Military Review

The State Department did not agree with the initiative of the Russian Federation and the PRC on the non-placement of weapons in space

Washington does not agree with the project of the Russian Federation and the PRC on non-placement in space weaponssince the countries have not proposed a verification mechanism, RIA News report by Under Secretary of State for Arms Control Rose Gottemoeller.

“As for the Sino-Russian draft treaty on weapons in space, we are very concerned about them, because, frankly, it cannot be verified. And we have always believed that if we create effective international arms control treaties, they should be verifiable. We do not see this in the Russian and Chinese project, ”the diplomat said.

“But this in no way means that we do not want to talk about these issues. We would like to introduce pragmatic measures to ensure that all countries can use space in their own interests and in the interests of their economic development, ”Gottemoeller added.

Earlier, the United States, within the framework of the United Nations, spoke out against the Russian initiative in connection with the fact that it did not fully define the concept of “weapons in outer space”. In addition, the draft of the Russian Federation "does not include ground-based anti-satellite weapons, and this can lead to mutual miscalculations and distrust," American experts say.

According to Gottemoeller, in general, the development of international rules of behavior in outer space is moving very slowly.

“We have worked with colleagues in the EU and on the international scene on a code of conduct in space. Frankly speaking, these efforts were not as successful as we would like. We approach this pragmatically and focus on confidence building measures and other measures that can prevent the creation of new problems in space, such as new debris in space - we consider this to be the most urgent threat. ”- she concluded.
Photos used:
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Not_invented
    Not_invented 23 January 2016 11: 33 New
    Or maybe good? There is an incentive to develop space at the expense of the defense budget. For the Russian Federation, this is very important.
    1. Alexei
      Alexei 23 January 2016 11: 42 New
      Well, I don’t know how everything is littered with orbit for me.
      1. Reserve officer
        Reserve officer 23 January 2016 13: 19 New
        "and this can lead to mutual miscalculations and mistrust, according to American experts."

        In fact, caution and distrust should be mandatory in any contact with the United States. The country is an international robber.
      2. Aleksey_K
        Aleksey_K 23 January 2016 13: 47 New
        Quote: Alexej
        Well, I don’t know how everything is littered with orbit for me.

        This is not the worst. Debris from low orbits gradually falls to the Earth. Even worse, satellites and weapons platforms will have nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons. When such orbital objects fall after failure or when rockets are destroyed, global radioactive contamination of the atmosphere and the Earth’s surface occurs.
        In principle, it is possible to specifically launch such dirty objects and organize their "accidental" fall in order to infect the territories of a potential enemy.
        That’s the worst thing.
    2. vlad66
      vlad66 23 January 2016 11: 42 New
      Earlier, the United States within the UN spoke out against the Russian initiative due to the fact that it did not have a full definition of the concept of “weapons in outer space”.

      These Boltologists from the State Department can deceive anyone and blame anyone, but not themselves. They consider they have the right to violate or withdraw from any contract or agreement, but others are forbidden. Two-faced hypocrites.
      1. tolian
        tolian 23 January 2016 12: 20 New
        But their objections are quite consistent. Think for yourself. Firstly, the most important condition of any contract is the exact definitions. Secondly, how and who will verify, verify. Without this, it is absolutely impossible to conclude a contract. For the first time I see a draft treaty prepared by Russia with such mistakes, unless, of course, the Americans again tell us everything correctly.
        1. Inok10
          Inok10 23 January 2016 12: 43 New
          Quote: tolian
          unless, of course, the Americans again tell us everything correctly.

          .. here this is the whole point .. the mattress mattresses were never distinguished by honesty and directness, as well as the English gentlemen .. hi
        2. oldseaman1957
          oldseaman1957 23 January 2016 12: 48 New
          Quote: tolian
          But their objections are quite consistent.
          - Whether or not their objections are valid or not - these are their problems. Most importantly, Russia and China identified the problem, and the United States, albeit with reservations, rejected it. What put herself in the guilty position for ANY consequences. So we learn a little, and anger has accumulated considerable ...
        3. YARUSSIAN39
          YARUSSIAN39 23 January 2016 13: 18 New
          Americans always need something that can then be changed to their advantage, any agreement, but here it’s impossible, and they immediately rejected
        4. a71
          a71 23 January 2016 18: 54 New
          All this must be decided (or not decided) in the negotiations. They don’t even try to start them. For me, they are the first to propose such initiatives if they suddenly discover, for example, that the Russian Federation has a combat platform in space.
    3. Finches
      Finches 23 January 2016 11: 46 New
      The entire current generation of the US State Department is the victims of Lucas' classic Star Wars trilogy! I would not be surprised if I find out that Obama saw himself as the Emperor during his entire presidential term, sending his brave stormtroopers to all galaxies ..., although for the time being on aircraft carriers, but still! laughing
      1. hrych
        hrych 23 January 2016 12: 37 New
        Here, everything is exactly the opposite, if you carefully understand that:
        - The republic was a republic only in words. In fact, it was a feudal military dictatorship. The Senate was more talkative because of the large number and stupidity (a typical senator - JA-Ja Binks). The real power belonged to the council of the Jedi, who appointed themselves. Of the 12 members of the council, 5 were elected for life, another 4 - for a long term, until voluntary resignation. A total of 9 is enough to make any decision.

        - For THOUSANDS OF YEARS, the Jedi have not been able to introduce federal legislation in the republic and even out the level of economic development. There are kilometer-long skyscrapers on Coruscant, and Tatooine, as it was 4000 years ago, was a poor hole, and it remained.

        “Anakin Skywalker was a slave.” And he would have remained if it were not for the happy case. The Jedi did not do anything to eradicate slavery, the same Padme, owning a whole planet, drinking huge wealth at a time, did not bother to pay a penny and redeem Eni's mother. And then they wonder why Darth decided to kill them all. His weakness is that he was ceremonious with his son - a geek and a drug addict, who had finished him.

        - Big business (the Trade Federation) was brought to such a state by raising taxes and corruption that he decided to fight against his own government.

        - There was no counterintelligence at all. For the republican authorities, everything turned out to be a surprise: an army of clones, a Sith puppet master, order 66.

        - Budget control has been put out of control badly. An army of clones cannot be created without large appropriations from the federal budget. The government didn’t even know that the rabid trilliards go away to no one knows where.

        “Did the Jedi have a social base?” When Palpatine staged a coup, there was not a single faithful regiment in power. And the population reacted indifferently.

        - The empire in Star Wars concluded a pact with the population: you do not meddle in politics, but we do not touch you and ensure economic growth. In recent history, such modes have proven to be the most effective. Therefore, such a wonderful star fleet, two amazing battle stations, good equipment and food, and environmental care, even the little cannibals of the Ewoks did not touch the vicinity of the most important military facility until they attacked together with a gang of criminals (Solo is a smuggler and drug dealer, Leia - for the lost throne spilled rivers of alien blood ...)

        - What was the political program of the rebels? It consisted of one single point: to overthrow the emperor and take power themselves. The planets that joined the rebels were counting on key positions in the government of the new republic, and the Jedi dreamed of returning to the establishment.
        So they are typical Jedi, including Obama and Burbulis ...
        1. ssergn
          ssergn 23 January 2016 17: 14 New
          Hrych, Handsome, that's it laid out! hi
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. hrych
            hrych 23 January 2016 17: 55 New
            We are watching a new episode, they overthrew the Emperor and Vader, the elderly Solo is again engaged in counter-gang violence, the son from Leia is completely crazy (booze and drugs, however) a complete mess returned to the Galaxy, and one of the main heroes of the war without retirement, in poverty, again trades with crime, the second disappointed and fled, the new heroine scoops up scrap, is always hungry, plows the crust of bread from buyers and speculators, the slave trade, prostitution again blossomed and drug addiction, the stormtroopers began to take not ideal clones, but mentally unstable ones - do not understand anyone, such as African-Americans and Latinos, as a result of lack of discipline, looting and desertion ... The author himself confirmed that it became much worse, there is no social system, the economy collapsed and so on. Instead of the emperor who was most cultured in an aesthetic sense and the noble Vader, did not appear that ... Here are the results of the uprising, as usual.
            1. BARKHAN
              BARKHAN 23 January 2016 22: 29 New
              Thank you very much, grunt, very original.
              Even in Hollywood, a fictional revolution ended in complete crap.
              At the moment, neither we nor the Americans have the ability to influence or control "space weapons." But probably no one will be able to abandon the idea of ​​hanging a nuclear "Domocles sword" over the enemy.
              1. hrych
                hrych 24 January 2016 22: 44 New
                Quote: Barkhan
                Thank you very much, grunt, very original.

                Thanks to the Emperor and Vader, it would be impossible to look differently. Like ships, walking tanks, robes and uniforms, the characters themselves look amazing from the side of the Empire (I'm talking about the original three episodes) and even music, i.e. Imperial March. And to take the rebels ... continuous unaesthetic muck, including the faces of the main characters. I am for the Empire.
        2. Sobol
          Sobol 23 January 2016 19: 32 New
          Bravo, hrych. Everything is wonderful for sure! Plus, respect and respect!
        3. sharp-lad
          sharp-lad 23 January 2016 22: 10 New
          Accurately noticed! The analogy is complete and accurate.
        4. Fat
          Fat 23 January 2016 23: 13 New
          good And in the "introductory" proposed by the author, is he still playing the game? recourse
    4. MIKHAN
      MIKHAN 23 January 2016 11: 57 New
      Quote: Not_invented
      Or maybe good? There is an incentive to develop space at the expense of the defense budget. For the Russian Federation, this is very important.

      The calculation, just was on refusal .... Tipo we did offer, but you refused!
      So there are breakthrough developments ... I think so! Our "cunning diplomacy" has learned ...
      1. NIKNN
        NIKNN 23 January 2016 12: 38 New
        MIKHAN (9) RU Today, 11:57 AM

        I think so! Ours have learned "cunning diplomacy" ...

        Our diplomacy has always been at its best! It was Gorbachev a traitor and Yeltsin "diplomat" who imposed treaties on us that they would personally return back. The Americans had nothing against those treaties, but now, when there are no traitors and our diplomacy is working normally, they kick. They smell whose meat they ate ... hi
    5. avdkrd
      avdkrd 23 January 2016 12: 20 New
      Quote: Not_invented
      Or maybe good? There is an incentive to develop space at the expense of the defense budget. For the Russian Federation, this is very important.

      Indeed, why do we need this contract? Placing warheads on strike platforms in space is a terrible dream for the aggressor, because they can be safely placed in a geostationary orbit making it virtually unattainable for anti-satellite missiles. The first strike can also be delivered from outer space, but if the aggressor knows that a guaranteed answer will fly in from there, then decrease your agility.
    6. The comment was deleted.
      1. Albert1988
        Albert1988 23 January 2016 13: 49 New
        Quote: alkur
        Enough weapons, it would be time to use space in the framework of human development, research, communications, and not an arms race.

        Alas, the arms race is now more likely than civilian space exploration, unfortunately ....
      2. avdkrd
        avdkrd 23 January 2016 18: 21 New
        Quote: alkur
        Can still place rockets on Mars? Enough weapons, it would be time to use space in the framework of human development, research, communications, and not an arms race.

        It is not my desire to place rockets in space, but the desire of the United States to have space strike capabilities. Give space to them, and wait for them when THEY consider that their damage during the retaliatory strike will be acceptable? The only thing that restrained and is restraining the Third World War in the format of Armagedon is the lack of chances to survive on both sides of the conflict. Due to the reduction of nuclear weapons and the actively created missile defense, NATO countries are already highly likely to win in the conflict. Whatever the catastrophic consequences of the exchange of nuclear strikes would be talked about, there were always forces present in the United States who viewed nuclear war as a completely acceptable instrument. As soon as the American hawks get the opportunity, or even the persistent illusion of the possibility of delivering a disarming strike, coupled with the interception of the remnants of Russian missiles, they will seize the moment. It is not for nothing that in the United States studies are regularly conducted of the consequences of the mutual use of nuclear weapons, taking into account all the changes and novelties of both carriers and countermeasures.
    7. Lt. Air Force stock
      Lt. Air Force stock 23 January 2016 13: 32 New
      Quote: Not_invented
      There is an incentive to develop space at the expense of the defense budget. For the Russian Federation, this is very important.

      That's right, if they sign this treaty, we will never see a space destroyer or an aircraft carrier.
    8. ver_
      ver_ 24 January 2016 05: 22 New
      ...and thank God. This is a great opportunity to put into disrepair all Amer’s crafts in space - slowly, lightly, under the guise of debris, which worked out devices in space to fucking a damn bad ..
    9. kodxnumx
      kodxnumx 24 January 2016 19: 09 New
      Quote: Not_invented
      Or maybe good? There is an incentive to develop space at the expense of the defense budget. For the Russian Federation, this is very important.

      This refusal is only at hand for us, let them not whine later!
  2. Ami du peuple
    Ami du peuple 23 January 2016 11: 33 New
    Does the dream of SDI still give Americans no peace? Recalls the 80s - then the Soviet Union also came up with an initiative to ban the deployment of weapons in outer space, and the States strongly opposed this. Nothing in the world is changing ..
    1. figwam
      figwam 23 January 2016 11: 58 New
      Washington disagrees with RF and PRC project on non-deployment of weapons in space

      It’s immediately clear who the aggressor is in this world.
      1. Vladimirets
        Vladimirets 23 January 2016 13: 04 New
        Quote: figvam
        It’s immediately clear who the aggressor is in this world.

        Who, who, DPRK. laughing
        1. kotvov
          kotvov 23 January 2016 20: 36 New
          Who, who, DPRK ,,
          forgot to add: Yugoslavia, Libya, Iraq, Syria, well, and striped, as always, the victims. ugh on them.
  3. GSH-18
    GSH-18 23 January 2016 11: 34 New
    As for the Sino-Russian draft treaty on weapons in outer space, we are very concerned about it, because, frankly, it cannot be verified.

    Well, bring this initiative! Why immediately refuse?
    1. GRAY
      GRAY 23 January 2016 11: 51 New
      Quote: GSH-18
      Well, bring this initiative! Why immediately refuse?

      As I understand it, the United States is pushing for the fact that the very fact of putting weapons into orbit cannot be controlled. And nobody is ready to provide reports on the designation of the spacecraft to them, and they themselves are unlikely to do so. So, here is a creative impasse.
      In GOST R ISO 9000-2008 (equivalent to ISO 9000: 2000), "verification" is defined as follows: "Confirmation based on the presentation of objective evidence that the established requirements have been met."
      1. dauria
        dauria 23 January 2016 12: 22 New
        the fact of putting weapons into orbit is impossible to control

        Why is it impossible? Any launch inspects the international commission, this will be enough for specialists. Trade secrets, tricky programs - dog with them, keep it. You can even install the M-16 or AK on board. But a nuclear charge, or a supply of fuel for maneuvering, or a serious source of energy is difficult to hide. So they don’t want to, they just hope to get ahead in this matter.
        1. GRAY
          GRAY 23 January 2016 12: 36 New
          Quote: dauria
          Any launch inspects the international commission, this will be enough for specialists.

          For specialists from the CIA, SVR and the Chinese MGB. laughing
          Often, even the specific purpose of the spacecraft is not voiced - "a military apparatus" and that's it, a potential enemy is not supposed to know what is hanging over his head and what it is intended for.
          Knowing the habits of the "exceptional" we can safely assume that they would like to tightly control everyone, and everyone else should take their word for them. Here is such a variant of the contract immediately fly by like a fly - do not go to the fortuneteller.
    2. Thunderbolt
      Thunderbolt 23 January 2016 12: 10 New
      Quote: GSH-18
      Why immediately refuse?
      So they have probably already adopted a secret program. Funds have been invested and development is underway. X-37, for example. For years this laboratory hangs in space, and NASA and the military are silent about the purpose of such an experiment. And what is it like not a prototype of a space interceptor, and a ground-based one. objects can be threatened. They have invested a lot to curtail such a direction. In the end, their main goal is "possession of overwhelming military-technical superiority and the ability to guaranteed neutralize the strategic nuclear forces of all other countries possessing." Here they are by any means and move along this curved road.
    3. tolian
      tolian 23 January 2016 12: 26 New
      And they do so. Don't you get it? Our media are trying so hard to present it. And more than once the most frisky in a puddle sat down. If you didn’t intentionally do it. After all, this can be assumed. They were paid, they launched a half-truth.
  4. andr327
    andr327 23 January 2016 11: 34 New
    They act like our liberals: there are many words, but there is a huge distance to concrete creative actions. to criticize and look for verbal discrepancies is always easier. than make specific decisions!
  5. Arktidianets
    Arktidianets 23 January 2016 11: 35 New
    These dogs come out of any agreement and contract unilaterally, which can be negotiated with at all ?!
    1. WKS
      WKS 23 January 2016 11: 47 New
      Quote: Arctidian
      These dogs come out of any agreement and contract unilaterally, which can be negotiated with at all ?!

      Why offend dogs. How can one even compare such faithful animals with such dodgy liars like US State Department officials. If you compare it with a cold underwater reptile such as moray eels.
      1. WKS
        WKS 23 January 2016 11: 53 New
        These faces are quite suitable for them.
    2. YohanPalych
      YohanPalych 23 January 2016 12: 04 New
      Quote: Arctidian
      These dogs come out of any agreement and contract unilaterally,

      Yes Yes Yes! and at the same time DEMAND !!! ( wassat ) rigorous implementation by other parties. hi
  6. kil 31
    kil 31 23 January 2016 11: 37 New
    verifiable. It was easier to write. We can’t check what is starting.
    Verification verification, verifiability, method of confirmation using evidence of any theoretical provisions
  7. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 23 January 2016 11: 37 New
    The State Department did not agree with the initiative of the Russian Federation and the PRC on the non-placement of weapons in space

    It's just that the USA, in their sense of "superiority" rooted in their consciousness, believes that they are "ahead of the rest of the planet" in this direction as well. But feelings and reality often don't coincide.
  8. A1L9E4K9S
    A1L9E4K9S 23 January 2016 11: 37 New
    Yeah, you won’t get the truth from the Americans, nor when will they disagree with this initiative.
  9. Yak28
    Yak28 23 January 2016 11: 38 New
    At the moment, the United States dominates the world, and while this happens they will do what they want, Russia and China will not have a decree. The USA and ABM will put and place weapons in outer space to ensure military dominance for another 100 years
  10. lysyj bob
    lysyj bob 23 January 2016 11: 39 New
    Again, under various pretexts, they will play for time. "No treaty - no obligations - whatever I want, I launch it. Russia and China are to blame for creating tension - they slipped a bad draft treaty."
    Our song is good, start over ...
  11. AlexTires
    AlexTires 23 January 2016 11: 39 New
    In vain they abut! So far, the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China are only offering, but it’s quite possible that they already have something ... No matter how you regret it later .... Actually, these are the problems of the states, because all collective security has long been a profanation
    1. VALERIK_097
      VALERIK_097 23 January 2016 12: 01 New
      It turns out that Russia and the PRC now have their hands untied. In Russia, developments from the last century have remained.
  12. V.ic
    V.ic 23 January 2016 11: 41 New
    Well, who would doubt that "Baba Yaga" will be once again против? Prepositions for this can throw a wagon and a small cart. The main thing that observe the principle!
  13. valent45
    valent45 23 January 2016 11: 41 New
    The Americans will not agree to this treaty. They have already invested a lot.
    into space weapons. Hypothetically, even if they go to
    this agreement, they will not comply anyway.
  14. 33 Watcher
    33 Watcher 23 January 2016 11: 43 New
    So, it means it's time to actively work on anti-satellite weapons. No, as they say, and there is no trial. yes
  15. newcomer
    newcomer 23 January 2016 11: 45 New
    In general, I understood from the article: Lyalya Truffle, Burum Burum. the main idea: the Yankees do not like the Russian-Chinese project, because they are doing a project with their halyu, called Europe. and again a substitution of concepts: well, where does the ground-based weapon that shoots down satellites, if we are talking about preventing weapons, in space. It seems they want to play “Garbaty Corral2.” i.e. drive into the contract everything that we are stronger and it doesn’t matter what the hedgehog doesn’t do.
  16. Mikhail Krapivin
    Mikhail Krapivin 23 January 2016 11: 45 New
    The meaning of the statement is that America will continue to develop and deploy weapons in outer space, while other countries should look at it with enthusiasm.
    1. MIKHAN
      MIKHAN 23 January 2016 12: 32 New
      Quote: Mikhail Krapivin
      The meaning of the statement is that America will continue to develop and deploy weapons in outer space, while other countries should look at it with enthusiasm.

      On our engines?)))) wink What is the hangar booster? Something all quieted down sharply (but a powerful little thing happened) and I think the launch site is almost done ... Coincidence? I don’t think so ...
  17. NDR-791
    NDR-791 23 January 2016 11: 46 New
    Washington disagrees with RF and PRC project on non-deployment of weapons in outer space, as countries have not proposed verification mechanism
    We also have to give you a verification mechanism ??? Strain your brains yourself, you are a great technological power wink
    How were you going to control your own SDI? Or just a bench press?
    1. ver_
      ver_ 24 January 2016 05: 44 New
      ... you might think we need their permission ...
  18. Sergey-8848
    Sergey-8848 23 January 2016 11: 47 New
    That’s why you can get to the point of striving to be more exclusive, smarter and more furious than all - it turns out that the adoption of the contract, according to the State Department, is more dangerous than its absence and the space arms race. Although - it is understandable under the current president, a pseudo-peacemaker.
  19. Great-grandfather of Zeus
    Great-grandfather of Zeus 23 January 2016 11: 50 New
    Oh, nothing, years will pass, the Chinese will stamp satellites with atomic bombs and suspend them in space legally, right above the states ...
  20. Gormenghast
    Gormenghast 23 January 2016 11: 55 New
    The issue of verification is important, but I do not understand how this can interfere with the introduction of the ban, albeit declarative.

    The 67-year space treaty prohibits the deployment in space of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. It is also difficult to verify, but about 100 countries have signed and ratified it.
  21. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 23 January 2016 12: 00 New
    Any refractory "cobblestone" with the first cosmic velocity can become a space weapon. Its kinetic energy is much higher than the mass in TNT equivalent. All kinds of slime lasers are much less effective due to the limitations associated with the presence of the atmosphere. And these "stones from the sky" are the very hypersonic weapons. Equipped with a guidance system, such wunderwales are capable of a lot. And how to define it as a weapon?
  22. Delink
    Delink 23 January 2016 12: 09 New
    All that remains is to actively deploy weapons in outer space ourselves, until they begin to propose what no weapons limitation project is!
  23. Lumumba
    Lumumba 23 January 2016 12: 23 New
    Quote: Mountain Shooter
    Any refractory "cobblestone" with the first cosmic velocity can become a space weapon.

    For example, a tungsten molded pig weighing 1 ton, equipped with an accelerating block and a communication system, launched into a highly elliptical orbit. At the right moment, the booster block brings the blank from orbit at the right point and at a speed of ~ 20 km / s it leaves a crater half a kilometer wide at the right point. And no radioactive contamination. And if the blank is multilayer from a certain combination of metals, then such a blank when it collides with the ground will also generate an EMP that will knock out all computers and iPhones within a radius of 50 kilometers.

    So far, no one has drawn such a tin just because this very special orbit, suitable for such tricks, is very expensive and energy-intensive to remove even 50 kilograms of tungsten. And also because such blanks must be launched at least a hundred in order to guarantee disable the means of retaliation.
  24. yuriy55
    yuriy55 23 January 2016 12: 24 New
    As for the Sino-Russian draft treaty on weapons in outer space, we are very concerned about it ... it cannot be verified.

    You are not worried that the whole world cannot verify your democracy, the true value of your dollar, your efforts in the fight against ISIS ... but what, there are many doubts that on September 11, a Boeing flew into the Pentagon building ...
  25. NordUral
    NordUral 23 January 2016 12: 30 New
    It’s you guys from the State Department who are unverified in all the nuances of this confused term, and therefore apply it to somehow justify your refusal.
  26. Charik
    Charik 23 January 2016 12: 39 New
    Well, let everyone fly into space to fight there is a lot of space, and then they don’t have enough space on earth, they don’t know how and where they will stick into Syria or Iraq
  27. Panabebis
    Panabebis 23 January 2016 12: 56 New
    They can already use weapons in space, they already have spacecraft. Just a little while ...
  28. 31rus
    31rus 23 January 2016 12: 58 New
    Dear, what the Americans make is called baby talk, control systems exist and work for us and for them, it’s all easier when your hands are untied, whatever you want, which is US policy, there’s a double-edged sword, it’s a huge expense, new the armament stage, which does not make the world safer, on the other hand, it is new technologies, new projects, perhaps new discoveries and another question who will be the leader, the main thing is to conduct your programs without combining with China. Even reanimate Soviet projects with new technical equipment, modern developments already impressive, only where to get the money
  29. AIR-ZNAK
    AIR-ZNAK 23 January 2016 13: 01 New
    But control can only be at rocket launch sites. Control of the payload at the stage of preparation for docking with the carrier and before launch. But mine-based rocket launches also need to be taken into account. Or it is worth recalling the Spiral project with the launch from the aircraft carrier (type An-225) too, for each aircraft of this type to put a commission or something? So far, there are more questions than answers. Cosmodromes and so transparent can not. And, judging by the reaction of our *** partners, *** they would like to assign an interceptor in other countries to each missile according to an international level commission (what’s interesting, and how to assign an interceptor to sea-based interceptors?) about the contract, how much about trust, but with trust in our *** partners *** tight
  30. evil partisan
    evil partisan 23 January 2016 13: 11 New
    An urgent need to bring some old satellite out of orbit. Yes, so that he would get to the Pentagon exactly ... repeat
  31. karevik
    karevik 23 January 2016 13: 13 New
    I'm not talking about space. I read that 4 divisions are being created. WHAT FOR? Once again, we must remind our enemies, a hundred, with the slightest encroachment on our territory, we will use nuclear weapons! It does not matter who the Ukrainians will be, or the Americans are applicable, and the point is Why should we ruin our fighters!
  32. Cat man null
    Cat man null 23 January 2016 13: 27 New
    Quote: karevik
    we must remind our enemies that with the slightest encroachment on our territory we will use nuclear weapons!

    Boring voice:

    - nuclear weapons are deterrence weapons ..
    - the use of nuclear weapons, even by one state and one-time, now inevitably lead to a global nuclear war on the principle of "all against all"

    Therefore, it is still better to "create divisions".


    Quote: karevik
    Why should we ruin our fighters!

    Nuclear war will kill everyone - both fighters and non-fighters. feel the difference yes
    1. sharp-lad
      sharp-lad 23 January 2016 22: 39 New
      For what a beautiful ending will be drawn. The truth is valid for everyone.
  33. gergi
    gergi 23 January 2016 14: 29 New
    Pathological liars. They lie even when it’s not necessary. Out of habit, just in case.
  34. Vita vko
    Vita vko 23 January 2016 14: 34 New
    If the United States is against, then this treaty is not beneficial for them. Consequently, American projects to deploy weapons in space are already being implemented. And the fact that verification problems exist is a common technical excuse. They are solved very simply, with the help of observers of the verification commission during the preparation and launch of the spacecraft.
    The only solution is to force the United States to cooperate. The benefit of the combined efforts of Russia and China is more than enough.
  35. remy
    remy 23 January 2016 14: 34 New
    did not agree ?! Sure, not a problem!
    1 launch of A7.2V Angara launch vehicle at DOE - 50 tons
    1 launch of the Proton-M LV at DOE - 20 tons
    we get see picture above / Skif-DM + Diamond /
    orbital corvette or MRK as you like ....
  36. Cat man null
    Cat man null 23 January 2016 14: 59 New
    Duc .. The agreement is an agreement, our business is to offer, yours is to politely refuse (this .. I’m from the Russian Federation, from the Queen City, if that wink despite amertsky flag)

    Here are beautiful pictures about Buran (source - And similar work is still underway.

    "It's not that I don't know - you can't tell" (c) Vysotsky.

  37. mark2
    mark2 23 January 2016 18: 30 New
    Once again, the US has shown itself not in the best possible way. The world has once again become convinced that adequate initiatives regarding the existence of peace on the Planet are of little interest to them.
    I do not know what the governments of Russia and China will do if the obstinacy on the personal exclusivity of the United States is completely stubborn, but I would agree with China that since the United States poses a global threat to all of Humanity, then space will be closed to everyone. That is, to remove garbage in all orbits. Fiber. Balls, sawdust. And let them rotate the destruction of all the satellites and ours and not ours and American. All. Then they will settle to the surface. But years will pass. The planet will roll back in development a couple of steps back. But then the United States will be in the position of a defenseless child, it will be taught once and for all.
  38. Lumumba
    Lumumba 23 January 2016 20: 16 New
    Strictly speaking, there is such a plan. Only he is somewhat less "fatal". Its essence with the following:
    If the Americans put into orbit something that resembles an orbital combat platform (OBP), then we put into the on-going orbit of bolts and balls with a volume of 1 bucket.

    OBP costs lard bucks (conditionally), a bucket of balls $ 1. Therefore, no one has yet to rock the boat to launch something similar to the pictures in the post above into orbit. There is no doubt that our "sworn friends" will do the same if we put something like this into orbit.
  39. Vladimir 23rus
    Vladimir 23rus 23 January 2016 22: 22 New
    This means that the "partners" have something on the way or there (in space) already.
  40. Papapg
    Papapg 23 January 2016 23: 21 New
    Quote: Lumumba
    we put into the on-orbit of bolts and balls with a volume of 1 bucket.

    Announce humanitarian action to collect unnecessary balls of bolts laughing
    Parts of the weapon are already in space, Glonas, jeepies, communications equipment, plus reconnaissance modules, so it's up to you to bring cartridges.
  41. Fat
    Fat 24 January 2016 00: 12 New
    Yes, in itself, the refusal to consider even the subject of the agreement is about many things "bad" and says. They are even afraid to "declare", despite the fact that it is much easier to develop "control mechanisms". The "bad coincidences" of the early 70s come to mind:
    "OKS" Salyut-2 "(OPS-1 or No. 101) under the program of military orbital manned stations of the USSR" Almaz "weighing 18,5 tons was launched into orbit by the carrier rocket" Proton-K "on April 3, 1973 from the Baikonur cosmodrome. The perigee of the orbit was 257 km, the apogee was 278 km, the inclination was 51,6 °.
    On the 13th day, depressurization of the OPS compartments occurred, and on April 25, telemetry information ceased to be received. The station, having been in orbit for 54 days, completed its work on May 28, 1973 as a result of natural deceleration in the upper atmosphere and fell into the ocean
    The Salyut-3 orbital space station (Almaz-2, OPS-2, or No. 102) was put into orbit with the Proton launch vehicle on June 18,5, 26, under the program of military orbital manned space stations of the USSR Almaz with a mass of 1974 tons The perigee of the orbit was 219 km, the climax is 270 km, the inclination is 51,6 °. The station completed its work on January 25, 1975, having spent 213 days in orbit and providing a manned flight with the first crew (Soyuz-14) for 13 days
    Skylab is the first and only national American orbital station designed for technological, astrophysical, medical and biological research, as well as for Earth observation. Launched on May 14, 1973, hosted three Apollo expeditions from May 1973 to February 1974, deorbited and destroyed on July 11, 1979. "- Wikipedia. Who is Almaz?
    Almaz (OPS) is a series of orbital stations developed by the Central Design Bureau for the tasks of the USSR Ministry of Defense. The stations were put into orbit using the Proton launch vehicle. Transport service of the station was supposed as a TKS spacecraft developed under the same Almaz program, and previously developed by Soyuz. Stations for manned operation received the name "Salute" adjacent to civilian DOS stations. A total of 5 Almaz — OPS stations — manned by Salyut-2, Salyut-3, Salyut-5, as well as automatic modifications of Cosmos-1870 and Almaz-1 — were launched. - Wikipedia.
    Nothing secret.
    So maybe the Cold War wasn't that cold? And the babbling of the US State Department - reinsurance? Who knows?
    1. Fat
      Fat 24 January 2016 00: 48 New
      As if to "catch up". Almaz-2: "Gennady Sarafanov and Lev Demin had to work on board the Almaz-2 for a whole month. The launch of the ship went well. After about
      day of ballistics, he approached the station. The system turned on
      automatic rendezvous and docking "Igla", and here again the automation failed,
      which perceived the distance to the station 350 m as 20 km and
      gave an impulse to the engines to accelerate the ship. The crew did not figure out what
      occurs, and did not switch to manual control. The ship rushed to the station from
      at a speed of 20 m / s (in this case, the estimated speed when touching should not
      exceed 0,3 m / s). A catastrophe seemed inevitable. Ship and crew saved
      that the program for automatic control of proximity from 20 km
      provided for the presence of lateral speed - the introduced amendment gave the ship
      the ability to rush past the station at a distance of 40 m. The crew is still not
      understood what was happening. The faulty Needle made the ship repeat
      rapprochement sessions. Two more times the ship made a deadly flight
      past the station, until the MCC intervened, issuing a command to turn off the mode
      automatic rapprochement. From the attempt to dock in manual mode
      refuse, because the fuel was only for return. Twenty
      On August 15, the Soyuz-XNUMX descent vehicle successfully landed on
      territory of Kazakhstan.
      The State Commission concluded that the Igla docking system,
      created at the Research Institute of Precision Instruments, requires serious revision, which will take
      a lot of time. However, there was no ready-made "Union", therefore, from others
      expeditions to "Almaz-2" had to be abandoned. 1975 January XNUMX
      years after the completion of the semi-annual flight program in automatic mode
      the station was withdrawn from orbit and ceased to exist in the Pacific
      the ocean.
      Interesting fact: before mixing the station, the testers decided to test it
      the gun. On command from Earth, the gun fired the first and only salvo - shells,
      released against the orbital velocity vector, entered the atmosphere and burned out.

      Fortunately, this space weapon never came in handy. On the next
      The "Almaz" gun was gone. "

  42. Fat
    Fat 24 January 2016 00: 57 New
    Summary: "peaceful" manned spacecraft corresponds in semantic load to "peaceful" nuclear submarine. Best regards, Tolstoy hi