Military Review

“The fate of START-3 is a foregone conclusion”: Lavrov declared US refusal to renew the treaty

131
“The fate of START-3 is a foregone conclusion”: Lavrov declared US refusal to renew the treaty

The fate of the START-3 treaty is a foregone conclusion; the United States has decided not to renew it. This was stated by the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry Sergey Lavrov during the online session of Primakov Readings.


According to the Russian Foreign Minister, the United States decided not to renew the START-3 treaty, this follows from Washington’s statements against the backdrop of Russia's proposals to extend it. In addition, Lavrov emphasized, the United States put forward conditions for including the latest Russian weapons in the new treaty, which means "knocking on the open door."

Apparently, the decision to not renew this treaty (START-3) in the United States has already been made. The perseverance with which the non-alternative approach of transferring the entire conversation to the trilateral plane is emphasized, she says that this is already a foregone conclusion

- said Lavrov.

At the same time, the Russian Foreign Minister noted that Russia will ensure its security even without strategic offensive arms, in Moscow they are ready for any development of events if it is not renewed. Lavrov stressed that Russia does not need an extension of the treaty more than the US needs.

We need an extension exactly as much as the Americans need it. They now see in our calls to extend it without preconditions some kind of game: Russia has modernized its entire nuclear arsenal, but this is just beginning here, they want to hinder us, they want to tie our hands. Absolutely not. We need to prolong the START-3 no more than the Americans need it

- He said, adding that if the United States categorically refuse to renew, "we will not persuade them."
131 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. APASUS
    APASUS 10 July 2020 13: 14 New
    12
    This whole story was understandable from the very beginning, the Americans do not need treaties restricting them. What were our expectations, what were they hoping for?
    1. military_cat
      military_cat 10 July 2020 13: 20 New
      -5
      But what about the fact that without the participation of China, this treaty really does not make any sense other than providing unilateral advantages to China?
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 10 July 2020 13: 23 New
        18
        Quote: military_cat
        without the participation of China, this treaty really makes no sense

        ?
        And here is China in general?
        The Americans recorded them as enemies, let them agree. Separately.
        1. aleksejkabanets
          aleksejkabanets 10 July 2020 13: 54 New
          +6
          Quote: Spade
          And here is China in general?

          At the same time as the United Kingdom and France, and in addition there are other countries possessing nuclear weapons. In this form, as this agreement is now, he, unfortunately, has outlived himself.
          1. Civil
            Civil 10 July 2020 14: 08 New
            -31
            1. The arms race is picking up pace.
            2. Without the PRC, any world treaties are meaningless.
            3. Lavrov is tired.
            1. Doccor18
              Doccor18 10 July 2020 15: 22 New
              +5
              The arms race is picking up pace.

              Already 80 years old ..
              Without China, any world treaties are meaningless

              China is big, but it doesn’t need to be magnified so much, especially with regard to armaments. As he was catching up, so to this day he remains ...
              Lavrov is tired.

              May be I do not know. He himself does not admit laughing
            2. Vadim237
              Vadim237 10 July 2020 16: 24 New
              +1
              Let the United States and Russia will be chased in this race will no longer participate.
            3. Cyril G ...
              Cyril G ... 10 July 2020 16: 41 New
              +4
              Quote: Civil
              Without the PRC, any world treaties are meaningless.


              The inclusion of Britain and France is also strictly necessary.
          2. Avior
            Avior 10 July 2020 15: 06 New
            -2
            England and France have a relatively small nuclear arsenal
            Until recently, the Chinese were small
            Nosituption has changed
            1. Doccor18
              Doccor18 10 July 2020 15: 29 New
              +3
              England and France nuclear arsenal is relatively small

              Small, but not mine (Great Britain) ... And it will only be less, they do not pull this burden, hard ...
              Until recently, the Chinese were small
              Nosituption has changed

              The Chinese have owned nuclear weapons for over 50 years. And there is no shortage of funds. I have been reading this "bike" about 200 warheads in various sources since 1993. Rather, 2000 warheads, which is closer to reality. The arsenal of China has always been large, the 3rd in the world. But qualitatively, it really only grew in the last decade.
              1. Avior
                Avior 10 July 2020 15: 31 New
                -1
                China itself was a regional power
              2. Local from the Volga
                Local from the Volga 10 July 2020 23: 17 New
                -2
                do not smack nonsense !!!
            2. zadorin1974
              zadorin1974 10 July 2020 15: 43 New
              +2
              Good Sergey. The fact is that the number of APs in France and England is known. In England, even submarines are armed with American delivery vehicles. All of this was not explicitly taken into account in the agreement. At the moment, the specific number of APs (warheads) in service with the PRC is unknown. (this is the worst dream of the United States). And the fact that the DPRK states do not drag in nuclear weapons is not considered by the United States to be a serious threat to the United States. Essentially, the Jews must participate in the new treaty (the information about the presence of almost 70 BB seems too true) .
              1. Avior
                Avior 10 July 2020 19: 01 New
                0
                If the agreement concerns the Security of the USA, Russia and China, then the charges threatening them must be taken into account one way or another.
                But really, this is not easy to do. For example, Indian weapons- A possible threat to China and Pakistan and to no one else.
                Israeli- none of the three affects. In addition to the number of charges, you need to take into account the power and delivery means, after all.
                But it is certain that Israel is an ally of the United States.
                French and English are a threat to the Russian Federation and possibly China.
                On the other hand, the number of warheads in England - about 200 and France - 360, partly tactical,
                much less than that of the Russian Federation and the USA.
                There are questions to those who are threatened with weapons of China, Russia or the United States to a greater extent.
                That is, it is impossible to really balance the balance, there are too many all kinds of nuances and sides.
                There are others related to the structure of types of weapons and tactical charges, which is also important.
                A likely solution is to limit the number of charges of all types with the principle of reasonable sufficiency of causing unacceptable damage to the enemy, while not giving guaranteed advantages in an attack.
                That is, to turn nuclear weapons solely into a means of defense against anyone, but not attack.
            3. alexmach
              alexmach 10 July 2020 18: 38 New
              0
              Yes, not so big. Especially given the limitations imposed by the contract, especially when summarized with the American.
          3. Lopatov
            Lopatov 10 July 2020 15: 51 New
            +1
            Quote: aleksejkabanets
            At the same time as the United Kingdom and France, and in addition there are other countries possessing nuclear weapons.

            Perfectly. However, this does not explain at all why “without the participation of China, this treaty really does not make any sense”
            1. aleksejkabanets
              aleksejkabanets 10 July 2020 16: 16 New
              -3
              Quote: Spade
              Perfectly. However, this does not explain at all why “without the participation of China, this treaty really does not make any sense”

              Because in the agreement on the quantity of nuclear weapons, all countries with nuclear weapons should participate.
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 10 July 2020 16: 34 New
                +1
                Quote: aleksejkabanets
                Because in the agreement on the quantity of nuclear weapons, all countries with nuclear weapons should participate.

                What for?
                Stupidly for extras?
                1. aleksejkabanets
                  aleksejkabanets 10 July 2020 16: 50 New
                  -4
                  Quote: Spade
                  What for?
                  Stupidly for extras?

                  And you try to think. Aren't you afraid that in the Nth number of years China (India, Pakistan write anyone), there will be more warheads with carriers than in our country?
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 10 July 2020 17: 02 New
                    +2
                    Quote: aleksejkabanets
                    Are you not afraid that after the N-th number of years

                    After this number of years, one must begin to think about the abstract.

                    So far, the only country that competes with us in this area is the United States. And their cheating methods in the form of nodding to China should not pass.

                    Russia has flown in this way twice already. With North Korea and with Iran. And with Iran, having lost a lot of money on the military-technical cooperation.

                    And when someone like you or "military_cat" begins to tell that Russia is obliged for the third time to help the United States solve its problems now with China, it bothers me a lot.
                    1. aleksejkabanets
                      aleksejkabanets 10 July 2020 17: 10 New
                      -5
                      Quote: Spade
                      So far, the only country that competes with us in this area is the USA

                      Here, the keyword is bye.
                      Quote: Spade
                      And when someone like you or "military_cat" begins to say that Russia is obliged for the third time to help the United States solve its problems

                      Remind me, please, when I said that "Russia is obligated to help the United States solve its problems."
                      Quote: Spade
                      it bothers me a lot.

                      No need to exert much effort, breathe deeply and calmly.
                      1. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 10 July 2020 17: 13 New
                        0
                        Quote: aleksejkabanets
                        Here, the keyword is bye.

                        Exactly.
                        And when the problem arises, we will agree. And directly with China or India. And not with cheaters.

                        Quote: aleksejkabanets
                        Remind me, please, when I said that "Russia is obligated to help the United States solve its problems."

                        That is, you yourself do not understand why you started trying to confirm the American thesis that "without the participation of China, this treaty really does not make any sense"?
                      2. aleksejkabanets
                        aleksejkabanets 10 July 2020 17: 23 New
                        -2
                        Quote: Spade
                        Exactly.
                        And when the problem arises, we will agree. And directly with China or India. And not with cheaters.

                        No need to wait for the problem to occur, you must immediately make sure that the problem does not arise.
                        Quote: Spade
                        That is, you yourself do not understand why you started trying to confirm the American thesis that "without the participation of China, this treaty really does not make any sense"?

                        I repeat, this treaty will only make sense when all the nuclear powers participate in it. Recall START 3
                        did not take into account nuclear weapons of France and England. And he, somehow must take into account similar things.
                      3. alexmach
                        alexmach 10 July 2020 18: 43 New
                        +1
                        No need to wait for the problem to occur, you must immediately make sure that the problem does not arise.

                        Well, or at least not create new problems.
                        Recall START 3
                        did not take into account nuclear weapons of France and England

                        And there is a reason for this, because when the START-1 was signed, the quantity of nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles in both the USSR and the USA surpassed all other nuclear arsenals combined. And these treaties did allow them to reduce and stop the arms race. Well, apparently it's time to start all over again.
                    2. Shteffan
                      Shteffan 10 July 2020 20: 48 New
                      0
                      When the problem arises, it will be too late. No one, neither the United States nor Russia want China’s syas to overtake everyone and run ahead. When calculating the power of their syas, you need to take into account the syas of everyone else in the world.
              2. Local from the Volga
                Local from the Volga 10 July 2020 23: 19 New
                -1
                Well, if only they fly to vimana ...
    2. svp67
      svp67 10 July 2020 14: 09 New
      +1
      Quote: Spade
      And here is China in general?
      The Americans recorded them as enemies, let them agree. Separately.

      And we think there is no interest in limiting the offensive weapons of both China and the United States?
      1. Doccor18
        Doccor18 10 July 2020 15: 33 New
        -1
        And we think there is no interest in limiting the offensive weapons of both China and the United States?

        You are right, if you restrict in the nuclear warheads and delivery vehicles, then all the strongest, to which China and the United States belong, of course.
      2. Lopatov
        Lopatov 10 July 2020 15: 52 New
        +1
        Quote: svp67
        And we think there is no interest in limiting the offensive weapons of both China and the United States?

        China?
        So far, there is no sense in us paying attention to him.
        And perhaps in the USA too
    3. NEXUS
      NEXUS 10 July 2020 15: 30 New
      +1
      Quote: Spade
      And here is China in general?

      Despite the fact that China did not sign any pieces of paper .... and who knows what the Chinese nuclear arsenal is, and how many missiles are there? fellow
      Then another dawned on the horizon, a non-proliferation treaty. That's where the furry animal stumbled. And if something about this is not invented, then tomorrow (hypothetically), some kind of Ali Baba will park a jeep with a nuclear device in the center of New York or St. Petersburg and that's all ...
      1. To be or not to be
        To be or not to be 10 July 2020 15: 46 New
        +1
        China is just laughing at the United States:
        1.9 June
        "China will not take part in negotiations on arms control with Russia and the United States. According to RIA Novosti, the official representative of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, Hua Chunying, said on June 9 in Beijing. She added that the Chinese side has repeatedly expressed its unequivocal negative According to the Foreign Ministry spokesman, the United States is constantly trying to drag China into the discussion of extending the Russian-American Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START-3), but there is a desire to shift responsibility from itself to other countries. "She also recalled that the US has recently withdrawn from a number of international agreements, including the Intermediate-Range Shorter Treaty, the International Arms Trade Treaty, and the Open Skies Treaty."
        2. July 8
        "China will be" happy "to join the arms talks between Russia and the United States if Washington fulfills Beijing’s condition, said Fu Zong, head of the arms control department of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, Reuters reports.

        According to him, the United States must reduce its nuclear arsenals to the level that China has at its disposal. "

        = "Now China is very well settled: it is a member of the nuclear club, is a member of the UN Security Council with the right of veto, and can develop virtually any weapons without restrictions. And the question is, why should it take on any obligations under the framework of" foreign "agreements?

        In addition, the Chinese are well aware that agreements with the Americans are not worth a penny. The United States is a totally unreliable partner. "
        https://az.sputniknews.ru/expert/20200710/424406619/china-usa-russia-dogovor.html
      2. Local from the Volga
        Local from the Volga 10 July 2020 23: 22 New
        0
        why would you be a general .... "and who knows what the Chinese nuclear arsenal is, and how many missiles are there?" Gru and svr disbanded ?!
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 10 July 2020 23: 56 New
          +1
          Quote: Local from the Volga
          gru and svr disbanded

          But the Chinese counterintelligence was disbanded? Or are the Chinese completely unaware of such secrecy?
          1. Local from the Volga
            Local from the Volga 11 July 2020 00: 00 New
            0
            didn't even lie close with intelligence! the nation is extremely corrupt! they can steal, but zeros in their village!
    4. bobba94
      bobba94 10 July 2020 17: 07 New
      +3
      The fact is that all these INF Treaty, strategic offensive arms, and WWS were concluded between the two superpowers, and they were concluded at a time when peasants still chased sparrows and made cast iron in makeshift stoves. moreover. Now, in the courtyard of the XNUMXst century, everything has changed and questions about the "overwhelmingness" of China are perplexing
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 10 July 2020 17: 19 New
        0
        Quote: bobba94
        The fact is that all these INF Treaty, strategic offensive arms, and WWS were concluded between the two superpowers, and they were concluded at a time when peasants still chased sparrows in China and extracted cast iron in makeshift stoves.

        I'm afraid your idea of ​​reality, to put it mildly, does not correspond ... laughing

        Every third tank of the USSR was deployed in the direction of China.
        And China itself is one of the winners in the Cold War. Fulfilling precisely their preliminary requirements, Gorbachev withdrew troops from Mongolia and Afghanistan, and also demanded that Vietnam withdraw troops from Kampuchea, which they still have not forgiven for us.
        1. ycuce234-san
          ycuce234-san 10 July 2020 21: 49 New
          +1
          And China itself is one of the winners in the Cold War.


          It could have turned out to be a wonderful and extraordinary article on the World War ... About how the USSR, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Mongolia, CMEA countries gradually got into one geopolitical camp and the USA, Western countries and ... Communist China (!) - to another .
  2. APASUS
    APASUS 10 July 2020 13: 23 New
    +4
    Quote: military_cat
    But what about the fact that without the participation of China, this treaty really does not make any sense other than providing unilateral advantages to China?

    What are the unilateral advantages in this treaty for China, or what about the fact that not only the Chinese have nuclear weapons? Touching on this topic, it is necessary to draw parallels with all owners of nuclear weapons.
    1. svp67
      svp67 10 July 2020 14: 10 New
      +1
      Quote: APASUS
      What are the unilateral advantages in this treaty for China, or what about the fact that not only the Chinese have nuclear weapons?

      It is not only a matter of possession of a country by OA, but of its quantity in a given country.
    2. Ross xnumx
      Ross xnumx 10 July 2020 15: 13 New
      0
      Quote: APASUS
      Touching on this topic, it is necessary to draw parallels with all owners of nuclear weapons.

      Quote: svp67
      It is not only a matter of possession of a country by OA, but of its quantity in a given country.

      This topic may affect the interests of only those countries that in fact have strategic nuclear forces. So far, in reality, there are three such countries: China, the Russian Federation and the USA ... The rest, no matter how much someone wants it, cannot carry the threat of a strategic attack. NF can be strategic only in conjunction with delivery vehicles.
      The US withdraws from the treaty only because it hoped to “bend” both Russia and, through its economic influence, China. China has made it clear that in the modern world it is more important for it than conditional parity, but a real advantage over a potential adversary.
      In the near future, the START treaty does not even have the prospect of consideration, because without the participation of all parties such an agreement is a farce.
      1. 5-9
        5-9 10 July 2020 15: 23 New
        0
        Either cut the list to the Russian Federation and the United States or include the WB and France .... China's strategic nuclear forces are a mystery, but most likely they are in real life (and not horror stories) weaker than them (at intercontinental range).
  3. Vita vko
    Vita vko 10 July 2020 13: 24 New
    11
    Quote: military_cat
    what to do with the fact that without the participation of China

    As well as without France, Great Britain, Israel, Pakistan, India.
    1. Lipchanin
      Lipchanin 10 July 2020 13: 30 New
      +2
      I doubt that these countries, except Israel, will limit their nuclear weapons
    2. Hunter 2
      Hunter 2 10 July 2020 13: 58 New
      0
      Yes, everything was clear for a long time. Lost another deterrent.
      Russia currently needs to develop and modernize its nuclear potential.
      1. aleksejkabanets
        aleksejkabanets 10 July 2020 14: 13 New
        -2
        Quote: Hunter 2
        Russia currently needs to develop and modernize its nuclear potential.

        The trouble is that for this we need to develop industry, electronics, improve and make education more accessible, and the list is another half page. Without this, our lag is only a matter of time.
        1. mark2
          mark2 10 July 2020 20: 41 New
          -4
          What kind of electronics do you want to develop? That electronics that is in the armory is bad for a citizen and vice versa. You don’t think that the processors from the iPhone are on the missile control yuloks? Well, electronics in a volume sufficient for the army exists. To develop widespread production of domestic life. Technique does not make sense, I mean like China is at hand. Or do you have the idea of ​​covering the border from imports in general? Then yes, without importing it, you will have to develop yours. But not the other way around. If import import is not prohibited, then domestic will never develop. You probably have a Chinese smartphone and not a domestic one. And such exist.
          1. aleksejkabanets
            aleksejkabanets 11 July 2020 02: 02 New
            -2
            Quote: mark2
            What kind of electronics do you want to develop? That electronics that is in the armory is bad for a citizen and vice versa.

            In the mid-90s, I served as a VISP technician (remote indicators of the landing system), and imagine, there were the same 226 diodes, KT 315 transistors, 155 series chips, etc. That is, the entire elemental base was exactly the same as on lathes, tape recorders, computers, etc. And now, the controller could not change anything radically, in Africa the controller, the magnetic starter, remained the magnetic starter, of course, there are specialized microcircuits, but their number is small.
            Quote: mark2
            To develop widespread production of household goods. Technique does not make sense, I mean like China is at hand.

            Can we stop making cars? Belarus makes wonderful cheeses and sausages, do we need to produce them? Let's trade oil and gas, and instead of developing production, produce countless guards, nail service masters, architects of eyebrows. With which, however, our state is already quite successfully engaged.
            Quote: mark2
            You probably have a Chinese smartphone and not a domestic one. And such exist.

            I’ll tell you more, my computer is not domestic either. Although domestic computers are the same. Do you think I like this state of affairs?
      2. Vestovoi
        Vestovoi 10 July 2020 14: 13 New
        -3
        Quote: Hunter 2
        Yes, everything was clear for a long time. Lost another deterrent.
        Russia currently needs to develop and modernize its nuclear potential.

        Yes, it’s like Aleksey is developing and anti-aircraft defense, including ..
        Let them try Russia by the teeth once again .. hi
        1. aleksejkabanets
          aleksejkabanets 10 July 2020 14: 35 New
          -4
          Quote: Vestovoi
          Let them try Russia by the teeth once again ..

          Better not.
          Quote: Vestovoi
          Yes, it’s like Aleksey is developing and anti-aircraft defense, including ..

          I once wrote that in the flight of Yuri Gagarin the main role was played by an unknown teacher "Marya Ivanovna", and today there are big problems with education. And the saddest thing is that there is a steady tendency towards their further exacerbation.
        2. NEXUS
          NEXUS 10 July 2020 15: 31 New
          +5
          Quote: Vestovoi
          Let them try Russia by the teeth once again ..


          This is what your smart comment looks like. fool
  4. Sobol
    Sobol 10 July 2020 13: 25 New
    +4
    Quote: military_cat
    But what about the fact that without the participation of China, this treaty really does not make any sense other than providing unilateral advantages to China?

    And why only to China? England, France, India, Pakistan, Israel - this means that you can provide benefits?
    1. Starover_Z
      Starover_Z 10 July 2020 13: 33 New
      +1
      Quote: SoboL
      And why only to China? England, France, India, Pakistan, Israel - this means that you can provide benefits?

      Yes, these must also be included. They have both nuclear warheads and bombs and their carriers. But China does not interfere with inclusion - it is in our hands. It is not known which side the Chinese observer on the river is waiting for the passing corpse of the enemy!
    2. military_cat
      military_cat 10 July 2020 13: 58 New
      -2
      Quote: SoboL
      And why only to China? England, France, India, Pakistan, Israel - this means that you can provide benefits?

      So it was already a hundred years how to get out of this agreement, no? Why wait until the Americans wanted to get out of it?
  5. Lipchanin
    Lipchanin 10 July 2020 13: 28 New
    +2
    Quote: military_cat
    other than providing unilateral advantages to China?

    And China is not going to sign something with a mattress
    1. antivirus
      antivirus 10 July 2020 13: 58 New
      +1
      end of the Yalta-Podsdam system of the world. But is the Bretton Woods end?
      20 years (since 1949) lived without nuclear weapons treaties - and developed .... how scary ... without a piece of paper - are we insects ..? or not?
  6. credo
    credo 10 July 2020 13: 35 New
    +2
    Quote: military_cat
    But what about the fact that without the participation of China, this treaty really does not make any sense other than providing unilateral advantages to China?

    This agreement does not make sense either with China or without China, because besides China there are still countries possessing nuclear weapons such as England, France, Pakistan, India, Israel and others. But for some reason, the United States does not want to invite them to sign this agreement either earlier (during the Soviet Union) or now (during the Russian Federation).
    So, after the expiration of the said treaty, the United States will declare to the whole world that they, as a peace-loving country, called on Russia and China to sign the treaty on their terms, but the latter refused, which once again proved to the progressive world that they were non-existent, thereby proving that they conceived something unkind and insidious against the good and sweet Anglo-Saxons and of course the rest of the world. What was required to prove and force the satellites to fork out for additional American weapons.
    1. Free wind
      Free wind 10 July 2020 14: 35 New
      +2
      The fact is that the agreement provides for the inspection of atomic weapons, 18 inspections per year, which is on our part, and that on the American. China strongly disagrees. So do not whitewash China, they are still gavriki.
    2. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 10 July 2020 14: 37 New
      0
      Ok god with him with Indo-Pakistan-Israel ...

      However. If the United States requires the PRC to participate in the contract, the presence of different France and Britain is strictly necessary at the concert. No way without them.
  7. halpat
    halpat 10 July 2020 14: 09 New
    -1
    Quote: military_cat
    But what about the fact that without the participation of China, this treaty really does not make any sense other than providing unilateral advantages to China?

    Then you need to include more India, Pakistan, Britain, France, North Korea and Israel.
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 10 July 2020 14: 59 New
      -2
      +1000, this is the only option for us.
  • codetalker
    codetalker 10 July 2020 13: 42 New
    +1
    What were our expectations, what were they hoping for?

    Yes, they did not expect anything. They did not want to look like gravediggers of the contract.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • An64
    An64 13 July 2020 10: 08 New
    0
    Quote: APASUS
    Americans don't need treaties restricting them

    Do we need it? The same agreement limits us. It is called - "On the restriction ..." Restrictions, the more one-sided, no one needs. Why are we then advocating for this treaty, and the Americans are refusing ?. Logically it turns out that we are behind and trying to squeeze s, right? Or do we go ahead and say, “let's limit ourselves more than you, but will align potentials,” right?
    Blaming everything and always Americans is a very good position to write comments. No need to think. He said - "Americans are fools" and gain pluses in the rating ...
    1. APASUS
      APASUS 13 July 2020 10: 46 New
      0
      Quote: An64
      Blaming everything and always Americans is a very good position to write comments. No need to think. He said - "Americans are fools" and gain pluses in the rating ...

      Over the past couple of years, have Americans withdrew from all treaties limiting their armaments, do they have to be praised?
      Quote: An64
      Restrictions, especially one-sided ones, are not needed by anyone. Why are we then advocating for this treaty, and the Americans are refusing ?.

      Because this contract limited American Wishlist, look at the latest American strategy for the use of nuclear weapons and how it has changed.
      1. An64
        An64 13 July 2020 14: 53 New
        0
        Quote: APASUS
        Because this contract limited American Wishlist, look at the latest American strategy for the use of nuclear weapons and how it has changed

        That is, the agreement still limited the Americans - which is what they are talking about.
        Wishlist - Wishlist, but the numbers from the Foreign Ministry website: as of October 1.10.2014, 794, deployed ICBMs, SLBMs and SBs are Americans 528, we are 22.02.2018; As of February 652, 527, deployed ICBMs, SLBMs and SBs are XNUMX Americans, we are XNUMX.
        Of course, we need this agreement - it holds back the United States.
      2. An64
        An64 13 July 2020 14: 54 New
        0
        Quote: APASUS
        Over the past couple of years, have Americans withdrew from all treaties limiting their armaments, do they have to be praised?

        There is no need to praise anyone, but if the country sees that the agreement is to the detriment of it, why not quit? This is normal practice. Why drag a bonded contract for yourself? For example, I understand the Americans.
  • Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 10 July 2020 13: 26 New
    +7
    The nuclear arms race? Can the US support it themselves? Russia has not lost an iota of competence in nuclear technology ... This cannot be said about the Americans ...
    1. Mikhail m
      Mikhail m 10 July 2020 13: 30 New
      -5
      The question is more in finance. Here, the alignment is not in our favor.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 10 July 2020 13: 36 New
        +5
        Quote: Michael m
        The question is more in finance. Here, the alignment is not in our favor.

        Why?
        We need to ensure "mutual assured destruction", and not chase the numbers.
        And as recent events in the US show, destroying them is even easier than it seemed before.
        1. Mikhail m
          Mikhail m 10 July 2020 13: 43 New
          -11
          The arms race played an important role in the collapse of the USSR. It is a pity that the memory of this was short.
          1. Nastia makarova
            Nastia makarova 10 July 2020 13: 46 New
            +8
            It has long been proven by everyone that this is nonsense, the race has nothing to do with the USSR
            1. Mikhail m
              Mikhail m 10 July 2020 14: 00 New
              -6
              I would not be surprised if Nastya could not decipher the abbreviation of the USSR, otherwise she would not write in lowercase letters. USE, however. I won’t even argue about “it has long been proved by everyone”.
              1. Nastia makarova
                Nastia makarova 10 July 2020 14: 10 New
                0
                why argue about your delirium, and now your life is poor because you spend a lot on the army
            2. antivirus
              antivirus 10 July 2020 14: 00 New
              0
              You are not too openly against the training manual - it is dangerous for the brains and peace of mind of some. Are you ready to take responsibility for their lives?
          2. Lipchanin
            Lipchanin 10 July 2020 13: 54 New
            +2
            Just the same, hunchbacked and made contracts and destroyed our missiles, and this has nothing to do with decay
            1. Nastia makarova
              Nastia makarova 10 July 2020 14: 08 New
              +4
              that’s the reduction that was going on, and he has all the problems because of spending on the army, the rotten top is to blame
          3. codetalker
            codetalker 10 July 2020 15: 31 New
            0
            Where's the arms race? We can talk about hypersonic weapons, maybe in the space sphere ... What does START have to do with this? In the field of strategic arms, Russia has a progressive planned development, and the United States has problems ...
          4. Lopatov
            Lopatov 10 July 2020 17: 10 New
            +1
            Quote: Michael m
            The arms race played an important role in the collapse of the USSR. It is a pity that the memory of this was short.

            Right.
            But about the "memory is short" - you mean the Americans? 8))))))))
            How much have they already spent on missile defense?
        2. Iwan_de
          Iwan_de 10 July 2020 21: 47 New
          0
          From me plus +
      2. Mountain shooter
        Mountain shooter 10 July 2020 14: 23 New
        0
        Quote: Michael m
        The question is more in finance. Here the alignment is not in our favor

        The question is the preservation of competencies. In frames, equipment. There is not so simple ...
    2. Lopatov
      Lopatov 10 July 2020 13: 30 New
      +6
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      This cannot be said about Americans ...

      In addition, arms limitation is beneficial to them. Given their astronomical investments in missile defense.
      It seems that among the Americans the “collective brain” of power elites simply completely degraded.
    3. Courier
      Courier 10 July 2020 13: 44 New
      -9
      And who told you that it will be a nuclear weapon?
      The United States will transfer weapons into space, there will be a real race.
      1. Grazdanin
        Grazdanin 10 July 2020 14: 06 New
        -4
        Quote: Courier
        The United States will transfer weapons into space, there will be a real race.

        And there is. Launchers are getting cheaper, the launch frequency is increasing, the ISS will cease to exist from 2024, the USA will build their stations, the Boeing X-37 will fly 10 years in space, Dream Chaser is on the way, Space forces were created half a year ago.
  • Lipchanin
    Lipchanin 10 July 2020 13: 26 New
    -5
    that if the United States categorically refuses to renew, "we will not persuade them."

    It’s a lot of honor for humiliation before them to humble themselves no
    All the same, they do not comply with the agreements
  • Alexey-74
    Alexey-74 10 July 2020 13: 34 New
    +1
    In principle, this was expected. The world has changed and not for the better.
  • Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 10 July 2020 13: 35 New
    -1
    Apparently, the decision not to renew this agreement (START-3) in the United States has already been made. The perseverance with which the inevitability of transferring the entire conversation to the trilateral plane is emphasized, it says that this is already a foregone conclusion, Lavrov said.
    Don’t be so killed. request From the beginning of the election in the United States, then the collapse of NATO, and the change of rhetoric in the PRC ...... and the agreement will keep pace ..... but in our editorial office. repeat
  • Docx2032
    Docx2032 10 July 2020 13: 38 New
    0
    The USA plays with white pieces, making the first move. This gives some advantage, including psychological. The Kremlin’s good preventive move in another party is to be the first to resume nuclear testing.
    1. Nastia makarova
      Nastia makarova 10 July 2020 13: 48 New
      0
      why feel it? it is necessary to test and improve the media and not the nuclear weapons themselves
      1. Docx2032
        Docx2032 10 July 2020 14: 02 New
        0
        Without full-scale tests using alternative methods (subcritical tests, computer simulations), it is possible to ensure the reliability and safety of nuclear weapons, but it is almost impossible to create a new type of weapon without real tests. Therefore, in the USA they have already proposed to resume nuclear weapons tests. Even the article was here in June: https://topwar.ru/171687-vozobnovjat-li-ssha-jadernye-ispytanija.html
  • rocket757
    rocket757 10 July 2020 13: 39 New
    0
    Apparently, the decision to not renew this treaty (START-3) in the United States has already been made.

    Against the background of everything else that minke whales caught, one should not be surprised.
    The world, and so a dangerous thing, will become even more dangerous, business then.
  • Grazdanin
    Grazdanin 10 July 2020 13: 55 New
    -3
    Why are we reacting so calmly to China’s nuclear program? China is the only country that can threaten our country. There is no one on our borders with such a land army, actively rearming, with nuclear weapons. Consider them an ally? On what basis. We sell resources and technologies, buy consumer goods and take loans at a crazy rate. There are simply no allied projects.
    1. carstorm 11
      carstorm 11 10 July 2020 14: 32 New
      0
      on the fact that China has a much more important direction that they need to hold back. all that they do and build almost entirely aimed at protection from other areas of which there are many. we don’t have any points at all with which we can encounter in the next 100 years. we have nothing to share and nothing to present to each other. we are buffering each other now and that suits us. this is an obvious benefit on both sides.
    2. 5-9
      5-9 10 July 2020 15: 27 New
      +2
      The fact that both the United States and we can return China in half an hour or an hour to the level after the Opium Wars and reduce its population to less than a billion with acceptable losses (by the standards of the war for world domination) .... militarily China.
      What will happen in 30-50 years ... we'll see ... now another "direct and clear threat"
  • Lebed
    Lebed 10 July 2020 14: 12 New
    12
    The United States hoped for our accommodatingness. It didn’t work out.
  • tralflot1832
    tralflot1832 10 July 2020 14: 46 New
    0
    You don’t understand the American people? To swell so many "dead American presidents" and then allow Russia to increase the number of nuclear weapons carriers. Or did they think that they should mention our new systems and we’ll immediately paw up? .Misha’s days have passed, now he would have screamed that he would have signed everything. Russia is no longer the red girl to worry whether someone likes her or not. Do we have mines for conservation under the START 3 treaty?
  • Ros 56
    Ros 56 10 July 2020 14: 48 New
    0
    It's time to screw the wick to Poseidon, only the length must be calculated.
  • Graz
    Graz 10 July 2020 14: 56 New
    +1
    we absolutely do not need an extension of it at the price of concessions
  • Alexga
    Alexga 10 July 2020 14: 58 New
    0
    In modern conditions, this agreement is no longer interesting to either the United States or Russia. Too many countries where nuclear weapons are obviously or secretly.
  • Imperial Technocrat
    Imperial Technocrat 10 July 2020 14: 59 New
    -1
    The death of the treaty is beneficial to Russia. And there are opportunities for a quick build-up of the arsenal (the US has lost the cycle), and delivery vehicles are more modern. Agent Trump copes brilliantly
  • Ghost of reagan
    Ghost of reagan 10 July 2020 15: 09 New
    -6
    Well, gentlemen, the citizens of the Russian Federation who voted for United Russia, for Putin, for the amendments, solemnly shouting that “Our Crimea” and others. Are you ready for the second arms race? And it will be held for the most part in space where the Amer after 2021 will have so many carriers that it will be impossible to catch up with them. Are you ready to raise children and grandchildren in fear of an arms race and the strengthening of NATO? Are you ready to seriously butt with Amer for military dominance in orbit? You know, the consequences for all this will be laid not only on the government operating over the past 20 years, but on citizens that allowed you to literally kill the last vestiges of democracy in the country. Rejoice and pay the future for your mistakes ....
    1. savage1976
      savage1976 10 July 2020 15: 24 New
      +1
      Oh scared, scared, scared. Where to go to give up?
    2. 5-9
      5-9 10 July 2020 15: 29 New
      0
      You are telling very scary things ... I’d be really scared and run to buy Tesla’s shares if I didn’t know that the United States lost its nuclear industry and forgot how to make new nuclear weapons ...
    3. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 10 July 2020 16: 07 New
      -2
      Quote: Reagan's Ghost
      it will be held for the most part in space where the Amer after 2021 will have so many carriers that it will be impossible to catch up with them.

      I personally at this stage and in the near term (10-20 years) do not see any sense from participating in the space arms race. Moreover, this trump card is extremely dubious militarily ..
      1. Grazdanin
        Grazdanin 10 July 2020 16: 16 New
        -1
        The only way to build a 100% working missile defense is in space, you can instantly destroy any country from space. By 2030, the United States may receive several hundred manned and unmanned orbital aircraft capable of carrying any load.
        Quote: Grazdanin
        Launchers are getting cheaper, the launch frequency is increasing, the ISS will cease to exist from 2024, the USA will build their stations, the Boeing X-37 will fly 10 years in space, Dream Chaser is on the way, Space forces were created half a year ago.
        1. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 10 July 2020 16: 40 New
          0
          Quote: Grazdanin
          The only way to build a 100% working missile defense is in space, you can instantly destroy any country from space.


          I hear this from the 80s, but there was no sense in how it was. In the foreseeable future, the likelihood of intercepting even a rocket salvo that is much weakened at times will still be scanty.
          1. Grazdanin
            Grazdanin 10 July 2020 16: 47 New
            -1
            In the 80s there were no technical capabilities, now they are.
            1. Cyril G ...
              Cyril G ... 10 July 2020 16: 48 New
              -1
              Not much less than now. I don’t see at least some military meaning in strike systems in the near space.
              1. Grazdanin
                Grazdanin 10 July 2020 17: 07 New
                -1
                A lot. Elementary launch vehicles have become cheaper and can be prepared faster.
                In a couple of years, SpaceX and Blue origin will achieve the preparation of the reusable 1 stage in 2-3 days, the Boeing with Lockheed Martin are behind but will catch up. Those. 1 stage per month will be able to produce 10-15 flights, if even 5 flights a month will be, then also good. The 10 first stages will provide about 50 starts per month. Stage 2 is a simple and cheap device. Fairings are also reusable. The first ten steps can be supported by one SpaceX, Blue Origin is half a step late, and they are far from the only ones who make rocket launchers. Earlier in the USA and now in Russia it takes 1-2 years to prepare one launch vehicle.
                One Boeing corporation produces 700-800 aircraft per year; it is not a problem to establish conveyor production of orbital aircraft.
                Before the ISS, the United States did not have experience in building space stations, now it has.
                The technology of UAVs, laser, electromagnetic, missile, hypersonic weapons stepped far forward.
                In the 80s, SDI was a cartoon, now it’s just a task with predictable terms and budget.
                1. Cyril G ...
                  Cyril G ... 10 July 2020 17: 15 New
                  -1
                  Quote: Grazdanin
                  In the 80s, SDI was a cartoon, now it’s just a task with predictable terms and budget.


                  The low efficiency of solving shock missions and missile defense issues is not going anywhere. The enemy, I remind you, is not at all on another planet.
                  1. Grazdanin
                    Grazdanin 10 July 2020 17: 36 New
                    -1
                    Naturally needed land, air and sea components. The United States has it all. Space forces do not cancel Aegis destroyers and THAAD.
              2. Grazdanin
                Grazdanin 10 July 2020 17: 16 New
                -1
                Near space is called a height of 20 to 100 km.
                X-37V is designed for low Earth orbit flights with altitudes ranging from 177 km to 805 km.
    4. tralflot1832
      tralflot1832 10 July 2020 16: 14 New
      -2
      And what planet did you get settled on, how do you get such confidence that the USA is ahead in developing strategic weapons? The race has been going on for a long time, we just hid it very well. The cartoons turned out to be true. After each increase in the level of radiation over Europe, they get hysterical. Yes, and in America too. I was flattered by the comparison of the Petrel with inhuman weapons. Yes and Putin warned of surprises for portners, there is still nothing to surprise the United States in the bosom. Understand your blacks judging by your nickname. This will give free rein and an end to America. Yes, and about the standard of living because of arms race since 2000, it does not fall with me, but keeps at an acceptable level for me. The enemy will be defeated and Victory will be ours.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 10 July 2020 16: 38 New
        +1
        In the United States, work continues on the creation of new SPRN missile defense satellites with IR cameras with new radar interceptor missiles, both land and sea based, as well as laser electromagnetic and beam - accelerators: ions, mesons, electrons, protons upon irradiation of warheads with necessary fluxes can be determined by to the gamma radiation emitted, real warheads from false ones began to work in this direction since the 80s, as part of the SDI, it was assumed that such active weapons would appear by 2025.
        1. Grazdanin
          Grazdanin 10 July 2020 18: 43 New
          0
          Parallel to this, space programs are actively developing. NASA has relied on private traders, the bet has played.
      2. Wladimir71
        Wladimir71 10 July 2020 20: 52 New
        0
        weapons have long been non-nuclear. it is paper. dollars. national welfare fund, heard? 60 tons of Russian gold abroad and 16 at home. And still all the alegarchs withdraw money abroad. Salaries are lower than in Africa. And under such conditions, the victory will be ours? Pretty naive.
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 10 July 2020 21: 34 New
          0
          Finish crap to write.
          1. Cyril G ...
            Cyril G ... 10 July 2020 22: 11 New
            -1
            Gold is capable of many things, but in the end, iron decides everything. (C.)
    5. Paranoid50
      Paranoid50 10 July 2020 16: 45 New
      +3
      Quote: Reagan's Ghost
      Rejoice and pay the future for your mistakes ....

      laughing laughing laughing Funny pathetic shy layman.
    6. Wladimir71
      Wladimir71 10 July 2020 21: 06 New
      0
      do not rush to gloat. it’s just a usurpation of power. The actual election figures are much more modest. While one person subjugates to himself all the legislative and executive powers of the truth do not expect him. objectivity is such that the power of those who have weapons of money and laws. and now even religion, by the way.
  • Max Lebedev
    Max Lebedev 10 July 2020 15: 12 New
    12
    Well that’s all, now it is possible to start production of the RS-26 Rubezh with a clear conscience. They will be cheaper.
  • georggy
    georggy 10 July 2020 15: 19 New
    -5
    This laurel is no longer even ridiculous in its statements. He would go from the field.
  • Serpet
    Serpet 10 July 2020 15: 34 New
    11
    To be honest - not surprised.
  • Klingon
    Klingon 10 July 2020 16: 48 New
    +1
    Quote: Cyril G ...
    Quote: Civil
    Without the PRC, any world treaties are meaningless.


    The inclusion of Britain and France is also strictly necessary.

    about comrade Eun and his vigorous baton forgot wink And Comrade Eun, by definition, will no longer discuss anything with the striped
  • rotkiv04
    rotkiv04 10 July 2020 17: 13 New
    +1
    This minister forgot to express his concerns with transparency.
  • Avior
    Avior 10 July 2020 18: 08 New
    +1
    If strategic offensive arms are not signed, an arms race will be promoted, with high-tech and very expensive ones.
    And the decision-making time will be reduced very much, and the probability of error will increase many times over.
  • Wladimir71
    Wladimir71 10 July 2020 20: 32 New
    -1
    no one is negotiating with political and military corpses. So Russia is not a threat to the United States anymore, but the prospect of an arms race is a strategic plan. wait for guests from all volosts Mr. Putin. We’ll see if you can also confront your “partners” on the hot front, just like your Rosgvardey against plastic cups in the summer of 2019.
    1. Wladimir71
      Wladimir71 10 July 2020 20: 45 New
      -2
      what is my opinion worse than others?
  • Old26
    Old26 12 July 2020 14: 29 New
    +1
    Quote: Civil

    2. Without the PRC, any world treaties are meaningless.

    Any tripartite or multilateral limitation treaties DO NOT MEAN. Multilateral (as well as trilateral) are not real in the reduction, but in the complete destruction

    Quote: Vadim237
    Let the United States and Russia will be chased in this race will no longer participate.

    Do you seriously believe that if the US starts a new arms race we will just sit and watch, not participate in it?

    Quote: Doccor18
    Small, but not ours (Great Britain) ...

    You just discovered America. And whose Britain has an arsenal of nuclear weapons? Is it really Ukrainian or Polish?

    Quote: aleksejkabanets
    I repeat, this treaty will only make sense when all the nuclear powers participate in it.

    This will never happen. Even the preparation of a bilateral treaty takes years, because hundreds of details have to be taken into account. And here, instead of two countries, a dozen will participate. After 200 years, maybe they’ll agree

    Quote: NEXUS
    But the Chinese counterintelligence was disbanded? Or are the Chinese completely unaware of such secrecy?

    In order to initially issue at least a rough forecast, there is no need to roam the vaults of the Chinese. The amount of produced uranium and plutonium is also quite accurate. The amount of material used in the charges is also. Known places of deployment of missile compounds of the PRC, the numbering of their brigades. About the number of ICBMs and intermediate-range missiles is known. Given the applications of the same PRC, one can roughly imagine the necessary number of charges for the strategic forces of the PRC.
    Nevertheless, 90% intelligence is an analysis of open materials ...

    Quote: ROSS 42
    This topic may affect the interests of only those countries that in fact have strategic nuclear forces. So far, in reality, there are three such countries: China, the Russian Federation and the USA ... The rest, no matter how much someone wants it, cannot carry the threat of a strategic attack. NF can be strategic only in conjunction with delivery vehicles.
    The US withdraws from the treaty only because it hoped to “bend” both Russia and, through its economic influence, China. China has made it clear that in the modern world it is more important for it than conditional parity, but a real advantage over a potential adversary.
    In the near future, the START treaty does not even have the prospect of consideration, because without the participation of all parties such an agreement is a farce.

    All nuclear states have strategic nuclear forces. The question is, a dyad or triad on each side.

    Quote: military_cat
    So it was already a hundred years how to get out of this agreement, no? Why wait until the Americans wanted to get out of it?

    If only because it was beneficial to us

    Quote: tralflot1832
    You don’t understand the American people? To swell so many "dead American presidents" and then allow Russia to increase the number of nuclear weapons carriers. Or did they think that they should mention our new systems and we’ll immediately paw up? .Misha’s days have passed, now he would have screamed that he would have signed everything. Russia is no longer the red girl to worry whether someone likes her or not. Do we have mines for conservation under the START 3 treaty?

    Russia will not be able to dramatically increase the number of carriers. The new weapons that they have, what we have, are years before bringing to operational readiness and commodity quantity. Now the Americans are in a situation in the early 2000s. Only now the sign has changed. Earlier, the Russian strategic forces were marked with a minus sign, now the Americans are with a minus sign

    Quote: Free Wind
    The fact is that the agreement provides for the inspection of atomic weapons, 18 inspections per year, which is on our part, and that on the American. China strongly disagrees. So do not whitewash China, they are still gavriki.

    Not a nuclear weapons inspection, but an inspection of nuclear weapons carriers. Neither we nor the Americans allow such inspections to their stores. But to check how many charges on a particular carrier - here you are right. There are inspections for this ...

    Quote: Imperial Technocrat
    The death of the treaty is beneficial to Russia. And there are opportunities for a quick build-up of the arsenal (the US has lost the cycle), and delivery vehicles are more modern. Agent Trump copes brilliantly

    Quite the opposite. At least in the next 5-10 years, the “demise of the contract” would not be beneficial to us. Moreover, the Americans will be able to build up their missile weapons potential faster than us. With nuclear charges (new) they still have a plug, but to correct this situation, only this time is needed ...

    Quote: Grazdanin
    Near space is called a height of 20 to 100 km.

    Yeah, you reported however. In fact, the near space is all that is higher than the so-called. Karman lines, i.e. 100 km.

    Quote: Grazdanin
    SpaceX and Blue origin in a couple of years will achieve the preparation of a reusable 1 stage in 2-3 days, the Boeing with Lockheed Martin are behind but will catch up.

    The probability is zero. On the shuttles, the Americans also wanted to ensure that a fleet of 4 shuttles made 52 flights a year. That is, it was planned to fly in flight for 1 month. And 1-2 days is not realistic if you need to carry out control ...

    Quote: Grazdanin
    One Boeing corporation produces 700-800 aircraft per year; it is not a problem to establish conveyor production of orbital aircraft.

    We have already discussed this. The numbers of aircraft released do not mean that. that a corporation can release as many space planes

    Quote: Grazdanin
    Before the ISS, the United States did not have experience in building space stations, now it has.

    Actually, there was such a long-term orbital station SKYLEB. There were only three expeditions, and by the number of days we caught up with their third expedition only at SALUTE-3 ...
    1. Grazdanin
      Grazdanin 15 July 2020 00: 10 New
      0
      Quote: Old26
      Nda, however, you reported. In general, near space is everything that is above the so-called. Karman line, that is, 100 km.

      There is no clear definition of deep and near space. Most often, near space is used as space available for flight in space, the space from the earth's orbit to the borders of the solar system, etc. In his statement he relied on the article: https://scienceandtech.ru/articles/chto-ponimaetsja-pod-blizhnim-i-dalnim-kosmosom/
      If there is no definition, then anything can be considered near space. For that would not be there are terms. My mistake is that I did not use a term, but a certain combination of words whose meaning in everyone's head is different and, accordingly, everyone is right.
      The X37B is designed to fly in low-earth orbit all the way to solar synchronous orbit - that's right.
      Quote: Old26
      The probability is zero. On shuttles, the Americans also wanted to make sure that a fleet of 4 shuttles made 52 flights a year. That is, an inter-flight cycling cycle was planned in 1 month.

      Why is the probability 0? Because NASA failed? So they switched to completely private launches. Musk keeps his promises, in principle I do not see over critical problems, jet aircraft can fly without long breaks for maintenance, having refueled and having passed the pre-flight check. In 48 hours, it is possible to fill and check all the nodes with the proper level of manufacturability. Naturally, this will take several years. They are building a separate offshore launch pad to land the first stage directly on it.
      Quote: Old26
      We have already discussed this. The numbers of aircraft released do not mean that. that a corporation can release as many space planes

      The number of aircraft produced indicates that the level of technology, management at Boeing is extremely high, there is a large production capacity. It is more than possible to produce serially an orbiting aircraft 3 times smaller than a Boeing 737, using technologies known since the 70s. 700 pieces is not necessary, 30-50 pieces per year is more than enough.

      Quote: Old26
      In fact, there was such a long-term orbital station SKYLAB.


      Skyleb is not a WORLD. naturally they could make an analogue of the World, but it's cheaper to go with those who have already passed the road.
  • Old26
    Old26 16 July 2020 13: 54 New
    +1
    Quote: Grazdanin
    There is no clear definition of deep and near space.
    Actually there is. But one should not confuse geographic or biological definitions of the same near space with physical, technical or political ones. And the generally accepted designation of the lower boundary of space is the so-called. the Karman line, adopted by the FAI and equal to 100 km. Anything above this line is near space or near-earth space. And this zone already has the right of extraterritoriality.

    Here is the border of near and deep space, you are right, it has no clear definition. In one case, it is counted to the orbit of the asteroid belt, in the other - the entire solar system. Accordingly, deep space is either everything that lies beyond the orbit of the asteroid belt, or beyond the solar system

    Quote: Grazdanin
    In his statement he relied on the article: https://scienceandtech.ru/articles/chto-ponimaetsja-pod-blizhnim-i-dalnim-kosmosom/
    If there is no definition, then anything can be considered near space. For that would not be there are terms. My mistake is that I did not use a term, but a certain combination of words whose meaning in everyone's head is different and, accordingly, everyone is right.
    The X37B is designed to fly in low-earth orbit all the way to solar synchronous orbit - that's right.

    The article, frankly speaking, is an ordinary "consumer goods". There is a "legalized" provision, which is the lower boundary of space according to the FAI system, and all use this system. Everyone can consider whatever he wants, but nothing changes from this.
    For the US Air Force, the definition of space is 50 miles (or 80,45 km), for the scientific community of the US and Canada - 118 km (and this height is reasoned). NASA has -122 km. Nevertheless, 100 km is a generally accepted border. In particular, up to an altitude of 100 km is the territory of the country and you can shoot down any target there. But 101 km is already a "neutral" space.
    In particular, the pilots of the American X-15 aircraft - and 197 flights were performed according to the standards of the US Air Force were not considered astronauts. Only 13 flights by US Air Force standards were recognized as suborbital space flights, but the FAI recorded only 2 flights when J Walker ascended twice to an altitude of over 100 km. So the border is there and clearly delineated

    Quote: Grazdanin
    Why is the probability 0? Because NASA failed? So they switched to completely private launches. Musk keeps his promises, in principle I do not see over critical problems, jet aircraft can fly without long breaks for maintenance, having refueled and having passed the pre-flight check. In 48 hours, it is possible to fill and check all the nodes with the proper level of manufacturability. Naturally, this will take several years. They are building a separate offshore launch pad to land the first stage directly on it.

    A jet plane and a space rocket are incommensurable in complexity and sophistication of the nodes. The aircraft engine does not find itself in those critical situations in which the rocket engine finds itself. And it is equal to zero because 1-2 days are clearly not enough at the modern technical level to conduct a full examination and release the stage for the next flight. If for a "tick" - then another matter. But it is impossible to inspect the technical condition of a step in 1-2 days. Pure PR
    After all, it is necessary to inspect the step after landing (you do not take into account the time to transfer the step from the site to the MIC). Carry out a complex of studies of individual parts of the stage, then dock it with another stage, carry out complex checks "dry". then take it to the start, refuel and carry out the last checks - and all this in 48 hours? It's not real yet. And when it will be real is unknown

    Quote: Grazdanin
    The number of aircraft produced indicates that the level of technology, management at Boeing is extremely high, there is a large production capacity. It is more than possible to produce serially an orbiting aircraft 3 times smaller than a Boeing 737, using technologies known since the 70s. 700 pieces is not necessary, 30-50 pieces per year is more than enough.

    The level of technology is certainly good, but I repeat, the assembly speed of an airplane and a spaceplane is not the same thing.

    Quote: Grazdanin
    Skyleb is not a WORLD. naturally they could make an analogue of the World, but it's cheaper to go with those who have already passed the road.

    And no one claims that this is an analogue of MIR. But the Americans had experience. As a result, they relied on shuttle traders, not DOSs.
    1. Grazdanin
      Grazdanin 17 July 2020 09: 26 New
      0
      Quote: Old26
      do not take into account the time required to transfer a stage from the site to the MIC

      Musk launched a project to build a sea launch pad from which launches will be made and on which the first steps will land. Accordingly, all the preparatory work is on it.
      Quote: Old26
      is equal to zero because 1-2 days are clearly not enough at the modern technical level to carry out a full examination and release the stage for the next flight

      Quote: Old26
      the assembly speed of an airplane and a spaceplane is not the same thing.

      In my opinion, you complicate the task and exaggerate the complexity. But here only time will judge, I think SpaceX will achieve a restart of the 1st stage in 2-3 days within 2-3 years, Blue origin 4-5 years.

      Somehow they asked why the Pentagon had a Dream Chaser, the answer has already come. There will be a continuation of the SKYLAB idea too. The idea of ​​several small stations for refueling and refueling orbiting aircraft has its advantages.
      https://topwar.ru/173165-pentagon-zakazal-razrabotku-neobitaemogo-orbitalnogo-forposta-uoo.html
  • Old26
    Old26 17 July 2020 18: 29 New
    +1
    Quote: Grazdanin
    Musk launched a project to build a sea launch pad from which launches will be made and on which the first steps will land. Accordingly, all the preparatory work is on it.

    The launch pad is not the MIC, where the shrunken stage is being tested. This is a separate, rather complex complex designed for assembly and a series of tests. You can land on the platform and start from it. But if the MIC is also included there, it is no longer a platform. Check out what Sea Launch is.

    Quote: Grazdanin
    In my opinion, you complicate the task and exaggerate the complexity. But here only time will judge, I think SpaceX will achieve a restart of the 1st stage in 2-3 days within 2-3 years, Blue origin 4-5 years.

    I'm not complicating it. It's just that in the late 70s and 80s I worked in this industry and I represent the scope of work in the same MIC before launch.

    Quote: Grazdanin
    Somehow they asked why the Pentagon had a Dream Chaser, the answer has already come. There will be a continuation of the SKYLAB idea too. The idea of ​​several small stations for refueling and refueling orbiting aircraft has its advantages.
    https://topwar.ru/173165-pentagon-zakazal-razrabotku-neobitaemogo-orbitalnogo-forposta-uoo.html

    There will be no continuation of the SKYLAB idea. "Skylab" is a "monoblock", weighing 80 tons, created from the tank of the Saturn-5 stage. Nobody will repeat this outdated concept, especially in such standard sizes.
    The unmanned Dream Chaser IMHO generally has a very narrow niche of application due to the amount of cargo it can carry. In a manned version - at least you can think about it. The external cargo module for Dream Chaser is designed exclusively for the delivery of cargo to the ISS. To create stations for orbital aircraft with a refueling system and other things is a distant future. Now the Americans have a primary task - an orbital lunar station. Everything else is covered in darkness in time. Now all conversations are solely "intentions"