New START Treaty

dino00 wrote:Moscow is ready to discuss Poseidon in the framework of START

New armaments of the Russian Federation, including the Sarmat and Avant-garde missiles, as well as Poseidon drones, are not yet covered by the Strategic Offensive Arms Treaty, but Moscow is ready to discuss this topic in specialized formats, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey said Ryabkov.
Ryabkov noted that "the main problem with the New START Treaty is the US unwillingness to satisfactorily solve the problem of re-equipping part of the carriers of American strategic assets, which was carried out by the Americans in such a way that the US still has significant return potential."
"That is, nuclear warheads can be reloaded on these carriers. This approach, in our opinion, does not fit into the requirements of the treaty," the diplomat said.

https://ria.ru/20190422/1552934523.html

I don't see where it says that... don't even think!
Only in exchange with NATO dissolution, Americans get out of Europe, no Abm incercling Russia, X-37B destroyed, American nuclear weapons destroyed not buried, in exchange for Poseidon and burevestnick, nothing else

Indeed. America and its minions cannot be trusted to abide by any treaty. Russia needs to stop deluding itself that treaties are some sort of
achievement.

I think that there is a pernicious myth that afflicts politicians who think that reducing the nuclear warhead numbers and launch systems makes
the world safer. This is utter nonsense. Only total elimination can make the world safe from nuclear war. But the threat of conventional
war will never be eliminated and this makes the threat of nuclear war and MAD the ultimate remedy for all war. It does not matter if all sides
can build up their nuke arsenals. That is not a problem. More nuclear warheads means more effective MAD and less delusions of nuclear primacy
via ABM magic and planning for conventional war on Russia.

The value of START is to prevent out of control arms races... the value of the CFE agreement in europe was that it was the only limit on conventional weapons in europe where otherwise the west could build as much weapons as they could afford and out "tank" Russia at a time when it could not afford to keep twenty thousand tanks ready to go...

Russia needs both MAD but also to avoid out of control arms races and having to build doomsday weapons when it would be better off building roads and rail lines and air ports...

Is New START extension really that easy?

February 2021 is much closer than it may appear. And with it the prospect of the New START expiration. It probably won't go down in acrimony like the INF treaty is about to do, but that wouldn't matter much in the end if the treaty is left to expire. Many good words have been said about how extending New START is the first priority in arms control and I agree with very much everything that has been said on the matter. However, one element seems to be missing from the discussion.

Advocates of New START extension in the United States often (in fact, almost universally) describe the issue as a matter of a simple move that the Trump administration is unwilling to take. Indeed, the treaty can be extended by an agreement between the executives that would not require ratification. But in practice the decision to extend may not be that simple and the reason it is not taken cannot be attributed only to John Bolton's known dislike of arms control.

Russia has made it quite clear that it wants to discuss New START extension, but it also made it clear that there is a condition attached to that. In brief, it wants the United States to discuss its concerns about conversion of New START accountable launchers. And this is where it gets complicated.

A careful reading of the treaty text (as my colleagues pointed out to me) shows that the conversion procedures implemented by the United States are in perfect compliance with the letter of the agreement - nowhere in the treaty it is said that the conversion has to be irreversible. So, Russia may not have a good legal argument here. However, as I wrote a year ago, that is not quite in line with the spirit of the treaty, since the idea of conversion is that it should allow to entirely exclude a launcher from the New START count. If the conversion procedure is reversible, it would be more accurate to classify that launcher as non-deployed. But that's not what the treaty says - it allows the conversion to be done by any "other procedures that are developed by the Party carrying out the conversion" and doesn't really provide a way for the other party to approve these procedures.

Russia argues that such mechanism exists as the treaty requires the conversion procedure to be "recorded" in the framework of the Bilateral Consultative Commission (see the opening paragraph in Section III of this letter), assuming that this cannot be done without other party accepting the procedure. Here is Part III/Section 1/Paragraph 4 of the Protocol:



I wouldn't say that Russia's argument is particularly strong, but it has a point. Imagine if Russia would come up with a conversion procedure that would consist of simply putting padlocks on its SLBM tubes. It would be perfectly legal - see "other procedures" above - but my guess is that the United States would make a big fuss about it.

Russia, in fact, showed that it could be fairly flexible about this - in its December 2018 letter it indicated that it might accept "the 'cabinet-level written political commitments' proposed by the United States." But the word is that the offer of such political commitments is no longer on the table.

Importantly, the readiness to accept the "political commitments" seems to indicate that Russia mostly wants its concerns to be taken seriously. If the United States admits that this is the matter that it is prepared to discussed, Russia would probably be ready to yield some ground. But the United States should make that step first.

And this is exactly what is missing from the current New START extension discussion. Even the New START advocates are reluctant to take Russia's concerns seriously. People often repeat that "Russia has said it is ready [to extend], no preconditions," but that's simply not true. And by (largely) avoiding the issue or (more often) by outright dismissing Russia's concerns the arms control community does the New START a great disservice.

http://russianforces.org/blog/2019/05/is_new_start_extension_really.shtml

The new Start agreement is weak and largely pointless... let it die too.

You can bet your ass that Trump will try to get all sorts of things included in any new deal that will make it worthless to the Russians anyway... they will be demanding manouvering hypersonic weapons be included, which will mean Iskander and Kinzhal and Zircon would be limited... at a time when there is no western equivalents...

Well if it is trilateral that makes it rather interesting...

Because the current in force agreement allows each side 1,550 warheads each, which means China needs to start producing ICBMs and SLBMs so that it can meet its allowed quota.

Second, if Britain and France are not to be included then Russia can consider the EU a separate entity and therefore demand all IRBMs which are now legal because of the demise of the INF treaty, should not count in the START-4 negotiations because they are not directed at the US, and if that is the case they could allocate a few hundred extra IRBMs to target Israel and Saudi Arabia and Japan a few other less than friendly countries that are allies of the US and therefore made hostile to Russia and China.

China should also be allowed as many IRBMs as they want because START is about strategic weapons, not theatre ones...

This could be how Russia gets its deterrence but without spending too much money... their new IRBMs should be designed to fit their UKSK-M launch tubes so that they can build thousands of missiles, and fit them with optional warhead selections including nuclear and conventional... put them on duty across its european border including in Kaliningrad and across Asia too ready to deter aggression... and also put them on their ships as a potent surface attack capability with conventional warheads. These missiles can be replaced over time as their batteries and fuels get close to expiring in tests but also operationally from ships and subs at terrorist targets like in Syria or Afghanistan... where ever they are needed... their dual purpose design makes them much more flexible and effective and relatively cheap.

Enormous numbers of nuke warheads will be needed, but in a dooms day scenario they could also be fitted to unlimited range nuke powered cruise missiles that could carry multiple warheads around the world for years after the actual war has ended...

ATLASCUB wrote:China won't take part in it for obvious reasons.

Once they get their arsenal numbers up to Russian/American numbers, maybe, maybe they'll consider signing a treaty.

Putting a clamp on their programs is a NO NO considering how far ahead both Russia and the Americans are.

Americans are fishing for stupid, doesn't hurt to try. You might catch a Gorbachev once in a while.

I think the yanqui dogs are well aware of this nuance. Hence, they are really killing SART by making the demand.

Seems like the yanqui exceptional-tards have decided to scrap all nuke treaties. My theory is that they have
pooped their pants over Avanguard et al. They drank so much of their own koolaid about the invulnerable ABM
shield that they have zero idea how to live without its mystical promise. So the current "rip up all the nuclear
arms limitation treaties" spasm is almost predictable. These retards think they can "bankrupt" Russia with
warheads and tanks.

Russia fully discharged its commitments under New START Treaty in 2018 — top brass

The general also said that Russia’s latest Avangard hypersonic missile system falls under the provisions of the the new START Treaty

MOSCOW, July 24. /TASS/. Russia fully discharged its commitments in 2018 under the Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (the new START Treaty), First Deputy Head of the Russian General Staff’s Main Operational Department Lieutenant-General Viktor Poznikhir said on Wednesday.


"In 2018, Russia fully discharged its commitments and reached the threshold levels for strategic offensive arms stipulated by the treaty," the general said at a session of the International Affairs Committee in the upper house of Russia’s parliament.

Poznikhir also said that Russia’s latest Avangard hypersonic missile system falls under the provisions of the the new START Treaty.

"The Avangard missile system with the boost glide vehicle is due to enter service and assume combat duty by the end of the year. Considering that the Avangard system is equipped with an intercontinental ballistic missile, it will be subject to all the procedures stipulated by the treaty on strategic offensive arms," the general said.

https://tass.com/defense/1070174

http://www.iarex.ru/articles/67923.html (use Yandex translate).

The Pentagon wants absurd levels of control over Russia's nuclear arsenal in any new strategic treaty. Maybe the lunatics in Washington
think that Russia is weak and undeveloped, but Russia's leaders better not even think about making a deal with the yanquis. No treaty is
vastly better than a treaty on terms the yanquis like.

Also, they yanquis think that they and NATO have a conventional edge on Russia. So destroying MAD is Washington's goal. In the real world
MAD has been the only reason there has been no major war since 1945.

miketheterrible wrote:

kvs wrote:http://www.iarex.ru/articles/67923.html (use Yandex translate).

The Pentagon wants absurd levels of control over Russia's nuclear arsenal in any new strategic treaty.   Maybe the lunatics in Washington
think that Russia is weak and undeveloped, but Russia's leaders better not even think about making a deal with the yanquis.   No treaty is
vastly better than a treaty on terms the yanquis like.

Also, they yanquis think that they and NATO have a conventional edge on Russia.  So destroying MAD is Washington's goal.  In the real world
MAD has been the only reason there has been no major war since 1945.

As I said, there is sensationalism from Russian side. He didn't say Russia transfer it's control of nukes to USA. He said that to limit non strategic weapons too.  Essentially saying that the start treaty must control the new weapons as well.

But as the kommersant article pointed out, Russia refused previously and will probably continue to do so.

It remains a fact that the yanquis are lecturing Russia and making ultimatums all the time. The US deciders cannot believe that Russia today is
not like Ukraine, a rotten husk. Russia today can mop the floor with the US. Russian leaders better not squander this in the name of BS
anti-nuke hysteria. The only language the USA understands is force. I slept well at night during the the 1980s and the peak nuclear warhead
period. I will sleep well if things go back to 1982 all over again. The only ones who are stressed and afraid are the aggressors in Washington
since their big plans have come undone.

As for Russian sensationalism. Good to see it. Russian media needs to agitate pro-Russian agendas. There is too much 5th column anti-Russian
media penetration at the present time. Look at the hysteria of this pro-NATO media regarding the Russian aircraft industry. Every incident with
the SJ-100 is an excuse to cry the sky is falling, but every incident with a Boeing is ignored and the name Boeing never mentioned.

Which is secret code for they don't want any agreements on strategic nuclear weapons... because they don't care.

The main thing these agreements are supposed to achieve is stability and peace and saving money that would otherwise be wasted on a stupid and unnecessary arms race... but an arms race is about spending money and there is no country you want to go up against when the rules are the one that spends the most money wins... because America will beat you every time.

The thing is that currently things are in a special place... Russia can make cruise missiles able to reach the US from any direction, and their ICBMs and SLBMs can be fitted with warheads to evade existing and near future defences, so obviously the priority of ICBMs and SLBMs will be to take out any defences like major radars and ABM systems and population areas and of course food sources, while the follow up strikes of cruise missiles can hit more population centres till the cows come home not to mention underwater drones that also deliver death.

The question is cost, but the Russians can be clever... make their missiles cheap and simple and very accurate... they can build IRBMs to reach targets in europe, but make them able to carry both nuke and conventional warheads so they can use them on their ships and submarines in their UKSK-M launchers.... they can make them in large numbers and store them on Russian territory with nuke warheads ready to use at a moments notice, but also send them off to sea with conventional warheads... the volume they could make them in would make them rather cheap, yet scramjet propulsion makes them difficult targets to defend against, and of course with conventional warheads they would be rather useful tools for enemy threats... design their engines in such a way that they are obliterated when the warhead explodes and fit it with various failsafe measures so intact models will not be recoverable... and then make enormous numbers of them with the naval budget.

By having all these weapons able to hit various theatre targets across europe and near Russian naval bases across the worlds oceans and in the arctic and far east... most ABM systems in Alaska should be vulnerable to IRBM strikes from the Russian Far East and IRBMs located in the far north of Russia should make AEGIS class cruisers in the Arctic pretty vulnerable too, which leaves ICBM and SLBM warheads for targets deep inside the US... with the INF treaty and Start 3 gone Russia could ramp up its number of nukes pretty easily especially with new breeder reactors enabling the rapid production of weapons grade nuclear material... and nuclear powered cruise missiles in to the mix... the US is really biting off more than it can chew here... and it looks pretty good from here.

GarryB wrote:Which is secret code for they don't want any agreements on strategic nuclear weapons... because they don't care.

The main thing these agreements are supposed to achieve is stability and peace and saving money that would otherwise be wasted on a stupid and unnecessary arms race... but an arms race is about spending money and there is no country you want to go up against when the rules are the one that spends the most money wins... because America will beat you every time.

The thing is that currently things are in a special place... Russia can make cruise missiles able to reach the US from any direction, and their ICBMs and SLBMs can be fitted with warheads to evade existing and near future defences, so obviously the priority of ICBMs and SLBMs will be to take out any defences like major radars and ABM systems and population areas and of course food sources, while the follow up strikes of cruise missiles can hit more population centres till the cows come home not to mention underwater drones that also deliver death.

The question is cost, but the Russians can be clever... make their missiles cheap and simple and very accurate... they can build IRBMs to reach targets in europe, but make them able to carry both nuke and conventional warheads so they can use them on their ships and submarines in their UKSK-M launchers.... they can make them in large numbers and store them on Russian territory with nuke warheads ready to use at a moments notice, but also send them off to sea with conventional warheads... the volume they could make them in would make them rather cheap, yet scramjet propulsion makes them difficult targets to defend against, and of course with conventional warheads they would be rather useful tools for enemy threats... design their engines in such a way that they are obliterated when the warhead explodes and fit it with various failsafe measures so intact models will not be recoverable... and then make enormous numbers of them with the naval budget.

By having all these weapons able to hit various theatre targets across europe and near Russian naval bases across the worlds oceans and in the arctic and far east... most ABM systems in Alaska should be vulnerable to IRBM strikes from the Russian Far East and IRBMs located in the far north of Russia should make AEGIS class cruisers in the Arctic pretty vulnerable too, which leaves ICBM and SLBM warheads for targets deep inside the US... with the INF treaty and Start 3 gone Russia could ramp up its number of nukes pretty easily especially with new breeder reactors enabling the rapid production of weapons grade nuclear material... and nuclear powered cruise missiles in to the mix... the US is really biting off more than it can chew here... and it looks pretty good from here.

America is deluded. It actually believes that it "bankrupted" the USSR with the 1980s arms race. Utter delusional nonsense. The
USSR was a command economy. It did not need a budget and money to make things happen. It operated by directive. As long as there
were enough people and resources the system functioned. I hear all sorts of claims about how the USSR "blew" 30% of its GDP on the
military during the 1980s and went bankrupt. This is shyster obfuscation. Just like current nominal comparisons of Russia's military
expenditures in dollars say f*ck all about Russia's real military capacity and productivity, so the 30% figure was some baloney
estimate by a western hack. If you measured it in terms of workers numbers (the correct metric for a command economy), 30% of the
Soviet people did NOT work on military projects. The figure was definitely less than 7%. Estimating some bogus budget that
never existed and then using it to make claims is ludicrous.

I have stated often on this board that today the USA cannot bankrupt Russia via an arms race in spite of Russia having a capitalist
economy. We live in the missile era. Missiles are the cheapest military item in terms of bang for the buck. They convert some
corvette into a destroyer in terms of real firepower. Russia does not have the rotten pork barrel culture of the US MIC where the
government buys obsolete and broken junk conventional hardware by the tens of billions of dollars. It will not respond to any
conventional arms race scheme by the USA. Instead it will use new laser and missile designs to neutralize even large numbers of
WWII type equipment. Russia has clearly demonstrated its superiority in missile technology from the strategic to the tactical end
of the spectrum. This is a cold hard fact and not hyperbole.

America and its minions did not bankrupt the USSR in terms of military spending and they will not bankrupt Russia. In fact, I see
a GDP stimulus from America's attempts to bankrupt Russia. Rational expenditures on missiles and solutions other than "let's make
50,000 tanks" will be a robust demand and source of money circulation. Not only the yanquis can gain from MIC welfare.

Hole wrote:The production of even 50.000 tanks would stimulate the economy. To maintain the tank force would be costly.

Only if the maintenance costs are so huge that they divert spending from other sectors of the economy. Russia is not going to
impose 70% taxes on its people. Currently they pay a flat 13% income tax and there is no indication of this changing. Horror
of horrors Russia will tax oil and gas exports. That is a crime by NATO standards where oil and gas corporations actually get
subsidies.

Orlov brought up the issue of using a GDP deflator on the USA akin to the PPP correction. Given the ludicrous prices in the USA,
its GDP is grossly overstated. The US could always print dollars like Pancho Villa as long as the dollar was a petrocurrency. But
we are seeing a global phase transition were the dollar is being dumped in favour of local currencies and gold. Things are looking
really bad for Uncle Scumbag.

History repeats, first as a tragedy and then a farce. Attempts to bankrupt Russia with military spending will be a total farce.
The problem with "solutions" like 50,000 tanks is that tactical nukes can delete them toute de suite. Russia is clearly not going
for such solutions.