Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Strategic Nuclear Weapons Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: US/Russia Seek Nuke Cuts
Softwar    7/3/2007 2:56:40 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070703/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_russia US, Russia pursue nuclear weapons cuts WASHINGTON - The United States and Russia pledged Tuesday to reduce their stockpiles of long-range nuclear weapons "to the lowest possible" level, although they have not yet agreed on specific numbers. We have a way to go in our discussion," U.S. envoy Robert G. Joseph said at a news conference. Russian deputy foreign minister Sergei Kislyak said "it would be too early to announce" new and lower limits on arsenals of long-range nuclear warheads. "We haven't agreed on that." As an outgrowth of the latest round of talks between President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin, the two countries also said they were fully committed to preventing the spread of nuclear weapons technology. A pivotal 1991 treaty called for reduction of long-range U.S. and Russian nuclear missiles by about one-third, or to a maximum of 6,000 deployed strategic warheads, apiece. It is due to expire in December 2009. The 2002 Moscow treaty went further, calling on each side to reduce its operationally deployed strategic warheads to 1,700 to 2,220. In an exchange of data last January, the Russians claimed to have 4,162 strategic warheads, and the United States claimed 5,866 in the U.S. arsenal.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Yimmy       7/3/2007 4:14:24 PM
The Russians won't reduce by much while the US foolishly pushes for these anti-missile missiles I predict.


 
Quote    Reply

Softwar    No Bucks...    7/3/2007 4:39:54 PM
The size of the respective arsenals is really not dictated by politics but by funding.  The Russians will push for a reduction because they can't affort to keep the current level.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       7/5/2007 9:28:39 AM

The size of the respective arsenals is really not dictated by politics but by funding.  The Russians will push for a reduction because they can't affort to keep the current level.


Yes, they can.  It is there conventional forces which are suffering.  Putin is ensuring that their nuclear forces take the cream of the budget.

 
Quote    Reply

Softwar       7/5/2007 9:41:23 AM


Yes, they can.  It is there conventional forces which are suffering.  Putin is ensuring that their nuclear forces take the cream of the budget.

Its the only way to remain a player in super power politics but .... have you seen the state of their boomers?  The Typhoons are all but extinct.  Buliva has been tested successfully - once.  The new class of boomer is long overdue.
 
And after all the ballyhoo about the Topol-M why is it being deployed at a glacier like pace? 
 
Where are the fleets of TU-160 Blackjacks bombers?  Instead we see a dwindling force of aging TU-95 Bears.
 
Nukes eat loads of cash and as you pointed out -- there are others in the military who want a budget.  The Russian Air Force, Army and Navy.
Finally, nukes are national security items rarely shared with others.  Spending cash developing conventional subs, MiG-35, SU-30 fighters and other nice pretty toys mean export sales.
 
No bucks - no Buck Rogers.

 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       7/5/2007 9:10:44 PM
I disagree.

Russian nuclear forces are not suffering nearly so much as the rest of their forces.  Typhoons are a mute point, as are Blackjacks.  They still have Deltas in service, and plenty Bears.

The real substance of their capability in any case is in their land based missiles.


 
Quote    Reply

Beezle       11/28/2007 10:49:07 AM

I disagree.

Russian nuclear forces are not suffering nearly so much as the rest of their forces.  Typhoons are a mute point, as are Blackjacks.  They still have Deltas in service, and plenty Bears.

The real substance of their capability in any case is in their land based missiles.


Not true. The Russian ICBM force is facing mass obsolence. You have to remember that most of Russia's missiles were made during the cold war, and have a limited shelf life. Most of them are already over their designated 'use bye date'. In the next few years, all of the Topol SS-25s will be retired, and within a decade, so will the neavy MIRVed missiles like SS19 and SS18. The SS-24 is already gone. All that will be left will be over 100 of the new lightweight Topol-M, single warhead now but possibly MIRVed in future, and a few dozen SS-18s and SS-19s nearing retirement themselves. The Russian ICBM force is due to shrink, drastically.

 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics