USA vs. START III. New impossible conditions

USA vs. START III. New impossible conditions

B. Obama and D. Medvedev at the ceremony of signing START III. Photo AP RF / kremlin.ru


On February 5, 2021, the Treaty on the Reduction of Offensive Arms (START III / START) expires. The terms of the agreement provide for the reduction of strategic nuclear forces to the specified limits. It is possible to extend the contract by mutual agreement of the parties. However, the extension process stalled, and the other day there were new problems. The American side came up with requirements that are virtually impossible to fulfill.

American conditions


The cause for new debate at the highest level was the recent publication of The Washington Times. May 7, she published an interview with the representative of the US President for arms control Marshall Billingsley. The main points of this interview naturally attracted attention.

M. Billingsley noted that Washington does not need “arms control for the sake of control,” and therefore the American authorities want to be explained to them the need to extend START III. In addition, the agreement in its current form does not solve a number of issues that are considered priority in the United States. Without their consideration, the extension or signing of the new START Treaty, in the opinion of the American authorities, does not make sense.

In general, it comes down to three main topics. The first is China's participation. The PRC has developed strategic nuclear forces, and the United States wants to see it on the START list. Beijing refuses to sign such an agreement, and Washington wants Moscow to help convince him. Otherwise, the US will not renew / sign the agreement either.

The second problem concerns promising Russian weapons. M. Billingsley recalled the systems “Dagger”, “Poseidon” and “Petrel”, which do not fit into the conditions of the existing START III. According to him, the United States does not intend to discuss the place of such weapons in a future contract. The problem is proposed to be solved in the simplest way: Russia must abandon these samples. Moreover, work should be stopped in areas absent from the United States.


PGRK "Topol-M". Such systems so far suit the American side. Photo by the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation / mil.ru

The third issue raised by the representative of the US president involves checking and gathering information. It is proposed to tighten inspection and inspection processes. The reason for this proposal is a lack of confidence in Moscow and Beijing.

Russian response


The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has responded to statements by an American official. Deputy Minister Sergey Ryabkov noted that signals from Washington do not favor optimism and the continuation of a productive dialogue. The American side presents the situation as if Russia is more interested in the existence of START.

The deputy minister recalled the recent events surrounding the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles. At that time, the United States tried to shift the responsibility to Russia, and after that they withdrew from the treaty. S. Ryabkov considers it highly probable that in the case of START III the American authorities use the same method.

Chinese question


In his interview, M. Billingsley expressed the point of view of the American administration on the current state of affairs and prospects of the START Treaty. In addition, a circle of problems worrying Washington was outlined and some proposals were made. They should be considered separately - and certain conclusions should be drawn both about the proposals themselves and about the motives of their authors.

The first idea of ​​M. Billingsley is to attract China to sign new agreements. It should be recalled that in the past Beijing was repeatedly invited to the START Treaty and the INF Treaty, but it resolutely refused. The reasons for this refusal are quite simple and are related to the fact that the terms of both agreements are excessive or dangerous for China's strategic nuclear forces.


MiG-31 with a dagger. The representative of the US president proposes to abandon such a complex. Photo by the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation / mil.ru

The existing START III provides for a reduction in the number of deployed nuclear warheads to 1550 units. The total number of carriers is negotiated at the level of 800 units. at 700 deployed. As far as we know, the PLA has no more than 700-900 warheads and no more than 250-300 carriers suitable for deployment. This is significantly less than START III restrictions. However, the total number of potential carriers reaches 1200-1300 units.

The situation was different with the INF Treaty. This agreement prohibited member countries from developing, producing and operating ground-based missile systems with a range of 500 to 5500 km. The PLA has a wide range of missiles of various classes, from operational-tactical to intercontinental. Moreover, it is products of medium and shorter range that are the basis of the missile forces - a total of more than 300 units. For comparison, the number of ICBMs on land and at sea does not exceed 120-130 units.

Thus, joining START III does not make any sense to the PRC, since the Chinese strategic nuclear forces do not go beyond its limitations. However, in the future, as strategic nuclear forces increase, START will limit their potential. As for the INF Treaty, such an agreement simply threatens national security. If its conditions were accepted, China would have been forced to write off almost two-thirds of its ground-based missiles with nuclear military equipment.

Prospective samples


M. Billingsley offers the Russian side to abandon promising weapons, such as the Poseidon submarine, as well as the Dagger and Petrel missiles. They do not fit into the definitions of START III, and Washington does not want to change the treaty taking into account their existence.

Obviously, Russia will not abandon such developments. They are an asymmetric response to the actions of "foreign partners" and are designed to maintain a strategic balance. The United States is actively deploying its SSBNs, building strategic missile defense facilities and creating a new long-range bomber. Russia responds to all this with its projects in other areas.


Launch ICBMs LGM-30G Minuteman III. Photo US Air Force

The rejection of new developments would have the most serious consequences for national security. However, the continuation of work on them poses a threat to the United States, which leads to statements like recent ones.

Very interesting is the proposal of M. Billingsley to refuse work on samples that are not available in the United States. This idea causes both bewilderment and pity. It seems that this is another attempt to shift the problem - this time from the lagging side to the front line.

Control and distrust


Over the past half century, the United States and the USSR / Russia have signed and implemented a number of international arms control treaties. During this time, a successful and efficient system of mutual monitoring and control has been formed, which still exists. With the exception of certain shortcomings and incidents, in general, such a system confirms its efficiency and effectiveness.

If China is involved in existing agreements, such a system will have to be changed. Despite certain difficulties of the transition period, it should remain operational and provide the required tripartite transparency.

However, the United States now wants to review the current system. M. Billingsley mentions a certain tightening of measures, but does without specifics. At the same time, he directly indicates Washington’s distrust of Moscow and Beijing, which becomes a formal occasion for new requirements.

Shifting responsibility


Thus, all three measures proposed by the representative of the US President for arms control are either doubtful or impossible. China does not want to enter into existing or future agreements, Russia will not give up its new weapons, and tightening control measures will not improve relations between the participating countries, which are already not the warmest.


Chinese PGRK DF-21D. Photo by Voanews.com

Apparently, the US leadership does not intend to extend the START III treaty in its current form. It wants to involve a third party in the negotiation process - China, which has sufficiently powerful strategic nuclear forces and has become a competitor to the United States in the international arena. In addition, Washington proposes to take into account the progress in the field of armaments, but in the simplest way - banning everything that does not fit into the provisions of the current START Treaty.

At the same time, it follows from the statements of M. Billingsley and other officials that the United States is ready for a negative scenario in which START III will not be extended and will not receive a replacement. However, Washington does not want to look like the culprit of such a development. This can explain the new proposals of a provocative nature, disadvantageous or impossible for existing or potential parties to the agreement.

The current position allows the United States to bargain and try to get out of the situation with the greatest benefit. If Russia and China agree with the conditions of M. Billingsley, then Washington will get rid of several potential problems. Otherwise, START III will cease to exist, and this will allow it to build its strategic nuclear forces only taking into account its own plans and capabilities. However, the absence of any restrictions will untie the hands of the geopolitical opponents of the United States.

On the whole, the current position of the US leadership on START III or its replacement seems logical and convenient from the American point of view, but disadvantageous for other countries. All this does not allow to translate the dialogue into a constructive channel and come to mutually beneficial solutions. However, the United States seems to have taken a principled stand.

Less than a year remains before the expiration of START III. For the remaining months, Russia and the United States must develop a common strategy and take action. However, new statements by foreign officials unambiguously threaten this process. What will happen next in the START field is a big question that remains unanswered.
Author:
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

44 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. codetalker 13 May 2020 05: 20 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Comrades, can anyone come across quality material on the benefits of this treaty specifically for Russia? If yes, please advise.
    1. Grandfather 13 May 2020 05: 36 New
      • 2
      • 4
      -2
      Quote: codetalker
      Comrades, can anyone come across quality material on the benefits of this treaty specifically for Russia? If yes, please advise.

      and what was the use?
      1. military_cat 13 May 2020 05: 58 New
        • 8
        • 4
        +4
        We survived the rejection of the INF Treaty - we will survive the rejection of strategic offensive arms.
        1. Mitroha 13 May 2020 07: 11 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          M. Billingsley suggests that the Russian side abandon promising weapons, such as the Poseidon submarine, as well as the Dagger and Petrel missiles.

          Skewers we are such proposals of the American side
    2. Dmitry from Voronezh 13 May 2020 05: 41 New
      • 11
      • 2
      +9
      There is no benefit to Russia from this treaty. No need to renew it. Even if the United States is ready to produce more missiles than Russia, the main thing is to cause unacceptable damage to the aggressor, and this is the main task facing our strategic nuclear forces. Where do we reduce our nuclear arsenal when the US builds a missile defense system? We need to be armed with enough missiles to inflict unacceptable damage on the United States.
      1. codetalker 13 May 2020 06: 02 New
        • 4
        • 8
        -4
        Maybe there are some other reasons to extend it? Not of a military nature ... Obviously, Russia does not fully manage its finances. Maybe the US Treasury in Russia will not give out money for more missiles?
        I’ve just invented all this, I’m saying that perhaps there are some non-obvious, but important for us reasons to keep it.
      2. donavi49 13 May 2020 08: 31 New
        • 4
        • 4
        0
        On the one hand it’s true. That is, if we continue with what strategic offensive arms4, and then 5 + progress in missile defense + huge problems with ensuring the naval component of the strategic nuclear forces (whereas the Americans will have every base of the Virginia flock, making an unaccompanied 955 breakthrough is extremely unlikely). One day, a situation may arise when the predicted damage from the mass exchange of blows for the United States will be acceptable. And then, it will be tempting to use the window of opportunity. There will be an aggressive administration, analysts in the right vein, what kind of next crisis = everything will wrap up.

        On the other hand is not true. The US will pull and trillion + in spending. And no one will pickle. It can also strain vassals-allies. Russia does not have such opportunities. If it slides into an uncontrolled quantitative race, pumped that the United States has 20 megatons, even a 5000-person flywheel in the town, then this will have to be answered. SNF is very expensive. As a result, it will devour the budget and you can die on the whole without any wars, like the USSR 2.0, again, if associated conditions arise.
        1. Roman123567 13 May 2020 13: 22 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          If it slides into an uncontrolled quantitative race, pumped that the United States has 20 megatons, even a 5000-person flywheel in the town, then this will have to be answered.

          What for??
          Well, they will have 20 megatons for a town with 5000 people, and, for example, we will have 20 times less .. and what is the reason for such a lag ??
    3. donavi49 13 May 2020 08: 25 New
      • 5
      • 8
      -3
      Americans in theory can arrange a stupidly quantitative arms race in the nuclear field. I HAVE to answer this. It is expensive. Very expensive. Consequently, the Americans will easily survive, but the Russian government and the Ministry of Defense will have to tighten their belts. That is, the fleet, Su-57, Armata and so on will go into the unknown. For everything will devour the SNF.
      1. certero 13 May 2020 08: 45 New
        • 14
        • 0
        +14
        Why do we need to respond to a quantitative race? Russia does not need to be stronger than the United States in this area. It’s enough to be so strong that there is no desire to attack
        1. donavi49 13 May 2020 08: 54 New
          • 5
          • 4
          +1
          Well now ~ 1500 warheads and 800-900 carriers.
          At 91 years old - to START1 there were 6000 warheads.

          At the peak of warheads there were over 12000, and carriers 4500-6000.

          Where is the level that ensures the total destruction of the probable enemy and the balance of fear ??? Even if you return the level of 91, you will have to cut the main programs (in the army, air force, navy) and then it will take a lot of time. And the Americans at this time will be completely untied. In the best years of the Cold War, they put 200 equipped carriers a year. wink .
          1. bk0010 13 May 2020 09: 31 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Two warheads from different carriers for the same target, plus missile defense accounting now, plus a reserve for maintenance.
            1. donavi49 13 May 2020 09: 39 New
              • 3
              • 1
              +2
              And again 5-6k warheads will come out - 2,5-3,5k carriers. Will the budget take out? Built Su-57, the fleet, Armata and other things you can already look for places in museums.

              On the other hand - people who have cheat codes for money, the foundation of the world economy and huge technological, production potential. Which they put in place.
              1. bk0010 13 May 2020 09: 40 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Quote: donavi49
                Will the budget take out?
                This is cheaper than the implementation of the same tasks by other means (aviation, for example)
          2. Sky strike fighter 13 May 2020 17: 01 New
            • 3
            • 2
            +1
            Even if you return the level of 91, you will have to cut the main programs (in the army, air force, navy) and this will take a lot of time. And the Americans will have their hands completely untied.

            Why on earth will you have to cut something? Why did you get it? Right now, the Russian Federation has 3/4 new nuclear arsenal built in Russia. Yars, Bulava are mass-produced. The arsenal is being updated and after it is fully updated it will be possible to think about building it up. And which ICBMs, SLBMs can be launched in the USA right now? Only ten years later they promise to create a replacement for Trident and Minuteman. After the creation of these missiles by the beginning of 2030, it is planned to start with them to replace the old Trident (and at the same time all Ohio SSBNs in Colombia) and the Minutemans. They will be changed for a long time, 10-15 years, that is, by 2040-2045, and only after that, Americans can think about overtaking someone on START.
            In the best years of the Cold War, they put 200 equipped carriers per year wink.

            Now it’s clearly not their best years. They have big problems with charges. So do not invent and wishful thinking.
      2. Olgovich 13 May 2020 10: 53 New
        • 3
        • 3
        0
        Quote: donavi49
        Americans in theory can arrange a stupidly quantitative arms race in the nuclear field. I HAVE to answer this.

        what for?!

        Is it not enough to destroy America ONCE. not one hundred times. how can they be able to Russia by producing a dumb amount of missiles?

        let them spend money and drive the quantity (maybe something itself smells with a large number),

        But Russia must ensure guaranteed quality in the delivery of single missiles. but guaranteed destruction. USA.
      3. codetalker 13 May 2020 11: 45 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        But can they. It seems that only in theory. The fact that they will cut the paper as necessary I have no doubt. What about the rest? Prom potential, scientific and technical base, engineering education, etc.
      4. Sky strike fighter 13 May 2020 16: 46 New
        • 4
        • 2
        +2
        Americans in theory can arrange a stupidly quantitative arms race in the nuclear field.

        What SLBMs, ICBMs are currently building in the USA at the given time? None. Unlike Russia, which mass-produces Yars, the Bulava. The Americans plan by 2030 to develop a replacement for the Minutman, Trident and a replacement for the carriers of the latter from Ohio to Colombia. What kind of race can the race be for the USA if they need to change the WHOLE arsenal. And this replacement will begin at best with the beginning of the 30s By 2040, it’s possible they will update their arsenal and only then it will be possible to say that the Americans are able to overtake someone. And now they are bluntly bluffing, they are rushing in the Trump style. They have no trump cards now and they don’t have any time soon. So Sorry. What are the concessions on our part? and why are we talking about?
    4. Hermit21 13 May 2020 08: 30 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      Russia will have free hands. In the event of a contract breakdown, nothing will interfere with equipping the carriers with additional warheads and making “Vanguards” with “Poseidons” in the quantities we need. The USA also has a return potential, but it is less than ours. But their main problem is the lack of production of new warheads (alterations do not count) at least until 2033 and new carriers
    5. bk0010 13 May 2020 09: 29 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      In short - during the time of the collapse, our nuclear forces decreased to levels below strategic offensive arms "naturally", and so the states reduced something. After all, they even privatized a plant that provided for the creation of Topol (from a tricky thread) buildings, and the hostess reprofiled it.
    6. iouris 13 May 2020 10: 56 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      Quote: codetalker
      on the benefits of this contract

      If the United States concluded it, then it is very useful for the United States. The Russian Federation is not the USSR, China is objectively taking the place of the USSR, and the Chinese do not want to "negotiate" yet. There is nothing more to be agreed with the Russian Federation than to protect the "savings" and assets of some active gentlemen.
  2. strannik1985 13 May 2020 06: 03 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    The Russian Federation is inferior in conventional weapons to NATO countries in Europe even without the United States. The strategic nuclear forces are the only way to equalize the chances, the only reason why they did not eat us.
    But when deploying an infantry-fighting ballistic missile in Europe, Russia will have to use automation to ensure a counter-strike, and there will be a reaction time of just a few minutes.
    1. 5-9
      5-9 13 May 2020 15: 22 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      No, the chances with NATO are equalized by our 10-fold superiority in the number of nuclear weapons and qualitatively in its carriers.
      SNF is not about NATO at all, conventional weapons and other little things :)))
  3. V1er 13 May 2020 06: 26 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    It is clear that the Americans will lead the world to a new point of confrontation, we will call it conditionally "Caribbean Crisis 2.0". Only at military parity will they sign any treaties. And now, when there is no USSR, when NATO missiles can stand in Ukraine. When militarized Japan, Korea and India grow near China. The world has changed and other treaties await it.
  4. rotmistr60 13 May 2020 06: 52 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    The United States did not have to make much effort to accuse Russia of reluctance to extend the contract to refuse to sign a new one. It is enough to put forward conditions for the fulfillment of which the Russian side will not go unequivocally: to abandon the weapons that the Americans do not have and lead them to bow to the Chinese.
    signals from Washington do not favor optimism and continued productive dialogue
    So is it worth continuing this dialogue with a country that officially declares us an enemy and does not even comply with the terms of the agreements it has signed? The Americans have unilaterally withdrawn from several treaties (regarding missile defense, INF Treaty, banning the militarization of outer space ...) and if they don’t want to extend strategic offensive arms, then under any conditions they won’t extend it. Therefore, you should not waste time and diplomatic forces.
    1. knn54 13 May 2020 07: 48 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      When they want to disrupt the Treaty, they will always find a reason.
  5. Ros 56 13 May 2020 07: 00 New
    • 5
    • 4
    +1
    Our answer is striped:
  6. The comment was deleted.
  7. Peter Tverdokhlebov 13 May 2020 07: 28 New
    • 10
    • 0
    +10
    I don’t understand something, the Americans want to include China in the new START treaty, and why we do not put forward retaliatory measures, for example, to include such NATO countries with nuclear weapons as Great Britain and France in the new treaty all the more interesting situation with the USA is looming Great Britain has Trident-2 SLBMs on the Vanguard SSBN and, in principle, American warheads W76, W88 can be installed on these missiles. That is, NATO can have ~ 2000 ... 4000 warheads on SLBMs and ICBMs, and we have ~ 1500 warheads ?!
    If the Americans want to include China in the new START treaty, then such NATO countries should include such NATO countries as Britain and France!

    Further, with regard to China, I have such questions: how many missiles in China are in field positions and in silos and how many missiles that are in mountain tunnels from which you still have to have time (or be able to) leave in the event of a nuclear war?
    How many SSBNs of China that are on the combat patrol routes and how many SSBNs at basing points?

    I think so with any new agreement, Russia should not have less than 1500 combat units, more can not be less!
    1. tarabar 13 May 2020 08: 39 New
      • 6
      • 1
      +5
      I would also add the requirement to withdraw and maintain any nuclear weapons in the national territory.
  8. KVU-NSVD 13 May 2020 08: 05 New
    • 8
    • 1
    +7
    They don’t want - don’t. We have nowhere to shrink. The asymmetric response in the form of new developments should not be lost - it touched the future and the measure against the US missile defense. The Chinese can be understood - they are a subscription to strategic offensive arms as a sickle according to the causes in the light of their structure of nuclear forces. In the future, some kind of agreement will appear - in my opinion, it should be with the participation of all members of the nuclear club, although now it is seen as something unrealistic. The question is when this will happen - before or after some kind of big conflict involving nuclear countries and the use of tactical charges (I'm not talking about TMV - after it it will become irrelevant). I would still like to.
  9. prior 13 May 2020 08: 17 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Not the fact that the new agreement will be respected, but the charges of violating the restrictions on the new agreement are already on the surface.
    And here you have a reason for the next sanctions and charges.
    Contract monitoring is in access to strategic secrets.
    No contracts. Let diapers change more often.
  10. K-50 13 May 2020 08: 39 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    In general, it comes down to three main topics. The first is China's participation. The PRC has developed strategic nuclear forces, and the United States wants to see it on the START list.

    England, France and Israel too. So why not bring them to the new Treaty? The gut is thin: Or are these theirs impossible?
    The second problem concerns promising Russian weapons. M. Billingsley recalled the systems “Dagger”, “Poseidon” and “Petrel”, which do not fit into the conditions of the existing START III.

    And also FSA strike drones, which, I hope, Russia does not have, do not fit. Why not consider their prohibition?
    The third issue raised by the representative of the US president involves checking and gathering information. It is proposed to tighten inspection and inspection processes. The reason for this proposal is a lack of confidence in Moscow and Beijing.

    You do not trust us, but we do. What is the problem? This is quite natural.
    The same Pin did not want to fulfill the Open Skies Agreement, began to impose restrictions on it, received responses, everything is natural, no need to spit in the mirror.
  11. Whirlwind 13 May 2020 10: 10 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    All such agreements with the Naglosaks are ultimately reduced to one thing: how to persuade Russia to put its head on the block, to get rid of it once and for all.
    1. iouris 13 May 2020 13: 04 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Of interest is only one task: to save the United States from the nuclear weapons of the USSR, which could potentially be a threat. The solution to this problem is a sufficient condition for solving the remaining tasks of US policy. A treaty weakening a weak adversary allows creating conditions for this if the United States has the resources and capabilities to create strategic weapons based on new principles and to produce them in sufficient quantities.
  12. APASUS 13 May 2020 14: 23 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Our people are always looking for constructivism among the Americans?
  13. 5-9
    5-9 13 May 2020 15: 18 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    It looks like hutspu for internal use, Omeriga puts an ultimatum to despicable barbarians ....
    Contracts are valid (in the case of Americans so 200%) only if they are beneficial to both parties. Now it seems that only Russia is developing and, most importantly, producing new models of strategic weapons. Would you like / could, the USA would also develop a minimum, the Minuteman-3 ancient (albeit shamanized) is not an ice. Again, what about the USA with the production of nuclear warheads? Very bad (for them) rumors are circulating about the loss of this competence, as they have already forgotten how to enrich uranium (the European YURENKO plant on American territory doesn’t count, as in the Russian Federation and X6 they recently started producing). Those. there are no missiles, and until it is foreseen, 100500 thousand BCH - all the more .... And they stand in a pose ???
    The US attack on China is understandable, but to carry it out without dragging the WB and France, who are asking to include them in START-4, is somehow silly ...
  14. ANB
    ANB 13 May 2020 16: 49 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    START / SALT were concluded taking into account the ABM Treaty.
    Even just an extension under current conditions is not beneficial for us.
    Well, since the United States refuses to renew under the old conditions, the flag is in their hands.
  15. Old26 13 May 2020 16: 50 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    Quote: codetalker
    Comrades, can anyone come across quality material on the benefits of this treaty specifically for Russia? If yes, please advise.

    You are unlikely to find a specific (single) material on this topic, but actually there are a lot of materials on this topic. See, for example, analytical articles on the armscontrol resource.

    First and the undoubted advantage of this agreement for us is that our "partners" were also forced to carry out reductions. Russia offered fewer carriers, while Americans offered more warheads. As a result of the compromise, we came to the following figures:
    • 700 deployed media
    • 800 deployed and non-deployed media
    • 1550 deployed warheads

    The second a plus was the provision of the agreement that the offset did not include the number of combat units with which one or another missile passed flight tests, but the number of combat units that are currently on the carrier. In addition, the time for warning about inspections has been reduced. And it does not indicate specifically which media will be specifically inspected

    All this gave us advantages.
    FIRST.
    Forcedly reducing old missiles over the “ceilings” we had the plus in the fact that our opponent also had to cut carriers to enter the “ceilings”. Now we have a much larger reserve of arming new carriers than the Americans.
    SECOND.
    Having a reserve of carriers that we can deploy, we can vary the number of BBs on already deployed carriers.
    So there are pluses and they are in our favor

    Quote: military_cat
    We survived the rejection of the INF Treaty - we will survive the rejection of strategic offensive arms.

    Do not write nonsense. Americans can significantly increase the number of carriers than we do. We have reserves of blocks both with us and with them, only by the number of carriers can they be ahead of us
    In particular, they can increase the number of strategic bombers, SLBMs and ICBMs (although the latter so far have only 50 additional ones)

    Quote: Dmitry from Voronezh
    Where do we reduce our nuclear arsenal when the US builds a missile defense system?

    And who is talking about reducing the nuclear arsenal?

    Quote: donavi49
    That is, if we continue with what strategic offensive arms4, and then 5 + progress in missile defense + huge problems with ensuring the naval component of the strategic nuclear forces

    This is only on condition that Russia agrees to a significant reduction. I think that the best option would be to simply extend this agreement for 5 years without changing it

    Quote: Hermit21
    Russia will have free hands. In the event of a contract breakdown, nothing will interfere with equipping the carriers with additional warheads and making “Vanguards” with “Poseidons” in the quantities we need. The USA also has a return potential, but it is less than ours. But their main problem is the lack of production of new warheads (alterations do not count) at least until 2033 and new carriers

    Yah??? Well, let's figure it out. "Vanguard" on an old rocket 15A35-71 is a temporary measure. There are not so many of those 30 “dry” ones that Ukraine handed over to us 20 years ago. The dimensions of the "Vanguard" are such that it is impossible to put more than one in the head of this ICBM. When it will be adopted by the Sarmat ICBM is unknown (it was not NOT ONE FLIGHT TEST) How unknown is its performance characteristics (there are doubts that the performance characteristics voiced in the media are real), the number of deployed and the plant's performance ...
    equip with additional charges "Yars"? And how much do BBs cost now on them?
    The “avant-gardes” themselves can be done a lot, but what can be delivered to the United States if there is only one plant that can barely cope with orders now, releasing no more than fifty ICBMs and SLBMs a year ??
    They have a problem in the production of new ones. But there is a return potential from old BBs ...
    In addition, they have a large number of them in deployed ICBM / SLBMs in disassembled state ...

    Quote: bk0010
    After all, they even privatized the plant, which provided for the creation of the Topol buildings (from a cunning thread), and the hostess reprofiled it.

    Yah? Exactly the Votkinsk plant has already ordered a long life? Or confuse the head of the type of "cocoon" with the body?

    Quote: rotmistr60
    The United States did not have to make much effort to accuse Russia of reluctance to extend the contract to refuse to sign a new one. It is enough to put forward conditions for the fulfillment of which the Russian side will not go unequivocally: to abandon the weapons that the Americans do not have and lead them to bow to the Chinese.

    That's right. It is enough to put forward impossible conditions ...

    Quote: rotmistr60
    So is it worth continuing this dialogue with a country that officially declares us an enemy and does not even comply with the terms of the agreements it has signed? The Americans have unilaterally withdrawn from several treaties (regarding missile defense, INF Treaty, banning the militarization of outer space ...) and if they don’t want to extend strategic offensive arms, then under any conditions they won’t extend it. Therefore, you should not waste time and diplomatic forces.

    It is necessary, Gennady, it is necessary !!! For a bad world is always better than a good quarrel. We are simply not able to pull the new arms race now. And no matter how many would not like to believe that the Americans are not fulfilling the signed treaties, I must say that the strategic treaties have been and are being implemented. Not without violations, but they were not only from the United States, but also ours.
    The Americans withdrew from the ABM and INF Treaty for a completely legitimate reason, according to the articles prescribed in these treaties. A treaty banning the militarization of outer space - there is no such treaty; there is a treaty banning the deployment of weapons of mass destruction in space and on celestial bodies, but so far no one has violated this treaty. Neither Americans nor us.

    Quote: Peter Tverdokhlebov
    I don’t understand something. Americans want to include China in the new START treaty, and why we do not put forward retaliatory measures, for example, to include such NATO countries with nuclear weapons as Great Britain and France in the new treaty

    Well, if we needed to “diplomatically” put an end to the contract, we would have done so. For this would be the same impossible condition for the other side, as the current requirement that China sign the treaty. A multilateral treaty of this type is being developed not a single year. And for half a year to conclude such an agreement is simply impossible to achieve

    Quote: Peter Tverdokhlebov
    Great Britain and France the more interesting situation looms. We have a treaty with the USA and Great Britain has Trident-2 SLBMs on the Vanguard SSBN and, in principle, American warheads W76, W88 can be installed on these missiles. That is, NATO can have ~ 2000 ... 4000 warheads on SLBMs and ICBMs, and we have ~ 1500 warheads ?!

    Will you alter the seats of the combat stages or not? In addition, there are not so many Americans with BG for return potential to supply British boats with them.

    Quote: Peter Tverdokhlebov
    Further, with regard to China, I have such questions: how many missiles in China are in field positions and in silos and how many missiles that are in mountain tunnels from which you still have to have time (or be able to) leave in the event of a nuclear war?

    You will never find such data. We can only say that China has more or less modern ICBMs of about 90 units. And it’s not a matter of quantity. The main thing is how many formations of rocket troops do China have ...

    Quote: tarabar
    I would also add the requirement to withdraw and maintain any nuclear weapons in the national territory.

    Such a requirement would be simply unfeasible. This is the same as giving up the deployment of Dagger, Petrel, Poseidon. Unfeasible by the other side
    1. Sky strike fighter 13 May 2020 17: 27 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      Americans can significantly increase the number of carriers than we do. We have reserves of blocks both with us and with them, only by the number of carriers can they be ahead of us
      In particular, they can increase the number of strategic bombers, SLBMs and ICBMs (although the latter so far have only 50 additional ones)

      Due to what they will quickly increase the number of carriers ah? Only by the beginning of the 2030s they want to develop a replacement for their old Minutemans and Tridents. What kind of ICBMs and SLBMs can they produce right now? In Russia and China, ICBMs and SLBMs are now mass-produced. And what about the USA? Start of production of new ICBMs and SLBMs only in the 2030s, at best, after development and all tests. Then, they can be made only to replace all Tridents for 10-15 years. (at the same time and Ohio in Colombia) and Minitmenov, and after that you can think about building up carriers by the same year 2050. So can they quickly build something up. The same B-21 is not earlier than 2030 series.
  16. Old26 13 May 2020 19: 12 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Quote: Sky Strike fighter
    Due to what they will quickly increase the number of carriers ah? Only by the beginning of the 2030s they want to develop a replacement for their old Minutemans and Tridents.

    Maxim! Well, it doesn’t suit you to repeat the statements in the media about the old and rusty Minutemans and Tridents. It is known that since the 90s, Americans have had a Life Extension Program (LEP), which in Russian is a life extension program. This program includes routines

    1. Guidance Replacement Program (GRP) Guidance Systems Replacement Program. The subprogram has been operating since 1996. Continues on an ongoing basis.
    On-board computers, amplifiers, guidance systems and platform electronics are being replaced.

    2. Propulsion Replacement Program (PRP) Powerplant Replacement Program. Implementation time from 1998 to 2009.
    Complete replacement of solid fuel in all stages of missiles, including boosters. as well as the related integration of new hardware and software.

    3. ICBM Security Modernization Program Security Modernization Program.
    Effective since 2004. Continues.
    Strengthening the security of launchers and missiles by updating technical security equipment.

    4. Rapid Execution and Combat Targeting (REACT) Program for the modernization of targeting systems.
    Subprogram implementation time from 1997 to 2006.
    Update missile guidance systems. Significantly reduced the time to transfer missiles to new targets.

    5. Safety Enhanced Reentry Vehicle (SERV) Warhead Replacement Program.
    Subprogram implementation time from 2002 to 2009
    Replacing missile warheads with more advanced Mk21-W87, 300 kT remaining after the removal of the LGM-118 Peacekeeper missile.

    6. Propulsion System Rocket Engine (PSRE) The program to upgrade the propulsion system of the rocket.
    Implemented since 2004. Ongoing
    Replacing the components of the sustainer engine.
    In fact, only the name remains of the old ICBM Minuteman-3. The "innards" are all new. As for the construction. Tridents are periodically produced in small batches. As far as I remember, in a fork 2011-2015. within 2 years, Tridents were produced in batches of 20-25 pieces.
    As for the "Minutemen". The Americans currently (in July last year) deployed 398 "Minutemans" out of 400 allowed. Not deployed are 268 Minutemans. But the Americans can now deploy 50 more ICBMs in 50 reserve mines without any costs. But the reserve for the deployment of "minutemans" - 268
    As for the Tridents, a similar LEP program is being implemented for the Trident SLBMs. Reserve for deployment -168 "tridents". Therefore, there is a reserve for building. There is a problem with the carriers, but these missiles are in stock ...

    Quote: Sky Strike fighter
    What kind of ICBMs and SLBMs can they produce right now? In Russia and China, ICBMs and SLBMs are now mass-produced. And what about the USA? Start of production of new ICBMs and SLBMs only in the 2030s, at best, after development and all tests. (at the same time and Ohio in Colombia) and Minitmenov, and after that you can think about building up carriers by the same year 10. So can they quickly build something up. The same B-15 is not earlier than 2050 series.

    Yes, mass produced. About 50 pieces per year (ICBMs and SLBMs). This is with us. The Chinese have even less. A few pieces a year. As for the buildup, it can happen even before the deployment of new ICBMs and SLBMs. so this is not about 2050, but about the same 2025-2030.

    There are such plans, although the D-5 Trident can be deployed on the first Columbia buildings if new SLBMs are not ready.

    Quote: Sky Strike fighter
    So can they quickly build something up.

    They can. See my post at the beginning. Plus aviation - there is a reserve too
  17. A.TOR 13 May 2020 22: 10 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    This idea causes both bewilderment and pity.

    This phrase causes bewilderment and pity.
    One must be very, very naive that, in strange fantasies, it is impossible to assume for the USA in the short term - if they decide that it is necessary - to create analogues of "unavailable analogs" of systems.
    Perplexity, to be honest, causes the desire of a country with 12th GDP to be on a par with the first two ...
  18. Normal ok 14 May 2020 04: 12 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    I agree with one thing, that without China this treaty does not make sense.
  19. Avior 14 May 2020 07: 21 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    This is not the case in the article, but I had to read before that the Americans want to include tactical nuclear weapons in the new treaty.
    Either they wrote in the article, or the Americans refused it
  20. certero 14 May 2020 12: 01 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: donavi49
    Even if you return the level of 91 year

    Why do we need to return the level of 91 years? North Korea has some kind of miserable missiles that the United States did not dare to attack him. Just think for a second what 1.500 carriers of atomic weapons are.