I remember reading some persuasive arguments that Russia probably only has a small amount of Soviet era nukes left for the same reason. They are extremely expensive to maintain, increasingly so as they age. And the Ruskies aren't exactly flush with money given the rest of their huge military demands.
But IRL you don't need that many to create a strong deterrence.
Even just the SLBM fleet alone should probably be sufficient to scare anyone away (not that I think that should be the only platform, just saying).
That was the hopeful speculation flying around when Russia surprised to the downside in Ukraine, but the counterpoint is that the nuclear forces are the best funded part of the Russian military [1] and, due to arms reduction treaties and inspections, possibly one of the most inspected / least corruption rotted.
That Perun video also talks about tritium [2] and estimates that they probably have enough.
> The substantial capabilities of the Russian warhead production complex have been of concern to some U.S. policymakers and nuclear weapons experts. The Russian complex is very large relative both to the U.S. complex and to the projected size of Russia’s nuclear weapons stockpile. Because of manufacturing and technology problems that limit the lifetime of Russian warheads to 10-15 years and because of stockpile management practices that emphasize routine rebuilding of nuclear warheads, the Russian complex also maintains high levels of production. The fear, then, is that Russia could use its large and active production infrastructure to offset arms reductions by quickly building new nuclear warheads in large numbers—that it has a “breakout capability.” Russia’s secretive nuclear weapons policies and uncertainties about the technical capabilities and operational practices of its nuclear weapons complex further exacerbate these fears.
> ...
> Russian warheads are reported to have a shelf life of approximately 10 years (with newer warheads having a life of 15 years), presumably because the warheads’ conventional high explosives degrade and their fissile components deteriorate.7
> The deployment cycle for Russian warheads is reported to be three years long.8 After three years of deployment, warheads are removed from their delivery systems and shipped to a serial production facility for modernization and refurbishment. Refurbished warheads are placed in storage prior to a new cycle of operational deployment.
There are fewer SLBMs and they’re more expensive (and difficult) to maintain. Were I forced to wager, I’d bet on a given SLBM failing over an ICBM. Balancing that are the larger number of ICBMs, and the fact that nobody wants to wager.
I guess I was factoring in how much more effective an SLBM is (in stealth of platform, short flight time, and therefore accuracy) vs something that has to fly a thousand KM with plenty of time to prep your own response. But yeah no doubt the platform makes it more expensive.
As good as ICBM MIRVs are and assuming a minor nuclear war is as bad as a bit one, if I had to choose to reduce capability on a tighter budget I'd make it about that. The fear of the unpredictability and small response times via having it potentially parked next door adds to the deterrence.
>As good as ICBM MIRVs are and assuming a minor nuclear war is as bad as a bit one, if I had to choose to reduce capability on a tighter budget I'd make it about that.
This is what the UK did, in shrinking its nuclear forces to Trident submarines.
I thought similarly. The problem is an SLBM-only force is usually survivable. That opens the field to sacrificing a few bases and cities for vaporising the adversary. Creating a MAD SLBM force is still so expensive that nobody does it.
> Creating a MAD SLBM force is still so expensive that nobody does it.
Not even the US? I was under the impression that the US had enough SLBM to implement MAD, so that the land and bomber-based forces were pretty much redundant.
1,750 warheads, per New START [1], on a few hundred missiles. That’s enough to wreak havoc. But given missile defense and offshore basing, reality for most of our adversaries, it leaves a lot of the enemy’s fighting capacity intact.
> 1,750 warheads, per New START [1], on a few hundred missiles. That’s enough to wreak havoc. But given missile defense and offshore basing, reality for most of our adversaries, it leaves a lot of the enemy’s fighting capacity intact.
Even if that's the correct interpretation of the capabilities, it doesn't mean MAD can't be implemented. It just means it needs countervalue targets (cities and industry) vs only counterforce targets (military).
> I remember reading some persuasive arguments that Russia probably only has a small amount of Soviet era nukes left for the same reason.
They are incorrect. Russia has many thousands of nukes. If there's a possibility of defects, it's for the hydrogen part, but the plutonium part will work absolutely fine. One can envision that Russia's megaton bombs don't work anymore, but Russia still has thousands of Hiroshima-sized well functioning bombs, and most people in this world don't care if they die form a 20 kT bomb or from a 2 MT bomb.
Plutonium pits need to be constantly rebuilt. Plutonium is one of the most corrosive materials on earth and phase changes at the drop of hat, it has 7 stable phases and only the one the bomb was designed for will do the job.
That's not quite true. Plutonium is definitely not one of the most corrosive materials. It does have some peculiarities [1]. But they are not that relevant for plutonium pits, and the 7 stable phases are not that relevant either. Plutonium pits are made of an alloy of plutonium and gallium, which makes plutonium take the delta phase, and it makes it about 20 times more stable than unalloyed plutonium. Is it perfectly stable in this form? No, because plutonium decays, so after decades things can happen. But after how many decades? People don't know for sure, but it's many decades. The US decided to start rebuilding 30 pits per year from 2026 on and 80 from 2030. At more than 5000 nukes in the inventory, each pit would be rebuilt after more than six decades. Keep in mind that right now we are not doing that at all, and haven't been doing it for about 3 decades.
Bottom line, Russia's plutonium weapons are fine (unfortunately).
That's fine but the delivery system is older than old, and there's very little chance most of their "well functioning" bombs would even make it off the ground.
Russia’s arms industry is largely domestic. They can always pay for domestic labor and materials in Rubles so money, by which you presumably mean dollars, isn’t a constraint.
If you doubt me just look how little the sanctions have actually hurt them militarily.
The problem usually is in advanced electronics. Russia doesn't have everything it needs to build+maintain these systems.
Obviously with sanctions these parts are near impossible to come by in quantity, but if you're looking to maintain a few missiles it shouldn't be too hard to smuggle it.
You don't need 3nm technology for missile systems.
Russia is stuck at 140nm/70nm with no visible path forward but this is more than enough for this kind of application.
They don't have now access to super-computing for running complicated simulations, and will probably have to do some live testing in the coming years if the Chinese doesn't sell them a few supercomputers.
> You don't need 3nm technology for missile systems.
> Russia is stuck at 140nm/70nm with no visible path forward but this is more than enough for this kind of application.
Latest fab processes isn't the problem I was referring to (but it could be part of it). It's the knowledge+expertise for controls systems. This could be guidance, detonation, communications, etc.
If any of those systems were imported they're now forced to either source the chips or develop it in country.
Developing it on shore is way more than a "140nm/70nm" process. You'll have to reverse engineer the current chip to communicate with all the other chips it has to communicate with. What if the chip you need to replace uses a smaller fab process? You possibly have to replace the sub-system. Well now you better hope you have the expertise to build that system AND have it work with all the other systems. How long would that take? How expensive is it just to maintain your capabilities vs before?
Again, for the few missiles, smuggling seems way better. Your ROI on black market cost for missile parts that never get used is amazing vs say a fleet of tanks.
You're underestimating Russian capabilities a lot if you think they are scrambling to substitute parts for missiles and that they have no knowledge-expertise for control systems.
A lot of people seem to think that Russia is still stuck in the malaise years of post-soviet Yeltsin administration, when in fact, this couldn't be further from the truth.
There are several fields where Russia is far ahead of the west, like AD a EW. In fact, the F-35 design was centered on stealth to the detriment of range and payload specifically to be able to counter the threat of Soviet SAMs.
Of course, a lot of their civilian manufacture depended on cheaper, less power hungry and more advanced western chips. Also, for ground applications, simulation and design tasks we can be pretty sure that they use western technology and now are having to resort to smuggling.
But for the guts of weapon systems? Radars and Military Glonass systems? Very unlikely that they depend on western chips for that.
Their arms industry is not in good shape. They are buying drones from Iran and short-range ballistic missiles from North Korea. They recently touted their "hypersonic" missiles as "invincible" in some very high profile statements, but newer Patriot SAM batteries (which those of us who are old enough associate with, let's just say, something other than greatness) are capable of downing those, as proven by the Ukrainians.
I don't know how many fighters Russia is still selling after the poor performance of its air force during the Ukrainian conflict but, I don't know... given who they normally sell to, I hope it's a lot. Lots of crappy fighters. (not to discount the might of their propeller-driven strategic bomber force, of course)
Lots of military analysts consider it unlikely that the patriot have ever intercepted even a single one of those hypersonic missiles.
Given the failure of the Patriot system to protect the Saudi from the primitive Houthi missiles I think that those analysts have a point. Ukraine is sometimes too enthusiastic on the information war front, to put it mildly.
I'm pretty sure those reports were confirmed by Raytheon as well, not that anyone involved is above lying. In any case I don't think my larger point about Russia's arms industry being a mess really turns on this point.
> Their arms industry is not in good shape. They are buying drones from Iran and short-range ballistic missiles from North Korea.
To be perfectly honest, neither is the US/NATO arms industry. IIRC, it also cannot replace missiles and artillery shells at the rate they're being consumed in Ukraine.
> His open frustration reflects a problem that has become worryingly apparent as the Pentagon dispatches its own stocks of weapons to help Ukraine hold off Russia and Washington warily watches for signs that China might provoke a new conflict by invading Taiwan: The United States lacks the capacity to produce the arms that the nation and its allies need at a time of heightened superpower tensions.
> Industry consolidation, depleted manufacturing lines and supply chain issues have combined to constrain the production of basic ammunition like artillery shells while also prompting concern about building adequate reserves of more sophisticated weapons including missiles, air defense systems and counter-artillery radar.
> ...
> In the first 10 months after Russia invaded Ukraine, prompting Washington to approve $33 billion in military aid so far, the United States sent Ukraine so many Stinger missiles from its own stocks that it would take 13 years’ worth of production at recent capacity levels to replace them. It has sent so many Javelin missiles that it would take five years at last year’s rates to replace them, according to Raytheon, the company that helps make the missile systems.
> If a large-scale war broke out with China, within about one week the United States would run out of so-called long-range anti-ship missiles, a vital weapon in any engagement with China, according to a series of war-game exercises conducted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based think tank.
It's a strange comparison. Russia's industry is fighting for all they're worth, and Russia is still buying equipment from Iran and North Korea.
The US and EU are barely even showing up. The US is just kicking down whatever old hardware Congress will allow them to, and paying for replacements. There's some indication things might change. Rheinmetall is planning to build a new plant to help out Ukraine - in Ukraine! But in general, the problem is still that the NATO countries aren't spending enough. It's a fairly different problem than what Russia has to contend with: industries that are just barely on the ragged edge of being capable. (which isn't to say Russia aren't capable of doing a great deal of harm...)
> It's a strange comparison. Russia's industry is fighting for all they're worth, and Russia is still buying equipment from Iran and North Korea.
In Western propaganda, that's portrayed as a desperate move, but I don't think it is. The only reason the US isn't buying equipment for Ukraine from Iran and North Korea is geopolitics. North Korea has a shit-ton of Soviet-compatible artillery shells stockpiled, which have suddenly become extremely valuable. Russia would be foolishly playing with one hand tied behind it's back if it didn't take advantage of that available resource.
> The US and EU are barely even showing up. The US is just kicking down whatever old hardware Congress will allow them to, and paying for replacements.
There are looong lead times on many of those replacements. The US's production is insufficient, so it is being forced to do things like buying (export restricted) artillery shells from South Korea to free up US-made stockpiles to supply Ukraine.
I see a lot of indications that the US/NATO would quickly run out of missiles in a hot war just like Russia has.
The country that is still launching the same platform for manned space that they did in the 50s can't figure out how to do that but with warheads -- doubt! Makes a good story though!
It's the warhead, especially the small ones, that are difficult. I imagine a thousand launchers distributed across the country are an issue as well. The problem is that it's too tempting for locals to simply scavenge or resell any maintenance supplies. Very similar to the fuel and food that got sold prior to the start of the Ukraine invasion, only nobody is going to find out unless there's a nuclear war.
Yeah, sorry, I don't believe for a second that Russia has failed to maintain their only playing card. What a joke. US military industrial complex folks will make up any story to excuse their audit-free slovenly spending.
Well, that's the genius in the Military Industrial Complex propaganda.
Russia is either pathetically weak and so we can push their buttons at our heart content or it is a all powerful evil entity and we need to spend like a trillion to close the missile gap.
But IRL you don't need that many to create a strong deterrence.
Even just the SLBM fleet alone should probably be sufficient to scare anyone away (not that I think that should be the only platform, just saying).