Military Review

State Department reported on the number of deployed nuclear warheads in Russia and the United States

90
Russia currently has 1 thousand 480 deployed nuclear warheads, and Washington has 1 thousand 654, the US Department of State said on Wednesday.


The data is presented in the next certificate on the implementation of the Russian-US Treaty on measures to further reduce and limit strategic offensive arms (the new START).

State Department reported on the number of deployed nuclear warheads in Russia and the United States

How is Russia secured against a missile strike (click to enlarge)


According to the US Foreign Ministry, 492 is now in service with Russian operational deployed carriers of nuclear warheads, including intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), heavy bombers (TB) and ballistic missiles on submarines (SLBMs). The US has such carriers now 792. In addition, as clarified in the State Department, in general, deployed and non-deployed launchers of ICBMs, SLBMs and TB in Russia are 900, in the USA - 1 thousand 28.

The certificate provides information as of March 1 of the current year. It reflects the official statistics provided by the parties to each other, ITAR-TASS reports.

The new START Treaty was signed on April 8 on Prague 2010 by Presidents Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama. It entered into force on February 5 2011. The contract provides that each of the parties reduces its strategic offensive arms in such a way that seven years after its entry into force and subsequently their total quantities do not exceed: 700 units for deployed ICBMs, TB and SLBMs; 1550 units - for warheads on them; 800 units - for deployed and non-deployed launchers of ICBMs, SLBMs and TB. The treaty obliges Russia and the United States to exchange information on the number of warheads and carriers twice a year.

# {weapon} As stated a couple of weeks ago and. about. US Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Rose Gottemoeller, Washington is consulting with Moscow on how the new bilateral agreements on further reducing nuclear weapons.

“We are currently studying how the future agreement with Russia can look like and how to include (in possible new agreements) all categories of nuclear weapons: strategic and non-strategic, deployed and non-deployed,” said and. about. deputy head of american diplomacy.

Speaking in February in Congress with the annual message “On the situation of the country,” Obama confirmed that the United States intends to “cooperate with Russia, seeking further reductions in our nuclear arsenals.”

According to publications in the American press, the United States government came to the conclusion that it could effectively ensure the implementation of its nuclear doctrine even with a further reduction in the number of operational deployed strategic offensive arms to the level of 1 – 1,1 thousand units.
Originator:
http://www.vz.ru/
90 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. GELEZNII_KAPUT
    GELEZNII_KAPUT April 4 2013 11: 22
    48
    They read the bolt from the Bratsk Hydroelectric Power Station, and not the reduction, we know that the fewer missiles the easier it is to shoot down !!! bully
    1. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov April 4 2013 11: 42
      14
      Quote: GELEZNII_KAPUT
      the fewer missiles the easier it is to shoot down !!!

      Yes, the thing is that most of the missiles are Minuteman, and they are already so old ..... not the fact that they can fly up. Here they are reducing their trash.
      1. tungus
        tungus April 4 2013 12: 15
        +6
        Probably the "minutemans" were meant. Yes, old ones. The end of the seventies. The last three combat training launches of these missiles were unsuccessful. The missiles self-destructed after a few minutes of flight.
        Rumor has it that irreversible processes of degradation of the fuel of these missiles due to age have arisen, and today most of them are not able to fulfill the tasks.
        It is worth noting that the "tridents" are not much younger, but they are also solid-fuel, and there the same processes are on the way. So, the reduction of carriers is the only thing that remains for the Americans.
        1. Alexander Romanov
          Alexander Romanov April 4 2013 12: 38
          +1
          Quote: tungus
          Probably meant "minutemans"

          Yes - I’m writing to the top of jo ...
        2. Alexander Romanov
          Alexander Romanov April 4 2013 12: 39
          +1
          Quote: tungus
          Probably meant "minutemans

          Yes, they, I’ve written here not to know what request Sorry
        3. opkozak
          opkozak April 4 2013 18: 57
          +6


          "irreversible fuel degradation processes" can result in irreversible degradation of the entire product.
        4. Nayhas
          Nayhas April 4 2013 19: 37
          +1
          "It is worth noting that the" tridents "are not much younger either - in general, the Trident II is the youngest ICBM in the United States, adopted in 1990. Produced only from 2000 to 2011. 125 pieces. How much younger? 23.10.2012 143 successful launches of this ICBM were made, and after being put into service, all launches were successful, before that, out of 28 test launches, only 5 were not successful.
        5. Reasonable, 2,3
          Reasonable, 2,3 April 5 2013 04: 27
          0
          Have you read the article at all ?.
      2. eagle11
        eagle11 April 4 2013 13: 15
        -4
        We have poplars, so new! And SSBN, we are on duty, how much? How many in the USA?
        1. tungus
          tungus April 4 2013 13: 36
          21
          Our "poplars" are not new, and the "governors" are already on the verge, and the "stilettos" too. And we have few SSBNs. It's like that.
          But we are building new missiles and new submarine missile carriers. They are not just being built, but already in the troops. And every year there will be more and more new systems. And a new heavy liquid-propellant rocket is being created to replace "Satan".
          And what do the Americans create? I mean strategic forces. Over the past 20 years, there has not been a single successful attempt to create a strategic missile or launch vehicle. They forgot how to make strategic weapons. It may look ridiculous, but it is. Not only can they not create a new one, they are not capable of modernizing the systems in service.
          They do not fly "minuteman". So what? What are the movements? Yes, no. They are going to reduce them. There is nothing to replace them with. That is why Obama started talking about the further reduction of strategic nuclear forces to 400 warheads. He just has no other choice.
          We don't cut it. We are building up. The Bulava did not fly with us, so we didn’t spit on it, we brought it to mind.
          We still know how to create strategic weapons, but they are no longer there.
          1. Odysseus
            Odysseus April 4 2013 14: 35
            +6
            Quote: tungus
            Not only can they not create a new one, they are not capable of modernizing the systems in service.
            They do not fly "minuteman". So what? What are the movements? Yes, no. They are going to reduce them

            Alas, this is not so. The Americans are enemies, but not fools. After the destruction of the USSR, they simply did not need the ground component of the strategic nuclear forces. And they are practical people, they don’t throw money into the wind.
            They have a strong fleet and YES, plus bases around the world. And we have Voivods and a hundred-year-old with an expired shelf life, YES chained to the bases, and old submarines on permanent repair.
            Plus, all new production hangs at one Votkinsk plant.
            What then is the meaning of the ground component for America?
            But the main thing is that America has a big advantage in conventional weapons, which is why they are so eager for nuclear weapons reductions.
            Our task, IMHO is the improvement of the production base and the restoration of DBC. This will keep our nuclear potential at the proper level.
            1. tungus
              tungus April 4 2013 15: 40
              +5
              Here you can argue.
              Well, they don’t need land-based ICBMs, although I don’t understand why. To reduce three types of strategic nuclear forces to two is not one country, if it already has them, it will not. In any case, not from a good life.
              But the Ohio also had only 14 units left with 336 missiles. These are also far from new boats. They have been in service since 1981. And the rockets on them are 25 years old. And if we take into account the situation with the "minutemans", it is not known how many "tridents" on these boats can actually take off.
              And again, no replacement is created for them either. Nothing at all. But the development of the rocket and its production is not one year of work.

              As for strategic aviation, there is only B-52.
              B-2 and B-1B missiles with nuclear warheads cannot be carried, only free-falling bombs. And again, there is no progress on this issue.

              Yes, their army is strong ... For wars with third world countries. And with an equal opponent? What will they do without SNF?
              1. Odysseus
                Odysseus April 4 2013 17: 21
                -1
                Quote: tungus
                Well, they don’t need land-based ICBMs, although I don’t understand why. To reduce three types of strategic nuclear forces to two is not one country, if it already has them, it will not

                For purely pragmatic reasons, they are not developing new missiles for the ground component, but old ones for them.
                Quote: tungus
                But the Ohio also had only 14 units left with 336 missiles. These are also far from new boats. They have been in service since 1981. And the rockets on them are 25 years old.

                These are boats from 1981, and Trident 2 was produced from 1989 to 2007. Immediately in 2008, the Life Extension Program (LEP), a program for extending terms, was launched, that is, at least until 2030 missiles do not need to be replaced.
                Quote: tungus
                As for strategic aviation, there is only B-52.
                B-2 and B-1B missiles with nuclear warheads cannot be carried, only free-falling bombs. And again, there is no progress on this issue.

                They are not needed. The B-52 is in good technical condition and, most importantly, relies on a system of bases around the world. Why should they load the JBCH stealth bomber?
                Quote: tungus
                What will they do without SNF?

                They will be happy, everyone else will cry. So God forbid. If we remove the strategic nuclear forces, what will we do?
                So, IMHO, it is necessary to develop the production base. At one Votkinsk plant you will not go far.
                PS Judging by the American press, they are now most worried about the uncertainty in assessing China’s nuclear potential.
              2. Per se.
                Per se. April 4 2013 19: 42
                +1
                Quote: tungus
                What will they do without SNF?
                It so happens that nuclear weapons, in their original form, are not suitable for a potential aggressor in the forthcoming struggle for resources, they are "dirty", which deprives the invader of the goal of aggression. When Gorbachev unilaterally declared a moratorium on nuclear tests, our pale-faced "friends" overseas were in no hurry to follow his example. The United States studied the impact of a high-altitude nuclear explosion on satellites, strengthening the electromagnetic shielding of their spacecraft, noting their interest in a "clean" bomb, which was a neutron weapon. Here, they really need it, this is exactly what they need. Now it is a dark matter, to which the development and modernization of nuclear warheads in the United States has come, but with the advent of high-precision weapons, the further militarization of outer space, where a preventive disarming strike should be carried out instantly on the head, the amount of "classical" nuclear weapons does not dominate, but in the number and placed on US ships), and it is desirable to "mutually" reduce it.
            2. Quiet
              Quiet April 4 2013 21: 59
              0
              They are going to cut them

              Got bad luck "partners" !!! lol
          2. Strezhevchanin
            Strezhevchanin April 4 2013 15: 47
            +1
            Well, they kind of emphasized non-nuclear weapons, such as vacuum bombs, all kinds of tamohauks there, is this understood as the preservation of the captured territory is visible? Well, we don’t need someone else’s, we will tear everyone to pieces.
          3. Garik
            Garik April 4 2013 16: 05
            0
            That’s why they’re ruining in another direction, hoping for about. They are thinking of defending themselves with anti-ballistic missiles in Europe.
          4. nickname 1 and 2
            nickname 1 and 2 April 4 2013 17: 54
            -1
            Quote: tungus
            And a new heavy liquid-propellant rocket is being created to replace "Satan".

            Chatterbox for a spy!
            In secret ? all ....
            1. Bashkaus
              Bashkaus April 4 2013 19: 37
              0
              so only the lazy one does not know about the new heavy rocket: weight is 100 tons, the weight to be thrown is in the region of the five. Although why was it called heavy when it is twice as lighter than the Voivode? Maybe they cleaned them in TTX for conspiracy?
          5. AlNikolaich
            AlNikolaich April 4 2013 18: 20
            0
            Quote: tungus
            We still know how to create strategic weapons, but they are no longer there.

            Yes, no, you won’t drink experience. And they can create strategic weapons. Only here they have no potency for this! According to the new Amerian custom, they create a sample from a paper sheet (I exaggerate of course, from a computer monitor). Then they take it into service, stamp it in the amount of tens of units, and only after that bring it to mind (if it comes out). Here is a new mattress approach to the development of high-tech facilities. And if with the F-35 penguin this approach can still lead to results (the plane takes off and lands), then what about the rocket? After all, it is a single-use product! And amers, with their modern approach to development, no money is enough!
          6. Quiet
            Quiet April 4 2013 21: 57
            +2
            Our "poplars" are not new, and the "governors" are already on the verge, and the "stilettos" too. And we have few SSBNs. It's like that.
            It’s just that we are building both new missiles and new submarine missile carriers. Not just being built, but already in the troops.


            Just our adversaries outplayed !!!! . While the TEs rested on their laurels, relaxing after the collapse of the USSR and thought that it was not necessary to trouble yourself rearming before a weak enemy, Now they rushed to catch up ... bully So think about who really lost the arms race ???? lol
        2. Bashkaus
          Bashkaus April 4 2013 19: 27
          -1
          You shouldn’t be so. Well, suppose that any missile launched before the age of 91 will not take off in principle, and just go to the trash because of its old age, because we have so many poplars and governors, just to be honest, we’ll do the same with American rockets, of course the Americans are cool, but we won’t wake them up so much that everyone would think that they can change the laws of physics to please themselves. Good?
          Thus, we look at the dry residue, i.e. only those missiles that were transported in Russia and the United States for the period from the 91st to say 2008. Why did I take it before 2008, but only because every five years I change the car to a new one.
          Question-1: how many missiles were manufactured in the USA and in Russia from the 91st, to 2008?
          Okay, we remember that we are wild Muscovites, we all drink, we play balalaikas with bears, we don’t know how to make rockets, so all the rockets that we made from 91st to 2008 also rusted and fell apart like a Zhiguli car
          Question-2 How many missiles were produced in the USA and Russia during the period from 2008 to 2011?
          Why did I take 2011? Yes, because I remembered that we are ignorant and, in general, nuclear weapons are not guarded at our place, we store it in the open air, etc. that did not decay, then communized
          Therefore question-3
          How many missiles were manufactured by Russia and the USA for the period from 2011 to 2013?
          Answering question-1, we get the answer that since the 91st year the United States has not produced more than one rocket, which means that they either maliciously try to wind us up simply by bluffing, but I unconditionally believe the Americans, therefore everything is different, everything that is made in the USA forever and more alive than all living things, even Lenin and Communism itself. And if there is no difference in approach, then how are they better?
      3. andrey777
        andrey777 April 4 2013 14: 42
        0
        At home they are reducing, but they are building up among the allies, as a result Russia is losing what
        1. olegyurjewitch
          olegyurjewitch April 4 2013 22: 04
          0
          Quote: andrey777
          At home they are reducing, but they are building up among the allies, as a result Russia is losing

          True, an example of the United Kingdom.
      4. Ghenxnumx
        Ghenxnumx April 4 2013 15: 06
        -1
        Quote: The source http://www.vz.ru/

        Speaking in Congress in February with the annual message “On the Situation of the Country,” Obama confirmed that the United States intends to “interact with Russia, seeking further reductions наших nuclear arsenals».

        That sounded key phrase about the true purpose of the START - they do not want to disarm together, they want to disarm us. Press reports have already flickered that they get into all our arsenals without soap with checks, including those not stipulated by the contract, but they let in their own with a terrible creak, and not all.
      5. Geisenberg
        Geisenberg April 4 2013 16: 22
        -1
        Junk is not junk ... it doesn't matter. They are so simple that they can be stored in combat readiness for decades. Even if it starts 1 out of 5 it will not seem a little.
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak April 4 2013 16: 27
          +1
          Who are simple? Minutemen? And how can the fuel storage periods (in a rocket) be extended? It is not possible to replace solid fuel in a rocket. And if it starts to crack or somehow change its parameters, then regular take-off is already a game of roulette.
      6. krasin
        krasin April 4 2013 16: 56
        0
        The agreement obliges Russia and the United States to exchange information on the number of warheads and carriers twice a year.
        It’s interesting how the control happens, they take whale whales around mines, wagons, etc. ???? Or to honest pioneer ???? Full trust?
        The hussar played cards like this with him according to the "honest word" of a pearl suit (there is such an anegdot).
        1. Ghenxnumx
          Ghenxnumx April 4 2013 20: 23
          -1
          Quote: krasin
          It is interesting how the control occurs, they take whale whales along mines, wagons, etc. ????

          And they checked it - they came with bumps from the Moscow Region, hi. Just Obama came among others, he participated in the commission for verification of nuclear weapons
          Ascetic, probably found this time, judging by his opuses)) - confirm
          1. krasin
            krasin April 5 2013 09: 43
            0
            Based stationary, in the mines, I understand, can I calculate and track from space, and those that run in railway cars, on rails?
            Are there any experts ??? Or is it all the same for an honest pioneer?
            (I’m not talking about those pioneers surrounded by DAM who write reports immediately to their superiors. Suppose that they are not) How is it all ????????????
            1. Ghenxnumx
              Ghenxnumx April 5 2013 14: 34
              0
              Quote: krasin
              Based stationary, in the mines, I understand, can I calculate and track from space, and those that run in railway cars, on rails?

              Each nuclear weapons has its own places of permanent deployment, where they return after cruising along the railway, a / d and BP, and there they are counted wink - Or did you really think the inspectors on the go jump into the composition for the accuracy of the calculation good And the routes are already beyond their competence and no one will surrender them, except, perhaps, what a corrupt nits-politician
              1. krasin
                krasin April 5 2013 15: 49
                0
                Thank you, Man can’t know everything - he can’t. Well, I didn’t ride a rocket !! wink
    2. Su24
      Su24 April 4 2013 13: 23
      -1
      A further reduction can be made, but only if the treaty is no longer bilateral, and all nuclear powers are included in it.
      1. Lord of the Sith
        Lord of the Sith April 4 2013 13: 46
        +5
        Here is such a scheme on this issue

      2. tungus
        tungus April 4 2013 13: 52
        +3
        Quote: Su24
        further reductions

        You can't. Otherwise, such an agreement will have to include restrictions on precision weapons, for the same "tomahawks", and a complete rejection of missile defense will become an indispensable condition. Because a small number of carriers and charges can be destroyed by a preemptive, disarming strike of cruise missiles.
        But Americans will not go for restrictions on cruise missiles and on abandonment of missile defense.
        1. strannik595
          strannik595 April 4 2013 14: 39
          +4
          The United States intends to "interact with Russia, seeking further reductions in our nuclear arsenals."
          ................. go to heh .... r Zion wise men
    3. Kolya
      Kolya April 4 2013 19: 38
      0
      1500 deployed nuclear weapons carriers are a guarantee of Russia's security.
    4. Captain
      Captain April 4 2013 20: 25
      0
      START-3 in its current form is clearly detrimental to Russia's security.
      In no way taken into account:
      - The superiority of the USA / NATO in conventional armed forces (primarily in precision weapons)
      - The development of the US global missile defense system. And while Euro-PRO exists so far only on paper, then destroyers equipped with the Aegis system have long been in operation.
      - The presence of a nuclear arsenal and their means of delivery in the two NATO countries.
  2. Dragonmu
    Dragonmu April 4 2013 11: 23
    +8
    With such friends and partners around, it would not be a bad thing to build at least a colo to 2000.
  3. evgenii67
    evgenii67 April 4 2013 11: 23
    +7
    Exchange of information 2 times a year, let’s go!
    The new START was signed on April 8, 2010 in Prague by Presidents Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama. It entered into force on February 5, 2011. The Treaty provides that each of the parties reduces its strategic offensive arms in such a way that seven years after its entry into force and subsequently, their total amounts do not exceed:
    Yes they go! Let your missile defense cut into needles, and then we will cut!
    1. tungus
      tungus April 4 2013 12: 57
      0
      We just don’t have to cut anything. We don’t get media coverage, and we will increase their number.
      This, by the way, is the first treaty thanks to which Russia has won. In all the previous ones, the Americans were the winners. I still don’t understand how they signed it. Apparently the truth is that with the strategic nuclear forces they are all bad.
  4. Stiletto
    Stiletto April 4 2013 11: 29
    +6
    Ohhh, mattress bros, if these figures are true, then Russia should not be reduced, but only nuclear weapons should be increased to the declared level in 1 000 - 1100 units. Which, perhaps, is worth doing immediately.
    1. HAM
      HAM April 4 2013 16: 10
      +1
      And do not forget about singing out of NATO a very great Britain, frogmen and others like them. Why do not they count?
  5. svp67
    svp67 April 4 2013 11: 32
    +6
    Yeah, as soon as the "smell" of financial problems, they immediately started thinking about reductions. And gentlemen from the State Department "weakly" unilaterally reduce their missiles and warheads?
  6. erased
    erased April 4 2013 11: 33
    0
    We have not enough of everything. It will be difficult against NATO and China.
    1. lesnik.
      lesnik. April 4 2013 14: 40
      +5
      We have not enough of everything.

      Not everything is so gloomy) just everything (strategist / tact / opera / nuclear weapons) we have a lot.
  7. Sirocco
    Sirocco April 4 2013 11: 40
    +5
    Yeah, we’ll shorten it now, we just have to accelerate. And then the Lebanon Syrian scenario in Russia.
  8. eretik
    eretik April 4 2013 11: 43
    +4
    Information has often come across that their nuclear weapons are turning into trash. Tests have not been conducted since the 90s, scientists are aging, and young people are not going. According to the most optimistic forecasts, they have 30% combat-ready (though I don’t know how much we have, I would like to believe that 100%). Not long ago, they shouted that if they didn’t agree on a reduction with us, they would unilaterally cut it, let it be cut. And we will survive the liberal stench.
    1. Oshin
      Oshin April 4 2013 13: 38
      0
      No, right now there was recently, it seems, news that the new Topol-M mine-based mines were lowered? Slowly and little by little, but still done. or am I confusing something ...
    2. Waterfall
      Waterfall April 4 2013 14: 24
      -2
      Dreaming is not harmful, but min-men and tridents go through modernization programs with extension of terms. And launches are carried out. Yes, and Trident D5 there is no sense in changing so far - the Russian Federation has nothing comparable in terms of the totality of qualities.
  9. Wedmak
    Wedmak April 4 2013 11: 48
    +4
    We are now studying what a future agreement with Russia might look like ...


    It can’t look at all. We have not yet reached the limit of 2011. And the USA has already exhausted it, because if you add the warheads of the NATO countries (whoever has it), we get a very interesting picture. The United States wants to once again na..t Russia, the money themselves are running out quickly, new missiles are not being built, with nuclear warheads do not understand. Those. they are, but their storage conditions and combat readiness are in question. There are no new warheads ... in general, they decided to cheat ... FIG YOU !!! angry
  10. Wedmak
    Wedmak April 4 2013 11: 54
    0
    We are now studying what a future agreement with Russia might look like ...


    It can’t look at all. We have not yet reached the limit of 2011. And the USA has already exhausted it, because if you add the warheads of the NATO countries (whoever has it), we get a very interesting picture. The United States wants to once again na..t Russia, the money themselves are running out quickly, new missiles are not being built, with nuclear warheads do not understand. Those. they are, but their storage conditions and combat readiness are in question. There are no new warheads ... in general, they decided to cheat ... WILL NOT GO !!!! angry
  11. Wedmak
    Wedmak April 4 2013 11: 56
    0
    We are now studying what a future agreement with Russia might look like ...


    It can’t look at all. We have not yet reached the limit of 2011. And the USA has already exhausted it, because if you add the warheads of the NATO countries (whoever has it), we get a very interesting picture. The United States wants to once again deceive Russia, the money itself is running out quickly, new missiles are not being built, and nuclear warheads are not understood at all. Those. they are, but their storage conditions and combat readiness are in question. There are no new warheads ... in general, they decided to cheat ... angry
  12. Wedmak
    Wedmak April 4 2013 11: 57
    0
    Why do my comments disappear?
    1. antiaircrafter
      antiaircrafter April 4 2013 12: 53
      10
      They do not disappear, they multiply.
      1. Oshin
        Oshin April 4 2013 13: 39
        +1
        Quote: antiaircrafter
        They do not disappear, they multiply.

        laughing
        Yeah, there is such a thing ... Glitch apparently
    2. Botanologist
      Botanologist April 4 2013 14: 47
      +2
      Why do my comments disappear?

      Congratulations. You are added to a new site group - "stealth".
  13. pav-pon1972
    pav-pon1972 April 4 2013 12: 02
    +4
    For some reason, there is no radar in Kamchatka? Strange, I would have put it in Vladivostok too ...
    1. elmi
      elmi April 4 2013 15: 08
      +4
      I agree. Amer floating radar pulled up to Kamchatka, and in Alaska missile defense.
  14. cerko
    cerko April 4 2013 12: 09
    +2
    we also need to trick: cut old and build new
  15. awerkiev
    awerkiev April 4 2013 12: 19
    +7
    Why do we need enemies when we have such friends !? Do not figs at all to know how much we have and what ... It is enough to know what is enough for them laughing
  16. knn54
    knn54 April 4 2013 12: 27
    +1
    Cunning Yankees, more than a hundred missiles GB and the French why did not count ???
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn April 4 2013 13: 01
      -1
      UK (United Kingdom) since Britain is only part of the kingdom, for example, as we have in the Krasnoyarsk Territory.
      1. knn54
        knn54 April 4 2013 16: 06
        +1
        Andrew. Great Britain (Russian name from the English Great Britain; full name - the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but the English usually shorten to “United Kingdom.” Or = Russian Federation +, for example, Krasnoyarsk Territory?
  17. Wedmak
    Wedmak April 4 2013 12: 29
    0
    oops .. repeated ... sorry.
  18. Solex
    Solex April 4 2013 12: 38
    0
    In fact, it is time to compare the number of nuclear warheads not only between Russia and the United States, but also across all countries possessing nuclear missile weapons. And then we are invited to disarm, but the UK, France and all the rest - no? !!
    1. Oshin
      Oshin April 4 2013 13: 43
      0
      Another garbage in the fact that some of our carriers are dragging a few separable warheads. Amerikosov is still annoying. And the discrepancy is obtained. There are more charges than under the contract, and there are fewer carriers ... They want us to reduce charges, thereby reducing carriers.
  19. Nickanor
    Nickanor April 4 2013 12: 50
    +3
    They get a hole from a donut, not a cut!
    They were already abbreviated in the 90s.
  20. cth; fyn
    cth; fyn April 4 2013 13: 05
    +2
    I propose to transfer some of the old poplars to private hands, good hands, so to speak, people will groom and cherish them, and at "H" hour they receive a package and piu ... Individuals outside the contract.
    Miracle grass let go of my brain wassat
    1. Gecko
      Gecko April 4 2013 13: 35
      +1
      We must not cut it, but transfer Belarus to the custody ...
    2. Bashkaus
      Bashkaus April 4 2013 19: 54
      0
      You sin on the grass in vain, and without grass (I’m still not a drinker), I have been shouting for a long time that instead of reducing armaments, the same tanks gave me for storage, I undertake to drive the punks and tint in the spring, well, for personal needs do not go to the store))
      You know, if our businessmen would take some missile division under their patronage, you look and you wouldn’t criticize Cyprus like that.
  21. Byordovvv1
    Byordovvv1 April 4 2013 13: 06
    0
    All strategic information was leaked to potential enemies. Everyone knows ... even the total number of pairs of footcloths in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. The Internet is a storehouse for the CIA and other special services.
  22. djon3volta
    djon3volta April 4 2013 13: 21
    +3
    AHILLES FIVE OF RUSSIA

    ... in case of war, the Americans will strike at one geographical point of the Russian Federation, where the country's most important gas pipelines converge and even cross.
    ... Only four points of nuclear strikes are needed here. The first is the “Cross” itself, the second is Nadym, the third is the village of Pangoda, and the fourth is Novy Urengoy.
    ... It happened by malicious intent, or by misunderstanding, we do not know, but the life of 78% of the population of Russia depends on this place on the map of Russia with an area of ​​100 by 100 meters.

    http://punkmoscow.ru/akhillesova-pyata-rossii.htm
    1. old rocket man
      old rocket man April 4 2013 13: 54
      +4
      Quote: djon3volta
      but the life of 78% of the population of Russia depends on this place on a map of Russia with an area of ​​100 per 100 meters.

      Well, why is it so gloomy, Zhenya, life, of course, will suddenly go awry, but it will not stop, and the United States is no less vulnerable in this regard.
      I'm not talking about the fact that 85% of the population and the state economy will wash away two nuclear strikes off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.
      So, it's not so bad. drinks
      1. lesnik.
        lesnik. April 4 2013 16: 03
        +5
        Well, why so dark

        I recalled one story on the topic lol

        Wojciech Jaruzelski arrived on a private visit to America. (officially no one invited him). The US president, however, accepted him. And during the conversation, Ronald Reagan said to him:
        That we are all engaged in some kind of empty talk about arms reduction and the elimination of missiles. Can you see three buttons on my wall?
        I’ll press the red button and there is no Soviet Union, I’ll press the blue button and there will be no socialist camp, I’ll press the green one and there will be no problem of non-aligned countries.
        Jaruzelsky listens attentively, and then says, you know, Mr. President, a certain woman, Mrs. Kowalska, lived in Warsaw before the war. She was a very wealthy woman, and she had three toilets in her apartment: one gold, one silver and one bronze. But when Russian tanks entered Warsaw, Mrs. Kowalska crap right on the landing.
    2. SPQR1977
      SPQR1977 April 4 2013 15: 25
      0
      they will never hit Siberia ... it is their goal of conquering Russia.
      1. Bashkaus
        Bashkaus April 4 2013 19: 57
        0
        There is a tradition in the Russian army to call fire on yourself ...
    3. Strezhevchanin
      Strezhevchanin April 4 2013 16: 02
      0
      Quote: djon3volta
      78% of Russia's population is dependent

      You probably forgot that the rest of Europe and Asia will be swallowed in full? We have our own gas, our own oil, but Europe, and America will feed Europe and America will carry gas there on a stretcher.
    4. marsel1524
      marsel1524 April 4 2013 21: 36
      0
      They told me about this place, I really didn’t see it myself, but this is not only our heel, but almost all of Europe.
      Ps: for a long time I was planning to attach a wood stove in parallel to a gas boiler, tomorrow I'll start :)
  23. Apollo
    Apollo April 4 2013 13: 24
    +3
    The ratio of the nuclear potential of Russia and the United States
    1. Oshin
      Oshin April 4 2013 13: 58
      0
      Quote: Apollon
      The ratio of the nuclear potential of Russia and the United States

      And in a larger format there is no picture? seen very poorly
      1. Ghenxnumx
        Ghenxnumx April 4 2013 15: 21
        +4
        Quote: Oshin
        And in a larger format there is no picture? seen very poorly

        At the request of members of the forum hi
        1. Oshin
          Oshin April 4 2013 15: 33
          0
          Quote: Ghen75
          At the request of members of the forum hi

          Thank you!
  24. Nitup
    Nitup April 4 2013 13: 53
    0
    Yes, the United States supposedly does not intend to produce nuclear weapons anymore. Although, most likely, this is not so. It's just that they are now at the stage of developing new nuclear weapons, which will practically not infect the territory after the strike. But, what is known for sure, they are actively developing high-precision long-range weapons, space tracking means for mobile complexes like Topol, and tracking equipment for the SSBNs. Plus, their missile defense system, primarily ship-based. All this cannot but alarm.
  25. Vtel
    Vtel April 4 2013 14: 45
    +3
    Shaw you have problems in the Wild West? Wait, we are flying to you !!!
  26. fenix57
    fenix57 April 4 2013 15: 06
    0
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++ And that ... everything will be fine ...
  27. Delink
    Delink April 4 2013 15: 06
    0
    Withdraw from the START-3 Treaty. All do not give a damn and arm and arm. Amer will tear their navel.
    1. Bashkaus
      Bashkaus April 4 2013 20: 00
      +1
      we wouldn’t earn a hernia ourselves, once the navel has unleashed ((It is necessary in gentle mode: uncle Sam’s crutch on a turnip
  28. Sling
    Sling April 4 2013 15: 54
    +2
    Accurate with such agreements
  29. knn54
    knn54 April 4 2013 16: 17
    +2
    Something I recalled was a joke of the 90s, in which the Commander-in-Chief of the Strategic Missile Forces sadly tells the divisor that staff should be reduced.
  30. Vrungel78
    Vrungel78 April 4 2013 17: 16
    +2
    This hokku was born in my sore imagination

    Once inhabited New York
    Serel against a crimson sky.
    There was no need to anger Russia.
  31. ekama1
    ekama1 April 4 2013 17: 29
    +1
    God, even though it's positive.
  32. kontrol
    kontrol April 4 2013 19: 13
    0
    the State Department said, hehe. Well, this trash is up to something. They are so predictable. We need to keep an eye out. No ... we want a hundred pounds, damned striped.
  33. воронов
    воронов April 4 2013 19: 23
    0
    In the near future, we would still have a hundred or two more nuclear warheads.
  34. suharev-52
    suharev-52 April 4 2013 21: 00
    +2
    Judging by the statistics, we need to take care not to reduce nuclear weapons, but to equalize potential with NATO. Sincerely.
  35. 123ewq
    123ewq April 4 2013 21: 20
    0
    Quote: tungus
    We are not cutting back. We are building up.


    As of 2011, according to the US Department of State (RF data in the framework of START-3 data exchange), the Russian strategic nuclear forces (SNF) included 492 deployed strategic carriers (out of 881) capable of carrying 2492 nuclear warheads [5] . At the same time, as of July 2009, 608 strategic carriers capable of carrying 2683 nuclear warheads were in the strategic nuclear forces (SNF) of Russia.
    As of January 22, 2013, the Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces (SNF) contained 444 deployed strategic carriers capable of carrying 2319 nuclear warheads. [Source not specified 42 days]
    Thus, the reduction in the number of nuclear weapons in Russia continues rather intensively, and its rate is about 6% for six months. From 2005 to 2008, 337 ICBM / SLBMs and 119 launchers were disposed of [6] [7] [8] [9]. Until 2020, it is planned to utilize 399 ICBMs and SLBMs and 260 silos / SPU, both from those already in storage and those that are supposed to be decommissioned [10].
    [u] [u] I'm sorry, maybe I don’t understand something? [/ u] [/ u] Wikipedia source
  36. honest jew
    honest jew April 4 2013 22: 33
    +4
    The NATO-Russia warhead ratio is more important, but for some reason everyone pretends that the problem does not exist.
  37. UAZ Patriot
    UAZ Patriot April 4 2013 22: 41
    0
    Dude that painted this picture has already enriched the campaign;) :)))
  38. de klermon
    de klermon April 5 2013 02: 13
    0
    "Great Britain will not give up nuclear weapons in the face of the growing threat from the DPRK and Iran" - David Cameron from the nuclear submarine "Victorious". And this is a country with an area of ​​the Moscow region, from which Northern Ireland does not know how to fall off and Scotland is going to sprout (where, by the way, the only base of British nuclear submarines is located, and they have no other ICBM carriers) !!!
    1. Windbreak
      Windbreak April 5 2013 10: 52
      0
      Quote: de Klermon
      And this is a country with an area of ​​Moscow region
      Great Britain 243 809 km², Moscow Region 44 379 km²