[ChristianDefender]

This is pointless, unless they want to export it. The Russian ICBM program has always relied on lots of strikes, and huge warheads. If they ever pull the pin, we're all dead men regardless of what's up in Alaska.

You mean Russia's nukes are a lot more powerful than ours? I thought their military power is weakening?

[GeronL]

Non-nuclear power is weaker, if they had a real war they might have to resort to nukes because they can't fight a traditional one

[The Red Zone]

Doesn't China actually have more active missiles than Russia now?

[Threepwood]

Not quite what I meant.

The Russians have always had to cope with less accurate targeting systems, and other hardware problems. They compensated by using nuclear warheads that were much larger than US/Nato types. That, and pushing through lots of strikes at once. An attack might be less likely to get here, but you'll sure notice if it did. The Brits had a similar theroy with their V-Strike weapons (Vulcans and Victors).They scrapped it (I believe) when they adopted sea bourne rocket systems.

Anyway, Russian nuclear doctrine hasn't changed too too much, and the hardware is all pretty much the same and still in place. It's not more powerful or advanced than the US approach, but it would be extremely effective (at sterilizing the planet) and very difficult to cope with even with something like the missile defence plan.

Your milage may vary on this. I'm no expert, so don't be shocked if someone pulls up and tells me I'm an idiot.:)

[Cheburashka]

The Russians (and the Soviets before the fall of Communism) always built larger missiles with more powerful warheads, to make up for the inaccuracy of their guidance systems. This is nothing new