Replies

Missiles themselves are dirt cheap as missiles go. It's largely a fuel tank, some servos and some electronics. There is nothing inherently expensive once the R&D is done. The nuclear warhead would be the most expensive part.

Dude you seriously need to get a clue where it comes to missile cost.

First off there would only be a fuel tank in a very old missile. These days if it isn't solid fuel it is going to die on the launch pad. The liquids just take too long to ready for launch.

Solid fuel rockets are not cheap. For the LGM-118s the price tag was around $70 million a pop in 1986 dollars. The Russians aren't saying what the new RS-24 costs them, but considering they can only afford to buy three a year dirt cheap probably isn't the answer.

They had to retire all their IRBMs as part of the treaty that got rid of our Pershing IIs so they don't have any of those. They have a bunch of Iskander-M missiles. Those only have a 400km range which puts them on the wrong side of Belarus and Ukraine. Belarus may let them in, but would Belarus let Russia launch a nuclear war from their territory?

Finally there is the problem that they are in fact Anti ballistic missile sites. Attacking them with ballistic missiles is like attacking a mousetrap factory with mice. The Iskander only has a speed of 2600 m/s. Against an ABM system that has been able to repeatedly shoot down LGM-30s at 7000 km/s it would be like shooting fish in a barrel. They Russians say they can make all kinds of evasive moves, but it is still a rather slow ballistic missile. You are going to have to send a lot if you expect one to get through.