[chakalakasp]

>Weapon reliability -- particularly on the Russian side. Will many / most of their ICBMs even get off the ground? Will the warheads actually work properly? I'm not saying they're all duds but if I was Russia I'd maybe keep 100 maintained for the sake of demonstration.

From the little I've communicated with people who would know (because they used to be in the IC), the vague answer is "Yes, they would work."

>European Theatre -- Russia needs its subs to try to stop UK / American subs from nuking them so they're not likely deployed around NA (instead hunting for enemies closer to home) and thus can't destroy the silos.

The submarines that launch ballistic nuclear missiles are not the same submarines that hunt the submarines that launch ballistic nuclear missiles. You might want to read up on the wiki on this stuff or something.

[empressplay]

That's a good point. Which leads into the question of how many missile subs already have killer 'tails' just waiting to blow them out of the water when they prep for launch. So what happens then if that first strike is weak?

Either way, a sub-based first-strike is strategically risky. You're far better off hitting a single city and capitalising on the resultant horror.