New START Treaty

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.

March 2015 New START aggregate numbers released

US having more deployed ICBMS SLBMS . Hmm


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 .

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

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)

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?

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....

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).

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

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.

US, Russia Hold Bilateral Consultative Commission on New START Treaty

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

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.

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.

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

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 wrote:Putin will agree to further strategic reductions 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.

miketheterrible wrote:

Arrow wrote:Putin will agree to further strategic reductions 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.

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 ?

Isos wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:

Arrow wrote:Putin will agree to further strategic reductions 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.

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.

Isos wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:

Arrow wrote:Putin will agree to further strategic reductions 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.

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.

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

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.

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