Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    New START Treaty

    Share
    avatar
    franco

    Posts : 2885
    Points : 2921
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  franco on Wed Mar 21, 2018 9:49 pm

    Nuclear warheads, 2018. Russia: 6800 US: 6600 France: 300 China: 270 UK: 215 Pakistan: 140 India: 130 Israel: 80 North Korea: 20 (Federation of American Scientists)
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17705
    Points : 18301
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  GarryB on Thu Mar 22, 2018 7:46 am

    I rather suspect Russia will insist on those preconditions mentioned above... ie ABM system removed from Europe, US tactical nukes removed from Europe, and British and French nukes included in the US total.

    Start means reduction... if the ABM is not leaving or is just moving to the US Navy for a global system then no to START and the only other option is SALT... strategic arms limitations treaty... and I would probably expect a limitation of about 6,000...


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 11377
    Points : 11860
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  George1 on Mon Apr 16, 2018 8:50 am

    New START controversies


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

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17705
    Points : 18301
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:36 am

    Looks like the Russians are less inclined to let things slide with the US any more... GOOD.

    This might not make any difference with regard to the existing treaty but it will likely mean there is no replacement treaty... which makes sense for Russia... why limit yourself to x number of weapons when there is no limit on UK and French weapons that are not included in the US tally, and also that the US is building a global ABM system of which there is no interceptor number limit...

    New missiles are not cheap, but they have the capacity to launch very large rockets that could contain hundreds of warheads each... the US needs to rethink its policy of making Russia the bad guy and pushing it around.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3646
    Points : 3769
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  kvs on Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:36 am

    George1 wrote:New START controversies

    Podvig, as usual is spreading pro-NATO BS. His little ramble about how converted silos are somehow less capable is simply bizarre.
    Training silos were never deployed silos. You can't merely reclassify them. You have destroy the original and build an inferior new
    one.

    Sponsored content

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Apr 24, 2018 11:13 pm