New START Treaty

GarryB wrote:Agree 100%... the powerful in Russia couldn't be billionaires and that is why they destroyed the system... they were powerful in their own country but that didn't translate to being powerful or rich when on holiday.

The way they then butchered up the assets in all the former Soviet states making people like Bill Browder rich by stealing the pensions of factory workers when they asset stripped anything that worked and then sold it on for billions of dollars... and the workers got fired... of course the equipment and factories were obsolete and useless they said... it is amazing how many billions of dollars you can make selling of scrap metal... it must have been damn high quality scrap metal...

George1 wrote:

Multilateral arms control system to replace New START, Russian expert says

According to the expert, although Washington seeks to play the Russian threat card, it is China that US views as its opponent and rival

MOSCOW, August 5. /TASS/. The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) won’t be extended and a new multilateral arms control system needs to be established in its place, Deputy Director of the Institute for US and Canadian Studies at the Russian Academy of Sciences Pavel Zolotarev said during an online conference dubbed US Nuclear Ambitions: from Truman to Trump.

According to the expert, although Washington seeks to play the Russian threat card, it is China that US views as its opponent and rival. "China causes them concern because according to their estimates, China’s stocks of weapons-grade nuclear materials, particularly weapons-grade plutonium and highly enriched uranium, makes it possible for Beijing to double its nuclear potential," Zolotarev noted.

In his view, Washington continues to work with Russia on arms control issues not because it wants to maintain the current system but because it wants to take advantage of Russia’s influence to engage China in discussions. "It is pointless to talk about involving China in the nuclear arms reduction process. It is more reasonable to raise the possibility of engaging all nuclear countries. When signing New START, Russia emphasized the need for a multilateral conversation, at least with the members of the Nuclear Five," the expert stressed.

There is too little time left before New START expires so the treaty is unlikely to be extended, the expert emphasized. According to him, chances are high that New START will cease to exist and Moscow and Washington will start to work together on a new agreement, trying to engage the Nuclear Five.

https://tass.com/defense/1186041

According to the expert, although Washington seeks to play the Russian threat card, it is China that US views as its opponent and rival. "China causes them concern because according to their estimates, China’s stocks of weapons-grade nuclear materials, particularly weapons-grade plutonium and highly enriched uranium, makes it possible for Beijing to double its nuclear potential," Zolotarev noted.

In his view, Washington continues to work with Russia on arms control issues not because it wants to maintain the current system but because it wants to take advantage of Russia’s influence to engage China in discussions.

According to him, chances are high that New START will cease to exist and Moscow and Washington will start to work together on a new agreement, trying to engage the Nuclear Five.

Why would the yanquis sign up for a multilateral process when they are tearing up the existing framework?

hoom wrote:While western media said China refused to join, apparently what they actually said is 'sure we'll join, just contingent on US reducing their weapon count to match China' which is quite interesting.
So of course now western media is not full of 'US refuses to reduce nukes' but 'China to double deadly nuke weapons'

Yes, conveniently the US govt 'accidentally' stalled on funding the plant that was supposed to secure the excess plutonium from the now expiring round.
Meanwhile Russia not only built a plutonium burning reactor but burnt through most/all of the plutonium, technically somewhat behind schedule but clearly made the effort in good faith.

GarryB wrote:

Yes, conveniently the US govt 'accidentally' stalled on funding the plant that was supposed to secure the excess plutonium from the now expiring round.
Meanwhile Russia not only built a plutonium burning reactor but burnt through most/all of the plutonium, technically somewhat behind schedule but clearly made the effort in good faith.

If you are talking about old nuclear weapon material, the US has stored all of its nuclear weapons grade material, while Russia processed it into nuclear power fuel rods levels of enrichment instead of weapons grade and sold it to US power companies to use in their power stations.

Of course the new breeder or fast neutron reactors they are going forward with should allow them to enrich all the nuclear power plant fuel they will need for all their reactors including military ones, and also deal with nuclear fuel rods that would otherwise be waste material.

If needed these new reactors could also be used to create weapons grade material for tactical and strategic nuclear weapons if required...

The-thing-next-door wrote:Well if the pindos are banking on using stashed away warheads they will end up with a lot of obsolete MIRV's with no anti ABM capability.

It is unlikely that Russia would not have prepared a plan to out produce them in such an eventuality and new Russian warheads can bypass ABM systems.