What will happen if you give up control of nuclear weapons - speculate in the US press

What will happen if you give up control of nuclear weapons - speculate in the US press

The system of treaties between the USA and Russia, which has evolved over decades, is of great importance. And today, the Trump administration is destroying the current equilibrium, breaking one treaty after another. What will happen with a complete abandonment of control over nuclear weapons?


Fred Veer discusses this topic in an article published in the American newspaper CSM.

If the current trend continues, very soon the world will come to a situation where there will not be a single instrument of international control over nuclear weapons. This is very similar to the situation that developed in the 60s of the last century. Then the world approached the abyss, and only a miracle saved our planet from complete destruction.

Actually, after the United States withdrew from the Open Skies Treaty, only START-3 remained valid, which expires in February 2021. And it is unlikely that it will be possible to extend, at least in its current form.

In such a situation, only the position of Russia, which constantly expresses readiness for negotiations with the United States on the control and reduction of armaments, especially nuclear ones, can remain optimistic.

Andrei Kortunov, head of the Russian Council on Foreign Affairs at the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, believes that the international security mechanism that has been tested for decades is being destroyed today, and no one is offering it in return.

But there will inevitably come a moment when Russia, the United States and other influential states will have to create a new mechanism that will ensure reliable arms control, taking into account modern realities.

The American press notes that if strategic offensive arms cease to exist, this could lead to uncontrolled accumulation of nuclear warheads with unpredictable consequences.

Against this background, US President Donald Trump said he "intends to sign a nuclear pact with Russia." According to the American president, "it is important to consider all the nuances."
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. rocket757 3 June 2020 19: 32 New
    • 9
    • 0
    +9
    Nothing good for anyone ...
    Let's save the planet for posterity love
    1. fif21 3 June 2020 19: 43 New
      • 8
      • 1
      +7
      Quote: rocket757
      Let's save the planet for posterity

      This requires the desire of all countries possessing nuclear weapons, and not just the United States and the Russian Federation. hi
      1. rocket757 3 June 2020 20: 03 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Wow! But only these two can arrange such a tram for the Tatars on the planet that the rest can do nothing .... not dig, and just dig in.
        1. Ilya-spb 3 June 2020 23: 04 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          I just remembered a joke about the nuance ...

          There were Vasily Ivanovich and Petka
          1. lelik613 4 June 2020 06: 51 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Agent Donald breeds huckster in the crown style.
      2. Vita vko 4 June 2020 01: 38 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Quote: fif21
        This requires the desire of all countries possessing nuclear weapons, and not just the United States and Russia

        Desire and countries are too capacious and abstract concepts. A clear personification of those responsible for inciting military conflicts is required, as prescribed in the Military Doctrine. In the fundamental documents of the state, which really seeks to preserve peace, it should be strictly spelled out who and what are the primary goals indicating specific individuals, their clans and organizations. The main culprits of inciting world wars should not have any illusions about the opportunity to sit out in their bunkers in "neutral" countries. Only a personal, obvious threat of annihilation can put puppet governments at the negotiating table.
    2. Maikcg 3 June 2020 20: 04 New
      • 5
      • 10
      -5
      The more nuclear weapons, the more reliable the world. So in the furnace all these contracts.
      1. rocket757 3 June 2020 20: 08 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Is not a fact. The situation is ambiguous.
        Words are attributed to one striped president - he is not interested in how many times the USSR can destroy them, it seemed enough to him once!
      2. Vasilenko Vladimir 3 June 2020 21: 48 New
        • 5
        • 2
        +3
        Quote: MaikCG
        The more nuclear weapons, the more reliable the world.

        the guarantee of peace is not quantity, but guaranteed reciprocal destruction
        1. Maikcg 4 June 2020 16: 55 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Which is directly proportional to quantity.
          1. Vasilenko Vladimir 4 June 2020 19: 53 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            it’s not at all that you don’t need to EAT grenades to kill a neighbor, and the neighbor also knows this, the increase can occur due to additional protection, the neighbor climbed into the bunker and you already need not a grenade but a bomb
            1. Maikcg 7 June 2020 19: 29 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              A neighbor can entertain himself with a dream quietly at night to steal 1 grenade. And if there are five of them, in different places, then it will be a good thing.
              1. Vasilenko Vladimir 7 June 2020 20: 47 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Well, God is FIVE with you, but why a hundred grenades?
                or on the principle of very little, little, little, but no longer carry it away?
                1. Maikcg 15 June 2020 14: 15 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  And you scale, 5 grenades per neighbor, 5000 warheads per 22,7 million square meters. km of NATO countries. It also seems a little.
                  1. Vasilenko Vladimir 15 June 2020 23: 13 New
                    • 0
                    • 1
                    -1
                    Quote: MaikCG
                    , 5000 warheads per 22,7 million square meters. km of NATO countries. It also seems a little.

                    enough no matter who ever lived more
      3. NordUral 4 June 2020 13: 01 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        I fully support. And the more means of delivery it to the "partners".
    3. Civil 3 June 2020 20: 46 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Well then, conflicts with low-intensity nuclear weapons will begin.
      1. rocket757 3 June 2020 20: 53 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Also an option, but it is no more possible than impossible.
        1. Alex777 4 June 2020 10: 28 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          The States dropped 2 atomic bombs on Japan.
          However, people live in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
          To this is the calculation of those who interpret a limited war. IMHO. hi
          1. rocket757 4 June 2020 10: 38 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            there was no excess then, such vigorous arguments ... they could not fundamentally change anything. Everything was ripe a little later!
            Now the situation is fundamentally different if it starts. it will end very scary ... if there is anyone left to frighten this “evaluate”?
            1. Alex777 4 June 2020 10: 45 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              I'm talking about a limited war, but you're talking about an excess? bully
              1. rocket757 4 June 2020 11: 08 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                And remember ... no matter how you take a little white, anyway, run for an ADDITION!
                But who, where, when, did you observe any restrictions ??? yeah, two, three, many, many times.
                1. Alex777 4 June 2020 11: 28 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  That is why our President signed a decree approving the “Fundamentals of the state policy of the Russian Federation in the field of nuclear deterrence”. wink
                  https://www.finanz.ru/novosti/aktsii/putin-razreshil-rossii-pervoy-nanosit-yaderny-udar-1029274081
                  1. rocket757 4 June 2020 11: 31 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    This is understandable ... not white, fluffy surrounded us, a slightly different color from those vultures.
          2. tikhonov66 4 June 2020 12: 27 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            "... The States dropped 2 atomic bombs on Japan.
            However, people live in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
            To this is the calculation of those who interpret a limited war. IMHO.
            ... "
            But now for 2 no one is even going to stop.
            - that's the problem..
            And if there is not 2, but 200, but rather 2000.
            - then this is already a "nuclear winter" with the extinction of 70% - no, not humanity ...
            ALL BIOSPHERES ... including birds and cats.
            - there will be only a small number of people (in bunkers with food reserves), rats and cockroaches eating up a huge number of corpses. Across the globe.
          3. NordUral 4 June 2020 13: 03 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            It is necessary to clearly convey to the "partners" that there will be no limited wars and immediately the strategists will fly.
    4. Lord of the Sith 3 June 2020 20: 56 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      In the case of nuclear kneading with the planet, as a result, everything will be normal, and I did not experience such catastrophes.

      This is humanity can come Khan))
      1. rocket757 3 June 2020 21: 11 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Ha, but do we need to be moved?
        I want to live.
        1. Lord of the Sith 3 June 2020 21: 15 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Of course I want to live. Therefore, the powers that be in any case agree.
          Not for the first time hi
          1. Vasilenko Vladimir 3 June 2020 21: 50 New
            • 1
            • 3
            -2
            Quote: Lord of the Sith
            Therefore, the powers that be in any case agree.
            Not the first time hi

            like this?
            1. Lord of the Sith 3 June 2020 23: 15 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              And what does it have to do with it?
              1. Vasilenko Vladimir 4 June 2020 06: 33 New
                • 0
                • 3
                -3
                it to agree
                1. Lord of the Sith 4 June 2020 08: 58 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  An example is so-so.
                  1. Vasilenko Vladimir 4 June 2020 09: 35 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    well why so-so, gathered agreed
                    we all know the result
          2. NordUral 4 June 2020 13: 04 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Fools unbalanced among the upper missing in the West.
            1. Lord of the Sith 4 June 2020 13: 11 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Not all "upper" in the West, and indeed, are such. There are gray cardinals in the world who decide. It is in the plural. And there are no morons among them.
              1. NordUral 4 June 2020 13: 39 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                We will live and see if there is or not. Projects floating cities did not appear from scratch.
      2. dauria 3 June 2020 22: 21 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        This is humanity can come Khan))


        7 with a tail of billions of people. Even in times without treaties, the USSR and the US would have killed "only" 110-130 million from each side. Now less. I don’t remember how Europeans thought. So humanity will not go anywhere. And the losses will be restored in one generation.
        Chinese time to plant at the table. It is the Chinese who strain the Americans — with their temper in the economy, they are stepping on their heels, not Russia. But the Chinese will not calm down until they are equal in terms of warheads and carriers to the United States. So we’ll live without contracts. Nothing wrong. Lived.
        1. Lord of the Sith 3 June 2020 23: 31 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          hi

          Take it deep.
          Can you put the Chinese, Americans and other players at the negotiating table?
        2. mister-red 4 June 2020 00: 05 New
          • 4
          • 1
          +3
          110-130 million as you write, these are direct victims. And these are the lucky ones. Because the rest will die long and painfully
        3. 5-9
          5-9 4 June 2020 09: 03 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          The Chinese to "catch up" - like walking to the moon. We do not need this at all. Do not allow them to "catch up."
        4. Knell wardenheart 4 June 2020 10: 48 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          In itself, nuclear weapons may not kill so much, but the chaos that comes after that will kill over_dohren. People will have nothing to eat, crop areas will be infected (like water intake), chem. enterprises partially destroyed, global trade will rise. Local authorities and the remnants of the central government will cease to find a common language, as a result, the authorities of the center. authorities will sweep away hungry looting crowds. The economic framework of the state will collapse - food, weapons, medicines will be appreciated. And given the collapse of economic ties, all of these will be limited things - and therefore hundreds of millions of people will banally crush each other, at the same time eating everything bigger than a rat, catching all the fish, etc. Tough unsanitary conditions will go and the whole bouquet of infections - cholera, typhoid, tuber, plague - will bloom in full color, this will decently die. It will be understandable on the ground to try to put things in order - however, the dilemma of “extra people” and mistrust of the authorities will quickly arise, so basically these attempts will be bloody and unsuccessful. Pensioners and pre-pensioners will rather quickly go to Valhalla.
          So even a close look is enough to understand - the main "damage" from nuclear weapons is the unpredictable, sudden and large-scale destruction of the organization with the accompanying contamination of the area - and given the critical dependence of our civilization on medicines, clean water, food, our morality and the habit of waiting for organization “from above” - I’m afraid that the consequences of such a war may be tens of times more serious than what you have identified.
      3. Hermit21 3 June 2020 23: 30 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        The vast majority of humanity, by and large, will not notice anything. Now there are not the right quantities and capacities to talk about the total destruction and death of civilization
        1. Lord of the Sith 3 June 2020 23: 34 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Do you want to check? For a larger population, this will not be to their liking.
        2. Sly
          Sly 4 June 2020 13: 04 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Hermit21
          Now there are not the right quantities and capacities to talk about the total destruction and death of civilization

          Seriously? This is not enough for the total?
          Number of warheads (active / total):
          USA 1600/6185
          Russia 1600 / 6500
          1. Maikcg 4 June 2020 17: 07 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Well, so we will pour them on top of each other. Negroes in Africa do not care. South America, Australia, south Asia, maybe even the Chinese will not hurt if they do not rock the boat. There will be some economic shock after the disappearance of the dollar, but it will quickly be replaced by the renminbi. Nature, too, will not bark, except at the epicenters of 50 years.
            1. Starover_Z 4 June 2020 22: 18 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: MaikCG
              Well, so we will pour them on top of each other. Negroes in Africa do not care. South America, Australia, south Asia, maybe even the Chinese will not hurt if they do not rock the boat.

              And nuclear fallout will reach everyone and on all continents. And Chile with Argentina, South Africa and Australia will also get it, and I think even the penguins will get it ... And in a few hundred years, the penguins will fly to the equator ...
              1. Maikcg 7 June 2020 19: 27 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Nuclear precipitation even after Chernobyl did not give much, or after Fukushima, but with a fairly clean fusion, the precipitation will be from the ruins of chemical production and oil industry and all that, but also in a limited radius.
          2. Hermit21 5 June 2020 08: 24 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Will not be enough. For example, in the 80s, when the enemy had tens of thousands of NSNW units and completely different warhead capacities, the collapse of the USSR into 4 isolated regions was predicted. But not annihilation. Now, there’s no need to talk about something like this. The primary goals will be strategic military facilities, industrial and energy centers, and infrastructure facilities. Nobody will play around. Plus power - a maximum of 475 ct for Western SBN. But the Americans still have to leave for China, the combat value of the B-52N with the KR in the case of a power supply is doubtful. Of course, there is very little good, but there will be no death of civilization
      4. tikhonov66 4 June 2020 12: 31 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        "... In the case of nuclear kneading with the planet, in the end, everything will be normal, and not experienced such disasters.
        ... "
        - the stump is clear!
        After all, bacteria - they can be found in the soil (mines in South Africa) even at a depth of more than a kilometer ...
        - they will definitely survive.
        Life is generally a very persistent thing ...
        Especially at the bacteria level.
        8 - ((
    5. iouris 3 June 2020 21: 48 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: rocket757
      Nothing good for anyone ...

      Do not scare the electorate.
      The key question is: under what administration of the USA and what government of the Russian Federation will we all soon survive in this world? The author does not consider this issue. Meanwhile, in the United States and in the Russian Federation, there is an acute struggle in the “elites”, so acute that centrifugal forces will throw out someone at this turn of history.
      1. rocket757 3 June 2020 21: 56 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        there is always a struggle, when the main one is decrepit or he wants to “have fun”, but this “circus” is about nothing, for us, at least, the SYSTEM has it all taken up tightly.
      2. tikhonov66 4 June 2020 12: 46 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        "... The key question is: under what administration of the USA and what government of the Russian Federation will we all soon survive in this world?
        .. "
        - THAT WE ARE ALL right here, right now - and we "survive" !!
        8-))
        - because in the biosphere there are only those types of organisms, ALL of whose ancestors could:
        1) survive
        2) leave offspring.
        - and NO OTHER organisms in the biosphere - DO NOT EXIST.
        Well, SIMPLY does not exist. From the word "EVERYTHING".
        Or you (your genome) - could leave offspring in the biosphere - your copies (that is, as they say - "survived"),
        Or you (and your genome) - died "childless" - NOT leaving your copies in the world - offspring.

        - So, for example, to rid the biosphere of this kind of ... like, say, cats.
        You can do TWO (extreme, because there are still a lot of MIXED) ways.
        A) Either immediately exterminate / kill all the cats and cats.
        B) Or, which is no less effective, but only a few LONGER - just to castrate all cats.

        - and through ONE cat generation (a moment on the clock of the biosphere's history) - the results of both methods will be ABSOLUTELY identical.

        - and this is the MATCH that you need to know.
  2. Pvi1206 3 June 2020 19: 34 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    nothing will happen until a madman comes to power ...
    1. tanki-tanki 3 June 2020 19: 45 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Let's hope that a madman does not come to power.
      1. rocket757 3 June 2020 20: 09 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        What if it comes ???
      2. audigamma 3 June 2020 20: 41 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Or go crazy with power
    2. Mitroha 3 June 2020 19: 54 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Pvi1206
      nothing will happen until a madman comes to power ...

      Sorry, India and Pakistan. They are certainly not crazy, but they act emotionally enough for unpredictability.
      Yes, the very same Israel, although it is giving up ownership ... But if the question arises about the existence of the state of Israel itself, I think there will be no doubt.
      Etc.
      That is, it is necessary to make sure that the country is the first to use nuclear weapons in an attack automatically and unconditionally lose statehood and contrast itself with the whole world.
      1. Sandor Clegane 3 June 2020 19: 59 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Quote: Mitroha
        That is, it is necessary to make sure that the country is the first to use nuclear weapons in an attack automatically and unconditionally lose statehood and contrast itself with the whole world.

        imagine a situation where the American fleet simultaneously launches 1000 tomahawks across the Russian Federation .... we respond immediately with a vigorous club .... and there is no peace and no one to lose statehood ((
        1. Mitroha 3 June 2020 20: 02 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Quote: Sandor Clegane

          imagine a situation where the American fleet simultaneously launches 1000 tomahawks across the Russian Federation .... we respond immediately with a vigorous club .... and there is no peace and no one to lose statehood ((

          If this happens, no contracts will be valid already. On the other hand, existing treaties would not stop this either.
          1. Sandor Clegane 3 June 2020 20: 03 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Quote: Mitroha
            On the other hand, existing treaties would not stop this either.

            yes good
        2. 5-9
          5-9 4 June 2020 09: 06 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          An idiotic situation .... firstly, to launch the "Thousand Tomahawks", you can only pull almost the entire fleet at point-blank range to our borders and even in this case they will have to start up at one o'clock .... all the boats or will be returned on call with the threat of drowning or drown TNW BEFORE launching the Tomahawks .... well, there will be almost no damage in the global sense from the damage to the Thousand Hawks.
          1. Sandor Clegane 4 June 2020 11: 45 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: 5-9
            Idiotic situation

            Have you ever bothered to count the number of carriers and missiles themselves, at least in the Pacific Ocean, near mattresses and yap? they’ll decide to wring out the islands and the scenario is very real
            1. 5-9
              5-9 4 June 2020 14: 42 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              And do not fantasize, you need to look at what happened ... the most massive volleys in history are the recent 61 CRs with 2 EMs in almost an hour and 110 KRs in an hour and a half from 2 dozens of carriers .... the result is about zero .. .

              Whose islands to decide to overcome and who? In that region, there seems to be only one candidate for spin - Formosa, and the PRC will push it ...
              1. Sandor Clegane 4 June 2020 15: 46 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: 5-9
                And do not fantasize

                don't advise
      2. Maikcg 3 June 2020 19: 59 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        And on the defensive? And if defense is permissible, then how to avoid fake news and provocation? Now you can easily "draw" a plausible attack from the enemy in the media and "respond" with all the power of ICBMs.
        1. Mitroha 3 June 2020 20: 35 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: MaikCG
          And on the defensive? And if defense is permissible, then how to avoid fake news and provocation? Now you can easily "draw" a plausible attack from the enemy in the media and "respond" with all the power of ICBMs.

          Well, I did not write a draft contract winked but only his own view of the limitations in the future agreement. I think that even if they agree, the agreement will be discussed for five years.
    3. iouris 3 June 2020 21: 51 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Pvi1206
      until a madman comes to power ...

      It's impossible. "Power" - this is not the deputies and not "officials". Admission to the levers of the state machine occurs after rigorous selection (not only at the "national" level, for capital does not have national borders).
    4. tikhonov66 4 June 2020 12: 53 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      "...
      nothing will happen until a madman comes to power ...
      ... "
      - unfortunately, it will be possible to establish this fact only POSTFACTUM.

      As they say - in the Predictors of the Future - there has never been and is not a lack.
      They were and are - SEA poured ...

      There was always only one problem - unfortunately it is impossible to say IN ADVANCE
      - WHOSE is the prediction - out of all of them - the correct ...
      8-)))
  3. Sergey39 3 June 2020 19: 44 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Trump will not be able to sign anything. Until it restores order with a firm hand.
    1. RESEARCHER 3 June 2020 19: 47 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Well, they say that Trump in America has white negroes lynching
    2. iouris 4 June 2020 12: 04 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Until Trump won (lost) in all states in the ruling circles there will be a reel, and champagne will be opened in any way.
  4. Machete 3 June 2020 19: 51 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Still, short memory is among Amer politicians.
    Or forgot the Caribbean crisis?

    Or imagined that if there is no USSR, then no one will punish them if something happens?
    1. Mikhail m 4 June 2020 04: 43 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Minus for the "USSR".
    2. iouris 4 June 2020 12: 08 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Machete
      Or forgot the Caribbean crisis?

      What do you know about this? The Caribbean crisis has nothing to do with it. Better remember how Gorby capitulated to Malta. Why in Malta, why did you capitulate, you do not know?
    3. tikhonov66 4 June 2020 12: 55 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      "... Amers politicians still have a short memory.
      Or forgot the Caribbean crisis?
      ... "
      - no longer than everyone.
      The memory disappears when those who know and remember DIE (from old age)
      - what is WORLD WAR.
  5. Doccor18 3 June 2020 19: 52 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Against this background, US President Donald Trump said he "intends to sign a nuclear pact with Russia"

    It is imperative that China be drawn into this pact, not only in nuclear weapons, but also in long-range missiles. Then it will be good.
    1. kot423 3 June 2020 20: 08 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Sure, not a problem. After France, small-shaven and other vassals of mattress ...
  6. Hydrogen 3 June 2020 20: 08 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Yes, because all countries with nuclear weapons should join all these agreements, and as soon as we are Americans. And the rest, like the Chinese, are silently building up all types of missiles, and nuclear weapons.
  7. Operator 3 June 2020 20: 17 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Trump expressed his common sense - a new nuclear arms limitation treaty should apply to all nuclear-weapon states without exception, plus a quota system (as of January 1, 2021) and monitoring quotas.

    And those nuclear countries (such as Israel) that refuse to enter into the treaty must be subjected to a complete transport, trade, economic, financial and other blockade.
  8. Hydrogen 3 June 2020 20: 25 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    In this matter, it’s good to support the United States, rather than express regrets. It is jointly and specifically to rebuke the Chinese, to put pressure on the United Nations. If some Americans are bustling, then there will be no use, narrow-eyed horseradish will be scratched.
    1. kot423 3 June 2020 20: 31 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      In this matter, it is good to support the United States, and not express regrets.

      Write nonsense. Ask at your leisure what Russia is doing with warheads and what mattresses ... Agree with a sharpie, + who, under the fifth vassal with nuclear weapons, step on the same rake as with the bzhrk.
      1. Hydrogen 3 June 2020 20: 42 New
        • 1
        • 3
        -2
        Yes, it’s clear that they are not completely reliable “partners”, but you need to agree on something, otherwise the world will go to a bad situation. Yes, and it so happened that it is Russia and the USA that must solve this problem. , we are sorry, we are ready to renew, etc. I'm afraid to say firmly that the agreement is out of date, the world is changing, there are more key nuclear weapons owners, and the danger of uncontrolled distribution and possession of nuclear weapons has greatly increased.
        1. kot423 3 June 2020 22: 06 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          .It annoys the reaction of our darkest, all the time, we are sorry, we are ready to resume, etc.

          Annoying you? Drink a sedative, because the reaction to the show off mattresses “we will leave, we will not extend” in the world makes the reputation of the mattresses themselves as an uncontractable country. In contrast to the fact that Russia does not mind, but ... "they don’t want, and we are a peace-loving country, we don’t force them," and the reputation against this background is a plus, not a minus. And do not confuse the warm with the soft - the fact that you need to attract other countries does not mean that you need to do this with a non-negotiable sharpie.
  9. The comment was deleted.
  10. Viktor Sergeev 3 June 2020 20: 42 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Now there are not enough charges for mutual destruction, especially for the whole world. With the rejection of START3, the number of charges will increase to the level of the complete annihilation of mankind. Trump is inadequate.
  11. 7,62h54 3 June 2020 20: 46 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    In view of the fact that the United States possesses nuclear weapons and chaos is happening in the states, I propose introducing the UN contingent into the territory of the stronghold of democracy.
  12. impostor 3 June 2020 21: 03 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Poles and Romanians should carefully read subparagraph "c" of paragraph 19 of the 355th decree. This is a guaranteed devastation
  13. APASUS 3 June 2020 21: 24 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I think Trump wants to sign a new START 3/4/5 treaty (the name is not so important), make the whole sense of this treaty, pass off as another jerk, victory. (Which reminds Ukraine, if there is no victory, it can be invented) Remember as troops with afghanistan withdrawn with pathos (essentially escaped from the country), under the gallant talk about the victory over terrorism
  14. codetalker 3 June 2020 21: 50 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I think for humanity as a whole, the non-proliferation treaty is more important. It would be interesting to see what the withdrawal of strategic offensive arms from its participants could lead to. What is the military-industrial potential of Russia and the USA regarding the area of ​​strategic nuclear forces? Is there an opportunity (and need?) To dramatically increase the number of carriers and warheads?
  15. AlexG83 3 June 2020 22: 25 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: rocket757
    Let's save the planet for posterity

    American ...
  16. Old26 4 June 2020 18: 00 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Mitroha
    That is, it is necessary to make sure that the country is the first to use nuclear weapons in an attack automatically and unconditionally lose statehood and contrast itself with the whole world.

    If you take your example and consider the same Israel and its neighbors, then there may be (hypothetically) a situation where all the neighbors gang up against Israel, and the Iranians, Iraqis, Syrians, Egyptians, Saudis, Jordanians will trample against it. The first to strike (non-nuclear). But in order to remain a state and not be torn into "thousands of pieces", Israel will have to use its nuclear weapons. Result? The country that has become the target of aggression is also losing statehood? Although she was not the initiator of this massacre.
    The second option. China has popped up on Russia with its almost two billionth population. To remain a state, Russia inflicts a limited (several hundred charges) nuclear strike. According to your logic, should Russia unconditionally and automatically lose its statehood and be an outcast for the whole world? Being the object of attack. For China, a loss of, for example, 200-300 million people is a perfectly acceptable loss. At the same time, even after the loss of statehood by Russia, it will "take off" itself a "piece" to the Urals ...
  17. Old26 4 June 2020 20: 13 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: codetalker
    I think for humanity as a whole, the non-proliferation treaty is more important. It would be interesting to see what the withdrawal of strategic offensive arms from its participants could lead to. What is the military-industrial potential of Russia and the USA regarding the area of ​​strategic nuclear forces? Is there an opportunity (and need?) To dramatically increase the number of carriers and warheads?

    Most likely yes. The Non-Proliferation Treaty is the cornerstone of everything. Now in the world about 30 so-called “threshold” countries capable of creating their own nuclear weapons in a short time. Slightly fewer countries able to create delivery vehicles.

    A.Abandoning strategic offensive arms I think this is most relevant to the realm of fiction. Too different tasks are solved by such a weapon. Let's look at it in reverse order. Let's start with the DPRK.

    1. DPRK. This country is unlikely to abandon its WMD. For it understands that the presence of a certain amount of its own nuclear weapons is not even 100%, but protection from aggression by neighbors. It is unlikely that China will now send millions of its volunteers there. The ideological component is not the main thing in China now. So North Korea will definitely say no to a complete rejection of strategic offensive arms

    2. China. It is unlikely that it will abandon strategic offensive arms, although from the point of view of the mass population and the army, this option is real if others go for it

    3/4. India and Pakistan. In the absence of nuclear weapons in Pakistan, India may be “purely technically” (due to the quantity of its
    population) "crush" Pakistan. Therefore, Pakistan will definitely be against it. India will oppose the destruction of strategic offensive arms due to the fact that it has a second neighbor with whom it has territorial "graters" - China.

    5. Israel. Although the chances of creating a united Arab-Persian front against it are tending to zero, but what the hell is not joking? Suddenly, in the foreseeable future, someone will appear who can unite the “ununified” under common banners. For Israel, nuclear weapons are an insurance policy for just such a case.

    6/7. France and Britain. The nuclear forces of these two countries are extremely small. An adversary for whom their nuclear weapons would act as a brake is also not observed. So it is quite possible they could go for nuclear disarmament.

    8. USA. Purely technically, they can do this quite painlessly. No one has the fleet capable of invading the American continent. Their neighbors are so weak militarily that they can not be taken into account. Canada is generally an ally. The country is "beyond the oceans" and may not be afraid of aggression from any side.

    9. Russia. And for Russia, the presence of strategic offensive arms is vital because its neighbors are such that without nuclear weapons they will tear us to pieces. In the east, two-billionth China and the same Japan, which would not mind taking up not only the Kuril Islands but also other territories. In the central part (in the south) there is a multi-million dollar fundamentalist Iran, which dreams of becoming a "hegemon" even in this region. And in the southern underbelly we have the former republics of Central Asia. . In the Caucasus - Turkey. Which now cannot go to war against nuclear Russia, trying to chop off the Transcaucasian republics. And without nuclear weapons? Well, the western direction. Europe, or rather NATO countries that surpass us in all respects. And in the number of personnel, and in the number of population, and in the quantity of weapons, and in the quantity and quality of industrial potential. So Russia is likely to be against the general destruction of nuclear weapons ...

    B. What will happen to the USA and Russia if the START-3 treaty "dies"?
    1/2. In the near future, there will be no sudden movements. The only thing that can possibly increase is the number of nuclear weapons in the main players - Russia and the USA. There will be no sharp increase in YBG and carriers

    3/4. Building nuclear potential in France and Britain is unlikely. They do not have a triad. but even dyads. Bomber aircraft, such as those in Russia and the USA, are absent as a fact. There are no ground delivery vehicles yet. The number of boats is extremely limited. The only thing they, in particular Britain, can do is to “load” SLBM owls from the reserve that it has

    5. China will be able to increase its strategic offensive arms, but not at times. Although the number of BGs in them is officially IMHO underestimated, they can deploy a number of strategic carriers. And land-based, and air, and sea. The biggest disadvantage in China is that when they create their strategic missile forces, they do not test them at maximum range and with maximum load. That is, they also have ICBMs with a range of 12000, and they tested a maximum of 3500-4000 km. Like SLBMs.

    6/7. India. It is not limited, like Pakistan to any treaties, but a major buildup of strategic ground forces is hardly to be expected. Is it just some buildup of ICBMs against China. For Pakistan, the BRDS, which both sides have, is also suitable. India is trying to create, if not a triad, then at least build boats with SLBMs. Though not yet with a very long range.

    8. DPRK. A sharp increase in START carriers is hardly possible. And even more so, a sharp buildup of warheads for them.

    9. Israel. In principle, Israel already has a semblance of a "nuclear triad", although aviation is not strategic, and missiles on ballistic missiles are not ballistic. Theoretically, the bulk can increase its potential, but not significantly

    B. Termination of the nuclear test ban treaty. Here it can move some countries ("threshold" ones to start developing their own nuclear weapons. Among such countries are Iran, Saudi Arabia, possibly Japan and South Korea
  18. Dron_sk 5 June 2020 18: 04 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The habitual strategy of Americans who love poker and bluffing is to demonstrate their superiority, tense the atmosphere to the limit, and then knock out the best conditions for themselves. Obviously, Russia needs these treaties more, because the Russian Federation has never acted as an aggressor, unlike the United States, plus Russia is weaker economically and cannot afford another arms race. And everyone understands this and Russia itself does not hide the fact that it needs these agreements, since we show everyone that they are ready to go to agreements and dialogue. And the USA is flirting with its superiority. But after all, nuclear weapons are not a toy ... It is clear that the US is striving to connect China to its main economic rival. It is clear that China’s desire not to limit itself to this treaty, since they have close parity with the United States in this component, and they don’t want to rely on the Russian Federation only. Let's see how this tangle of contradictions will unravel ...
  19. Alexander Yaroshenko 6 June 2020 04: 33 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Yes, Pupkin himself so harbored the udder potential remaining from the USSR, reducing Satan to 40 pieces and destroying Molodets, so that the Americans now have his cartoons on the drum