Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    New START Treaty

    Share

    Big_Gazza
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 507
    Points : 531
    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?

    Big_Gazza
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 507
    Points : 531
    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....

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    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 Some older missiles were apparently withdrawn from service.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).

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9423
    Points : 9915
    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


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    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.



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2507
    Points : 2640
    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.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  GarryB on Sun Aug 07, 2016 2:21 pm

    The INF treaty no longer makes any sense.

    During the cold war 500-5000km range missiles were massively destabilising as they could be fired at little to no warning and there was little defence against a 1,500km+ range missile with of course very short reaction times... which meant a reaction time of a minute or two practically made such decisions hair trigger decisions.

    Now ABM and air defence performance has greatly improved and an interception could be attempted before full nuclear retaliation is needed.

    As it stands the INF treaty only applies to Russia and the US, but the US has little to no need for intermediate range missiles... its home based missiles must be ICBMs to reach Russia anyway.

    For Russia the ability to make IRBMs would make its defence capability much cheaper.

    I would suspect the Russians will withdraw from the INF treaty before they withdraw from the new START treaty, though the latter might be threatened as a response to a europe based ABM system for the US.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    eehnie
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 564
    Points : 589
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  eehnie on Sun Aug 07, 2016 4:47 pm

    I do not think Russia will withdraw this treaty, that is obviously very Europe oriented.

    Actually the US can be more interested in the failure of this Treaty than Russia. This Treaty virtually protects almost all the European Russia from attacks with american Surface-Surface missiles from Europe and the Middle East. It almost means that the US only can attack the European Russia with Surface-Surface missiles from North America, Australia Japan and South Korea, and very difficult to do it, except from North America, without put the missiles flying over China or India.

    If the deployment of Surface-Air missiles of defensive nature make the tensions to raise, what would we see if american Surface-Surface attack missiles would be deployed. I'm sure the US wish it. Strategically this Treaty is still very interesting for Russia in the protection of the European Russia.

    It is necessary to note that Europe has not developed Surface-Surface missiles after the Treaty. This treaty is what almost kills the use of Surface-Surface missiles by the Nato.

    And also it is necessary to remember that European governments like Germany expressed support in 2009 to the withdrawal of the US nuclear weapons from Europe (all to be used from aerial platforms).

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  GarryB on Mon Aug 08, 2016 2:24 am

    I do not think Russia will withdraw this treaty, that is obviously very Europe oriented.

    In the 1980s it was very valuable to the Soviets because the short range missiles it banned were short range short flight time weapons that could deliver a nuclear warhead to western Russia in a few minutes which made decision making about retaliation a hair trigger event... very dangerous.

    Now such weapons can be shot down, so the hair trigger issue is removed... a small object moving from NATO territory to Russian airspace at mach 5-7 is not going to be a civilian airliner that has lost its way.


    Actually the US can be more interested in the failure of this Treaty than Russia. This Treaty virtually protects almost all the European Russia from attacks with american Surface-Surface missiles from Europe and the Middle East. It almost means that the US only can attack the European Russia with Surface-Surface missiles from North America, Australia Japan and South Korea, and very difficult to do it, except from North America, without put the missiles flying over China or India.

    The INF treaty only applies to the US and Russia so there is nothing to stop France or Germany from deploying cruise or ballistic missiles that would violate the INF treaty if they had signed it. In fact Poland is buying cruise missiles and the US it putting Standard missiles in two eastern european countries that already violates the INF treaty anyway.

    More importantly it only bans land based missiles so the thousands of land attack cruise missiles on US ships are not banned by the treaty... just like the new land attack missiles the Russian Navy are busy deploying are also not limited by the INF treaty.

    If the deployment of Surface-Air missiles of defensive nature make the tensions to raise, what would we see if american Surface-Surface attack missiles would be deployed. I'm sure the US wish it. Strategically this Treaty is still very interesting for Russia in the protection of the European Russia.

    Actually the removal of the treaty would allow the Russians to build much cheaper smaller missiles to deal with threats in the Middle East and Europe... threats they currently have to deal with using ICBMs or SLBMs.


    It is necessary to note that Europe has not developed Surface-Surface missiles after the Treaty. This treaty is what almost kills the use of Surface-Surface missiles by the Nato.

    Actually Britain, Italy and France has land attack cruise missiles in air launched versions and the French have a ship launched version.

    It really does not matter how it is launched... cruise missiles are a threat that the INF treaty does little about.

    And also it is necessary to remember that European governments like Germany expressed support in 2009 to the withdrawal of the US nuclear weapons from Europe (all to be used from aerial platforms).

    Who cares?

    The Soviets withdrew their troops from Eastern Europe and the US has now moved its troops into eastern europe. Being able to target those forces directly with small light weapons like Iskander with a range of 1,000-2,000km range would be useful and much cheaper than having to use ICBMs.

    It would also free up Russias strategic nuclear forces for strategic nuclear roles instead of tactical theatre roles.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    eehnie
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 564
    Points : 589
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  eehnie on Mon Aug 08, 2016 5:23 am

    GarryB wrote:
    eehnie wrote:And also it is necessary to remember that European governments like Germany expressed support in 2009 to the withdrawal of the US nuclear weapons from Europe (all to be used from aerial platforms).

    Who cares?

    With Germany being one of the only four European countries where US nuclear weapons are deployed (with Italy, Belgium and Netherlands), it seems pretty important to me.

    GarryB wrote:The INF treaty only applies to the US and Russia so there is nothing to stop France or Germany from deploying cruise or ballistic missiles that would violate the INF treaty if they had signed it. In fact Poland is buying cruise missiles and the US it putting Standard missiles in two eastern european countries that already violates the INF treaty anyway.

    More importantly it only bans land based missiles so the thousands of land attack cruise missiles on US ships are not banned by the treaty... just like the new land attack missiles the Russian Navy are busy deploying are also not limited by the INF treaty.

    Deploying the SS-26 Iskander missiles, that are not banned by the Treaty in Kaliningrad, Briansk, Crimea and in the borders of the Balitc countries, Findland and Georgia, Russia would have within 500Km:

    - All Estonia
    - All Latvia
    - All Lithuania
    - All Finland
    - Almost all Poland (including all the major cities)
    - Almost all Moldova (including all the major cities)
    - Almost all Ukraine except a portion in the South West of the country.
    - Almost all the Baltic Sea.
    - Almost all the Black Sea.
    - Important parts of Sweden (including Stockholm and Malmö)
    - The coast of Romania
    - Part of the coast of Bulgaria
    - The North of Norway
    - Small part of Denmark (including Copenhague)
    - Small part of NE Germany

    - All Georgia
    - Part of Turkey

    While at same time, Moskow and most of the European Russia would be out of range for potential US land weapons deployed in these countries in agreement with the Treaty.

    Some of these countries can buy some missile, but without nuclear warheads, because the US, UK or France will not sale or give them.

    Not a need to break the Treaty for Russia to deal with them.

    And I think it is necessary to remember again that while it was not banned by the Treaty, no-one of the European countries developed missiles (even of long range) to carry nuclear warheads. Like it is not in the interest of Europe to raise tensions with Russia, also it is not in the interest of Russia to raise tensions with Europe.

    To deal with soume problem with these countries, it would be far smarter since the point of Russia than to deploy the SS-26 Iskander in these areas than to break the Treaty.

    Other thing is to deal with the cruise missiles. For it Russia needs other things also allowed by this Treaty.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  GarryB on Tue Aug 09, 2016 6:27 am

    With Germany being one of the only four European countries where US nuclear weapons are deployed (with Italy, Belgium and Netherlands), it seems pretty important to me.

    Germany expressed support for... who cares?

    It is a decision made in Washington... Germans have no say.

    Their expressions or opinions are meaningless.


    Deploying the SS-26 Iskander missiles, that are not banned by the Treaty in Kaliningrad, Briansk, Crimea and in the borders of the Balitc countries, Findland and Georgia, Russia would have within 500Km:

    - All Estonia
    - All Latvia
    - All Lithuania
    - All Finland
    - Almost all Poland (including all the major cities)
    - Almost all Moldova (including all the major cities)
    - Almost all Ukraine except a portion in the South West of the country.
    - Almost all the Baltic Sea.
    - Almost all the Black Sea.
    - Important parts of Sweden (including Stockholm and Malmö)
    - The coast of Romania
    - Part of the coast of Bulgaria
    - The North of Norway
    - Small part of Denmark (including Copenhague)
    - Small part of NE Germany

    - All Georgia
    - Part of Turkey

    Again... nothing that Washington or Brussels or London give a crap about.

    For all the US cares you could fit dirty nukes to Iskanders and pummel those areas to your hearts content... they don't care.

    At worst Russia would be hitting some forward deployed US soldiers, but otherwise that is the role of the cannon fodder European countries...

    While at same time, Moskow and most of the European Russia would be out of range for potential US land weapons deployed in these countries in agreement with the Treaty.

    Land based weapons... is the US and most of NATO a land based force or do they have naval and air based components?

    Not a need to break the Treaty for Russia to deal with them.

    The Soviet Union signed the INF treaty because the threat of a mistake was very high and only having a few minutes between full nuclear retaliation or deciding it was a false reading made things very dangerous.

    Now it is not an issue and with aggressive NATO stationing of forces directed at Russia, Russia could use cheaper options for defence... 10,000 land based 4,000km range cruise missiles plus some ballistic missiles threatening all of Europe and the Middle East would be more valuable to Russia than the INF treaty that the US already violates anyway.

    Like it is not in the interest of Europe to raise tensions with Russia, also it is not in the interest of Russia to raise tensions with Europe.

    Military forces are being moved to Russias borders... tensions are already being raised by the US.

    To deal with soume problem with these countries, it would be far smarter since the point of Russia than to deploy the SS-26 Iskander in these areas than to break the Treaty.

    It would be easier and cheaper to introduce long range cruise missiles and longer range ballistic missiles than have to deploy Iskander all over the place... the former could already be deployed in standard shipping crates and pre deployed all over european Russia.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    eehnie
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 564
    Points : 589
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  eehnie on Wed Aug 10, 2016 9:14 am

    Sorry Garry, but you are not understanding the way most of the European countries see their own defense. While the US sees the NATO as an instrument to try to have more countries involved in the military support of their political goals, most of the European countries seen the NATO only as an instrument to assure their own defense. Europe follows the US but in a minimum degree in most of the cases.

    I'm sure that Russia is able to see how the US are trying to raise the tensions between Europe and Russia. And I'm sure that Russia understands how this Treaty affects not to the defense of the US in its own territory. To break this Treaty only would make that many European countries feel more endangered, raise their defense budgets, in most of the cases to buy American military equipment. Also would open the door to many more new nuclear weapons in Europe looking at Russia.

    Today Russia can hit every geographical point of Europe with land, sea and air based nuclear weapons. The inverse case is not a reality, and it shows the attitude of most of the European countries toward Russia. The alone effect for Russia about to break this Treaty would be to allow, to impulse, the inverse situation becoming real.

    Obviously to break this Treaty is the wrong direction for Russia, and I'm pretty sure Russia will not do it. In fact it is something that the US would like, and even can promote.

    Russia has some concrete concerns, but I'm sure they will find the right way to deal with them.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  GarryB on Wed Aug 10, 2016 11:35 am

    Sorry Garry, but you are not understanding the way most of the European countries see their own defense.

    I appreciate you are giving a European perspective on this, but I suggest that NATO is America.

    If the US didn't want NATO then it would not exist.

    Any number of European countries could decide to withdraw from NATO and it would make no difference at all, but if the US withdrew NATO would stop being what it is... an instrument to pressure the Soviet Union and now Russia.

    While the US sees the NATO as an instrument to try to have more countries involved in the military support of their political goals, most of the European countries seen the NATO only as an instrument to assure their own defense. Europe follows the US but in a minimum degree in most of the cases.

    I suspect the US sees NATO as a way of turning europeans against Russia to stop any integration of Russia with europe.

    It is not just Russia that threatens the hegemony of the US over the whole world... Europe with Russia or Europe with China or indeed Russia with China or just a lot of developed countries (ie BRICSA).... all have to be kept in the US camp or fighting each other.

    India or China or Russia or many other countries could become powerful... and serious rivals to the US... the best way to keep them down is to keep them fighting amongst themselves and preventing relations with the rest of the west.

    I'm sure that Russia is able to see how the US are trying to raise the tensions between Europe and Russia. And I'm sure that Russia understands how this Treaty affects not to the defense of the US in its own territory. To break this Treaty only would make that many European countries feel more endangered, raise their defense budgets, in most of the cases to buy American military equipment. Also would open the door to many more new nuclear weapons in Europe looking at Russia.

    Instead of having to destroy London or Brussels or Paris with a TOPOL ICBM being able to do it with a cheap land based 5,000km range cruise missile would make things much cheaper for Russia.

    Having to build a new integrated air defence network will cost NATO so much they will likely bankrupt themselves.

    Today Russia can hit every geographical point of Europe with land, sea and air based nuclear weapons. The inverse case is not a reality, and it shows the attitude of most of the European countries toward Russia. The alone effect for Russia about to break this Treaty would be to allow, to impulse, the inverse situation becoming real.

    Only by using the limited in number ICBMs can they hit any part of Europe with nuclear weapons from land based systems... Having IRBMs will overwhelm any ABM system the US introduces into europe and also having ground based cruise missiles will further expand their capability and ensure MAD.

    Obviously to break this Treaty is the wrong direction for Russia, and I'm pretty sure Russia will not do it. In fact it is something that the US would like, and even can promote.

    The US will not care really, except that there will be more ICBM warheads going to their shores in a future WWIII.

    I suspect they would prefer Putin tear up the INF treaty than the New START as anaemic and pathetic as the latter is.

    Russia has some concrete concerns, but I'm sure they will find the right way to deal with them.

    Russia hasn't got many effective buttons they can push to piss off the Americans, but New Start and the INF treaty are two of the easiest and most obvious.

    More importantly Russian technology has moved to the point where nuclear weapons on IRBMs in no longer critical to their effectiveness either.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    eehnie
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 564
    Points : 589
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  eehnie on Wed Aug 10, 2016 5:01 pm

    To talk about to destroy European capitals with cheap nuclear missiles really makes not sense. As complex as the missiles can be, the nuclear force is not expensive compared to the conventional force. Also the difference of costs between missiles of this nature is far more influenced by the technological level of the missiles than by the amount of fuel. The goal with nuclear missiles is not to make them cheap, is to make them as advanced as possible.

    The INF and the START III Treaties are of very different nature and their rupture would have very different consequences.

    While to cancel the INF Treaty makes not sense for Russia, because is a treaty very oriented to Europe, (Europe is clearly underdefended compared to Russia), to cancel the START III can be different. To have more nuclear warheads looking at the US can hurt more to them.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 12, 2016 1:08 pm

    To talk about to destroy European capitals with cheap nuclear missiles really makes not sense. As complex as the missiles can be, the nuclear force is not expensive compared to the conventional force. Also the difference of costs between missiles of this nature is far more influenced by the technological level of the missiles than by the amount of fuel. The goal with nuclear missiles is not to make them cheap, is to make them as advanced as possible.

    Actually the purpose is defensive... the idea is not to make thousands of IRBMs so they can be used to destroy europe or anyone else.

    The idea that any US ABM system in the US or Europe can only ever handle x number of threats at one time. Having thousands of targets for it means it will be overwhelmed and defeated so most of the missiles will get through.

    If the US or europe think their ABM system keeps them safe a WWIII become much more likely.

    If they know their ABM system wont stop even a fraction of the weapons directed at them then they wont be so aggressive and WWIII will become less likely because of the effect of MAD or the fear of MAD.

    The US ABM systems in the US and europe and plans for more in Asia make the new start treaty a joke and the easiest and cheapest way to defeat it is to have rather more warheads... both on each weapon and in terms of overall weapon numbers.

    In such a situation having IRBMs that can reach all of europe and no limit on the number of ICBMs and SLBMs is an advantage to Russia.

    talk of withdrawing from either treaty makes the US squeal... so it must be good for Russia. Smile


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    eehnie
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 564
    Points : 589
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  eehnie on Sat Aug 13, 2016 2:07 pm

    The military strategy of most, almost all, the European countries is defensive. Russia knows it well.

    The military strategy of the US is agressive, is offensive.

    Russia has it into account. And also Russia takes into account the different nature of the INF and START III Treaties.

    This is why, Russia has a different position on them:

    https://www.rt.com/politics/189904-russia-inf-treaty-ivanov/

    Russia won’t quit nuclear forces treaty unless it faces ‘serious threat’ – Kremlin

    Published time: 23 Sep, 2014 12:53

    Moscow won’t withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty unless it senses a “serious threat” to the country’s security, Kremlin chief of staff Sergey Ivanov has said.

    “Basically, in exceptional circumstances each of the sides can withdraw from the treaty,” Ivanov told the Rossiyskaya Gazeta newspaper. “I don’t see such exceptional circumstances so far. As a matter of fact we adhere to fulfilling international obligations. That is until we feel there’s a serious threat to the country’s security.”

    http://sputniknews.com/military/20160512/1039489776/russia-start-air-defense.html

    Russia Could Drop START Treaty Due to New Air Defense Systems in Europe

    13:49 12.05.2016

    Moscow could withdraw from the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty in response to new air defense systems being deployed in Eastern Europe, a senior Russian official said.

    MOSCOW (Sputnik) — Russia could exit the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) in response to the deployment of new air defense systems in Eastern Europe, the head of Russia's Arms Committee in the upper house of parliament said Thursday.

    “This is obviously an extreme measure and I hope this won’t go that far, but it’s no coincidence that the Russian Parliament in ratifying the new START included a clause that the deployment of air defense systems could be one of the reasons Russia leaves the agreement,” Viktor Ozerov said.

    On Thursday, the US Aegis Ashore air defense system is to be officially deployed in Romania, and on Friday the construction of a similar complex is to begin in Poland.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  GarryB on Sun Aug 14, 2016 8:44 am

    The military strategy of most, almost all, the European countries is defensive. Russia knows it well.

    Yeah... they are bombed Libya and Syria and invaded Afghanistan and Iraq to defend themselves... right...

    The Baltic states and Poland sending weapons to the Ukraine is pure defence of course... and US tanks in the Baltic states is all about peace and democracy...

    The military strategy of the US is agressive, is offensive.

    Offensive in both senses of the word... and by defacto becomes NATOs strategy... which Russia has to deal with. It does not matter if Greece or Italy or France means Russia no harm when the US drags them into a conflict with Russia they will have little choice or say in the matter.

    Russia has it into account. And also Russia takes into account the different nature of the INF and START III Treaties.

    Russia will continue to abide by the INF and new Start treaties but when it no longer suits Russias interests or gets in the way of things they will withdraw from those treaties when it suits.

    The US can continue to ignore Russias protests at its peril.

    Moscow won’t withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty unless it senses a “serious threat” to the country’s security, Kremlin chief of staff Sergey Ivanov has said.

    “Basically, in exceptional circumstances each of the sides can withdraw from the treaty,” Ivanov told the Rossiyskaya Gazeta newspaper. “I don’t see such exceptional circumstances so far. As a matter of fact we adhere to fulfilling international obligations. That is until we feel there’s a serious threat to the country’s security.”

    All Putin has to say is that the US controlled ABM system in Europe undermines Russias nuclear deterrent and to restore MAD they need to produce IRBMs meaning they need to withdraw from the INF treaty and also possibly the New Start treaty too.

    It could be an over night thing like the unilateral US withdrawal from the ABM treaty.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2507
    Points : 2640
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  kvs on Sun Aug 14, 2016 2:54 pm

    Before quitting the INF and Start Russia needs to build up a stock pile of nuclear warheads like Uncle Scam.
    Apparently there is a technicality that allows storage of warheads as opposed to their immediate destruction after
    an ICBM is scrapped. The US has a vast pool of such warheads which is a serious concern for Russia.

    eehnie
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 564
    Points : 589
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  eehnie on Sun Aug 14, 2016 6:22 pm

    GarryB wrote:All Putin has to say is

    Putin knows which is the nature of the defense strategy of every European country. He knows perfectly what to say, and how to avoid the plans of those who want to raise tensions between the European countries and Russia.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  GarryB on Mon Aug 15, 2016 3:35 am

    Before quitting the INF and Start Russia needs to build up a stock pile of nuclear warheads like Uncle Scam.
    Apparently there is a technicality that allows storage of warheads as opposed to their immediate destruction after
    an ICBM is scrapped. The US has a vast pool of such warheads which is a serious concern for Russia.

    Actually it is not a huge concern.

    Russia has made money selling their deenriched nuclear material to commercial companies in the US for use as reactor fuel for nuclear power stations, while the US has stockpiled their warheads.

    The new nuclear reactors being developed by Russia are fast neutron reactors... also called breeder reactors... nuclear waste is greatly reduced and can be recycled into fuel grade or even weapons grade material through the normal use of the standard reactors.

    Building up enormous numbers of nuclear weapons wont be a problem...

    Putin knows which is the nature of the defense strategy of every European country. He knows perfectly what to say, and how to avoid the plans of those who want to raise tensions between the European countries and Russia.

    And yet US ABM systems are still being installed in Europe and US tank forces are moving into position in Baltic states...

    The west is trying to impose pressure on Russia... moving military forces east, banning Russian athletes from international sports, taking over the administration of Soccer and imposing their own west friendly administrators... not something new.

    When Putin has had enough he will push back in an appropriate way.

    The INF treaty and New START treaties are two ways he can choose to push back.

    When the other side is cheating by setting up ABM systems then it makes no sense to limit the number of ICBMs you are allowed to have and to ban the existence of IRBMs completely.

    The CFE treaty was very useful to Russia because it was a way of limiting the ground forces of NATO... but when they refuse to comply with that treaty until Russian forces leave South Ossetia and Abkhazia and Nogorno Karabakh, it makes little sense for Russia to honour such a treaty.

    If the US is going to build ABM systems in Europe then it makes no sense for Russia to limit its nuclear forces there too.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2507
    Points : 2640
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  kvs on Mon Aug 15, 2016 3:41 am

    I know that Russia can manufacture warheads. But having them on the shelf and having them produced are two different things.
    In the case of the USA it is likely that it also has stocks of ICBM parts, including the solid rocket fuel, so it can assemble ICBMs on
    short notice. Russia has not prepared itself this way. It needs to wake up and smell the coffee.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  GarryB on Mon Aug 15, 2016 10:14 am

    Having old ones in storage is not that ideal.

    With a few operational breeder reactors Russia should be able to rapidly build up nuclear weapons grade material if it needs to.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    eehnie
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 564
    Points : 589
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  eehnie on Mon Aug 15, 2016 11:00 am

    GarryB, what you are promoting about the INF Treaty, not only goes against the interest of Russia, even goes in favor of the interest of the US. It would be better if you pay more attention to what Russia said about both treaties, because there are reasons for it.

    eehnie wrote:https://www.rt.com/politics/189904-russia-inf-treaty-ivanov/

    Russia won’t quit nuclear forces treaty unless it faces ‘serious threat’ – Kremlin

    Published time: 23 Sep, 2014 12:53

    Moscow won’t withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty unless it senses a “serious threat” to the country’s security, Kremlin chief of staff Sergey Ivanov has said.

    “Basically, in exceptional circumstances each of the sides can withdraw from the treaty,” Ivanov told the Rossiyskaya Gazeta newspaper. “I don’t see such exceptional circumstances so far. As a matter of fact we adhere to fulfilling international obligations. That is until we feel there’s a serious threat to the country’s security.”

    http://sputniknews.com/military/20160512/1039489776/russia-start-air-defense.html

    Russia Could Drop START Treaty Due to New Air Defense Systems in Europe

    13:49 12.05.2016

    Moscow could withdraw from the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty in response to new air defense systems being deployed in Eastern Europe, a senior Russian official said.

    MOSCOW (Sputnik) — Russia could exit the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) in response to the deployment of new air defense systems in Eastern Europe, the head of Russia's Arms Committee in the upper house of parliament said Thursday.

    “This is obviously an extreme measure and I hope this won’t go that far, but it’s no coincidence that the Russian Parliament in ratifying the new START included a clause that the deployment of air defense systems could be one of the reasons Russia leaves the agreement,” Viktor Ozerov said.

    On Thursday, the US Aegis Ashore air defense system is to be officially deployed in Romania, and on Friday the construction of a similar complex is to begin in Poland.

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2507
    Points : 2640
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  kvs on Tue Aug 16, 2016 3:29 am

    GarryB wrote:Having old ones in storage is not that ideal.

    With a few operational breeder reactors Russia should be able to rapidly build up nuclear weapons grade material if it needs to.

    It is the Tritium that has a short shelf life.  The fission core lasts much longer since the half life of Plutonium is very long.

    Anyway, my point was about Russia actually having a warhead reserve and not waiting until there is not time to build them.
    Since America gives itself the flexibility to ramp up its deployed warhead numbers, Russia must do the same.

    The problem is that in Russia they actually believe in peace and arms reduction.  Uncle Scam is a psycho who only thinks
    about his own ambition.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  GarryB on Tue Aug 16, 2016 12:09 pm

    GarryB, what you are promoting about the INF Treaty, not only goes against the interest of Russia, even goes in favor of the interest of the US. It would be better if you pay more attention to what Russia said about both treaties, because there are reasons for it.

    The US building ABM systems in Europe and Asia and moving armoured forces closer to Russias border is not in Russias interests either.

    The reasons for the INF treaty were sensible and logical in the 1980s when it was signed and it made everything safer... But now it makes rather less sense for Russia.

    Russia wont withdraw from the INF treaty unless if faces a serious threat... and US operated ABM facilities in eastern europe represent a serious threat...

    More importantly why should Russia limit the number of strategic nuclear weapons and nuclear weapon platforms when the US is free to base as many ABM missiles around Russias border as it pleases...

    If they are going to withdraw from New START then withdrawing from INF makes sense too... they already have excellent short range missiles in their inventory... adding medium range missiles means less demand for manned aircraft or indeed the use of strategic missiles for theatre range targets.

    A few thousand 5,000km range land based cruise missiles would be cheap to build and easy to maintain and simple to operate.

    Fit them with conventional warheads and they could be used in a range of conventional conflicts too... use up older missiles and introduce new models ready for service to replace them in the inventory.


    Anyway, my point was about Russia actually having a warhead reserve and not waiting until there is not time to build them.
    Since America gives itself the flexibility to ramp up its deployed warhead numbers, Russia must do the same.

    It would probably take as long to make the extra ICBMs and SLBMs as it would to make the warheads...

    The new breeder reactors means making lots of warheads quickly would be simple and cheap. They don't need the problems of long term storage of nuclear warheads... But in times of tension they could create quite a large stockpile of warheads fairly rapidly.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Sponsored content

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 11:11 am


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 04, 2016 11:11 am