Military Review

Department of State: before developing a treaty on the non-placement of weapons in space, it is necessary to agree on basic concepts

44
Do not rush to develop a treaty prohibiting placement in space weaponsfirst you need to agree on the basic terms, transmits TASS report from Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Agreement Control Mallory Stewart.




According to her, “there is still no consensus in the international community even on basic terminology associated with various aspects of human activity in near-Earth space, especially with those that may have a military dimension.”

Stewart noted that “even during the development of the draft international code of conduct in space, many questions arose about the definitions, there was a great misunderstanding about what terminology we used.”

“It came to the point that the definition of“ space weapons ”of one country did not coincide with the definition of“ space weapons ”of another country, said a US foreign affairs official speaking at the Atlantic Council in Washington. “The peaceful use of outer space (by one state), which had a completely civil orientation, was interpreted by another state as a kind of placement of weapons in space.”

In her opinion, “the work on the above code clearly highlighted the need to come to an agreement on the basic terms.”

“Only after we come to a basic consensus, can we really move forward first to political commitments on responsible behavior (in near-Earth space), and then, potentially, to a long-term treaty,” Stewart is convinced.

According to her forecast, “this can be ensured only if we can get to the point where everyone works on the basis of the same definitions, if the contract becomes verifiable.”

Therefore, the United States does not want to "rush headfirst to (the process of preparation) of the treaty, without having an understanding of what definitions we are working with," as well as guarantees of the verifiability of this agreement. "

In this regard, Stewart assured that the United States is not trying to delay the development of the agreement, but only insist that all parties move to this stage of work "from the same starting point, having the same understanding of the problem."
Photos used:
EPA / SCOTT KELLY / NASA
44 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. St Petrov
    St Petrov 12 January 2016 16: 12 New
    14
    what can you agree on with mattresses?

    For them, all contracts are a one-goal game.

    You must first place, and then agree on the basis of such starting positions.

    As with Syria - they looked at us through our fingers - until we deployed fighters, bombers and s-400s. It is also necessary to repeat with space.

    Points of convergence of opinions will immediately emerge, Kerry or whoever will be next will fly to Moscow and tell that our countries are partners - that everything is negotiated and reinforced.

    Lavrov will say that the meeting was successful and so on. And then they will breed snot looking for the contact of standards and definitions

    1. vlad66
      vlad66 12 January 2016 16: 24 New
      13
      Well, first, Misha Mecheny believed the mattress covers and signed a bunch of contracts, the result of the collapse of the USSR, all kinds of conversions, wars on the outskirts of Russia, then alkonaft signed everything, for example, the Production Sharing Law, unilateral disarmament, and a lot of things, it’s better not to use mattress covers like a card sharper play.
      1. gergi
        gergi 13 January 2016 01: 00 New
        0
        Well, yes, of course, Misha is naive, he was meanly deceived. Mishanya and the spy Merikosovsky, he deliberately did everything, the result, he really did not make him happy. His masters threw. When will he die. Just don’t have to bring his carcass here, to bury our land with his corpse.
    2. Denis Obukhov
      Denis Obukhov 12 January 2016 16: 46 New
      +2
      I suspect that in the end the United States itself will suffer. Last time, weapons were prohibited in space when we created the R-36orb - missiles with warheads being put into orbit that could attack the United States from any direction and at any time - being invisible to surveillance equipment - because engine torch lit next to the target. ;-)

      It was then that the United States was inflamed with the desire to fight for peace and signed an OSV-II treaty with us, according to which these missiles were reduced, and the deployment of nuclear weapons in space was prohibited. It seems that we should return to the idea that worked perfectly in the 60s - but at a new technological level, with stealth technologies ;-))
      1. bort4145
        bort4145 12 January 2016 19: 12 New
        0
        Tan does not conclude an agreement with mutual benefit, but only if they alone benefit from such an agreement, for example: an agreement between the USSR and the USA
    3. Zoldat_A
      Zoldat_A 12 January 2016 16: 56 New
      +8
      Quote: c-Petrov
      what can you agree on with mattresses?

      For them, all contracts are a one-goal game.

      Somehow I came across the Internet, there is not only this, there is still. Directly a textbook of life, but just a page.
      Once in Poland, a visiting fencer called a local sausage to battle, he did not refuse the fight, but out of kindness of soul he offered the guest to have dinner, put poison into the sausage, and quietly buried him behind the barn.
      And all because not everyone will play according to your own rules.

      One Italian architect and artist of the 16 century was called into battle by a visiting fencer. But as soon as he found out that he was planning to fight with Camila Agrippa himself, ofigel of his own impudence, apologized three times and went home.
      And all because it is useful to read books, otherwise I might not have recognized the author of the fencing book.

      Once in Russia, a visiting fencer challenged a local carpenter to a duel. He did not listen to the end and smashed his face with an overseas guest with his fists.
      And all because we did not respect the duel on swords, but we always knew how to poke our faces in our faces.


      The trouble with America is that they want to force everyone to play according to their rules, they don’t read books (for history, for example), and they don’t understand that they always knew how to put their faces in Russia.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 12 January 2016 17: 41 New
        -4
        for Zoldat_A:
        "The trouble with America is that they want everyone to play according to their rules" ///

        The rules are international, like the rules in sports.
        The Russian hockey team, for example, does not go abroad to play for some
        according to their own rules, but wins (or loses) according to
        international. And do not argue if the judge (also
        international) appoints a free kick.
        The same thing - on the road. Green all over the world - you can go,
        and red - you need to stand. Even if you want the opposite.
        So are the air borders of states and the sea zone. Everything is agreed
        and signed. Russia has no objections here.
        Why can't you do the same in space?
        1. region58
          region58 12 January 2016 18: 49 New
          +2
          Quote: voyaka uh
          Why can't you do the same in space?

          What to do with the issue of control? Or have they signed a contract and the gentleman believes the word gentleman?
          1. Scraptor
            Scraptor 13 January 2016 04: 36 New
            0
            The basic concept is one - the one who will cheat, will receive insolent red face.
          2. Zoldat_A
            Zoldat_A 13 January 2016 07: 51 New
            +1
            Quote: region58
            What to do with the issue of control? Or have they signed a contract and the gentleman believes the word gentleman?

            Hunchback already believed. Enough! And the Indians believed. At first. And on the Elbe in 1945, the soldiers were fraternized forever, and in Washington, Operation Unthinkable was already being developed. AND THIS ... [cenzored] ... can I believe it?

            And it is in this comment that I would like to answer voyaka uh
            The rules are international, like the rules in sports.
            The Russian hockey team, for example, does not go abroad to play for some
            according to their own rules, but wins (or loses) according to
            international.
            [...]
            Why can't you do the same in space?
            That's the stump of the question, what America plays either according to the rules that are convenient for it, and then it demands their unconditional execution, or violates all the rules, observing the primacy of American interests established by it over any rules. I understand that a person from Israel cannot realize this, but it is. By the way in sports or on the road, where it’s difficult to introduce your own rules, there is always the opportunity to challenge someone’s actions. In simple terms, this has always been called "ghostness."

            And do not tell me that America loves to play in sports by the rules - And everyone watched the Olympics in Sochi, where the gates are not shifted when America needs it, but they move out when necessary. And we remember the Salt Lake City Olympics when Sasha Cohen was the only American who did not crash on the ice and that was enough to take a medal ... You can list for a long time and for each Olympics separately. America made it a rule that their medals are not taken by athletes, but by lawyers.

            But we had such a coach Tarasov - maybe they heard? So that Great Tarasov said that nobody in the world loves us and nishtyaki will not give us away for free, therefore you need to win for a clear advantage. So that there are no questions left. What Russia is doing as far as possible.

            And in Russian there is the expression "break the head", and in French, for example, "BEREZINA" - the opposite of the first in meaning. Conclusions are easy to make. Even a person under the Israeli flag.
        2. APASUS
          APASUS 12 January 2016 19: 02 New
          +1
          Quote: voyaka uh
          The rules are international, like the rules in sports. The Russian hockey team, for example, does not go abroad to play according to your own rules, but wins (or loses) internationally. And he doesn’t argue if the judge (also international) appoints a penalty. The same thing - on the road. Green all over the world - you can ride, and red - you need to stand. Even if you want the opposite. So are the air borders of states and the sea zone. All agreed and signed. Russia has no objections here. Why can't the same thing be done in space?

          If you do not stoop to traffic rules and sports, then how to trust a country that places a missile defense system at the borders of non-existent Iran and North Korea missiles, and I would understand if we placed the system near the borders of these states.
          Or even simpler, what law or treaty can stop NATO and the United States in particular from wanting to dominate everyone. Vot Gorbachev still believes that NATO will not expand
        3. Angry orc
          Angry orc 13 January 2016 11: 05 New
          0
          So it is, but the rules are always written to those who benefit from it, to those who are not profitable or who have dubious benefits. Also, the rule of the rule is discord, the same road rules you specify differ in many countries. And in general, the rules exist so that they can be violated, because if there is no rule, then you won’t break it!
    4. Skif83
      Skif83 12 January 2016 16: 59 New
      +2
      They always try to benefit first of all.
      Therefore, amerov has the most prestigious profession - a lawyer.
      Those. rummaging through papers, looking for loopholes, and they will find ...
      Therefore, there will be no agreements with them in our favor.
      Yes, and judging by their eternal tactics of behavior, they offer to discuss something when "the ball is not in their half of the field" ...
      So we are ahead of them in something, stronger, etc.
      Moreover, what is the point of limiting ourselves to contracts if we are ahead and stronger in something with those who recognize only what is beneficial to them ???
    5. tolian
      tolian 12 January 2016 17: 40 New
      0
      Good offer. First place a megaton over Washington. Then show and tell that this is the weapon in space. They will understand quickly. Of course I'm exaggerating. And the problem is tiny in the definitions. But you should not inflate it.
    6. witch
      witch 12 January 2016 23: 16 New
      0
      Quote: c-Petrov
      what can you agree on with mattresses?

      For them, all contracts are a one-goal game.

      You must first place, and then agree on the basis of such starting positions.

      As with Syria - they looked at us through our fingers - until we deployed fighters, bombers and s-400s. It is also necessary to repeat with space.

      Points of convergence of opinions will immediately emerge, Kerry or whoever will be next will fly to Moscow and tell that our countries are partners - that everything is negotiated and reinforced.

      Lavrov will say that the meeting was successful and so on. And then they will breed snot looking for the contact of standards and definitions



      that’s why it’s respected they are pulling with a treaty. they don’t need it, they are already preparing to deploy missiles in space, so this is a colossal military argument and a trump card. In vain the USSR didn’t bring this idea to mind. Although, maybe, some of this was in store. one place can only be wiped. Hitler also concluded an agreement with us not to attack.
  2. Woodman
    Woodman 12 January 2016 16: 15 New
    +4
    Hookers ... Again they will figure out how to turn a normal contract into a meaningless piece of paper ...
  3. Gormenghast
    Gormenghast 12 January 2016 16: 18 New
    +7
    Blue (literally) a dream laughing :

    Space weapons are all that are created in space by all countries except the United States. Everything that the United States creates in space is not space weapons, including orbital warheads.

    I recall the INF Treaty. Forbidden, including development missiles of medium and shorter range ground-based. The Amertians developed target missiles, but they say they did not violate the contract.

    Or ground-based strategic attack drones are no different from similar cruise missiles; However, the Americans do not recognize this. am

    Under the NPT, it is forbidden to place nuclear weapons and carriers on the territory of non-nuclear countries. However, 200 B-61 bombs in Europe and Turkey - both located, and are still there. For some reason, strategic bombers with the function of nuclear bombing occasionally move to the Baltic states, and more recently also to South Korea.
  4. ImPerts
    ImPerts 12 January 2016 16: 19 New
    0
    And everything will be agreed on the basic principles of the 20 - 30 years.
    Until Daesh appears in space. Then it will be possible, under a plausible pretext, to send troops there to destroy them.
    The game is long and dark.
    Or are the Americans so careless?
    I do not believe!
  5. A-Sim
    A-Sim 12 January 2016 16: 20 New
    0
    Easy. At us "on concepts" almost everything is solved ...
  6. Samen
    Samen 12 January 2016 16: 22 New
    +3
    Time is running out! Because, they do not have their own engines for the mass withdrawal of a group of combat satellites. Not yet! By the way, as there are no satellites themselves ...
    1. region58
      region58 12 January 2016 19: 01 New
      0
      Quote: Semen
      Because, they do not have their own engines for the mass withdrawal of a group of combat satellites.

      Come on! You might think that Americans without a RD-180 do not fly a single rocket ... Offhand: only Rocketdyne makes several types of rocket engines. Of course, you can be proud of the fact that you buy engines from us, but everything is good in moderation ...
  7. deleter24
    deleter24 12 January 2016 16: 24 New
    0
    Do not rush into the development of an agreement prohibiting the deployment of weapons in space, first you need to agree on the basic terms

    Tail of a cat by the tail has always been a hallmark of politicians in the Anglo-Saxon world.

    According to her, “there is still no consensus in the international community even on basic terminology associated with various aspects of human activity in near-Earth space, especially with those that may have a military dimension.”

    And since they don’t have consent there, then they’re working out some kind of agreements. None of this will work. There is yet another attempt to impose one’s opinion on other states.
  8. combat66
    combat66 12 January 2016 16: 25 New
    +4
    Trying to always agree. Yes, and if to be objective, it was possible to agree with the USA. Krompromiss - the art of yielding to winning. And about the terminology, it is possible that the Americans are right, in space and a bolt of 3 m / s is a weapon. wink
    1. alex-s
      alex-s 12 January 2016 16: 57 New
      0
      There, speeds in km / s are measured!
  9. Great-grandfather of Zeus
    Great-grandfather of Zeus 12 January 2016 16: 28 New
    0
    If the Yankees are stupid, that does not mean that all fools around them have long been defined by all the terms and concepts, and the United States is only looking for a vine for them to militarize space on a one-on-one basis.
  10. Butt
    Butt 12 January 2016 16: 28 New
    +1
    You can negotiate with anyone. Who is negotiable. At the same time, the current "hegemon" is just notable for its inability to fulfill treaties. And what will happen next. After all, you can’t stuff the whole cosmos with one explosive, someday it will explode!
    Infa flashed about checking in space hypersonic equipment and roving Russian satellites. According to 3,14ndosov is a threat to the SGA and NATO
    It would be time for ours to inadvertently show, say, the space “Status-13” for the accommodating “partners”.
    It will be fun, like in a fairy tale about Santa Claus on a sleigh!
  11. Pamir48
    Pamir48 12 January 2016 16: 30 New
    0
    “Only after we come to a basic consensus can we really move forward first to political commitments for responsible behavior (in the near-Earth space), and then, potentially, to a long-term contract,” Stewart is convinced. Yeah, with the railway complexes have already pierced. Enough "reboots". Let them fear the RUSSIAN BEAR.
  12. sogdianec
    sogdianec 12 January 2016 16: 42 New
    +1
    Quote: Lesovik
    Hookers ... Again they will figure out how to turn a normal contract into a meaningless piece of paper ...


    And we have a VKS, not the Air Force. That is, there are cosmic forces, but no weapons in space.
    Indeed, it is necessary to decide what to consider weapons. Military reconnaissance satellites, GPS, GLONASS, some anti-aircraft systems and missiles for them. Even ballistic missiles with a flight altitude of over 100 km can be counted as space weapons. So the field for negotiations is a big one, you need to take into account all the nuances and “hooks”, so that later it would not be excruciatingly painful for an incorrectly drawn up and signed agreement.
  13. maxxdesign
    maxxdesign 12 January 2016 16: 48 New
    0
    Well, of course! another star wars came out ... the State Department was puzzled by weapons in space) this proves that American politicians live on comics!
  14. Nikolay71
    Nikolay71 12 January 2016 17: 06 New
    +1
    Reminded the unforgettable comrade Saakhov with him: "But there is no need to rush."
  15. bad
    bad 12 January 2016 17: 12 New
    +1
    Department of State: before developing a treaty on the non-placement of weapons in space, it is necessary to agree on basic concepts
    ..matrasovskie strategists and lawyers are sweating their faces thinking how to ban all the rest in space weapons, and leave their own "exceptional" loopholes in the contract .. laughing ..heh while there is GDP and Lavrov nothing will burn out from mattresses .. laughing
  16. C2H5OH
    C2H5OH 12 January 2016 17: 22 New
    0
    It is necessary to suspend a couple of platforms over the United States with a hundred hydrogen bombs each and then negotiate on "basic concepts")))
  17. Igluxnumx
    Igluxnumx 12 January 2016 19: 10 New
    0
    Of course, you can talk with 314ndos. But to build up the strength of the aerospace forces is of course necessary. So that it would be possible, on occasion, to portray "deep regret" and say "partners": "We do not believe you."
  18. evge-malyshev
    evge-malyshev 12 January 2016 19: 19 New
    0
    Do not rush into the development of an agreement prohibiting the deployment of weapons in outer space, first you need to agree on the basic terms, reports TASS the deputy assistant secretary of state for monitoring agreements Mallory Stewart.

    So this AGREEMENT ... and should begin with the definitions of the BASIC TERMS ... so that the negotiations are conducted in one language that is understandable to both contracting parties. And it will turn out the same way as with the Minsk agreements: as I want, so I interpret it, as it is more convenient for me.
    And these "definitions of BASIC TERMS ..." should be an integral part of the AGREEMENT banning the placement of weapons in space.
  19. Vova
    Vova 12 January 2016 19: 51 New
    0
    Beautiful words about anything, somehow basic, etc., etc., all space powers are well aware that there is a lot of space debris around the low orbit of the earth and if all space powers together begin to bring down earth satellites (this is possible), the Earth will remain without normal life ...
  20. Old26
    Old26 12 January 2016 20: 06 New
    0
    Quote: vlad66
    Well, first, Misha Mecheny believed the mattresses and signed a bunch of contracts, the result of the collapse of the USSR

    How much is a heap? Five? Ten?
    Actually, under Misha, only one contract was signed and implemented. And the collapse of the USSR is not the result of signing disarmament treaties.

    Quote: Denis Obukhov
    I suspect that in the end the United States itself will suffer. Last time, weapons were prohibited in outer space when we created the R-36orb - missiles with warheads being put into orbit that could attack the United States from any direction and at any time - being invisible to the All-in-One observation bottle - because engine torch lit next to the target. ;-)

    It was then that the United States was inflamed with the desire to fight for peace and signed an OSV-II treaty with us, according to which these missiles were reduced, and the deployment of nuclear weapons in space was prohibited. It seems that we should return to the idea that worked perfectly in the 60s - but at a new technological level, with stealth technologies ;-))

    All in one bottle? The treaty banning nuclear weapons in outer space was signed 12 years earlier than the OSV-2 treaty. One should nevertheless “know the materiel” before writing
    R-36 rockets orb. really reduced according to START-2, but as suborbital (orbital) missiles. According to the provisions of the treaty banning weapons in space, the BG did not make one turn, only less. They could indeed fly through the South Pole, but at the same time its throwing weight was approximately 30% of the exact same missile, but intercontinental. Yes, and with the torch you are a little bent. Which torch? Brake motor? So he worked not on the target, but much earlier.

    Quote: Semen
    Time is running out! Because, they do not have their own engines for the mass withdrawal of a group of combat satellites. Not yet! By the way, as there are no satellites themselves ...

    In fact, they bring their groupings to "Deltah", which AMERICAN ENGINES. Ours - on just one launch vehicle - on ATLACE-5

    But in principle, I agree with the Americans. Before concluding a contract, all parameters must be agreed upon. Otherwise, it will turn out like with the agreement on the INF Treaty, where thanks to the Gorbachev negotiators some parameters were not agreed.
    Otherwise, then we will “beat ourselves on the cheeks with our ears” and lament that we did not think of it.
    After all, a contract is not only articles (a dozen or two), but also a huge number of agreed documents and definitions. Only in no way
  21. Old26
    Old26 12 January 2016 20: 18 New
    0
    Quote: sogdianec
    Indeed, it is necessary to decide what to consider weapons. Military reconnaissance satellites, GPS, GLONASS, some anti-aircraft systems and missiles for them. Even ballistic missiles with a flight altitude of over 100 km can be counted as space weapons.

    In principle, weapons in space are basically what is in orbits. Military satellites (reconnaissance, communications, navigation) can hardly be called weapons. How difficult it is to call space weapons missile defense systems with a height of defeat of more than 100 km, although this is the border of space. But they are on the earth. The maximum of them can be attributed to the class "earth-space". But not space. Ballistic with the apogee of more than 100 km - this is generally not the case. Almost all missiles with a range of more than 400-500 km can be attributed to space weapons. No. Only that which will be based in space. And it should very clearly determine what and how
    1. Vova
      Vova 12 January 2016 20: 39 New
      0
      When was Misha too, was Glonass? Have you already decided what, can you remember Ivan the Terrible, know him? Well, you know him from the picture, then remember Peter 1 with a good word or Marshal Zhukov ...
  22. midshipman
    midshipman 12 January 2016 20: 25 New
    +2
    I looked through the article and all the comments, I remembered 1980. The US delegation arrived at Pirogovskaya Street at the Main Headquarters of the USSR Air Force. We had to talk about the conditions for deploying combat lasers in space in order to be able to detonate missiles that could be launched by third countries. Do not agree.
    Then, after a few years, they met again, first on Angliyskaya Embankment, then at the US Embassy on the 2nd floor. We agreed on the possibility of creating a single radio navigation field for long-range navigation systems in the Far East. Agreed. We drank a glass of champagne, signed the protocols. But Brezhnev died, Gorbachev came and everything went to dust. And then the Americans reckoned with us. I have the honor.
    1. Vova
      Vova 12 January 2016 20: 50 New
      0
      The United States eventually knocked down a Chinese satellite with a combat laser from orbit. You can explain what this led to apart from the international scandal. If it was not Russia, they forgot about Man in space several years ago, that’s it ...
  23. Vova
    Vova 12 January 2016 20: 51 New
    0
    Quote: Vovchik
    The United States eventually knocked down the Chinese satellite with a combat laser from orbit. You can explain what this led to apart from the international scandal. If it weren’t for Russia, they forgot about Man in space several years ago, that’s it ...
  24. Old26
    Old26 12 January 2016 21: 35 New
    0
    Quote: Vovchik
    When was Misha too, was Glonass? Have you already decided what, can you remember Ivan the Terrible, know him? Well, you know him from the picture, then remember Peter 1 with a good word or Marshal Zhukov ...

    When Misha? Of course.

    Quote: Vovchik
    The United States eventually shot down a Chinese satellite with a combat laser from orbit

    Facts in the studio. Time, satellite name.
    That's just the power to bring down a satellite with a laser from the earth no one
  25. sharp-lad
    sharp-lad 12 January 2016 23: 06 New
    0
    Let them try to translate the terminology into Russian! Almost all misunderstandings will disappear!
  26. Swed
    Swed 12 January 2016 23: 44 New
    0
    I apologize, but this is all crap and demagogy. As soon as they “squeeze” any of the states (not weak), weapons in outer space will be under any agreements.
  27. bogdan4ik
    bogdan4ik 13 January 2016 06: 00 New
    0
    I am convinced that Russia, as an advanced space power, should simply not participate in these treaties. The strong acts, while the weak requires guarantees on paper in the form of contracts. As Ukraine, at war with Russia, it demanded a public promise from Russia not to use the Russian Army against Ukraine.
  28. Old26
    Old26 13 January 2016 09: 05 New
    0
    Oh, Stanislav, Stanislav! It would be better if you did not mention the contract in vain. It seems that not only you, but many others know about these contracts in the retelling of newspaper or Internet articles. That is what the media broadcast. And this is often very far from reality.

    You know, it’s like in an old joke when one says to the other: “I don’t understand that everyone admires Placido Domingo (or any other name).
    Second: And what, did you listen to his record?
    First: No, Moishe sang to me "

    So with the contracts.
    Here often in the media and especially on the Internet in forums the phrase sounds that it is impossible to conclude agreements with the Americans, since they do not fulfill them. Only at VO I asked those who write such examples 5-8 times to give examples of how the Americans do not fulfill the strategic agreements concluded with the USSR (Russia). Do you think at least one gave examples? Unfortunately no. But each time they repeat the same thing as a mantra. Well, now to your post

    Quote: Gormengast
    I recall the INF Treaty. Forbidden, including development missiles of medium and shorter range ground-based. The Amertians developed target missiles, but they say they did not violate the contract.

    That's right. The contract was not violated, since they created these missiles in accordance with paragraph 3 of Article VII and subparagraphs a) and b) of paragraph 12 of the same Article VII.

    Quote: Gormengast
    Or ground-based strategic attack drones are no different from similar cruise missiles; However, the Americans do not recognize this. am

    Bullshit, which is regularly circulated in the media (Internet). There are clear distinctions between what is considered a cruise missile and what is a drone. Purely theoretically, one can say that every cruise missile is a drone, but not every drone is a cruise missile

    Quote: Gormengast
    Under the NPT, it is forbidden to place nuclear weapons and carriers on the territory of non-nuclear countries. However, 200 B-61 bombs in Europe and Turkey - both located, and are still there.

    Same. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons contains a ban on the TRANSFER OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS and (OR) TECHNOLOGIES OF ITS PRODUCTION to a non-nuclear country. But not a word about the ban on storage in non-nuclear countries. We had nuclear weapons depots in the GDR, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia.

    Quote: Gormengast
    For some reason, strategic bombers with the function of nuclear bombing occasionally move to the Baltic states, and more recently also to South Korea.

    And what is the ban? The usual show of strength. We also drove our TU-160 to Venezuela. Or are they non-nuclear?

    Quote: sharp-lad
    Let them try to translate the terminology into Russian! Almost all misunderstandings will disappear!

    Terminology and consensus concepts are the backbone of every contract. And such documents sometimes take several tens of times more than the main text of the Treaty.