Military Review

Future Biden administration announced interest in extending START III

91

The administration of the 46th President of the United States, which is preparing to take office, is "giving signals" that it would be the best option for it to extend the Treaty on the Reduction of Strategic Offensive Arms (START III).


Recall that this agreement will expire soon, the Trump administration did not want to negotiate its extension. The Russian authorities have repeatedly offered Washington to sit down at the negotiating table and agree at least on an automatic extension of START for a year without additional conditions.

The fact is that the Trump team noted the futility of extending the treaty in its current form, when the strategic offensive weapon is not only in the United States and Russia, but also in a number of countries around the world.

Now, already in the future US administration, they decided to think about options for extending the missile treaty.

The United States emphasizes that they are interested in extending the START III treaty, "but for this it is necessary to carry out appropriate work."

It is clear that agreements of this kind (especially if they are going to be amended) cannot be extended without negotiations. In this regard, both in Washington and in Moscow, experts started talking about the fact that Joe Biden, by definition, would have to meet with Vladimir Putin and discuss the details of the agreement.

Recall that Biden assumes the presidency of the United States today at 12:00 am ET. It will be evening in Moscow at this hour.
91 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Mykhalych
    Mykhalych 20 January 2021 06: 26
    +3
    "... the 46th President of the United States is" giving signals "that it would be the best option for her to prolong the Treaty on the Reduction of Strategic Offensive Arms (START III)."- that's just IMHO put forward to Russia well, completely unacceptable conditions. The beginning of Biden's rule was marked by the disconnection of telephone communications, mobile communications and Internet failures at the Russian Consulate in the United States. Except as sabotage, this cannot be called.
    1. Civil
      Civil 20 January 2021 06: 44
      0
      What's the point? Anyway, there are more than warheads and carriers, no one will do it. And we also have a lot of money. The existing potential will blow away the enemy and bystanders several times.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 20 January 2021 08: 39
        +5
        Quote: Civil
        The existing potential will blow away the enemy and bystanders several times.

        The existing potential is capable of causing very serious damage to the United States. And that's all. That is, we are quite capable of forever knocking them out of the position of the strongest state in the world, but to destroy them, no, we are incapable. And this is provided that not a single strategic warhead will fly to Europe.
        1. Lipchanin
          Lipchanin 20 January 2021 08: 52
          0
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          that not a single strategic warhead will fly to Europe

          Are they aimed there?
          They have enough tactical for their eyes
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 20 January 2021 09: 44
            +2
            Quote: Lipchanin
            Are they aimed there?

            No, as far as I know.
            Quote: Lipchanin
            They have enough tactical for their eyes

            Blessed is he who believes.
            After Armageddon (exchange of volleys of strategic nuclear forces), we will be left with little pieces. Today, even being untouched by a nuclear strike, we are unable to reach the English Channel. The number of our ground forces is only a couple of tens of thousands more than that of Turkey, while not all of our ground forces are stationed in the West. And in the United States, one KMP has 194 thousand people.
            In general, with such layouts, after Armageddon, it is POSSIBLE that our Armed Forces, with the help of TNW, will be able to deter the invasion of the Russian Federation. And maybe not. Europe will remain intact.
            1. hydrox
              hydrox 20 January 2021 11: 19
              +2
              Forgive me, but your opinion about the "intactness" of Europe has no basis.
              Our Doctrine says that any threat to our sovereignty, even with the massive use of conventional weapons with the threat of violating them, will necessarily be accompanied by the destruction of centers for making military decisions, which means that all NATO armed forces will be decapitated and it is clear that this will be tactical nuclear weapons, since NOBODY in our Armed Forces will tempt fate twice.
              And you overdid it in panic ...
              In this regard, Minutemans are much easier to catch than Russian devices.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 20 January 2021 12: 56
                +1
                Quote: hydrox
                Forgive me, but your opinion about the "intactness" of Europe has no basis.

                More than it has. And is based on the knowledge of the number of our nuclear weapons supplies
                Quote: hydrox
                Our Doctrine says

                Doctrine can talk about anything. The question of translating doctrinal talkers into practice
                Quote: hydrox
                even with the massive use of conventional weapons with the threat of violating them, it will necessarily be accompanied by the destruction of centers for making military decisions, which means that all NATO armed forces will be beheaded

                You are substituting one question for another. It was not the "decapitation" of NATO commands that was discussed here, but
                Quote: Civil
                The existing potential will blow away the enemy and bystanders several times.

                So, no one will demolish Europe. There is nothing.
                Quote: hydrox
                all NATO Armed Forces will be beheaded and it is clear that this will be tactical nuclear weapons

                I am happy that you understand this. But here's the deal - firstly, our arsenal of TNW - about 2000 ammunition. Some of them are free-fall bombs, some are warheads for tactical missiles, and some, perhaps in general, are nuclear shells, although the latter is inaccurate - in theory, they should have been scrapped for a long time by their expiration dates.
                So that's it. You may not consider the actions of our tactical aviation over Europe at once - they will not fly there, they will be stopped much earlier. Accordingly, nuclear bombs for Europe disappear - well, maybe in the front line, Poland there, or someone else nearby will be bombed, but no more.
                What remains? Rockets. And of the missiles we have only "Calibers" have a decent range, But the problem is that these "Calibers":
                1) In general, it is not a fact that they have a nuclear part. They, of course, CAN carry it, but whether it is possible to place warheads from our arsenals on the Caliber is a question. And somehow we do not produce new TNW.
                2) "Calibers" are corny enough to "calibrate" Europe with them.
                3) From the same Caspian to the same France it is banal too far - "Caliber" will not reach.
                Quote: hydrox
                And you overdid it in panic ...

                I'm sorry, but about 173 warheads of 100 Kt are needed to eliminate 800 largest cities of the Russian Federation (with a population of 100 thousand people and above). More than half of the population of the Russian Federation lives in these 173 cities. Another 550 will be left to destroy infrastructure facilities and so on. - this is not counting the nuclear arsenals of NATO countries, I take only the US strategic nuclear forces.
                So yes, some bits and pieces.
                Quote: hydrox
                In this regard, Minutemans are much easier to catch than Russian devices.

                Neither one nor the other is caught. our air defense systems shoot down warheads, not the missiles themselves.
                A simple example to understand. During the exercises, the British Sea Wulf air defense system shot down artillery shells with almost 100% efficiency. In real combat operations against subsonic aircraft, it was fired with an EMNIP efficiency of 40%.
                Actually, we do not have enough complexes to at least theoretically be able to somehow shoot back from nuclear warheads. The same S-400 regiments are slightly more than 30, for example. And hardly all of them are capable of fighting the BB ICBM
                1. hydrox
                  hydrox 20 January 2021 17: 44
                  -1
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  And is based on the knowledge of the number of our nuclear weapons supplies

                  Sorry, but this is unprovable and unconfirmed by fresh data.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  It was not the "decapitation" of NATO commands that was discussed here,

                  The destruction of the NATO command turns all 300 thousand NATO troops into a herd of sheep.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  The actions of our tactical aviation over Europe may not be immediately considered

                  Don't hold me for an idiot: no one is going to use nuclear warheads from tactical aircraft, but to use the X-102 from the territory of Balt. or the North Sea will be fine.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  but whether it is possible to place warheads from our arsenals on the "Caliber" is a question. And we somehow do not produce new TNW.

                  Excuse me, but you are regularly informed about the state of ALL developments of our OboronProm. Moreover, since the suggestion of the Yankes for the last 2 years, "household" YaBG with a capacity of 5-10 kT have been well discussed.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  our air defense systems shoot down warheads, not the missiles themselves.

                  You are wrong, the S-500, and even more so Nudol, are engaged in missiles too.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  A simple example to understand. During the exercises, the British Sea Wulf air defense system shot down artillery shells with almost 100% efficiency. In real combat operations against subsonic aircraft, it was fired with an EMNIP efficiency of 40%.

                  Indeed, a simple example: Even ancient complexes work well on objects on ballistic trajectories and, like the Iron Dome, cannot work on maneuvering objects, and our YBG maneuver EVERYTHING.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 20 January 2021 19: 23
                    +3
                    Quote: hydrox
                    Sorry, but this is unprovable and unconfirmed by fresh data.

                    If you have any other data, please inform. And according to my data, there was no resumption of the production of TNW in the Russian Federation.
                    Quote: hydrox
                    The destruction of the NATO command turns all 300 thousand NATO troops into a herd of sheep.

                    No scathing phrases. You first find this command, then find the means to destroy it. And yes, the destruction of the top leadership is not death, they will raise other officers, that's all. do you think we will be different?
                    Quote: hydrox
                    Don't hold me for an idiot: no one is going to use nuclear warheads from tactical aircraft, but to use the X-102 from the territory of Balt. or the North Sea will be fine

                    Why should I keep you there for something? :))))) I bring to your attention that the X-102 is a STRATEGIC cruise missile and has nothing to do with TNW.
                    Quote: hydrox
                    Excuse me, but you are regularly informed about the state of ALL developments of our OboronProm.

                    In this matter, developments are not important, what matters is what goes into the troops.
                    Quote: hydrox
                    You are wrong, the S-500, and even more so Nudol, are engaged in missiles too.

                    You are mistaken, out of obvious ignorance of the basics - at least take a look at the stage at which the MIRV is separated from the ICBM. And the reach of the S-500
                    Quote: hydrox
                    Even ancient complexes work well on objects on ballistic trajectories and, like the Iron Dome, cannot work on maneuvering objects, and our YBG maneuver EVERYTHING.

                    I hasten to upset, only the vanguards maneuver
                    In general, you should at least familiarize yourself with the basics before arguing
                    1. hydrox
                      hydrox 20 January 2021 20: 15
                      0
                      I am reluctant to climb to your clouds, but only 33 times I do not care what class you refer the X-102 to and I see no obstacles to using it on A / B Ramstein, as well as on other objects where NATO command is acquired and occupying parts of the United States.
                      And since we are not talking about inflicting damage, but about preserving the people, it does not matter WHAT will be destroyed and in what orbits the offensive weapons of the West will be caught.
                      From the same jelly that you propose as material for discussion, neither strategy nor tactics follows.
                      It's a pity, I was hoping to get hold of knowledge, but I got liberal gum.
                      I beg your pardon, all the best - I didn't manage to make a guru out of you ...
                      By the way, ask around where you need it, so they will tell you that the addresses and coordinates of ALL the commands responsible for the war with the Russian Federation have long been known and are stored in the memory of warheads ...
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 January 2021 07: 01
                        +1
                        Quote: hydrox
                        I am reluctant to climb the clouds to you, but only 33 times I don't care what class you refer the X-102 to and I see no obstacles to using it according to A / B Ramstein

                        I explain on my fingers. The number of strategic weapons is limited by the START-3 treaty, and it is relatively small, so for a more or less reliable defeat of the United States, we will need all the strategic nuclear forces.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        The existing potential is capable of causing very serious damage to the United States. And that's all. That is, we are quite capable of forever knocking them out of the position of the strongest state in the world, but to destroy them, no, we are incapable. And this is provided that not a single strategic warhead will fly to Europe.

                        Quote: hydrox
                        And since we are not talking about causing damage, but about preserving the people

                        It does not go - in the case of Armageddon, we, as a nation, will be destroyed.
                        Quote: hydrox
                        it is all the same, WHAT will be destroyed, and in what orbits the offensive weapons of the West are caught.

                        There is nothing. The available capacities do not guarantee the protection of even the largest Russian cities.
                        Quote: hydrox
                        From the same jelly that you offer

                        I'm not suggesting anything. I introduce you to the prosaic facts of life :)))
                        Quote: hydrox
                        It's a pity, I was hoping to get hold of knowledge, but I got liberal gum.

                        You just didn't like the knowledge, and you preferred to reject it, returning to your personal beliefs.
                        Quote: hydrox
                        By the way, ask around who you need, so they will answer you that the addresses and coordinates of ALL the commands responsible for the war with the Russian Federation have long been known and are stored in the memory of warheads

                        God, what a kindergarten .... Do you seriously think the NATO command is insane, and incapable of relocating if the threat of Armageddon approaches? I am sincerely sorry for you.
        2. Andrey.AN
          Andrey.AN 20 January 2021 14: 56
          0
          In order to "cause very heavy damage to the United States. And that's all. That is, we are quite capable of knocking them out of the position of the strongest state in the world forever", about 500 charges are enough, to sew their western and eastern coasts every 10 km., And the States not a sea power for half a century, not to mention the fact that they have all the resources on the coast and are crowded together. There will be 1000 more charges for the rest of the doubters.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 20 January 2021 15: 28
            +1
            Quote: Andrey.AN
            In order to "inflict very heavy damage on the United States. And that's all. That is, we are quite capable of knocking them out of the position of the strongest state in the world for good," about 500 charges are enough, to sew their western and eastern coasts every 10 km.

            That is, in your opinion, the length of the US coast is about 5 km? :))) Actually, it is a little bit 000 times longer.
            Quote: Andrey.AN
            and the States are not a sea power for half a century

            Yeah. And in this case, the Pope will clearly forbid them to conquer Canada or Mexico.
            In fact, what you have written is completely meaningless. There is no need to sow the entire coastline, it is enough to destroy large port cities, the result will be the same.
            Quote: Andrey.AN
            There will be 1000 more charges for the rest of the doubters.

            Let's admit. And these 1 charges will destroy, in the worst case for the United States, about 000 million people. That is, less than a third of the population
            1. Andrey.AN
              Andrey.AN 20 January 2021 15: 51
              0
              For the sake of destroying their population, it will run away from there to a new homeland, there are only emigrants - no one to get used to. An obvious internal problem will prevent them from bending over Canada and Mexico. There was no talk of the entire coastline; in Alaska, a couple of attacks on ports are really enough. Avot on the east and west coasts of the central part of the United States, retaliating with 500 charges not only withdraws the active ports, but also infects all areas suitable for mooring for half a century. Remains of those that are on the carriers and on other clever people.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 20 January 2021 16: 03
                +1
                Quote: Andrey.AN
                For the sake of destroying their population, it will run away from there to a new homeland, there are only emigrants - no getting used to

                There are no emigrants there for a long time. The United States was able to enter a system in which, often, the second generation of emigrants begins to consider themselves Americans, and the third - how to drink.
                Quote: Andrey.AN
                And an obvious internal problem will prevent them from bending over Canada and Mexico.

                What? :)))
                Quote: Andrey.AN
                but infects all areas suitable for mooring for half a century

                Uh-huh. That's why the Japanese, after a couple of years with might and main, settled at the sites of the epicenters of nuclear explosions ...
                If you do this, then in a few years the United States, either after decontaminating several of the largest ports, or breaking into the territory of Mexico, which will not even be able to withstand such an invasion, will resume transport links with Europe. And nothing fatal for the USA will happen
                1. Andrey.AN
                  Andrey.AN 20 January 2021 16: 15
                  0
                  There is no problem whatsoever, after the destruction of the main resources and infrastructure of the country, with hundreds of millions of missing and injured people, with a multi-million army of marauders, when she and her allies continue to be at gunpoint? It is easy to carry the whole world away from a small separate area of ​​the infection on the island, and not when everything is affected, and there are no people who want to mess with dangerous dirt at all.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 20 January 2021 16: 26
                    +1
                    Quote: Andrey.AN
                    There is no problem, after the destruction of the main resources and infrastructure of the country

                    1500 special warheads are not enough for this, but you still want to distract them by seeding the coastline.
                    Quote: Andrey.AN
                    It is easy to carry the whole world away from a small separate area of ​​the infection on the island, and not when everything is affected, and there are no people who want to mess with dangerous dirt at all.

                    Well, after sowing the coast, you will leave most of the United States intact. No "everything" will be infected, the largest megacities and something else will be destroyed. In reality, with this approach, you will ditch 75 million in total, and save the bulk of the infrastructure and manufacturing facilities of the United States
                    1. Andrey.AN
                      Andrey.AN 20 January 2021 16: 40
                      0
                      Enough 500, all the basic infrastructure and resources are just stretched along these strips, more than sure places like Las Vegas and without bombs will bend as soon as Detroit. A coastal strip with a width of 20 kilometers will be infected, there will not be anyone who wants to clean it, it does not pull anyone away, especially to restore the aggressor, neither desire nor opportunity.
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 20 January 2021 19: 24
                        +1
                        Quote: Andrey.AN
                        Enough 500, all basic infrastructure and resources are just stretched along these strips

                        Clear. That is, you are not only in matters of strategic nuclear forces and missile defense, but also in matters of ordinary geography, to put it mildly, are not strong
                      2. Andrey.AN
                        Andrey.AN 21 January 2021 18: 51
                        -1
                        I am no less literate in geography than the US presidents, not my strong point. If 500 is not enough for you, then they will spend another 500 crossing the border with Canada and Mexico, fly by airlines from there. 500 will remain for a start, so as not to let goats into your garden, and to prevent all resuscitation measures for the United States. Until we agree that it's over.
                      3. Andrey.AN
                        Andrey.AN 21 January 2021 19: 08
                        -1
                        Have you heard about Perimeter? everything was invented long ago. For me, it is better to move the horses straight away, even at the stake, than to live in this cauldron.
                      4. Andrey.AN
                        Andrey.AN 21 January 2021 19: 31
                        -1
                        I will try to explain my point of view on such a duel. Yes, the Americans have an advantage; they will receive an attack warning before we do. Maybe we will take 80 percent of the strike, and you 95. But what comes next, our territories give more opportunities to the rescued, like our air defense, in which each S-400 installation will issue a warning to the area in twenty minutes, there is time to go to the shelter ... Our military forces will practically not suffer, even if two-thirds of their NZ are destroyed, they will work for years. You can't cut off our eggs, but we can do it, emigrants even in the third generation are not ashamed to dump their ancestors from their land, especially well-armed marauders, we have nowhere to cut, we will tear anyone's throat.
                      5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 January 2021 06: 09
                        +1
                        Quote: Andrey.AN
                        Maybe we will take 80 percent of the strike, and you 95. But what comes next, our territories give more opportunities to the rescued, like our air defense, in which each S-400 installation will issue a warning to the area in twenty minutes, there is time to go to the shelter

                        Kindergarten, group "herringbone".
                        So, for a change, try to evacuate the school. Not in a shelter, but just take all the children out into the streets. And see how long it takes.
  2. Kalmar
    Kalmar 20 January 2021 08: 44
    -1
    Quote: Civil
    What's the point? Anyway, there are more than warheads and carriers, no one will do it.

    For example, to preserve the current state of affairs: an approximate parity in nuclear weapons with a significant US superiority in conventional weapons. This will allow the United States to further develop conventional forces without spending extra funds on a nuclear arsenal.
    1. Civil
      Civil 20 January 2021 08: 58
      0
      Quote: Kalmar
      This will allow the United States to further develop conventional forces without spending extra funds on a nuclear arsenal.

      It is logical however ... plus
    2. hydrox
      hydrox 20 January 2021 11: 25
      +1
      Your opinion is groundless :: ONLY Russia TODAY has significant reserves of fresh plutonium for the production (maintenance) of nuclear weapons in an active state, the United States does not even have a tenth of Russia's capabilities not only in possession, but also in the production of plutonium.
      1. Kalmar
        Kalmar 20 January 2021 11: 31
        0
        Quote: hydrox
        Your opinion is groundless :: ONLY Russia TODAY has significant reserves of fresh plutonium for the production (maintenance) of nuclear weapons in an active state, the United States does not even have a tenth of Russia's capabilities not only in possession, but also in the production of plutonium.

        From what you have said, it directly follows that it is extremely beneficial for the United States to prevent Russia from using these opportunities to build up its nuclear arsenal - this is where START comes in handy. In general, as I said.
        1. hydrox
          hydrox 20 January 2021 12: 33
          0
          It is in vain that you think so: in terms of the execution of the Treaties, the United States cannot be trusted a dime: they will withdraw from the treaty at any time that they deem advantageous to withdraw.
  3. yehat2
    yehat2 21 January 2021 14: 24
    +1
    how much do you need? How many missile defense systems are capable of destroying the first strike now?
    Will there be enough for the doctrine of retaliation?
    The development of the START treaties in the context of the deployment of US bases around the planet, gives this country an obvious simplification of the insidious attack. And we are talking about a country that has started 100 wars and armed conflicts in 128 years.
  • Lionnvrsk
    Lionnvrsk 20 January 2021 08: 01
    +3
    Quote: Mykhalych
    The. 46th President of the United States "gives signals" that it would be the best option for her to extend the Treaty on the Reduction of Strategic Offensive Arms (START III). "- that's just IMHO put forward Russia well, completely unacceptable conditions.

    Well, yes, to promise is not to marry! The eternal ameri policy of the "exclusive" nation. yes
  • rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 20 January 2021 06: 28
    +6
    Interested in an extension? But at the same time, at the end of the year, the American side made proposals to include items (in addition to connecting China), which do not directly suit Russia and are beneficial exclusively to the United States. It's about hypersonic weapons. The Americans, not having it in service, want us to contractually limit the production and use of these weapons. When unacceptable requirements are set in advance, what kind of interest can we talk about? A one-sided game in favor of the Americans?
    1. Lipchanin
      Lipchanin 20 January 2021 06: 57
      0
      Quote: rotmistr60
      A one-sided game in favor of the Americans?

      As always
    2. Kalmar
      Kalmar 20 January 2021 08: 51
      0
      Quote: rotmistr60
      But at the same time, at the end of the year, the American side made proposals to include items (in addition to connecting China), which do not directly suit Russia and are beneficial exclusively to the United States.

      Well, as if this is a normal thing for any contract: each party tries to draw it up in the most advantageous way for itself. And there, whoever is most convincing is a fine fellow.

      Quote: rotmistr60
      It's about hypersonic weapons. The Americans, not having it in service, want us to contractually limit the production and use of these weapons.

      And what do they want to limit there? Vanguard? So it already falls under the current START.

      Quote: rotmistr60
      When unacceptable requirements are set in advance, what kind of interest can we talk about?

      Have you ever bargained? Each side always makes excessive demands at the beginning of the auction, so that later there will be something to sacrifice to create the appearance of a concession.
      1. hydrox
        hydrox 20 January 2021 12: 36
        0
        Here it is not a matter of persuasiveness, but in the presence of a "national interest", and in agreements with the United States, our interests will never be, as well as American ones ...
  • evgen1221
    evgen1221 20 January 2021 06: 35
    -5
    Well, under the sauce or weakening, but not lifting sanctions or permission for sp2, they can arrange bargaining. And then they know how to justify the necessity in our territory.
  • Lipchanin
    Lipchanin 20 January 2021 06: 56
    +2
    Do we need him?
    Anyway, they will leave it when it is profitable for them
    1. t-12
      t-12 20 January 2021 20: 01
      0
      Do we need him?

      After the breakup of the INF Treaty, not particularly. The United States can deploy in Europe as many missiles with high-precision tactical warheads as it wants, and this will not contradict the START Treaty.

      On the other hand, breaking START-3 is meaningless for Russia. Russia will not pull a new "nuclear race" with tens of thousands of warheads.
  • pmkemcity
    pmkemcity 20 January 2021 07: 06
    -4
    With the previously created nuclear infrastructure, the conventional arms race costs us much more than the nuclear arms race, and does not guarantee security. While maintaining the existing strategic parity, only saturation with operational and tactical nuclear weapons will allow us to resist the West, as it is now fashionable to say "asymmetrically", because many modern weapons have long approaching nuclear weapons in cost, but are still significantly inferior to it in efficiency.
    So let's see how many liters of jam and kilograms of cookies our Bad Boys will sell the Military Secret ... It remains only to stand for a day, and hold out for the night, and then Biden will arrive in time!
    1. Ka-52
      Ka-52 20 January 2021 08: 25
      +1
      the conventional arms race costs us much more than the nuclear arms race, and does not guarantee security. While maintaining the existing strategic parity, only saturation with operational and tactical nuclear weapons will allow us to resist the West, as it is now fashionable to say "asymmetrically", because many models of modern weapons have long approached nuclear weapons in cost, but are still significantly inferior to it in efficiency.

      you are absolutely wrong. Stopping the development and saturation of the RF Armed Forces with conventional conventional weapons can be costly. According to our military doctrine, nuclear weapons can be used in the following cases:
      1.in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and (or) its allies
      2. the case of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons, when the very existence of the state is threatened.

      Thus, in the event of local (pinpoint) strikes by the United States (NATO) on military installations and / or defense industry facilities on the territory of the Russian Federation with conventional weapons, we will have to respond in kind. In your proposed case, there will be nothing to answer. It is not for nothing that in recent years the Americans have been diligently developing the theme of moving away from the idea of ​​a strategic nuclear war towards a strategy of limited damage. Now is not the 16th century, in order to remove a geopolitical rival there is no need to seize it or grind it into dust. It's enough just to throw it back into the past century, destroying the economy
      1. Alexander Galaktionov
        Alexander Galaktionov 20 January 2021 08: 47
        -3
        Here, even soon, ordinary equipment will go away, biological will be used and everything will be like with this covidla, it appeared on its own
        1. Kalmar
          Kalmar 20 January 2021 09: 03
          +1
          Quote: Alexander Galaktionov
          biological is used and all

          Biological is very difficult to control, especially with the current development of transport: the infection spreads around the globe in a matter of weeks. As a result, the biological attack will almost inevitably affect the aggressor himself.
          1. Alexander Galaktionov
            Alexander Galaktionov 20 January 2021 09: 10
            -1
            If the aggressor greets his citizens and allies, then he will win, especially if the country's resources are huge in oil, gas, gold and other minerals
            1. Kalmar
              Kalmar 20 January 2021 09: 26
              0
              Quote: Alexander Galaktionov
              If the aggressor greets his citizens and allies, then he will win

              First, a sudden mass vaccination strictly limited to one country would raise a lot of suspicion. Secondly, the vaccine does not give 100% guarantees, nevertheless, plus the viruses / bacteria used can develop resistance to it in the next generations. Thirdly, now in every developed country there are large-scale anti-vaccine movements, which in biological war will unwittingly turn out to be a kind of "fifth column". In short, there are very, very many nuances, the risks are great for everyone.
      2. pmkemcity
        pmkemcity 20 January 2021 09: 27
        -1
        Quote: Ka-52
        According to our military doctrine, nuclear weapons can be used in the following cases:

        Which is cheaper - to rewrite a piece of paper or build 5000 tanks? Moreover, I do not call for abandoning the development and production of, as you put it, "conventional" weapons. It just doesn't make sense to chase America. We need to act within reasonable limits, arm ourselves and help unbending partners for money, but without fanaticism, because the current weapon, like a modern gadget, becomes obsolete within six months.
        1. Ka-52
          Ka-52 20 January 2021 09: 37
          -1
          Which is cheaper - to rewrite a piece of paper or build 5000 tanks?

          suppose the US attacks and destroys a military base in Syrian Tartus. How do we answer? Shall we rewrite a piece of paper and zhahnem "kuzka mother" on the principle "the whole world in dust"? Do you want such a response yourself?
          the current weapon, like a modern gadget, becomes obsolete within six months.

          your iPhones are getting old. And such complex systems as nuclear submarines, MFI, MBT, etc. do not become obsolete so quickly. Moreover, now more and more such systems are designed with an open architecture and allow modernization without major alterations
          1. pmkemcity
            pmkemcity 20 January 2021 09: 58
            0
            Quote: Ka-52
            suppose the US attacks and destroys a military base in Syrian Tartus. How do we answer? Shall we rewrite a piece of paper and zhahnem "kuzka mother" on the principle "the whole world in dust"? Do you want such a response yourself?

            Well, suppose we answer them, throw grenades, and then what? It's still edrenbaton! So, it is better to have a spare nuclear baton at this point ...
            your iPhones are getting old. And such complex systems as nuclear submarines, MFI, MBT, etc. do not become obsolete so quickly. Moreover, now more and more such systems are designed with an open architecture and allow modernization without major alterations

            "Simple" MBT systems (T-72, Abrams, etc.), PLA (971, Losi), MFI (Su-27, 30,35 and Fe-15) do not become obsolete, and everything else, as expressed here above "mainstream", becomes obsolete without hitting the conveyor.
            1. Ka-52
              Ka-52 20 January 2021 10: 58
              +1
              Well, suppose we answer them, throw grenades, and then what? It's still edrenbaton! So, it is better to have a spare nuclear baton at this point ...

              it may be easier to prevent an attack on the base or make the achievement of the result too expensive for the enemy. This can only be done by having defensive systems at the level of the attackers in the United States. Therefore the phrase
              It just doesn't make sense to chase America

              immediately automatically puts us in the category of losers in any local conflict. But besides the United States, there are other countries that at the moment may not share the local market with us (like Turkey, for example, in Syria).
              "Simple" MBT systems (T-72, Abrams, etc.), PLA (971, Losi), MFI (Su-27, 30,35 and Fe-15) do not become obsolete, and everything else, as expressed here above "mainstream", becomes obsolete without hitting the conveyor

              and the T-90? And the T-80? What would you call their modernization? And what about the modernization of Leopards from A1 to A5?
              Su-27 is not an MFI. And what about the Su-34, which received a new PC? And the Su-57? Even on the slipway, it already allows modernization for new remote control systems and airborne radars. How it all does not fit with your statement of pathological obsolescence
              1. pmkemcity
                pmkemcity 20 January 2021 11: 03
                0
                Quote: Ka-52
                Even on the slipway, it already allows modernization for new remote control systems and airborne radars.

                So much for obsolescence.
                it may be easier to prevent an attack on the base or make the achievement of the result too expensive for the enemy.

                Nuclear weapons, for example, deployed at the Khmeimim base and in Tartus, will lead to just such a result - they will not even think about it, and the Turks will not find the same thing a little.
                1. Kalmar
                  Kalmar 20 January 2021 11: 41
                  0
                  Quote: pmkemcity
                  Nuclear weapons, for example, located at the Khmeimim base and in Tartus, will lead to exactly this result - they will not even think about it.

                  It seems to me that either an attempt to pull off such a trick would mean a new Cuban missile crisis in terms of political consequences. We won't get around problems.

                  The second question: what kind of nuclear weapons are you planning to deploy there? What are his goals?

                  The third point: this is nuclear weapons, after all, there will also need to be protected very carefully from possible attacks by the enemy: he will now have a serious reason to gouge our bases.

                  The fourth point: to place nuclear weapons and to be ready to use them are never the same thing. Political implications and all that. Even the Americans, for all their arrogance, do not grab TNW, although their hands reached out a couple of times.
                  1. pmkemcity
                    pmkemcity 20 January 2021 12: 32
                    0
                    Quote: Kalmar
                    The second question: what kind of nuclear weapons are you planning to deploy there? What are his goals?

                    The goals are very diverse. You just need to return nuclear weapons to the ships and to questions from foreign journalists, such as "are there any" fissile materials "on board the EM" Discreet ", evasively answer - without comment. The same with Khmeimim - to launch a turntable from Tu-160 with a bomb bay "accidentally" open for all TV cameras, and the same "no comment".
                    1. Kalmar
                      Kalmar 20 January 2021 12: 39
                      0
                      Quote: pmkemcity
                      and to questions from foreign journalists, such as "are there any" fissile materials "on board the EM" Discreet ", evasively answer - no comment

                      You can make a mysterious face in front of foreign media without any nuclear weapons. Information warfare, that's all.
                      1. pmkemcity
                        pmkemcity 20 January 2021 12: 41
                        0
                        Quote: Kalmar
                        You can make a mysterious face in front of foreign media without any nuclear weapons. Information warfare, that's all.

                        It is important to show it to experts, and the media themselves will then "think out".
                2. Ka-52
                  Ka-52 20 January 2021 12: 47
                  +1
                  So much for obsolescence.

                  you don't even understand what "obsolescence" means. If the design allows you to modernize it without significant alterations, then this is not obsolescence. What nonsense? Replacing a more advanced avionics on a fighter does not mean that it (the fighter) is outdated fool
                  Nuclear weapons, for example, deployed at the Khmeimim base and in Tartus, will lead to just such a result - they will not even think about it, and the Turks will not find the same thing a little.

                  YAO on Khmeimim? Are you still celebrating Epiphany or what?
                  1. pmkemcity
                    pmkemcity 20 January 2021 12: 56
                    0
                    Quote: Ka-52
                    If the design allows you to modernize it without significant alterations, then this is not obsolescence.

                    ... E. Ford agreed to start producing aircraft, but on one condition - during production at Ford, the aircraft will not be modernized. Here's a healthy approach, everything else is a sawmill.
                    1. The eye of the crying
                      The eye of the crying 20 January 2021 23: 28
                      0
                      Ford, if anything, died 70 years ago.
                      1. pmkemcity
                        pmkemcity 21 January 2021 05: 16
                        0
                        Quote: Eye of the Crying
                        Ford, if anything, died 70 years ago.

                        Did he die of being thought to be a fool by some "Eye of the Crying"?
                    2. Ka-52
                      Ka-52 21 January 2021 04: 21
                      +2
                      Here's a healthy approach

                      if this is a healthy approach, then I sympathize with your mental development ((that is, if, 3 years after the fighter model was put into production, a new, more advanced radar was suddenly developed, then, according to your idea, all machines of this model should be removed from service and scrapped? Instead of just removing the cowl, pulling out the old radar, putting on the new radar, and replacing the cowl? fool
                      1. pmkemcity
                        pmkemcity 21 January 2021 05: 14
                        -1
                        Quote: Ka-52
                        I sympathize with your mental development

                        Yes, you are not only an ignoramus, but also a poorly educated and uncultured person.
                        Instead of just removing the cowl, pull out the old radar, put in the new radar, and replace the cowl.

                        Some planes are built around what you call "radar". Have you ever seen, for example, a friend or foe's defendant?
                        suddenly developed a new

                        This is why you should not allow such "developers" to "develop". "Suddenly" only flies will be born ... Smart people plan everything in advance, many years ahead, including aircraft builders.
                        do you think all the cars of this model should be removed from service and scrapped?

                        When did I say that? No need to speculate for me, your thoughts are primitive. But, say, to release a thousand fighters, and then carry out their modernization - this is the "state" approach, as they said earlier.
                      2. Ka-52
                        Ka-52 21 January 2021 07: 00
                        +2
                        Yes, you are not only ignorant

                        and what else to call the nonsense that you write here?
                        Some planes are built around what you call "radar". Have you ever seen, for example, a friend or foe's defendant?

                        what nonsense. Let you not tell me about what is being built around what. After the USSR Air Force, I have been working at NPO Saturn for 15 years already, and I see how aircraft components and assemblies are designed every day.
                        Smart people plan everything in advance, for many years ahead, including aircraft builders.

                        what nonsense !!! As an example: how many years ago could you "plan" the possibility of introducing a new investment casting technology for GTE blades? The technology made it possible to increase the resistance of the blades to thermal corrosion and to raise t in front of the compressor. That increased the dry thrust of the aircraft engine by 5-7%. And instead of putting a new, more powerful engine on the plane, thereby increasing its combat characteristics, do you suggest sitting and waiting for a new plane to be designed for this engine ??? laughing How old are you, dear? Did you finish school though?
                        Are technologies being introduced in your alternate universe once every 10 years?
                        In objective reality (and not in your fantastic one), both in the days of the USSR and now, and in the USA as well, at the time of the state acceptance of a new aircraft, some of its components were quite often still under development or were being tested at stands. Onboard systems, elements of mechanization, TTNs, etc. were made and altered in PM and according to the results of flight operation in the regiments. This is basically a living process that can never stop.
                        When did I say that?

                        and this is below who quoted Ford? Do you refuse your words?
                        E. Ford agreed to start producing aircraft, but on one condition - during production at Ford, the aircraft will not be modernized. Here's a healthy approach, everything else is a sawmill.
                      3. pmkemcity
                        pmkemcity 21 January 2021 09: 38
                        -1
                        Quote: Ka-52
                        After the USSR Air Force I have been working for NPO Saturn for 15 years

                        It looks like you served in Estonia? Did you find the news of the collapse of the USSR in 2006?
                        laughing How old are you, dear? Did you finish school though?

                        I have already entered the age of "senile marasmus", as they said "fucking ....", but I do not remember the Soviet Navy from Estonian newspapers. Change the blades to new ones, measure the temperature in front of the compressor, only "dry" and never go into the constructors.
                      4. Ka-52
                        Ka-52 21 January 2021 10: 13
                        +3
                        It looks like you served in Estonia? Did you find the news of the collapse of the USSR in 2006?

                        grief account plant, I retired back in 1986, and they invited me to the UEC when "Kuznetsov" was still called "Motor Builder" laughing
                        never meddle in the constructors.

                        if everything was done according to your system, then humanity would still bite fleas under each other's palm trees laughing
  • Flooding
    Flooding 20 January 2021 08: 27
    0
    Quote: pmkemcity
    With the previously created nuclear infrastructure, the conventional arms race costs us much more than the nuclear arms race, and does not guarantee security.

    What can guarantee safety in our time?
    Quote: pmkemcity
    While maintaining the existing strategic parity, only saturation with operational and tactical nuclear weapons will allow us to resist the West

    It seems that the main stream of the next decades is the development of biological varieties of killing agents. But most likely they will remain on the dark, unreported side of the military-industrial complex. It seems indecent to talk about it.
    1. zwlad
      zwlad 20 January 2021 09: 12
      0
      It seems that the main stream of the next decades is the development of biological varieties of killing agents.

      You are most likely right. And covid-19 is just a test of the pen.
    2. pmkemcity
      pmkemcity 20 January 2021 09: 35
      +1
      Quote: Flood
      What can guarantee safety in our time?

      Only fear! Fear of losing everything without getting anything in return. Those in power have too much to give up everything just like that. The lives of millions of their compatriots - Latinos, Negroes, and even whites do not mean anything to them. Perhaps "they" even put their lives below the power, below the ability to manage this chaos, they are afraid to be left alone with the "people" in a period of anarchy and lack of money.
      1. Flooding
        Flooding 20 January 2021 09: 38
        0
        Quote: pmkemcity
        Only fear! Fear of losing everything without getting anything in return. Those in power have too much to give up everything just like that.

        Exactly. Only on the reverse side of this medal are the same powers that be. Who are also afraid of losing what they have acquired by back-breaking labor. Will they have enough determination to fulfill their duty to the country and people?
        1. pmkemcity
          pmkemcity 20 January 2021 10: 01
          0
          Quote: Flood
          Exactly. Only on the reverse side of this medal are the same powers that be.

          Why do you think that "they" are not in the same ranks?
          1. Flooding
            Flooding 20 January 2021 10: 03
            0
            Quote: pmkemcity
            Why do you think that "they" are not in the same ranks?

            Because if all the nuclear suitcases are in the same hands, then your whole message about fear loses its meaning. Who should be afraid of whom?
            1. pmkemcity
              pmkemcity 20 January 2021 10: 26
              0
              Quote: Flood
              Because if all the nuclear suitcases are in the same hands, then your whole message about fear loses its meaning. Who should be afraid of whom?

              You do not remember the "yesterday" cries - Putin has gone mad! How overnight the "friends of Putin" turned into enemies of America, how do they have to prove their loyalty, that is, betray Putin, remember? And who, if not the "circumcised", arrange a daily circus from an Italian television studio? They have resigned themselves and are waiting for the twenty-fourth year.
    3. pmkemcity
      pmkemcity 20 January 2021 09: 45
      0
      Quote: Flood
      It seems that the main stream of the next decades is the development of biological varieties of killing agents. But most likely they will remain on the dark, unreported side of the military-industrial complex. It seems indecent to talk about it.

      Rather, it is a genetic weapon with an impact on a strictly defined genotype. Why does the world need so many blacks or Chinese? It will be a little more difficult with the Russians, for the Germans are Russian flesh and blood.
      1. Kalmar
        Kalmar 20 January 2021 11: 45
        +1
        Quote: pmkemcity
        Rather, it is a genetic weapon with an impact on a strictly defined genotype.

        They say that the Jews once tried to invent such a thing against the Arabs. It didn't work out: at the level of genetics, Jews and Arabs do not differ) Well, with a hypothetical biowar of two multinational states (the USA and the Russian Federation, for example), it is simply unrealistic to select genetic markers by which the virus will reliably distinguish "ours" from "theirs".
        1. pmkemcity
          pmkemcity 20 January 2021 12: 34
          0
          Quote: Kalmar
          it is simply unrealistic to select genetic markers by which the virus will reliably distinguish “ours” from “theirs”.

          You can first mark your own, and then kill the strangers. And there are also such "nanorobots" in which we, judging by the funds spent, are ahead of the rest of the planet.
          1. The eye of the crying
            The eye of the crying 20 January 2021 23: 29
            0
            Quote: pmkemcity
            You can first label your


            Through 5G towers!
            1. pmkemcity
              pmkemcity 21 January 2021 05: 21
              -2
              Quote: Eye of the Crying
              Through 5G towers!

              And there is no need to put your tongue to the tower in the cold! Through it and chipped. Mom didn't tell you?
              1. The eye of the crying
                The eye of the crying 21 January 2021 11: 40
                0
                No. My mother was a reasonable person.
                1. pmkemcity
                  pmkemcity 21 January 2021 14: 24
                  +1
                  Quote: Eye of the Crying
                  No. My mother was a reasonable person.

                  1. The eye of the crying
                    The eye of the crying 21 January 2021 15: 22
                    -2
                    Do you say this from personal experience? When exactly did your mom tell you about tongue chipping and how old are you now? smile
  • tralflot1832
    tralflot1832 20 January 2021 07: 14
    +1
    Again, will they only offer us to disarm? ”Here the humpback taught them!
  • APASUS
    APASUS 20 January 2021 08: 08
    +1
    The Americans will try so hard to remake the treaty that it will not be an extension, but the signing of a new treaty. Although I do not believe, they want to include all our new weapons there. Why do we need such concessions?
    1. Alexander Galaktionov
      Alexander Galaktionov 20 January 2021 08: 43
      +1
      Let it be like that button instead of restarting Overload
  • Alexander Galaktionov
    Alexander Galaktionov 20 January 2021 08: 41
    +1
    Let there be overload again
  • prior
    prior 20 January 2021 08: 42
    +1
    If START-3 is beneficial to the United States, then it is a priori not beneficial to Russia.
    To negotiate with "cannibals" is to be suicidal.
  • zwlad
    zwlad 20 January 2021 09: 09
    0
    It is necessary to terminate START III and conclude it in a new format with all countries that have such weapons. Trump's people were right.
    1. Tzar
      Tzar 20 January 2021 11: 20
      0
      This is impossible because of the Iranian-Israeli moves and inequality in conventional weapons among other countries with nuclear weapons.
    2. hydrox
      hydrox 20 January 2021 12: 27
      0
      There is no such force on Earth that could gather all the owners of nuclear weapons in one place and forced to sign at least some document, the content of which could satisfy ALL!
      This will never happen!
  • Old26
    Old26 20 January 2021 11: 06
    +3
    Quote: Mykhalych
    "... the 46th President of the United States is" giving signals "that it would be the best option for her to prolong the Treaty on the Reduction of Strategic Offensive Arms (START III)."- that's just IMHO put forward to Russia well, completely unacceptable conditions. The beginning of Biden's rule was marked by the disconnection of telephone communications, mobile communications and Internet failures at the Russian Consulate in the United States. Except as sabotage, this cannot be called.

    We are talking about the extension of an existing contract without any conditions. As for the "beginning of Biden's rule," it is not yet there. He's only going to intercede at 12.00:XNUMX am ET today. After that, about all the outages, it will be possible to say that "the beginning of Biden's rule ..."

    Quote: Civil
    Quote: Kalmar
    This will allow the United States to further develop conventional forces without spending extra funds on a nuclear arsenal.

    It is logical however ... plus

    U.S. too...

    Quote: APASUS
    The Americans will try so hard to remake the treaty that it will not be an extension, but the signing of a new treaty. Although I do not believe, they want to include all our new weapons there. Why do we need such concessions?

    In 15 days to remake the contract, which is usually specified by each of the parties within a year and a half? Are you kidding me? So far, we are talking only about one thing. On the prolongation of the existing START-3 treaty for at least a year. Further, if the United States agrees to conclude a new treaty, work will begin on the START-4 agreement, which will be based on the definitions and parameters of the START-3 treaty, and all conversations during this year will concern new types of weapons.
    If we agree to conclude a new START-4 treaty, we will still have to add new types of weapons to the treaty. It is a process that has never stopped. There is a Control Commission for this, which will coordinate these or those weapon systems. It is quite possible that the same Dagger system and its American counterparts will not be banned, but such a weapon can be spelled out in the "ceilings" of weapons ...
    However, "Poseidon" or "Petrel" in any case will be bargained for, as an intercontinental weapon. Avangard is already included in the START-3 restrictions. Any contract is a compromise. And, by the way, START-3 is no exception. They agreed to our condition on the number of BGs, we agreed to their condition on the number of carriers
    1. Kalmar
      Kalmar 20 January 2021 11: 46
      +1
      Quote: Old26
      U.S. too...

      Yes, but in terms of conventional weapons, we are obviously in the position of catching up. And without a tangible chance to ever catch up. Therefore, an arms race in a non-nuclear format will obviously benefit the Americans.
  • iouris
    iouris 20 January 2021 15: 16
    0
    It is not just one contract that is important, but the entire system of contracts. The system is destroyed. This is the result of the fact that the USSR was dissolved and its place was not replaced. Progressive humanity is waiting.
  • Old26
    Old26 20 January 2021 16: 08
    +2
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    I am happy that you understand this. But here's the deal - firstly, our arsenal of TNW - about 2000 ammunition. Some of them are free-fall bombs, some are warheads for tactical missiles, and some, perhaps in general, are nuclear shells, although the latter is inaccurate - in theory, they should have been scrapped for a long time by their expiration dates.

    The tactical nuclear submarines include, judging by open materials, the S-300 and S-400 air defense missile systems, 53T6 anti-missiles, Redut and Bastion ground-based anti-ship missiles, free-fall bombs for the TU-22M3, SU-24M, SU-34, tactical missile systems of "Tochka" type (if any), "Iskander", ground-based missile systems of the 9M728 and 9M729 types. All.

    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    What remains? Rockets. And of the missiles we have only "Calibers" have a decent range, But the problem is that these "Calibers":
    1) In general, it is not a fact that they have a nuclear part. They, of course, CAN carry it, but whether it is possible to place warheads from our arsenals on the Caliber is a question. And somehow we do not produce new TNW.
    2) "Calibers" are corny enough to "calibrate" Europe with them.
    3) From the same Caspian to the same France it is banal too far - "Caliber" will not reach.


    1) theoretically they can carry, but in open materials they are not yet indicated as carriers of non-strategic nuclear weapons, unlike the same Iskander. and ground-based KR, type R-500 (9M728) or 9M729
    2) during the days of the unified military acceptance, it was indicated that the number of "Calibers" was about 100-120 per year, with no indication of anti-ship missiles or operational-tactical cruise missiles.
    3) not only far away, but it must also be borne in mind that the guidance system of these CDs is such that they are forced to "go" over land, where there are correction areas. And given the fact that the missiles are subsonic and the countries over which they will go have even dead air defenses - there is simply no chance of reaching France.

    Quote: hydrox
    Your opinion is groundless :: ONLY Russia TODAY has significant reserves of fresh plutonium for the production (maintenance) of nuclear weapons in an active state, the United States does not even have a tenth of Russia's capabilities not only in possession, but also in the production of plutonium.

    about 60-70 tons of weapons-grade plutonium from the United States versus about 100-120 tons from Russia - is this 1/10 of the United States?

    Quote: hydrox
    It is in vain that you think so: in terms of the execution of the Treaties, the United States cannot be trusted a dime: they will withdraw from the treaty at any time that they deem advantageous to withdraw.

    Any party can withdraw from the contract if it considers that the contract becomes unprofitable for the country. And this does not mean that the country DOES NOT FULFILL provisions of this agreement. At least NEVER when asked to give examples of America's violation of the provisions of the START treaties - NEVER GOT AN INCREDIBLE AND ARGUMENTED answer

    Quote: pmkemcity
    The goals are very diverse. You just need to return nuclear weapons to the ships and to questions from foreign journalists, such as "are there any" fissile materials "on board the EM" Discreet ", evasively answer - without comment. The same with Khmeimim - to launch a turntable from Tu-160 with a bomb bay "accidentally" open for all TV cameras, and the same "no comment".

    Clever. We will deploy on one destroyer nuclear weapons on two dozen. And not counting "no comment". Do not consider your opponent as a sucker. Back in the late 80s, the Americans and I conducted experiments to detect nuclear weapons remotely from a helicopter. And imagine. They found in which of the launchers of the Slava cruiser was the missile with the nuclear warhead and in which of the cellars was the depth charge with the nuclear warhead. So what an excuse for grandmothers at the entrance.
    Well, will he open the Tu-160 bomb bay? Is it possible to visually distinguish the X-101 from the X-102 ????

    Quote: zwlad
    It is necessary to terminate START III and conclude it in a new format with all countries that have such weapons. Trump's people were right.

    Then we can say with almost 1000% guarantee that a new START-4 treaty between all countries will be concluded, for example, by January 1, 2050 or 2060, not earlier. A bilateral agreement is sometimes developed for 4-5 years. Do you want to conclude multilateral? And by what criteria? Here are, for example, 2 questions for you, the number of YBG and carriers on each side. Announce what you will take as a basis? The number of nuclear warheads and carriers in the United States and Russia or in North Korea?

    Quote: Kalmar
    Quote: Old26
    U.S. too...

    Yes, but in terms of conventional weapons, we are obviously in the position of catching up. And without a tangible chance to ever catch up. Therefore, an arms race in a non-nuclear format will obviously benefit the Americans.

    Of course you are right. But it is not the deployment of new nuclear weapons systems that could free up certain sums. In addition, Yao's certain potential is a deterrent for all countries. Start the Yao race - we will lose it too, because we will not be able to compete with several countries at once
  • Boromir1941
    Boromir1941 21 January 2021 13: 56
    0
    what kind of contracts are there. only ties our hands to create missiles
  • Old26
    Old26 21 January 2021 15: 03
    +3
    Quote: Boromir1941
    what kind of contracts are there. only ties our hands to create missiles

    Yah? And how did these treaty binding hands allow us to create "Yarsy", "Bulava", "Sarmat"? Maybe before you write nonsense read the contract ???
  • Old26
    Old26 21 January 2021 21: 07
    +2
    Quote: Andrey.AN
    I will try to explain my point of view on such a duel. Yes, the Americans have an advantage; they will receive an attack warning before we do.

    Nobody has any advantages. Both we and the Americans will receive an early warning of a missile attack at about the same time. The difference will be in seconds, maximum 1-2 minutes, although this is unlikely

    Quote: Andrey.AN
    Maybe we will take 80 percent of the impact, and you 95.

    I advise you to cut the sturgeon every 20 (TWENTY). Even if all 100% of carriers and warheads can be launched from each side and no false targets are used (you understand, this is unfeasible), then Russia will be able to intercept from 2,2 to 4,4% of the warheads fired at Russia by the Americans. And the United States is capable of intercepting from 1,4 to 2,8% of warheads fired at the United States ... There is no question of any 80 or 95%

    Quote: Andrey.AN
    But what comes next, our territories give more opportunities to the rescued, like our air defense, in which each S-400 installation will issue a warning to the area in twenty minutes, there is time to go to the shelter.

    You can forget about the S-400, as well as the S-300. Radars of the S-400 complex will detect an ICBM or SLBM warhead approximately 80-130 seconds before the warhead explodes over the target. And for the S-300 complex, this time interval will be even shorter ...

    Quote: Andrey.AN
    Our military forces will practically not suffer, even if two-thirds of their NZ are destroyed, they will work for years.

    That is, despite the fact that over the place of deployment, for example, the Taman or Kantemirovsk divisions, 1-2 charges of 100-300 kt each will explode, then these divisions practically do not try. Or if the BG explodes over a naval base, for example, in Severomorsk, it will remain combat-ready, but the Americans will have a khan for everything. Is it okay that their population is about twice as large, and the industrial potential is much greater than that of today's Russia? Enough for them and for us. But their total losses in industry and population will be less than ours.

    Quote: Andrey.AN
    You can't cut off our eggs, but we can do it, emigrants even in the third generation are not ashamed to dump their ancestors from their land, especially well-armed marauders, we have nowhere to cut, we will tear our throats

    In a nuclear-missile confrontation, the problem of cutting off eggs is an unkillable argument ...