Military Review

American Violations of the INF and START Treaties

The tactical missile system Oka did not formally fall under the terms of the INF Treaty, as it had a launch range of 400 km, but it was also destroyed. Photos from

25 has been fulfilled since the entry into force of the indefinite Treaty between the USSR and the USA on the elimination of medium-range and shorter-range missiles (the INF Treaty). Apparently, in commemoration of this event, the American newspaper The Washington Times, citing information from the special services, noted: “Russia is grossly violating the INF Treaty, creating the Rubezh missile system with a new intercontinental ballistic missile of increased accuracy.” According to the estimates of the Americans, the tactical and technical characteristics of the missile make it possible to classify it as a medium-range missile, the production and testing of which by the INF Treaty are prohibited.

Unfortunately, Russian officials, various "wise men" and analysts, instead of a professional response to the attacks of the Americans, limited themselves to formal comments on the provisions of the Treaty. But let's take a look at the problem from the other side and consider a far from complete list of violations by the Americans of key provisions of the INF Treaty and the START Treaty.

Failure to comply with the INF Treaty

The US side openly and grossly violates key articles of the INF Treaty, developing medium- and short-range target missiles to test elements of a global US missile defense system and an European missile defense system.

Thus, Article I states: “Each of the parties liquidates its medium-range and shorter-range missiles, does not have such funds in the future (highlighted by the author).” Paragraph 5 of Article II states that “the term“ medium-range missile ”means a BRNB or RNSD, the range of which exceeds 1000 kilometers, but does not exceed 5500 kilometers.”

The 6 clause of the same chapter states that "the term" shorter range missile "means a BRNB or RNB, whose range is equal to or exceeds 500 kilometers, but does not exceed 1000 kilometers."

It is important to emphasize that the Americans, without the consent of the Russian side, introduced and use the term “intermediate-range missile”.
In addition, Article VI regulates that neither side: a) does not produce any medium-range missiles, does not conduct flight tests of such missiles, and does not produce any stages of such missiles and no launchers of such missiles. ”

And finally, we’ll give Clause 12 of Article VII, which is considered by Americans to be the strongest argument and is used in justifying their actions: “Each party has the right to produce and use for accelerator facilities only existing types of accelerator stages.

The launches of such accelerator facilities are not considered as flight tests of medium-range and shorter-range missiles, provided that: b) such accelerator facilities are used only for research and development purposes for testing objects (emphasis added), but not the accelerator facilities themselves. ”

It is obvious that such objects can be payloads that are output to the upper atmosphere or to space.

However, the Americans do not conduct any research with the launch of objects into space within the framework of the INF Treaty.

But on the basis of accelerator stages (“Minutemen-2”, “Trident-1” and others) they make HERA target missiles (firing range - up to 1200 km), LRALT (to 2000 km), MRT (to 1100 km), which are used during test launches of antimissiles, which means a violation of the requirements of the above articles of the Treaty.

In this connection, the first statement of the Russian Foreign Ministry appeared in 4 on January 2001: “The United States has the experience of creating a medium-range ground-based ballistic missile of a new type of HERA, in violation of the INF Treaty, on the basis of the second and third stages of the Minuteman-2 ICR . It is worth recalling that the issue of violations by the United States of this Treaty was repeatedly raised by the Russian side at various levels. However, the Americans rejected all our claims.

The next statement by the Foreign Ministry of the Russian Federation was made on 7 on August 2010: “The American side systematically violates the basic provisions of the INF Treaty, using target missiles that imitate HERA, LRALT and MRT for the missile defense system elements. According to the INF Treaty, launching of these missiles is qualified as tests of a medium-range BRNB of a “new type”, which is a violation of Article VI. ”

According to the general designer of the unique PGRK Topol, Topol-M, Yars and the Bulava missiles of academician Yuri Solomonov, in violation of the INF Treaty, the Americans actually created a medium-range missile. Undoubtedly, Yuri Semyonovich offered Russian politicians and experts an authoritative and powerful argument for protecting the interests of Russia's national security in the field of strategic offensive arms and anti-missile defense, but these recommendations were not heeded. And as a result, a significant number of successful anti-missile interceptions using medium and shorter target missiles.


The American side has committed a number of gross violations of Article XIII of the START Treaty.

It is appropriate to recall that this Article limits the cooperation of the Russian Federation and the United States in the field of strategic offensive arms with other states: “The parties do not transfer to the third parties strategic offensive arms falling under the scope of this Treaty ... This provision does not apply to any existing at the time of signing this Agreement cooperation practice, including commitments in the field of strategic offensive arms between one of the parties and a third state ”(see also“ IEE ”No. 30, 2012). It should be emphasized that the START Treaty does not disclose the terms "cooperation", the types of "cooperation", as well as "third states" and how many there may be.

The essence of the first violation of Article XIII is that the Americans are not announced at the time of signing the START Treaty (8 on April 2010) selling the Trident-2 SLBM by the British strategic nuclear forces, participating in the modernization of the Vangard type and in various technical measures docking systems of British SSBNs and warheads with American missiles, in conducting autonomous and complex tests.

In addition to sales of missiles, the American side performs the following activities: training British specialists; assisting in the study and development of operational and combat documentation; docking of the Trident-2 SLBM systems with British warheads and SSBNs.
American experts are involved in bringing missiles on British SSBNs into combat readiness, in their maintenance, in autonomous and complex tests, in troubleshooting and service maintenance, in preparing and conducting control and combat launches of British SLBMs from the Eastern Missile Range and other activities.

The essence of the second violation of the Article is related to the fact that at the time of signing the START Treaty, the Americans concealed their participation in the Saccessor program (Successor) to create a new British SSBN with a universal missile compartment (Сommon Missile Сompartment - CMC) for the Trident- 2.
It turned out that the American corporation General Dynamics has been participating in this program since May 2012 of the year, that is, after the signing of the START Treaty.

The content of the program is disclosed in an article by the consultant of the Royal Navy, Richard Scott, published in HIS Jane's Defense Weekly 30 in May 2012. The article notes that the program "Saxsessor" provides for the development of three or four new SSBNs, which, with 2028, must be received to replace British nuclear submarines of the Vanguard type.

The cost of the four-boat construction project, taking into account inflation, is estimated at 44 billion dollars. It is emphasized that the UK Department of Defense completed the concept development and approved a new-generation SSBN design program in May 2011. The laying of the head boat is planned in 2021 year with the date of its adoption in service in 2027 year.

The article contains a fragment of a statement by the British Ministry of Defense on the implementation of a US program to develop a universal missile compartment (8 – 12 mines) in British SSBNs, which will house Trident-2 missiles with a nuclear warhead.

It is stated that the rocket compartment is being designed by the American corporation General Dynamics with preset overall parameters for promising SLBMs.

At the same time, the British new-generation SSBNs, along with the missile compartments, will be unified with American SSBNs of the Ohio type, which will save the resources of the two countries.

The essence of the third violation of Article XIII lies in the fact that the Americans and Great Britain carry out other types of undeclared cooperation, which are not regulated by the Treaty:
coordination of nuclear planning guidance documents;
selection and coordination of targets;
data development for aiming;
the distribution of targets between carriers and warheads, taking into account their performance and reduction of the combat strength of the US SNA in connection with the implementation of the START Treaty;
coordination of the ballistic route of the passage of carriers through the territory of other states,
coordination of options for the joint use of nuclear forces;
assessment of the options chosen for feasibility, jointly addressing issues of interaction, support and management;
coordination and approval of operational documents;
development of measures to reduce the time of planning and automating the process of re-targeting carriers to unplanned or newly identified targets; development and implementation of uniform forms and methods of combat use, combat duty, operation of weapons and equipment.

It is quite realistic that another nuclear ally, France, which has completed the entry into the military organization of NATO, will be designated in these cooperations.

As a result, the US side, according to the START Treaty, can reduce nuclear warheads to the level of 1550 warheads and lower, since the list of objects of potential adversaries and the composition of nuclear weapons for their destruction are annually updated during joint nuclear planning in the joint strategic command of the US military. Therefore, part of the targets of potential enemies will be assigned to defeat the strategic nuclear forces of the allies.

In this regard, the initiatives of the President of the United States on deeper cuts in strategic offensive arms in conjunction with the reduction of non-strategic nuclear weapons are quite understandable. weapons, besides, without taking into account the deployment of a global US missile defense system and its European segment - Euro missile defense.

The essence of the fourth violation of the START Treaty is that the Americans are in flagrant violation of the clause in the Treaty’s preamble: “... recognizing the relationship between strategic offensive weapons and strategic defensive weapons, the increasing importance of this relationship in the process of reducing strategic nuclear weapons and that the current strategic defensive weapons do not undermine the viability and effectiveness of the strategic offensive arms of the Parties ... ”

The reports of the Defense Minister and the Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces at the international missile defense conference in Moscow in May 2012 indicated that the strategic defense weapons developed by the United States and NATO undermine the viability and reduce the effectiveness of the use of the Russian strategic nuclear forces. In confirmation of this, a computer model was presented, demonstrating the possibility of anti-missile interceptions of Russian ICBMs and SLBMs using EuroMD missiles. In response, we were told: “Your models are imperfect, and the selected source data that was entered into the models is questionable. You did not convince us. We have our own models. ”

Deputy Commander 3rd flotilla nuclear submarines Rear Admiral Vladimir Kuznetsov accompanies US military inspectors during a test of the nuclear facilities of the flotilla in the Gadzhievo garrison. Photo from the NVO archive

According to Russian experts, the EuroPRO system will still be deployed by the 2020 year, greatly reducing the combat capabilities of the Russian strategic nuclear forces. However, a serious threat is predicted in that part of the US warships and ground-based missile launchers of anti-missile systems can be converted to launch ballistic missiles.

Thus, according to the project "Arklayt", based on the SM-3 antimissiles mod. 2B plans to develop a ballistic missile to deliver a hypersonic aircraft at a distance of up to 4000 km. The missiles will be loaded into the launch devices of surface ships and submarines, the ground version of these missile complexes is also being considered, with their deployment in the countries participating in the NATO bloc. R & D is underway to refine the GBI (Ground Based Interceptor) type antimissiles under ballistic missiles for the delivery of various types of combat equipment.

The essence of the fifth violation of the START Treaty is that the Americans are in flagrant violation of the clause stated in the preamble of the Treaty: "... taking into account the influence of ICBMs and SLBMs in conventional equipment on strategic stability ..."

We are talking about the Pentagon’s plans for deploying non-nuclear ICBM and SLBM factions in the short term.

This class of strategic offensive arms is being developed within the framework of the operational-strategic concept of “Instant Global Impact” with adoption by the 2020 year.
At the same time, the Minotaur-2 and Minotaur-3 ICBMs developed using the Minuteman-2 and MX missile launch stages, the basis of the non-nuclear ground-based missile complex, will be undestructed, in violation of the START-1 stage. ).

The formation of an ICBM grouping is planned at Vandenberg airbase (US West Coast) and at Cape Canaveral (East Coast). The possibility of re-equipping part of the “Minuteman-3” ICBM from the existing missile bases was also considered.

In the USALNS, two SLBMs "Trident-2" from 24 on each boat are planned to be equipped with non-nuclear warheads. High accuracy of targeting of warheads will be achieved due to the inertial control system with correction according to the NAVSTAR spaceborne radionavigation system (CRNS).


The destabilizing nature of these missiles lies in the real possibility of nuclear incidents between the United States, Russia and China.
Thus, mutual notifications regarding combat training, test, unauthorized, and random launches of ICBMs and SLBMs operate in peacetime conditions only between Russia and the United States.

It causes an ironic smile that the military leadership of Russia and other states will be pre-informed by the Americans about preparations for the application of preventive strikes by non-nuclear ICBMs and SLBMs for operational destruction of time-critical targets anywhere in the world, for example, North Korea, Iran or Syria. There are no ways to identify launches of ICBMs and SLBMs with non-nuclear warheads and there is no research in this direction.

Channels of direct communication are organized only between the leaders of Russia and the United States, and their involvement will be ineffective. Due to the lack of an international contractual base, there is a problem of promptly notifying the heads of state of the undeclared launches of ICBMs and US SLBMs, coordinating the flight routes of the missiles through their territory, specifying areas of the first and second missiles falling into the ocean, and the third step to the territory of other countries that will inevitably cause complications in relations between states.

The hidden reverse retooling of ICBMs and SLBMs into nuclear weapons is quite real. Moreover, the START Treaty does not define control and inspection procedures and does not provide for the submission of notifications and telemetry information. Under the pretext of conducting test launches of missiles in non-nuclear equipment, it is quite realistic to have uncontrolled improvements in the characteristics of ICBMs, SLBMs and testing of new nuclear warheads.

In addition, the “Minotaur” type ICBMs are not declared as new type of missiles, Russian experts have not regulated their inspections, they have not been preliminarily shown, and there are no distinctive signs.

Violations and deviations from the requirements of the START Treaty and the Annex on Inspection Activities are revealed during inspections at US strategic offensive weapons sites.

Thus, at one of the objects of the START inspection it was recorded that the own identification marks of the Trident-2 SLBM, which were kept in assembled form, were inaccessible for observation, since the number was inscribed inside the first stage. The numbers of the first stages of the missiles that were stored undocked did not match the numbers provided by the Americans in the notifications.

At another object of the START inspection, the IDB numbers were written on a piece of paper, which the Americans pasted on the cover of the rocket nozzle.
Often, the IDB's own identification marks were put on a tag suspended on the fence; whether the number of the missile deployed in the mine corresponded to the duplicate on the tag is unknown.

In addition, the US military continues to use hard covers. As a result, they cannot convincingly prove that the head part of the specified SLBM “Trident-2” launching shaft contains the number of warheads equal to the number that is declared.

However, there is also a major violation of the START Treaty, the essence of which lies in the fact that the Americans do not carry out reductions in strategic offensive arms with the subsequent liquidation of carriers and infrastructure facilities. This is confirmed by the estimates of the director of the project on nuclear information in the Federation of American Scientists Hans Christensen. (See the “US XNA March 2013 Martial Information” table).

As is known, more than two years have passed since the entry into force of the START Treaty.

The table shows that the Americans conducted a reduction in the number of warheads on ICBMs of the Minuteman-3 type and the Trident-2 SLBMs. Strategic bombers В-1В are once again declared for solving non-nuclear problems. At the same time, the technical capabilities for their return to the nuclear status are preserved.
In this regard, the following questions are reasonable. How many ICBMs of the “Minuteman-3” type and SLBM “Trident-2” were destroyed in accordance with Section II of the Protocol to the START Treaty (Procedures for the Elimination of ICBMs and SLBMs) ​​“by first-stage blast”? How many launchers of ICBMs are liquidated according to Section III (Procedures for re-equipment or liquidation of launchers of ICBMs) “by destroying the head of a mine to a depth of at least eight meters”? How many SLBM launchers are destroyed, according to Section IV (Procedures for retrofitting or eliminating SLBM launchers) “by removing the hatches of the launch shafts, fairings, gas generators”?

How many and types of heavy bombers are destroyed, according to Section V (Procedures for the conversion or elimination of heavy bombers) "by cutting the fuselage into two parts"? What are the results of the work of the Russian national technical means of monitoring the progress of the elimination of carriers and infrastructure facilities in the United States of America?

Thus, the American scientist Hans Christensen has documented that the Americans achieve access to the stated levels of nuclear warhead reduction by “unloading” the platforms for breeding warheads and various manipulations with the number of warheads. At the same time, they observe with satisfaction how the Russian side is compelled to destroy unique types of strategic offensive arms, whose exploitation terms have expired. In vain, some of the disarmament officials of Russia and various experts in the field of strategic nuclear forces expect the Pentagon to rush to destroy new ICBMs like Minuteman-3 and SLBM Trident-2, which are being procured.

Most likely, in 2017, the required number of ICBMs and SLBMs will be temporarily decommissioned, as was done with the intercontinental ballistic missile LGM-118A Peacekeeper - MX. We can put as an example the INF Treaty, according to which the unconditional and controlled elimination of a whole class of strategic offensive arms was carried out without any return potentials, except for the non-destroyed instruments of the Pershing-2 missile control system. Meanwhile, Chapter I (Terms and their definitions) of the Protocol to the START Treaty does not even contain the terms "reduction of strategic offensive weapons", "limitations of strategic offensive weapons", "elimination of strategic offensive weapons" and even the most important term - "strategic offensive weapons".

In this regard, it is proposed that the US Department of State soon publish a specific table of eliminated US strategic offensive weapons for two years of the START Treaty, indicating their types, production dates, locations and other data.

As for the article in The Washington Times newspaper about alleged breach of the INF Treaty by the Russian Federation, it should be noted that the range of an intercontinental ballistic missile depends on the parameters of combat use data that are entered into the missile control system, including for the destruction of strategic and critical facilities. likely enemy even at medium range. It's about time for American officials to know.


In conclusion, it is important to emphasize that June 2013 became a landmark month in the international treaty activity of the Russian Federation in the field of control over the reduction of strategic offensive arms. For the first time, Russian President Vladimir Putin has openly declared that the INF Treaty does not fully meet the interests of ensuring the state’s military security: “Other states are actively improving medium-range missiles, and almost all of our neighbors are developing these weapons systems around us. At one time, the Soviet Union and, naturally, the Russian Federation abandoned medium-range missiles, signing an agreement with the United States. This is not very clear, since these systems are generally not relevant for Americans: they have nowhere to use, and for the Soviet Union and for today's Russia, especially given the fact that our other neighboring countries are developing these shock systems, this solution was at least controversial.

By the way, those officials who pushed the country's leadership to make controversial and flawed decisions on the elimination of the INF and START-1, now hello, work in various companies, write articles and give lectures. At the same time, all the blame for making decisions is placed on the leadership of the USSR (RF) of those years, glorifying their own merits.

It should be recognized that in the current START Treaty there is a sufficient number of “irrelevant for the United States and controversial for the Russian Federation” provisions.

It appears that the statement by the President of the Russian Federation allows an independent substantive analysis of the viability of the so-called equal opportunities, balance of interests and parity of the parties enshrined in the START Treaty to begin. To this end, it is proposed to create an independent commission to analyze and evaluate the results of the implementation of the START Treaty for two years; to study the methodology for the development of treaties in the field of reducing strategic offensive arms; deal with the system of selection, preparation and work of the inspection teams of the Russian Federation at the US strategic offensive weapons facilities; analyze the functioning and subordination of the Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation to monitor the implementation of treaties (the National Center for the Reduction of Nuclear Danger) and the effectiveness of its interaction with other Russian entities involved in the implementation of the Treaties; Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation to verify the correctness of the expenditure of budgetary funds allocated for the implementation of liquidation measures and their communication to the troops performing liquidation measures; tax authorities of the Russian Federation to verify the correctness of the distribution and expenditure of financial and material resources previously allocated under the Nunn – Lugar Program.

The Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office should conduct a prosecutor’s check on the implementation of Federal Law 28 of January 2011 of the Year No. 1-ФЗ “On Ratification of the Treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on Measures for Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms”, especially regarding New types of strategic offensive arms and the state of rocket production cooperation. Conduct a legal examination of speeches in the media of managers of various levels, allowing the disclosure of the performance characteristics of new types of strategic offensive arms, data from construction plans and other information constituting a state secret. Other areas of work may be proposed.

Data on the combat strength of US strategic offensive forces for March 2013 of the year
American Violations of the INF and START Treaties
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Rus2012
    22 July 2013 06: 27
    The time has come, firstly, to cancel the INF Treaty, and secondly, to demand the linking of strategic offensive arms to missile defense and the inclusion in the negotiations of all countries with nuclear and missile technologies ...
    1. Sirocco
      Sirocco 22 July 2013 07: 49
      It's time to fight the United States and England, by their own methods, where they fight poorly? In their territories, here it is necessary for them to organize NGOs "ROBIN THE HOOD"to help the citizens of these countries, both in word and deed, as long as they can tolerate the arbitrariness of these moneybags. laughing And all these Amerov violations are in the same team with Gorbachev's betrayal. This includes not only SMD missiles but also Ballistic, Aviation, Fleet, so to speak factories, factories, and ships. All this is a consequence of the betrayal of his people, MS Gorbachev. But everything is not so bad, since the EU and its partners are screaming, it means we are on the right path, let the cheeks continue to blow. And on account of "Robin Hood" I would take this topic seriously, since they can, then why shouldn't we have our opposition in their camp.
      1. INTER
        INTER 22 July 2013 09: 43
        Quote: Sirocco
        The time has come to fight with the United States and England, by their own methods, where do they fight badly? On their territories, so they need to organize an NGO "ROBIN GOOD", to help the citizens of these countries in word and deed, how much they can tolerate the arbitrariness of these

        To begin with, we need to properly strengthen and put our train on the rails. Just started to get out of the pit, after the dashing 90s the country was stormy and only now the weather has changed, but you should not relax as they say "Calm before the storm". It is necessary to prepare and prepare thoroughly, Stalin not for nothing delayed the war with all sorts of agreements. Cleverly in the style of Putin to avoid provocations!
      2. smirnov
        smirnov 22 July 2013 17: 01
        Rate the reaction)) All this scum understands ...
  2. domokl
    domokl 22 July 2013 06: 33
    Even at the time of the signing of the Treaty, the military spoke of a terrible mistake of our leadership. The Americans deprived us of the opportunity to quickly strike at NATO bases. And NATO got a huge advantage. You need to cancel the treaty and engage in real defense
    1. Rus2012
      22 July 2013 06: 48
      Quote: domokl
      Even at the time of the signing of the Treaty, the military spoke of a terrible mistake of our leadership

      That's it!
      Recently, I’m looking for an answer to the question, why did the Politburo leave the installation of RSD in Europe unanswered? After the Caribbean crisis, EVERYTHING was returned to the national territories, both by us and them ...
      Pershin-2 in Europe was the reason for the denunciation of the Caribbean accords. Those. we had every right to push the RSD back to Cuba ...
      For some reason, such aspirations were not observed then ...
  3. PSih2097
    PSih2097 22 July 2013 06: 33
    In my humble opinion, this contract is Treaty between the USSR and the USA on the elimination of intermediate and shorter-range missiles - It was necessary to lower the toilet immediately after the Americans withdrew from the ABM Treaty and the beginning of agreements with the Young Europeans on the construction of radar and anti-missile bases on their territory.
    1. engineer74
      engineer74 22 July 2013 07: 51
      Why so rude? Conclude a bilateral agreement, for example, with Belarus to limit the number of RSDs and produce 2000 pieces each.
      1. cosmos111
        cosmos111 22 July 2013 09: 15

        The US side openly and grossly violates key articles of the INF Treaty, developing medium- and short-range target missiles to test elements of a global US missile defense system and an European missile defense system.

        America concludes only those treaties and for those armaments for which it lags behind the USSR-Russia. As soon as they get a breakthrough in this area, the USA immediately withdraws from this treaty. (So in the USSR they were destroyed, having no analogues ... . missiles cf. and short range) Recall that they are and are constantly being improved by China, Pakistan, Britain, France. And all are aimed at Russia
  4. slaventi
    slaventi 22 July 2013 06: 41
    The United States withdrew from the ABM Treaty; there is reason to withdraw from the INF Treaty.
  5. ia-ai00
    ia-ai00 22 July 2013 06: 51
    So when the aMerikosov did not disagree with their deeds? They "teach" the whole WORLD how to behave, and they themselves do everything the other way around. And these treaties on the INF and START were adopted during the "reign" of the Gorbochev, who then sold his Motherland with the Russian Federation, and the USSR fulfilled all the "reached" agreements, but they were not in a hurry, while the Gorby did not resent the Amerikos, and in response did not stopped undermining the defenses of the USSR.
  6. valokordin
    valokordin 22 July 2013 06: 54
    One thing is clear Americans cannot be trusted, so there is only hope for yourself and stop talking about their democracy. Of course, our and their capabilities are not comparable, so we must act within our capabilities but more efficiently.
  7. regsSSSR
    regsSSSR 22 July 2013 07: 15
    we have a national tradition such in Russia first to launch all the best effective weapons (shark missiles, white swans) under a knife while signing a couple of filink letters of advantage to Kamu, but not to us! and in twenty years it will come to its senses to grab hold of your head and realize that the neodin the signed contract does not work and even thinks no one is being respected and begin to restore everything! and so with us in everything!
  8. Alexander Romanov
    Alexander Romanov 22 July 2013 08: 24
    I didn’t read the article about violations, but everything that we agree with the USA is not useful. We fulfill, and they score or simply withdraw from the contract. So why do we demand legal guarantees on missile defense today that they will give us ???
    1. wax
      wax 22 July 2013 18: 23
      why do we demand legal guarantees for missile defense today that they will give us ???

      I think everyone understands that there are no guarantees, but on a propaganda plane, evidence-based debunking of the enemy nowadays makes a lot of sense. States are convinced of this by the example of RT.
  9. KazaK Bo
    KazaK Bo 22 July 2013 08: 44
    Of course, violating international treaties is not very good! But if you really, really want AMERS, then you can! To others - NI-ZAAAAA! And they can!
    Therefore, the question will also be legitimate - how long will we flow to the wishes of the United States! Well, they "fool" us, they fool us! And with the number of BRND ... and with ICBMs ... and with R&D, ..and with missile defense! And most importantly, they are going to reduce the number of nuclear weapons between our two countries ... but at the same time they are helping to build up the nuclear potential of their allies! We are reducing ... aMera, it seems, too, and the nuclear potential of our enemies eventually grows!
    And why do we need this "filkin certificate" then? This treaty for the reduction of ICBMs and MRBMs ....
    If such an agreement is needed, there are no questions, EVERYONE SIGNS IT! WHO OWNS YAO! And with a mandatory link on the presence of missile defense systems, measures to limit them! You can have good ICBMs, but with excellent missile defense, they will turn into a "garden scarecrow." Everything should be integrated.
  10. Starover_Z
    Starover_Z 22 July 2013 10: 14
    Yes, simply "quietly" to raise several laboratories, design bureaus, under neutral signs "Agricultural equipment" give them a fragment of the documentation and let them be engaged in the restoration and improvement of the RIAC based on new materials and technologies. And financing should be carried out by some private shop, "farmers".
    To test engines to rent stands, supposedly "wind-blower".
    Private traders were not mentioned in the Agreements, so let the amers then "wash away" when they find out.
    1. dustycat
      dustycat 22 July 2013 19: 58

      Why so hard ?!
      The easiest way to hang signs House of young technicians. Rocket model circle.
      And sell through a hobby magazine.
      And what’s wrong with the load, the mass-size model of warheads ?! This is the same model of missiles!
  11. Bashkaus
    Bashkaus 22 July 2013 10: 26
    In general, looking at how recently they began to exaggerate this topic, we can make an argument that public opinion is preparing to withdraw from the treaty on medium-range missiles)))
    1. wax
      wax 22 July 2013 18: 25
      public opinion is preparing to withdraw from the agreement on

      public opinion in the West, ours - only "for".
  12. stroporez
    stroporez 22 July 2013 10: 55
    I don’t understand ............ that’s how amers are bad --- they are deceiving such cool boys ......... but shaw, the boys didn’t know with whom they were negotiating !!! ???? ? some kindergarten ............ already takes evil .....
  13. 12345
    12345 22 July 2013 12: 38
    Well, dys, citizens? Who else has the thread still have any illusions? Huh?

    The West opens its arms solely for the purpose of subsequent strangulation.

    And everyone who invites us to this embrace is definitely horrible. How was it customary to deal with traitors, no one remembers? It was a pity to spend a bullet on them.

    The world of capitalism is a world of wild jungle. Whoever has sharper teeth and claws is right. And all sorts of slogans and calls for "democracy" are the bait with which the angler fish waves in front of its victim's nose, before swallowing this very victim ...

    Russia’s happiness - in its size, could not be swallowed right away. But they bit off a lot. I will not forget - I will not forgive.
  14. varov14
    varov14 22 July 2013 14: 42
    We are fooled, and we are glad families live in Europe.
  15. The comment was deleted.
  16. individual
    individual 22 July 2013 15: 28
    Any contract with the US for Americans is like a dummy pacifier.
    Content is no filling. am
  17. SPACE
    SPACE 22 July 2013 19: 23
    ... "So, according to the Arclight project, based on the SM-3 mod. 2B interceptors, it is planned to develop a ballistic missile to deliver a hypersonic aircraft to a range of up to 4000 km. The missiles will be loaded into the launchers of surface ships and submarines. a ground-based version of these missile systems with their deployment in NATO member countries. Research and development work is underway to refine the GBI (Ground Based Interceptor) anti-missile system for ballistic missiles to deliver various types of military equipment "...
    Amazing A couple of months ago, exactly the same thing, he claimed the same about SM3, (for Patsantra he would not lie!), Although the range of the hypersonic planning unit indicated 5000 km ... We are told that missile defense is anti-missile, but when they are secretly hung on them The nuclear warheads not only on stationary, but also on marine carriers and they become the INF missiles and they get the advantage of the first strike. How tricky, why wait until the rocket takes off from the mine during a retaliatory strike, all the more they understand that they can’t be guaranteed to intercept the BB, it’s easier to place shock complexes near and along the borders under the guise of a missile defense and get an advantage in flight time so that they get out of the first strike building our SNF.
    Z.Y. As he looked into the water ...
  18. dustycat
    dustycat 22 July 2013 19: 46
    And who according to the afftor should protest and against whom?
    Agents versus Center?
    As one acting president of the Russian Federation said - now the autumn will come - I'll show you! Eat Viagra! wassat
    It’s easier for our designers to do rocket modeling.
    And the hell with two who prikopitsya that short- and medium-range missiles - these are only prototype models of real rockets. hi tongue
  19. Yuri Y.
    Yuri Y. 23 July 2013 02: 54
    Quote: Wax
    public opinion is preparing to withdraw from the agreement on

    public opinion in the West, ours - only "for".

    Anyway, I’m not saying that NATO missiles were not taken into account, now there are new threats. China, even such a dummy as Israel, is waving something. One would have at least 20-40 pieces (dreams).
  20. astra
    astra 23 July 2013 23: 09
    In the photo, the OKA complex eh ... such a complex was destroyed, like many others - the BZHRK. It seems to me that he is still better than the Iskander. If there is an opportunity to revive, then it is necessary to revive immediately, taking into account modern technologies, I think it will be much better than the Iskander. It is necessary to break off agreements with America because they do not comply with them, and they do everything based on their interests.