Comparison of the strategic nuclear forces of Russia and the United States. Infographics

At 2016, the United States possessed an 741 deployed platform for launching a nuclear warhead with an 1481. In turn, Russia has 521 carrier vehicle with 1 735 nuclear warheads. In fact, the difference is insignificant. And it does not affect the strategic balance.

Comments

[Observer2014]

"The number of warheads in one missile Russia 10, USA 1". Oh, these infographic charters

[Shadow shooter]

Minuteman, too, in my opinion carries several warheads And why not deployed sea-based ICBMs?

[seos]

Yes, mediocrity, these pictures are drawn .... I have not seen any such pictures without gross errors ....
"The United States is inferior only with 1 old minuteman 3" - the rocket is excellent, we cannot make a rocket comparable in performance, maybe inferior in solid fuel engines ... Our best rockets on liquid rocket engines have better energy characteristics, but they cost much more in production and operation ...

[NIKNN]

Quote: seos

and operation ...

Well, as long as the operation is half so far ..., I would call it maintenance, but in operation ...... well, let everyone appreciate it ...

[Vladimir Sh]

are more expensive than ours and more expensive and do not have the ability to modernize and renovate them.
paradox)

[Tda tar]

Our best rockets ...
And yours - whose is it?

[base66]

it is easier to intercept or destroy one missile with 10 heads at the start than a preventive strike than 10 with one. and solid fuel - 30 years in the mine, and she’s like a pioneer - she’s always ready to press a button. For smaller sizes, the range is longer

[the same doctor]

I support the first part of the post. But the second is not. Liquid rockets fly further, dry tanks do not spoil for decades, unlike solid fuel, which is still not stable enough. The only drawback of liquid rockets is the need to refuel before launch. Because of this, their start is not possible immediately. And if you keep the tanks filled, the oxygen evaporates, the tanks corrode ...
.
If it were not for the SALT agreement, which prescribes control of ICBMs, it would be possible to have camouflaged launchers of liquid rockets and fuel tanks nearby. But we are forced to disclose the deployment of missiles, respectively, we can not have false targets and disguised positions. Therefore, the only defense of our ICBMs is to start as quickly as possible after the US attack on us (and due to approaching our borders, the response time is reduced to 5 minutes). In this situation, liquid rockets have no place. although they are much more profitable.
.
From these positions, the SALT-START treaty is destabilizing. It forces us to respond to every sneeze, to any sign of attack. The risk of a war beginning due to a computer glitch rises sharply. The limitation on the number of carriers reduces the number of targets, and Americans have the hope of destroying the ICBMs they know. The risk of their sudden attack rises sharply.
.
Conclusion. It is necessary to withdraw from the OSV agreement. Build a thousand light monoblock ICBMs of twenty tons each and place them on ordinary trucks, barges, in garages, tunnels and under bridges, hide them all over the country. These missiles can be liquid. Preparation for launch and bringing the rocket into a combat position is easy to make completely invisible. The presence of such potential will make all US plans for BSU void, will allow us not to respond to dubious reports of the first strike with a retaliatory strike, and will postpone the Third World War.
.
The fact that the Americans will deploy thousands of their ICBMs is not worth fearing. They will not do this, since it is cheaper for them to place additional warheads at our borders.

[Tda tar]

Actually - on liquid rockets, for a very, very long time (several decades), “tanks” were always “filled up” and amputated. Forever - until start-up or disposal (for at least 15 years). Before the start - only boosting the tanks (this is not so long - a few minutes). But the opinion about “preparation for launching and putting the rocket into combat position is easy to make absolutely invisible” - you are also very mistaken (moving any medium always makes noise. The faster, the more noticeable). This is precisely the main reason for the transition from liquid to solid fuel. Well, the rest of the "points" - also all somehow "wrong."

[the same doctor]

The very notion of strategic forces used in the article is incorrect. Any warheads. reaching our territory are strategic. And here we have a terrible imbalance with the United States: they have ten for one of our warheads delivered to the United States, which they can throw on our heads.

[Den nn]

Quote: also a doctor

The very notion of strategic forces used in the article is incorrect. Any warheads. reaching our territory are strategic. And here we have a terrible imbalance with the United States: they have ten for one of our warheads delivered to the United States, which they can throw on our heads.

what ???

[the same doctor]

You didn `t know? Recently they also tested fighters as carriers of atomic bombs. so count. only in Europe at once for thousands of strategic carriers with respect to our country increased.

[Vladimir Sh]

and we will soon have a train ride and a nuclear bomb to the American natives threaten let's write down every railroad tie in Russia in strategic carriers)
they are also tested no worse than fighter jachi)

[Alex968m]

And where is Barguzin?