US vs Russian Nuclear Ballistic Missile Capabilities

[synoptic 138]

Didn't want to create large side discussion on the Ukrainian war thread, so starting thread on the subject topic that often comes up.  Here is a table I put together looking at the operational Russian ballistic missile fleet that has capability to strike the US:

Missile

Name

Class

Basing

Began Operation

Range (miles)

Number of missiles in operation

Number of warheads per missile

Warhead Delivery

Accuracy (CEP)

Yield per warhead

Projected number of deliverable warheads

Deliverable yield

R-29R Vysota (NATO: SS-N-18)

Stingray

SLBM

Submarine

1977

4,000

32

3

MIRV

900 m

50 kT

96

48 MT

R-29RM Shtil (NATO: SS-N-23)

Sineva

SLBM

Submarine

1986

5,150

96

4

MIRV

500 m

100 kT

320

32 MT

RSM-56 (NATO: SS-N-32)

Bulava

SLBM

Submarine

2013

5,150

80

10

MIRV

250 m

100 - 160 kT

320

51.2 MT

R-36 (NATO: SS-18 ) Mod 6

Satan

ICBM

Silo based

1988

6,800

46

10

MIRV

500 m

500 - 750 kT

460

345 MT

UR-100NUTTH (SS-19 Mod 3)

Stiletto

ICBM

Silo based

1980

6,200

20

6

MIRV

900 m

400 - 500 kT

120

60 MT

Topol (SS-25)

Sickle

ICBM

Road mobile

1988

6,800

150

1

Single warhead

900 m

550 - 800 kT

72

120 MT

Topol-M (SS-27 Mod 1)

Sickle B

ICBM

Road mobile and silo based

1997

6,800

80

1

Single warhead

200 m

550 kT

78

44 MT

RS-24 Yars (NATO: SS-27 Mod 2)

Yars

ICBM

Road mobile and silo based

2010

6,500

73

3

MIRV

150 m

150 - 200 kT

219

43.8 MT

 

Here is the operational US ballistic missile fleet that has capability to strike Russia:

Missile

Name

Class

Basing

Began Operation

Range (miles)

Number of missiles in operation

Number of warheads per missile

Warhead Delivery

Accuracy (CEP)

Yield per warhead

Projected number of deliverable warheads

Deliverable yield

UGM-133 Trident II D5

Trident

SLBM

Submarine

1990

7,450

240

12, (8 under START)

MIRV

90 m

100 - 475 kT

1920

912 MT

LGM-30G Minuteman III

Minuteman III

ICBM

Silo based

1970

8,050

440

1 (3 with MIRV)

Single warhead (MIRV Capable)

120 m

300 - 475 kT

440

176 MT

 

Note on the numbers: you can find various sources that provide a different values.  Some we don’t know with certainty (such as exact yield and number in operation) and so estimates are given.   Russia doesn’t always publish specifics, and what they do publish is of course not always completely true.  These numbers are from the more reliable sources I can find:
https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2018.1462912
 

Few things that stand out:  
•    The US has standardized on ballistic missiles, while Russia still has many types in service.
•    US missiles are more accurate.
•    The idea of using max payload warheads was jettisoned long ago in favor of greater number of smaller but more accurate warheads under 1 MT.
•    Russian is moving towards mobile as opposed to silo based for ICBM, while US only employs silo based ICBMs.
•    US has put more capability in SLBM and had much more firepower in terms of number of deployable warheads and yield per warhead in the SLBM fleet.
•    Charts that simply show total number of nuclear warheads/bombs are useless.  
•    Either side has enough yield to effectively end the other even if just small fraction of their arsenal lands.

Some things not shown on the charts:
•    The US ballistic missile fleet is far better maintained and more routinely tested than the Russian arsenal.  It’s expensive to maintain and test fire missiles.  
•    Russian chart is a bit misleading, because even though they may have the missiles as shown, they are not always deployable on demand.  For example, they have 11 nuclear missile subs, but at a given time probably only 3 or 4 are underway.   This means their total deployable SLBM arsenal is closer to 48 at any given time.  But for the US, we have 14 Ohio class subs with 12 underway at any given time.  Each Ohio class sub can hold up to 20 tridents, so our deployable fleet of SLBMs at any given time is probably close to 200.
•    This chart neglects aircraft delivered nuclear weapons.  I’m skeptical Russia can get any planes in our air space at this point.  
•    I didn’t even consider NATO nuclear weapons.  UK and France have capable ballistic missiles as well.

Ultimately, we have a better arsenal with fewer targets to hit, and they have not as good of an arsenal with more targets to hit.  But their arsenal is still good enough to change civilization as we know it.  Think how much 9/11 changed society with just crashing airplanes and 3,000 dead in a single city.  Now imagine a few hundred nuclear warheads hitting detonating across many major US cities and tens of millions dead.   I’m not sure either side “wins” a nuclear war, but there is no way Russia wins and they know this.  
 

[synoptic 138]

I'll try to figure out way to post more readable chart for this site later.  If anyone know how to take the data from the charts and compile them in presentable format it would be greatly appreciated.    

Edited March 5, 2022 by synoptic

[UTGrad98 2273]

So why can't we stop the missiles? Seems like that would be the number 1 goal and yet everything I read is, nope once Russia hits the button we are all fucked. What have we been doing for the last 50 years? 

[Deej 76796]

1 minute ago, UTGrad98 said:

What have we been doing for the last 50 years? 

For the last 30, we've been fucking around in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

[synoptic 138]

1 minute ago, UTGrad98 said:

So why can't we stop the missiles? Seems like that would be the number 1 goal and yet everything I read is, nope once Russia hits the button we are all fucked. What have we been doing for the last 50 years? 

It's incredibly difficult to intercept intercontinental type ballistic missiles.  They travel at very high speeds and high altitudes, and then most modern types separate into multiple entry vehicles for each warhead (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle  - MIRV).  We've spent billions of dollars to date, but our current best systems will probably catch none.  Certainly not enough to make any real difference in terms of altering MAD. 

[SimonBolivar 10958]

Also MAD hasn't always been considered a negative. Plenty of theories of it keeping the peace for 50 years.

[Braff Zacklin 13575]

10 minutes ago, UTGrad98 said:

So why can't we stop the missiles? Seems like that would be the number 1 goal and yet everything I read is, nope once Russia hits the button we are all fucked. What have we been doing for the last 50 years? 

In all seriousness, and if my memory serves correct, the US ultimately abandoned the SDI (Star Wars) partly as a bargaining chip with the Soviet Union/Russia, and partly because it's extremely difficult to hit a hypersonic target.

That's the official story, at least. Who knows what we've really got going on?

[synoptic 138]

[Mole 4333]

It’s January 7, 2010, 11:30 left in the 1st quarter. Texas is driving and in a moment of delirious joy, I awkwardly jump up in my living room, fall, and smack my head on the end-table. I then fall into a 12-year coma.

Upon awakening, I immediately check on my beloved Longhorn message board, Shaggybevo. I’m met with a single lunatic posting to himself and a startling amount of scat porn.

Once I finish and clean up, I finally find my new Surly home to learn about the wonderful sports decade that I missed. We’re on our third coach since that moment? Colt went down? We keep losing to Kansas?

In disgust, I turn away from the football board to see what’s going on in the world. Surely we’ve emerged from the economic catastrophe and are enjoying a golden era.

I see several threads about a strange, deadly disease, a thread about war with Russia and a new Hitler, and two threads about the coming nuclear holocaust.

I call my parents, only to find out that they’ve been brainwashed by some website that used to be for college students to creep on each other’s drunken pictures. The moon is a spaceship? Bill Gates is trying to murder us all to save us from the nuclear holocaust?

Surely this is some fever dream and I’m still in that coma.

[FartingMonk 3606]

30 minutes ago, synoptic said:

Didn't want to create large side discussion on the Ukrainian war thread, so starting thread on the subject topic that often comes up.  Here is a table I put together looking at the operational Russian ballistic missile fleet that has capability to strike the US:

Missile

Name

Class

Basing

Began Operation

Range (miles)

Number of missiles in operation

Number of warheads per missile

Warhead Delivery

Accuracy (CEP)

Yield per warhead

Projected number of deliverable warheads

Deliverable yield

R-29R Vysota (NATO: SS-N-18)

Stingray

SLBM

Submarine

1977

4,000

32

3

MIRV

900 m

50 kT

96

48 MT

R-29RM Shtil (NATO: SS-N-23)

Sineva

SLBM

Submarine

1986

5,150

96

4

MIRV

500 m

100 kT

320

32 MT

RSM-56 (NATO: SS-N-32)

Bulava

SLBM

Submarine

2013

5,150

80

10

MIRV

250 m

100 - 160 kT

320

51.2 MT

R-36 (NATO: SS-18 ) Mod 6

Satan

ICBM

Silo based

1988

6,800

46

10

MIRV

500 m

500 - 750 kT

460

345 MT

UR-100NUTTH (SS-19 Mod 3)

Stiletto

ICBM

Silo based

1980

6,200

20

6

MIRV

900 m

400 - 500 kT

120

60 MT

Topol (SS-25)

Sickle

ICBM

Road mobile

1988

6,800

150

1

Single warhead

900 m

550 - 800 kT

72

120 MT

Topol-M (SS-27 Mod 1)

Sickle B

ICBM

Road mobile and silo based

1997

6,800

80

1

Single warhead

200 m

550 kT

78

44 MT

RS-24 Yars (NATO: SS-27 Mod 2)

Yars

ICBM

Road mobile and silo based

2010

6,500

73

3

MIRV

150 m

150 - 200 kT

219

43.8 MT

 

Here is the operational US ballistic missile fleet that has capability to strike Russia:

Missile

Name

Class

Basing

Began Operation

Range (miles)

Number of missiles in operation

Number of warheads per missile

Warhead Delivery

Accuracy (CEP)

Yield per warhead

Projected number of deliverable warheads

Deliverable yield

UGM-133 Trident II D5

Trident

SLBM

Submarine

1990

7,450

240

12, (8 under START)

MIRV

90 m

100 - 475 kT

1920

912 MT

LGM-30G Minuteman III

Minuteman III

ICBM

Silo based

1970

8,050

440

1 (3 with MIRV)

Single warhead (MIRV Capable)

120 m

300 - 475 kT

440

176 MT

 

Note on the numbers: you can find various sources that provide a different values.  Some we don’t know with certainty (such as exact yield and number in operation) and so estimates are given.   Russia doesn’t always publish specifics, and what they do publish is of course not always completely true.  These numbers are from the more reliable sources I can find:
https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2018.1462912
 

Few things that stand out:  
•    The US has standardized on ballistic missiles, while Russia still has many types in service.
•    US missiles are more accurate.
•    The idea of using max payload warheads was jettisoned long ago in favor of greater number of smaller but more accurate warheads under 1 MT.
•    Russian is moving towards mobile as opposed to silo based for ICBM, while US only employs silo based ICBMs.
•    US has put more capability in SLBM and had much more firepower in terms of number of deployable warheads and yield per warhead in the SLBM fleet.
•    Charts that simply show total number of nuclear warheads/bombs are useless.  
•    Either side has enough yield to effectively end the other even if just small fraction of their arsenal lands.

Some things not shown on the charts:
•    The US ballistic missile fleet is far better maintained and more routinely tested than the Russian arsenal.  It’s expensive to maintain and test fire missiles.  
•    Russian chart is a bit misleading, because even though they may have the missiles as shown, they are not always deployable on demand.  For example, they have 11 nuclear missile subs, but at a given time probably only 3 or 4 are underway.   This means their total deployable SLBM arsenal is closer to 48 at any given time.  But for the US, we have 14 Ohio class subs with 12 underway at any given time.  Each Ohio class sub can hold up to 20 tridents, so our deployable fleet of SLBMs at any given time is probably close to 200.
•    This chart neglects aircraft delivered nuclear weapons.  I’m skeptical Russia can get any planes in our air space at this point.  
•    I didn’t even consider NATO nuclear weapons.  UK and France have capable ballistic missiles as well.

Ultimately, we have a better arsenal with fewer targets to hit, and they have not as good of an arsenal with more targets to hit.  But their arsenal is still good enough to change civilization as we know it.  Think how much 9/11 changed society with just crashing airplanes and 3,000 dead in a single city.  Now imagine a few hundred nuclear warheads hitting detonating across many major US cities and tens of millions dead.   I’m not sure either side “wins” a nuclear war, but there is no way Russia wins and they know this.  
 

The rotation is more like 3 and 3.  3 east coast subs.  3 west coast subs.  2 on standby rotation and 4 in some sort of long term maintenance.  24 ICBMs but it's more like 200 per submarine with the MIRVS.  The actual number I don't even know even though right outside our bunk room is a nuclear missile tube. 

As far as why we can't shoot the missiles down is because of ABM, SALT, and START treaties. We aren't allowed to shoot them out of orbit when it goes into space.  It was a MAD thing.  Although we have gotten further and further away from it.  The Chinese have shot satellites out of the sky.  So have the Russians.  We do too so while we can do it.  It's sort of illega

 

 

[SL Xpress 7515]

3 minutes ago, Mole said:

It’s January 7, 2010, 11:30 left in the 1st quarter. Texas is driving and in a moment of delirious joy, I awkwardly jump up in my living room, fall, and smack my head on the end-table. I then fall into a 12-year coma.

Upon awakening, I immediately check on my beloved Longhorn message board, Shaggybevo. I’m met with a single lunatic posting to himself and a startling amount of scat porn.

Once I finish and clean up, I finally find my new Surly home to learn about the wonderful sports decade that I missed. We’re on our third coach since that moment? Colt went down? We keep losing to Kansas?

In disgust, I turn away from the football board to see what’s going on in the world. Surely we’ve emerged from the economic catastrophe and are enjoying a golden era.

I see several threads about a strange, deadly disease, a thread about war with Russia and a new Hitler, and two threads about the coming nuclear holocaust.

I call my parents, only to find out that they’ve been brainwashed by some website that used to be for college students to creep on each other’s drunken pictures. The moon is a spaceship? Bill Gates is trying to murder us all to save us from the nuclear holocaust?

Surely this is some fever dream and I’m still in that coma.

It's all going to get better.

Narrator: It did not get better.

[Paper_jam 831]

I thought we de-MIRVed our inventory, but maybe this is out of date now:

https://allthingsnuclear.org/emacdonald/the-end-of-mirvs-for-u-s-icbms/

 

[synoptic 138]

10 minutes ago, FartingMonk said:

The rotation is more like 3 and 3.  3 east coast subs.  3 west coast subs.  2 on standby rotation and 4 in some sort of long term maintenance.  24 ICBMs but it's more like 200 per submarine with the MIRVS.  The actual number I don't even know even though right outside our bunk room is a nuclear missile tube. 

As far as why we can't shoot the missiles down is because of ABM, SALT, and START treaties. We aren't allowed to shoot them out of orbit when it goes into space.  It was a MAD thing.  Although we have gotten further and further away from it.  The Chinese have shot satellites out of the sky.  So have the Russians.  We do too so while we can do it.  It's sort of illega

 

 

Yep, also the treaties.  Technical and political challenges.

 

6 minutes ago, Paper_jam said:

I thought we de-MIRVed our inventory, but maybe this is out of date now:

https://allthingsnuclear.org/emacdonald/the-end-of-mirvs-for-u-s-icbms/

 

The Minutemen III ICBMs were de-MIRVed.  Trident SLBMs are still MIRV. 

Edited March 5, 2022 by synoptic

[UT_OB1 2223]

8 minutes ago, FartingMonk said:

The rotation is more like 3 and 3.  3 east coast subs.  3 west coast subs.  2 on standby rotation and 4 in some sort of long term maintenance.  24 ICBMs but it's more like 200 per submarine with the MIRVS.  The actual number I don't even know even though right outside our bunk room is a nuclear missile tube. 

As far as why we can't shoot the missiles down is because of ABM, SALT, and START treaties. We aren't allowed to shoot them out of orbit when it goes into space.  It was a MAD thing.  Although we have gotten further and further away from it.  The Chinese have shot satellites out of the sky.  So have the Russians.  We do too so while we can do it.  It's sort of illega

 

 

I’m not sure I understand. Why would we care if it is “illegal” or that we’re  not allowed to shoot them down if we are facing destruction?  Or do you just mean we haven’t worked on the technology because we agreed not to?

[SL Xpress 7515]

Just now, UT_OB1 said:

I’m not sure I understand. Why would we care if it is “illegal” or that we’re  not allowed to shoot them down if we are facing destruction?  Or do you just mean we haven’t worked on the technology because we agreed not to?

That's exactly it.

Think about it this way. The policy of Mutually Assured Destruction in theory protects both sides (so far in fact) because the thought is neither country will attack the other because neither one will want to end the planet. The massive buildup beyond what was necessary to actually destroy planet Earth was done because of the fear of a first strike. If either side felt like they could possibly eliminate their opponent's nuclear capability, they might be tempted to launch. So both sides made sure they had enough capability to detect and survive a first strike long enough to send a retaliatory strike. More importantly, both sides wanted to make sure they conveyed to the other they had such a capability. 

The problem with any kind of robust anti ballistic missile system is that it immediately shifts the balance in favor of the country that develops it. The idea behind the treaties limiting its development - and also what keeps each country from pouring resources into it - is that neither side wants to destabilize MAD to the point one country would go ahead and launch before a robust ABM system could be deployed, in fear if they didn't, they would be subject to a one sided nuclear attack from the country that could employ an effective ABM system.

There's a lot of scariness involved in Mutually Assured Destruction. The helpless feeling it engenders is purposeful. The helpless feeling is intended to make sure neither side actually contemplates using them. It's also kept Russia and the US from engaging each other in direct warfare, which to me has been a good thing.

[synoptic 138]

27 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

That's exactly it.

Think about it this way. The policy of Mutually Assured Destruction in theory protects both sides (so far in fact) because the thought is neither country will attack the other because neither one will want to end the planet. The massive buildup beyond what was necessary to actually destroy planet Earth was done because of the fear of a first strike. If either side felt like they could possibly eliminate their opponent's nuclear capability, they might be tempted to launch. So both sides made sure they had enough capability to detect and survive a first strike long enough to send a retaliatory strike. More importantly, both sides wanted to make sure they conveyed to the other they had such a capability. 

The problem with any kind of robust anti ballistic missile system is that it immediately shifts the balance in favor of the country that develops it. The idea behind the treaties limiting its development - and also what keeps each country from pouring resources into it - is that neither side wants to destabilize MAD to the point one country would go ahead and launch before a robust ABM system could be deployed, in fear if they didn't, they would be subject to a one sided nuclear attack from the country that could employ an effective ABM system.

There's a lot of scariness involved in Mutually Assured Destruction. The helpless feeling it engenders is purposeful. The helpless feeling is intended to make sure neither side actually contemplates using them. It's also kept Russia and the US from engaging each other in direct warfare, which to me has been a good thing.

MAD did keep the US and Russia from direct conflict and was a policy the helped sustain relative global peace for decades after WW2.  However, it works given certain criteria, one being that both decision makers have roughly equal to lose.  An autocrat losing his mind and fearing his impeding ousting doesn't have roughly equal to lose to with western civilization.  As it stands now, we can basically be held held hostage or at lead held at bay by decaying states with effectively single person decisions makers.   I don't think MAD works for the changing modern world.       

[SL Xpress 7515]

13 minutes ago, synoptic said:

MAD did keep the US and Russia from direct conflict and was a policy the helped sustain relative global peace for decades after WW2.  However, it works given certain criteria, one being that both decision makers have roughly equal to lose.  An autocrat losing his mind and fearing his impeding ousting doesn't have roughly equal to lose to with western civilization.  As it stands now, we can basically be held held hostage or at lead held at bay by decaying states with effectively single person decisions makers.   I don't think MAD works for the changing modern world.       

A nuclear weapon is going to be used again at some point. 100% chance. At that point there might be some change in approach, but until then everyone will try to muddle through. It's not ideal, but that's how humanity works. 

In any case, I wasn't addressing the utility of MAD or how well it works or doesn't work in the current environment. I was merely trying to address why developing ABMs has been politically challenging.

[synoptic 138]

14 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

A nuclear weapon is going to be used again at some point. 100% chance. At that point there might be some change in approach, but until then everyone will try to muddle through. It's not ideal, but that's how humanity works. 

In any case, I wasn't addressing the utility of MAD or how well it works or doesn't work in the current environment. I was merely trying to address why developing ABMs has been politically challenging.

Agreed, the treaties made sense at the time they were negotiated and signed.  I'm a bit more optimist on the chance of nukes being used again.  I think there is plausible path to them not being used again.   

[XYZ 2154]

It seems that this MAD theory goes out the window if the leader of one superpower goes fucking insane.

[SL Xpress 7515]

14 minutes ago, synoptic said:

Agreed, the treaties made sense at the time they were negotiated and signed.  I'm a bit more optimist on the chance of nukes being used again.  I think there is plausible path to them not being used again.   

It's an 80 year old technology that becomes easier to replicate the farther away we get from its invention. There are currently 9 nuclear powers (one undeclared). Depending on how long the human race lasts, the chances of a nuclear weapon being used once again approaches 100% with the passage of time. For that not to happen there needs to be a different, more aggressive instrument of enforcement to make sure no one can have possession of them. A no tolerance rule, with severe consequences for anyone who breaks it. That will only happen once they are actually used and we experience the devastating consequences it causes.

[synoptic 138]

9 minutes ago, XYZ said:

It seems that this MAD theory goes out the window if the leader of one superpower goes fucking insane.

Indeed.

 

4 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

It's an 80 year old technology that becomes easier to replicate the farther away we get from its invention. There are currently 9 nuclear powers (one undeclared). Depending on how long the human race lasts, the chances of a nuclear weapon being used once again approaches 100% with the passage of time. For that not to happen there needs to be a different, more aggressive instrument of enforcement to make sure no one can have possession of them. A no tolerance rule, with severe consequences for anyone who breaks it. That will only happen once they are actually used and we experience the devastating consequences it causes.

I agree on the aggressive enforcement (though not necessarily via more powerful weapons), disagree on the approaching 100% nor needing nuclear weapon usage for these things to occur.      

[wild_turkey 3159]

disagree on the approaching 100%    

Just curious, why do you feel that way?

If humans are around for another 1,000 years, it seems like a certainty, unless you believe that world peace will magically be achieved for the first time in our existence. The world is currently at the mercy of a crazy Russian dictator who could decide to use them any day now. Hopefully the present situation has a different outcome, but inevitably crazier dictators will rise to power.

[wild_turkey 3159]

I’m also not sure I agree that nuclear war is the end of humanity. Sure, it could quickly kill off 80% or more of the world population, and render many areas uninhabitable, but it seems unlikely that total extinction is in the cards. There are too many people living in rural areas that would evade nuclear or other forms of war. Seems like it would just be a hard reset and a new human civilization would rise from the ashes.

[synoptic 138]

5 minutes ago, wild_turkey said:

 

Just curious, why do you feel that way?

If humans are around for another 1,000 years, it seems like a certainty, unless you believe that world peace will magically be achieved for the first time in our existence. The world is currently at the mercy of a crazy Russian dictator who could decide to use them any day now. Hopefully the present situation has a different outcome, but inevitably crazier dictators will rise to power.

 

War is an economic enterprise for the powerful nations and launching nukes is bad economics.  Look at the situation Russia is in now.  Why don't they fire a nuke at Ukraine and settle everything in about 30 minutes?  The reason is that it is not in their best interests to do so.  It is virtually never in the best interests for a major industrial power to launch nuclear missiles, which is why it hasn't happened in decades despite global tension and instability.  Any country that can develop lang range ballistic missiles (not merely test a fission bomb) has lots to lose and is rarely facing existential threat.  Now it's certainly possible that former world powers decay and weapons get in the wrong hands, or enough tension emerges between two powers where an existential threat is perceived and they get used.  I agree that is very possible they get used, maybe even probable.  But a certainty?  I don't think so.        

 

1 minute ago, wild_turkey said:

I’m also not sure I agree that nuclear war is the end of humanity. Sure, it could quickly kill off 80% or more of the world population, and render many areas uninhabitable, but it seems unlikely that total extinction is in the cards. There are too many people living in rural areas that would evade nuclear or other forms of war. Seems like it would just be a hard reset and a new human civilization would rise from the ashes.

Agree.  Even all out nuclear war is not likely to end humanity.  Both sides will direct  100-500 kiloton warheads to specific targets (not likely to cause long duration nuclear winter) and large parts of the globe will go with no strikes.  Hard reset, but not extinction.          

[elfenix 34242]

The problem with ABM systems is that they cost much more than adding more mirvs and decoys to a ballistic missile. So you bankrupt yourself building ABM while your opponent just builds more warheads. Because only a handful of warheads actually need to get through the ABM.

[wild_turkey 3159]

6 minutes ago, synoptic said:

War is an economic enterprise for the powerful nations and launching nukes is bad economics.  Look at the situation Russia is in now.  Why don't they fire a nuke at Ukraine and settle everything in about 30 minutes?  The reason is that it is not in their best interests to do so. 

Sure, but that assumes every person in control of nuclear weapons will always act rationally. On a long enough timeline, there will be someone who A) has control of nuclear weapons and B) does not act rationally.

Hell, nuclear weapons have existed for less than 100 years and we already have a person (Putin) who possibly checks both of those boxes. We're just waiting to see what he does. Even if he does not resort to nuclear warfare, there will eventually be someone worse, unless you think humanity will face another version of extinction first.

[dcar00 14210]

14 minutes ago, synoptic said:

 

 

Agree.  Even all out nuclear war is not likely to end humanity.  Both sides will direct  100-500 kiloton warheads to specific targets (not likely to cause long duration nuclear winter) and large parts of the globe will go with no strikes.  Hard reset, but not extinction.          

the Tongans finally take over.

[Hook1997 5354]

52 minutes ago, wild_turkey said:

I’m also not sure I agree that nuclear war is the end of humanity. Sure, it could quickly kill off 80% or more of the world population, and render many areas uninhabitable, but it seems unlikely that total extinction is in the cards. There are too many people living in rural areas that would evade nuclear or other forms of war. Seems like it would just be a hard reset and a new human civilization would rise from the ashes.

Australia says hello!  No one’s nuking them, they would be one of the last standing untouched locations due to geography and no one caring enough to nuke them.  That and most of Africa?

Edited March 5, 2022 by Hook1997

[synoptic 138]

22 minutes ago, wild_turkey said:

Sure, but that assumes every person in control of nuclear weapons will always act rationally. On a long enough timeline, there will be someone who A) has control of nuclear weapons and B) does not act rationally.

Hell, nuclear weapons have existed for less than 100 years and we already have a person (Putin) who possibly checks both of those boxes. We're just waiting to see what he does. Even if he does not resort to nuclear warfare, there will eventually be someone worse, unless you think humanity will face another version of extinction first.

The long enough timeline argument assumes that our defense systems and other prevention efforts don't significantly improve over time and I don't think that will be the case. Maybe we eventually get really good at shooting down missiles and they become obsolete; maybe we start reducing global stockpile and get really good at preventing future development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles by other states.  The 2nd one is already occurring.  

 

21 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

the Tongans finally take over.

[956 Worldwide 34715]

7 hours ago, Mole said:

It’s January 7, 2010, 11:30 left in the 1st quarter. Texas is driving and in a moment of delirious joy, I awkwardly jump up in my living room, fall, and smack my head on the end-table. I then fall into a 12-year coma.

Upon awakening, I immediately check on my beloved Longhorn message board, Shaggybevo. I’m met with a single lunatic posting to himself and a startling amount of scat porn.

Once I finish and clean up, I finally find my new Surly home to learn about the wonderful sports decade that I missed. We’re on our third coach since that moment? Colt went down? We keep losing to Kansas?

In disgust, I turn away from the football board to see what’s going on in the world. Surely we’ve emerged from the economic catastrophe and are enjoying a golden era.

I see several threads about a strange, deadly disease, a thread about war with Russia and a new Hitler, and two threads about the coming nuclear holocaust.

I call my parents, only to find out that they’ve been brainwashed by some website that used to be for college students to creep on each other’s drunken pictures. The moon is a spaceship? Bill Gates is trying to murder us all to save us from the nuclear holocaust?

Surely this is some fever dream and I’m still in that coma.

“As the world began recovering from the global plague, reports emerged from the ongoing Battle of Chernobyl.”

[RPM 26321]

8 hours ago, UTGrad98 said:

So why can't we stop the missiles?

Well mainly because people think 1 missile, 1 warhead. That isn't the case. Most ICBM are MIRV Multiple Independent Reentry Vehicle. 1 missile multiple warheads shed in flight to different targets. It's hard to hit a missile, it's damn impossible to hit a warhead 5ft long travelling at supersonic speed.

Cold War out front, etc, etc.

[DigglerontheHoof 21200]

It's the early 80s all over again...this time w/ Putin!

[Bevo&Pevo 5150]

 

War doesn't prove who is right, just who is left.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13512]

Always thought that we should be able to knock out incoming ICBMs. What’s the big deal, right? Then the internet taught me that ICBMs max altitude is about 5 times than the space station’s. 5 times! It’s basically a space rocket that just drops on top of you and not some cruise missile flying over terrain like from the late 70s Superman movie.

Edited March 5, 2022 by Nice Guy Eddie

[Chewy's Hairy Horn 868]

I didn’t see these included on OP’s chart.  Warning: this guy’s channel is a rabbit hole you’ll easily get lost in. Clear your afternoon.

 

[Ag with kids 581]

15 hours ago, UTGrad98 said:

So why can't we stop the missiles? Seems like that would be the number 1 goal and yet everything I read is, nope once Russia hits the button we are all fucked. What have we been doing for the last 50 years? 

Well, until 2002, we and the Russians/Soviets were bound by the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.  Neither of us could deploy ABMs.  The thought was that being able to intercept the other side's ICBMs might make MAD obsolete and lead to a first strike...

15 hours ago, synoptic said:

 

It's incredibly difficult to intercept intercontinental type ballistic missiles.  They travel at very high speeds and high altitudes, and then most modern types separate into multiple entry vehicles for each warhead (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle  - MIRV).  We've spent billions of dollars to date, but our current best systems will probably catch none.  Certainly not enough to make any real difference in terms of altering MAD. 

Meh...Our missile defense tech is REALLY good. But, we don't have many ABMs...not nearly enough to stop any Russian full launch.

[Incredulity 11674]

11 hours ago, Hook1997 said:

Australia says hello!  No one’s nuking them, they would be one of the last standing untouched locations due to geography and no one caring enough to nuke them.  That and most of Africa?

Wrong.

 

I’ve seen the Mad Max trilogy 

[synoptic 138]

6 hours ago, RPM said:

Well mainly because people think 1 missile, 1 warhead. That isn't the case. Most ICBM are MIRV Multiple Independent Reentry Vehicle. 1 missile multiple warheads shed in flight to different targets. It's hard to hit a missile, it's damn impossible to hit a warhead 5ft long travelling at supersonic speed.

Cold War out front, etc, etc.

 

3 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Always thought that we should be able to knock out incoming ICBMs. What’s the big deal, right? Then the internet taught me that ICBMs max altitude is about 5 times than the space station’s. 5 times! It’s basically a space rocket that just drops on top of you and not some cruise missile flying over terrain like from the late 70s Superman movie.

The technical challenges of blocking sufficiently high percentage of incoming SLBM/ICBM warheads are incredibly difficult to solve.  It would be like several hundred meteorites falling to the US at once with and we can't let any make contact. Then there is also the treaties and political side to deal with.    

 

35 minutes ago, Chewy's Hairy Horn said:

I didn’t see these included on OP’s chart.  Warning: this guy’s channel is a rabbit hole you’ll easily get lost in. Clear your afternoon.

 

I only included the current operational weapons.  They have other doomsday type weapons in development, such as the  Poseidon or Status-6 torpedo discussed in the video.  Some reports claim they would cobalt salt the warhead on the torpedo so it would poison the entire globe.  But the weapon is not operational yet and it has many challenges.       

 

8 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

Well, until 2002, we and the Russians/Soviets were bound by the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.  Neither of us could deploy ABMs.  The thought was that being able to intercept the other side's ICBMs might make MAD obsolete and lead to a first strike...

Meh...Our missile defense tech is REALLY good. But, we don't have many ABMs...not nearly enough to stop any Russian full launch.

We have the best missile defense tech in the world.  But it's far away from stopping a multiple ICBM w/MIRV attack.

[XYZ 2154]

What missile defense tech does the USA have? I thought there was a treaty to not have missile defense tech.

[synoptic 138]

14 minutes ago, XYZ said:

What missile defense tech does the USA have? I thought there was a treaty to not have missile defense tech.

We have some missile ground defense interceptors ion the west coast (California and Alaska)  and ship based capability called the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System.  But these are limited in scope, coverage, and effectiveness:

"A new study sponsored by the American Physical Society concludes that U.S. systems for intercepting intercontinental ballistic missiles cannot be relied on to counter even a limited nuclear strike and are unlikely to achieve reliability within the next 15 years."

https://www.aip.org/fyi/2022/physicists-argue-us-icbm-defenses-are-unreliable

Regarding treaties, we were under the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) from 1972-2002 that limited their development, but we are currently not under any treaty on ballistic defense systems.  We are under an arms reduction treaty with Russia - New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty).  But this only puts limits on the number of deployed nuclear weapons and launchers.  

[Bateshorn 9927]

Our ABM systems are meant to stop an errant missile or single strike from North Korea.  They are not designed nor would they work in a massed first strike situation. 

[UTGrad98 2273]

Well hopefully there is some classified  shit they aren't telling us about our defense capabilities 

[immamac 42851]

7 minutes ago, UTGrad98 said:

Well hopefully there is some classified  shit they aren't telling us about our defense capabilities 

There isn't. Why do people think that we can't get nuked. The entire premise against first strike is it's MAD. If it's not then you just first strike and don't worry about getting nuked. 

Nuclear weapons have no counter. There is no way to contain their destruction during or after they go off. They are the ultimate weapon of mass destruction and they should never be used ever again. The problem is that as long as they exist they by rule HAVE to exist. If everyone denukes at the same time in joint fashion that would be the best thing for the world, but it's not happening because the cat is already out of the bag and people violate the shit out of treaties constantly. 

[synoptic 138]

Last attempt at improved formatting:

Russian Arsenal

 

Missile	Name	Class	Basing	Began Operation	Range (miles)	Number in operation	Number of warheads per missile	Warhead Delivery	Accuracy (CEP)	Yield per warhead (kT)	Number of deliverable warheads	Total yield
R-29R Vysota (SS-N-18)	Stingray	SLBM	Submarine	1977	4,000	32	3	MIRV	900 m	50	96	48 MT
R-29RM Shtil (SS-N-23)	Sineva	SLBM	Submarine	1986	5,150	96	4	MIRV	500 m	100	320	32 MT
RSM-56 (SS-N-32)	Bulava	SLBM	Submarine	2013	5,150	80	10	MIRV	250 m	100 - 160	320	51.2 MT
R-36 (SS-18 ) Mod 6	Satan	ICBM	Silo based	1988	6,800	46	10	MIRV	500 m	500 - 750	460	345 MT
UR-100NUTTH (SS-19 Mod 3)	Stiletto	ICBM	Silo based	1980	6,200	20	6	MIRV	900 m	400 - 500	120	60 MT
Topol (SS-25)	Sickle	ICBM	Road mobile	1988	6,800	150	1	Single	900 m	550 – 800	72	120 MT
Topol-M (SS-27 Mod 1)	Sickle B	ICBM	Road mobile and silo	1997	6,800	80	1	Single	200 m	550	78	44 MT
RS-24 Yars (SS-27 Mod 2)	Yars	ICBM	Road mobile and silo	2010	6,500	73	3	MIRV	150 m	150 - 200	219	43.8 MT

 

 

US Arsenal

Missile

Name

Class

Basing

Began Operation

Range (miles)

Number in operation

Number of warheads per missile

Warhead Delivery

Accuracy (CEP)

Yield per warhead (kT)

Number of deliverable warheads

Total yield

UGM-133 Trident II D5

Trident

SLBM

Submarine

1990

7,450

240

8

MIRV

90 m

100 - 475

1920

912 MT

LGM-30G Minuteman III

Minuteman III

ICBM

Silo based

1970

8,050

440

1

Single

120 m

300 - 475

440

176 MT

[Ag with kids 581]

2 hours ago, synoptic said:

We have some missile ground defense interceptors ion the west coast (California and Alaska)  and ship based capability called the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System.  But these are limited in scope, coverage, and effectiveness:

"A new study sponsored by the American Physical Society concludes that U.S. systems for intercepting intercontinental ballistic missiles cannot be relied on to counter even a limited nuclear strike and are unlikely to achieve reliability within the next 15 years."

https://www.aip.org/fyi/2022/physicists-argue-us-icbm-defenses-are-unreliable

Regarding treaties, we were under the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) from 1972-2002 that limited their development, but we are currently not under any treaty on ballistic defense systems.  We are under an arms reduction treaty with Russia - New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty).  But this only puts limits on the number of deployed nuclear weapons and launchers.  

I'd say that the APS study is probably a tad biased, but that's because I used to work in the industry and think some of their conclusions aren't 100% correct...but, I will agree that we do NOT have any system in place to even remotely handle a large scale nuclear attack by ANY country.

[Buzzrock 14920]

345MT? Is that right? I thought the biggest anyone had was 50 and there only one or two of those.

Edit: I’m dumb, never mind.

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

 

Gen X got this. Years in the arcades. After about level three you were dealing with more and more MIRVs so that's nothing to us....just let us practice for a few days and get that muscle memory back. Some of you will say this would be like letting a Madden champ run our offense. I say we find the Missile Command masters and let them save America.

This dude smashed the 30-year-old high score in 2013. I hope he is in a hardened bunker right now being primed with the USAF's finest stimulants.

 

 

 

[synoptic 138]

21 hours ago, immamac said:

If everyone denukes at the same time in joint fashion that would be the best thing for the world, but it's not happening 

This is exactly right.  There is simply no way that Russia, China, NK will will give up their nukes (we wouldn't, either).  Russia still invests heavily in their nuclear arsenal and currently has new weapons in development.  The ICBM club is an elite club with many privileges; just think how different our engagement with Russia would be if they didn't have them.  Ukraine gave up their nukes after collapse of Soviet Union with guarantees from Russia and look how that worked out for them.  No way Russia would be invading if they still had them.         

Since denuking is not a realistic option, let's figure out a way to block them to neutralize the threat.  Otherwise civilization will continue to live under the nuclear sword of Damocles, which I do not believe is an acceptable permanent solution.  

[jofus 2266]

and people violate the shit out of treaties constantly. 

Shouldn’t we expect that they’ve violated the shit out of mad?

[immamac 42851]

6 minutes ago, jofus said:

 

Shouldn’t we expect that they’ve violated the shit out of mad?

 

MAD can't be violated it's not a treaty it's a situation that arises because of the existence of enough WMD to ensure that you both die in the first and retaliatory strikes