Russia pursued research and development, life extension programs, nuclear weapons modernization, and force modernization beginning in the 1990s, despite funding limitations and political infighting. Their major limiting factor remains funding for production and manufacturing of new systems and weapons, which typically suffer delays. Despite acquisition troubles, Russia’s development and modernization programs are on firmer ground than the United States. The United States NNSA modernization plan is constrained by budget battles and sequester in a period of declining defense budgets. It also suffers from a lack of political support. The American modernization program was the bargain the Obama administration struck with Republican and Democrat hawks in the Senate to obtain New START ratification. Since then, the administration has shown varied levels of support for the project, and support in Congress is shifting, especially among budget hawks.
This is the essential difference between the American and Russian program. While both the U.S. and Russian weapons engineering and development programs face steep challenges, the Russian program has significant political support and has received sporadic budgetary attention. The American program continues to face political opposition and increasing delay due to budgetary constraints. The Russians are fielding new systems and platforms now. The United States hopes to begin fielding new systems just before the end of New START, but if current trends hold, those programs may suffer further delays or even cancellation. Given that, it is entirely possible that Russia will have a newer, sounder nuclear triad than the United States in 2021, though it may be smaller than what Russia currently possesses. Given recent economic hardships that possibility looks increasingly unlikely, but it remains a possibility, and the price of oil (and the Russian economy) can rebound quickly.
Qualitative differences between the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals are difficult to measure. The Russian arsenal is qualitatively different from American weapons and in ways that make the two difficult to compare directly. In addition to greater throw weights, the Russian arsenal is vastly more diverse, and multipurpose, especially in its non-strategic arsenal. Russian warheads may have simpler designs than U.S. weapons, with greater design tolerances that increase their reliability.
Technological and conventional force weakness also affects the Russian triad in submarine and air warfare. For instance, the ability of American planes to penetrate Russian airspace is likely greater than Russia’s ability to penetrate American and NATO airspaces, though the recent escalation of Russian air and sea incursions into US and NATO air space and territorial waters suggests that the Russians intend to challenge. Similarly, new American attack submarines are technically superior to Russian boats, though they also suffer production delays due to cost constraints and technical problems. The Russians are also increasingly concerned about American standoff conventional force capabilities and long range conventional strike munitions, which they see as a threat to their nuclear deterrent (Blank 2011).
Fundamentally, conventional force weakness is behind current Russian nuclear strategy. Russia does not rule out first-use and considers the use of tactical weapons an integral part of its defense planning (Blank 2011; Mysanikov 2013; Trenin 2005). According to national security documents and military doctrines signed by President Medvedev in 2010:
The Russian Federation reserves the right to utilize nuclear weapons in response to the utilization of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and (or) its allies, and also in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation involving the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is under threat (Blank 2010).
There is also some debate about Russian willingness to use nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive strike. The above statement avoided the term, but it continues to leave room for such action. Given these and other statements, as well as the continued development and deployment of a wide range of nuclear and nuclear capable systems, the importance of nuclear weapons to Russian security strategy is likely to continue into the future.
 This concept comes from a 2012 conversation between the author and a nuclear scientist who worked on a recent report evaluating the effect of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty on U.S. stockpile reliability.
Bernhow, Mark A. 2005. US Strategic and Defensive Missile Systems 1950-2004. University Park, IL: Osprey Publishing Limited.
Black, Ian. 2013. “Iran nuclear deal: Saudi Arabia and Gulf react with caution.” The Guardian. November 24. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/24/iran-nuclear-deal-middle-east-reaction-saudi-arabia (November 26, 2013).
Blank, Stephen J., ed. 2010. Russian Military Politics and Russia’s 2010 Defense Doctrine. Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute.
_____. 2011. Russian Nuclear Weapons: Past, Present, and Future. Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute.
Butler, Desmond. 2012. “Obama faces bumps with Russian Policy.” Associated Press November 12. http://hosted2.ap.org/ORBEN/1e38c7a90bbb42c9bda8ea8c454a5424/Article_2012-11-12-US-Russia-Analysis/id-5256ddc8489a4bb6b02015f594319eb7 (November 24, 2012)
Cimbala, Stephen J. 2008. Shield of Dreams: Missile Defense and U.S.-Russian Nuclear Strategy. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press.
Cimbala, Stephen J. and Peter Rainow. 2007. Russia and Postmodern Deterrence: Military Power and Its Challenges for Security. Washington, D.C.: Potomac Books.
Diakov, Anatoly S. 2011. Verified Reduction of Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons. http://www.armscontrol.ru (November 29, 2013).
Federation of American Scientists (FAS). 2013. “Russia/Soviet Nuclear Forces Guide.” http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia (November 25, 2013).
_____. 2013. “U.S. Nuclear Forces Guide.” http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa (November 27, 2013).
Friedber, Aaron L. 2000. In the Shadow of the Garrison State: America’s Anti-Statism and Its Cold War Grand Strategy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Giles, Keir, and Centre Conflict Studies Research. 2011. The State of the NATO-Russia Reset. Oxford: Conflict Studies Research Centre.
Hildreth, Steven A., and Carl Ek. 2010. "Missile Defense and NATO's Lisbon Summit.” Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service.
Hildreth, Steven A., and Amy F. Woolf. 2010. "Ballistic Missile Defense and Offensive Arms Reductions: A Review of the Historical Record.” Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service.
Kristensen, Hans M. and Robert S. Norris. 2013. “US nuclear forces, 2013.” Bulletin of Atomic Scientists 69(2): 77–86.
_____. 2013. “Russian nuclear forces, 2013.” Bulletin of Atomic Scientists 69(3): 71–81.
Mamontov, Sergei. 2013. “Russia Skeptical Over Obama’s New Nuclear Reduction Proposal.” RIA Novosti. June 19. http://en.ria.ru/russia/20130619/181755868.html (November 22, 2013).
Mankoff, Jeffrey. 2012. Russian Foreign Policy: The Return of Great Power Politics. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Msyanikov, Yevgeny. 2013. “On the role of nuclear weapons in international politics and in the security of Russia and its allies.” Speech at the International Summer School of the PIR Center on Global Security. July 3. Google translation. http://www.armscontrol.ru/pubs/ em070313.html (November 25, 2013).
Nichols, Tom, Douglas Stuart, and Jeffrey D. McCausland, eds. 2012. Tactical Nuclear Weapons and NATO. Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute.
Obama, Barack. 2013. “Remarks by President Obama at the Brandenburg Gate – Berlin, Germany.” The White House Office of the Press Secretary. June 19. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/19/remarks-president-obama-brandenburg-gate-berlin-germany (November 25, 2013).
O’Rourke, Ronald. 2013. Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service.
Peoples, Columba. 2010. Justifying Ballistic Missile Defence Technology, Security, and Culture. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pifer, Steven and Michael E. O’Hanlon. 2012. The Opportunity: Next Steps in Reducing Nuclear Arms. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institute Press.
Podvig, Pavel. 2001. Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Rhodes, Richard. 1986. The Making of the Atomic Bomb. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Samson, Victoria. 2010. American Missile Defense: A Guide to the Issues. Santa Barbara, Calif.: Praeger.
Schneider, Mark B. 2012. “Russian Nuclear Modernization.” Talking Points from speech to Air Force Association. June 20. Washington, D.C.: National Institute for Public Policy.
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). 2013. SIPRI Yearbook 2013: Armaments, Disarmament and International Security. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sauer, Tom. 2011. Eliminating Nuclear Weapons: The Role of Missile Defense. New York: Columbia University Press.
Segal, Gerard. 2002. “Strategic Nuclear Missiles, Warheads, and Throw-Weights of United States and USSR, 1964-82.” Brezhnev Reconsidered. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sokolski, Henry D., ed. 2012. The Next Arms Race. Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute.
Sutyagin, Igor. 2012. Atomic Accounting: A New Estimate of Russia’s Non-Strategic Nuclear Forces. London: Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies.
Trenin, Dmitri. 2005. Russia’s Nuclear Policy in the 21st Century Environment. Paris: Institut francais des relations internationales.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). National Nuclear Security Administration. 2013. Fiscal Year 2014 Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan, Report to Congress, June 2013. Washington, D.C.: Department of Energy.
Voice of Russia UK. 2013. “Lavrov: nuclear arms reductions not limited to Russia and US.” RIA Novosti. June 22. http://voiceofrussia.com/uk/2013_06_22/Lavrov-nuclear-arms-reductions-Russia-and-US (November 27, 2013).
Woolf, Amy F. U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces: Background, Developments, and Issues. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service.
Wilkening, Dean A. 2010. "Nuclear Zero and Ballistic Missile Defence." Survival 52: 107-26.
———. 2012. "Moscow Conference Highlights NATO-Russian Gap on Missile Defense.” World Politics Review May 4.