Expert: the current Russia would not have pulled the arms race

The expert comments on the published data on the nuclear arsenals of the Russian Federation and the United States.

"The Secret of Openin" is revealed. According to the published data of the US State Department, the Russian nuclear potential, although not an order of magnitude, is noticeably inferior to the American one.

The Office of the Iron Hillary Clinton gave the numbers, of course, joyful for the politically savvy Yankees and alarming for us. So, in our nuclear piggy bank there are 1537 strategic operational deployed nuclear warheads on the 521 carrier. America has 1800 warheads on 882 carriers. Immediately, it should be clarified that such figures became available not as a result of mutual reports of the GRU and the CIA, but in the course of fulfilling mutual obligations under the START-3 Treaty, ratified by Moscow and Washington and entered into force in early February 2011.

According to this Treaty, Russia and the United States agreed to reduce the number of warheads themselves and their delivery vehicles to 1500 and 700, respectively. According to the State Department data, it is easy to see that, in general, the “reset” partners are already very close to the cherished line. Russia, on the other hand, has removed more than necessary warhead carriers on 179, and I also think you can think about the topic “it would be nice to pull up the number”.

But so far, the parties have been pondering and acting in the categories of the real and the rational. We agreed to cut - cut. American and Russian military experts unanimously assure their and the foreign public - “the process is under way, the results are there.” Of course, there are also critics of the Treaty itself. So, at the end of 2010, the Communist Deputies spoke against the CNT-3. “We want to adopt a law from the side, which is detrimental to the security of the Russian Federation, and where unprecedented concessions were allowed, which even under your leader Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin were firmly set, and no one passed back. I believe that this will be an act of national treachery if we ratify this Treaty today, ”said Deputy Nikolay Kolomeytsev from the rostrum of the lower house of Parliament.

A colleague was supported by the late deputy Viktor Ilyukhin; “I'm actually surprised, Boris Vyacheslavovich (Gryzlov - approx. KM.RU), how easily we here in the State Duma consider the crucial issues for the country. I draw your attention to how we addressed the issue of Katyn. Without any documents, without any discussion of this problem at committee meetings. Today, we are also offered to vote in the dark, not
knowing for what. Well, how can this be solved in this way, I emphasize the most important questions? I believe that we can allow another act of national treachery. We will never be forgiven for this. Here today, someone who was near Yeltsin, they say, he is bad, he has done. In five years we will be told: where were you, why did you ratify it? It is wrong to decide the fate of Russia ... "

But the speeches of a small number of parliamentarians sank in the general hum of approval, which seemed to be predetermined. Over time, the passions subsided, but the sediment remained. Today, more and more we have to hear rather a compromise opinion on the work of the Treaty. They say, certainly not sugar, but forced acceptance. Probably, you can see your rational grain in this, because, as they say in Russia, “that's the reason for the pike in the pond, so that the crucian doesn’t doze”.

The first vice-president of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, captain of the 1 rank Konstantin Sivkov, in his comment for KM.RU, spoke in this vein:

- In principle, in the form in which this treaty now exists, Russia does not really need it. Russia loses more from signing this treaty. However, we must take into account the situation that was at the time of its signing. If Russia did not put its signature, it would give the American hawks a reason for further unwinding the arms race. The current Russia, in which 80 percent of the national income is put into the pocket of unscrupulous people, could not pull out this race. Because these gentlemen need to build their own summer cottages, buy property abroad, go for a walk in Courchevel. There is no time or energy left to ensure the security of the country.

The United States was initially extremely interested in bringing the number of nuclear carriers to 200 units. Where did this figure come from? It is precisely such a number of nuclear installations that they are supposed to neutralize in the active part of the trajectory. And the fact that our delegation has achieved a change in the threshold to 700 carriers is a great success.

I repeat, Russia has lost more from signing the START-3, but under the current conditions there was no other way. And under the circumstances, the fact that we insisted on seven hundred carriers is the success of Russian diplomacy. After all, there is a difference - two hundred installations or seven hundred.

For the United States, reducing the number of warheads will be painless. They are mainly located on Ohio-type submarines, but they are less land based, you can get rid of them, they do not really affect the quality of US defense. Our main nuclear potential is just ground. And the fact that the established threshold frees us from the need to reduce the number of carriers and it will be possible to keep it - this is a plus.

In principle, when Russia has the ability to reliably verify the information submitted, the United States provides accurate data. When there is no such guaranteed opportunity, they can lie shamelessly. But I believe that within the framework of mutual inspections, the idea of ​​the US nuclear potential of Russia is more or less adequate.