Military Review

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

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. rocket757
    rocket757 3 June 2020 19: 32
    +9
    Nothing good for anyone ...
    Let's save the planet for posterity love
    1. fif21
      fif21 3 June 2020 19: 43
      +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
        rocket757 3 June 2020 20: 03
        +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
          Ilya-spb 3 June 2020 23: 04
          +1
          I just remembered a joke about the nuance ...

          There were Vasily Ivanovich and Petka
          1. lelik613
            lelik613 4 June 2020 06: 51
            +1
            Agent Donald breeds huckster in the crown style.
      2. Vita vko
        Vita vko 4 June 2020 01: 38
        +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 possibility of sitting out in their bunkers in "neutral" countries. Only a personal, obvious threat of annihilation can put puppet governments at the negotiating table.
    2. Maikcg
      Maikcg 3 June 2020 20: 04
      -5
      The more nuclear weapons, the more reliable the world. So in the furnace all these contracts.
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 3 June 2020 20: 08
        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
        Vasilenko Vladimir 3 June 2020 21: 48
        +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
          Maikcg 4 June 2020 16: 55
          0
          Which is directly proportional to quantity.
          1. Vasilenko Vladimir
            Vasilenko Vladimir 4 June 2020 19: 53
            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
              Maikcg 7 June 2020 19: 29
              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
                Vasilenko Vladimir 7 June 2020 20: 47
                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
                  Maikcg 15 June 2020 14: 15
                  -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
                    Vasilenko Vladimir 15 June 2020 23: 13
                    -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
        NordUral 4 June 2020 13: 01
        +1
        I fully support it. And the more means of delivery it to the "partners".
    3. Civil
      Civil 3 June 2020 20: 46
      0
      Well then, conflicts with low-intensity nuclear weapons will begin.
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 3 June 2020 20: 53
        +1
        Also an option, but it is no more possible than impossible.
        1. Alex777
          Alex777 4 June 2020 10: 28
          +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
            rocket757 4 June 2020 10: 38
            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 can end very scary ... if anyone remains to this terrible "evaluate"?
            1. Alex777
              Alex777 4 June 2020 10: 45
              0
              I'm talking about a limited war, but you're talking about an excess? bully
              1. rocket757
                rocket757 4 June 2020 11: 08
                +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
                  Alex777 4 June 2020 11: 28
                  +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
                    rocket757 4 June 2020 11: 31
                    +1
                    This is understandable ... not white, fluffy surrounded us, a slightly different color from those vultures.
          2. tikhonov66
            tikhonov66 4 June 2020 12: 27
            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
            NordUral 4 June 2020 13: 03
            +1
            It is necessary to clearly convey to the "partners" that there will be no limited wars and the strategists will immediately fly.
    4. Lord of the Sith
      Lord of the Sith 3 June 2020 20: 56
      +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
        rocket757 3 June 2020 21: 11
        +3
        Ha, but do we need to be moved?
        I want to live.
        1. Lord of the Sith
          Lord of the Sith 3 June 2020 21: 15
          +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
            Vasilenko Vladimir 3 June 2020 21: 50
            -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
              Lord of the Sith 3 June 2020 23: 15
              -1
              And what does it have to do with it?
              1. Vasilenko Vladimir
                Vasilenko Vladimir 4 June 2020 06: 33
                -3
                it to agree
                1. Lord of the Sith
                  Lord of the Sith 4 June 2020 08: 58
                  0
                  An example is so-so.
                  1. Vasilenko Vladimir
                    Vasilenko Vladimir 4 June 2020 09: 35
                    0
                    well why so-so, gathered agreed
                    we all know the result
          2. NordUral
            NordUral 4 June 2020 13: 04
            0
            Fools unbalanced among the upper missing in the West.
            1. Lord of the Sith
              Lord of the Sith 4 June 2020 13: 11
              0
              Not all "upper" ones 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 idiots among them.
              1. NordUral
                NordUral 4 June 2020 13: 39
                0
                We will live and see if there is or not. Projects floating cities did not appear from scratch.
      2. dauria
        dauria 3 June 2020 22: 21
        +5
        This is humanity can come Khan))


        7-plus billion people. Even in times without treaties, the USSR and the USA would have ruined "only" 110-130 million from each side. Now it is less. I don't remember how the Europeans were counted. So humanity is not going 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
          Lord of the Sith 3 June 2020 23: 31
          0
          hi

          Take it deep.
          Can you put the Chinese, Americans and other players at the negotiating table?
        2. mister-red
          mister-red 4 June 2020 00: 05
          +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
          0
          The Chinese to "catch up" - as to the moon on foot. We do not need this at all. They will not let them "equal".
        4. Knell wardenheart
          Knell wardenheart 4 June 2020 10: 48
          +3
          By itself, nuclear weapons may not kill so many, but the chaos that will follow will kill over_dohren. People will have nothing to eat, cultivated areas will be contaminated (as well as water intake), chemical. factories are partially destroyed, global trade will stop. Local authorities and the remnants of the central government will cease to find a common language, and as a result, the central authorities. the authorities will sweep away the hungry marauding crowds. The economic framework of the state will collapse - food, weapons, medicines will be appreciated. And given the collapse of economic ties, all these will be limited things - and therefore hundreds of millions of people will banal suppress each other, along the way eating out everything larger than a rat, catching all the fish, etc. Tough unsanitary conditions will go and the whole bouquet of infections will bloom in magnificent color - cholera, typhus, tuber, plague, from this it will still die decently. Understandably, there will be attempts to restore order on the ground - however, the dilemma of "extra people" and mistrust of the authorities will quickly arise - so basically these attempts will be bloody and unsuccessful. Seniors and pre-retirees will go to Valhalla pretty quickly.
          So even a close look is enough to understand that the main "damage" from nuclear weapons is the unpredictable, sudden and large-scale destruction of an organization with concomitant contamination of the area - and given the critical dependence of our civilization on medicines, clean water, food, our moralism and the habit of waiting for the organization "from above" - ​​I am afraid that the consequences of such a war could be ten times more serious than what you have identified.
      3. Hermit21
        Hermit21 3 June 2020 23: 30
        -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
          Lord of the Sith 3 June 2020 23: 34
          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
          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
            Maikcg 4 June 2020 17: 07
            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
              Starover_Z 4 June 2020 22: 18
              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
                Maikcg 7 June 2020 19: 27
                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
            Hermit21 5 June 2020 08: 24
            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
        tikhonov66 4 June 2020 12: 31
        0
        "... In the event of a nuclear mix with the planet, in the end everything will be normal, and I have 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
      iouris 3 June 2020 21: 48
      +1
      Quote: rocket757
      Nothing good for anyone ...

      Do not scare the electorate.
      The key question is: under which US administration and which 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, a sharp struggle is going on in the "elites", so acute that some at this turn of history will be thrown out by centrifugal forces.
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 3 June 2020 21: 56
        0
        there is always a struggle when the chief becomes decrepit or he wants to "have fun", but this "circus" is about nothing, for us, at least, the SYSTEM has everything there, tightly.
      2. tikhonov66
        tikhonov66 4 June 2020 12: 46
        0
        "... The key question is: under what administration of the United States and what government of the Russian Federation will we all soon survive in this world?
        .. "
        - that WE-ALL is straight shschaz - 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, JUST doesn't exist. From the word "ALL".
        Either you (your genome) - could leave offspring in the biosphere - your copies (that is, as they say - "survived"),
        Either you (and your genome) - died "childless" - NOT leaving your copies - offspring - to exist in the world.

        - 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
    Pvi1206 3 June 2020 19: 34
    +1
    nothing will happen until a madman comes to power ...
    1. tanki-tanki
      tanki-tanki 3 June 2020 19: 45
      +2
      Let's hope that a madman does not come to power.
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 3 June 2020 20: 09
        +1
        What if it comes ???
      2. audigamma
        audigamma 3 June 2020 20: 41
        +1
        Or go crazy with power
    2. Mitroha
      Mitroha 3 June 2020 19: 54
      +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
        Sandor Clegane 3 June 2020 19: 59
        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
          Mitroha 3 June 2020 20: 02
          +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
            Sandor Clegane 3 June 2020 20: 03
            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
          -1
          An idiotic situation .... firstly, to start up "a thousand Tomahawks" is possible only by pulling almost the entire fleet point-blank to our borders, and even in this case, they will have to start up for an hour .... all ships or will be returned upon a call with the threat of drowning or the TNW will be drowned BEFORE the Tomahawks are launched .... well, there will be almost no damage from a thousand Tomahawks in a global sense.
          1. Sandor Clegane
            Sandor Clegane 4 June 2020 11: 45
            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
              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
                Sandor Clegane 4 June 2020 15: 46
                0
                Quote: 5-9
                And do not fantasize

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

          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
      iouris 3 June 2020 21: 51
      0
      Quote: Pvi1206
      until a madman comes to power ...

      It's impossible. "Vlast" is not deputies or "officials". Access to the levers of the state machine occurs after a tough selection (not only at the "national" level, because capital has no national borders).
    4. tikhonov66
      tikhonov66 4 June 2020 12: 53
      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
    Sergey39 3 June 2020 19: 44
    0
    Trump will not be able to sign anything. Until it restores order with a firm hand.
    1. RESEARCHER
      RESEARCHER 3 June 2020 19: 47
      0
      Well, they say that Trump in America has white negroes lynching
    2. iouris
      iouris 4 June 2020 12: 04
      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
    Machete 3 June 2020 19: 51
    -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
      Mikhail m 4 June 2020 04: 43
      0
      Minus for "USSR".
    2. iouris
      iouris 4 June 2020 12: 08
      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
      tikhonov66 4 June 2020 12: 55
      0
      "... Amer's politicians 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
    Doccor18 3 June 2020 19: 52
    +1
    Against this background, US President Donald Trump said that he "intends to sign a nuclear pact with Russia."

    It is imperative to involve China in this "pact", and not only in nuclear weapons, but also in long-range missile defense. Then it will make sense.
    1. kot423
      kot423 3 June 2020 20: 08
      +2
      Sure, not a problem. After France, small-shaven and other vassals of mattress ...
  6. Hydrogen
    Hydrogen 3 June 2020 20: 08
    -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
    Operator 3 June 2020 20: 17
    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
    Hydrogen 3 June 2020 20: 25
    -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
      kot423 3 June 2020 20: 31
      +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
        Hydrogen 3 June 2020 20: 42
        -2
        Yes, it is clear that they are not entirely reliable "partners", but in this matter it is necessary to somehow negotiate, otherwise the world is heading for a bad situation. And it so happened that it was Russia and the United States that had to solve this problem. The reaction of our darkest, all the time , we regret, we are ready to renew, etc. Afraid to say firmly that the treaty is outdated, the world is changing, there are more key owners of nuclear weapons, and the danger of uncontrolled proliferation and possession of nuclear weapons has grown greatly.
        1. kot423
          kot423 3 June 2020 22: 06
          +1
          .It annoys the reaction of our darkest, all the time, we are sorry, we are ready to resume, etc.

          Is it irritating you? Drink a sedative as the reaction to the show-off of mattresses "we will go out, we will not prolong" in the world makes the reputation of the mattresses themselves as an unacceptable country. In contrast to the fact that Russia is not against it, but ... "they do not want to, and we are a peaceful country, we do not force it" and reputation against this background is a plus, not a minus. And do not confuse warm with soft - the fact that it is necessary to attract other countries does not mean that it should be done with an incompetent sharper.
  9. The comment was deleted.
  10. Viktor Sergeev
    Viktor Sergeev 3 June 2020 20: 42
    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
    7,62h54 3 June 2020 20: 46
    +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
    impostor 3 June 2020 21: 03
    0
    Poles and Romanians should carefully read the subparagraph "c" of paragraph 19 of the 355th decree. This is guaranteed devastation
  13. APASUS
    APASUS 3 June 2020 21: 24
    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
    codetalker 3 June 2020 21: 50
    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
    AlexG83 3 June 2020 22: 25
    0
    Quote: rocket757
    Let's save the planet for posterity

    American ...
  16. Old26
    Old26 4 June 2020 18: 00
    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 we take your example and consider the same Israel and its neighbors, then maybe (hypothetically) the situation is that all the neighbors will take up arms against Israel, And the Iranians, Iraqis, Syrians, Egyptians, Saudis, and Jordanians will trample against it. Strike first (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? Has the country become the object of aggression also losing its statehood? Although she was not the initiator of this massacre.
    Second option. China with its almost two billion population has flooded to Russia. In order to remain a state, Russia is delivering a nuclear strike, albeit a limited one (of several hundred charges). According to your logic, Russia should unconditionally and automatically lose its statehood and be an outcast for the whole world? While being the object of attack. For China, a loss of, say, 200-300 million people is an absolutely acceptable loss. At the same time, after the loss of statehood by Russia, a “piece” of itself will be pulled back to the Urals ...
  17. Old26
    Old26 4 June 2020 20: 13
    +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 Nonproliferation Treaty is the cornerstone of everything. Now in the world about 30 so-called. "threshold" countries capable of developing their own nuclear weapons in a short time. Slightly fewer countries are 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 from Pakistan, India can "purely technically" (due to the number of its
    population) "crush" Pakistan. Therefore, Pakistan will definitely be against it. India will oppose the destruction of strategic offensive arms because 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 tends to zero, but what the hell is not kidding? Suddenly, in the foreseeable future, someone will appear who will be able to unite the “non-unified” 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. Technically, they can do it fairly painlessly. No one has a fleet capable of invading the American continent. Their neighbors are so militarily weak that they can be ignored in the calculations. Canada is generally an ally. The country is located "over the oceans" and may not fear aggression from anyone.

    9. Russia. And for Russia, the presence of strategic offensive arms is vitally important because its neighbors are such that without nuclear weapons they will tear us to pieces. In the east there is two billion China and the same Japan, which would not mind taking over not only the Kuril Islands but also other territories. In the central part (in the south) there is a multimillion-dollar fundamentalist Iran, which dreams of becoming a "hegemon" at least 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, having tried to chop off the Transcaucasian republics. And without nuclear weapons? Well, the western direction. Europe, or rather NATO countries, which surpass us in all respects. And in the number of personnel, and in the number of the population, and in the amount of weapons, and in the quantity and quality of industrial potential. So Russia will most likely be against the total destruction of nuclear weapons ...

    B. What will the US and Russia have if the START III "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. An increase in the nuclear potential of France and Britain is unlikely. They do not have a triad. but even dyads. Bomber aviation, such as in Russia and the United States, is absent as a fact. There are no ground delivery vehicles yet. The number of boats is extremely limited. The only thing that they, in particular Britain, can do is to load "owls of SLBMs 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 kind of "nuclear triad", although aviation is not strategic, and missiles on submarines are not ballistic. Theoretically, anything that can increase your potential, but not significantly

    C. Termination of the nuclear test ban treaty. So it can encourage some countries ("threshold" countries to engage in the development of their own nuclear weapons. Among such countries are Iran, Saudi Arabia, possibly Japan and South Korea
  18. Dron_sk
    Dron_sk 5 June 2020 18: 04
    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
    Alexander Yaroshenko 6 June 2020 04: 33
    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