement Warhead Program (RRWP) is no “technological throwback to the 1940's”. The program is designed to provide a family of new nuclear weapons that will be composed of a new ICBM warhead, a new SLBM weapon, a gravity bomb and a “cruise missile” type payload. This 100kt warhead will have GPS “terminal” accuracy and be the most devastating nuclear weapon ever created.

The new delivery systems for the RRWP weapons (in the 2020-35 timeframe) will also be procured for conventional warfare mission. The day of Trident submarines and Minuteman missiles only being used for nuclear deterrent will have ended. Not suggesting in the least this is a good idea but it’s the future.

Andrew:

No nation has ever won the bet on being able to “outspend” America on defense. I don’t see that happening in the immediate future either.

Rokosovsky:
Kolokol:

I still bet that the SS-27 Topol-M remains a single warhead system. But, I do agree with you that if that situation changes, moving the TEL mobile systems to a MIRV configuration would be an option. The road-mobile SS-27 isn’t accurate enough to strike silo-ICBMs and thus would be no use in any first-strike scenario. It would be a way to “boost the numbers” without changing the strategic balance.

Frank Shuler
USA

Apparently, there are plans to develop a liquid-fuelled missile in the post-2010 timeframe:
http://www.izvestia.ru/news/news121619/

Anonymous:

Can you provide an English review of this article? Just the key points; any quoted SRF or Kremlin sources, for example. I apologize for my lack of Russian language skills. Thanks!

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank:

Just to clarify; My comments on the RRWP are based on the fact that the device is going to be designed extremely conservatively, will do away with much of the improvements developed over the years, and will be not only very innefficient but extremely dirty (extra fissile material will be used instead of more advanced features like a modulated primary). In fact a "gun type" primary(1940's throwback) is being considered instead of the far more efficient spherical primary. Also, extreme accuracy cannot make up for lack of yield when targeting population centers, unless the sole purpose for having an ICBM/SLBM force is to target other ICBM facilities. The RRWP is nothing more than a move by the powers that be to change the very purpose of nuclear weapons from a strategic deterrent to something that is meant to be used in a conventional "precision" conflict with the "axis of evil" or whatever. The smaller the yields become, the more dangerous our world becomes.

Jon:

["...change the very purpose of nuclear weapons from a strategic deterrent to something that is meant to be used in a conventional "precision" conflict with the "axis of evil" or whatever. The smaller the yields become, the more dangerous our world becomes.]

I completely agree with everything you said. These decisions will only lead to creating nuclear weapons designed to be "used".

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank,
As far as the open literature claims, the TEL of the Topol-M can give a “silo-precision” because its navigation capabilities are vastly improved over the Topol-TEL. This is hardly surprising, considering that Trident-II have reached a “MX precision” 15 years ago.
On the other hand MIRV Topol-M looks aimed at (very partially) compensate the enormous stockpile of stealth first-strike Trident-II (8 warheads). A few MIRVed mobile Topol-M are nothing compared with the Ohio SSBN fleet. I think MIRVing some percentage of Topol-M is the right option because Russia should and probably will limit itself to just a single deterrent system: the Topol-M & Bulava family.
A myriad of standardized payloads with a common booster seems as the most efficient and economic option.

The Izvestia article says that just 2 silo based Topol-M will be put on combat duty this year and that 5-6 Topol-M/year will be the expected deployment rate. Respect to the liquid fuel ICBM, it just says that a development decision will be taken after 2010.

Kolokol:

I agree with your conclusions. The Trident nuclear system is the most modern and effective nuclear deterrent in the world today. If Russia feels arming the mobile Topol-Ms with MIRV warheads would help redress this imbalance, even if in a small way, that is what should be done. However, I do believe we just get caught up in the “warhead count” game. A Topol-M armed with a single 550kt MARV warhead, holds risk an American city just as well as if it carried a MIRV package of six warheads. Having an inventory of 50 SS-27s with 50 nuclear warheads just doesn’t sound as impressive as having the same number of missiles holding 300 weapons.

Frank Shuler
USA

Kolokol:

Thanks for the quick translation on the "Izvestia article". I always appreciate your insights and opinions.

Frank Shuler
USA

I think some of then will have 3 warheads and some of them the 0.55 Mt single warhead. We just must wait (impatiently :)) and see.

How long is the expected service life for the Topol-M? In 2015 some of the missiles will already be 18 years old. Are they planned to serve 20 years like the old Topol or will they kept in service like the Minuteman III for several decades?
What is the CEP for the actual single-warhead Topol-M?

Martin

I think somebody forgto that around 30 SS-19 can be put into service in 2015, when SS-18 and SS-19 retire. These are the ones Russia took from Ukraine - even though they are Russian-built - in return for gas debts...according to some of the comments in the press, and here, these can be deployed in 2015 as brand new. That should add another 180 warheads. The 6 Del'fin class SSBNs will carry 384 warheads. By 2015 it is a safe bet to see at least 3 Borey class SSBNs, which would make another 216-250 warheads plus the 15-20 Tu-160 with long range cruise missiles should make another 180-240 warheads to go along with 110 Topol ICBM (660 warheads?) = 1600-1700 strategic warheads...that is much beter than the situation in mid 1960s, and probably more than UK, France, and China will have combined. Finally, with the likely death of nuclear arms control, thanks to a yet another ambitious U.S. program and the 2002 SORT treaty, will long-range cruise missiles become a part of Russia's strategic arsenal? SS-N-21 Sampson and its air-launched versions have a range of 3000 km, in the late 1980s the Soviets tested a 4,000 km range cruise missile. Of course these are relatively slow, like most long-range cruise missiles, but combined with the quiet Schuka-B subs and possibly the Graney sub, this might be a possible addition to the strategic stockpile.

Martin:

The only CEP information for the Topol-M I have seen published stated an accuracy of 350m but this CEP is lower than reasonable to believe given modern guidance systems and previous US and Russian missiles. Perhaps, Kolokol can comment. Great question on the shelf life of the SS-27 fleet as well. As these missiles first “went into silo” in 1997, what is their expected life? I suspect after 20 years, a depot maintenance overhaul would be called for at the very least. Thoughts?

Frank Shuler
USA

Bob:

I have my doubts the Ukraine SS-19s taken in barter by Russia will ever be installed as functional ICBMs. I suspect this inventory will be used to sustain the existing SS-19 fleet, spare parts and such, until the SS-19s stand down in the 2015 timeframe. Remember, the only Russian-built ICBM in history is the Topol-M.

I also think you’ll see the Delfin-Class (Delta IVs) stand down as the Project 955, Borey-Class enters operational use. I wouldn’t expect to see a huge increase in the number of sea-based missiles and warheads during this transition. In fact, I would think the crews of the Delta IVs would provide the nucleus for the new Borey submarines.

ALCMs make up a large part of the Russian nuclear arsenal today with some 872 in the current operational inventory. I would bet there will be big strides in cruise missile development in the future and that these weapons will play a large role in Russia’s future nuclear plans.

Frank Shuler
USA

1. Why do US constantly and secretly improve accuracy of all its nuclear warheads???

2. Why do US SSBNs still patrol areas close to the Russian borders???

3. Why are US NMD instalations deployed primarly against Russia???

4. Why are US seeking to establish its military bases in Bulgaria, Georgia and Central Asia???

I am very interested in your answers, all US backers!

Hi Mr. Rokosovsky! I'm not from the US - I'm from germany - but about your topics I personally think as follows:
ad1 and 2:
The US defeated the USSR in the arms race of the 80ties (star wars / B-1 / B-2 / F-117 / IRBM Race...). They could afford that race, the USSR (in its obsession to copy everything (!) the US did) could not.
Now they simply tend to think that they are the No.1 in the world (at least until China will pass them by in the next 30 to 50 years.)
Ad 3: NMD is most of all business and money for their industry and as stupid as Safeguard and star wars was in the past. And of course there is the hope that stupid nations would like to obtain it either. In military terms this is all nonsense: A simple look to the last Israeli conflict (and to Iraq / Afghanistan) shows that simple means and encouraged fighters can not be stopped and controlled by High Tech Defence.
ad4: They will not sell those nonsense to the germans or to the french ("old" Europe). But those countries you mentioned have had bad experience with russia/ussr.
It was (and maybe will be) "your" politics which pushes them under the US umbrella. Because this is the only nation which could protect them from another "brotherhood" like they had to "enjoy" in the past.
In Europe (!) the US never had to force a nation into an alliance!
After the WWII it was West-Europe which wanted to have US Troups in their Countries. Otherwise we wouldn't have survived. The nuclear potential of France and UK was just kidding for the USSR. Now countries like germany think that they are "grown up" and could have a word against the US. But that process we had shortly after WWII is copied now by countries which still remember "friendship made in USSR".
It is your politics in which those countries still don't have any confidence and by the way: for the same reason the only nation who could afford to be a superpower is not willing to loose you out of the sight. bernd reuter

Mr. Reuter:

Ad1 and Ad2: Please stop twaddling that US won some arms race with USSR in he 1980s! In fact, all this Reagan's "arms race" was simply a cheating and derision. Look at basic facts:

- so called "Star Wars" program was only an unthinkable madness due to financial and technical reasons! If US had really tried to build such system, US would have certainly bankrupted. Soviet rulers should have ignored that Reagan's joke and did what they had done so far!

- USSR WON "INF race" with US! In reality USSR had FIVE to ONE advantage in those systems over US. Unfortunately Soviet Union was defeated at "green table" under INF Treaty because of two patsies: Gorbi and Shevardnadze, who sold Soviet LR-INF weapons to the US for free simply by accepting "honest" US proposals.

- let's look at strategic arms race in 1980s: US introduced 50 silo based MX ICBMs - USSR: 200 SS-18M5/SS-24 ICBMs, US: none mobile Midgetman - USSR 250 mobile SS-25, US 8 "Ohio" class SSBNs - USSR: 13 Delta IV/Typhoon boomers, US: 95 B-1B bombers - USSR: 115 T-95MS/Tu-160 ones.

Whoa!

Ad3. If entire NMD is a pure nonsense aimed at fueling US military-industrial complex, why NMD installations are located near Russia? This system could be also built on US territory unless there is another hidden reason of NMD development!

Ad4. Most of post-communist countries have bad experience not only with Russia but also with Germany or more precisely III Reich. However it can't hamper their governments to sell most of their economies into the hands of German corporations.
Moreover US military activity in those countries isn't provoked by hostile Russian moves because nowadays Russia doesn't plan to conquer Europe as it was during Cold War. Additionally there isn't any possibility that Poland, Czech Republic, Georgia or Bulgaria could force US to establish military bases on their soil. It is rather US who secretly prevail upon them to build these bases. FOR WHAT??? Can't Russia know it or Russia is to believe in some bullshits like Iran's ICBM threat to US???

Rokosovsky:

[1. Why do US constantly and secretly improve accuracy of all its nuclear warheads???]

I think all nuclear armed countries constantly attempt to improve the accuracy and reliability of their nuclear warheads; China, Russia and France for example are no different. The United States doesn’t “secretly” work to improve its missile accuracy. If it did, how would we know?

[2. Why do US SSBNs still patrol areas close to the Russian borders???}

Close to Russian borders is a relative issue. A Trident submarine can sit in the mid-Atlantic and still hold Russian targets at risk. Or, for that matter, hold another nation at risk. Or, hold both Russia and another nation at risk at the same time. Or, hold no targets at risk but be available to do so if the need arises. This strategic flexibility seems to best fit the new 21st century security challenges now facing America.

[3. Why are US NMD instalations deployed primarly against Russia???]

The only US Missile Defense installations are the ground based interceptors based in Alaska and California numbering I think 10-12 missiles. The Alaska site continues to be more of a research & development project than a real military weapon. The X-Radar system designed to cue such interceptors isn’t installed in Alaska yet. The constellations of satellites that will detect a nuclear launch and be able to cue such a NMD site are ten years away. The launch of satellites needed to provide command & control of such NMD system will follow ever later. The United States and Japan have installed an X-Radar system to keep the eye on North Korea’s intentions. The US Navy is developing 15 cruisers and destroyers that will use their AGEIS radar and modified SM anti-ballistic missiles to try and shoot down ICBMs in boost phase. I think the United States isn’t “targeting” Russia with the system at all but attempting to respond to any future enemy in the next 25 years that might be tempted to “take a shot” at America. Russia is the only nation that has an operational and tested ABM system protecting Moscow.

[4. Why are US seeking to establish its military bases in Bulgaria, Georgia and Central Asia???]

Bulgaria is a NATO country and the United States has signed agreements for access to training and logistic sites in times of need (and in Romanian, as well). Russia is the only “foreign country” to maintain military forces and bases in Georgia. The United States and Russia both maintain, by treaty, air bases in Kyrgyzstan with the main American interest in providing logistical support for our military operations in Afghanistan.

Frank Shuler
USA

Hallo Mr. Rokosovsky! I respect your opinion.
What I mean with the "race of the 80ties" is the follwing:
Of course, from a military point of view "star wars" was a nonsense. But the money was spend into the the industrial research base. It pushes in a very large scale computer, micro chips, software, laser technique and so on.
USSR might have produced in a sort of "battleship thinking" hardware in a great amount but your struggle for equality (especially in quality) simply ruined your resources. You simply could not afford such things (for example the equality in submarine technique and the Tu-160 program).
And these simple facts were understood by some thinking men like Gorbatchev.
The fact is, of those fromer east block countries, no one wants to be your Allied Nation any more after they got the chance to leave your "brotherhood". And whatever the US intentions are, those countries indeed seeks the umbrella of the US due to the mistakes you made SINCE 1945. - By the way: germany needs half a century to correct some of our mistakes and that not by arms but by politcs! -
These countries are seeking close relationship to the US much more than the "old europe" now. Why? Because they have a much closer distance to russia and with that to a politic which is basically far away from being a democracy.
And one last thing:
The "bullshit" from Iran has nothing to do with a threat to US but very much with a threat to Europe. In five years (and with the smart help of old soviet missile technology like SS-4) they will have missiles with a range of 3000km. And that regime is not only far from being democratic, too but also far from being calculable. So NMD or however we want to call it indeed would make sense for europe to intercept iranian missiles flying to the nortwest! And if russia do not intend to fire missiles "westward" so why to worry about NMD in Poland? Btw: the only country which actually have ABM protection is Russia!

Rokosovsky, you go on about how many strategic weapons the USSR made compared to America, as if this proved the Soviet Union didn't lose the cold war. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but... isn't the USSR gone, and the NATO alliance stretches all the way from Portugal to the Baltic nations?

Now, I'm going to go against some people here, and suggest that MIRV'ing is exactly the right choice for silo based weapons, designed to be used against counterforce targets. i.e, other silo's. The USA has 500 silo's, and to seriously target them would take at least 1000 warheads. If you're serious about keeping a warfighting capability, you need that a lot of weapons.

Now, if you're thinking counterVALUE, the targeting of cities, you don't need as many. You can get away with single warheads, because every weapon means a city gone, and just one city destroyed is a an unacceptable price to pay.

Russia plans in the next 10 years to build between 8 and 9 Borey SSBNs, so that gives us between 768 and 864 sea based warheads and if the SRF have +- 120 Topol-Ms with 6 warheads each( if they equip it with the Bulava block)and add to that by 2015 probably 25 Tu-160s with 12 ALCMs each thus giving us 300 warheads, it will be a total of 1700+ warheads by 2015 close to the US's 2000+.