I agree with you on that. They have been spending a lot of money to keep their arsenal upgraded (and even during the 90s when their economy was dead and their military was rusting, the only service that kept receiving money was the rocket forces). My point is that they have had a large arsenal (and larger than the US) for decades. Nothing has happened. The fast-growing Chinese arsenal is a new factor being added to the mix. Not as powerful (yet!), but something that was not in existence before at such a level. Thus, the mix goes from the US and Russia (when it comes to nations with large nuclear stockpiles) to the US and Russia and China.
My point wasn't that Russia is not a potential threat, or that they don't have weapons - it was that they have been that for many decades (and at a time when they were vastly more powerful and had far more sway as part of the USSR which was then a superpower, with the Warsaw Pact bristling at NATO, and basically the Soviet Bear having global influence) ...and yet ...no nuclear war. MAD worked perfectly.
China on the other hand has also had nuclear weapons for quite some time now, but never at this level. Why is this important (and far more dangerous than Russia's 'effective nuclear triad' and 'road ICBMs')?
Well, that simple!
Because it means that those weapons are no longer solely for self-defense/deter purposes. If you needed nuclear weapons as a deterrence then you would not need more than a dozen (or a couple dozen at most). For the longest time China was said to have a couple hundred (around 2-3 hundred). For it to start having a couple of thousand warheads means a change in doctrine, or at least in the potential strategies available for it.
It is like (to use another example) the Mexican cartels suddenly investing in thousands of Kalashnikovs, grenades, drug hauling trucks, tunneling equipment, and mini-submarines for furtive drug transportation. Now, that can mean a couple of things - it can mean they have a lot of money and just decided to spend it on equipment and weapons, or it could mean that they are about to embark on a massive drug transportation initiative.
Sure, the Russians could move in and do a lot in their area of influence without the US doing much about it. For example a couple of years ago they whooped Georgia, and all Shakasvisli (or however one spells his name) could do is hide and wonder why no one came to his assistance.
Now, compare that with the number of countries that are concerned with China. The list is interesting and includes Japan, India, Australia, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Viet Nam, South Korea. That is a list of nations that have undertaken significant military purchases because of one country. A country that has had a tremendous increase in its conventional forces (especially in terms of their quality), as well as in its nuclear capabilities. A country that, to use one example, has stated that the whole of the South China sea 'belongs' to it. A country that has taken its nuclear capability several magnitudes beyond what is necessary for deterrence. Again, with 300 warheads you have more than enough to deter ANY country from doing something silly - the moment you start going into the thousands basically it is to ensure something else, and the only two nations you would be targeting are the US or Russia ...no other country would require that many warheads. Now, if you put two and two together, if China made a move to grab the oil in the South China sea, which country would try to stop it that may require those warhead numbers to serve as not just a deterrent but also a real and present threat?
Thunder90 - there is something that Pervez Musharraf once said that I agree with (probably the only thing I agree with him on). He said that when analyzing a threat he considers two things - intent and capability. However, of the two he considers capability the most important since intent can change at any given moment. For the longest time Russia (as the Soviets) had ill intent and true capability. Nothing happened. China has had all forms of various intent, but never had capability ...now it has capability. The number of possible foe nations with capability have gone from one (Russia/USSR) to two (Russia and China).
Yet you think that is not an issue and Russia is still the biggest problem? Because it has an 'effective nuclear triad' and 'road ICBMs?' It has had those for decades. A new country has come into the mix with effective capability to directly engage the US, and that is a lesser issue. I am sorry, but it is a big issue, especially when that nation has a strong economy, is rapidly developing, has a vast military that is getting more technologically advanced, is working on measures and strategies directly geared at opposing or mitigating against United States capabilities, and has made statements about geographic and economic territories that other nations claim sovereignity over. Yet that is a lesser threat against a shadow of a former superpower that, even at the height of its power, never lit a nuclear furnace?
I don't know, but that seems very much like showing statistics that state an African lion is more dangerous (in terms of strength, speed, power) than a human being who is an ax murderer, and forgetting to consider that that ax murderer just bought the house you share the same fence with.
But the Russians also have a dangerous history of expansionism. They recently invaded Georgia, and would love to have Eastern Europe back (Not the “Near Abroad”, but Poland, ect.