I suggest you to research Minuteman force modernization programs since 1996. Later you can easily compare them with Russian "modernization" of old Soviet ICBMs. Note US ICBMs are solid propelled and old Soviet ones use liquid propellant.
You claim that I can easily compare. However I do not have the information on the criteria and testing procedures used to extend the lifetime of our ICBMs. Do you? If so please provide the evidence. I am aware of the Minuteman modernizations. They are beside the point.
Of course I know that about 30 or so old UR-100N missiles once brought from Ukraine and now kept dry in storage. However I mean operationally deployed missiles staying dry in silos. It is an obvious idiocy because such missiles cannot be launched on alert. This is some first generation ICBMs force posture!
From what I understand some regular missiles are also kept in dry storage, and are only kept in ready mode when they come on to combat duty (боевое дежурство).
Supposedly you are not careful enough! Here you are a proof:
Silo-based RS-24 - Blog - Russian strategic nuclear forces
All my respect for Pavel's blog notwithstanding, he is simplifying in the assumption that he is dealing with a well informed reader. The exact nature of the RS-24 was debated earlier on Pavel's blog and the results were inconclusive. It takes some serious evidence for you to be able to state that the RS-24 is "a MIRVed Topol-M". For one you would require technical information on the RS-24 or an official MoD statement claiming as much. Do you have either one?
Yes but only unless US deploy global missile defense systems which easily intercepts 40 remaining Russian warheads. I think everything goes in that direction and what is worse Russia becoming second rank nuclear power won't be able to save strategic offensive parity with the US and simultaneously cannot deploy its own national-wide ABM system due to technological and financial gaps. Both facts will result lack of Russian deterrence in any open confrontation with US. Moreover Americans always pissed on Russian TNWs because they cannot reach CONUS - look at all US-USSR arms negotiations. Now Russian offensive TNW delivery systems are old and much less numerous than during Soviet era: very short ranged Tochka SRBM, Su-24M carrying gravity bombs only, maybe some anti-ship missiles on a few naval platforms if Russian does not respect 1991 Bush-Gorbachev unofficial agreement and that is all. In other words they can be intercepted or preemptively destroyed by US forward positioned forces quite easily. However US tactical nukes carrying platforms (CVBGs, SSNs, tactical aircrafts) are now outside Russian reach being well protected. Therefore US possess also tactical nuclear supremacy over Russia.
You ignored what I wrote... I wrote: reliably deliver 30-40 warheads.
There is no doubt that the possibility is currently there, and will remain there for the next decade or so. After that, time will tell. Neither you nor I can predict accurately.
