Military Review

How interested is Russia in START 3?

72
The press has been actively discussing the proposals allegedly made by the United States on the topic of extending START-3 for several days. Yesterday it was just talk, but specific information about the desire of the United States has already appeared. At the state level, there were words about the desire to retain START-3.


"Our president, in his Prague's 2009 setup speech of the year, charted a path that takes us on the path to a world without nuclear weapons"- said on Monday evening, answering a question from a TASS correspondent on this topic, the official representative of the National Security Council (SNB) of the United States at the White House Ned Price."

“We are always looking for additional ways to achieve progress on the path indicated by our president, while maintaining a reliable deterrent potential for the US, our allies and partners,” he added. “As we have said, we will continue to revise our planned modernization program, assess availability additional steps to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our security strategy and look for ways to further strengthen the global non-proliferation regime. "

Naturally, they could not but respond to such publications in the Kremlin. They are well aware that the information was launched in order to probe the reaction of the political and military elite of Russia. Such a reaction, though not at the highest level, really followed.

Alexander Grushko, Russia's Permanent Representative to NATO on the Russia 24 TV channel, indicated that the potential of bilateral negotiations with the United States to reduce strategic offensive arms has been exhausted and that further progress in this direction should take into account a wide range of different factors.

“Our position regarding the possibility of further reductions is absolutely clear,” he said. “We believe that the bilateral negotiations resource in the area of ​​reducing nuclear strategic offensive arms has been exhausted. Exhausted, first of all, because the new equation of security and strategic stability must take into account all the diversity of factors which affect this stability. "

From the outside, everything looks like the desire of Americans to maintain a certain balance of strategic offensive arms. But is it really? In order to find the answer to this question, it is worth remembering what is “inside” the contract. What does he oblige us to?



"Each of the parties reduces and limits its own strategic offensive weapons in such a way that seven years after its entry into force (and later) their total quantities do not exceed:

- 700 units for deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and heavy bomber (TB);
- 1550 units for warheads on them;
- 800 units for deployed and non-deployed launchers (PU) of ICBMs and SLBMs, as well as TB.

The treaty first introduced the concepts of “non-deployed” carriers and launchers, that is, those that are not in combat readiness, but used for training or testing without warheads.

Each party has the right to independently determine the composition and structure of its strategic offensive weapons in the total limits established by the treaty.

The contract contains a ban on the basing of strategic offensive arms outside the national territory.

Two provisions of the document relate to missile defense (ABM). The first is about the relationship between strategic offensive (nuclear weapons) and strategic defensive weapons (missile defense systems). The second is a ban on re-equipment of launchers of ICBMs and SLBMs into launchers for missile defense interceptors, as well as their reverse re-equipment.

There are no restrictions on missile defense. The so-called “return potential” - stockpiled nuclear warheads remained unaccounted for. Technically, this part of the nuclear arsenal can be deployed quickly enough if either of the parties “ceases”.

As can be seen from the provisions of the treaty, Russia today is not profitable. Although, in meticulous readers the question arises: why? Why the USSR such contracts were beneficial, but not for Russia? What has changed on the political map? How has the military "alignment" changed in the world in recent years?

Several factors contributed to the loss of relevance to strategic offensive arms.

First of all, the withdrawal of Russian troops from the territory of European states. What were our troop groups in Europe? Nothing more than shock forces capable of quickly taking control of all of Europe.

In reality, the Soviet troops were primarily a strike force. That "brake" for the West, which stopped any attempts to change the situation in its direction. And the withdrawal of our soldiers from European countries without serious concessions to us from the other side can be considered a betrayal. Betrayal of the USSR and Russia.

The presence of groups forced the West to create deterrence systems. It is precisely nuclear offensive weapons systems. Therefore, the conclusion of the START-1 and START-2 suited us perfectly. These treaties really contributed to the preservation of many lives in the event of a conflict.

Another important factor is the actions of NATO in Eastern Europe. So much has already been written about this that the interested reader can adequately and convincingly explain the need for an answer. The only thing worth adding in this connection is the superiority of NATO in conventional weapons, the superiority of NATO in economic and mobilization terms. The relocation of NATO units to our borders created a diametrically opposite situation. Now can we not capture Europe. Now NATO is already threatening our territories, in fact occupying a number of countries that were former allies of the USSR.

It is possible that those four battalions that will be stationed in the Baltic States and Poland - that's all. Not. Just for today, the alliance can not provide more. Therefore, there is talk at the highest level about the increase in the military spending of the member countries of the bloc. So, there will be money, there will be new divisions and units.

Another factor is also "on hearing". American missile defense in Europe. A known question. The options for its use were discussed at the highest level both in Russia and in the West. Why?

The missile defense system today is not a special problem for us. Our new missiles will easily overcome the anti-missile belt. However, by the 2020-21, the missile defense system will be equipped with new missiles. And it will radically change the situation. Our carriers, destroyed at the initial stage of the flight, will become "graves" for several warheads at once. Simply put, the Americans changed the missile defense approach itself. Not to "catch" the warheads at the final stage of the flight, but to shoot down the carrier itself. The benefit of placing "right next" to our territory makes it possible.

And in this case, today there is one effective way to fight. The missile defense system cannot "catch" a large number of missiles at once. Especially running from mobile installations. Hence, we can assume and the main issue that they want to discuss NATO.

The main thing for the West today is to reduce or completely ban the production of mobile launchers. And limiting the quantitative composition of launch vehicles. And we understand that.

To cool down our liberals, it is worthwhile to cite some facts about the implementation of START-3. What we have today.

In 2014, for the first time since the beginning of the XXI century, Russia caught up with the United States both in the number of deployed and non-deployed carriers and in the number of warheads (including due to the adoption of the new 955 nuclear-powered submarines equipped with “Bulava” missiles) with several warheads; besides, the intercontinental ballistic missiles Topol-M with one warhead were replaced by the Yars missiles with three warheads).

So, as of September 1, 2014 was for the United States, there were 794 deployed carriers, and for Russia, only 528. At the same time, the number of warheads on deployed carriers in the USA is 1642, in Russia 1643, while the number of deployed and non-deployed facilities in the USA is 912, in Russia it is 911.

According to the US Department of State data on the implementation of START-3 from 1 in January 2016, the United States has 762 deployed carriers of nuclear warheads, Russia has 526. The number of warheads on deployed carriers from the US - 1538, from Russia 1648. In general, deployed and non-deployed launchers of ICBMs, SLBMs and TBs in the USA are 898, in Russia - 877.

According to experts, by 2018, when the restrictions for both sides of the treaty come into force, the approximate parity between the strategic nuclear forces of Russia and the United States will remain. Due to the fact that Russia has fewer carriers than stipulated by the contract thresholds, it has the right to increase their number, acting within the framework of START-3.

In addition, we recall that in NATO there are two more states that have nuclear weapons, but do not participate in the negotiations. This is France and the UK. How to deal with this? Yes, and other nuclear powers, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel, somehow prefer to remain in the shadows. Is the Israeli or Indian nuclear weapon worse than the Russian or American?

So, no matter how we wish to look good, to reduce nuclear weapons and means of delivery for us today is like death. To go for it means to negate all efforts to organize an effective security system of the country. And the American "carnival with dressing up in a white fur coat," the peacemaker is nothing more than an attempt to get us to start "playing by the proposed rules." And the rules that are proposed have already been tested on the USSR.
Author:
72 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 13 July 2016 04: 39
    +3
    Can be used as a tool for trading.
    1. evgenii67
      evgenii67 13 July 2016 09: 34
      +11
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      Can be used as a tool for trading.
      Putin about missile defense, I especially liked his phrase from 8:12 to 8:16
      -khe !!! I do not know how this happens
    2. GYGOLA
      GYGOLA 13 July 2016 10: 17
      +6
      Are they completely stupid? and capacity building is needed.
      1. volot-voin
        volot-voin 13 July 2016 10: 22
        +8
        Quote: GYGOLA
        The USA, are they really stupid? ... It’s impossible to crush economically, they are going to crush by force, but for a start by treaties

        You should not play with a sharpie by his own rules. START-3 .. SNV-N into the furnace, into the scrap. As soon as we lose our nuclear shield, they will bomb us right away.
        All these START were signed by traitors, starting with Humpback, depriving us of the opportunity to strike a good blow at Europe "if there is war tomorrow .."
        Let them first dismantle their missile defense, then we will talk further.
        1. Pilot
          Pilot 14 July 2016 15: 40
          0
          Quote: volot-voin
          Do not play with a sharpie

          So I think, we develop, manufacture, put into service, without regard to the United States. And further. The smaller the electronics, the more reliable the product. A priori.
  2. Teberii
    Teberii 13 July 2016 04: 43
    +3
    The Americans and their allies cannot oppose us with modern weapons. Therefore, they insist on the old treaties. The same applies to the treaty "On Security in Europe." Which they brazenly and stubbornly violate.
    1. Aleksander
      Aleksander 13 July 2016 06: 01
      +9
      Quote: Teberii
      Americans and their allies cannot counter modern weapons to us.


      But the nuclear heads, which are destroying ours, they remove from the carriers and simply .... store! They are believed to "cut". As a result, Russia disarmed, and the United States only lost its combat readiness.
      A contract that has allowed this interpretation is CRIMINAL, as are its signatories.
      And there can be no talk of its extension, especially given the fact that the strategic nuclear forces are the only things that save Russia today from the fate of Yugoslavia and Libya.
      1. Alexander Romanov
        Alexander Romanov 13 July 2016 07: 48
        0
        Quote: Aleksander


        But the nuclear heads that our destroy, they are removed from the media and just .... store!

        Already nobody destroys anything!
        Quote: Aleksander
        As a result, Russia disarmed, and the United States only lost in combat readiness.

        Do you have such conclusions?
      2. Essex62
        Essex62 13 July 2016 08: 04
        +6
        Well, it is unlikely that they will succeed as easily as with Yugoslavia. Our air defense systems will quickly "land" their duralumin, half with composite. And on the ground on the snout they will receive high quality. The RF Armed Forces are not the same as they were in the 90s, the beginning of the XNUMXs. It is not necessary to reduce it, but to increase it qualitatively. It would not be bad if all countries, potential clients of the Freemasons for democratization had such a club. It was then that the "great" messianic idea of ​​the Saxo-Jewish gopota ended.
      3. Bronis
        Bronis 13 July 2016 10: 32
        +1
        Quote: Aleksander
        But the nuclear heads, which are destroying ours, they remove from the carriers and simply .... store! They are believed to "cut".

        The situation was initially more difficult. De facto, START II did not start working, because it was "ratified-ratified", but somehow it was not very much ratified. signed it back in 1993, and argued about it in the Duma right up to 2000. According to it, we had to leave only monoblocks in the Strategic Missile Forces ... but we didn't have the money for that ... and politics, too. and thank God that it was not found ...
        But the Americans from the Minutmen didn’t twist the extra BBs, but not all sawed. Yes, and there were also many questions with the MX ICBMs /
        De facto ... since 2002, an agreement on the SOR (Moscow Treaty) was in force. And according to it, it was just possible to store and it is not at all necessary to destroy. here everyone decided for himself ... And START-2 was finally buried by us after the termination of the ABM treaty. Conclusion: you need to have your own head. And then somehow, under Misha Gorbachev, the MRBM was cut, and as a result, the Oka OTRK was cut to zero ... just like that ...
  3. Jarilo
    Jarilo 13 July 2016 04: 54
    +5
    They have a field for maneuver - NATO, but we do not, therefore START-3 is not an equivalent treaty. We need a Russia-NATO treaty.
    1. Bronis
      Bronis 13 July 2016 09: 54
      +6
      Quote: Jarilo
      They have a field for maneuver - NATO, but we do not, therefore START-3 is not an equivalent treaty. We need a Russia-NATO treaty.

      Rather, a broader agreement is needed between all the powers possessing nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles. Including - India and Pakistan.
      And this treaty should be comprehensive: strategic nuclear forces, tactical nuclear weapons, missile defense.
      But this is not yet possible ... alas ... and that's why.
      1. The USA is very convenient that the agreement does not include the UK and France, because, de facto, a unified strategic nuclear weapons management infrastructure is being created under the auspices of the United States, but the potential of these countries is not taken into account. And he, by the way, is about 500 warheads.

      2. China traditionally acts as a monkey, which sits on a hill and watches the fight ... There is no exact information about how many warheads and delivery vehicles it has. And it is beneficial for them, because raises many questions.
      The same is true for Israel. Is there a nuclear warhead? - do not confirm, but do not deny! Are there delivery vehicles? - Yes there is, they will get everyone who is needed in the region, and not only ....

      3. India and Pakistan - obviously will not sign any treaty on such a topic. And not only because of mutual confrontation. India has traditionally had problems with China. and their arsenal is small. any agreement will fix the quota, which is disadvantageous for them.

      The position of Russia stands apart. On the one hand, we are interested in a reasonable agreement on strategic nuclear forces. In fact - in maintaining the status quo of the current number.
      With tactical nuclear weapons, we are not interested in a contract, because it significantly eliminates the superior potential of NATO in its non-nuclear part (although in the case of China, nuclear weapons are our main threat ... but the US / NATO is much more relevant now)

      The ABM theme is the US / NATO treaty, which is disadvantageous, while for the rest it is still useful.

      Actually, the current strategic offensive arms shows all these contradictions.
      We would like it to have a missile defense system, while the Americans wanted the mobile systems to be monoblock and there were no maneuvering BB. But a compromise is a compromise. As a result, the missile defense system develops, and we supply "multi-headed" Yars.
  4. Knowing
    Knowing 13 July 2016 05: 11
    +10
    The Americans and the BZHRK being restored will want to "monitor", and this is absolutely impermissible, but ... recourse
    1. andj61
      andj61 13 July 2016 08: 46
      +4
      Quote: Knowing
      The Americans and the BZHRK being restored will want to "monitor", and this is absolutely impermissible, but ... recourse

      They still want to monitor mobile complexes what , and even monitor bully, but only in terms of the number of launchers, missiles and charges, but by no means about the place of their actual location. yes With BZHRK will be exactly the same. drinks
  5. Andrey Yuryevich
    Andrey Yuryevich 13 July 2016 05: 19
    +5
    How interested is Russia in START 3?
    America violates all contracts, the point is in them?
  6. Denis DV
    Denis DV 13 July 2016 05: 19
    +6
    So, it seems that the United States has had problems with the implementation of previous START treaties. I think it is necessary to wait another year with START-3, let our specialists run for their facilities for verification laughing In this case, rush is unnecessary bully
  7. Dmitry Potapov
    Dmitry Potapov 13 July 2016 05: 50
    +4
    No and no again! In today's situation, there is no reduction and extension, only on condition that NATO is dissolved, the missile defense system is dismantled, all US bases are home, we have enough contracts that the spotted reptile concluded, we still slurp, and some countries generally ceased to exist as states.
  8. Nix1986
    Nix1986 13 July 2016 06: 16
    +4
    With all its horror, nuclear weapons have been saving us from the Third World for almost 80 years. Only the guarantee of mutual destruction will be a cold shower for hotheads from unleashing a full-scale war. Another thing is that you really need to monitor non-proliferation so that some barmalei do not have a charge.
    1. domokl
      domokl 13 July 2016 06: 20
      0
      recourse with tracking problems ... There are countries that have not signed the non-proliferation treaty. For example, Israel has acquired an atomic bomb quite legally. Not in the contract. and scientists capable of doing this today are enough
      1. Nix1986
        Nix1986 13 July 2016 06: 53
        -1
        I agree. But I would be more worried about North Korea, who knows how Kim’s darling will behave if there is either a military coup or a dark people. He will have nothing to lose.
  9. Blackmokona
    Blackmokona 13 July 2016 06: 32
    -3
    1. The extension of START-3 is not equal to the reduction of nuclear arsenals. And just freezing on the current ceilings, which Russia has not even reached!
    2. The START-3 gap is the start of a nuclear arms race, and the question is, whose economy is cooler, the economy of NATO or Russia? And here is the old rake that the USSR did not pull, but Russia naturally pulls wassat (Sarcasm)
    1. domokl
      domokl 13 July 2016 06: 50
      +6
      Quote: BlackMokona
      The START-3 gap is the start of a nuclear arms race, and the question is, whose economy is cooler, the economy of NATO or Russia? And here is the old rake that the USSR did not pull, but Russia naturally pulls

      Not so scary ... If you were talking about conventional weapons, you would not even argue.
      In nuclear weapons, we have an advantage. By quality. NATO nuclear weapons are mostly junk.
      And the question raised, this is not written in the article. The US needs to decide on armament priorities. Even such an economy as there does not immediately pull everything. So they think which component to develop. Nuclear weapons or ordinary.
      As soon as the issue of the extension or renegotiation of the treaty is resolved, we will hear about the priorities for the development of arms of NATO and the USA
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 13 July 2016 07: 15
        0
        In nuclear weapons, we have an advantage. By quality. NATO nuclear weapons are mostly junk.

        There is evidence or unfounded allegation. I met information that their charges are more compact than ours, and there are charges of variable power that we do not have. And the mace only catches up with them Trident-2
        And as for the economy, having a share in world GDP of almost 10 times more, you can overtake in everything and deliver three times the most.
        1. domokl
          domokl 13 July 2016 07: 19
          +1
          Quote: BlackMokona
          There is evidence or unfounded allegation.

          Go to the Russian army branch. There are enough articles of experts on this issue. Reasoned and not related to this article.
          1. Blackmokona
            Blackmokona 13 July 2016 07: 21
            -1
            Throw the answer there and give the link here, and I will pass. (I don’t have much time left, but how will I unsubscribe)
        2. Baby doll
          Baby doll 13 July 2016 13: 00
          +1
          Quote: BlackMokona
          their charges are more compact than ours,

          The claim is controversial. A "nuclear" 152 mm projectile was created in Snezhinsk long ago. Much more compact! And about variable power - google "boosting YABP"
          1. Blackmokona
            Blackmokona 15 July 2016 19: 34
            0
            M388 ammunition could be fired with a 120 mm M28 gun (range up to 2 km)

            Davy Crockett (D388 Crockett, MXNUMX) - A nuclear caliber ammunition delivered to the target using a recoilless gun, developed in the United States during the Cold War.

            One of the smallest (by mass) nuclear warheads [1] ever created, the Davy Crockett was developed in the late 1950s at the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory for use in the event of a Soviet offensive in Western Germany or on the Korean Peninsula .
            You can always where.
    2. andj61
      andj61 13 July 2016 08: 56
      +2
      Quote: BlackMokona
      . Extension of START-3 is not equal to a reduction in nuclear arsenals. And just freezing on the current ceilings, which Russia has not even reached!

      good That's right - totally agree! hi
      Quote: BlackMokona
      2. The START-3 gap is the start of a nuclear arms race, and the question is, whose economy is cooler, the economy of NATO or Russia? And here is the old rake that the USSR did not pull, but Russia naturally pulls (Sarcasm)

      And here - I do not agree! negative
      Let the United States get involved in a nuclear race with itself - we have enough strategic nuclear weapons to multiply them by zero, and taking into account even ALL of their possible allies - cause unacceptable damage. yes
      So why do we need to build up nuclear weapons? To destroy the United States, not one and a half to two times, but eight or ten? what There is no point in this! The United States is interested in reducing strategic nuclear weapons and even in completely abandoning them, because the United States and NATO surpassing Russia in military power without a strategic nuclear weapon every ten times. We need to leave enough strategists to have the OPPORTUNITY to destroy ALL possible opponents - and nothing more!
      So we do not need further negotiations on strategic offensive arms, and a complete rejection of strategic offensive arms is not very scary. hi
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 13 July 2016 10: 56
        0
        And here - I do not agree! negative

        Count how many nuclear warheads are needed to destroy the square-nesting method, you will see that even France will not be burned in the trash, the current arsenal, and if you hit the cities, see how many there are, plus important objects and more. Moreover, when exchanging for China, you will have to leave it, plus duplication of important objects in case of failure. The chance is 5%, but it is there, and nobody will want to suddenly discover the whole Pentagon. Plus missile defense will hit 5-6 pieces and so on.
        In the USA there are about 30 thousand cities

        And the population in the EU is larger than in the USA.
  10. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 13 July 2016 06: 44
    +4
    Do not sit with cheaters. They have a fifth ace up their sleeve. They are with Russia, as with the "Papuan" they are writing contracts. Accustomed to "for a penny of dimes" to change. No, good gentlemen, we don't need yours, but we won't give ours. Obama finally decided at least something to "play"? Peacemaker figs ...
  11. avva2012
    avva2012 13 July 2016 06: 45
    +1
    Conclude a contract? USA, this is a sharpie with five aces in hand. They are stronger than us economically and militarily. The only thing that holds them back (commonplace, but fact) is nuclear weapons. And suddenly, they want to prolong the treaty, they say it's expensive, that's all, "we must disarm"! H'm. Something is wrong here, with the marked peacekeepers.
  12. raid14
    raid14 13 July 2016 06: 51
    +4
    France has 384 strategic and 60 tactical nuclear weapons in NATO, (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_nuclear weapons) and in the UK, stockpiles of nuclear warheads amount to about 500 units. This number includes active (225 units) and inactive (up to 275 units) ammunition. http://vpk-news.ru/articles/14212
    Plus missile defense in Europe and NATO naval forces with Aegis, what kind of nuclear parity are we talking about?
    1. domokl
      domokl 13 July 2016 07: 04
      0
      bully Exactly. The conversation should be about the necessary minimum, taking into account all NATO warheads and delivery vehicles. And other countries too. The world is a complex multi-move. And pawns are often "eaten" or taken "for a fook", as happened with the USSR ...
    2. Leto
      Leto 13 July 2016 10: 50
      +1
      Quote: raid14
      France still has 384 strategic and 60 tactical nuclear weapons in NATO

      And China has a lot.
  13. avg-mgn
    avg-mgn 13 July 2016 07: 15
    0
    Quote: domokl
    As soon as the issue of the extension or renegotiation of the treaty is resolved, we will hear about the priorities for the development of arms of NATO and the USA

    I absolutely agree with you. Having a broader economic maneuver, the States will impose conditions with a bunch of pitfalls, as was already the case with previous treaties. Pretending that two parties agree, they modestly remain silent about the existence of a third - NATO countries.
  14. parusnik
    parusnik 13 July 2016 07: 17
    +2
    Yes, all this crap ... Still, Yu.V. Andropov made a statement that the USSR would not use nuclear weapons first .. Progressive mankind then approved this step .. Then, under Mishka, the nuclear tests ceased unilaterally, START, and not in our favor .. The West and the USA do not have faith, on paper it will be fixed or verbally .. and most importantly, to sign such treaties, the West needs to remove sanctions .. And then it turns out rubbish, Russia is head over heels in sanctions , and another vigorous weapon must lay down ...
    1. domokl
      domokl 13 July 2016 07: 21
      +4
      Quote: parusnik
      .Other Yu.V. Andropov made a statement that the USSR would not use nuclear weapons first .. Progressive humanity, then approved this step ..

      Yeah .. And under Putin, a new military doctrine was adopted, which states the possibility of delivering any, including nuclear, strike first. In order to ensure the security of the country tongue
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 13 July 2016 07: 27
        +1
        So under Andropov there was a 50% superiority over Western forces in Europe, and now NATO has three-fold superiority in Europe.
        See CFE Treaty, the actual availability of equipment for 1990, and 2011.
  15. keeper03
    keeper03 13 July 2016 07: 26
    0
    The fact is that all the actions of the United Jackals of America contradict any of their agreements, therefore it is necessary to send them by the forest, and not to conclude any military-political agreements with them!
    First, let the entire NATO infrastructure be removed from our borders, and then we can offer them something! In the meantime, we only need to arm ourselves!
    1. Evgenijus
      Evgenijus 13 July 2016 10: 01
      +1
      I do not think that it is necessary to "hack to death" the entire treaty process with America on nuclear weapons. It is always necessary to negotiate, but it is always necessary to defend our interests in the issue of the country's security. Most likely, the military, our General Staff, and not just politicians should participate in the negotiation process. Treaties signed and being prepared for signing should be linked to Russia's defense doctrine. About the fact that "we need to arm ourselves" - I would suggest another option. Better to rearm. Adopt new weapons systems, with lower economic costs for the country, with easier operation, prepare class specialists for new weapons, and not after being drafted into the army, but already from school, from student audiences. There is no question of graduates of military institutions (schools, academies) ...
  16. Nasty
    Nasty 13 July 2016 07: 52
    +1
    cut down on nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles for us today is like death.
    You can’t say better. I hope our leadership does not lead to this. Although the devil knows him. As with this new privatization / sale of colossal companies. What for? Money will end sooner or later, foreigners will again dictate their conditions to us. Long live the RAKE, large, eternal, reusable.
  17. Operator
    Operator 13 July 2016 08: 45
    0
    The article repeats the USA’s misinformation about the air defense character of American missile bases in Romania and Poland.

    Moreover, the number of missile defense systems at these bases is two to three orders of magnitude less than the number of ballistic missiles in service with the Russian Federation.

    In reality, due to the versatility of the launchers, the bases are designed to accommodate Tomahawk medium-range cruise missiles.
    1. domokl
      domokl 13 July 2016 10: 07
      0
      Quote: Operator
      The article repeats the USA’s misinformation about the air defense character of American missile bases in Romania and Poland.

      What ... The whole world is for, and Baba Yaga is against ...
      Quote: Operator
      In reality, due to the versatility of the launchers, the bases are designed to accommodate Tomahawk medium-range cruise missiles.

      Where does this information come from? And two simple questions: 1. How the container of the Tamaghawk ballistic missile differs from the anti-missile missiles currently in service.
      2: What is the source that informed you of the number of missiles and our missiles in the area. And then the guys from the CIA and the FSB are interested lol
      1. Operator
        Operator 13 July 2016 11: 58
        0
        The source of information on the deployment of cruise missiles at US bases in Romania and Poland is V. Putin.

        PS Where did you get the information about the Tamagavk "ballistic" missile? laughing
  18. mitya24
    mitya24 13 July 2016 08: 55
    +2
    Such important agreements should, if even be discussed, then only with the new president of the United States and his administration. And Obama now is .... but who is this Obama now ????
    I take into account the not bad probability of receiving an unbalanced, sadistically manifested Mrs. Clinton in the oval office, it is necessary not only not to reduce it, but also to prepare for the production at the shocking pace of new charges and carriers.
  19. Lyubopyatov
    Lyubopyatov 13 July 2016 09: 13
    +1
    Discussing problems with the Americans is only to multiply their own problems.
    To believe cheaters is to engage in self-deception. Our turn came to ruin America, including the arms race (they imposed it on us).
  20. Ima tsoh
    Ima tsoh 13 July 2016 09: 27
    0
    At a time and stage that is advantageous for Russia, it is necessary to move away from the Russia-NATO preamble. Since the mythical existence in the information field, this name enslaves the countries of Europe destroying their independence.
  21. Nick1953
    Nick1953 13 July 2016 10: 20
    +2
    It is necessary to make an addition to the military doctrine of the Russian Federation that in the event of a take-off of something from the territory of a European member of NATO, a nuclear strike on the USA will be automatically dealt ...
  22. Evgenijus
    Evgenijus 13 July 2016 10: 41
    +1
    If you look at the recent successes of the Russian military-industrial complex in the issue of the release of the latest weapons, then an idea arises - the number of nuclear warheads, their carriers is becoming a non-dominant factor in a future war. The high accuracy of modern weapons can compensate to some extent for the need for a quantitative increase in nuclear potential. Modern "Caliber", "Iskander" - an example of this. Such weapons systems with non-nuclear warheads, with an accuracy of hitting a few meters, may soon be a threat to silo launchers, command posts, and warehouses with nuclear warheads. The basing of such weapons systems on submarines and small sea ships is already a reality. Practical combat training of such weapons systems has already been worked out by ISIS fighters in Syria.
    1. berezin1987
      berezin1987 13 July 2016 17: 10
      0
      How can gauges and iskanders replace strategic nuclear weapons? High-precision weapons do not allow unacceptable damage to the enemy, it is more a fly swatter for the Papuans. Better nuclear warhead with 500m KVO than precision warhead with 3-4m.
  23. Leto
    Leto 13 July 2016 10: 49
    +1
    I don’t quite understand why panic?
    - 700 units for deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and heavy bomber (TB);

    These are START-3 requirements.

    So, as of September 1, 2014, there were 794 deployed carriers for the United States, and only 528 for Russia.


    Those. in Russia, the number of deployed carriers is less than what is set by the START-3 limit.
    Moreover, their number will continue to decrease, this is noticeable according to the certificate from January of this year:

    As of January 2016, the strategic forces of Russia allegedly contained 525 strategic carriers capable of carrying about 1800 nuclear warheads. At the same time, as part of the exchange of data under the START treaty, Russia indicated that as of September 1, 2015, it had 526 deployed strategic carriers, for which there were 1648 warheads.


    As the Boreans, Squids and Dolphins are being written off, there will be no more than 8 Boreans.
    The number of silo-based ICBMs will also be reduced, the R-36M2 and UR-100NUTTH are not eternal, and it will be impossible to replenish 76 units even in 20 years.

    Maybe I don’t understand what the disadvantage of the contract is. As far as I understand, Americans need a reason to reduce their arsenal, which puts pressure on the budget, but we will not grow to 700 units if we wish.
  24. Rostislav
    Rostislav 13 July 2016 11: 14
    +3
    In order to cool the ardor of our liberals, it is worth citing some facts of the implementation of START-3

    In truth, our facts are of little interest to liberals.
    The benefits of throwing beads in front of pigs are already mentioned in the Bible.
  25. Elephant
    Elephant 13 July 2016 11: 27
    +1
    Recent events in the world indicate that Americans cannot be trusted! But to conduct a dialogue with them on this topic is worth it. The more contacts there will be on many problematic issues, the better for everyone.
  26. Mikhail Krapivin
    Mikhail Krapivin 13 July 2016 11: 34
    +2
    Quote: andj61
    Let the United States get involved in a nuclear race with itself - we have enough strategic nuclear weapons to multiply them by zero, and taking into account even ALL of their possible allies - cause unacceptable damage. yes
    So why do we need to build up nuclear weapons? To destroy the United States, not one and a half to two times, but eight or ten? what There is no point in this!


    This makes a lot of sense. The only thing that can rule out the aggression of the United States and its minions against Russia in the long term is the quantity and quality of nuclear weapons in our country. There should be so much of it that the very idea of ​​getting involved with our country seemed complete and suicidal madness. Expensive? Yes. Problems? There will be. But there are simply no other options. More nuclear powered submarines off the US coast. More "bears" and "swans" are on constant watch. More stationary mines with nuclear weapons. Trains with nuclear weapons, mobile installations constantly moving along routes .. There should be so many nuclear weapons that even if Russia is defeated in a war, both the territory of Russia and the territories around it for thousands of kilometers should be completely unsuitable for life for a hundred years. And to drive this thought into the heads of European inhabitants through the media. Only then will the Europeans think about what the US is pushing them to and whether they need it.
    1. Operator
      Operator 13 July 2016 12: 25
      -1
      Russia has three likely adversaries: the USA (~ 300 million of the population), Europe (~ 500 million) and China (~ 1500 million).

      Proceeding from this, 300 nuclear charges with capacities from 1 to 10 megatons for the USA, 500 for Europe (including American bases) and 1500 for China are required.

      The total 2300 of nuclear charges is multiplied by two (for guaranteed destruction of each target) and we get 4600. With an average of three charges placed in the separation of the warheads of intercontinental and medium-range missiles, about 1500 carriers will be required to repel aggression in a global nuclear conflict.

      Plus an order of magnitude larger number of tactical nuclear charges ranging from 10 to 100 kilotons deployed on short-range missiles in order to repel aggression in local conflicts.

      These values ​​(1500 carriers and 4500 strategic nuclear charges, 45000 carriers and 45000 tactical nuclear charges) can be considered acceptable for Russia under the future multilateral nuclear arms limitation treaty.
      1. berezin1987
        berezin1987 13 July 2016 17: 23
        0
        Even the USSR did not have so much (it reached 45 thousand units). In fact, for the complete destruction of the United States requires 180-220 warheads of the megaton class, and Europe and China for about the same. Total 600-700 charges, for a guaranteed defeat taking into account missile defense and other factors - approximately 2,5-3,5 thousand strategic charges. Tactical nuclear weapons require about 10 thousand units. In total, it is desirable for Russia to have a total of about 15 thousand charges.
        1. Operator
          Operator 13 July 2016 20: 47
          0
          3,5 or 4,5 of thousands of megaton-class strategic nuclear charges is almost the same thing.

          But the 10 or 45 of thousands of tactical nuclear charges of the kiloton class is a significant difference.

          I proceed from the RA need for widespread use of nuclear weapons in the event of an invasion of a multi-million PLA (with the goal of localizing a military conflict within the borders of Northeast Asia, at least at the first stage).
  27. NordUral
    NordUral 13 July 2016 12: 01
    0
    No extensions. And the liberals to pinch their tails.
  28. Tektor
    Tektor 13 July 2016 12: 12
    0
    KMK, it makes no sense to talk about the extension or non-renewal of the START-3 treaty until it is implemented, i.e. - until 2018. That's when the deadline for its execution comes, then it will be necessary to analyze this performance, and whether there are any violations of the letter and spirit of the contract. Although it is already visible that there are violations. States rarely fulfill their obligations when it is not beneficial to them. Well, why bargain with them?
  29. Essex62
    Essex62 13 July 2016 12: 17
    0
    I strongly disagree with such an installation. Only finding and eliminating the initiators of such disgrace - as aggression against the Russian Federation is an adequate answer. Wherever there are members of the political bureau and their families, they should be guaranteed to be covered with yau. Because they don’t give a damn about the geyrop and Asia burnt by thousands of miles. Only fear for their precious skins holds them back from attacking Russia. Therefore, the GRU and PSU are just as important a link as the strategic forces of the Russian Federation. It is necessary to calculate those atolls in the place where this bastard sat down and tell them about it, but I see you. And the geyrops are hoping that the public will be able to resist the Masons funny.
  30. Leeder
    Leeder 13 July 2016 12: 30
    +1
    Quote: Mavrikiy
    Can be used as a tool for trading.

    Bargaining is possible only on condition of dismantling the missile defense system in Europe, and they will never agree to this. So no bidding. In addition, for them all the agreements are pieces of paper to deter fools. Too freely they interpret them.
    1. Forever so
      Forever so 13 July 2016 13: 28
      0
      In addition, for them all the agreements are pieces of paper to deter fools. Too freely they interpret them.

      You are absolutely right. As there - a gentleman changes the rules of the game if the game does not go as he should. Whatever contracts we sign, the Anglo-Saxon world is plunged into crisis, both financial and ideological. Heinlein has a very good novel - Puppeteers. There, an alien parasite, saddling a person, forced to perform the necessary parasite, at the same time bringing this person to death. The clans of the liquid bankers of America brought to the handle America itself, and most of the world. Now they are crawling onto the shoulders of Russia, especially since our liberals have already cleared the seat. sad as it may be, but we and our children and our grandchildren and grandchildren of our grandchildren will be under constant threat. And the threat must be burned out.
  31. Belarus
    Belarus 13 July 2016 14: 11
    0
    How interested is Russia in START 3?


    Exactly how much of this treaty can one squeeze the benefits in one form or another for Russia.
  32. Gormenghast
    Gormenghast 13 July 2016 20: 35
    -3
    Nothing to cut; one must skillfully circumvent the contract.

    The power of a single warhead is not limited. It is necessary that 1550 warheads were not 100 ct, but 1 mgt each.
    The air component is limited by the principle: one plane = 1 carrier and 1 warhead. Therefore, immediately add to each Tu-160 12 KR with nuclear warheads - this will not affect the calculation. 16 carriers and 16 warheads will be counted (and not 192, as in fact). Do the same operation with the Tu-95, which can carry up to 6 nuclear missiles. For other media - fabricate them with adjustable load. Let there be 3 warheads per missile for counting, and in fact, according to carrying capacity, so that you can mount 10. At the same time, fabricate warheads bizarre way laughing - so that it would be a tactical nuclear weapons, not participating in the counting, but which could fabulously turn into a warhead for strategic offensive arms. In general, it is necessary to increase the production of nuclear weapons, which may be needed to force inadequate Europeans to peace (as a response to aggression). We need to quietly remove weapons-grade plutonium from spent fuel elements of BN-600 and BN-800 by changing the operating mode of the reactor and reducing the burnup depth - no one has signed agreements that we undertake not to produce weapons-grade plutonium. There is no need to advertise, but it is necessary to produce!

    You can go even further; you can think of tactical nuclear land mines, which you can, as before, lay in dangerous directions, literally on the very border with the Baltic states and other homosexual fascists.
    Why not replace the torpedo warheads with nuclear ones, at least half of them? Did anyone forbid this?
    And also with tactical Iskander warheads. And to coastal anti-ship complexes. And, in general, if the Democrats force us, and the T-72 still has to fight with the Abrams and Leopards, it is necessary that our old men have at least a pair of 125 mm nuclear shells in the combat unit!

    We have the most gigantic uranium enrichment facilities; the most gigantic capacities for the production of equipment for enrichment, and there is even the opportunity to fabricate plutonium - 239.

    That's only from a position of strength, you can talk with inadequate democrats, homosexual ministers of defense and other sodomy NATO.
  33. Old26
    Old26 13 July 2016 21: 44
    +1
    Quote: volot-voin
    You should not play with a sharpie by his own rules. START-3 .. SNV-N into the furnace, into the scrap. As soon as we lose our nuclear shield, they will bomb us right away.

    That's when in the furnace, there are a lot of chances that the Americans will gain advantages over Russia

    Quote: Aleksander
    But the nuclear heads, which are destroying ours, they remove from the carriers and simply .... store! They are believed to "cut". As a result, Russia disarmed, and the United States only lost its combat readiness.

    Where did you read such nonsense? Which EXPERTS? On the example of the INF Treaty. Not warheads were destroyed, but the corps of warheads. We are our own under the press, the Americans cut into several parts. But at the same time, warheads and physical packages were not destroyed.

    Quote: Gormengast
    The power of a single warhead is not limited. It is necessary that 1550 warheads were not 100 ct, but 1 mgt each.

    And why, when for the most part a less powerful and accurate warhead can solve most of the tasks

    Quote: Gormengast
    The air component is limited by the principle: one plane = 1 carrier and 1 warhead. Therefore, immediately add to each Tu-160 12 CRs with nuclear warheads - this will not affect the calculation. 16 carriers and 16 warheads will be counted (and not 192, as in fact). Do the same operation with the Tu-95, which can carry up to 6 nuclear missiles. For other media - fabricate them with adjustable load. Let there be 3 warheads per missile for counting, but in fact, according to carrying capacity, so that 10 can be mounted.

    1 carrier - 1 warhead was under the START-1 and START-2 treaties. According to START-3, the number of warheads per launch vehicle is considered in fact. If, for example, Trident-2 can have a maximum of 8 W-88 warheads, and there are only 4, then 4 counts, and not the maximum, as previously thought. It's the same with aviation.

    Quote: Gormengast
    At the same time, to fabricate warheads in a bizarre way - so that it would be nuclear weapons, not participating in the calculation, but which could fabulously turn into a warhead for strategic offensive arms.

    Famously! And how will these tactical warheads on strategic carriers burn in the atmosphere !!! It's expensive to see !!!

    Quote: Gormengast
    ... and the T-72 will nevertheless have to fight with the Abrams and Leopards, it is necessary that our old men have at least a pair of 125 mm nuclear shells in the combat unit!

    That's just the smallest nuclear charge we had was a 152-mm caliber. In caliber 122 could not be done
  34. Yugra
    Yugra 13 July 2016 22: 01
    0
    There is no faith in the mattress. So, only building up our triad ...
  35. Gormenghast
    Gormenghast 13 July 2016 23: 22
    0
    And why, when for the most part a less powerful and accurate warhead can solve most of the tasks


    We leave accuracy and increase power, since sufficient power does not exclude its increase.

    1 carrier - 1 warhead was under the START-1 and START-2 treaties. According to START-3, the number of warheads per launch vehicle is considered in fact. If, for example, Trident-2 can have a maximum of 8 W-88 warheads, and there are only 4, then 4 counts, and not the maximum, as previously thought. It's the same with aviation.


    text of the contract: http://kremlin.ru/supplement/512

    II b) 1550 units for warheads on deployed ICBMs, warheads on deployed SLBMs and nuclear warheads counted for deployed heavy bombers;


    III 2. For the purposes of setting off to the total limit level provided for in subparagraph b) of paragraph 1 of Article II of this Agreement:
    b) for each deployed heavy bomber one nuclear warhead is counted.


    I'm right.

    Famously! And how will these tactical warheads on strategic carriers burn in the atmosphere !!! It's expensive to see !!!


    Removable heat shields - I do not see a problem.

    That's just the smallest nuclear charge we had was a 152-mm caliber. In caliber 122 could not be done


    Here you are right. Although what they could not do does not mean that it is impossible to do now. Type, with a nuclear detonator from Polonium-210 + lithium-6. Only we produce polonium, and even sell it to all sodomites.
    1. Operator
      Operator 14 July 2016 00: 03
      0
      With polonium, you can fly into a pipe - very expensive, however.

      The minimum 3-kt charge in the dimensions of the 152-mm projectile is quite sufficient for most cases of combat use. With a tritium booster and an increased neutron yield in a radius of 3 km against living power and armored vehicles - that’s it.
  36. Gormenghast
    Gormenghast 14 July 2016 07: 57
    0
    But Sivkov does not propose extending the treaties, but attaching nuclear warheads to the Iskanders, aiming them at the locations of the NATO troops in the Baltic states and openly declaring this. http://www.nakanune.ru/articles/111891
    1. dimzat
      dimzat 14 July 2016 09: 35
      0
      Strictly speaking, this is one of the standard types of equipment for both types of Iskander missiles, and not only it. For anti-ship missiles "Moskit" - yabch - one of the types of equipment.
  37. Old26
    Old26 14 July 2016 08: 59
    0
    Quote: Gormengast
    Here you are right. Although what they could not do does not mean that it is impossible to do now.

    It is hardly possible to do now. And not because of technical difficulties. Such a charge is a fairly high-tech product, only two countries were able to make nuclear artillery ammunition. And having done it, it will be necessary to check its operability for a 100% guarantee. And this, alas, is now impossible due to the prohibition of tests. By the way, we have ratified this agreement. So alas, it’s unlikely

    Quote: Gormengast
    We leave accuracy and increase power, since sufficient power does not exclude its increase.

    And the weight is creeping. The number of BBs on the media becomes smaller. This is not an option. Yes, and why increase it? So that if you get banged, so that the whole world is in ruin?

    Quote: Gormengast
    I'm right.

    Yes you are right. This is my jamb. For some reason I was sure that this applies not only to ICBMs and SLBMs, but also to bombers

    Quote: Gormengast
    Removable heat shields - I do not see a problem.

    But the designers see it. A warhead is not a tank that can be fitted with removable screens. Each warhead is tested at certain speeds of entry into the atmosphere and, for example, put some screens on the Iskander warhead - this will have no effect. The temperatures will be such that the mountings will burn out. In addition, the breeding stage is made for certain landing sizes. To put in place BG for example 15F651 BG for example 15F721 simply will not work. Not so long ago, one of the designers who took part in the creation of EMNIP "Pioneer-3" appeared on TV. There is a popular belief in the network that this missile was tested with a single warhead with a capacity of 50 kt instead of three 150 kt each. And they say it showed a range of 7500 km, that is, it became intercontinental. He was asked a question about this. To which he replied that all this was the speculation of journalists. Even the Pioneer warheads were not tested for intercontinental range (they simply would not have survived to burn out), let alone the mythical 50-kt tactical ones, all the more so. So this number won't get through

    Quote: Gormengast
    But Sivkov does not propose extending the treaties, but attaching nuclear warheads to the Iskanders, aiming them at the locations of the NATO troops in the Baltic states and openly declaring this. http://www.nakanune.ru/articles/111891

    Another one, I ask for my French "bunch" of one of the EXPERTS. And what a mania gone. As they leave military service, they begin to carry nonsense with a clever air. Is “Monsieur Colonelle” unaware that the Iskander’s range of combat equipment already includes nuclear warheads? Why speculate? If necessary, they will also "screw" atomic instead of cassette ones. To declare openly so that they know is also stupidity. We are already accused of all deadly sins. But when the enemy does not know what awaits him and what will arrive - a conventional head or a nuclear one - the unknown sometimes becomes the best brake.
  38. Comrade Kim
    Comrade Kim 15 July 2016 13: 32
    0
    [quote = Old26] [quote = Gormengast] But when the enemy does not know what awaits him and what will arrive - the conventional head or nuclear - the unknown sometimes becomes the best brake. [/ quote]
    More heads, good and different!
    For the United States, the new START treaty is just an instrument for the Pentagon's "blue dream": if only the USSR / Russia had so few warheads that the American missile defense system would be guaranteed to intercept the "response" after a massive nuclear strike.