Military Review

What Russia and the United States have cut under the START-3 Treaty

15
5 February 2018 has expired the deadline for the implementation of the main restrictions that were imposed on Russia and the United States, the START-3 agreement signed by them. The full title of the signed document is the Treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, START III. This bilateral treaty governed the further mutual reduction of the arsenal of deployed strategic nuclear weapons and replaced the START I Treaty, which expired in December 2009. The START-3 agreement was signed by 8 on April 2010 of Prague in Prague by the presidents of the two countries, Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama, and it entered into force on February 5 of 2011.


History issue

It is worth noting that countries are thinking about reducing strategic offensive weapons in the late 1960-s. To that, the moments of the USSR and the USA have accumulated such nuclear arsenals, which made it possible not only to turn each other’s territory into ashes several times, but also to destroy all human civilization and life on the planet. In addition, the nuclear race, which was one of the attributes of the Cold War, seriously hit the two countries' economies. Huge monetary funds were spent on building up the nuclear arsenal. Under these conditions, negotiations between the Soviet Union and the United States began in 1969 in Helsinki to limit nuclear stocks.

These negotiations led to the signing of the first treaty between the countries - SALT-I (strategic arms limitation), which was signed in 1972. The agreement signed by the USSR and the USA fixed the number of means of delivery of nuclear weapons for each of the countries at the level at which they were at that time. True, by that time, both in the United States and in the USSR, they had already begun to equip their ballistic missiles with separable warheads with blocks of individual guidance (they carried several warheads at once). As a result, it was during the period of detente that a new, previously unseen, avalanche-like process of building up nuclear potential began. At the same time, the treaty provided for the adoption of new ICBMs deployed on submarines, strictly in the quantity in which land-based ballistic missiles were previously written off.

The continuation of this agreement was the SALT-II agreement, signed by countries on June 18, 1979 in Vienna. This agreement forbade the launch of nuclear weapons into space; it also set limits on the maximum number of strategic carriers: ICBM launchers, SLBM launchers, strategic aircraft aviation and missiles (but not actually nuclear warheads) below the existing level: up to 2400 units (including up to 820 ICBM launchers equipped with a shared warhead). In addition, the parties pledged to reduce the number of carriers to 1 by January 1981, 2250. Of the total number of strategic systems, only 1320 carriers could be equipped with warheads with individual guidance warheads. He also imposed other restrictions: he forbade the design and deployment of ballistic missiles based on watercraft (except for submarines), as well as on the seabed; mobile heavy ICBMs, cruise missiles with homing missiles, limited the maximum throwing weight for submarine ballistic missiles.

Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev after signing the START III Treaty in Prague 8 April 2010

The next joint treaty to reduce strategic offensive arms was the indefinite Treaty on the Elimination of Medium and Shorter-Range Missiles from the 1987 of the Year. He banned the development and deployment of ballistic missiles with a range from 500 to 5500 km. In accordance with this treaty, for three years, the country had to destroy not only all ground-based ballistic missiles of these types, but also all launchers, including missiles in both the European and Asian parts of the Soviet Union. The same treaty introduced the universal classification of ballistic missiles by range for the first time.

The next treaty was START-1, signed by the USSR and the United States 31 July 1991 in Moscow. It came into force after the collapse of the Soviet Union - December 5 1994. The new contract was designed for 15 years. The terms of the signed agreement prohibited each party to have more than 1600 nuclear weapons delivery units (ICBMs, SLBMs, strategic bombers) on combat duty. The maximum number of nuclear charges themselves was limited to 6000. 6 December 2001 of the year, it was announced that countries had fully met their obligations under this contract.

The START-1993 treaty, signed back in 2, was initially unable to ratify for a long time, and then was simply refused. The next agreement in force was an agreement to reduce the offensive potentials of the DPR, which limited the maximum number of warheads to another three times: from 1700 to 2200 units (compared to START-1). At the same time, the composition and structure of the arms that fell under the arms reduction were determined by the states themselves, this moment was not regulated in the agreement. The contract entered into force on June 1 2003.

START 3 and its results


The treaty on measures to further reduce and limit strategic offensive arms (START-3) entered into force on February 5 of the year 2011. He changed the START-1 agreement and canceled the DPR Agreement from 2002 of the year. The treaty provided for further large-scale reductions in the nuclear arsenals of Russia and the United States. According to the terms of the 5 February and 2018 agreement, the total number of weapons did not exceed the 700 deployed ICBMs, SLBMs and strategic missile-carrying bombers, 1550 charges on these missiles, and 800 deployed ICBMs, SLBMs and heavy bombers (BTBs). . It was in the START-3 agreement that the concept of “non-deployed” carriers and launchers, that is, not in combat readiness, was first introduced. They can be used for training or testing and do not have warheads. The treaty also separately stated a ban on the basing of strategic offensive arms outside the national territories of the two states.


The START-3 treaty, in addition to limiting nuclear weapons directly, implies a two-way exchange of telemetry data that was obtained during test launches. The exchange of telemetric information on missile launches is carried out by mutual agreement and on a parity basis for no more than five launches per year. At the same time, the parties are obliged to exchange information on the number of carriers and warheads twice a year. Inspection activities were also spelled out separately, up to 300 people can participate in the inspection, the candidatures of which agree within a month, after which they are issued two-year visas. At the same time, the inspectors themselves, members of the inspection delegations and flight crews, as well as their aircraft, during inspections in the two countries, enjoy full immunity.

The 2018 year is expected to extend the START-3 agreement, since it expires only in the 2021 year. As the US ambassador to Russia, John Huntsman, noted in January 2018, trust between the states in the matter of arms reduction is not lost at the moment - Washington and Moscow are successfully working on implementing START-3. “We are working in a positive direction with regard to START-3, I call it“ the moment of inspiration ”, after February 5 the work will not stop, the work will be more intensive. The fact that we are approaching this date of achieving our goals inspires confidence, ”the ambassador noted.

As TASS notes, on 1 September 2017, the Russian Federation had 501 deployed nuclear weapons carrier, 1561 nuclear warhead and 790 deployed and non-deployed launchers of ICBMs, SLBMs and TB. The United States had 660 deployed carriers, 1393 warheads and 800 deployed and non-deployed launchers. From the published data, it followed that for Russia, in order to fit into the limit on START-3, it was necessary to reduce 11 warheads.

Nuclear Arsenal of Russia and the USA

To date, the basis of modern strategic weapons continues to make nuclear weapons. In some cases, it also includes high-precision weapons with conventional warheads, which can be used to destroy strategic enemy targets. By purpose it is divided into offensive (shock) and defensive weapons. The strategic offensive weapons (START) include all ground-based ICBM complexes (both mine and mobile), strategic nuclear missile submarines (ARPL), as well as strategic (heavy) bombers, which can be carriers of strategic air-launched missiles. surface "and atomic bombs.
Topol-M mobile version

Russia

The following ICBMs under the effect of the START-3 agreement as part of the Strategic Missile Forces (Strategic Missile Forces): RS-12М Topol; PC-12М2 Topol-M; PC-18 (according to NATO codification - “Stiletto”), PC-20 “Dnepr” (according to NATO codification “Satan”), Р-36М УТТХ and Р-36Х2 "Voevoda"; PC-24 Yars. According to the TASS, currently the Russian group of Strategic Missile Forces is located near the 400 ICBM with warheads of various types and different capacities. Thus, more than 60 percent of weapons and warheads of the strategic nuclear forces of the Russian Federation are concentrated here. A notable difference from the United States is the presence in the ground component of the nuclear triad - mobile complexes. If in the USA, ICBMs are located exclusively in stationary mine installations, then in the Strategic Missile Forces, along with mine-based, mobile ground-based missile systems based on the multi-axle MZKT-79221 chassis are used.

In 2017, the Strategic Missile Forces were replenished with the 21 new ballistic missile. Future plans include the decommissioning of Topol ICBMs, replacing them with more modern and sophisticated Yars ICBMs. At the same time, Moscow expects to extend the service life of the heaviest ICBM P-36М2 "Voivod" in service with the RVSN up to at least 2027 of the year.

The maritime component of the Russian nuclear triad is represented, as of 1 March 2017, of 13 nuclear submarines with intercontinental ballistic missiles on board. The basis of the 6 submarine missile-carriers of the project 667BDRM "Dolphin", which are armed with ballistic missiles R-29RMU2 "Sineva" and their modification "Liner". Also in the ranks are still three submarines of the earlier project 667BDR Kalmar and one boat of the project 941UM Akula - Dmitry Donskoy. She is also the largest submarine in the world. It was at “Dmitry Donskoy” that the first tests of the new Russian ICBM were carried out, falling under the effect of the START-3 agreement - the P-30 “Bulava” missile, which is produced in Votkinsk. In addition to the above-mentioned submarines, three nuclear submarines of the new 955 Borey project, armed with the Bulava, are boats: K-535 Yuri Dolgoruky, K-550 Alexander Nevsky and K-551 Vladimir Monomakh ". Each of these submarines carries on board up to 16 ICBMs. Also on the upgraded project "Borey-A" in Russia 5 such rocket carriers are being built.

Submarine project 955 "Borey"

The basis of the air part of the nuclear triad in Russia consists of two strategic bomber, falling under the treaty START-3. This is a supersonic strategic bomber-bomber with a variable sweep wing Tu-160 (16 units) and an honorary veteran - a turboprop strategic bomber-bomber Tu-95MS (around 40 deployed). According to experts, these turboprop aircraft can be successfully used up to 2040 year.

USA

The modern US nuclear arsenal consists of the Minuteman-III mine ICBMs (there are 399 deployed launchers of ICBMs and 55 non-deployed), ballistic missiles on Trident II submarines (212 deployed and 68 non-deployed), as well as cruise missiles and air bombs with nuclear warheads, which carriers are strategic bombers. Rocket Minuteman-III for a long time is the basis of the American nuclear deterrent, it is in service with the 1970 year and is the only land-based ICBM in service with the American army. All this time, the missiles were constantly being upgraded: the replacement of warheads, power plants, control systems and guidance.

What Russia and the United States have cut under the START-3 Treaty
Test launch of ICBM Minuteman-III

Trident II ICBM carriers are Ohio-class nuclear submarines, each of which carries on its 24 board such missiles equipped with individual-targeting reusable warheads (no more than 8 warheads per rocket). In total, 18 of such submarines was built in the USA. At the same time, 4 of them have already been converted into carriers of cruise missiles, the modernization of the rocket mines made it possible to place on them up to 154 7 cruise missiles in the mine. Converted 22 mine, two more are used as sluice chambers for docking mini-submarines or special modules to exit the combat swimmers. Since 1997, this is the only type of American SSBNs in service. Their main weapon is the Trident II D-5 ICBM. According to American experts, this rocket is the most reliable weapon in the strategic arsenal of the United States.

The Pentagon is also included in the number of deployed strategic bombers - 49 machines, including 11 stealth strategic bombers Northrop B-2A Spirit and 38 «oldies» Boeing B-52H, even 9 B-2A and 8 B-52H listed as non-deployed. Both bombers can use both cruise missiles with nuclear warheads and free-fall atomic bombs and guided bombs. Another American strategic bomber B-1B, developed in 1970-s specifically for launching missile strikes on the territory of the Soviet Union, has been converted into a carrier of conventional weapons since the 1990-s. By the time the START 3 ends, the US Army does not plan to use it as a carrier of nuclear weapons. According to the 2017 year, the US Air Force included the X-NUMX B-63B Lancer bomber.
Unobtrusive Northrop B-2A Spirit strategic bomber


Mutual claims of the parties

US Assistant Secretary of State John Sullivan explained the condition that must be met for the United States to comply with the treaty on measures to further reduce and limit strategic offensive arms (talking about the START-3 treaty) and the treaty on the elimination of medium-range and short-range missiles. According to Sullivan, the United States "wants to abide by arms control agreements, but to do this, their interlocutors must be" set up in the same way, "reports his agency Interfax. It is worth noting that in January 2018 of the State Department confirmed that Russia fulfilled the conditions of the START-2010 agreement signed in 3, however, the United States continues to blame Russia for violating the INF Treaty. In particular, Washington believes that a new ground-based cruise missile, a land modification of the famous Caliber, was created in Yekaterinburg in the Novator Design Bureau. The Russian Foreign Ministry, in turn, notes that the example of a ground-based cruise missile 9М729 complies with the terms of the contract.

At the same time, according to the chairman of the Russian State Duma Committee on Defense, Vladimir Shamanov, Moscow has serious doubts about the fulfillment by Washington of its commitments on START-3. Shamanov noted that Russia did not receive confirmation of the re-equipment of Trident II missile launchers and B-52M missile launchers. The main issues of the Russian side relate to the re-equipment of US strategic offensive weapons. As Vladimir Putin noted during a meeting with the leaders of the leading Russian media 11 in January 2018, the United States must verify the changes being carried out so that Russia can verify that there is no return potential on some carriers. Moscow’s lack of such evidence is of concern. According to Russian Ambassador to the US Anatoly Antonov, the dialogue with the American side continues on this issue.

Information sources:
http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/4925548
https://vz.ru/news/2018/1/18/904051.html
http://www.aif.ru/dontknows/file/chto_takoe_snv-3
Open source materials
Author:
15 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Bouncer
    Bouncer 21 February 2018 06: 11 New
    +18
    Another big question about the fate of shortened warheads
    Which of the parties and how to dispose and who destroys to zero
    1. Vard
      Vard 21 February 2018 07: 24 New
      +1
      In light of all this, the weapons-grade plutonium deal ... what's this?
      1. Ascetic
        Ascetic 21 February 2018 08: 50 New
        +5
        Quote: Vard
        In light of all this, the weapons-grade plutonium deal ... what's this?

        In October 2016 Putin by his decree suspended the deal.
    2. Ascetic
      Ascetic 21 February 2018 07: 36 New
      +6
      Quote: Bouncer
      Another big question about the fate of shortened warheads

      Here it is still important to consider TNW data for which there is no official. There is such an organization as the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) which is involved in the calculation and analysis of the state of nuclear warheads. According to her data

      The United States has a significantly larger number of strategic nuclear weapons in storage (intended for ICBMs, SLBMs and strategic bombers). The United States, the institute indicates, out of 2,2 thousand warheads lying in warehouses in the country, only 150 are tactical nuclear bombs. In Russia, SIPRI notes, of the 2,35 thousand charges stored, the majority belong to tactical ones - 1,85 thousand. Thus, The United States has 2,05 thousand strategic charges in warehouses, while the Russian Federation has only 500, that is, four times less.
      link
      1. lwxx
        lwxx 21 February 2018 10: 13 New
        +4
        I will add. The treaty does not take into account nuclear charges and carriers of other NATO countries. Therefore, things are even worse.
        1. AUL
          AUL 21 February 2018 11: 54 New
          +5
          I'll add more. The agreement is not linked to the development of missile defense systems, and this is a very significant factor!
        2. Star
          Star 24 February 2018 12: 52 New
          +2
          Yes and yes, do not forget about the superior number of NATO bases and personnel.
      2. tihonmarine
        tihonmarine 25 February 2018 12: 04 New
        +1
        Any international organization is always under someone’s “roof”, and SIPRI is no exception, but who pays and orders music.
    3. siberalt
      siberalt 21 February 2018 17: 24 New
      +2
      They wouldn’t have destroyed earlier under START-3, then they would have written off for dilapidation. We then saved money on maintenance; now we are introducing a new one. Here, whatever one may say, you need to consider the pros and cons. winked
  2. Lieutenant Teterin
    Lieutenant Teterin 21 February 2018 11: 09 New
    +5
    In modern conditions, the treaties of both strategic offensive arms and the elimination of the INF Treaty are hopelessly outdated. The Nuclear Club only officially has 5 states, of which only 2 — the Russian Federation and the USA have signed these agreements. Other nuclear weapons possessing states are in fact free to dispose of nuclear weapons delivery vehicles as they please and, if, for example, the nuclear arsenal of France or Britain does not cause particular concern here — these states will simply not pull out a massive increase, then the question of the state of similar weapons in China raises a certain interest. To this day, the Chinese are armed with short- and medium-range missiles, and the size of the Chinese nuclear weapons is still unknown, which in itself is a potentially destabilizing factor in relations between the states of the "nuclear club" and puts the RF and the USA, which signed the START treaties, in an obviously unequal position and INF.
    1. siberalt
      siberalt 21 February 2018 18: 39 New
      0
      Yes everything is correct. Why should Americans bother with expensive Strategic Missile Forces when they are standing at the borders of Russia? And in this case, what is the point of hammering a small-core core along adjacent borders without prejudice to the United States? This begs the answer with the placement of their "average" near the United States, followed by bargaining to withdraw the same from our borders. But everyone is afraid of a recurrence of the "Caribbean crisis." Why? After a crisis, recovery usually occurs. For those who do not want to die, of course. Here, either give up, or subtly play on the verge of opportunity. What would you choose (or any of us)? Purely hypothetically, of course. Ultimately, it is not for you and us to decide, but still?hi
  3. Old26
    Old26 21 February 2018 12: 37 New
    +4
    It was in the START-3 treaty that the concept of “non-deployed” carriers and launchers, that is, those not in combat readiness, was first introduced. They can be used for training or testing and do not have warheads. The treaty also separately fixed a ban on basing strategic offensive arms outside the national territories of the two states.


    The term "non-deployed" carriers was used earlier, it was simply called "spare" missiles and it was determined how many of them could be on the territory of the division. Under the START-1 / START-2 agreement, the number of "non-combat" mines used for training was also indicated.
    But the term NOT DEVELOPED launchers really only appeared in START-3. But contrary to the opinion of the author, they do not include launchers designed for testing and training. These launchers go on a separate line. In particular, the United States EMNIP for Miniteman-3 missiles has 4 such mines, for the Trident there are none, there is one B-2A bomber and 2 B-52H bomber, which are used for testing.
    The total number of deployed products (missiles) is determined by the number EXTENDED START-UP INSTALLATIONS, because, for example, the United States has a total number of “Minutemen” held by 680, but only 400 of them are on combat duty, the rest are in arsenals. Therefore, the number of ICBMs in the United States (and in Russia) is determined by the number of deployed launchers. On January 1, 2018, the Americans 399 deployed silos (one under repair) and 50 shaht are in the form of a “hot reserve”. That is, without missiles, but they can always be put there. Still 4 mines from "Minutman-3" are subject to liquidation

    As TASS notes, on 1 September 2017, the Russian Federation had 501 deployed nuclear weapons carrier, 1561 nuclear warhead and 790 deployed and non-deployed launchers of ICBMs, SLBMs and TB. The United States had 660 deployed carriers, 1393 warheads and 800 deployed and non-deployed launchers. From the published data, it followed that for Russia, in order to fit into the limit on START-3, it was necessary to reduce 11 warheads.

    A newer data from the author do not?
    On February 5, Russia has 527 deployed carriers, 1444 warheads and 779 undeployed carriers
    Americans really have as many as the author wrote. We have a limit for deployed media, but unfortunately there is a significant excess of the limits for non-deployed systems. Instead of 100, we have about 250. That is 150 must be disposed of ...

    The following ICBMs fall under the START-3 treaty as part of the Strategic Missile Forces (Strategic Missile Forces): RS-12M Topol; RS-12M2 "Topol-M"; RS-18 (according to the NATO codification - “Stiletto”), RS-20 “Dnepr” (according to the NATO codification “Satan”), R-36M UTTKh and R-36M2 “Voevoda”; RS-24 "Yars". According to TASS, at present about 400 ICBMs with various types of warheads and various power units are located in the Russian Strategic Missile Forces group.

    Something the author reported. Actually, the Topol, Topol-M, Yars, UR-100N UTTH (RS-18), R-36M UUTH and R-36M2 Voevoda complexes are actually affected by the agreement. But the product designated by the author of the RS-20 "Dnepr" does not fall under this contract. Moreover, this is a conversion (space) version of the R-36M UTTH missile

    In addition, writing simply the RS-20 Dnepr is not very correct. THREE modifications of this product existed and have the contract designation RS-20. This is the RS-20A or R-36M, a very long time removed from service. This is the RS-20B or R-36M UTTH (also already removed) and finally the RS-20V or R-36M2 Voevoda. So the RS-20 would have to be written with an alphabetic index
    Where does TASS get this data from - 400 missiles in the Strategic Missile Forces probably know only TASS, although I guess where it came from. Just how can you count about 400 when, on January 1, 2017, the Strategic Missile Forces were armed with:
    • 46 ICBMs R-36M2
    • 30 UR-100N UTTH (even then they were listed in the exchanges as not deployed, the warheads were no longer considered.
    • 36 "poplars"
    • 78 "Topol-M"
    • 96 "Yarsev".
    TOTAL 286. From July to October, another 20 Voivode missiles and a number of Topol missiles were withdrawn from service ...

    In 2017, the Strategic Missile Forces were replenished with the 21 new ballistic missile. Future plans include the decommissioning of Topol ICBMs, replacing them with more modern and sophisticated Yars ICBMs. At the same time, Moscow expects to extend the service life of the heaviest ICBM P-36М2 "Voivod" in service with the RVSN up to at least 2027 of the year.
    It remains that there are about 26 of them, "Governor", What kind of at least 2027 can we talk about? They are now almost 30 years old. And what, a dozen years will create SARMAT to replace "VOEVOD"

    13 nuclear submarines with intercontinental ballistic missiles on board. The basis is made up of 6 Project 667BDRM Dolphin submarine missile carriers, which are armed with Sineva R-29RMU2 ballistic missiles and their Liner modification. Also in service are three submarines of the earlier project 667BDR Kalmar and one submarine of Project 941UM Akula - Dmitry Donskoy. She is the largest submarine in the world. It was at Dmitry Donskoy that the first tests of the new Russian ICBM were carried out, falling under the START-3 treaty - the Bulava R-30 missile, which is being launched in Votkinsk. In addition to the listed submarines, three nuclear submarines of the new 955 Borey project armed with a Bulava are currently on combat duty, these are boats: K-535 Yuri Dolgoruky, K-550 Alexander Nevsky and K-551 Vladimir Monomakh ". Each of these submarines carries on board up to 16 ICBMs. Also, under the modernized Borey-A project, another 5 such missile carriers are being built in Russia.

    In fact, “Dmitry Donskoy” does not count as a combat boat, it is an experimental one. The missile silos are empty.

    The US modern nuclear arsenal consists of Minuteman-III silo ICBMs (there are 399 deployed ICBM launchers and 55 non-deployed), ballistic missiles in Trident II submarines (212 deployed and 68 non-deployed),

    Corresponds to the latest data exchange

    Trident II ICBM carriers are Ohio-class nuclear submarines, each of which carries on its 24 board such missiles equipped with individual-targeting reusable warheads (no more than 8 warheads per rocket). In total, 18 of such submarines was built in the USA. At the same time, 4 of them have already been converted into carriers of cruise missiles, the modernization of the rocket mines made it possible to place on them up to 154 7 cruise missiles in the mine. Converted 22 mine, two more are used as sluice chambers for docking mini-submarines or special modules to exit the combat swimmers. Since 1997, this is the only type of American SSBNs in service. Their main weapon is the Trident II D-5 ICBM. According to American experts, this rocket is the most reliable weapon in the strategic arsenal of the United States.

    Something the author emphasized on modernized boats, which became carrier boats of cruise missiles, but did not touch boats with ballistic ones. The Americans now have 14 of them, 20 missiles each. 4 shafts on boats were dismantled.

    The Pentagon also included 49 machines among the deployed strategic bombers, including 11 subtle strategic bombers Northrop B-2A Spirit and 38 "old men" Boeing B-52H, another 9 B-2A and 8 B-52H are not deployed. Both bombers can use both cruise missiles with nuclear warheads, and atomic free-fall bombs and guided bombs. Another American strategic bomber B-1B, developed in the 1970s specifically for launching missile strikes on the territory of the Soviet Union, has been converted into a carrier of conventional weapons since the 1990s. By the time START-3 expires, the US Army does not plan to use it as a carrier of nuclear weapons. As of 2017, the U.S. Air Force had 63 B-1B Lance bombers

    The author is wrong. B-2A type bombers do not currently carry cruise missiles. The AGM-129A cruise missiles (AFM) are withdrawn from service and the EMNIP has already been disposed of. Now a bomber can carry only nuclear bombs and not a nuclear WTO
  4. Old26
    Old26 21 February 2018 12: 38 New
    +3
    MORE

    [quote] Shamanov noted that Russia has not received confirmation of the conversion of Trident II missile launchers and B-52M heavy bombers [/ quote]
    "Interesting girls are dancing," Where did the B-52M bomber come from - it's on his conscience. But what kind of confirmation is needed? 256 checks, 14 hits - is it all a linden? Or those about 300 inspectors were completely traitors, and for 7 years they "hung noodles"
    In four shafts on each boat, all the devices and mechanisms that allowed the boat to launch rockets were removed. Mine hatches are welded. At 41 B-52N bombers, rotary launchers were dismantled. What other confirmations are needed? As generals leave the Duma or the Federation Council, they begin to bear the blizzard. there was already such a “comrade” in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who worked in the department dealing with reduction issues. He also made such statements, as if he had slept for 7 years on the spot and had not read a single document. The minister knows that the information is consistent, and the subordinate says that it is a lie. That is, in fact, the minister (Lavrov) is lying, talking about this. Now I’ve got to a place where it does no harm ...

    [quote = Bouncer] Another big question about the fate of shortened warheads
    Which of the parties and how to dispose and who destroys to zero [/ quote]
    Both sides. I don’t know what our capacities are, but the Americans have about 350 charges per year. With additional funding, the number of dismantled can increase to 600 per year.

    All warheads fall into four categories.
    1. OPERATIVELY DEPLOYED - those that are on missiles and in warehouses at air bases.
    2. OPERATIONAL STORAGE - located in the arsenals, but without additional work can be installed on missiles. The US return potential consists of this category.
    3. LONG STORAGE - neutron generators and parts containing tritium are removed from charges. These warheads could theoretically be reintroduced, but this is costly.
    4. STRATEGIC RESERVE - charges are stored completely disassembled, usually charges that await dismantling fall into this category

    Nowhere not in one of the agreements the destruction of certain warheads is not prescribed. Only warhead shells were destroyed (we have EMNIPs crumpled, while the Americans cut along)

    [quote = Vard] In light of all this, a deal on weapons-grade plutonium ... is that what? [/ quote]
    Weapon-grade plutonium deal? From this place can be more detailed ???

    [quote = Ascetic] [quote = Bouncer] Another big question about the fate of shortened warheads [/ quote]
    Here it is still important to consider TNW data for which there is no official. There is such an organization as the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) which is involved in the calculation and analysis of the state of nuclear warheads. According to her data

    The United States has a significantly larger number of strategic nuclear weapons in storage (intended for ICBMs, SLBMs and strategic bombers). The United States, the institute indicates, out of 2,2 thousand warheads lying in warehouses in the country, only 150 are tactical nuclear bombs. In Russia, SIPRI notes, of the 2,35 thousand charges stored, the majority belong to tactical ones - 1,85 thousand. Thus, The United States has 2,05 thousand strategic charges in warehouses, while the Russian Federation has only 500, that is, four times less.
    Any calculations, comrade, require multiple checks. How many people have more storage is an open question. But I do not think that the difference was so significant. Look at the data on the start of the START-3 treaty. Russia had about 2430 strategic and about 2080 tactical charges. An estimated 3000 were expected to be dismantled. And the total number of charges according to the same SIPRI, we are approximately equal with the Americans. 6800 for them and 7000 for us. Of course, there is a difference in tactical and strategic in storage, but the kmk figure does not correspond to realities four times

    [quote = lwxx] I will add. The treaty does not take into account nuclear charges and carriers of other NATO countries. Therefore, things are even worse. [/ Quote]
    He does not take into account anyone else's charges at all. for example, it does not take into account 215 British charges and 270 Chinese. Does not take into account 300 French charges.
  5. the same doctor
    the same doctor 21 February 2018 15: 10 New
    0
    The very concept of arms reduction based on their range is damaging. All nuclear weapons reaching the national territory should be recognized as strategic. The missiles of other NATO members should also be taken into account in the overall balance. Only after that it will be possible to agree on something.
    .
    Otherwise, it makes sense. Americans threw us with sea and air carriers. They even adapted front-line fighters for atomic bomb carriers. Their real strategic potential is many times greater than ours.
    .
    However, these games can be played together. the same Iskanders can be modified into medium-range missiles, and so that there is no formal violation - run from An-2, for example. The advantage of this solution is the cheapening of missiles. They can be liquid and refuel directly during take-off of the carrier already in the air. Etc. The only bad thing is that the Americans will not agree to honest agreements until they are secured to the wall. Until we achieve equality in the number of warheads reaching them and us, we should not count on peace. And for this, it will be necessary to create air-launched INF-based missile defense systems (balancing the strategic potentials of the NATO countries and China, as well as the US and sea airborne missiles), and thousands of stratospheric direct-flow drones with a range of 8-10 thousand km under the guise of air-launched missiles . Expensive, but much cheaper than the damage from a possible BSU.
  6. Old26
    Old26 21 February 2018 16: 14 New
    +1
    Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
    for example, the nuclear arsenal of France or Britain does not cause much concern — its large-scale increase these states simply will not pull,

    Britain is even declining.

    Quote: also a doctor
    The very concept of arms reduction based on their range is damaging. All nuclear weapons reaching the national territory should be recognized as strategic. The missiles of other NATO members should also be taken into account in the overall balance. Only after that it will be possible to agree on something ..

    Do you want to come to no agreement at all? How are you going to coordinate something. when, for example, for Russia, in addition to several dozen or hundreds of medium-range missiles, the “strategic” will be under the thousand missiles that reach Russia. You will have a couple of brigades - that is, half a hundred Iskander-type missiles, and the Chinese have several thousand missiles of a very different class. Do you seriously think that someone will agree to this option ???
    And if you also take into account North Korea - are there also several hundred missiles reaching the territory of Russia? How is it with them? In the future, Iran. NATO has only a little over a hundred missiles that will reach Russian territory


    Quote: also a doctor
    Otherwise, it makes sense. Americans threw us with sea and air carriers. They even adapted front-line fighters for atomic bomb carriers. Their real strategic potential is many times greater than ours.

    Yah?? But our front-line fighters like MIG-21 and SU-7 could not carry nuclear weapons? Or again your crazy idea that a tactical fighter with a nuclear bomb is a strategist for us and should be taken into account? I have not heard such nonsense

    Quote: also a doctor
    However, these games can be played together. the same Iskanders can be modified into medium-range missiles, and so that there is no formal violation - run from An-2, for example ..

    Why not from a hang glider? If you rave, it's so complete. Without limiting yourself. Or from a motor boat, for example ...

    Quote: also a doctor
    The advantage of this solution is the cheapening of missiles. .

    Why is that? The cost of a rocket is the cost of its production. How the launch from AN-2 will reduce the cost of the rocket

    Quote: also a doctor
    They can be liquid and refuel directly during take-off of the carrier already in the air. Etc..

    solid fuel "iskander" became liquid ??? A couple of technicians with buckets and watering cans will probably be melting in the air ????

    Quote: also a doctor
    The only bad thing is that the Americans will not agree to honest agreements until they are secured to the wall. .

    Do you consider such an agreement honest? Which cannot be controlled? Give examples of violations by the Americans of strategic agreements, since you are so sure that they will not agree to honest agreements

    Quote: also a doctor
    Until we achieve equality in the number of warheads reaching them and us, we should not count on peace. .

    And now, is it wrong with us? Are not we and they limited by the number of 1550 warheads and 700/800 carriers

    Quote: also a doctor
    And for this, it will be necessary to create air-based INF missiles (balancing the strategic potentials of the NATO and China countries with respect to us, as well as the United States and the United States sea and air bases).

    Want to bury Russia? That she overstrained from exorbitant military spending and fell apart? With your "good intentions" to "balance" the road "to hell" for Russia is paved.

    Quote: also a doctor
    Thousands of stratospheric direct-flow drones with a range of 8-10 thousand km under the guise of airborne missile defense do. Expensive, but much cheaper than the damage from a possible BSU.

    Expensive? not just expensive. MONEYLY EXPENSIVE, especially considering your thoughts to level the number of missiles and warheads with everyone. THIS WILL BE THE END OF RUSSIA. And a quick global strike is not needed. Destroy ourselves