Why US Let Russia Become the Biggest Nuclear Power

Since the start of Cold War 2.0 after Russia invaded Ukraine, western media has become fixated on the nuclear capabilities of the Russian Federation. After all, with Putin, continually making thinly veiled threats about using so-called "tactical nuclear weapons", it's no wonder that people are concerned. As it turns out, those concerns are pretty valid. Due to considerable differences in Russian strategic strategy, though the overall number of known warheads remains stable, Russia has committed to modernizing its nuclear forces over the past decade. They are getting so good to the point now that many suggest Russia has become a bigger nuclear power than the United states. According to known public information, the US and Russia are almost equal for reported nuclear warheads.

As of 2022, Russia owns 5977 warheads, while the US has 5428 in its arsenal. The US actually has a slight advantage due to its number of forward-deployed nuclear warheads. For a weapon to be forward deployed, it must be available on submarines, aircraft, and forward launching sites in other countries. The US has 1644 of these types of warheads, while Russia is just behind with 1588. However, Russia does have almost a thousand more warheads in storage than the US. Warheads in storage can still be mounted on delivery systems and deployed. Why Russia has more available for use is because the US has a backlog of older warheads waiting to be destroyed. Even though the official numbers are pretty evenly matched, in real life, Russian and American nuclear capabilities are vastly different. While both countries maintain a strategic land, air, and sea nuclear triad, Russia has pursued an aggressive campaign of weapon modernization over the past fifteen years while the US has lagged behind. This is primarily because of the strategic strategy differences between the two countries.

There is much debate over exactly what Russia's nuclear strategy is and what it is not. However, there are a few points that people on both sides of the argument have agreed on. Firstly, Russia recognizes, even before its disastrous war in Ukraine, that its military is rather weak. Throughout the entire history of the Soviet Union, the Red Army had to rely on a steady stream of less-than-eager conscripts each year to man its military. Even after the USSR fell in 1991, the Russian Federation has tried and failed numerous times to transition to an all-volunteer fce. Poor pay, appalling living conditions, and inhuman treatment by superiors have continued to plague the Russian army to this day. Because of this, most of the personnel in the Russian armed forces are unmotivated and poorly trained conscripts. Even though Russia recognized that it had to improve the quality of life for its troops after the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008, little has changed.

The poor state of the military's combat effectiveness has not gone unnoticed, even at the highest levels of the Russian government. Because the Russian army would be outgunned and out-motivated in a conventional war with US and NATO forces, Russian politicians have decided they would use nuclear weapons to bolster their power in a conventional armed conflict. If regular Russian forces faced imminent defeat on the battlefield, the doctrine of using a low-yield tactical nuclear weapon would take effect. But more on tactical nuclear weapons later. Scholars also agree that another unspoken but official reason Russia has pursued aggressive nuclear modernization is to protect itself from a war against China. Due to China's sheer number advantage over Russia, many agree that Russia would use nuclear weapons to offset this advantage. But in regards to the US, many believe Russian strategic doctrine calls for defeating American nuclear capabilities, so a retaliatory strike would be impossible.

This hotly debated topic would involve this possible scenario. In the event of an imminent nuclear war, Russia would make the first strike, and Russian missile forces, submarines, and aircraft would all launch strikes against US missile silos and air bases. Though submarines would still survive, the strategic effect of a strike aimed at preventing the US from striking back would hope to make the US surrender without a fight. An even more controversial theory is the belief that Russia might escalate to de-escalate. What that entails is using a nuclear weapon, whether strategic or tactical, against a state not directly involved in fighting but may be supporting a conflict. Known as a bolt from the blue attack, this attack would deter other nations from getting involved in the war Russia is fighting. It remains unclear if Russia would ever seriously consider this strategy, but the fact that it has even been debated in Russian circles is a scary thought. What is definitely not up for debate has been the weapon modernization program Russia has gone on since 2008.

Throughout the Cold War, both the US and Russia continued to produce nuclear weapons at a fever pitch. It was not until the early 90s that both nations agreed to reduce their nuclear arsenals drastically. Over the next two decades, the US and Russia greatly reduced their Cold War stockpiles. However, Russia has opted to entirely replace its nuclear stockpile with modern weapons, while the US has decided to maintain current inventories. Russia has continued to develop a variety of known and claimed weapons systems that some argue beat out US capabilities. One of the most potent is the Avangard Hypersonic Glide Vehicle. A hypersonic glide vehicle is the way of the future in missile technology.

Because these missiles can travel at ten, twenty, or even thirty times the speed of sound, they aim to defeat any air defense system by simply being too fast to track. Combined with advances in flight paths causing the missiles to weave and change course mid-flight, it means that these are the wonder weapons of the future. Though much debate has been surrounding the Avangard, it's not known to be operational yet. However, though the US has been experimenting with hypersonic missiles, military officials have never proposed to make them nuclear-armed. Russia has explicitly stated that the Avangard will be a nuclear missile. Even though the Avangard is still a few years away from operational deployment, Russia is developing several terrifying nuclear weapons. Among them include the RS-28 Sarmat. The Sarmat aims to replace the aging Soviet missiles still making up the bulk of Russian nuclear forces.

The Sarmat is a deadly weapon system that can fly faster and farther than any previous silo-based nuclear missile. Traveling an impressive 18000 kilometers, the Sarmat is designed to defeats current and projected air defense systems. Due to its shortened boost phase, satellites would have difficulty tracking the missile. Russian planners are also believed to have programmed the missiles to fly to the North or South Pole to bypass US Navy destroyers poised to shoot them down. The Sarmat also carries an impressive ten to fifteen warheads. Known as Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicles, one Sarmat missile can carry enough nuclear ordnance to destroy at least ten targets. While MIRVs are not a new concept and have been around for decades, US use of the technology is now non-existent. Before President Obama took power, the US did have the capability of having MIRVs on Minuteman III missiles. However, as part of his attempt at good faith relations with Russia, President Obama ordered that US missiles be capable of carrying just one nuclear warhead each.

By 2014, all US missiles now carry just one warhead. However, the US still retains the capability to add more warheads if the government wants to, since no binding treaty forces the US to do this. But a weapon even scarier than these two is the Burevestnik Nuclear Powered Cruise missile. Being propelled by an onboard nuclear reactor, the Russians claim the missile will have unlimited range and reach speeds never seen before. Being able to constantly change direction and loiter indefinitely, the missile is a wonder weapon. The only problem is the US already tried this back in the 1950s, and then quickly shut down the program when it realized who ecologically destructive this weapon would be. A nuclear-powered missile would spew radiation across the countryside as it traveled, a feature briefly seen as a positive by some US military planners, who quickly realized if they made this weapon then the Soviets would respond in kind.

Though the Burevestnik will probably never see operational use, both the Sarmat and the Avangard constitute developments in Russian strategic nuclear weapons that pose a real threat to US sovereignty. The US has opted not to produce any new nuclear weapons during this time. Instead, the US government has decided to perform mid-life extension programs on existance ordnance. US defense contracts have been busy updating the Air Force's unguided bombs and silo-based missiles for the past several years. However, it was not until the past few years that Congress and the military took talks of funding new nuclear weapons projects seriously. Currently, Congress has agreed that there is a desire to produce a new ICBM. Still, no date has been set to begin funding for research, much less reaching operational capability. Another great tool Russia has that the US is reluctant to add to its inventory is tactical nuclear weapons. There is no official definition for tactical nuclear weapons.

Still, the general consensus is that these are nuclear weapons that are capable of being fired from land, sea, and air platforms whose intended purpose is to create a tactical advantage on the battlefield rather than destroy cities. Though the US and NATO have consistently warned that any nuclear weapon of any yield would be treated as a strategic strike, Russia fundamentally disagrees with this notion. Going back to its Cold War days, the Russian military knows that in an actual conflict, its planes, ships, and ground forces are just not as good as what the West can muster. To close this technological gap, Russia has equipped all its forces with nuclear capabilities for use against conventional targets. Among the most prolific tactical nuclear weapons are the Iskander and Kalibr missile systems. These two missile systems are now a mainstay in Russian military units. While the army has fixed and mobile launch platforms for Iskander missiles, the navy and air force can both launch Kalibr missiles.

Both missiles can be fitted with conventional or nuclear warheads, and Russian navy ships and submarines could decimate NATO ships with low-yield nuclear weapons in a conflict. The US has made some advances in tactical nuclear weapons. Just two years ago, Congress approved funding to produce five to seven-kiloton nuclear warheads for use on Trident II missiles. Known as the W-76, these warheads are the only nuclear weapons in the US inventory that could be considered tactical. Such a shift in policy shows that the US has taken concerns about using tactical nuclear weapons seriously. However, Russia still fields a massive tactical arsenal. Estimates range from a few hundred to almost 6000 tactical weapons. Because treaties do not talk about or track these kinds of weapons, Russia has been producing them and not reporting their existence. Because of that, there is a lot of mystery surrounding what the Russians actually have. One example of a known tactical weapon is nuclear-tipped S-200 and S-300 missiles. Why Russia would put nuclear warheads on anti-air systems is due to a lack of precision.

If Russia really needs to shoot something down, they want to ensure a kill. Shooting a nuclear missile at the inbound missile or aircraft makes up for the lack of adequate radars or training. Russian forces also boast some unique capabilities. For example, the Russian navy claims it is developing an autonomous nuclear vehicle that can be deployed from submarines and is capable of creating nuclear tsunamis. Russian naval units allegedly possess nuclear torpedoes, depth charges, and anti-submarine rockets. Many of these were leftover Soviet weapons that Russia had decided to keep in stock. As for the US, it remains unclear if the government will procure more tactical nuclear weapons. But what is clear is that if a real war broke out, the US would be at a serious disadvantage if Russian developments pan out as promised.

By: Tannor Cannon | Dec 15, 2022

Read Next: Why You Wouldn't Survive World War 3