The notion that Russia might consider using nuclear weapons has captured the attention of observers worldwide, including a columnist from a prominent American publication who weighs in on the matter. A National Interest contributor, Stavros Atlamazoğlu, presents this viewpoint as a topic deserving vigilant monitoring by policymakers and strategic planners alike.
President Vladimir Putin has publicly described Russia as maintaining a modern nuclear triad, a balanced mix of capabilities across land, air, and sea domains. This triad is central to deterrence theory, ensuring retaliation can be launched from multiple directions and through diverse delivery methods. The emphasis on survivability and second-strike capability is viewed by many experts as a foundational element of Moscow’s strategic posture in a volatile global security landscape.
Atlamazoğlu notes that Putin was outlining the capacity of different states to deploy nuclear weapons from the triad’s three physical domains: land-based missiles, air-delivered systems, and sea-based platforms. The argument is that a credible triad strengthens deterrence by guaranteeing retaliation even if one leg of the triangle is disrupted by a surprise attack. This line of reasoning aligns with long-standing doctrines that prize assured retaliation as a safeguard against aggression.
The journalist contends that in a scenario where Russia engages the United States with intercontinental ballistic missiles carrying nuclear warheads, Washington might respond with its own sea-based assets. American submarines stationed worldwide and armed with nuclear weapons are often cited as a crucial element of U.S. second-strike capability, capable of delivering a calibrated response even when land-based systems are compromised. This dynamic underscores the high-stakes nature of modern nuclear deterrence, where credibility of retaliation and the ability to sustain it under pressure determine strategic balance.
According to Atlamazoğlu, Russia is said to possess what is described as the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. Estimates place the number of active warheads around 5,600, supported by more than 300 intercontinental ballistic missiles, and a fleet of 11 nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines. These figures, widely cited by defense analysts, illustrate Moscow’s focus on diversified delivery channels designed to reach across continents and operate beneath the sea’s cover to complicate intelligence efforts by adversaries.
Beyond land-based missiles and submarines, Russian forces maintain air-delivered options, including the Tu-160 and Tu-95MS strategic bombers. These aircraft can carry air-launched cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads, extending Russia’s deterrent reach well beyond its borders. The inclusion of bomber systems into the triad adds flexibility to strategic planning, enabling rapid response options across a range of hypothetical conflict scenarios.
Historically, researchers and scientists have examined how populations might shelter during a nuclear explosion, an area of study that informs civilian preparedness and emergency planning. While those calculations belong to a different era of threat, the underlying concerns about destruction, radiation exposure, and long-term consequences remain a sobering reminder of why strategic stability and prudent policy choices are essential. The ongoing discussion emphasizes the importance of preventing escalation through diplomatic channels, verification regimes, and constructive dialogue among major powers, alongside credible deterrence principles. This conversation highlights the real-world consequences that decisions about nuclear forces can have for global security and everyday life.