I just saw this as well. Looks like the potential Russian strategic nuclear arsenal (2016) just got much smaller. We now need a revised START Agreement to limit the absolute number of nuclear warheads. Given this announcement, do we think that is possible?

Frank Shuler
USA

Do you mean will the US negotiate a new START treaty? Because I doubt the US would be interested in signing a treaty that would limit it's options at a time it's main nuclear rival is not capable of producing a large nuclear arsenal.

I am quite skeptical about prospect for a new negotiated treaty. But it's not just the United States - there are no real incentives on the Russian side as well. Maybe this is how it should be - I don't think the arms reduction process should be driven by the U.S. and Russian trying to keep each other in check.

Pavel, never forget that Russia alone has more nuclear weapons than the rest of the entire world combined! It seems logical to me, it would be in both the United States and Russia's interest to reduce that absolute number. START works in this endeavor because of the inspection and verification aspects of its agreements. It simply provides the necessary line of communication between the Kremlin and Pentagon. The Moscow Treaty isn't a "treaty". It's just a "gentleman's agreement" that serves as a guide for change. We need a formal treaty that provides for the defense of both countries and eliminates the excess. If in 2016, only ten years away, the Russian nuclear arsenal will consist of only five submarines, mounting 60 Bulava missiles (360 warheads), sixty Topol-M silo missiles (60 warheads) and perhaps seventy Tobol-M mobile missiles (approximately seven missiles manufactured per year with a total of 70 warheads). The Russian strategic bomber force is being modernized but there may only be the sixteen Tu-160s available. (256 warheads) While some of the regular poster on this site will be devastated by these numbers and the perception of Russia's "decline", I completely disagree. Russia will be just as protected and secure with these modern 746 warheads as she would with ten times that number. What quarrel between our two countries could ever be worth the loss of twenty American cities? Nuclear parity between the United States and Russia could be assured by including all nuclear weapons in a future agreement. Pick an absolute number and let each country determine, to its own need, the delivery system, strategic or so-called tactical. I believe both counties have an incentive here to proceed. Thoughts?

Frank Shuler
USA

Maybe. But Putin will try to use this to his advantage. He'll keep asking for a new treaty, asking for deep cuts in nuclear arms, to make himself look like the progressive on this, while the US is the one refusing to limit their nuclear arsenal.

It seems that Russia would have about 150 Topol-M and only 5 Borey-class nuclear submarines with Bulava missiles in 2016. It's really much smaller! But what about the number of US nuclear arsenal in 2016? It is reported that most of the Minuteman III ICBM will be retired by then and the US is only planning to have a brand new ICBM in 2018!

The Minuteman III force isn't scheduled to be replaced until sometime in the 2020s. The first research & development budget for its replacement is not expected to be funded until FY2018.

Frank Shuler
USA

Thanks Frank. When did the Minuteman III first induct in active service in the US strategic forces?

debpc:

The LGM-30G Minuteman III was first deployed "in silo" on April 17, 1970 at Minot AFB, North Dakota and declared operational that following December. The missile is under an ongoing enhancement program to replace solid fuel, update the electronic guidance systems and support new reentry vehicles (RV) with the W87 warhead. A total of 500 are now on station but the US Air Force has requested authority to eliminate 50 missiles pending Congressional approval.

Frank Shuler
USA

I very doubt that they will only retain Topol-m and Borei. Current plans envisage maintaining 2000+ warheads at the 2010-2020 period. Plans to keep Voevoda till 2020 have been repeatedly mentioned. It's also senseless to buy 30 dry SS-19 to not deploy them. That is a cheap and powerful option that hardly will be neglected in a context of a growing American NMD and an uncertain but surely not-decreasing Chinese nuclear potential.

Kolokol:

In reference to the SS-19s purchased from Ukraine, perhaps this is like the recent charge by Minister Sergei Ivanov regarding Kh-55 cruise missiles allegedly sold by Ukraine to Iran and China. Russia may have purchased these SS-19s to simply keep them off the international market. Since the purchase price was made with bartered energy credits and not hard currency, the cost to Russia was negligible. I'm sure the US Military wouldn't have missed the chance to purchase a SS-19 for study. They picked up an S-300 missile system from Croatia the same way. Just a thought.

Frank Shuler
USA

Well Frank, America will definitely build new ICBM by 2020. Do they have any plan to build a liquid fuel heavy silo based ICBM or they won't go beyond Minuteman III (I mean will develop something like Minuteman III)?

debpc:

Timely article posted in Aviation Week & Space Technology's July 3rd issue spoke to that issue. It seems the Minuteman III refurbishing effort has surpassed all expectations. It is now thought the Minuteman fleet can stay in front-line service even longer than anticipated. It appears now the need for a replacement may slip well into the late 2020s and farther enhancements to the existing missile will be budgeted. Amazing! A missile system first operational in 1970 may well serve into the 2030s. (sixty years old?) The next planned update will be focused on the internal navigation systems in an attempt to give the missile's
warhead(s) GPS accuracy, measured in only a few meters. Why a nuclear warhead needs accuracy measured in only a few meters is beyond me? Continuing conversations on "conventional" ICBMs but it's unclear if Minutemen III plays a role in this. (I doubt it)

As interesting to me in the article was the thoughts expressed by US Air Force officials that the existing silo arrangement for housing the Minuteman III wouldn't be changed in the future but the article was unclear if this also would be applied it the MMIII successor. There just didn't seem to be any sense of urgency on MMIII replacement.

Frank Shuler
USA

What is the russian nuclear policy? I remember to have heard that it is their policy to target noninvolved countries during a nuclear war, so they were reputed to be planning to toss a few warheads at everyone, to make sure everybody would start recovery from a levelled playing field.
Even if this was their plan, could they do it nowadays with less warheads? and did they ver intend to target noninvolved countries in thier policy?

thecat: I don't know where you heard this, but perhaps you should find this outrageous statement and post it here so we can read it too...sounds far fetched.

Kolokol and the rest: The military commission headed by Putin in 1999 enacted a plan to resume production of SS-N-23 SLBMs for the Del'fin class....with continued modernization and revamps...why not for Del'fin to remain past 2016? They have 6 Del'fin SSBNs right now...they are likely to have 4 by 2016...that's another 256 warheads. As for Borey, 3 are being build right now and should be launched for sea trials in 2007, 2008, 2009-2010...but 2016 I doubt they Russia will have any less than 7 Boreys.

Leon, I very agree with you. Dolphins are being upgraded right now. It makes no sense to upgrade them and retire them 10 years later. So on with new Sineva's.

What is the US nuclear policy?It is to scare the daylights of potential foes especially the Chinese.Make no mistake.
As one writer wrote more scurity for US means less security for the Chinese.So what are the Chinese going to do?Confront the US and be blown up?They are not goint to sit idly by watching the US menace them.
My theory is they will make the US pay a heavy price in the event of a sudden unprovoked attack by the US.They are doing it now and will amke a point in future.
The US is big bully who wants to hit others but do not want others to have the means of defence so that the armed forces can have free reign to do what they like as in Iraq.
Against China it aint going to be so easy.Of course the US will prevail after the Chnese have blown up the 7 fleet for starters and maybe eve the US mainland.
You never know even with computer simulated war scenarios.