New START Treaty

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)

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...

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.

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.

Russian Defense Ministry ready to enliven contacts with US partners to extend START Treaty

The ministry is ready for practical implementation of the agreements in the sphere of international security reached by the Russian and US Presidents

MOSCOW, July 17. /TASS/. Russia’s Defense Ministry is ready to enliven contacts between the Russian and US General Staffs to extend the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START Treaty, ministry’s spokesman, Igor Konashenkov, said on Tuesday.

"The Russian Defense Ministry is ready for practical implementation of the agreements in the sphere of international security reached by Russian and US Presidents, Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, at their Monday’s summit in Helsinki," he said.

"The Russian Defense Ministry is ready to enliven contact with the US colleagues, between our General Staffs and via other communication channels, to discuss extension of the START Treaty, cooperation in Syria, and other topical issues of military security," he stressed.


More:
http://tass.com/defense/1013692

ussian Defense Ministry ready to enliven contacts with US partners to extend START Treaty wrote:

Putin wants to disarm Russia nuclear arsenal. Russia should increase the amount of strategic nuclear weapons and not disarm. The US will be very happy. Each lower head is one less target in the US.

The problem of building more nukes is that the US can do the same and when you spend 700 billion a year you can afford to make more nukes than Russia can.

START limits nuke numbers... it is not ideal but it is the best Russia and the US have at the moment... and is worth keeping if possible.

Russia does need to add more demands however... like including UK and French nukes in the limits for the American side... (which is not to say reduce UK or French weapon numbers, but to deduct UK and French weapon numbers from US allowable total...)

Also the removal of US forces from Europe to match the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Europe in the 1990s...

Perhaps also a rule that you can only store tactical nuclear weapons on your own territory and not the territory of an ally...

Russia needs so many warheads to destroy the USA. The current 1500 is not enough. This number will not cover even all important military installations only in the USA itself. Traitor Putin further reduces the Russian nuclear arsenal. Russia will not negotiate to start  withdraw US army from Europe

START is very good for USA. The US needs fewer warheads than Russia. Russia involves fewer targets. The US arsenal has to be added 8 SSBN France and the UK.

I know the physics and capabilities of nuclear weapons. You do not know about it. Read the range of destruction depending on the power of explosion height, etc. There is still a myth how one warhead breaks down the whole big city etc. You're still alive in the Cold War where there were thousands of high-powered loads. Currently, most of the nukes is about 100 kT

We know what damage 100 kT can do.

I know, in contrast to you, destruction can be judged by the power of the nukes. Yars probably has 3 MIRV with 150 kT. Topol goes to scrap.

You don´t need nucelar warheads to destroy Amiland. Damage a few Walmart trucks and half the ountry will starve to death. Strip them of internet access and 90% of the population won´t find the way from the living room to the bathroom.

Russian missiles will be aimed at US population centres and critical resources... there is no point in destroying empty missile silos...

I rather suspect with weapons like Poseidon and Bur???? that they wont want limits on nuclear warheads any more... it would be relatively cheap and easy to make nuclear powered cruise missiles in their thousands... they are relatively small and would be rather easy to store.

New START had no verification aspect, so it really comes down to taking each other at their word.

But I suspect that the west will end up demanding a replacement to New START and they will want to include hypersonic weapons like Kinzhal and Zircon to limit their deployment... which is very ironic because in the past they have refused to include naval and air launched weapons...

America would not cope well with a real disaster... in the deep south americans sat on highways 200m from a stadium set up as shelter after katrina hit waiting for help to come to them. When every major city has been seriously damaged then their ability to repair will be stretched beyond any limit and they will need to decide what to save and what to leave... there will be chaos... the end of the world gun nuts will love it... a dangerous place to be... and that is ignoring the radiation and other negative effects.

Can imagine the shell shocked masses all dirty with ripped clothes sitting in houses with walls and the roof missing pushing the screen of their tablet device wondering when the WiFi will come back on so they can watch a movie...

A new treaty would be good. Russia on one side and all NATO countries on the other, not only Amiland.

I doubt it though... America is not happy with the current treaty, they certainly wont like a stricter model that limits them even more...

What is really happening I suspect is that the US is looking at enemy number two... China... and realising China is not limited in terms of IRBMs, but the US is.

Also the fact that the AEGIS Ashore system violates the INF treaty, and of course there is a case for all their UAVs and UCAVs which take off from runways and have ranges of between 500km and 5,500km are technically cruise missiles too...

Will be fun when Russia says that instead of introducing IRBMs, they will actually introduce intermediate range aeroballistic missiles that manouver and fly at hypersonic speeds... a real game changer...

So a two stage ground launched Iskander with 2-3 thousands km range and higher flight speed... just for a start and of course conventional ground launched cruise missiles because they are relatively cheap and easy to mass produce and hide all over the place... they don't need runways... or ships or aircraft.

Good solution would be a design like the missiles for the Pantsir or S-300V systems. A standard Iskander fitted with a new first stage to bring it up to speed and give it more range.