Russia Likely Has At Least 10,000 Tactical Nuclear Weapons

[rangerrebew]

Russia Likely Has At Least 10,000 Tactical Nuclear Weapons

What about the possibility of nuclear weapons being developed for the specific purpose of “being used?”
 
Kris Osborn · March 14, 2025


By Kris Osborn, President, Warrior, Center for Military Modernization


Would any use of nuclear weapons, in any capacity or tactical circumstances, invariably lead to massive global destruction? Or is there conceptual space for a military commander to actual envision a “winnable” or “limited” nuclear exchange?  This is indeed an intensely debated and critical question informing US deterrence posture, and it has at times in history led US leaders to proclaim that any use of nuclear weapons, in any circumstances, should be met with the Eisenhower-era promise of “massive retaliation.”  This is no longer a formal US policy, yet the question of potential “response” to a Russian use of nuclear weapons has in recent years been again thrust into a spotlight of danger. Warrior training programs
 
Ultimately, the foundation of nuclear deterrence rests upon a paradox, meaning it introduces the promise of massive, catastrophic death and destruction …. for the sole purpose of “keeping the peace.”  This concept, and the fundamental juxtaposition or irony it involves, was famously articulated during the dawn of the Nuclear Era by Yale Scholar Bernard Brodie. Brodie makes the clear, unambiguous point that, unlike the prevailing approach throughout human history, weapons in the nuclear realm will be built and deployed for the specific purpose of “NOT” being used. A weapon … to not be used .. may seem like a contradiction in terms, yet the premise is the conceptual foundation of strategic deterrence.

https://warriormaven.com/nucleacast-future/russia-likely-has-at-least-10000-tactical-nuclear-weapons

[rangerrebew]

Under democrat control, the military would match them with thousands of crying rooms for the woke troops who have hurt feelings.

[MeganC]

Russia can't afford to maintain 10,000 nuclear weapons. Their entire government budget wouldn't be enough to cover the expense.

[rangerrebew]

Russia can't afford to maintain 10,000 nuclear weapons. Their entire government budget wouldn't be enough to cover the expense.

It can when it's taken from the Hoi Polloi.  Who will they gripe to without winding up in prison?

[MeganC]

It can when it's taken from the Hoi Polloi.  Who will they gripe to without winding up in prison?

Russia can't produce T-14 tanks and those are exponentially easier to produce and maintain than nuclear weapons. Russia would also need 10,000 delivery systems and if they can't manage tank production they definitely can't manage producing and maintaining 10,000 very expensive ICBM and IMRM platforms. Those 10,000 missiles also need 10,000 launch platforms (silos, trucks, rail, aircraft) and they simply lack this level of military infrastructure.

This is just another scary story coming out of the Russian propaganda ministry. Ignore it as the claptrap it obviously is.

[Kamaji]

[rangerrebew]

Russia can't produce T-14 tanks and those are exponentially easier to produce and maintain than nuclear weapons. Russia would also need 10,000 delivery systems and if they can't manage tank production they definitely can't manage producing and maintaining 10,000 very expensive ICBM and IMRM platforms. Those 10,000 missiles also need 10,000 launch platforms (silos, trucks, rail, aircraft) and they simply lack this level of military infrastructure.

This is just another scary story coming out of the Russian propaganda ministry. Ignore it as the claptrap it obviously is.

Good points.