The US Congress introduced a bill "Termination of Russian nuclear aggression"

61
It became known about the bill introduced by the US congressmen for consideration by both chambers of the US legislative body. The bill concerns a proposal to officially prohibit the extension of the START III Treaty (on the limitation of strategic offensive arms).





Representatives of the US Congress Tom Cotton and Liz Cheney declare that funding for the extension of the START III Treaty will not be made until the US President confirms Russia's agreement on a controlled (American) reduction of the nuclear arsenal, including a tactical one.

The bill has a corresponding name - “Termination of Russian nuclear aggression”. It would have been difficult to come up with such a formulation, but not to the American legislators. The title is a clear hypocrisy for several reasons. The only country that applied nuclear weapon against another country, are the United States themselves. Also, the United States managed to flood with nuclear weapons (so far - tactical) European countries, including Germany and Italy, openly violating the non-proliferation treaty.

The authors of the initiative on non-renewal of the contract without obtaining "guarantees of the controlled destruction of part of the arsenal by Russia" declare that 2021 may be the last year when the United States will comply with its part of the agreement with Moscow.

In other words, the message of the American lawmakers is as follows: Russia must necessarily allow American observers to its nuclear facilities, and then begin to dispose of a certain number of nuclear warheads. And only then the United States extended the contract. At the same time, nothing is said about allowing Russian specialists to visit nuclear facilities with the United States in order for the Russians to monitor the implementation of the START treaty by the Americans.
61 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -9
    29 November 2018 06: 12
    hypocrites. but they can afford it
    1. +36
      29 November 2018 06: 18
      hypocrites. but they can afford it

      I don’t know what they can allow, but we can’t let them rummage around at our category C military facilities.
      The story of the unforgettable Saddam HUSSEIN ... everyone should remember how he allowed the American intelligence to draw his military objects up and down ... probably when he hung on the rope bitterly regretted this stupidity.
      1. +2
        29 November 2018 06: 26

        The same LEHA (Alexey) Today, 06: 18
        +1
        hypocrites. but they can afford it

        I don’t know what they can allow, but we can’t let them rummage around at our category C military facilities.

        hi ! ... yes, there was time (my post below) is enough, have suffered ...
        1. +13
          29 November 2018 07: 13
          Quote: blackwater532
          hypocrites. but they can afford it

          Just Americans defend their interests. Do not whine and do not express concern. Act as they can.
          Our thought so far can only standing up to applaud delegations from the United States, clapping and smiling at precisely those people who are considering and adopting laws to counter Russian people.
          1. +2
            29 November 2018 09: 09
            Russia must necessarily allow American observers to its nuclear facilities, and then begin to dispose of a certain number of nuclear warheads.


            Do we really agree to this? I think that they will never see this.
          2. -3
            29 November 2018 09: 22
            Quote: For example
            Just Americans defend their interests.

            Simply, Russia will be able to live without the rest of the world, but the United States is not, hence the difference in interests. The problem for the US is that the rest of the world wants to live freely.
            1. 0
              29 November 2018 09: 49
              Quote: KOCMOC
              but the USA is not,

              Open your eyes.
              Americans live and do not blow into a mustache. And the sanctions are distributed left and right.
              Only the owner can punish.

              Take the noodles off your ears.

              We are struggling to regain our independence from the United States. And this is not a quick matter. God willing, we can handle it.
              At the moment, we are very dependent.
              1. -1
                29 November 2018 10: 09
                Quote: For example
                Americans live and do not blow into a mustache.

                This is how they are not blowing: "The bill" Cessation of Russian Nuclear Aggression "has been submitted to the US Congress;
                Quote: For example
                Only the owner can punish.

                Only slaves say so.
                Quote: For example
                We are struggling to regain our independence from the United States. And this is not a quick matter.

                Russia is completely sovereign, Syria, Crimea, the example of which you are talking about, is an example of a fence with your neighbor.
                Quote: For example
                At the moment, we are very dependent.

                Quote: For example
                Open your eyes.

                Quote: For example
                Take the noodles off your ears.

                Same to you...
      2. +12
        29 November 2018 06: 50
        There is nothing surprising in the Wishlist of the Americans! Yeltsin betrayed - in the footsteps of Gorbachev - once Russia to the United States for its own presidency, selling Washington almost all of Russia's weapons-grade nuclear weapons and destroying part of the nuclear weapons and allowing the United States to our strategic nuclear facilities.
        Why should the Americans not count on the same betrayal of Gorbachev and Yeltsin on the part of VVP and DAM this time too? Especially the LADY, who in 2011 was going to obtain Israeli citizenship! Quite the Americans can count on it according to the principle "Maybe it will work for them again!"
        After all, the economic bloc in the Russian government together with the Central Bank of Russia, in fact, has been working for the United States since the time of Gorbachev! It is not for nothing that Brzezinski spoke about the Russian "elite":

      3. +3
        29 November 2018 07: 34
        Quote: The same LYOKHA
        we cannot allow them to rummage around our category C military facilities.

        You obviously don’t know, but they already managed to climb them during the time of Gorbi-Yeltsin .. In particular, in Seversk, where the American delegation was produced weapons-grade plutonium for warheads, they monitored the closure of this object and closed it, and now we are not new warheads. In principle, there are enough of them, but there is still an unpleasant residue. In 1990-2008, five uranium-graphite reactors were stopped at the SCC, including four dual-purpose ones, on which weapons-grade plutonium was produced. The head of the enterprise Sergey Tochilin reported that their decommissioning will be completed by 2030. https://www.riatomsk.ru/article/20150417/shk-amerikanci-ubedilisj-severske-oruzhejnogo-plutoniya-net/
        1. -2
          29 November 2018 08: 48
          Quote: Mar. Tira
          In 1990-2008, five uranium-graphite reactors were shut down at the SCC, including four dual-purpose reactors, on which weapons-grade plutonium was produced.

          Plutonium can also be produced in RBMK reactors.
    2. +1
      29 November 2018 06: 19
      They can, but within a certain framework, only because they still have the instinct for self-preservation. And they understand that too.
      1. +7
        29 November 2018 06: 27
        the instinct of self-preservation still remained with them

        It seems that some representatives already have their instincts dying ....
        1. +3
          29 November 2018 07: 14
          Quote: romandostalo
          the instinct of self-preservation still remained with them

          It seems that some representatives already have their instincts dying ....

          Dying for sure!
          Already what Gaddafi was smart - and even military (!) - and even at the end of his reign he got into the ambassadors of the USA and the West! He believed in the location of him from the international governmental financial mafia of the West.
      2. +2
        29 November 2018 10: 48
        Quote: Tatar 174
        The only country that has used nuclear weapons against another country is the United States itself.

        Quote: Tatar 174
        They can, but within a certain framework, only because they still have the instinct for self-preservation. And they understand that too.

        The first statement is not true! laughing
        The Minister of Defense of Ukraine Valery Geletey during the return of the Ukrainian delegation from Poland stated that Russia used tactical nuclear weapons against the Ukrainian military,
        "In particular, the Russian forces delivered two strikes from a self-propelled mortar 2S4 Tulip at the Luhansk airport. It is for this reason that our military left it. The strikes were so powerful that" they completely destroyed buildings from the fifth floor to the basement, "the journalist quotes Geleteya in his Facebook. " tongue
        So it’s better for the Americans to listen to Geletey! am
        1. +3
          29 November 2018 21: 13
          Quote: major147
          -3

          I really sympathize with people who do not understand the irony! request
    3. +9
      29 November 2018 07: 39
      Nuclear aggression!?! request Yes, such impudence interspersed with hypocrisy and manic desire to rule all countries in the world, no one on the globe! fool It's time to end these idiots before they destroy us all !!! angry soldier
  2. +8
    29 November 2018 06: 24
    until the US president confirms Russia's consent to a controlled (by the Americans) reduction of the nuclear arsenal, including the tactical one.

    ... in other words, the mericatos want to re-settle on our bases, as was the case with the traitor tagged ...
  3. +6
    29 November 2018 06: 31
    Harya crack, go scarring.
  4. +3
    29 November 2018 06: 34
    hi
    Good morning everyone ! smile
    I’m about this, I remember Zadornov’s aphorism: “America wants to be the big chief in the whole world” ... laughing Knowing full well that they have a muzzle in sour cream, they have clouds in us with a finger and say that we are to blame .. smile A play on words ... We have guys, for these things, they beat our faces ... laughing
  5. +4
    29 November 2018 06: 35
    They don’t plow fools, they don’t sow, they themselves will be born. Sometimes you need to be silent, maybe you will marry a smart one.
    Russia recycled its weapons-grade plutonium-the United States was buried. Russia has so far, in military doctrine, unlike the United States, a preventive nuclear strike, only a retaliatory one.
    I think Congress is not yet a home for the demented, otherwise the doctrine will have to be rewritten!
    1. 0
      29 November 2018 06: 51
      Quote: Andrea
      their weapons-grade plutonium-USA buried

      They mixed it with all sorts of der - muck, BUT, after all, you can clean it up, this is not a problem! Our department their rogue irrevocably processed!
      1. +2
        29 November 2018 07: 31
        Hmm, but what about the suspension of the agreement on the sale or transfer of plutonium of the FSA, whose action was terminated in 2014 after the first sanctions from the Fashikov?
        And such information that the FSA does not produce, but transfers plutonium from one type of nuclear fuel to another ....
        As far as I understand, pluton is a derivative of the decay of uranium in fast neutron reactors, and its FSA reactors have all become poorer, and it seems that it is already technologically impossible to restore production.
        1. 0
          29 November 2018 07: 43
          Quote: Andrea
          I think Congress is not yet a home for the demented, otherwise the doctrine will have to be rewritten!

          It is in the US Congress that the house of the weak-minded is just! They proved it more than once - especially American Indian!

        2. +2
          29 November 2018 08: 00
          Quote: jonht
          As far as I understand, pluton is a derivative of the decay of uranium in fast neutron reactors, and its FSA reactors have all become poorer, and it seems that it is already technologically impossible to restore production.

          In our country, in the USSR, 95% of plutonium-239 percent was produced in PUGRs (industrial uranium-graphite reactor) with a slow neutron spectrum, if we mean weapons-grade plutonium (239th purity not less than 92-94 percent).
      2. 0
        29 November 2018 07: 35
        No one has mixed or processed anything yet, with the exception of test batches.
        Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of 03.10.2016 No. 511
        http://publication.pravo.gov.ru/Document/View/0001201610030004
        Renewal conditions:
        http://asozd2.duma.gov.ru/addwork/scans.nsf/ID/C4294ACB989FB546432580410044CB71/$File/1186208-6_03102016_1186208-6.PDF?OpenElement
      3. The comment was deleted.
    2. -1
      29 November 2018 08: 15
      Quote: Andrea
      They don’t plow fools, they don’t sow, they themselves will be born. Sometimes you need to be silent, maybe you will marry a smart one.
      Russia recycled its weapons-grade plutonium-the United States was buried.

      Confirm with your affirmation.
    3. 0
      30 November 2018 06: 05
      Quote: Andrea
      Russia recycled its weapons-grade plutonium-the United States was buried.

      Once again, please confirm your information. The United States has not been buried, Russia has not processed anything yet as part of the MCPF.
  6. +2
    29 November 2018 06: 40
    Russia's consent to a controlled (by the Americans) reduction of the nuclear arsenal, including tactical
    American arrogance and unscrupulousness has no boundaries, but not to the same degree to be a boor. Or maybe immediately open the gates at the border and meet the "brave" Americans with bread and salt?
    1. +1
      29 November 2018 09: 21
      Quote: rotmistr60
      American impudence and unscrupulousness has no limits ...

      It's not about arrogance and unscrupulousness. You just don’t understand that this is a standard business negotiation practice.

      If you are negotiating with an enemy when you are not fully aware of his capabilities, then the optimal tactic would be to put pressure on him more and more until he begins to resist. The maximum result you can achieve will be obtained when the enemy rests in such a way that it is no longer possible to "push" him further. This is a direct consequence of "game theory". We must not be indignant at American impudence, but learn to use such tactics ourselves.
  7. 0
    29 November 2018 06: 42
    At the same time, nothing is said about allowing Russian specialists to nuclear facilities with the United States so that the Russians will control the implementation of the START treaty by the Americans.

    America’s mirror statement / proposal by Russia will not even be considered as evidence of aggression, but by aggression itself. And why? Because the Russian Federation is a colony of transnational corporations. And what is supposed to Jupiter, it is not supposed to bull.
  8. +1
    29 November 2018 06: 43
    They are trying to do everything possible to completely destroy nuclear weapons. Themselves have practically forgotten how to produce it, so they want to "ban" it.
    1. 0
      29 November 2018 06: 51
      they are betting on 1 hit non-nuclear means they now have about 10 tomahawks, plus interceptor missiles will rivet in the future, so we can’t reduce our carriers and warheads
  9. 0
    29 November 2018 06: 48
    Banking, that RA that that RA, banking .... I just want to say that they are defaming!
    Khosh to stay with his own, at least, do not sit down at the table to play with such !!!
    Send naf, let them take what they want. They now seem to think only in the Pentagon about the consequences !!! All the same, MILITARY EDUCATION means knowing a lot of things, as for the consequences of the debate for the incompetence of politicians! Of course they want to live sweetly, too, but so Schaub without any transcendent excesses!
  10. 0
    29 November 2018 06: 50
    no reductions, further reductions are already 100% undermining our defense capabilities, on the contrary, we need to make new nuclear weapons carriers by returning trains from nuclear weapons
    1. 0
      29 November 2018 08: 26
      To return not only the yao trains and the yao ships under the guise of bulk carriers, and indeed let them accept whatever they want
  11. +1
    29 November 2018 07: 05
    The crooks inscribed in thieves' laws the requirement for citizens not to resist robberies.
    It seems that only the blind one does not see how insanity grows stronger in the USA.
  12. +1
    29 November 2018 07: 18
    to whom to remind? freaks from the USA
  13. +3
    29 November 2018 08: 09
    Quote: blackwater532
    yer. but they can

    Why would they be able to afford more than we do? Pin-do-owls have three eyes? or is the blood not red? or are their nuclear weapons stronger than ours? And in general, I do not remember that someone appointed them as the "king on duty" of the Earth. So: Wouldn't they have gone so far .... through the forest. I agree with Putin, we do not need such a planet on which Russia will not be.
  14. 0
    29 November 2018 08: 12
    US Congressmen introduced a bill for consideration by both houses of the US legislature, which relates to a proposal to officially ban the extension of START III (on limiting strategic offensive arms).

    The treaty limiting strategic offensive weapons turns out to be "Russian aggression" !!! belay
    What is it that these "congressmen" are consuming, that they have such "smart thoughts" flowing out of their skulls? what fool
  15. +1
    29 November 2018 08: 57
    Russia must necessarily allow American observers to its nuclear facilities, and then begin to dispose of a certain number of nuclear warheads. And only then will the USA extend the agreement.
    Yes, they would not go on.
    With such a doctrine not to be reduced, but to be built up.
    How sad it is ...
    1. 0
      29 November 2018 09: 44
      Quote: Russobel
      Russia must necessarily allow American observers to its nuclear facilities, and then begin to dispose of a certain number of nuclear warheads. And only then will the USA extend the agreement.

      Andrew! Make the quotes of other commentators correctly, otherwise they are perceived as your own opinion. Instead of "+" from me, I almost drove you "-". And so from me to you "+".
      It is good that I read everything - your post is up to the end, because sometimes the participants do not read the entire text of the commentary to the end, and indeed we do not always read all the posts. How to distinguish, do you have a quote in the comment or not? Do not distinguish.

      The "VO" program allows you to simply format quotes in comments. Namely.
      OPTION 1.
      2. Highlight the text for your quote in the participant's comment and clicked the "quote" button under it.
      A quote appears in the box of your window indicating the author you are quoting.
      OPTION 2.
      1. Clicked "answer" - a window for comments has opened. There is a toolbar above it. On the ruler there is a button "insert quote" - it stands at the very end from right to left.
      2. Highlight the quote in the text on your gender. - and click on the control toolbar above the quotes field - "Insert quote". And the quote will be framed as it should be.

      I wish you a successful comment!
  16. 0
    29 November 2018 09: 00
    The bill also has a corresponding name - “Cessation of Russian nuclear aggression”.

    Immediately after Trump took office, a bill was introduced to limit the right of the US President to use the "nuclear button" De jure, any use of the US Armed Forces must be approved by Congress (and / or the Senate).

    The use of nuclear weapons has its own specifics, because it was beyond the scope of the above approval. If they are married to the bill restricting Trump in the right to use nuclear weapons, then the number of its initiators was 8, then increased to 15, after which I became bored of waiting for the result - I will assume that the bill did not get the required number of votes for voting .
  17. 0
    29 November 2018 09: 12
    The Americans have obvious phantom pains due to their own permissiveness of the early 90's plus a progressive megalomania!
  18. 0
    29 November 2018 09: 12
    Insanity grew stronger ... I don’t understand what the Americans are hoping for, the answer is obvious - go through the woods !!! It feels like they are stuck in the days of Gorbachev and Yeltsin, then this could go for a ride !!!
  19. 0
    29 November 2018 09: 40
    Alas, the US has a military budget of 15 times more than in Russia, so rights are pumping ...
    US military bases want to place in Poland and Ukraine .... these countries agree ...
    If Trump does not refuse to meet with Putin, they will probably agree to reduce tension: do not forget, the arms race buried the USSR ...
    1. +2
      29 November 2018 10: 41
      Quote: alta
      do not forget, the arms race buried the USSR ...

      And in my opinion, the USSR was buried by a corrupt and incompetent leadership.
  20. 0
    29 November 2018 09: 44
    I see no reason in extending strategic offensive arms for Russia. At this stage, this could theoretically affect the NPT. Of course, having removed the limitations, the States can deploy more missiles on the nuclear submarines, which will make their nuclear arsenal more invulnerable and protected from a preventive strike. Here are just the Russian Federation and China in their doctrines clearly write that they are not going to strike at anyone first. So, an increase in the arsenal will be an additional burden on the US budget.
  21. 0
    29 November 2018 10: 20
    From a dead donkey, their ears have ruined their atomic industry segment, now they are looking for the extreme ones. There is an opinion that by the year 25 the United States may be left without a nuclear weapons strategic segment altogether due to the natural decline in write-off and the inability to create new warheads.
  22. +1
    29 November 2018 10: 38
    Quote: LeftPers
    Quote: blackwater532
    yer. but they can

    Why would they be able to afford more than we do? Pin-do-owls have three eyes? or is the blood not red? or are their nuclear weapons stronger than ours? And in general, I do not remember that someone appointed them as the "king on duty" of the Earth. So: Wouldn't they have gone so far .... through the forest. I agree with Putin, we do not need such a planet on which Russia will not be.

    Once I read this opinion of the American: "The worst thing that the Russians can do is to immediately detonate all their nuclear weapons in Russia. They will die instantly and painlessly, and we will die long and painfully!"
  23. 0
    29 November 2018 11: 14
    Sometimes you don't even know how to comment on such super insolence. What should be going on in the brains of these "lawmakers" ub-people, who are clearly in an insane feverish delirium? We'll have to knock down arrogance from them, without waiting for peritonitis.
  24. 0
    29 November 2018 13: 21
    Representatives of the US Congress Tom Cotton and Liz Cheney declare that funding for the extension of the START III Treaty will not be made until the US President confirms Russia's agreement on a controlled (American) reduction of the nuclear arsenal, including a tactical one.

    Representatives of the Congress (Duma, Parliament - underline as appropriate) can issue any pearls. Our thinkers are no exception. The military (the same American) are well aware that this piece of paper (law) primarily hits the Americans themselves. All the more well aware that the tactical arsenal is no side to the agreement on reduce strategic armaments not applicable.
    And they understand very well. The military and industrialists, that withdrawing from the START treaty would be more profitable for Russia than the United States. The reasons are known to everyone and it makes no sense to repeat

    The United States also managed to flood European countries, including Germany and Italy, with nuclear weapons (for the time being tactical), openly violating the non-proliferation treaty.

    In fact, utter nonsense is written. One gets the impression that the author of this article only heard the name of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, but did not read it. The storage of nuclear weapons on the territory of other countries, as well as training the personnel of these countries, if necessary, to use nuclear weapons is not a violation of the provisions of the treaty. But the transfer of nuclear weapons under the control of other countries or the transfer of production technologies is indeed a violation.
    But nuclear weapons are located in Europe in-1 at US bases, in-2 controlled by the Americans and not transferred under the control of the same Germany, Italy, Belgium.
    Yes, if necessary (war) the same nuclear weapons located at bases in these countries can be used by aviation in these countries
    We did likewise. On the territory of the Warsaw Treaty countries (at least in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland and the German Democratic Republic) there were stores with our tactical charges and we, just like the Americans trained their allies under the Warsaw Treaty to use this nuclear weapon. But they did not pass under control. It turns out in one case - there were no violations (when it comes to us) and in another case it is a violation of the non-proliferation treaty (when it comes to Americans). There are the same double standards that we always blame Americans

    Quote: Mar. Tira
    Quote: The same LYOKHA
    we cannot allow them to rummage around our category C military facilities.

    You obviously don’t know, but they already managed to climb them during the time of Gorbi-Yeltsin .. In particular, in Seversk, where the American delegation was produced weapons-grade plutonium for warheads, they monitored the closure of this object and closed it, and now we are not new warheads. In principle, there are enough of them, but there is still an unpleasant residue. In 1990-2008, five uranium-graphite reactors were stopped at the SCC, including four dual-purpose ones, on which weapons-grade plutonium was produced. The head of the enterprise Sergey Tochilin reported that their decommissioning will be completed by 2030. https://www.riatomsk.ru/article/20150417/shk-amerikanci-ubedilisj-severske-oruzhejnogo-plutoniya-net/

    Comrades. Weapon-producing companies do not belong to objects of category "C". These included and relate exclusively to the storage facilities of the finished nuclear weapons, which are subordinated to the 12th Head of the Ministry of Defense.
    The Americans may have been playing around the plant, but the fact that they have been in the storage facilities at facility "C" is very doubtful

    Quote: KOCMOC
    Plutonium can also be produced in RBMK reactors.

    Plutonium is produced in ANY power reactors. The question is the difficulty of bringing energy (reactor) plutonium to the level of weapons grade. Easier and easier to do this on breeder reactors

    Quote: Andrea
    Russia recycled its weapons-grade plutonium-the United States was buried.

    Andrew! Do not repeat the stupidities circulated in the media. The plutonium reprocessing process was due to begin in 2018. Prior to this, each of the parties carried out work on 15 tons of its weapons-grade plutonium to make it unsuitable for further use in weapons. We recycled our own into MOX fuel, making it impossible to restore it as a weapon. They polluted their plutonium. But so that it can be restored. About any mass processing of speech was not and is not. This agreement was terminated by us. Therefore, do not repeat the rumors and gossip that we have processed all our plutonium, but the Americans haven’t.

    Quote: jonht
    Hmm, but what about the suspension of the agreement on the sale or transfer of plutonium of the FSA, whose action was terminated in 2014 after the first sanctions from the Fashikov?

    Such an agreement, Eugene, was not originally... There was an agreement between Russia and the United States that each of the parties, starting in 2018, will begin to process their weapons-grade plutonium into "safe" plutonium that is not suitable for use as weapons-grade plutonium. No sale or transfer of plutonium was provided for in this agreement. Each of the parties had to process 15 tons of plutonium. I described the result just above. And the break of this agreement was not the result of sanctions, but the agreement was broken due to the fact that the technology used by the Americans made it possible to recover plutonium as a weapon. Ours is not. Therefore, the agreement was also broken, and not because of some sanctions there.

    Quote: asv363
    Confirm with your affirmation

    Of course not. These are statements from the series "I heard the ringing, but I don't know where it is."

    Quote: Graz
    they are betting on 1 hit non-nuclear means they now have about 10 tomahawks, plus interceptor missiles will rivet in the future, so we can’t reduce our carriers and warheads

    Do the Americans themselves know that they have about 10 Tomahawks? Since 000, they have produced 1983 EMNIP "tomahawks", more than 7300 have been used up. Batches are periodically ordered to replenish the consumption, but they are insignificant - about 2000-2,5 hundreds of pieces. The last batch was received by EMNIP in 3,5. And where can they launch 2016 interceptors when they can have less than 10 CR in all their carriers?
    And "rivet" is not making buckets.
    • Firstly, very expensive products, even more expensive than "Tomahawks".
    • Secondly, even though the Americans have a military budget and huge, but not dimensionless. Under this budget, they produce 2-60 interceptors per year. And their deployment is quite complicated. For still need to produce radars, mount them.
    • B-3 interceptors of the type Standard SM-3 Block IIA (namely, this interceptor they now have the very best) can not intercept ICBMs. Only missiles of the class BRSD, which we do not have. And the program for creating an interceptor Standard SM-3 Block IIВ, which theoretically could hit and ICBMs (under certain conditions) is closed. And the current SM-3 Block IIA Standard program is 3–4 years late for the EMNIP. It should have been deployed for a long time, but now it is only being tested.
    • AT 4. And is someone talking about a reduction in carriers and warheads? The ceilings under the START-3 treaty with respect to warheads have been achieved, with regard to carriers we have a couple of hundred reserve units ...

    Quote: Graz
    returning trains from nuclear weapons

    Money nowhere to go? Ready to throw trillions of rubles into an unnecessary system? They didn’t ask themselves the question, why didn’t they deploy it now ??? But it would be worth it. We have where to invest these trillions in the system of the armed forces, and not spend them ineptly
  25. 0
    29 November 2018 13: 25
    I will continue

    Quote: egor egor
    Yao ships disguised as dry cargo ships

    My first boss taught me. Do you want to know what your "enemy" will do (colleague, any person in general) - put yourself in his place.
    However, this thought did not seem to enter your head. Otherwise, they would not have written nonsense. The Russian civilian navy is minuscule compared to the same US navy. And who would be better off if we "h.c.ru.im" a ban on the deployment of strike weapons (ballistic missiles) and cruise missiles, too, on dry cargo ships ??? Who will get better from this? We, who can deploy a maximum of dozens of such ships, or the Americans. which on our shores can deploy hundreds of such ships ???
    Maybe you should think first, and then offer something?

    Quote: RossMK
    I see no reason in extending strategic offensive arms for Russia. At this stage, this could theoretically affect the NPT. Of course, having removed the limitations, the States can deploy more missiles on the nuclear submarines, which will make their nuclear arsenal more invulnerable and protected from a preventive strike. Here are just the Russian Federation and China in their doctrines clearly write that they are not going to strike at anyone first. So, an increase in the arsenal will be an additional burden on the US budget.

    Any agreement is better than an arms race. And a budget of 15 times will allow them to do what we cannot do. Suppose the contract ceases to exist. What will this mean for us and for them?
    Now we have 775 deployed and not deployed и 517 deployed media. To the ceilings. which now exist under the contract, we can deploy 183 carrier and more to 75 existing to have an additional 25 in the "not deployed" section.
    For Americans, this figure, respectively 800 and 659. That is, the Americans have already reached the ceiling of deployed and not deployed. Can only deploy 41 carriers. We can deploy these 183 within a few years without straining.

    What will happen if there is no agreement.
    Monoblock "Topol" are being written off, which should be replaced by "Yarsami". In the near future, Voevoda will also have to be written off. And build Sarmatians instead. The number of UR-100N UTTH missiles is not so large. In 2004, we received 3 dozen of them from Ukraine, and now probably only half are left, no more. In the future, the replacement of monoblock Topol-M (there are 78 of them) with Yarsy with MIRV.
    The boats of the project 667BDR are written off (there is only one left). New "Borei" - they will also need to create ammunition for the same SLBM "Bulava". The plant where all this good (solid fuel) is produced in our singular. The number of ICBMs and SLBMs per year is about half a hundred. It will take huge investments to build a new plant and modernize counterparty enterprises. Huge money, huge stress and time, time and time again

    What the foe has. They have 50 mines available where they can place their Minutemans 3, which have passed through the LEP program. They have no problems with the creation of these missiles. in the arsenals disassembled there are 258 "machine sets" "Minutemen-3". Collecting 50 ICBMs from them is not difficult. In operational storage, they have warheads from warheads Mk-12A. The so-called return potential.
    The problem (costly in both time and money) is the repair of the Trident launchers. The boats are going to be put for repair at the factory, how long it will take (to repair 4 mines) - KhZ. But I think they will be able to repair 3-4 boats a year. And this will give an increase in another 64 Tridents, which can be loaded (now part of the warheads have been removed and the boats are carrying 4 EMNIP W-88 warheads instead of 8 and 4 W-76 warheads instead of 12-14. All these warheads are in operational storage and can be installed again within two weeks - a month
    Aviation is even easier. They have in the column are not deployed (undergoing repairs, modernization, etc.) are listed 10 V-52 and 7 V-2A... Put it into operation - of course it will take time, but they are what is called "ready-made". Plus more 41 bomber V-52N and EMNIP 62 V-1B are referred to as not nuclear means. As a result, they can quickly increase their carrier potential by 172 units. Plus, load them with additional warheads from the "return potential". We can't do it that fast.
    The same with the INF Treaty. They can leave at least tomorrow, but it is unlikely to get any powerful potential. Their nuclear weapons can upgrade to 350 BB per year. And new ones in the near future (10 years)
    they will not be able to do at all. So think about who benefits from the exit. Us or them.

    Quote: shinobi
    From a dead donkey, their ears have ruined their atomic industry segment, now they are looking for the extreme ones. There is an opinion that by the year 25 the United States may be left without a nuclear weapons strategic segment altogether due to the natural decline in write-off and the inability to create new warheads.

    Well, not so much they ruined him to say that they were full of khan. Work is underway in this direction, of course, it is not a matter of money, but of time, but the plant for dismantling and modernizing their nuclear weapons is operating. About 350 nuclear weapons units can be upgraded per year. They still cannot do new ones, but the fact that by 2025 they will have the basic programs for modernizing the existing nuclear weapons is a fact. And by and large, to a damn whether the W-88 or W-88-4 warhead will be on the carrier
    1. +1
      29 November 2018 22: 08
      The calculations are interesting, but useless: we need to have 2 warheads from different carriers for each target (plus some reserve in case of failures or intercepts) and that’s all. The number of warheads and carriers in the United States is their personal difficulty. Now we obviously have fewer appropriate funds, the United States requires clearly less funds (fewer goals), plus they have a lot of other resources to solve the same problems (the largest air fleet, the largest fleet with cruise missiles). My conclusion is that withdrawing from the contract will be beneficial to us if the existing industry allows us to take advantage of the absence of restrictions.
    2. 0
      30 November 2018 00: 26
      the tactical arsenal does not belong in any way to the treaty on the reduction of strategic arms.

      as I understand it, the Americans, in view of the fact that the arsenal of tactical charges in the Russian Federation is much larger than the American, want to condition the limitation of strategic weapons on the reduction of Russian tactical
  26. -1
    29 November 2018 16: 05
    The bill also has a corresponding name - “Cessation of Russian nuclear aggression”

    Congressmen ... fucked up! That's just the degree of what is ABSOLUTELY or AT ALL?
  27. 0
    29 November 2018 16: 55
    "In other words, the message of American lawmakers is this: Russia must definitely allow American observers to visit its nuclear facilities, and then begin the disposal of a certain number of nuclear warheads."...

    This was already under the USSR, and - under the new Russia ... A lot of what they saw, and a lot of what we cut ...
    The "director" of this performance does not even try to update the scheme, he thinks that the "natives" will again lead to these words ...
  28. +1
    29 November 2018 20: 36
    amerikosy along the way got stoned elephant pisyuna that's all
  29. 0
    30 November 2018 08: 20
    Russia must necessarily allow American observers to its nuclear facilities, and then begin to dispose of a certain number of nuclear warheads. And only then will the USA extend the agreement. At the same time, nothing is said about allowing Russian specialists to nuclear facilities with the United States in order for the Russians to control the implementation of the START treaty by the Americans.


    One gate play. The Yankees imagined themselves to be airships. Honestly, if America burns completely in an atomic flame, the rest of the planet will breathe a sigh of relief.
  30. 0
    30 November 2018 11: 27
    Representatives of the US Congress Tom Cotton and Liz Cheney declare that funding for the extension of the START III Treaty will not be made until the US President confirms Russia's agreement on a controlled (American) reduction of the nuclear arsenal, including a tactical one.
    And you would not go to the address known to all.
  31. 0
    30 November 2018 18: 22
    They will go into the duplex.
    With a high degree of probability ours will answer:
    1. The stench due to the fact that they have lost production capacities for replenishing nuclear weapons and have tritely collapsed, get out and gamble.
    2. Let them destroy first what they themselves promised under our control, then we’ll talk
    3. They should not talk about aggression, the main aggressor of the planet in recent years - they
    4. Let the moronic ultimatums put to his wife, but there you can row a frying pan bully