I would say that would be a limited way of looking at things. So, it is 'pretty lousy' because it has a 1,200KG throw weight and a 350 meter CEP? And that the best Russia can do is produce a Trident C4 level of missile (although you admit it would have more modern penetration aids than the C4).
So, that makes a missile pretty lousy?
Let's start with the 1,200KG throw weight. The missile can carry up to 10 (maneuvering) warheads of 75KT each, or one single 500KT warhead. I would say that is far more than sufficient. Now, let's assume there is a fictional missile called the FREEPER-F1 operated by Papua New Guinea that has a throw weight of a million tons (it uses singularity-based SciFi vaporware technology). It is far more capable than the Bulava and the Trident ...yes. But does that make the Bulava and Trident lousy? No.
What about the 350m CEP (most sources say 250-300, but let's use your 350m). Against soft targets like a city - and note we are talking about a nuclear weapon, not a tungsten rod from outer space - that is actually too accurate. What about hard targets? Well, amazingly with the 500KT warhead (its most likely warhead, with decoys) the Bulava's CEP is still good enough to take out a hardened target like a missile silo.
Is the Trident D5 better? Yes. Is the Trident D5 more accurate? Yes (up to 90m CEP, and that is only what is available to those without clearance). However, that doesn't make a nuclear missile at (using your words) Trident C4 level with more modern penetration aids 'pretty lousy.' That is like saying a Ferrari is a pretty lousy car because the Bugatti exists.
I fear it is a type of thinking/mentality that I hope hasn't permeated up to those tasked with strategic defense of the Free World. The type of thinking where people consider anything produced by 'others' to be 'pretty lousy' and inferior. It is a type of thinking that pops up on FR every now and then, and if it exists in higher levels of national defense it can be quite dangerous. It makes people think that outcomes will always be a certain way, and in the process they underestimate potentially potent threats. For instance there are FReepers who still say that China's rise in the military arena is still nothing to be worried about for the next decade. True, but by the time you start worrying about it those ten lost years will be too long. Or for instance how many FReepers claim upcoming SAM threats are nothing to worry about because of how Israel destroyed Syrian S-400 SAM sites (even though Syria didn't have S-400s but instead shorter range missiles that the Israelis had counter-measures for ...but facts have never stopped a good tale here, have they). Talking about Israel - interestingly they do not seem to have that problem. Underestimating an enemy. Probably because, in their case, one mistake can literally put the entire country at risk. They have also experienced heavy aircraft losses against the 'useless' Russian equipment...for instance in 1973 when the Syrians went into the Golan Heights and Egypt passed the Suez ...the Israelis claim that they (the Israelis) lost just over 300 planes. The Israelis took that seriously, and in 1982 against the Syrians things were quite different. Israeli ingenuity coupled with Syrian stupidity (e.g. fixed SAM sites rather using them in the mobile manner they were meant to, putting SAM sites in the valleys rather than hills because they didn't want to dig latrines, fixing positions months at a time giving Israeli intelligence sufficient knowledge of their locations, etc) led to an absolute route of the Syrians.
Now jump forward to 1999. The Serbians were using the same exact old SA-2/3/6 SAMs the Syrians and Iraqis were using, and facing a far more advanced force (the USAF led NATO airforces) with far more modern stand-off and anti-SAM weapons (as well as more advanced jamming, and ofcourse stealth). However, the Serbs were using them the way they should have ...using a lot of mobility, non-fixed positions, and control of their emissions (e.g. not just sitting somewhere radiating like some fool waiting for a HARM to come saying hello). Result? One SA-3 battery brought down a F-16, brought down a F-117, and damaged another F-117. More importantly, 743 HARM missiles were launched by the NATO forces, yet the damage was much less (about a third) than that used to destroy the Iraqi system (which was larger than the Serbian system). Why? Simple shoot and scoot, plus emission control. Using old SA-3s and 6s.
Yet to some S-300s/HQ-9s operated by China are useless. I personally consider the tendency to pooh-pooh enemy equipment, particularly based on its use by idiots, as particularly dangerous. More dangerous than the other mindset that makes enemy weapons appear like silver bullets. I would rather have the government overestimate an enemy, and due to it make 1,000 F-22 Raptors (to use an example), rather than under-estimate it and somehow believe F-18s will be sufficient to contain China.
Anyways, back to topic. If the Bulava is a pretty lousy missile because it is at the level of a Trident C4 then all I can say is I wish the Russians had invented something far far far lousier, because I consider the Trident C4 a highly capable missile. Not a D5, but still extremely good.
We must have different ways of measuring 'pretty lousy.'
This reminds me of a stageplay, in short: wife and lover are caught together in the bed by her husband. In rage he goes to living room to get his revolver. Lover is in panic and rushes to get out, while wife calms hers lover down:
“Dont worry its lousy six-shooter, at least three rounds will surely miss you!”
Route = rout.
“The missile can carry up to 10 (maneuvering) warheads of 75KT each”
No. The real number is 6.
Putting 10 warheads on the existing Bulava (with no modifications) would shrink the weight of each RV from approximately 90-100 kg to around 50-60 kg, which is extremely small for an ICBM.
http://russianforces.org/blog/2006/04/bulava_has_six_warheads.shtml
“So, that makes a missile pretty lousy?”
It is lousy for 2012. The Trident C4 was first deployed by the US Navy in 1979, 33 years ago.
By the end of 1987 there were 384 Trident C4’s deployed on 20 SSBNs with 3,072 warheads