Military Review

Russia, it makes no sense to withdraw from the START Treaty

Russia, it makes no sense to withdraw from the START Treaty
For only 2014, the 22 intercontinental ballistic missiles RS-24 "Yars" of mobile and silo-based missiles must be delivered to the troops.

Mikhail Ulyanov, director of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s security and disarmament department, told 3 February 2014 that Russia could use the right to withdraw from the (Prague) Strategic Offensive Arms Treaty (START) if the United States continues to develop the global anti-missile defense system. In his opinion, “the United States continues to increase its missile defense potential without taking into account the interests and concerns of Russia. Such a policy is fraught with undermining strategic stability. ”

There is no doubt that this statement is a serious warning to the American side in the face of growing bilateral contradictions. The latter, of course, are not of a fundamental nature and do not indicate the beginning of a new cold war. But they reflect a growing misunderstanding of Moscow and Washington, not only with regard to missile defense, the reduction of strategic nuclear weapons, the withdrawal of European tactical nuclear weapons from Europe. weapons (TNW), the implementation by the US armed forces of the concept of “Fast global strike” or the placement of weapons in space. This is also observed with regard to ways of resolving armed conflicts in Syria and Afghanistan, resolving the Iranian nuclear crisis and restoring internal stability in Ukraine. As a result, Russian-American relations are now at the lowest point of their development since the 1990s.

As a result, for example, the US Congress adopted the so-called Magnitsky law, to which the Russian side responded in the same way - a number of working groups of the presidential commission, previously created by Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama, were suspended, etc. Under these conditions, it is necessary to take a very balanced approach to any questions of the destruction of the existing legal framework, so as not to create additional problems for yourself in the future. Consider this on the example of a possible withdrawal of the Russian Federation from the new (Prague) Treaty on strategic offensive arms.


At the expert level, the new START Treaty is often compared with the Moscow Treaty on the Reduction of Strategic Offensive Potentials (2002), according to which the levels of strategic nuclear warheads by 2012 should have been reduced to 1700 – 2200 units. In the Prague Treaty, the upper ceiling of the warheads was 1550, which indicates its formal reduction by 30%.

In fact, this level did not decline, as the offset rules were seriously changed: the number of nuclear warheads on sea and land carriers began to be counted after the fact, and on air carriers as follows - one nuclear warhead for each heavy (strategic) bomber. Although, for example, the Russian Tu-160 is capable of carrying 12 airborne cruise missiles. As a result, there was a discrepancy between the declared and actual number of deployed nuclear warheads and the return potential significantly increased due to the possibility of "reloading" of warheads. Taken together, this allows the United States to reach the level of 4,0 – 4,5 thousand strategic warheads on strategic carriers, and Russia - 2,5 – 3,0 thousand in a fairly short time.

Of course, in the Prague Treaty there are restrictions on the number of strategic carriers: no more than 700 “deployed” and 100 “non-deployed”, but this level needs to be reached only seven years after its ratification.


28 January 2011 President Dmitry Medvedev signed a federal law ratifying the new START Treaty, indicating that Russian-American cooperation continued in the area of ​​nuclear arms reduction.

However, the process of ratification in the US Senate of the New START Treaty was quite difficult, which was due to both the intensification of the internal political struggle between Democrats and Republicans, and the reluctance of the American side to limit their capabilities in deploying a global missile defense system.

The treaty was submitted to the Senate in May 2010, and its ratification required the support of not only Democratic senators, but also eight Republican senators. This forced the Obama administration to make serious concessions: agree to allocate 85 billion dollars over ten years to modernize nuclear weapons and assure that the United States will not refuse to deploy a powerful and effective missile defense system in Europe. This was formalized in the form of two unilateral resolutions, which significantly increased the level of mistrust between Russia and the United States.

In the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation closely followed the process of ratification of the Prague Treaty on strategic offensive arms in the US Senate. As a result, the following was reflected in the Russian resolution on the treaty:

- the need to develop, test, produce and deploy new types of strategic offensive weapons capable of overcoming missile defense;

- the obligation to maintain the combat readiness of strategic nuclear forces (SNF) in any development of the international situation due to the preservation and development of the necessary research (development) base and the corresponding production capacity;

- the possibility of Russia withdrawing from the treaty in the event of such a substantial violation by the United States of America of its conditions that would pose a threat to the national security of the Russian Federation, as well as the deployment of the United States, another state or a group of missile defense systems capable of significantly reducing the effectiveness of the combat use of the Russian strategic nuclear forces.

In general, the new START Treaty is balanced and takes into account Russian national interests. However, in the process of ratification, each of the parties began to interpret the agreements reached in different ways, primarily regarding the relationship between strategic offensive and defensive weapons, which was reflected in the preamble of the treaty. In the United States, it was considered that this does not oblige them to anything, since this was not reflected in the main text of this treaty. Russia, on the contrary, began to consider such a relationship as a possible basis for withdrawing from the Prague Treaty.


The most serious discrepancy between the positions of Russia and the United States is observed regarding the deployment of a forward-based missile defense system (elements of strategic missile defense) in Europe, that is, in relative proximity to the borders of the Russian Federation. The latter, according to Russian military analysts, has an impact on the effectiveness of the combat use of the strategic nuclear forces of our country.

It should be noted that within the framework of the “Phased Adaptive Approach”, the Obama administration refused to deploy on the military base in Poland two-stage analogues of mine-based anti-missiles Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI). Instead, the focus was on the SM-3 three-staged sea-based antimissiles.

Currently, US naval forces have 5 Ticonderoga type cruisers and 21 destroyers such as Arly Burke (at the beginning of 2014, their total number increased to 29 warships). All of them are equipped with the Aegis missile control system with SM-3 interceptor missiles designed for kinetic interception of ballistic missiles and their warheads. Of these warships, about 40% are in the area of ​​responsibility of NATO.

In November 2011, an agreement was reached between Washington and Madrid on the use of the Spanish naval base Rota to station four US ships on a rotational basis with anti-missile complexes.

Now SM-3 interceptor missiles in Block 1A modification with a booster speed of 3,5 km / s (according to some sources - 3 km / s) are mass-produced. This anti-missile system is capable of carrying out a kinetic interception of a ballistic target at altitudes of 70 – 250 km and a distance of up to 700 – 750 km. By 2015, the modification will appear - Block 1B, and by 2018, the SM-3 Block 2А. The maximum flight speed of the anti-missile missiles of the last modification will be up to 5,5 km / s.

Europe’s anti-missile defense is enhanced by ground-based interceptors of short- and medium-range missiles. These include the Patriot PAC-3 anti-aircraft missile systems designed to protect small objects, the AN / TPY-2 radar of the three-centimeter range for detecting and tracking ballistic targets, and the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) to cover limited areas.

The development of the American missile defense system is hampered not only by the altitude and speed restrictions of interceptor missiles, but also by the insufficient range of their guidance systems. Thus, the above-mentioned mobile radar AN / TPY-2 has a maximum detection range of ballistic targets 1,5 thousand km (warheads - up to 1 thousand km). At longer ranges, external sources of targeting have to be used.

Nevertheless, in October 2013, the United States began to build in Deveselu, Romania, a base for deploying X-NUMX interceptors SM-24 Block-3 In the Aegis Ashor ground system. These antimissiles are designed to intercept only short-range and medium-range ballistic missiles (warheads). Three years later, the Americans are going to deploy an 1 interceptor of the following modification - SM-24 Block 3А at a military base near the town of Slupsk in Poland.

In Moscow, this caused confusion due to the apparent lack of a missile threat from Iran, and even more so from other states. This is somewhat different in Washington, where they say that the creation of a missile defense system takes a long time. This takes into account that Iran is preparing to adopt the Sajil-2 solid-fuel rocket. With a warhead weighing 750 kg its maximum firing range is 2,3 thousand. Km. In the case of replacing a number of missile materials with composite ones, the range of its flight with a similar warhead can be increased to 3,0 – 3,5 thousand km.

Russia's fears intensified even more when NATO warships with SM-3 antimissiles began to periodically enter the Black, North and Norwegian Seas. The latter is of fundamental importance for the Russian Federation, since it is technically possible for the US missile defense to intercept the launching Russian submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) ​​and their warheads on the ascending segment of the flight trajectory.

In the Russian Federation, there is considerable concern about the fact that the third stage of the “Phased Adaptive Approach” is planned to be implemented by the 2018 year, which coincides with the end of the cuts under the new START Treaty. The segment of the global missile defense system being created in Europe will pose a potential threat to our strategic nuclear forces, so Russia does not rule out an early withdrawal from the new START Treaty.

Trident II sea-based ballistic missiles will soon become or have already become the main component of the US nuclear potential


There are also the following problems that could push Russia to withdraw from the Prague Treaty on strategic offensive arms.

First, in one of the resolutions of the US Senate, adopted on the ratification of the Prague Treaty on Strategic Offensive Arms, the highest executive authorities were instructed to begin negotiations with Russia on the reduction of tactical nuclear weapons. The need for such negotiations is due to the concerns of the American side that the Russian Federation has a significant superiority in tactical nuclear weapons. So, according to Western estimates, Russia has 11 thousand such nuclear warheads (including those to be disposed of), and the US has 8,5 thousand warheads.

However, in Moscow they consider that at first Washington should return nuclear warheads stationed in Europe to the national territory. The United States cannot do this in the near future due to previous commitments to its allies - members of NATO. Russia, seriously lagging behind the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in the field of conventional weapons, having an extremely unstable situation in relative proximity to its southern borders and a large population in the neighboring state suffering from a lack of natural resources, is also not interested in holding talks on reducing TNW. Moreover, such weapons have dual-purpose carriers (can be used both in nuclear and conventional equipment) and are single with strategic storage facilities for nuclear warheads.

Secondly, the new START Treaty in no way limits the number of US high-precision sea-based cruise missiles (SLCMs), which under certain conditions can play the role of strategic weapons. Worse, the four Ohio-type SSBNs have already been converted into carriers of non-nuclear Tomahawk SLCMs. Similar retrofitting is carried out with respect to strategic bombers. As a result, the huge American potential of non-nuclear precision weapons increases significantly. Under the terms of the Prague Treaty, this process will continue, as the United States now has 792 deployed strategic carriers on which 1654 nuclear warheads are installed. This exceeds the maximum level for both carriers and warheads. And Americans do not plan to destroy such carriers.

Thirdly, under the terms of the Agreement, the provision of telemetric information becomes voluntary and reciprocal. But the mechanism of exchanging such information is unclear, since the United States has not produced new strategic missile systems for a long time and rarely launch ballistic missiles. Theoretically, the mutual exchange of telemetry data developed by Russian offensive and US defensive systems is possible. But Washington is not ready for this level of transparency.

But let us consider further the possible consequences of the withdrawal of the Russian Federation from the Prague Treaty on Strategic Offensive Arms.


There is no doubt that during the implementation of the Prague Treaty on START, Russia significantly reduced deployed nuclear warheads on strategic carriers. So, in the 2009, the RF had 608 such carriers with 2683 nuclear warheads. At the beginning of their 2013, 492 became their 1480 warheads. However, this largely happened due to the decommissioning of those carriers, to extend the period of use of which it has become technically impossible.

It should also be borne in mind that Russia and the United States have a different structure of strategic nuclear forces. The Americans are focusing on their naval component, which means that 2018 has deployed 12 naval forces and 2 naval ballistic missile submarines of the Ohio constantly in overhaul by 20. In addition, each of them will have 24 or 288 SLBMs. As a result, the total number will not exceed the 1138 Trident II SLBM with 4 warheads (of the order of 8 warheads on a rocket with a standard number of at least 73 warheads of increased power). In this case, the contribution of the naval component to the US nuclear warheads for nuclear warheads will be 10%. Another option is to reduce the Ohio-type SSBNs to 4 and retrofit the remaining XNUMXs to the SLCMs.

In addition, the Americans will leave the Minuteman III, 350 (400) strategic bomber B-44 and 42 bombers BNXX (52) monoblock intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) in combat status. For this, about 18 strategic bombers will be re-equipped to solve non-nuclear tasks (from the Russian point of view, this process is reversible).

Historically, in Russia, the ground-based component of the SNF was the main one. According to reports, the following types of ICBMs are currently in service with the Strategic Missile Forces: 50 P-36М UTTH / P-36М2 (SS-18 Satan) of mine bases with 500 nuclear warheads; 68 UR-100НТТХ (SS-19 Stiletto) silo-based with 408 warheads; 153 monoblock RT-2PM Topol (SS-25 Sickle) mobile home; 78 monoblock RT-2PM2 Topol-M (SS-27 Sickle B), including 18 mobile-based complexes; and 36 PC-24 “Yars” of mobile and silo-based 108 warheads. Collectively, this will be 385 carriers with 1247 warheads.

The marine component of Russia's SNF includes 7 ballistic missile submarine (RPK SN), including five submarines 667 BDRM "Delfin" project RSM-29RMU2 (P-29RMU2.1) and two submarines 955 "Borey" project with SLBMs "Bulava- 30. In total, they carry 112 SLBMs with 512 nuclear warheads (they are supposed to be deployed on the R-29RMU2 4 warhead SLBMs, and on the Bulava-30 SLBM - 6 warheads).

The air component of the Russian strategic nuclear forces consists of strategic bombers: 32 turboprop Tu-95MS and 13 supersonic Tu-160. According to the rules of offset, adopted in the Prague Treaty on strategic offensive weapons, they include the total of 45 nuclear warheads (in the US it is believed that Russia has 63 turboprop Tu-95MS bomber).

According to estimates, SNFs now include 542 deployed strategic carriers with 1804 nuclear warheads. At the same time, there is an excess of the limit of the new START Treaty on Warheads. In 2013, the SNF potential increased due to the adoption of two Borei 955 project and modern YBR ICBM RS-24 Yars mine and mobile basing.

According to US data, to 2018 year Russia will remain in service 20 ICBM R-36M2 with 200 warheads, 87 monoblock PT 2PM2 "Topol-M", including 27 mobile home complexes, and 85 RS-24 "yars" mobile and silo based on 255 warheads. Collectively, this would be the 192 carrier with 542 warheads.

In addition, Russia may have 8 RPK SN, including four submarines of the 667 BDRM Dolphin submarine with an SLBM R-29RMU2.1 and four submarines of the 955 (955A) project Borey with an SLBM Bulava-30 (128 BRPLA with a chart and a line with a chart . In this case, along the warheads, the main component of the Russian Federation Strategic Nuclear Forces will transfer to the naval component.

Assuming that the air component of the domestic strategic nuclear forces remains unchanged, in general, the Russian Federation will have 365 deployed strategic carriers with 1227 nuclear warheads. Undoubtedly, in this case, Moscow will have a nuclear potential much lower than that established by the Prague Treaty on strategic offensive arms.

In reality, with the help of Ukrainian specialists, based on the analysis of the launches and special studies, Russia can extend the life of the P-36М2 MBR to 35 years. Then by the year 2018 it will keep about 30 MBR of this type, which will increase the number of warheads on the deployed carriers to 1327. Most likely, with a similar extension of service life, the 20 MBR UR-100N UTTH with 120 warheads will remain in service. But even in this case we will not go beyond the limits established by the Treaty.

For the rest of the missile systems, the following can be noticed. It will be practically impossible to maintain the monoblock RT-2PM Topol as part of the SNF due to their mobile basing. Deliveries to the monoblock troops RT-2PM2 Topol-M will soon cease, instead they will receive only PC-24 Yars mobile and mine-based. The rate of their purchases for the 2014 year will be approximately the 22 MBR. If it is saved by the end of 2018, the Armed Forces of the country will have 146 of such missile systems with 438 warheads (it is assumed that three warheads with a set of missile defense weapons will be installed on one rocket). With such assumptions, which will be extremely difficult to implement due to the low economic development of the country, by the time the conditions of the Prague Treaty on the Start are fulfilled, our country will have 456 deployed strategic carriers with 1630 warheads. At the same time, the limit on the number of warheads is quite simple to solve. To do this, you only need to “unload” to 4 the number of warheads on the Bulava-30 SLBM. Then the total number will be 1502 warheads, which is fully consistent with the terms of the new START Treaty. Therefore, it makes no sense for Russia to withdraw from this treaty.

Separate consideration is the question of creating a heavy ICBM in the Russian Federation to replace the P-36М2. It is planned to adopt it by the 2018 year, but Russian practice shows that it is more realistic to talk about the 2020 year. The new heavy ICBM will gradually replace the remaining P-36М2, and the UR-100Н УТТХ will already be decommissioned. Therefore, the emergence of a heavy ICBM, as well as the continued production of the PC-24 Yars for quite a long time (at least until the 2025 year) will not require Russia to withdraw from the treaty in question. The same will happen for the naval component of the SNF, where as the PKK SN of the 955 (955A) Borey project is commissioned (their number is planned to be increased to eight), the RPK SN of the 667 BDRM Dolphin project will be decommissioned.

The situation will not fundamentally change even if a new combat railway complex (BZHRK) is put into service in the Russian Federation, since for financial reasons the start of production of BZHRK will lead to a reduction in the rate of purchases of the new heavy ICBM and RS-24 Yars. In addition, this type of missile complex, as a rule, has a small number of missiles in one train, which serves as an analogue of a missile regiment. It is hard to believe that the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation will have more than one division of such complexes in, for example, six regiments. Therefore, this will not be an imperative for Moscow to withdraw from the new START Treaty.


The above estimates show that from a military point of view, even in the medium term, Russia has no clear need to withdraw from the Prague Treaty on strategic offensive arms. Given the current trends in the development of national strategic nuclear forces, Moscow may well remain within the established limits. At the same time, no one restricts it in deploying intercontinental range ballistic missiles with various types of combat equipment, reorienting, if necessary, strategic bombers to solve exclusively non-nuclear missions, using previously built mine launchers to deploy the RS-24 "Yars" (advanced missile complexes) or "unloading" of ballistic missiles. In fact, this agreement does little to restrict Russia in modernizing its own “triad”. So why do we need to get out of it, if the United States in any case will deploy the European segment of the global missile defense system? Thus, we will not stop Americans, but at the same time we will get serious negative consequences.

First, the withdrawal of the Russian Federation from the treaty will deal a powerful blow to Russian-American and Russian-Western relations as a whole. They are already limited due to the many areas of non-cooperation, and rivalry. We cannot even agree on Afghanistan, which is creating an increasingly real threat to the strategically important region of Central Asia. Is it really necessary to create additional problems in the political and economic spheres?

Secondly, Russian positions in the international arena will weaken as a state advocating the preservation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and the relevant regimes. At the same time, Moscow, which does not want to continue the process of reducing nuclear armaments, will find itself under heavy fire from non-aligned states. At the nearest NPT review conference, she will be accused of not wanting to fulfill her obligations as an official nuclear state.

Third, the work of the UN Security Council in resolving the Iranian and North Korean nuclear crises will be seriously hindered. If Russia can withdraw from the New START Treaty, then why, for example, Iran or some other state cannot withdraw from the NPT, which threatens to destroy the entire global nuclear non-proliferation regime? Referring to the relevant American experience here will not work, as the United States is still perceived by many as the only superpower.

Fourthly, the elements of the global missile defense system being created in Europe by the US and other NATO member states are easily copied by methods already implemented or planned for implementation in the Russian Armed Forces: by deploying missile defense systems on missiles, reducing the active part of the missile flight, the creation of a powerful new ICBM, the development of BZHRK, etc. This is quite enough for the entire foreseeable future due to the technical impossibility of the United States in such conditions to protect itself even from a group launch of Russian strategic carriers.

Thus, Russia's withdrawal from the new START Treaty will not bring it obvious advantages, but will create additional problems. Of course, it is not necessary to negotiate with the American side on the further reduction of nuclear weapons, for example, up to 1000 – 1200 deployed warheads on strategic carriers. But why in the conditions of a negligible probability of mutual exchange of nuclear strikes to rush to exit from the said agreement before the 2020 year? It is much more reasonable to sustain a pause and objectively assess the prospects of the Prague Treaty on strategic offensive arms, based on Russian national interests.
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Same lech
    Same lech 23 February 2014 08: 50
    It is much wiser to pause and objectively assess the prospects of the Prague START Treaty, based on Russian national interests.

    It was wiser not to conclude any contracts at all.
    In addition, by 2020, Americans can bring their global missile defense to mind and sit relying on old treaties, the stupid world is changing, the threats of RUSSIA are only growing due to the aggressive policies of the WEST - many countries acquire their nuclear shields and RUSSIA must take this into account.
    1. ele1285
      ele1285 23 February 2014 09: 09
      Quote: The same Lech
      It was wiser not to conclude any contracts at all.

      Of course, it’s better, the most offensive, is that the Americans will bring their missile defense at the expense of the brains of Russia, which they bought corny, and we have all the scum proposing to divide Russia into the Urals.
      Now I understand the slogan - "if you are a liberal, you will save Russia,
      And you Lech, a thousand miles pluses
      1. Roman Skomorokhov
        Roman Skomorokhov 23 February 2014 10: 24
        The Americans will bring missile defense to some natural end by not washing, so by skating. It is as if indisputable.
        It seems to me that it is best to oppose them with something that simply negates their whole camarilla. And undermine the fuck and finally the budget. We have enough minds.
        It is possible to withdraw from the contract, but is it necessary? Stamping missiles is not a problem, the problem is WHAT missiles to stamp.
        And then, nuclear weapons are still a means of deterrence, whatever one may say. The first application will be the last, so what's the difference, 2000 warheads will launch each side or 3000? It has long been estimated that thousands are enough for everyone ...
      2. Very old
        Very old 23 February 2014 11: 11
        Add and from me - maaalenky plus sign in the appendage

        Thanks to FUCK and the spanked bald head - they have "friends" and "partners" all over the world
        Bush friend, Kohl friend

        What kind of agreements can exist with USA, they don’t adhere to them, either verbally (after all, Gorbach thought of it!), Nor written
    2. Tersky
      Tersky 23 February 2014 11: 05
      Quote: The same LYOKHA
      In addition, by 2020, Americans can bring their global missile defense to mind and sit relying on old treaties. Silly world changes

      ! +! You have to be blind in both eyes and sick to the full, so as not to see that the United States has for many years quickly and clearly encircled Russia with strike bases around the entire perimeter, trying to secure direct access to Russia from any direction and get as close as possible to the largest Russian economic centers from the west, south and east. By and large, this problem has not yet been solved only in the southeast direction, but China and the solution to the problem have not yet been seen there. From the south-west, Ukraine, and in the light of recent events, one should not exclude it as another springboard for US bases.
      1. Geisenberg
        Geisenberg 23 February 2014 14: 23
        Quote: Tersky
        You have to be blind in both eyes and sick to the full, so as not to see that the United States has for many years quickly and clearly encircled Russia with strike bases around the perimeter,

        So that they do not tax there, you can safely impose on them. Any movement of them across the borders of the Russian Federation automatically leads to the destruction of their metropolis. This is all a weak game. It will surrender to the Russian Federation with a load of obvious power, then the American dead woman will come to life, but for now they will bury themselves even deeper. Even if the perimeter is built along our border, where they will be allowed of course, this does not affect the flight path through the pole.
      2. antipendos
        antipendos 24 February 2014 02: 06
        Yes, only for this the Americans are arranging this mess around Russia while they are distracted by it and the bases are already there
    3. Army1
      Army1 23 February 2014 16: 29
      Quote: The same Lech
      It is much wiser to pause and objectively assess the prospects of the Prague START Treaty, based on Russian national interests.

      It was wiser not to conclude any contracts at all.
      In addition, by 2020, Americans can bring their global missile defense to mind and sit relying on old treaties, the stupid world is changing, the threats of RUSSIA are only growing due to the aggressive policies of the WEST - many countries acquire their nuclear shields and RUSSIA must take this into account.

      I am tormented by vague doubts about the American missile defense, and is it a missile defense? They are not deploying offensive potential, I hope the GRU knows us better.
  2. Name
    Name 23 February 2014 08: 54
    RUSSIA does not make sense to go about NATO about missile defense, and the author:Much wiser not to be so Russian-pessimistic and Americanized ... repeat
  3. From Germany
    From Germany 23 February 2014 08: 59
    The US-Americans promised that "NATO will not move an inch east" - kept the promise? It has long been known that the United States and NATO are acting at the same time, but START (1-3) takes into account only the forces of the United States and Russia. This agreement is a swindle and deception, in order to weaken the military positions of Russia, and, ideally, simply to neutralize the nuclear threat from Russia, which will enable the United States and its henchmen, in the event of a military conflict, to destroy most of the Russian population with impunity and seize resources in their arms. Already due to the fact that the author simply kept silent about this most important fact, but tried to motivate his conclusion with some, in my humble opinion, delusional "buns" - the article fails.
    1. Roman Skomorokhov
      Roman Skomorokhov 23 February 2014 10: 27
      Quote: From Germany
      destroy the majority of the population of Russia and seize resources in their own hands.

      If I agree with the first, then with the second, as it were, no. NF is not a means of capturing resources. The point is in resources, if after applying there something can be obtained in years through 100?
      1. From Germany
        From Germany 23 February 2014 11: 15
        I think you know the decay time of an atom. After how many decades it will be possible to fully use the resources of Russia, where it is precisely the Russians who extract these same resources that will breathe radioactive dust? Let me remind you: M. Thatcher said at the time to Gorbachev: Living in the USSR is economically justified no more than 15 million.

        Here's a convenient amount to keep under control. No, of course I’m already painting everything with too black colors (although I think it’s better to overdo it than ...). But it’s not just that they want to negate parity with nuclear weapons (although if you look at the NATO countries in general + Israel + Pakistan, there is no parity here, the only thing is so far as the retaliatory strike will lead to unacceptable losses in human numbers , and in the economic sector).
    2. antipendos
      antipendos 24 February 2014 02: 11
      I also think that Russia needs to be put from a high bell tower for a long time on all their policies and treaties, these one-way
  4. Stinger
    Stinger 23 February 2014 09: 01
    It is right. In addition, we must not forget that military budgets are not comparable.
    1. siberalt
      siberalt 23 February 2014 10: 42
      "budgets are not comparable .."
      Have we seen the comparative structure of these budgets? And how long does it take to get you to the target for irreparable damage? Or. How many YOU landmines are enough to flood the United States from ocean to ocean? Although everything was already calculated half a century ago.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  5. Al_lexx
    Al_lexx 23 February 2014 09: 03
    Of course, I am a complete ignoramus in such matters, but it seems to me that there is no need to rush agreements, but to look for asymmetric answers, such as a preemptive strike on missile defense installations or something else. There was a theme that one could upgrade that de Iskander to a higher range.

    In general, it seems to me that the discussion of such treaties lies more in the legal and political plane than in the military-technical one.
  6. Sunjar
    Sunjar 23 February 2014 09: 04
    With Western Civilization, it makes no sense to sign any treaties, since history shows that they do not comply with them. And the Cold War will end in two cases: when they destroy Russia and its people to such an extent that it will not be possible to rebuild the nation, or when Russia unites the whole World under its leadership.
    1. stroporez
      stroporez 23 February 2014 09: 45
      Quote: Sunjar
      Western Civilization does not make sense to sign any agreements
      + it looks like she was suffering, she writes to the cops I told him they threw him, and then, right from the department, again go to choose thimbles ..........
    2. Stanislas
      Stanislas 23 February 2014 16: 57
      Quote: Sunjar
      when they destroy Russia and its people to such an extent that the restoration of the nation will not be possible
      Up to 15 million hours for maintenance of pipes and railways.
  7. Blackmokona
    Blackmokona 23 February 2014 09: 05
    I don’t understand how much I read articles about the US missile defense, how missiles capable of intercepting only short- and medium-range missiles (we do not have such missiles in accordance with the agreement), and deployed outside our range from our launch zones, can threaten us.
    1. From Germany
      From Germany 23 February 2014 09: 14
      Well, they not only shoot down, but also "detect". Missile defense in Alaska, missile defense in Poland, Aegis in the Black and Norwegian Seas, and here you have almost the entire territory of Russia under a hood, our missile launches are immediately recorded (more time for retaliatory measures), the trajectory is calculated - forewarned, then armed. I hope they will correct me if I am wrong.
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 23 February 2014 09: 18
        Well, there are SPRN satellites that have been hacking rockets at the start for a long time, well, will they be able to find out more precisely that hi from Washington flies to Washington, you have 15 minutes to evacuate the city, will it help a lot? Strong for them important infa from which particular place will a gift fly to Washington, Chicago, etc.? There’s nothing to bring down.
        Or will the mentioned Petriots help here, which the Scuds, ancient and slow, without any protection from missile defense, were knocking down?
        1. From Germany
          From Germany 23 February 2014 09: 29
          Remember why the Caribbean crisis started? "In 1961, the United States began deploying 15 PGM-19 Jupiter medium-range missiles with a range of 2400 km in Turkey, near Izmir." And how we ANSWERED in Cuba placed our vigorous loaves, the Americans raised a howl all over the world, you see, you can, but the USSR is not allowed. Who guarantees that the Americans do not stuff their missile defense systems with missiles with nuclear warheads? Even taking into account the fact that Western guarantees and promises are worthless, they simply do not want to guarantee at the legislative level that the missile defense system will not be used against Russia. This fact does not make you wonder why these missile defense systems actually want to install?
          1. Blackmokona
            Blackmokona 23 February 2014 09: 32
            And what does that change? In any case, the poplars will have time to shoot back, and try to find the nuclear submarines, while the Air Force, given the range of their missiles, can even shoot from the ground in the United States.
            1. From Germany
              From Germany 23 February 2014 09: 47
              Wouldn't it be better if the amers did not even have the opportunity to get so close to the Russian border with their missiles? Let the US build up its missile defense system, no one is against it, but let them not go to the Russian border. While the United States and Russia know that if something happens they can destroy each other and half a ball to boot, the United States is using "soft power" against Russia, Ukraine, etc., and if there is no parity, both senile and frankly stupid people like McCain, Palin, Bush, or the number one US presidential candidate "I haven't decided yet" Clinton will be illuminated with the idea that you can "bomb" with impunity?
              1. Blackmokona
                Blackmokona 23 February 2014 09: 52
                What's the difference?
                Well sits dude with a nuclear bomb at 10 meters, or 5 meters? Do you feel warmer or colder?
                Anyway, if war, then kayuk.
                And again, in order to bomb with impunity, it is necessary to realize something of the scale of the SDI, with our complete disregard, and the refusal to develop strategic nuclear forces.
                1. From Germany
                  From Germany 23 February 2014 10: 06
                  Or missiles are launched from the American continent or from Poland, the difference is huge, the trajectory is different and the response time is much less. And then check out a 2004 US Air Force policy document called the Transformation Flight Plan. By the way, there is a lot written about satellites. Amerskoe missile defense is nothing more than a groundwork for the future, the technology is still in place, and there will already be base points.
                  1. Blackmokona
                    Blackmokona 23 February 2014 10: 22
                    We have only a missile defense system in Moscow, and that is not able to intercept even two Triden. (Pure to intercept a single missile). Thus, we put on the trajectory.
                    Time for a reaction, again. A dead hand will deliver gifts to the United States, even if they bring nuclear warheads directly to our cities.
                    A reserve for the future, and our missiles are being improved. So what?
                    1. Tektor
                      Tektor 23 February 2014 15: 48
                      "and that is not able to intercept even two Triden. (Pure to intercept a single missile)"Is this how they teach at school now? There are 100 interceptor missile launch sites around Moscow, which can intercept 100 warheads with a 95% probability. 5 out of 100 warheads will break through, on average. They really cannot intercept Tridents. laughing . A total of 80 BGs are aimed at Moscow. And in the case of the creation of the S-500, the situation will change dramatically, and these 80 BGs will no longer be enough to break through the Moscow missile defense.
  8. shelva
    shelva 23 February 2014 09: 20
    While the West is threatening Russia, albeit indirectly, it makes no sense to us to conclude disarmament agreements with them, in which malicious intent is constantly read.
  9. Zomanus
    Zomanus 23 February 2014 09: 23
    So you need an asymmetric answer. To extinguish the ABM forces first, then launch our missiles. Then, in the agreement we are talking only about vigorous loaves? Well, then we put the usual warheads with satellite target designation to destroy the AUGs and airfields. Nuclear forces are certainly super, but you should not focus on them only. And then, at the expense of the help of Ukrainian experts, you should probably forget.
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 23 February 2014 09: 25
      Go to Yandex maps, find Ivanovo, draw a route from it to Washington.
      Then draw a circle from Romania, Bulgaria, the coast of Spain, the World Cup. At 750 km.
      Learn a lot of interesting things.
    2. Same lech
      Same lech 23 February 2014 09: 32
      And then, at the expense of the help of Ukrainian experts, you should probably forget
      .Yes, right.
      I think that with the victory of MAIDAN in UKRAINE, people with interests that do not coincide with the interests of RUSSIA can come to power.
      I suppose that there will be a process of redistribution of property (factories, firms, enterprises working for the defense industry) not in the US OF RUSSIA — IT IS ONE OF THE WORST SCENARIOS and Russia must be prepared for this.
      1. Penzyac
        Penzyac 23 February 2014 14: 13
        If the defense enterprises of Ukraine cannot work in the interests of Russia, then very soon they will go bankrupt and will no longer work in anyone's interests. Specialists will leave for Russia and the United States (depending on political views and preferences), and Ukraine will deindustrialize and become a Western colony, capable of being only a supplier of migrant workers (slaves) and a container for harmful industries and toxic or radioactive waste. Yes, I almost forgot about NATO bases.
  10. 23 February 2014 09: 28
    Gunpowder should be dry, weapons ready for use, and adversary in fear of the possibility of its use. Peace to our home! Happy colleagues!
  11. Zamachus
    Zamachus 23 February 2014 09: 32
    All with the holiday of February 23, let our army in all types of troops be indestructible to all health and good luck
  12. v53993
    v53993 23 February 2014 09: 39
    Thus, Russia's withdrawal from the new START Treaty will not bring obvious advantages to it, but will create additional problems.

    But it will bring implicit benefits. And it will be good.
  13. Delink
    Delink 23 February 2014 09: 47
    One must act like Americans with double standards. Sign one thing and do it your own way. And hide behind the same agreement. Provide strictly what they signed, the rest was taken to storage facilities and hangars.
    Who amers checks for the disposal of weapons? I personally have not heard our generals keep an eye on this.
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 23 February 2014 09: 50
      Special commissions. Read the contract.
  14. Dubox
    Dubox 23 February 2014 09: 56
    The first wave needs to extinguish their companions and then ..
    1. Moore
      Moore 23 February 2014 10: 33
      How to "extinguish" you can find out?
      1. Penzyac
        Penzyac 23 February 2014 14: 27
        Radio-technical and impulse weapons, although we have few of them, but they are, and they must be rapidly developed and replicated. Here is an asymmetric answer. By the way, these types of weapons are also effective against conventional weapons, especially against network-centric control systems and target designation.
  15. VadimSt
    VadimSt 23 February 2014 09: 57
    Simply, the author needed to add just a couple of lines, for complete clarity of the current moment - "It makes no sense for Russia to withdraw from the START Treaty, until a certain time"!
    Time works not only in the West, Russia uses it to restore the defense industry, rearm the army, etc.
  16. dr.star75
    dr.star75 23 February 2014 10: 02
    Such a long article, and in the morning of February 23.02! I repent, I have not read it. I don’t want to rack my brains on Holiday, I'll come back later drinks
  17. vinni
    vinni 23 February 2014 10: 06
    In my opinion, it is difficult to disagree with the author. Indeed, now it makes no sense for Russia to withdraw from this treaty; this step will not give anything. But from another treaty - on reducing the INF Treaty - it makes sense to think about it. This document knits us hand and foot. The countries surrounding us are developing with might and main the BRDS, and for us - LOWER-I-II! And for the Yankees, it does not matter ... That's what should be discussed
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 23 February 2014 10: 24
      Talk to the user "From Germany", he is just horrified by the possibility that the Yankees have missiles banned by the RIAC. And if you get out of it, then they will definitely appear, and in Ukraine.
  18. VohaAhov
    VohaAhov 23 February 2014 10: 28
    It seems to be said correctly, but as always there are small points that require clarification. Let's take a look at the marine component. At the moment, our Navy has 6 APKSNs of project 667BDRM (of which one is under repair with an exit from it in 2014-15). For some reason, 3 Pacific boats of Project 667BDR are not mentioned, one of which - "George the Victorious" was recently shot during a surprise check. And they have 48 missiles, each of which has 3 warheads. It is clear that they can object to me in this regard - they say the boats are old, and they should not be taken into account. However, the imperialists write them down in the total.
    The second question is about the aviation component. Why are the Tu-160 aircraft counted in 13 units, and according to the list of them, the Air Force should be 16. And these are other figures. If anyone knows, enlighten.
    Well, the last question (or problem) is impossible for us and the Americans to have short- and medium-range missiles. For the Americans, this does not cause big problems, well, they have no enemies within a radius of 1000 km. But here we have China and Iran with such missiles in service. It may be worth removing the ban on short-range ballistic missiles.
  19. witch
    witch 23 February 2014 10: 36
    Yes, it’s time for a long time to withdraw from this treaty and rivet raises so that up to 5 warheads with us per one American resident)) into space a system for destroying satellites and generally all but Russian if you do not care at all with their agreements. only our side is fulfilling the agreement and americos bolt laid on him
    1. v53993
      v53993 23 February 2014 10: 46
      yes, it’s high time to withdraw from this treaty and rivet the races so that up to 5 warheads would have to per one resident of America

      5 warheads per head of this shit? Not worthy, and they are not worth it.
    2. siberalt
      siberalt 23 February 2014 10: 46
      In order not to fulfill the terms of the contract, it is not at all necessary to leave it. There are enough reasons for this. Both the sheep and the wolves are full. smile This is the symmetrical approach.
    3. The comment was deleted.
  20. Vesnjanka
    Vesnjanka 23 February 2014 10: 48
    Is it okay that all START treaties (and this is the third in a row) take into account only the potentials of the USSR-Russia and the United States, but do not take into account the nuclear weapons of other countries? And Great Britain, France? Watts in the article mentioned telemetry. Officially, the United States does not launch ICBMs, and accordingly does not provide information to TLM. And all the work with the Tridends at the Eastern Range is declared by the United States to be carried out in the interests of Great Britain, which does not participate in any of the agreements, which means that TLM is not obliged to provide data.
  21. ramsi
    ramsi 23 February 2014 11: 20
    Well, if it’s wise, then Russia doesn’t make sense either to withdraw, to abide, to sign, or, in general, conclude any restrictive agreements with the West — just ignore this topic; calculate your needs (quantitatively and qualitatively), so that there is enough for everyone, and do it. And let them soar ...
  22. innei
    innei 23 February 2014 11: 32
    Quote: Banshee
    Quote: From Germany
    destroy the majority of the population of Russia and seize resources in their own hands.

    If I agree with the first, then with the second, as it were, no. NF is not a means of capturing resources. The point is in resources, if after applying there something can be obtained in years through 100?

    Once a British lady said they would have enough 15 million to extract resources. And they don’t need the rest ... Something like that.
  23. Vesnjanka
    Vesnjanka 23 February 2014 11: 33
    Since the conclusion of the first START treaty (and this is 1991), the alignment of the military-political forces has changed significantly. The Warsaw Treaty block of countries collapsed, and the current territory of Russia has significantly decreased compared to the USSR, having lost many positional areas of ICBMs, and the US now needs to control a much smaller territory with its strategic nuclear forces. So, you can easily and without damage reduce something outdated, rotten, leaking. Russia, on the contrary, just have time to brush aside most of the former arms brothers from the SVD, plus keep in mind the voluntary former republics (and they, with rare exceptions, are actively asking for NATO), well, our crowded moon-faced eastern neighbor, whose citizens crowded on the high banks of the Amur already standing asleep. Is international law binding on us?
  24. Imigrantt
    Imigrantt 23 February 2014 11: 43
    drinks Happy Holidays !!! Happy Defender of the Fatherland!!!! And probably enough for us to play nobility with the Yankees and gayevrope !!! It's time to play with them by their rules - a double standard or, more simply, NO RULES !!!!! It's good to be liberal !!!! Dear GDP, the Olympiad is over !!! Ukraine fucked up !!! The point of no return is passed !!! So the Crimea will grow thin, but this is already Russia !!! (We kicked out "fucking revolutionaries" from Kerch yesterday, but they can also drive in on armored vehicles - Russia wake up !!!) It tastes like Gorbachev! It's good to play democracy - RUSSIA never stood on her knees and never wiped her ass !!!! It's time to play our own game under all treaties and START !!!! Once again, guys, all happy holidays !!! soldier
  25. Vesnjanka
    Vesnjanka 23 February 2014 11: 47
    And on the other hand, we will not be worse. Everything that could be destroyed from the Soviet backlog has already been destroyed in the course of the implementation of the previous START-1 and 2 treaties, and developing a new START-3 does not bother us. Moreover, recently, world practice shows that agreements are concluded precisely in order to break something later. So we’ll violate it correctly)))) !!
    Happy holiday to all of us!
    1. antipendos
      antipendos 24 February 2014 03: 03
      it’s not all, but Kazakhstan, we will never disown you, at least the current government and people, and of course there’s no sense in answering the future government because we don’t know who can come to the helm of Kazakhstan later
  26. Tektor
    Tektor 23 February 2014 11: 51
    Well, not everything is counted, a little extinguished:
    " On February 9, 2012, the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy, Vladimir Vysotsky, announced that two SSBNs of the project - Severstal and Arkhangelsk - in the coming years with its full-time weapons - retained R-39 missiles - will remain in service with the Russian Navy, the third submarine of the project - "Yuri Dolgoruky" will be used as an experimental submarine with SLBM R-30 "Bulava"."
    And this is + 400 BG without the Mace, and with it + 520 BG. In addition, it is not specified that each X-101 has 2 BG, so each Cygnus can carry 24 BG. In addition to the mentioned restored BZHRK (+36 BG), it is necessary to mention about "factory tests in the summer of 2013 of the newest Skif ballistic missile, capable of being in standby mode on the sea and ocean bottom and at the right time at the command of a shot and hit ground and sea targets."And also about an air-launched ballistic missile (Liner, probably).
    1. Vesnjanka
      Vesnjanka 23 February 2014 12: 38
      BZHRK when still restored! 6-7 years will still pass ... And the "Liner" - if this is not some absolutely new project, it is the modernized "Sineva" R-29RMU2 sea-based. Located at 667BDRM.
      1. Tektor
        Tektor 23 February 2014 14: 57
        Two of the BZHRK are already rumored to be running. They were not taken apart. Rockets Liner: 2 containers with a parachute system for pulling the BR themselves into one A-124, and this is 20 BG per side or 10 BG to one IL-476. But the system has not yet been adopted.
        1. Vesnjanka
          Vesnjanka 23 February 2014 20: 01
          Alas, how I wish it were so! But they don't run. Diesel locomotives DM-62, the so-called "demobilized Mashki", were transferred to Russian Railways. They are operated on the Oktyabrskaya, Krasnoyarsk roads, and elsewhere, almost in Armenia. The RT-23UTTKh "Molodets" missile is also not present, but if it had been, it would hardly have been suitable for launching. Bershet Perm Territory, Closed Administrative Territory "Kedrovy" st. Kacha Krasnoyarsk Territory, Art. Chamomile Kostroma region - does not exist physically. How I would like one such Guarding Train to hide in a tunnel in the thickness of the Sayan Mountains! But everything will have to be created from scratch. They say that in the shortest possible time you can stick a container with "Club-k" on a typical railway platform and drive it along the road network. But it will not be a BZHRK. It's just OTRK Club they will be taken there on a railway platform ...
      2. SV
        SV 23 February 2014 21: 43
        It seems that the designers said that the Liner was not quite a modernized Sineva, there was some kind of intrigue there, tk. they do not spread much about the "Liner", they even tried to put its test launches under the training "Sineva", but the Americans suspected something was wrong and ours, a few months later, admitted ...
        / in the media on this occasion repeatedly printed /
  27. DPN
    DPN 23 February 2014 11: 52
    Russia has three enemies: England, the USA and NPOs with the help of which the USSR was destroyed. The latter are even worse. The United States is on a different continent, they are almost inaccessible. If you remember, we could scare the states only once Khrushchev. The rest of the time they scare us. Judging by the accumulated charges that can destroy all life on planet Earth more than once. Perhaps you can calmly take up the welfare of your people, not paying attention to THEIR PRO.
  28. Penzyac
    Penzyac 23 February 2014 12: 52
    A little off topic, happy holiday! Skis, 50km - our whole pedestal !!! Congratulate everyone!
  29. alone
    alone 23 February 2014 13: 07
    what Well, where are these nuclear experts. Who claimed that the Americans are no longer able to do anything in terms of increasing and modernizing their nuclear forces? They have no uranium for this))
    Question to those who claimed it! Do you now believe in what you claimed? Americans are not stupid. Yes, and the whole world too. There will be no nuclear war. Everyone wants to live. And local confrontations have always been and will be. So is the lot of the world in which we live.
  30. Platov
    Platov 23 February 2014 13: 39
    Russia must have nuclear weapons so that it would bring the land unsuitable for life twice, that is, the attacked warhead should produce a nuclear explosion before it is hit by missile defense. In this case, no missile defense will save anyone. An air blast will make life for many who have a hut on the edge and those who hope for an U.S. umbrella to shoot themselves. According to Thatcher, consumers around the world should also be several orders of magnitude smaller.
  31. Tambov Wolf
    Tambov Wolf 23 February 2014 13: 41
    I, as I understand, that the author of the article is a Tolstoyan, non-resistance in our opinion. Again moaning about "oh, if it didn't work out." Well, and until what time will we kiss everyone's asses?
  32. old rocket man
    old rocket man 23 February 2014 13: 51
    All these treaties have a purely political significance. There is no military one. If at least 10% of the available warheads reach the United States (and much more will reach the US), you can put an end to the map. Everyone understands this, especially in the US, ONLY FOR THIS WE ARE TALKING AND CONSIDERING. Everything else is bullshit, politicians play in the hope of a "bright future" negative
  33. old rocket man
    old rocket man 23 February 2014 14: 34
    Quote: lonely
    what Well, where are these nuclear experts. who claimed that the Americans are no longer able to do anything in terms of increasing and modernizing their nuclear forces? They have no uranium for this)

    And no one claimed it. The conversation was about modernization and an increase in the number of nuclear charges. The concept of nuclear forces includes, inter alia, carriers of nuclear charges, in the USA’s ability to modernize which no one doubts.
    Don't Erase Your Tongue Licking Up "Uncle Sam" lol
    1. alone
      alone 23 February 2014 20: 07
      Read other articles on the site about US nuclear forces and you will find a lot of comments there that say the same as I wrote. These Americans are the same enemies as our Uryalkins and hat-takers. Half of the site consists of those who believe that the Americans have nothing they are incapable and will soon throw their hooves away. I never climb into anyone, I have my thoughts and my arguments. 8 months ago I was with you when I started my marathon here)) today I am not with them, but not with you. Thank you in that just your compatriots, for whom anyone who carries a different flag is being second-rate and an agent of the West hi