Heavy Is our "Mace"?: Missiles

The intensity of going in political circles, the press and online debates about the fate of Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles, is incredibly high. With concrete arguments and a sense self-righteousness of those who defend the "Bulava" who is "blue", who are liquid propellant missiles, who are solid. In this article we are not going into the argument, let's expand the whole knot of problems more or less understandable parts

The controversy, of course, is the future of Russian strategic nuclear forces, which many not without reason, tend to see the main guarantee of state sovereignty of our country. Home of the existing problems of today - the gradual elimination of the failure of the old Soviet ICBM that could carry multiple warheads. This is the case of R-20 (ten warheads) and SD-100H (six warheads).They are replaced by solid, "Topol-M" silo and mobile-based (one warhead on a missile) and RS-24 "Yars" (three warheads). If we consider that the new missile comes into service very slow ("Yarsov" taken into service a total of six), the future is drawn not so rosy: the Strategic Missile Forces will be deployed as a smaller and smaller carriers, and especially weapons. The current START-3 gives Russia the right to have up to 700 deployed and 100 non-deployed carriers and up to 1,550 deployed warheads, but given the current state of affairs there is much doubt that, after writing off all the old rocket technology such figures in our country will be achieved even with the sea and aviation components of the nuclear triad. Where to get as many new missiles?