A single Russian nuclear submarine can carry 800 nuclear warheads [edit: Misread a number; 96 is apparently the max. Still, enough.]. The chances of Russia getting down to twelve nukes after a first strike - even if they don't get off a response while they're in flight - is slim.
The nuclear-powered cruise missiles and Poseidon bomb are just Russia's versions of the V weapons in WWII; flashy, but not actually useful, and taking resources from the more staid and boring aspects like "keep your logistics vehicles' tires from exploding".
> A single Russian nuclear submarine can carry 800 nuclear warheads.
A Borei class submarine can carry 16 missiles with up to 6 warheads each, for 96 total. The older Delta class can carry 16 missiles with 4 warheads each for 64 total. The 800 warheads is the total capacity of Russia's entire fleet, not all of which are active at any given time.
Apologies, I misread; still enough to overwhelm current ABM systems with a single sub, even if you discount the rest, the bomber fleet, and any mobile or hardened ICBMs that survive the first wave.
Russia has little to fear from ABM. North Korea is probably a bit grumpy about it.
In the 80s, most teens could rattle off some measure of nuclear stats, in between bouts of jingoistic refrains. We were more technically literate, and still dangerously stupid.
"Just reiterates how important it is to ensure that weapons of mass destruction are kept in the secure custody of competent authorities. Not only in America, Russia and China, but the rest of the world as well." Given the governments mentioned, the first and second sentence would appear to be in contradiction.
>is there really that serious a lack of information in the world's general populace on how nuclear war would likely play out given the capabilities of all the delivery platforms?
Of course there is. There's a serious lack of information in the world's general populace in pretty much everything. Most people have at best a surface level oversimplified understanding of most things and then probably a few things they're reasonably well-informed about, and nobody's an expert in everything.
>Just reiterates how important it is to ensure that weapons of mass destruction are kept in the secure custody of competent authorities.
Looking at our national leaders (esp. in Russia), your idea of "competent authorities" is obviously completely insane. Competent authorities wouldn't have built these things in the first place, nor would they be waging wars of conquest.
There’s a narrative in some Western spaces of “we can probably survive a nuclear war against Russia quite intact”, a narrative which I find batshit insane crazy.
I see this in GP’s comment, he/she talks at length about how a nuclear war might look like without mentioning the subs even once, because if he/she had done so the whole argument would have fallen flat on its face.
Assuming for a moment NATO can perfectly track each and every Russian submarine and take them all out at once, you've still got the Strategic Rocket Forces to contend with, especially their mobile launchers.
There's no feasible way the US can hit Russia with a first strike and not receive a nuclear strike in return. MAD remains in place, even if the US can knock down a few dozen missiles with ABMs.
The nuclear-powered cruise missiles and Poseidon bomb are just Russia's versions of the V weapons in WWII; flashy, but not actually useful, and taking resources from the more staid and boring aspects like "keep your logistics vehicles' tires from exploding".