Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    New START Treaty

    Share
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 12398
    Points : 12877
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  George1 on Wed Mar 11, 2015 5:03 pm

    Reviewing obligations under START treaty not on agenda now — Russian Foreign Ministry

    In future Russia will probably have to analyze observance of START treaty in connection with NATO’s plans to deploy a missile defense system in Europe, a Foreign Ministry official says

    MOSCOW, March 11. /TASS/. Russia is not considering reviewing its obligations under START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty), Deputy Director of Russian Foreign Ministry’s Department on Security Affairs and Disarmament Vladimir Leontyev said on Wednesday.

    "At a certain stage [in the future], Russia will probably have to analyze observance of START treaty in connection with [NATO’s] plans to deploy a missile defense system in Europe," Leontyev said. "However, the issue is not on the agenda at the moment," he added.

    "There is a condition in the START treaty that there is certain connection between strategic offensive and strategic defensive arms," the diplomat said. "It is clearly stated in the preamble to the agreement. It is also stated there that at the moment of signing the treaty, developing strategic defensive weapons — missile defense systems — does not threaten viability and observance of the treaty. But the situation does not stay unchanged. US and NATO’s missile defense plans are progressing," he added.

    "We are attentively following and analyzing the situation, and will continue doing so," Leontyev stressed.
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 12398
    Points : 12877
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  George1 on Sun Apr 05, 2015 2:30 am

    March 2015 New START aggregate numbers released
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2939
    Points : 2964
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  max steel on Mon Apr 06, 2015 9:48 pm

    US having more deployed ICBMS SLBMS . Hmm unshaven


    Well I read a month back where Russia's deployed warheads ( 1643 ) overtook murica's deployed warheads ( 1642) for first time in a decade . But again russia's has reduced its warheads count . dunno
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18971
    Points : 19527
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  GarryB on Wed Apr 08, 2015 9:49 am

    As old ICBMs and SLBMs are retired the missiles that replace them often don't have the same number of warheads so the overall number reduces...
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 12398
    Points : 12877
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  George1 on Fri Apr 17, 2015 2:44 pm

    US Says Cooperation With Russia on New START Treaty "Silver Lining"

    According to the latest data exchange with Russia, the two sides have made a significant progress over the restrictions presumed by the treaty by February 2018, Assistant Secretary of State Frank Rose said.

    The US is satisfied with the cooperation of Russia on the implementation of the 2010 New START treaty, Assistant Secretary of State Frank Rose said.

    The two sides continue to honestly implement the terms of the treaty despite tensions over the Ukrainian crisis and some other international issues, Rose said Thursday at a press-conference on the nuclear disarmament and international security in Colorado Springs.

    The State Department official said the latest events in Ukraine "dramatically complicated" the work to minimize the global nuclear threat, but cooperation with Moscow on the New START treaty remains "a silver lining."

    "At such a hard time it is highly important to maintain transparency in the displacement and deployment of strategic nuclear weapons," he added.

    "According to the latest data exchange with Russia, the two sides have made a significant progress over the restrictions presumed by the treaty by February 2018," Rose said.

    He pointed out that by that time Russian and the US will each have 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads, the smallest number since the beginning of the nuclear arms development.

    The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which lays out the further reduction of deployed strategic nuclear weapons was signed on April 8, 2010, in Prague. It came into force on February 5, 2011. It replaced the old treaty which expired in December 2009. The New START treaty limits the number of the deployed nuclear warheads to 1,550, and the number of intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine ballistic missile and heavy bombers to 700. The document is expected to last at least for 10 years with the possibility to be prolonged for five years by mutual agreement of the two sides.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/politics/20150417/1021006521.html#ixzz3XZOGOFUU

    TheRealist

    Posts : 78
    Points : 112
    Join date : 2012-08-20

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  TheRealist on Sun Apr 19, 2015 7:01 am

    A very interesting provision on the START 1 treaty which restricted the movements of land-based mobile ICBM's are limited and apparently the Americans wanted to keep this on the New START Treaty.

    USNI

    Where mobile missiles are concerned, a rigorous, verifiable inspection regime is a must. It has been said that a long-term collection effort to create a sound intelligence base and target familiarity is essential for missile monitoring in peace or targeting during war1 – hard experience learned by the US following SCUD-hunting in Desert Storm. An example of that kind of rigor is found in the Mobile ICBM provision (Article VI) of START I:

    1. Deployed road-mobile launchers of ICBMs and their associated missiles shall be based only in restricted areas. A restricted area shall not exceed five square kilometers in size and shall not overlap another restricted area. No more than ten deployed road-mobile launchers of ICBMs and their associated missiles may be based or located in a restricted area. A restricted area shall not contain deployed ICBMs for road-mobile launchers of ICBMs of more than one type of ICBM.

    2. Each Party shall limit the number of fixed structures for road-mobile launchers of ICBMs within each restricted area so that these structures shall not be capable of containing more road-mobile launchers of ICBMs than the number of road-mobile launchers of ICBMs specified for that restricted area.

    3. Each restricted area shall be located within a deployment area. A deployment area shall not exceed 125,000 square kilometers in size and shall not overlap another deployment area. A deployment area shall contain no more than one ICBM base for road-mobile launchers of ICBMs.

    4. Deployed rail-mobile launchers of ICBMs and their associated missiles shall be based only in rail garrisons. Each Party shall have no more than seven rail garrisons. No point on a portion of track located inside a rail garrison shall be more than 20 kilometers from any entrance/exit for that rail garrison. This distance shall be measured along the tracks. A rail garrison shall not overlap another rail garrison. (more)
    avatar
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 1384
    Points : 1386
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  Big_Gazza on Sun Apr 19, 2015 12:58 pm

    GarryB wrote:Hahaha... clearly they have found one button to press to upset the Americans...

    Amusing that the US thinks it can impose sanctions on Russia and force its cronies to do the same because it claims Russia is interfering in the Ukraine... it would be easier to name the countries the US isn't directly interfering in than the ones it was...

    I am SO in agreement... Its simply appalling how arrogant these USGov talking heads can be... The hypocrisy is simply unbelievable.

    Do they actually know how absurd their statements are, or are they simply too myopic and mind-wiped to realise?
    avatar
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 1384
    Points : 1386
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  Big_Gazza on Sun Apr 19, 2015 1:02 pm

    TheRealist wrote:A very interesting provision on the START 1 treaty which restricted the movements of land-based mobile ICBM's are limited and apparently the Americans wanted to keep this on the New START Treaty.

    That's hardly a surprise given the US doesn't have any such systems, and has no plans for them in any case.

    Bad Vlad gives his answer using an outstretched index finger....
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2939
    Points : 2964
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  max steel on Sat Apr 02, 2016 3:01 pm

    New START March 2016 aggregate numbers

    Russia declared 1735 deployed warheads, 521 deployed launchers, and 856 total launchers. In September 2015 the numbers were 1648, 526, and 877 respectively.

    The increase of 87 deployed warheads is most likely due to the deployment of Bulava missiles on the Vladimir Monomakh submarine that was completed in April 2015. Some older missiles were apparently withdrawn from service.

    The U.S. numbers in March 2016 were 1481 warheads, 741 deployed and 878 total launchers (1538, 762, and 898 in September 2015).
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 12398
    Points : 12877
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  George1 on Wed Jul 13, 2016 5:02 am

    Even If Russia Agrees to Extend START Treaty, It Will Be on Moscow’s Terms

    In the follow up to recent US media reports that the US President “plans to offer Russia to extend the START treaty after 2021”, Russian military experts responded that Moscow will agree to the extension only after the US meets a number of its requirements.

    The administration of US President Barack Obama is considering offering Russia the opportunity to extend the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, also known as New START, after its expiration in 2021, US media reported on Monday.

    Russian military experts have provided their comments on the released statement.

    Moscow will agree to the extension only after Washington meets a number of its requirements, including cancelation of the deployment of its anti-missile defense system on Russia’s borders and the withdrawal of tactical nuclear weapons from Europe, Igor Korotchenko, editor-in-chief of the magazine Russian National Defense and member of the Russian Defense Ministry's Public Council told RIA Novosti.

    “Moscow will continue negotiations on the further reduction of nuclear arsenals, but only on three conditions,” added the defense analyst.

    First, he said, is the full withdrawal of American tactical nuclear weapons from Europe to US territory. Second – there should be a summarized set-off of nuclear potentials for the US, UK and France on the one hand, and for Russia – on the other.

    And the third – the Americans should sign a legally binding agreement on restrictions on the deployment of their anti-missile defense systems, which could otherwise offset the world’s strategic balance, the military analyst added.

    Korotchenko also noted that in the event of a refusal to fulfill any of the above conditions, any negotiations on the possible reduction of Russia’s nuclear potential are out of the question.

    Additionally, he added, one should take into consideration that in recent decades, the significance of the nuclear potential of the US has steadily fallen due to the non-nuclear high precision weapon systems it has started developing. The high precision of such weapon systems ensures an effect similar to the one produced by nuclear weapons, he explained.

    “In this segment the US has considerable preponderance over Russia. Moreover, it has set up its Global Strike Command, an infrastructure filled up with these high precision weapon systems which are capable of making a strike to any part of the world within 30-40 minutes after such a decision is made by the US president,” said the defense analyst.

    However for Russia, he explained, nuclear weapons remain a “cornerstone” of its national security and the maintenance of the strategic parity in the world. Therefore, he added, Russia will consider any further reduction of its nuclear potential in the context of its own national interests and not on “mythical universal human values.”

    “With regards to the extension of the START-III treaty, Moscow will consider it after complex analysis of all the decisions made at the recent NATO Summit in Warsaw and their possible impact on Russia’s military security,” stated the expert.

    In a separate analysis on the issue, the Russian online newspaper Gazeta.ru noted that Kremlin’s reaction to the US media reports was rather restrained.

    Commenting on the article in The Washington Post, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that the Russian leadership “knows nothing” about the intention of the US president to extend the existing treaty.

    The outlet therefore suggested that Russia might get back to the issue after the US presidential elections, as such negotiations are “too important for the Kremlin to start with the president who is already getting ready to step down.”

    http://sputniknews.com/world/20160712/1042830722/us-russia-nuclear-weapons.html
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18971
    Points : 19527
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    New START treaty

    Post  GarryB on Sat Aug 06, 2016 12:07 pm

    Mark Schneider, a former Pentagon nuclear forces policymaker, said the increase by Russia in deployed warheads is greater than analysts expected and signals Moscow is set to violate New START in the coming months.

    Moscow cannot violate New START in the next couple of months.

    New START sets limits on warheads and launch platforms for the specific date of Feb 2018... the years before and after are not regulated so having the correct amount on that month means full treaty compliance.

    “I believe the odds are that Russia will terminate the treaty in 2017,” Schneider said. “That would pocket all the U.S. reductions, give them more weapons, and it might be seen by [Russian leader Vladimir] Putin as revenge for the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty [withdrawal].”

    Even if Mr Schneider believes is correct that would still not violate the terms of the agreement. Just like the US withdrew from the ABM treaty Russia has every right to do the same from New START.


    Additionally, Russia will be emboldened to pull out of the New START treaty by the failure of the United States to address Russia’s violation of the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty, Schneider said. The treaty bans the construction of intermediate-range ballistic and cruise missiles. Russia breached the accord with a new SS-N-8 cruise missile, U.S. officials have said.

    The INF treaty bans the development of ballistic or cruise missiles whose range exceeds 500km or is less than 5,500km. The US deployment of Standard missiles in their new ABM systems in former eastern european countries already violates the INF treaty...

    “Whether or not the Russians pull the plug on New START, the number of Russian warheads will be much larger than 1,550,” Schneider said, noting state-run Russian press reports put Moscow’s long-term warhead level at 2,100, while a U.S. think tank estimates the Russians will deploy around 2,500 warheads by 2025.

    Russia has no reason to withdraw from the New START treaty... it can withdraw and put in storage all but 1,500 warheads for the period of February 2018 and then after that period bring the weapons and platforms out of storage and back into service.

    “Russia’s apparently low nuclear threshold raises the stakes in any conflict, and compels adversaries to confront the possibility they could become involved, so too would Russian nuclear weapons,” the report said.

    What a bunch of fucking hypocrites... they were talking about nuclear armed bunker buster bombs that would be used in conventional wars and they dare talk about Moscow lowering the nuclear threshold?

    “This has been prominently displayed throughout hostilities in Ukraine, as Russian nuclear exercises, official statements and bomber patrols are intended to intimidate western states.”

    And Nato tanks moving east are peaceful measures to improve peace and stability in the region...

    The report concludes: “Whether it be covering hybrid [warfare] operations, intimidating European states or potentially employing nuclear strikes to defeat a conventionally superior adversary, nuclear weapons and threat of their use are likely to remain, if not grow, in importance for Russia.”

    Western duplicity and fraudulent portrayal of Russia as the Aggressor means Russia cannot rely on the world of the west... it needs the assurance of being able to wipe you fuckers out if it needs to.

    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3753
    Points : 3852
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  kvs on Sat Aug 06, 2016 9:43 pm

    Russia's response to these obvious NATO provocations and hate propaganda needs to be harsh. This would include
    deploying the full spectrum of nuclear missiles and ABM systems without any constraints "in the name of peace".
    NATO does not want peace, so it should not get any.

    If you listen to all the propaganda and yammering by NATO leaders, you would conclude that Russia is some chicken
    shit 3rd world country that is afraid of using its nuclear weapons and does not have the ability to stave off NATO's attacks.
    This is exactly the hubris of Napoleon and Hitler. It's now a mathematical law that the west is diseased with militarist
    arrogance.

    Putin has been sending all sorts of signals recently to warn NATO that it is on an idiotic path. Putin is making the mistake
    that NATO has the mental capacity to listen. To NATO deciders Russia's calls for reason are like the squeaking of some
    mouse before it is crushed in the boot heel. Russia ain't no mouse and can crush NATO. Trying to back Russia into a
    corner is a suicide-by-war move for NATO.
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 12398
    Points : 12877
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  George1 on Thu Oct 20, 2016 12:18 am

    US, Russia Hold Bilateral Consultative Commission on New START Treaty

    Read more: https://sputniknews.com/politics/201610191046477018-usa-russia-stert-treaty/
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3753
    Points : 3852
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  kvs on Thu Oct 20, 2016 1:35 am

    George1 wrote:US, Russia Hold Bilateral Consultative Commission on New START Treaty

    Read more: https://sputniknews.com/politics/201610191046477018-usa-russia-stert-treaty/

    WTF. Does Russia need to bend over and take it from Uncle Scumbag for some reason? How about sending this imperialist goon
    a message and threatening to scrap any existing arms control agreement. Perhaps then the goon will begin to think that his
    ABM does not make in invulnerable.
    avatar
    OminousSpudd

    Posts : 898
    Points : 907
    Join date : 2015-01-03
    Age : 23
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  OminousSpudd on Thu Oct 20, 2016 5:18 am

    kvs wrote:
    George1 wrote:US, Russia Hold Bilateral Consultative Commission on New START Treaty

    Read more: https://sputniknews.com/politics/201610191046477018-usa-russia-stert-treaty/

    WTF.  Does Russia need to bend over and take it from Uncle Scumbag for some reason?   How about sending this imperialist goon
    a message and threatening to scrap any existing arms control agreement.   Perhaps then the goon will begin to think that his
    ABM does not make in invulnerable.
    Hopefully it doesn't mean anything from the Russian side other than to play the US along (they have a habit of playing the burgers). What it does show however is that Skunkle Scam is willing to now negotiate on a new START, this suggests they feel they are on the back foot in terms of Russian capabilities.
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 12398
    Points : 12877
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  George1 on Wed Sep 13, 2017 1:56 pm

    Russia ready to discuss extension of New START treaty with US — diplomat

    "In order to begin those discussions, we need to know that Washington also has this option on table," the Russian diplomat

    MOSCOW, September 12. /TASS/. Moscow is ready to start discussions on expanding the New START treaty for another five-year term if both sides are ready for this, Director of the Russian Foreign Ministry's Non-Proliferation and Weapons Control Department Mikhail Ulyanov said in an interview with the Kommersant daily.

    "In fact, the New START treaty, in force until 2021, has an option of being extended for a five-year period. We have not made our minds yet, but we are ready to consider this option, at least, to discuss it with the US side," he said.

    "In order to begin those discussions, we need to know that Washington also has this option on table," the diplomat said. "So far, we don’t see this."

    The ten-year Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START-3), signed by the Russian and US presidents in Prague on April 8, 2010, took effect on February 5, 2011, after the Russian State Duma (lower house of parliament) and the US Congress had ratified it. The treaty stipulates that both countries should cut the number of deployed strategic delivery vehicles to 700 units and reduce the number of installed warheads to 1,550. The treaty also obligates Russia and the United States to exchange information about the number of warheads and delivery vehicles twice a year.

    According to the information exchanged on March 1, 2017, in compliance with the treaty, Russia currently has a total of 523 deployed strategic delivery vehicles with 1,765 installed warheads, while the United States has as many as 673 delivery vehicles with 1,411 warheads.

    Both countries are expected to reach the level envisaged by the treaty by February 5, 2018.


    More:
    http://tass.com/politics/965298
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3753
    Points : 3852
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  kvs on Wed Mar 21, 2018 1:58 pm

    https://russia-insider.com/en/us-raises-white-flag-wants-talks-russia-over-arms-race/ri22852

    US politicians are panicking over Russia's new wunderwaffe (hypersonic glider warheads, Kinzhal, nuclear powered cruise missiles, etc.) and
    want to negotiate an arms deal.

    I say let them blow in the wind. By no means should Russia engage in arms control at this time. Maybe when America and its minions have
    eased off from the warmongering against Russia. An arms deal would mean surrendering advantages. This would be suicidal considering
    that Washington thinks its ABM Trojan Horse enables it to launch a successful first strike.

    Arrow

    Posts : 280
    Points : 280
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  Arrow on Wed Mar 21, 2018 3:53 pm

    Putin will agree to further strategic reductions Laughing He is ready for further concessions.
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 2863
    Points : 2845
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  miketheterrible on Wed Mar 21, 2018 5:13 pm

    Arrow wrote:Putin will agree to further strategic reductions Laughing He is ready for further concessions.

    Actually, no he isn't. He is up for negotiations but no longer reduction after the ABM issue. Plans are to keep the 1,500 total and no more or less.

    The plan is/was that the potential reductions to 1,000 warheads each side can only happen if US packs up it's ABM systems nearby and leave. But US won't do that. But now US is afraid so they want to negotiate.

    I say negotiate. If US does actually decide to pull back the entire ABM systems nearby, that's good. Then replace majority of Yars, Bulava's, and other weapons with the new hypersonic glide vehicles (individual warheads) each. Then upgrade existing Topol M's with such warheads. And have at least 20 - 30 Sarmats. Then if the US decides to move their ABM systems back, at least the current 1,000 active warheads are all HGV's and the ABM systems are pointless anyway, and reactivate the stored systems. The money saved during that period of time can go into further procurement of nuclear cruise missiles and or tactical missiles overall. Very Happy
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 2518
    Points : 2512
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  Isos on Wed Mar 21, 2018 5:40 pm

    miketheterrible wrote:
    Arrow wrote:Putin will agree to further strategic reductions Laughing He is ready for further concessions.

    Actually, no he isn't. He is up for negotiations but no longer reduction after the ABM issue. Plans are to keep the 1,500 total and no more or less.

    The plan is/was that the potential reductions to 1,000 warheads each side can only happen if US packs up it's ABM systems nearby and leave. But US won't do that. But now US is afraid so they want to negotiate.

    I say negotiate. If US does actually decide to pull back the entire ABM systems nearby, that's good. Then replace majority of Yars, Bulava's, and other weapons with the new hypersonic glide vehicles (individual warheads) each. Then upgrade existing Topol M's with such warheads. And have at least 20 - 30 Sarmats. Then if the US decides to move their ABM systems back, at least the current 1,000 active warheads are all HGV's and the ABM systems are pointless anyway, and reactivate the stored systems.  The money saved during that period of time can go into further procurement of nuclear cruise missiles and or tactical missiles overall. Very Happy

    1000 or 1500 or 2000 nuclear wareheads is fucking big. I think no one really understand how dangerous it is. They could just make them explode inside Russia to end the world. Specially if it liberates the frozen gaz inside Siberia that will be toxic, mixed with the dust cloud that would be produced by the explosion of thousand of nuks and make a nuclear winter that will block the light from the sun going to the earth. Who would want to live then ?
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 2863
    Points : 2845
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  miketheterrible on Wed Mar 21, 2018 5:50 pm

    Isos wrote:
    miketheterrible wrote:
    Arrow wrote:Putin will agree to further strategic reductions Laughing He is ready for further concessions.

    Actually, no he isn't. He is up for negotiations but no longer reduction after the ABM issue. Plans are to keep the 1,500 total and no more or less.

    The plan is/was that the potential reductions to 1,000 warheads each side can only happen if US packs up it's ABM systems nearby and leave. But US won't do that. But now US is afraid so they want to negotiate.

    I say negotiate. If US does actually decide to pull back the entire ABM systems nearby, that's good. Then replace majority of Yars, Bulava's, and other weapons with the new hypersonic glide vehicles (individual warheads) each. Then upgrade existing Topol M's with such warheads. And have at least 20 - 30 Sarmats. Then if the US decides to move their ABM systems back, at least the current 1,000 active warheads are all HGV's and the ABM systems are pointless anyway, and reactivate the stored systems.  The money saved during that period of time can go into further procurement of nuclear cruise missiles and or tactical missiles overall. Very Happy

    1000 or 1500 or 2000 nuclear wareheads is fucking big. I think no one really understand how dangerous it is. They could just make them explode inside Russia to end the world. Specially if it liberates the frozen gaz inside Siberia that will be toxic, mixed with the dust cloud that would be produced by the explosion of thousand of nuks and make a nuclear winter that will block the light from the sun going to the earth. Who would want to live then ?

    People who watched too much mad Max and played too much fallout maybe. But yeah. Would suck balls for sure.
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3753
    Points : 3852
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  kvs on Wed Mar 21, 2018 6:57 pm

    Isos wrote:
    miketheterrible wrote:
    Arrow wrote:Putin will agree to further strategic reductions Laughing He is ready for further concessions.

    Actually, no he isn't. He is up for negotiations but no longer reduction after the ABM issue. Plans are to keep the 1,500 total and no more or less.

    The plan is/was that the potential reductions to 1,000 warheads each side can only happen if US packs up it's ABM systems nearby and leave. But US won't do that. But now US is afraid so they want to negotiate.

    I say negotiate. If US does actually decide to pull back the entire ABM systems nearby, that's good. Then replace majority of Yars, Bulava's, and other weapons with the new hypersonic glide vehicles (individual warheads) each. Then upgrade existing Topol M's with such warheads. And have at least 20 - 30 Sarmats. Then if the US decides to move their ABM systems back, at least the current 1,000 active warheads are all HGV's and the ABM systems are pointless anyway, and reactivate the stored systems.  The money saved during that period of time can go into further procurement of nuclear cruise missiles and or tactical missiles overall. Very Happy

    1000 or 1500 or 2000 nuclear wareheads is fucking big. I think no one really understand how dangerous it is. They could just make them explode inside Russia to end the world. Specially if it liberates the frozen gaz inside Siberia that will be toxic, mixed with the dust cloud that would be produced by the explosion of thousand of nuks and make a nuclear winter that will block the light from the sun going to the earth. Who would want to live then ?

    No. People have no clue about the scale of the energy involved in the global atmosphere-ocean system. A single nuke is a microscopic drop in the ocean. The supposed big impact of a nuclear war will be lots of fires (including forest fires) that will release enough aerosol into the upper troposphere to intercept a substantial amount of sunlight before it reaches the ground and at the same time to increase the IR radiation from the near tropopause layers where the atmosphere becomes optically thin to IR.

    This nuclear winter theory is grossly overblown. Aerosols are removed rapidly by wet scavenging (formation of clouds and rain) and gravitational
    sedimentation. The impact would be basically about two years based on Pinatubo which was actually much more effective because it injected SO2 which rapidly forms sulfate directly into the stratosphere up around 30 km. Fire aerosols will not make it into the stratosphere in any relevant fractions and unlike SO2 will have most of the mass in the coarse modes (well over 1 micron) which are removed the fastest. Detonating 3000 nuclear warheads mostly over urbanized areas will not do all that much to load the troposphere with aerosols (black carbon, sulfate).

    For sure there will be no melting of land ice and permafrost from a nuclear war. So no liberation of clathrates or trapped natural gas whatsoever.

    Project Canada

    Posts : 663
    Points : 666
    Join date : 2015-07-20
    Location : Canada

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  Project Canada on Wed Mar 21, 2018 7:04 pm

    It seems to me that Russia's 1500+ nuclear warheads is not enough of a threat for the likes of US and NATO. I mean just look at how much they yap about Russia.
    Meanwhile, Islam and China are both infiltrating the West, Islam through immigration and birth rate, and China through immigration, stealing of tech, business takeover etc. But God forbid if a westerner points this out, he/she will be hounded down, his/her reputation destroyed, be labelled as racist, bigot, xenophobic, etc

    so could it be that:
    1.6 Billion Mus > 1,500 nukes
    1.4 Billion Chi > 1,500 nukes



    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3753
    Points : 3852
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  kvs on Wed Mar 21, 2018 7:21 pm

    Project Canada wrote:It seems to me that Russia's 1500+ nuclear warheads is not enough of a threat for the likes of US and NATO. I mean just look at how much they yap about Russia.
    Meanwhile, Islam and China are both infiltrating the West, Islam through immigration and birth rate, and China through immigration, stealing of tech, business takeover etc. But God forbid if a westerner points this out, he/she will be hounded down, his/her reputation destroyed, be labelled as racist, bigot, xenophobic, etc

    so could it be that:
    1.6 Billion Mus > 1,500 nukes
    1.4 Billion Chi > 1,500 nukes

    I would prefer about 3000 to 5000 nuclear warheads. The number 1500 and proposed 1000 is getting close to the ABM viability
    limit (circa year 2000 level tech). There should be no nuclear warhead reductions without any control over ABM systems. As
    noted elsewhere, the anti-ABM treaty was the foundation of all disarmament treaties such as START.

    The number 1000 sounds like a lot, but it ain't all that much. With 500 kton warheads, it takes several to take out some hardened
    targets.

    ATLASCUB

    Posts : 424
    Points : 426
    Join date : 2017-02-13

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  ATLASCUB on Wed Mar 21, 2018 8:44 pm

    A lot of speculation and dick measuring contests going on here.

    Here is the constant: START does not benefit Russia. It puts Russia at a disadvantage vs. its adversaries considering the significant imbalance of forces on the conventional realm + the economic power of the adversarial block. Thus, any new START (whatever it's), that furthers the reduction of Russia's nuclear arsenal is like walking into a trap knowingly.

    A new START would only be beneficial for Russia if it sees the reinstatement of the ABM Treaty, (including the complete withdrawal of ABM shields surrounding Russia in Europe/Asia) + strict adherence to the INF by closing the "loopholes".

    Any deal that does not include those is USA giving the finger to Russia and Russia taking it. No amount of spin from Russia fans, or its propaganda arms will make that inconvenient fact disappear.

    As it stands today, Russia is already outnumbered and outgunned. We'll see what we get in the next couple years

    Sponsored content

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Dec 18, 2018 7:23 pm