This is not something that lets Russian leaders sleep well at night:
The new Russian Graney (Yasen) class SSGN (nuclear powered cruise missile sub) has been delayed for the second time this year. Recent sea trials revealed that the nuclear reactor did not produce the required power and that the ability of the boat to remain quiet while under water was not working. An underpowered and noisy sub is not acceptable and the navy is demanding that the builder make it all better before 2014. That may not be possible because during the 1990s lack of work, and money, meant that most of the best people left the firms that produced nuclear subs and their complex components. Those left behind have produced a growing list of embarrassing failures.
Russia desperately needs a survivable nuclear submarine force. They need SSBNs (ballistic missile nuclear submarines) for a nuclear missile deterrent force; and SSNs (nuclear attack submarines) to protect the SSBNs from hostile submarines.
Static land-based missiles even in hardened silos are far more vulnerable to being destroyed by an enemy first strike--and maybe not even with nuclear missiles as conventional technology improves. Russia has a long border with China who could pose a threat to Russia's land-based missiles.
If China can then also go after Russia's sea-based nuclear deterrent, Russia has real problems since nukes are their only way they can currently defend their border against a serious land invasion the way China's modernizing military could carry out.
As I think about it, China's "carrier killer" DF-21s, with their ability to hunt moving targets, might be far more useful to China as a weapon to target the most survivable element of Russia's land-based nuclear arsenal--mobile ballistic missiles. Maybe the anti-carrier hype is more of a red herring than the actual focus of the missiles (not to suggest that an anti-carrier capability wouldn't be very useful to China).
Russia has bigger problems than worrying about a non-existent NATO threat to them. So many people have suggested we have been obsessed with fighting terrorism at the expense of other foreign policy issues. Why does Russia seem to uniquely believe we care enough to be out to get them?
