Military Review

General Staff called the conditions for the reduction of the nuclear arsenal of Russia

45
The reduction of strategic offensive arms in Russia is feasible with confidence that the US does not undermine Russia's nuclear deterrent potential, said General of the Army General of the Army Valery Gerasimov at the Military and Political Aspects of European Security conference in Moscow on Thursday.


General Staff called the conditions for the reduction of the nuclear arsenal of Russia


"Russia will reduce strategic offensive weapons, only being confident that the development of a global US missile defense system does not undermine its nuclear deterrent potential," Gerasimov said.

Gerasimov stressed that in the case of a “qualitative and quantitative” increase in the capabilities of the American missile defense system, Russia will decide whether to remain in the START treaty or not, reports RIA “News».

“The Russian position on US missile plans remains unchanged. We proceed from the need to obtain legal guarantees that it is impossible to use missile defense systems in Europe against Russian strategic nuclear forces, ”the head of the General Staff noted.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, in turn, said that Moscow calls on Washington to jointly analyze existing risks and partner cooperation to resolve the issue of missile defense.

“If we want to get rid of mutual suspicions about each other’s intentions, then we really need to jointly analyze existing risks, develop truly collective, common approaches to neutralizing them, and not impose one-sided decisions as the only correct ones. This applies, of course, to missile defense, long-term military planning, and crisis management, ”he said.

According to the minister, “by working together as truly equal partners, we (Russia and the United States) can effectively complement each other, multiplying our potentials.” “Transatlantic solidarity should not be opposed to pan-European unity,” Lavrov added.

At the opening of the conference, the head of the presidential administration, Sergei Ivanov, read out a message from the head of state, in which Vladimir Putin expressed the hope that the meeting participants would be able to contribute to building confidence in the Euro-Atlantic space, including on issues of NATO expansion and missile defense.

“I hope that you will be able to contribute to the formation of greater trust and mutual understanding. I have no doubt that the ideas and recommendations that you have expressed will be in demand and will serve to strengthen security in Europe and international stability in general, ”the president’s greeting says.

The head of state stated that there are still various approaches to the deployment of a global missile defense system, the expansion of NATO’s military infrastructure, control over conventional weapons, and their reduction.

At the same time, the president believes that the international community has the necessary prerequisites for developing joint steps to strengthen equal security and a joint strategy to combat emerging threats and challenges.

“For this, today there are relevant prerequisites: the absence of fundamental ideological differences, the intertwining of economies, developing cultural, scientific and business contacts between people,” the message says.

The international conference takes place in Moscow on May 23 – 24. The objectives of the meeting are an open discussion of existing problems and the formation of proposals for finding mutually acceptable solutions to ensure equal security in Europe.

The forum is attended by representatives of the Ministries of Defense and the Foreign Ministry of Russia and the United States, OSCE Secretary General Lamberto Zannier, the heads of the defense departments of European states, international organizations (NATO, EU, CSTO), representatives of the European and Russian expert community - more than 250 delegates.
Originator:
http://www.vz.ru/news/2013/5/23/633893.html
45 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. ramsi
    ramsi 24 May 2013 06: 08 New
    22
    and how does this “legal guarantee” replace at least one rocket?
    1. domokl
      domokl 24 May 2013 06: 47 New
      +1
      laughing
      Quote: ramsi
      and how does this “legal guarantee” replace at least one rocket?
      but simply ... Rockets have been in the mines for quite some time ... And like people are aging ... So, theoretical troubles must be brought in for the replacement ...
      The Americans are facing the same problem ... We are cutting it, putting it abruptly, and the old is for the world community ... laughing
      1. Romn
        Romn 24 May 2013 07: 08 New
        10
        The United States, like all of Europe, has long shown that it is IMPOSSIBLE to believe their words and guarantees! Whether they are certified and confirmed by anything, there can be no talk with them on these issues, you only need to increase the total number of missiles, while developing more and more powerful and effective types of weapons! They only understand the language of power ...
        1. Alexander Romanov
          Alexander Romanov 24 May 2013 07: 12 New
          11
          Quote: Romn
          The United States, like all of Europe, has long shown that it is IMPOSSIBLE to believe their words and guarantees!

          Drawing on history, yes! There was one document already in our history with legal guarantees, the Non-Aggression Pact. It is a pity that those who appeared in court were not forced to gobble up this pact.
          1. patline
            patline 24 May 2013 08: 00 New
            +9
            Cutting Nuclear Weapons makes no sense. With a reduction, there is a risk of being hit by conventional weapons. Amers seem to be striving for this.
            1. elmir15
              elmir15 24 May 2013 14: 24 New
              +3
              When reducing nuclear weapons with America, one must take into account the presence of nuclear weapons in NATO countries, and China cannot be discounted. although a conflict with China is unlikely.
          2. Geisenberg
            Geisenberg 24 May 2013 10: 53 New
            +1
            Quote: Alexander Romanov
            It is a pity that those who appeared in court. Were not forced to gobble up this pact.


            Perhaps a pity. Although it seems to me enough that these guys were hanged.
    2. Tarpon
      Tarpon 24 May 2013 08: 03 New
      +3
      Quote: ramsi
      and how does this “legal guarantee” replace at least one rocket?

      Absolutely not replace.
      Russia can no longer reduce its nuclear potential, otherwise, when the Americans build up their missile defense facilities, some overseas hot minds may think that nuclear war can be defeated.
      Only the possibility of an imminent retaliatory strike with unacceptable damage is a guarantee of no attack.
    3. GreatRussia
      GreatRussia 24 May 2013 08: 33 New
      +5

      "Russia will reduce strategic offensive weapons, only being confident that the development of a global US missile defense system does not undermine its nuclear deterrent potential," Gerasimov said.

      Those. never!
    4. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 24 May 2013 10: 51 New
      -1
      Quote: ramsi
      and how does this “legal guarantee” replace at least one rocket?


      They will fix it as a DOS treaty at the intergovernmental level, and in the text of the treaty there will be clear parameters of missile defense objects ... if you want to, it’ll be adhered to.
      1. Pharao7766
        Pharao7766 24 May 2013 13: 49 New
        +1
        Remember Germany also gave legal guarantees of non-aggression against the USSR.
        And how it helped ...
        We do not need any pieces of paper!
        On the contrary, in response to the deployment of missile defense elements, resurrect (improve) short- and medium-range missiles.
  2. trenitron
    trenitron 24 May 2013 06: 11 New
    21
    In my opinion, the only condition for a reduction in the nuclear arsenal can only be the fall of a large meteorite in the United States, well, or is there some kind of tsunami that will wash it off ...
  3. avant-garde
    avant-garde 24 May 2013 06: 12 New
    +7
    I believe that we still have decent officials who will not allow the reduction of nuclear weapons, since trusting "friends" from America is more expensive.
  4. valokordin
    valokordin 24 May 2013 06: 15 New
    +5
    There are no legal guarantees when it comes to reducing nuclear weapons. Negotiations should be held in the framework of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, bash on bash.
  5. Vanek
    Vanek 24 May 2013 06: 17 New
    +6
    We proceed from the need to obtain legal guarantees

    I remember something like that already happened ... And then 50 people died. Here you have legal guarantees.

    Hello to everyone. hi
  6. treskoed
    treskoed 24 May 2013 06: 17 New
    +3
    Reduce nuclear weapons only in case of its physical or moral aging and in no case under external pressure! Much more will come!
    1. Thunderbolt
      Thunderbolt 24 May 2013 07: 14 New
      13
      Quote: treskoed
      in no case under external pressure!
      Precisely, undemocratic, but it is the key to our security. It is necessary to call things by their names more strictly and more often.
  7. Nitarius
    Nitarius 24 May 2013 06: 21 New
    +3
    Quote: valokordin
    There are no legal guarantees when it comes to reducing nuclear weapons. Negotiations should be held in the framework of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, bash on bash.

    well yes ! I bought a rocket from America, and then, why the hell is it for me - fly the swallow home))))
  8. avant-garde
    avant-garde 24 May 2013 06: 26 New
    +2
    Although you can probably reduce nuclear weapons by selling missiles to amers, provided that the missiles are delivered on their own! winked
  9. sanych
    sanych 24 May 2013 06: 29 New
    +9
    NATO cannot be trusted under any guarantees! stop Was there a NATO non-proliferation treaty east? Was! And where is NATO now? At our borders! Was there a conventional arms treaty in Europe? It was too! Only Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan complied. All other participants from the Warsaw Pact countries are already in NATO! Here is the price of legal arrangements with the West. Moreover, the states adopted the concept of Moscow State University (an instant global strike). And, in addition to nuclear weapons, in the near future we can not oppose them. What reduction can be in such conditions ?! Only the modernization and buildup of our nuclear forces!
    1. Yuriwhite
      Yuriwhite 24 May 2013 07: 10 New
      +1
      In fact, there was no agreement. There was an oral agreement from the beginning with sweat-labeled drunk. But only later, much later, we realized how in the West they were keeping oral promises. Therefore, only legally executed agreements, but the United States will never agree to them, will continue to blow in our ears.
      1. Egoza
        Egoza 24 May 2013 08: 17 New
        +3
        Quote: YuriWhite
        we understood how in the west we keep oral promises

        How how! "I am the master of my word! I want - I gave, I want to take it back!" so here, with all the agreements, it’s better like Lukashenko ... "they will come in handy to store potatoes"
        Hello everyone!
    2. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 24 May 2013 07: 15 New
      +2
      Quote: sanych
      Was there a conventional arms treaty in Europe? It was too! Only Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan complied. All other participants from the Warsaw Pact countries are already in NATO!

      He was not even ratified in NATO, signed and scored on him. They only told us, and the political situation has changed. Speaking of simple reassurances, too. They promised the hunchback that NATO would not go east. The price of promises and signatures is zero!
  10. Alexander-Tomsk
    Alexander-Tomsk 24 May 2013 06: 35 New
    +3
    What? Again, a child’s divorce, and the reduction of our essentially basic weapon under the babble of legal guarantees? It’s interesting to sue the Hague court if they attack us ...
  11. nemec55
    nemec55 24 May 2013 07: 03 New
    +3
    You have to be full of fools to believe these nonsense.
  12. Per se.
    Per se. 24 May 2013 07: 08 New
    +6
    “Russia's position on US missile defense plans remains unchanged. We proceed from the need to obtain legal guarantees of the impossibility of using missile defense systems in Europe against Russian strategic nuclear forces, ”said the head of the General Staff. Legal guarantees were already from Mr. Hitler that this piece of paper was worth it, showed June 1941 of the year. Gorbvchev was also promised that NATO would not expand ... No need to deceive ourselves, we will be strong - this is the best guarantee of security, otherwise, according to Krylov, "You are only to blame for what I want to eat ...".
  13. avant-garde
    avant-garde 24 May 2013 07: 14 New
    +3
    The youth organization “Boy Scouts of America” on Thursday, May 23, announced that it will begin to accept open gay men ....
    ________
    Well, here's how to believe it lol
  14. Tatarus
    Tatarus 24 May 2013 07: 15 New
    +2
    “There are corresponding prerequisites for this today: lack of fundamental ideological differences, interweaving of economies, developing cultural, scientific and business contacts between people, ”the message says.

    here I didn’t understand something. What does the absence of ideological differences mean? What about Syria? What about Iran? But unipolar and multipolar worlds? The United States is fundamentally our ideological opponent. Opponent of humanity in man.
  15. pensioner
    pensioner 24 May 2013 07: 38 New
    +3
    Reducing strategic offensive arms in Russia is feasible with confidence that the United States does not undermine Russia's nuclear deterrence potential

    And since there is no such confidence (and never will be), then there is no reduction. Great and mighty "diplomatic language"!
    1. engineer74
      engineer74 24 May 2013 08: 14 New
      +5
      "The General Staff called the conditions for the reduction of Russia's nuclear arsenal" - how awkward these politically correct provocative headlines are! No way - "The General Staff called the conditions for Russia to withdraw from the START"!
  16. VohaAhov
    VohaAhov 24 May 2013 08: 02 New
    +2
    It is impossible for Russia to reduce nuclear weapons !!! In addition to the United States, England and France have nuclear weapons, and, most importantly, China, which does not reduce its nuclear weapons, but on the contrary, increases them.
  17. Boot under the carpet
    Boot under the carpet 24 May 2013 08: 13 New
    +4
    Kvachkov correctly said from his own interpretation of the doctrine of the Russian Army ... it is necessary to withdraw from START! Then they will be scratched, and not only they!
  18. Hemi cuda
    Hemi cuda 24 May 2013 08: 22 New
    +2
    It is not necessary to reduce anything; it is only necessary to increase; the West believes in itself not to respect itself.
  19. Gamal
    Gamal 24 May 2013 08: 23 New
    +1
    Quote: Nitarius
    Quote: valokordin
    There are no legal guarantees when it comes to reducing nuclear weapons. Negotiations should be held in the framework of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, bash on bash.

    well yes ! I bought a rocket from America, and then, why the hell is it for me - fly the swallow home))))


    Could be so:
  20. JonnyT
    JonnyT 24 May 2013 08: 34 New
    +3
    If in Moscow there is a switch disconnecting the US missile defense, then it can be reduced - but this is a utopia!
    Well, in general, in my opinion, all this chatter is exclusively for the world community! Like, we all strive for cooperation and peace. In fact, no one will reduce anything, and plans for missile defense will not change!
    The enemy will always remain the enemy!
  21. pensioner
    pensioner 24 May 2013 08: 37 New
    0
    In general, I have a strong belief that in the very near future ALL will rush to build up their arsenal of nuclear weapons. Warranty after all. And I’m sure that somewhere yes gasps. Not massively, but gasps. I'm afraid to crap of course ...
  22. vitas
    vitas 24 May 2013 08: 43 New
    +2
    To hell with all the treaties of the United States, deceivers, you need to quickly increase and improve nuclear capabilities and improve air defense. Otherwise, soon we will begin to play the game "METRO 2033".
    1. apro
      apro 24 May 2013 09: 08 New
      0
      Quote: vitas
      Otherwise, soon we will begin to play the game "METRO 2033"

      Do not play, but live in this hell.
  23. Yves762
    Yves762 24 May 2013 09: 17 New
    0
    IMHO, the state of our nuclear arsenal should in no way depend on
    confidence that the US does not undermine Russia's nuclear deterrence potential
    .
    By the way, who fumbles, explain to the fool what they are and what strength they have (what they provide for)
    legally binding guarantees of the US missile defense against the strategic nuclear forces of the Russian Federation
    whom our authorities are so eager for from us ??? what
    1. engineer74
      engineer74 24 May 2013 10: 55 New
      0
      Legal guarantees include a TECHNICAL control mechanism for their implementation. hi
      1. Yves762
        Yves762 24 May 2013 15: 43 New
        0
        Quote: engineer74
        Legal guarantees include a TECHNICAL control mechanism for their implementation.

        what And how will it look ??? The Patriots will be deployed in the other direction and wed tightly in the presence of our commission - like that.?.

        No-eh ...,. I believe that "legally binding guarantees" in this and similar matters under such conditions and actors are empty and useless.

        Example, Open Skies Treaty. What they see there, what they are doing from it - hell knows them ... The same Georgians attacked anyway. am
  24. Uncle lee
    Uncle lee 24 May 2013 09: 18 New
    +7
    What bequeathed A.V. Suvorov? - "Keep the gunpowder dry!"
  25. vjatsergey
    vjatsergey 24 May 2013 09: 43 New
    +1
    Agree with amers - do not respect yourself! They only feel that they will not get an answer in the face, they will immediately throw out the treaty and rush to bring democracy to Russia.
  26. Ascetic
    Ascetic 24 May 2013 09: 46 New
    +4
    On May 16, 2013, MGIMO will host a round table to discuss the analytical report of the Center for Military-Political Research MGIMO (U) of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs A.I. Podberezkina and D.A. Degtereva "PRO-polycentricity. "Global" US missile defense system and the Eurasian alternative to the Russian Federation. "

    This report analyzes the current state of affairs in the field of missile (aerospace) defense of the Russian Federation and the CIS countries in the context of the US deployment of a global missile defense system. The analysis of the main threats to the national security of the Russian Federation in this regard is given. As a response, a proposal is being made to create the Eurasian Aerospace Defense (EurasWKO), which is designed to become a reliable foundation for the future regional security architecture for the Eurasian integration project, which impedes the monopolization of missile defense technologies and promotes the formation of the principles of true polycentricity in global governance. The conceptual foundations of the creation of the Eurasian Military District are presented, as well as an assessment of the practical difficulties associated with the implementation of this initiative.
    A fragment of the video of the roundtable held on May 16, 2013 at MGIMO.

    1. Ascetic
      Ascetic 24 May 2013 10: 01 New
      +4
      Very interesting is the presentation of Vladimir Korovin, one of the best experts in the field of aerospace defense. The technical view of a high-class specialist on some things is very interesting. There are no videos and detailed reports yet, but they promised to publish them in the future.

      The situation is like this. Today, Americans are testing the SM-3 Block 1B rocket. The work was carried out for about 10 years and, accordingly, expectations - 2009. The first launch in September 2011 happened and what they called a “small energy release”, and in Russian, they exploded and reported that some test failures had occurred, and everything was fine and everything worked out. On May 9, 2012, again SM-3 Block 1B went to intercept and, accordingly, everything is fine with them. Then they repeated it in June, and after that, American experts appeared neatly and began to explain what had happened. There, public control is quite serious. And the following happened: the SM-3 rocket has a double activation stage. This, respectively, is the standard accelerator stage for all today's long-range missiles, the march stage and, accordingly, this MK 136 engine, which must be switched on twice. He had never turned on in any of the intercepts before. And here they turned it on, and it exploded a second time. The Americans naturally had a very sad mood. Now they are compensating for all this, but one of the leaders of the missile defense agency said that they will try not to include it yet. What is the point there? This is a very difficult technical task - to turn on the same solid fuel engine twice. The Americans, when they did this on the SRAM aeroballistic missile, tried to get rid of it as soon as it expired, because the gunpowder began to crack and the reliability of this business plummeted.
      Here they also failed to focus. And now we return to this notorious 1B system. What did they want? For a start - 2A. They began to refine it in 2006. Before that, they concluded another contract with Japan in December 2004, and Block 2 began work. So, already 7 years of operation, the first launch is not yet clear. The price of the issue is prototypes of 37 million dollars, serial ones - 20-24 million dollars. This already requires some serious control over what is happening. What is 2B? It began to be considered analytically, three firms under a contract for 126 million dollars, as always Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raythaeon. They have been considering the concept since the spring of 2011. Now it’s just 2 years. I published an article a year ago. To write about this rocket is the same as constantly reproaching yourself, that you didn’t manage to run, jump to the next step, because the information is constantly coming in. And so it happened. And there was such a glitch that the Americans are considering changing the launcher on the ships of the AEGIS (Aegis) system, which, accordingly, is the standard for these missiles. Everyone knows that according to the plan, this fourth stage for 2020. Look, 7 years old. And here came information in January last year that the main counting department reported that the missile they were going to make under the SM-3 Block 2B program should be made in caliber not 533 mm, which is fully adapted to the launchers of the AEGIS system ships, but do it in caliber not 21 inches, but 27 inches. That is, not 533 mm, but about 680 mm.
      1. Ascetic
        Ascetic 24 May 2013 10: 04 New
        +3
        And this situation absolutely ruins this whole concept. This is proved quite simply. SM-3 Block 1B has a mass of 1,5 tons, 2A it already with this history of 533 mm caliber will weigh about 2,5 tons. There are no miracles in this situation. But when they start talking about caliber 680, it’s about the mass of a launch rocket of 4 tons. What does this mean for a particular carrier, unless it is specifically prepared in advance for the fact that it will be radically changed? This means that the MK41 launcher, from which these eight-cell missiles start today, these 533 mm caliber rockets get into it. When changing the caliber of the rocket to 680 mm, it should be six-cell. What is six pieces? If you multiply 8 by 1,5 tons, you get 12 tons, then 6 tons by 4, you get 24 tons. And there is still such a small nuance. Ships of the “Ticonderoga” class (“Ticonderoga”) and, accordingly, the destroyers “Arleigh Burke” (“Arly Burke”), everything that adapts to the AEGIS system was originally built on the fact that they have very, very low stability when traveling in a storm sea. This is what Americans wrote 25-30 years ago. Today already after the prescription of time, we have practically forgotten this.
        And so the conclusion from this is simple. The Americans realized that, firstly, they would not have time to do it under any circumstances by 2020, they already knew that, and secondly, the price of the issue would be simply prohibitive.

        They had such an analogue. They had such a program in 2003, it took as long as 5-6 years - this is the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI). They also started very briskly, quickly. And accordingly, they very quickly jumped out of all possible limits in terms of masses and speeds. And accordingly, they also stopped this work with the same mine, as with a plane with a laser, and all other programs. A purely technical situation occurred here and they said in a beautiful mine that they are closing this topic for now, having not yet taken any political obligations, but at the same time they will put 14 GBI missiles in Alaska. But there, by the way, is a very interesting story of recent months. Why? The $ 70 million GBI rocket has an EKV interceptor inside, it weighs over 50 kg, but costs about $ 30 million. They began to modernize it without much ado in 2005 and began to test it in 2010. At the same time faced with a fantastic thing. What they were doing in the mid-90s, at the very least, with some probability went out to intercept mock-up missiles. They did not capture a single ballistic missile. They tested the second advanced version and missed. Moreover, they missed for a rather funny reason, they saw the goal, they didn’t see it, in any case they didn’t hit. Repeating this test a year later, they again missed. And accordingly, everyone probably noticed that in January of this year they tested the GBI rocket, but without interception. What was it like? They ensured that the EKV performed a specific series of maneuvers. Some information has appeared. GBI trials today cost between $ 100 and $ 200 million - not a cheap thing. According to all American estimates, they can do these tests more than 3 in 2 years physically. Processing materials and stuff. And there they forwarded information that the option was unsuccessful. They replaced some components there and due to the inconsistency of the oscillation and other things, I will not go into the technique, their guidance system is knocked out. And so today it looks funny enough when they remove one inactive system and say that they will install another one now. The coming years, they will have to disentangle this technical side.
        1. pensioner
          pensioner 24 May 2013 10: 47 New
          0
          Yeah-ah-ah .... Wonderful. I just have a question. And where did such technical details come from? After all, the work is sure to be secreted (terms, launch results, weight ...)? Really amers themselves said? Or is there nothing secret in the proposed material?
    2. Aristarch
      Aristarch 24 May 2013 10: 30 New
      0
      Sorry, but the film does not reveal the main thing ((Your title was intriguing, but essentially nothing about the East Kazakhstan region.
      And why no one says that at the moment their interceptors are not able to bring down the sovr. ICBMs, BUT, because all the salt is that nothing stands still, all subsequent generations of interceptions. will be many times superior to their predecessors, which will already be able to intercept. And then, it will be a big back.
  27. Aristarch
    Aristarch 24 May 2013 09: 57 New
    0
    The United States will never refuse to develop missile defense, so that no one speaks, and in the first place, it was just the same that was planned to neutralize our strategic nuclear forces.
  28. Evgeniy46
    Evgeniy46 24 May 2013 10: 02 New
    0
    "Russia will reduce strategic offensive weapons, only being confident that the development of a global US missile defense system does not undermine its nuclear deterrent potential," Gerasimov said.

    that is, in a normal way - Russia will not cut anything. Something like this
  29. Naval
    Naval 24 May 2013 10: 05 New
    +1
    You give more missiles, good and new, the guarantee of peace and our prosperity. good
  30. Reserve buildbat
    Reserve buildbat 24 May 2013 14: 41 New
    +2
    Russia will reduce strategic offensive weapons when shipping begins along the Canada-Mexico Strait smile
  31. Aristarch
    Aristarch 24 May 2013 14: 44 New
    0
    Here’s the latest information, "The General Staff of the Armed Forces of Russia has developed a system to neutralize the US global missile defense system and does not hide it, said Chief of the General Staff Army General Valery Gerasimov at the opening of the conference on European security.


    "A set of military-technical measures aimed at neutralizing the possible negative impact of the US global missile defense system on the potential of Russian nuclear forces has been developed, and we do not hide this," Gerasimov said.

    What kind of system it is not clear how it neutralizes what, but apparently they found a way out.
    http://vpk.name/news/90101_Genshtab_Rossii_razrabotal_sistemu_neitralizacii_sist
    emyi_PRO_SSHA.html
  32. Body
    Body 26 May 2013 10: 47 New
    0
    can not be reduced. We’ll cut missiles, they will develop effective interceptors and, feeling impunity, will break all treaties. It turns out that the agreement will no longer restrain them and us, but we will no longer be able to rebuild the sawn missiles.