Military Review

The United States announced Biden's readiness to extend the START-3 treaty for five years

51

American news sources share the plans of the 46th US President Joseph Biden for a strategic offensive arms treaty known as START III. Recall that this treaty will soon expire, which, after the US withdraws from a number of other agreements, remains virtually the only one that at least somehow ensures global security.


The US press reports that the Biden administration has decided to extend the START III treaty.

The Washington Post writes about this, citing its own sources. The material of American journalists says that the Joe Biden administration is ready to extend the treaty not even for a year, as Vladimir Putin previously proposed (then the Russian president noted that the extension could be carried out without additional conditions), but for five years at once.

The same publication adds that the 46th US President is not planning "any reset" in relations with the Russian Federation. Recall that at the dawn of Barack Obama's presidency, it was Joseph Biden who was the architect of the so-called "reset" - the very one when Hillary Clinton brought the button with the inscription Peregruzka, which in the end turned out to be true ...

Earlier, Anthony Blinken, who is now a candidate for the post of head of the US State Department, mentioned that Biden is ready to extend the START Treaty.

It should also be recalled that Trump refused to extend the START-3 treaty, as he believed that other countries with weapon mass destruction.
51 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Prax1
    Prax1 21 January 2021 21: 30
    -15%
    I think it's a good decision, we don't need an arms race
    1. halpat
      halpat 21 January 2021 21: 34
      +3
      Quote: Prax1
      I think it's a good decision, we don't need an arms race

      yes, everything will still be like Blok:
      And the girl sharpens her blades on her evil friend under the snow.
      1. Shurik70
        Shurik70 21 January 2021 23: 02
        +4
        But anyway - surprised.
        Biden, of course, is a crook. But in a democracy, an honest person simply has no chance to get upstairs. So all there are crooks, just Biden was caught by the hand more often than others.
        But he started surprisingly well.

        But we must remember: to hope for good from the United States means to lose very big. It has always been that way for everyone. You cannot believe their words. Only actions (and then carefully checking)
        1. Semenov
          Semenov 22 January 2021 07: 04
          +14
          Quote: Shurik70
          But anyway - surprised.

          And I expected - the new US administration has a lot of things to do now, it's easier to extend it. And during this time, think about what to do next. I just didn’t expect that they would decide to extend it for five years.
          1. stalki
            stalki 22 January 2021 08: 00
            +4
            And I expected - the new US administration has a lot of things to do now, it's easier to extend it. And during this time, think about what to do next. I just didn’t expect that they would decide to extend it for five years.
            They will leave from there at any time, it is so customary for them wink
        2. U-58
          U-58 22 January 2021 07: 05
          0
          Then it’s not a crook, but a sneak.
          The Russian language is rich.
        3. Prisoner
          Prisoner 22 January 2021 19: 56
          0
          They just want to win time. Apparently there are some shoals in their weapons of this class. I completely agree with the fact that "to hope for good from the United States means to lose very big". Trusting the United States is like leaning on water.
    2. GoraN
      GoraN 21 January 2021 21: 42
      +2
      And I think it never ended
    3. frruc
      frruc 21 January 2021 21: 48
      +7
      The contract is needed, just not the one signed by Bear the Labeled.
    4. Al_lexx
      Al_lexx 21 January 2021 23: 06
      +6
      Quote: Prax1
      I think it's a good decision, we don't need an arms race

      There is no limitation of the arms race here. There is a desire of the Americans to receive at least some kind of bonus while they rearm their ground-based Strategic Missile Forces, while maintaining the total number of launchers. And on submarines and bombers, they would rather eat ties than cut something. I don’t understand at all what this treaty limits, if both we and the Americans already have barns full of nuclear clubs. But at the expense of other countries, yes, here Trump is just right. And in general, this agreement must be radically revised.
      At the moment, I am more worried about the short- and medium-range missiles that the Yankees, under the guise of missile defense, are pushing into eastern Europe. This is a real danger.
    5. Dkuznecov
      Dkuznecov 22 January 2021 01: 00
      -3
      "Do you see a gopher? No ... But he is."
      No race needed.
      But it is there.
      The worst part of the race is always, always
      the strongest wins.
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 22 January 2021 03: 26
        +3
        Quote: DKuznecov
        The worst part of the race is always, always
        the strongest wins.

        If this is a fair race.
    6. Prisoner
      Prisoner 22 January 2021 19: 52
      0
      You and Biden are definitely not needed. Your navel is already untied from such races. laughing
  2. Alexga
    Alexga 21 January 2021 21: 31
    +14
    Times have changed. Now it is necessary to include in the treaty all US allies, they will demand the inclusion of China, the Chinese will tell the US to bring the number of missiles to China's arsenal. So the Agreement will not be extended. It's my opinion.
    1. halpat
      halpat 21 January 2021 21: 44
      +5
      Quote: AlexGa
      Times have changed. Now it is necessary to include in the treaty all US allies, they will demand the inclusion of China, the Chinese will tell the US to bring the number of missiles to China's arsenal. So the Agreement will not be extended. It's my opinion.

      Here you are right. The treaty must be comprehensive, including Israel and India and Pakistan, France, Great Britain, China, North Korea and other possessors of nuclear weapons.
      A new level so to speak. good
      In the meantime, you can extend the existing one for a couple of years to carry out preparatory work for this new level.
      1. bayard
        bayard 21 January 2021 22: 30
        +10
        Quote: Halpat
        In the meantime, you can extend the existing one for a couple of years to carry out preparatory work for this new level.

        No, the word spoken by Russia must be firm - one year!
        This is the time for the United States to negotiate with its partners, with China (the United States should speak), S. Korea, Israel, India, Pakistan.
        Have time?
        Maybe we will sign a new one - namely, a New, comprehensive agreement.
        And if not, there is no trial.
        Russia needs to rethink how much and what kind of strategic nuclear weapons it needs. The available quantity, I think, is not enough. It is necessary to return to arsenals and medium-range delivery vehicles, on new - effective carriers.
        To motivate only ONE year of contract renewal - bad reputation of the second contracting party. Her unreliability, eccentricity, optionality and hostility.
        The United States has yet to regain trust and faith in their negotiability.
        hi bully
    2. Well done
      Well done 21 January 2021 21: 49
      +2
      You're right. But we must start with the United States, and only then ... Our diplomats are competent, history has proven this.
      1. Keer
        Keer 21 January 2021 22: 07
        0
        They do not live in poverty.
        1. Well done
          Well done 21 January 2021 22: 50
          +1
          We are sofa experts) Who studied what ... I myself wonder why I did not enter VGIMO? It's simple - there was not enough brains and cronyes, money too. All this is a joke, but revealing.
      2. halpat
        halpat 21 January 2021 22: 15
        +5
        Quote: Welldone
        You're right. But we must start with the United States, and only then ... Our diplomats are competent, history has proven this.

        The formula might be good:
        1. Do not divide anyone into allies and non-allies, vassals and independent.
        Record the number of nuclear weapons owners. And include them in the parties to the new Treaty. Legitimation. All will come out smile
        2. Calculate the number of nuclear weapons each of the participants has and agree that the number cannot be increased smile
        and even if it is modernized, but remains "within the framework" - God would be with him

        And the arms race is "stopped" and potential adversaries are recounted, accounted for and under control.
        Great move. Smart. It's hard to argue.
        But the American guys are stubborn, they are unlikely to decide on this. Although the benefits are obvious.
        1. Puppeteer 111
          Puppeteer 111 21 January 2021 22: 32
          -2
          Rave. It's like you go to a store, and you will be hanged in the amount of kartocha debts of bankrupt or troubled food chains. The concept of a contract is that it is an agreement of 2 or more persons on the mutual fulfillment and observance of rights and obligations in the performance of the subject of this contract. A third party that cannot or does not want to participate in it can be joined only in the event of a court decision or if it is a kind of monopolist. But, the MP does not provide for the possibility of compulsory involvement in the MP agreement
          1. Well done
            Well done 21 January 2021 22: 39
            0
            Here you have really nonsense. The "hegemons" have long been scored in the courts ...
  3. Well done
    Well done 21 January 2021 21: 33
    0
    "A bad world is better than a good war."
    This is a fact that you cannot argue with.
  4. Vadim Ananyin
    Vadim Ananyin 21 January 2021 21: 47
    +6
    They want to win time at this stage, apparently they do not have time. They do not want to impose restrictions on themselves, but on our country and others. This has already happened and then we caught up. They do not want rigid mutual control and want to strangle others with any agreements, conditions, sanctions.
  5. tralflot1832
    tralflot1832 21 January 2021 22: 06
    +4
    Let's see what they offer! The devil is in the details. Trump had, we are extending the contract, but our inspectors are checking Russia to the last bolt. And Russia should take the gentlemen from the United States at their word. I do not think that something has changed dramatically. Our diplomats still have to sweat in order to achieve an acceptable solution for us. You have not forgotten about our "cartoons", they are the main subject of bargaining, and on the American side, the US missile defense system does not like to lose, we are ahead in hypersonic missiles!
  6. Dikson
    Dikson 21 January 2021 22: 24
    +4
    First of all, this treaty is working against us .. The States are doing intensive work on their doctrine of small nuclear charges? And these carriers will not be included in the signed agreement for sure .. And the US nuclear weapons deployed in NATO countries? And who will take into account their own nuclear warheads? Once again, we will be offered to cut missiles, submarines and bombers in exchange for chicken legs? As it was rightly noted here, the Americans just need time to eliminate the lag in development that has arisen ... In previous agreements, by the way, they always had an advantage ... And they didn’t bother with strategic bombers to applause ..
    1. Sergey39
      Sergey39 22 January 2021 11: 46
      0
      This agreement cannot be extended, especially for 5 years. And you can't renew it. The dilemma, however.
  7. Old26
    Old26 21 January 2021 22: 27
    +4
    Quote: AlexGa
    Times have changed. Now it is necessary to include in the treaty all US allies, they will demand the inclusion of China, the Chinese will tell the US to bring the number of missiles to China's arsenal. So the Agreement will not be extended. It's my opinion.

    I wonder what you say on February 6, when Russia will extend the START-3 treaty? What will be your opinion then? Tell me what did you do right?
    Is it really so difficult to understand that even BILATERAL agreements are concluded in time for 3-4-5 years. If "China is tied to the treaty, the treaty will either be concluded in 15-20 years, or not at all. The same can be said about the proposal," to tie up all those who have nuclear weapons.

    Besides, what is the criterion for such a general agreement? How many missiles or warheads are you going to announce as the maximum? ... Of course, bringing the number of US missiles to China's arsenal is a very wise decision. What about OUR Russian missiles and warheads? Do you also propose to reduce the warheads by 4 times to the level of the Chinese, and halve the number of intercontinental weapons?
    At the same time, to simultaneously increase the arsenals of France, Great Britain, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan and India to the Chinese level ?? Wise, very wise ...

    Quote: Halpat
    Here you are right. The treaty must be comprehensive, including Israel and India and Pakistan, France, Great Britain, China, North Korea and other possessors of nuclear weapons.
    A new level so to speak. good
    In the meantime, you can extend the existing one for a couple of years to carry out preparatory work for this new level.

    A comprehensive agreement on the ceilings of charges and carriers will never work. Above answered why.
    And the existing one is proposed to be prolonged for the next 5 years according to the article of the same agreement. During this time, issues on new strategic weapons systems will be resolved.

    Quote: Vadim Ananyin
    They want to win time at this stage, apparently they do not have time. They do not want to impose restrictions on themselves, but on our country and others. This has already happened and then we caught up. They do not want rigid mutual control and want to strangle others with any agreements, conditions, sanctions.

    Oh really? You yourself have read this START-3 treaty or have just heard about it from other "retellings".
    You know, it reminds of an anecdote when one citizen of Odessa says to another:
    - "I don't understand why everyone admires Placcio Domingo. I listened - nothing special."
    The second inhabitant of Odessa asks:
    - "Where did you hear him? He seems to have not come to our country for the last 5 years"
    First
    - "Yes Izya sang to me ..."

    So are you. We heard the ringing, but you don't know where he is. Thanks to these "unequal" agreements, incl. and START-3, we did not fall into a pit when, due to the obsolescence of the arsenal, we were forced to massively reduce their carriers, while the Americans could not have reduced their arsenal. However, thanks to the agreement, they were forced to reduce (for example, the number of missiles on submarines).
    The limitations of the treaty apply not only to Russia but also to the United States. Under the contract, both we and they are entitled to 700 deployed media and 800 deployed and non-deployed media. All of these carriers can carry no more than 1550 warheads. Or do you think that only Russia is only observing these ceilings. No tight control? Is 38 inspections of two types a year not enough for you? And not like the previous ones, when applications were given in a week or two, but sudden ones ... And what exactly will be checked only while at the base? Is this not tight control for you?
    1. Alexga
      Alexga 21 January 2021 23: 42
      -2
      What shall I say? I will say that this treaty cannot be extended, that the signing of START-3 was a mistake. The consequences were disastrous for the USSR. I don't understand what worried you.
  8. Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 21 January 2021 22: 55
    -1
    You shouldn't rejoice ahead of time. This gesture of extraordinary generosity can be accompanied by a lot of undercover small things that we will swallow in our fanatical desire to preserve the remains of the architecture of a bygone era.
  9. Lord of the Sith
    Lord of the Sith 21 January 2021 22: 59
    -1
    The United States announced Biden's readiness to extend the START-3 treaty for five years


    Do we need it? The Yankees got bored, we extend - we do not extend, some kind of chamomile.
  10. Old26
    Old26 21 January 2021 23: 14
    +1
    Quote: Prax1
    I think it's a good decision, we don't need an arms race

    Plus you for a balanced comment from me

    Quote: bayard
    No, the word spoken by Russia must be firm - one year!
    This is the time for the United States to negotiate with its partners, with China (the United States should speak), S. Korea, Israel, India, Pakistan.
    Have time?
    Maybe we will sign a new one - namely, a New, comprehensive agreement.
    And if not, there is no trial.


    That is, you propose in advance DO NOT SIGN A CONTRACT? A priori setting unrealizable conditions. The previous agreement was being prepared for about three to four years. Double-sided, mind you. Do you propose to conclude a multilateral treaty with nine countries in a year? And what is the criterion for this contract. What are the quantitative ceilings for launch vehicles and warheads? Should everyone reduce to the level of North Korea or raise everyone to the level of Russia and the United States?

    About the extension for a year
    Article XIV, clause 2 allows the contract to be extended for a period not exceeding 5 years (for it is foolish to think that all problems can be solved in a year). And the agreed changes (amendments) can be introduced either according to the procedures under paragraph 1 of Article XV, or in the course of the work of the Bilateral Consultative Commission, without resorting to the amendment procedure set out in paragraph 1 of Article XIV

    Quote: Halpat
    2. Calculate the number of nuclear weapons each of the participants has and agree that the number cannot be increased

    And what is the point in this agreement? And what, excuse the Idiot, will go to the conclusion of such an agreement (with the parameters described by you)? Do you think Eun is at the end stupid so that he would agree to have a dozen missiles and a couple of dozen BGs and not increase his arsenal? Or will China agree to keep its arsenal at the same level when its adversary has 800 carriers and 1550 BG against their 90 carriers and 300 warheads ?? Do you seriously think that the leaders of all nuclear countries will agree to this ???

    Quote: tralflot1832
    Let's see what they offer! The devil is in the details. Trump had, we are extending the contract, but our inspectors are checking Russia to the last bolt. And Russia must take the US gentlemen at their word.

    Andrei! Well, do not repeat nonsense or nonsense.
    What Trump proposed was to freeze arsenals and not deploy new types of weapons to us, such as Sarmat in particular. We did not agree to such conditions. And he had nothing of the kind about mutual inspections. Under the agreement, both we and they can carry out 19 inspections of two different types per year, that is, 38 inspections each of the parties. And it is you who think that "Russia should take the gentlemen at their word?" Stop it, Andrey! Strategic agreements spell out everything, to the last comma. In addition to the contract itself, there are also a lot of related documents reflecting EVERYTHING, up to the distance from the edge of the mine PU at which the inspector should be located ...

    Quote: Dikson
    First of all, this treaty is working against us .. The States are doing intensive work on their doctrine of small nuclear charges? And these carriers will not be included in the signed agreement for sure ..

    Generally speaking, you, sorry, foolish stupidity. They have no DOCTRINE of small charges. There is a solution, to equip a certain number of missiles with a number of low (tactical power) warheads. This program has been completed. As many as 76 W-2-50 warheads have been converted into the W-76-1 BG. And they are placed on missiles, which are taken into account in the calculation of the ceilings of carriers and BG. In the United States, as 280 Trident D-5 SLBMs were deployed on SSBNs, this number remained. The number of deployed warheads could remain the same or decrease slightly. So these carriers fall under the contract. The contract does not determine the power of charges, but only their number

    Quote: Dikson
    And what about US nuclear weapons stationed in NATO countries?

    And where does the tactical nuclear weapons? We are not attaching our tactical nuclear weapons to this treaty, which in quantitative terms is greater than that of the United States?

    Quote: Dikson
    And who will take into account their own nuclear warheads?

    And the nuclear warheads of other countries that are not our allies, not our opponents, how to take into account? The AGREEMENT, for those who do not understand the essence of our relationship with the United States, is BILATERAL. How to "attach" to this treaty, for example, India, which is neither our ally nor our enemy? Or Pakistan? In whose interest is it to take into account their carriers and warheads? Or North Korea and Israel? All other nuclear powers have one and a half times less nuclear warheads than the United States or Russia has deployed warheads. But everyone is trying to "fasten" them, thinking that this will be better. WILL NOT BE... Just because such a contract WILL NEVER BE INCLUDED ...
  11. evgen1221
    evgen1221 21 January 2021 23: 27
    -3
    Well, the states, unlike us, do not consider us (a friendly partner) and only care about their own interests. And it is in their interests to continue to dominate militarily and economically over the entire planet. Their conditions will give them time to finish or steal hypersound, and they can easily rivet overdofig missiles. They have many times more carriers, and given the allies and the bases, they just got covered. They only need time. After that, they will also easily leave the already new contract, remaining in fact the dominant over the simpletons who believed them.
  12. Alien From
    Alien From 21 January 2021 23: 43
    +1
    You can't trust mattresses!
  13. Old26
    Old26 21 January 2021 23: 51
    0
    Quote: evgen1221
    They have many times more carriers

    Evgeniy. Don't mix everything up. We and they have about the same number of STRATEGIC MEDIA (according to the agreement, no more than 700 deployed). Many times more carriers, if you count tactical aircraft, not nuclear bombers.
    But we're talking about a STRATEGIC WEAPON, not a tactical one.

    Quote: evgen1221
    Their conditions will give them time to finish or steal hypersound, and they can easily rivet overdofig missiles. They have many times more carriers, and given the allies and the bases, they just got covered. They only need time. After that, they will also easily leave the already new contract, remaining in fact the dominant over the simpletons who believed them.

    They can finish anything they want. But hypersonic aircraft missiles are unlikely to be classified as strategic weapons. That is, they will not be taken into account in the ceilings, like ours. But BG, whether they are equipped with nuclear warheads, will be counted in the total number. Moreover, one should not think that absolutely every aircraft they have will be equipped with an Air-to-Ground hypersonic missile. Of course, there are more carriers than we have, but I repeat. If this weapon is not deployed on B-52, B-1 or B-2 bombers, it will not be a strategic weapon. In addition, they have quite serious problems in creating new charges. So far, they can only modernize them and are unlikely to be able to launch new ones in the next 10-12 years.
  14. Jaromir
    Jaromir 21 January 2021 23: 54
    +18
    The United States announced Biden's readiness to extend the START-3 treaty for five years

    smile
    Maybe Trump is our agent? Biden is now acting on the principle of changing everything Trump has done in a different way. (I'm so happy about the news) wassat
    Good news. Maybe common sense has triumphed?
  15. Jaromir
    Jaromir 21 January 2021 23: 57
    +18
    "No reset" the 46th US President in relations with the Russian Federation does not plan

    We are in the know.
    We'll see when Biden's first meeting with Putin takes place, and how it goes.
    1. Dkuznecov
      Dkuznecov 22 January 2021 01: 04
      -1
      And will not meet. 147%.
      America will not forgive meeting with "outcasts".
      Alas, and ah.
      We are in the "untouchable" club.
      The eternal poor, so to speak.
      1. Jaromir
        Jaromir 22 January 2021 01: 11
        +17
        Wait and see.
        He will have to meet with our "guarantor". And this meeting will take place this year. yes
        And about the "untouchables" laughing I stopped listening to bloggers a long time ago. None of their predictions came true.
  16. Old26
    Old26 22 January 2021 02: 32
    +3
    Quote: AlexGa
    What shall I say? I will say that this treaty cannot be extended, that the signing of START-3 was a mistake. The consequences were disastrous for the USSR. I don't understand what worried you.

    Respected!!! The START-3 treaty could not be disastrous for the USSR, for it was concluded in 2010. Ten years ago. And was extremely beneficial for Russia
  17. Jonex welsh
    Jonex welsh 22 January 2021 05: 13
    0
    The contract is good, but the clauses of the contract would be found out.
    The United States will not go against its interests.
  18. cniza
    cniza 22 January 2021 08: 48
    0
    Joe Biden's administration is ready to extend the agreement not even for a year, as Vladimir Putin had previously proposed (then the Russian president noted that the extension could be carried out without additional conditions), but for five years at once.


    And in return they will demand the destruction of hypersonic weapons? And they will put pressure on it and blame Russia.
  19. prior
    prior 22 January 2021 09: 03
    -1
    Trump was right when he tore up the contracts.
    Russia does not need any treaties that tie its hands or restrict in something. Especially with the cannibals from the FSA.
    Only trade and only profitable.
    This will make it possible to "whip" anyone in the face for obscene expressions, and not to listen to lectures from scoundrels and other moralists, hiding behind diplomacy.
    If today in this world only strength is respected - away shyness and modesty.
  20. Old26
    Old26 22 January 2021 16: 03
    +4
    Quote: Jonex Welsh
    The contract is good, but the clauses of the contract would be found out.
    The United States will not go against its interests.

    Type in the text of the START-3 treaty in a search engine. Will give out a lot of links, but I advise you to go to kremlin.ru (the Kremlin website). there is a treaty and a protocol to it.

    Quote: cniza
    Joe Biden's administration is ready to extend the agreement not even for a year, as Vladimir Putin had previously proposed (then the Russian president noted that the extension could be carried out without additional conditions), but for five years at once.


    And in return they will demand the destruction of hypersonic weapons? And they will put pressure on it and blame Russia.

    Instead they DO NOT DEMAND ANYTHING... At least from what is currently known. And Russia will agree to prolong this agreement for 5 years. At least because of the fact that it is It is profitable for us.
    Renewal of the contract - renewal WITHOUT CHANGES... Hypersonic weapons in the framework of START (by the way, tell me, are you not tired of remembering them every time you talk about START ??) - THIS IS ALL KIND OF COMBAT EQUIPMENT FOR MISSILES - ICBMs and SLBMs... Explain how you can simultaneously EXTEND contract and FORBID weapon systems included in it?

    Quote: prior
    Russia does not need any treaties that tie its hands or restrict in something.

    And an immodest question: WHO HAS BEEN LIMITED MOST OF ALL START-3 treaty. Russia or the USA? And please with arguments (although you are unlikely to present them)
    1. bk0010
      bk0010 22 January 2021 21: 13
      -1
      Quote: Old26
      And an immodest question: WHO HAS BEEN LIMITED MOST OF ALL THE START-3 Treaty. Russia or the USA? And please with arguments (although you are unlikely to present them)
      Russia was limited more: NATO has superiority in the number of ground forces, total superiority in the Air Force and the Navy, total superiority in industrial potential and mobility resources. Yes, there are simply much more goals than they have in Russia. We could compensate for all these problems with our nuclear weapons. Now there is very little of it. The only question is what we have left of the means of production and maintenance of our nuclear weapons. If we can only maintain the available number of charges, then the contract is beneficial. If we can increase the output, it is not profitable.
  21. Old26
    Old26 22 January 2021 22: 28
    +3
    Quote: bk0010
    Russia was limited more: NATO has superiority in the number of ground forces, total superiority in the Air Force and the Navy, total superiority in industrial potential and mobility resources.

    Wrong answer. The question was about limiting strategic arms, and you started to say that they have more Air Force, Ground Force and everything else. More. But it was with regard to the strategic nuclear forces that the treaty more limited the United States. The agreement was signed exactly at the time when we had to massively write off our strategic carriers precisely in connection with the development of warranty periods and even extended periods. In particular, at the time of the start of work on the START-3 treaty, and this is about 2007, we had about 80 R-36M missiles of the R-36M UTTKh and R-36M2 modifications, about 126-128 UR-100N UTTKh missiles, about 243-245 Topol missiles and 45, albeit new, single-shot Topol-M missiles. The United States had at that time 500 Minutemans and 336 Tridents. Moreover, the situation was not in our favor. Both the Minutemans and the Tridents have been upgraded under the service life extension program, which will allow them to be on alert until 2030 = 2040. Our missiles, except for the Topol-M, were already being intensively removed from service by that time.

    If we did not conclude this agreement in which we agreed with the number of carriers proposed by the Americans - 700 deployed and 800 deployed and not deployed, and they with the number of warheads proposed by us - 1550, now we would be in such a "pit". which is scary to imagine. We would have removed 54 Voevods and R-36M UTTKh from the DB (which is minus 560 BG), all 128 UR-100N UTTH (which is minus 768 BG) and 207 Topol (minus 207 BG).
    At the same time, only 140 new "Yars" (560 BG) and another 33 "Topley-M" (78 BG) would have been added. In fact, we would remove about 1400 BG and 389 carriers from the database, and put 173 carriers and 593 BGs. Would go to the minus.
    I don't count the fleet yet. There, even with our speed of construction of SSBNs, we would both write off 4 boats of the 667BDR project, and put 4 boats with 64 on the base.

    But if it were not for the START-3 treaty, which everyone says is unprofitable for us, our enemy would DO NOT REMOVE with DB NOT ONE ROCKET (ICBMs and SLBMs) ​​and NO ONE HEADS... But according to the agreement, they removed a hundred Minutemen from the database, made them one-piece, reduced the number of missiles on boats from 24 to 20, unloaded their tridents from 8 W-88 units to 4 and from 14 W-76 units to 8. Without this agreement, they would have left about 4,5 thousand blocks on the boats.

    So this "unequal" treaty turned out to be beneficial to us in all respects. We have at least guarantees that they will not exceed the ceiling, and we will strive for this ceiling. And taking into account the fact that we have only one plant and produces about fifty ICBMs and SLBMs a year - this agreement is just our salvation. We can slowly replace the remaining old missiles and use the bulk of the funds for general-purpose forces, and not for nuclear missiles

    Quote: stalki
    They will leave from there at any time, it is so customary for them

    They can. But what is characteristic, they did not come out of ANY SALT and START Treaty. And so they can go out, like us. Within three months I told the other side that you were leaving and that was all, after 3 months I was free as a bird
    1. businessv
      businessv 23 January 2021 20: 46
      0
      Quote: Old26
      Wrong answer.

      Thank you, colleague, sensible post! good
  22. TopNaDo
    TopNaDo 22 January 2021 23: 59
    -2
    The problems of the Indians (this is the whole world except the Americans) are not interesting to the Sheriff. There is another saying .... A gentleman follows the rules ... if the rules are sent to suit, he changes the rules. Who will track the contract? The Americans already sent ours. And now even more so.
  23. Old26
    Old26 23 January 2021 00: 46
    +3
    Quote: TopNaDo
    Who will track the contract? The Americans already sent ours.

    Yes, you can immediately see that you know everything about contracts. And the fact that from our side (and from the American side) up to 38 inspections are annually held - is that nothing? Not control? Are they sending us? Oh well
    1. businessv
      businessv 23 January 2021 20: 41
      0
      Quote: Old26
      Are they sending us? Oh well

      You only mean nuclear weapons. What about chemical and biological weapons? Send our entire inspection frankly! I am not talking about biolaboratories near us - in Georgia and in the independent.
  24. businessv
    businessv 23 January 2021 20: 39
    0
    The United States announced Biden's readiness to extend the START-3 treaty for five years
    This means that we have 5 years to prepare for a full-fledged war. Considering the spinelessness of our government in relation to the "partners", it will most likely not be nuclear.