Xeogred wrote:I've really not touched this topic at all and don't know how much I'll dip in, but don't some of you guys think globalism is probably faulty and bad? That's been one of the most interesting topics as of late for me. I don't think Obama has been that great and it really does seem like Hillary will be more of the same, and the tension with Russia seems very severe. I've briefly heard that because we waste so much spending, their nuclear development has far surpassed ours by this point. Very frightening.
I have a few things to say about this:
First off about Russian nuclear development, the answer is "yes and no." Yes, they have a larger current strategic arsenal of around 1735 reported nuclear weapons deployed for use versus the US' 1481, though the breakdowns for how these would be delivered is unknown. It ranges from ICBMs at missile sites to nuclear submarine launches to dropped via bombers. As for the total stockpile of nuclear weapons, the US dominates with 4,571 reported nuclear warheads of varying condition versus Russia's slightly less 4,500. Russia has 2,800 nuclear weapons waiting to be dismantled while the US has 2,500. These stats are those put out August 2016 by the Arms Control Association. That said, the disparity in sizes doesn't much matter; this is more than enough to wipe out humanity if such an effect were desired.
Now as for current development, well...it's true, much of our nuclear arsenal is made up of dinosaurs compared to Russia. This is for a variety of reasons, including public protest and outcry, direction of defense spending and the high cost of development, likely a psychological block over victory in the Cold War against the Soviet Union, so on and so forth.
For our ICBMs, we only use the LGM-30G Minuteman III currently, with the most recent of these in use constructed in 1978. The Minuteman IIIs have been upgraded routinely however and should last us until 2030. Meanwhile discussion on development of our next ICBM is stalled over discussions of price. The US Air Force speculates development will cost $62.3 billion for development and mass production, which isn't as large as the $348 billion we'll spend on nuclear weapons in total by 2024, but is well over the $26 billion we'll spend on ICBMs in the next 8 years. We did develop and deploy the LGM118A Peacekeeper in the 1980s, and these were upgrades from the Minuteman IIIs, but for a variety of reasons all were pulled from service in 2005.
Russia, meanwhile, is expected to deploy a new model of nuclear ICBM by the end of this decade, designed specifically with the intention of penetrating missile-defense systems. They also use a variety of launchers for their systems, including mobile launchers. While the Minuteman III can carry up to three nuclear warheads(but mainly only carry one), the Russian R-36M2 Voevod(nicknamed, appropriately enough, 'Satan') can carry up to 10 and has been in service since 1988. The new RS-28 is now being tested and should replace the Satan in 2020. It can launch in under a minute from being given the order, maneuvers at over 7 kilometers a second, and can launch a nuclear warhead on a suborbital trajectory. Defending against such a monstrosity is incredibly difficult if not impossible and highly, highly expensive.
Russia's ICBM program is well-funded and constantly in research mode, with new weapon possibilities continuously being examined. However, while the United States lags in ICBMs, we're very well-versed in missile defense research and programs, which is why Russia has entered this continuous development cycle. They're working this hard to beat us, while we work to defend against them.
*Note, these stats on Russian ICBMs come from Leonid Nersisyan of the REGNUM news agency, which has been labeled a propaganda tool for the Russian government. REGNUM is based out of Moscow. Take them with a grain of salt.
It's also worth noting that we're not really sure anyone is insane enough to actually use any of these. Nuclear weapons as a deterrent are...interesting to say the least.
