Putin Has Enough Nuclear Weapons to Kill Everyone on Earth

Russia has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world, a troubling fact compounded by Putin’s consistent threatening rhetoric about the possibility of using such weapons in Ukraine or elsewhere. 

Putin has enough nuclear weapons to ensure every man, woman, and child would die if he released his entire nuclear arsenal in a war – and then some. 

The Details 

Details published by the Federation of American Scientists state that Putin controls at least 5,977 nuclear warheads, as compared with the 5,428 controlled by the US.

Alongside the simple question of quantity, there are other pressing concerns related to the Russian nuclear arsenal, such as the amount of tactical nuclear weapons and advanced missiles such as nuclear-capable hypersonic missiles.

Many news reports from Russia’s TASS News Agency have pointed to Russia’s developing Avangard ICBM, which is reportedly capable of reaching hypersonic speeds.

Does this mean Russia may soon have ICBMs able to cross continents at hypersonic speed? Certainly, the threat of rapid attack is likely to generate concern.

This pertains to the question of “numbers” or the thousands of nuclear weapons possessed by Russia. 

Nuclear Weapons Triad

Essentially, should Russia have enough nuclear weapons, could it conceive of the possibility of launching a massive “salvo” of missiles in order to overwhelm or destroy an adversary before there is an opportunity for the attacked country to respond?

This contingency is precisely why the Pentagon needs a nuclear triad so that an undersea or air platform can ensure complete and total destruction of the attacking country even if land-based ICBMs and defenses were overwhelmed. 

Tactical But Questionably Strategic

The mere existence of tactical nuclear weapons raises the concern that the barrier or threshold to nuclear war may be lowered, therefore making it more likely. There is also of course the risk that Russia could use a tactical nuclear weapon in an effort to win a “limited” nuclear war of some kind or merely use nuclear weapons without facing complete annihilation from a counterattack. 

Such questions continue to occupy critical space in the minds of decision-makers and policy creators, who often debate whether any use of nuclear weapons should be met with complete annihilation in response. Others may think that a “measured” or more limited reaction may be optimal as a way to prevent global destruction.

Such questions have resonated throughout ongoing debates as to whether the U.S. should operate tactical and lower-yield nuclear weapons.

Proponents over the years have often argued that a versatile nuclear arsenal, which includes tactical weapons and lower-yield nuclear bombs, gives decision-makers a wider range of options with which to implement a deterrence posture. 

MORE: Why Putin Fears the M1 Abrams Tank

MORE: I Went to War in the Leopard 2 Tank Ukraine Wants

Kris Osborn is the Military Affairs Editor of 19FortyFive and President of Warrior Maven – Center for Military Modernization. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University.