Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    New START Treaty

    Share

    eehnie
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 577
    Points : 602
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  eehnie on Wed Aug 17, 2016 7:40 am

    Very recent words of the Minister of Defense of Russia:

    http://sputniknews.com/russia/20160814/1044256113/russia-army-rearmament.html

    Western countries should stop "stirring up hysteria" intimidating its own population and understand that Russia is ready and open for dialogue, Russian Defense Minister said.

    "What are we opposing? We say… there is a balance. If you use the current situation, stirring up the hysteria to refill your budget so that the plants get additional profit – that is your issue… But I would like to say: stop intimidating your population… We want our colleagues to stop at some point and understand that we are open and ready for dialogue," Shoigu told Rossiya-1 TV-channel.

    This quote shows how Russia is understanding very well the situation in Europe, country by country. Obviously these words are not compatible with a rupture by Russia of the INF Treaty that is very oriented to Europe. GarryB is just understanding not it, or just ignoring one of the most important points of the Russian strategy.

    It is the US who want the INF Treaty to be broken (even Russia denounced the US by doing things that break it). The US is interested in the rupture of this very European oriented Treaty, because the rupture of this Treaty would make most of the European governments to enter in panic (real or fictitious), would make them to increase significantly their defense budgets and would make them to allow far bigger amounts of US weapons and military forces of all the types in Europe. This also would help to the US to distract a good number of Russian nuclear warheads from the US to Europe.

    But unlike in the case of the rupture of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, that costed them the rupture of the START II Treaty by Russia the following day, they want to blame someone else (Russia) in the case of the INF Treaty.

    https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_01-02/docjanfeb02

    http://www.nti.org/learn/treaties-and-regimes/treaty-between-united-states-america-and-union-soviet-socialist-republics-strategic-offensive-reductions-start-ii/

    2002: On 13 June, US President Bush declared that the US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, which he had announced 6 months earlier in accordance with the Treaty's provisions, was formally taking effect, thereby marking the end of the ABM Treaty. On 14 June, the Russian Federation announced its withdrawal from the START II Treaty due to US refusal to ratify the Treaty and to US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty.

    The first step against the ABM Treaty was the initial plan of GW Bush with Poland and the Czech Republic, what Obama stoped in 2009. Thanks to it, in 2010 was signed the START III Treaty. Now Obama is going forward by the GW Bush way on Anti-Ballistic missiles, which means that the START III Treaty is likely death.

    Russia is not silly, Russia knows very well who is trying to make to raise the tensions between Europe and Russia. Russia knows that is the US who is back of all it. And the result of these policies of the US against Russia, will be very likely to have more Russian nuclear warheads looking at the US. While the START III restricts it, the INF has not effect on it.

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  sepheronx on Wed Aug 17, 2016 7:56 am

    Russia would probably benefit way more with introduction of more long range cruise missiles for airplanes and ground launch. Greather than 5,500 KM. If they can develop them to be cheap enough to produce, then they could bypass these treaties and produce a massive arsenal of smart bombs that can be equipped with either conventional warheads or nuclear in short notice. Saturation attack is still the killer.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  GarryB on Wed Aug 17, 2016 12:33 pm

    This quote shows how Russia is understanding very well the situation in Europe, country by country. Obviously these words are not compatible with a rupture by Russia of the INF Treaty that is very oriented to Europe. GarryB is just understanding not it, or just ignoring one of the most important points of the Russian strategy.

    I am not suggesting Russia wants to start WWIII... that is the Americans.

    What I am suggesting is that America is trying to push a wedge between europe and Russia and China and Russia and China and europe etc etc.

    Their tactic is to turn everyone against everyone else to maintain its advantages over everyone else including russia, china and europe.

    Russia wont leave the INF treaty and New START treaties so they can massively arm up and intimidate the west.

    The US does not listen to Russia and the only way Russia can get the US to listen is bold initiatives and even then they ignore or show as proof of Russian aggression.

    The US is moving military forces east and is building and ABM system east as well... system that is pretty basic in its early stages but in its later developments will likely become more and more capable against a wider range of threats.

    As it gets improvements a wider range of deterrents are needed to counter it... I am suggesting exiting new Start because that will push buttons in America... not so much a reset as a "WTF".

    If the US builds an ABM system then a simple solution is to step away from an agreement limiting your ballistic missiles.

    The reason I suggest stepping away from the INF treaty as well is that it will allow russia to rapidly build up small cheap land launched cruise missiles in enormous numbers that are capable of killing a wide range of targets... even without using nuclear warheads in some cases.

    This will not be all roses for Russia... the US can produce lots of missiles with its money printing machines but after they destroy you once the second and tenth times are not so important, but making sure they know if they start something they are dead is very important.

    The most dangerous thing in the world is the US thinking it can win a nuclear war because it has limited Russian nuclear weapons and it has a missile shield to launch an attack from behind.

    It does not matter if the shield will work or not... the only way to know is after an attack and by then it is too late for everyone.

    because the rupture of this Treaty would make most of the European governments to enter in panic (real or fictitious), would make them to increase significantly their defense budgets and would make them to allow far bigger amounts of US weapons and military forces of all the types in Europe. This also would help to the US to distract a good number of Russian nuclear warheads from the US to Europe.

    More US bases in europe will cost the US more money for little to no gain in safety.

    The Russians can have as many IRBMs as they like with as many nukes on them as they like if they withdraw from the INF treaty. New Start deals with strategic weapons only so IRBMs are not counted... if Russia withdraws from new Start they can have as many nukes of any kind as they like. If they only withdraw from INF they are limited to 1,500 warheads in February 2018.... before and after that date they can have as many as they want.

    They can have 10,000 deployed warheads on January 2018, come february they could withdraw from service 8,500 and put them back into service in march 2018 and fully comply with new Start.

    But unlike in the case of the rupture of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, that costed them the rupture of the START II Treaty by Russia the following day, they want to blame someone else (Russia) in the case of the INF Treaty.

    The INF treaty is like the ABM treaty... either side can withdraw with proper warning of their intention to do so.

    The first step against the ABM Treaty was the initial plan of GW Bush with Poland and the Czech Republic, what Obama stoped in 2009. Thanks to it, in 2010 was signed the START III Treaty. Now Obama is going forward by the GW Bush way on Anti-Ballistic missiles, which means that the START III Treaty is likely death.

    Russia is not silly, Russia knows very well who is trying to make to raise the tensions between Europe and Russia. Russia knows that is the US who is back of all it. And the result of these policies of the US against Russia, will be very likely to have more Russian nuclear warheads looking at the US. While the START III restricts it, the INF has not effect on it.

    Without the ABM treaty limiting ABM defences the START treaties have very little meaning.

    As the US spends more and more on ABM systems around the place the new start treaty becomes a liability.

    ABM treaty is like an agreement not to wear body armour, while the starts are agreements on dueling... how many pistols you are allowed and what magazine capacities you can have etc etc

    A real pistol is nothing like what you see in the movies or computer games they are dreadfully inaccurate and low powered... they trade range and power and accuracy for small size and low weight.

    You dont aim for the other guys heart with a pistol... you aim centre of mass and hope for a hit.

    The US is demanding Russia only have a five round pistol mag as it is slipping on a bullet proof vest and a helmet.

    It doesn't realise the Russians have developed guided bullets, so it is rather keen to start a gun fight it thinks it can win...

    Russias goal is not to get the fight started... it is to set up conditions where the US knows everyone loses if the fight is started by either side.

    If the US puts on its ABM shield that might require Russia to withdraw from the INF treaty and Start treaties and just say I am going to have thousands of rounds so no matter how effective your vest and helmet are you are going to bleed to death and die like me if we start anything... so don't start anything.

    MAD = Mutually assured destruction.

    BTW seph, cruise missiles with flight ranges of more than 5,500km are considered strategic weapons and subject to new Start in terms of numbers of warheads and launch platforms.... but I do agree a 5,000km range cruise missile would be very useful to russia for targets in ME and europe and even northern 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

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9443
    Points : 9935
    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/


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


    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2526
    Points : 2659
    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.

    OminousSpudd
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 810
    Points : 829
    Join date : 2015-01-03
    Age : 21
    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.

    Sponsored content

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 9:03 pm


      Current date/time is Thu Dec 08, 2016 9:03 pm