9 ms·

Putin Suspends Nuclear-Arms Treaty Between Russia, U.S.

31 points by O__________O 4y ago

LinuxBender 4y ago
Non-JS Archive [1] [1] - https://archive.ph/cmzs6 https://archive.ph/cmzs6
O__________O 4y ago
Appears to be a response to Biden visiting the Ukraine, which Russia was given advanced notice of per this article on the logistics of Biden’s trip: - https://news.yahoo.com/sneaking-president-dc-kyiv-without-154524280.html https://news.yahoo.com/sneaking-president-dc-kyiv-without-15... Treaty‘s Wikipedia page is here: - https://wikipedia.org/wiki/New_START https://wikipedia.org/wiki/New_START
- Ambolia 4y ago
  Russia already rejected talks about New START in December [2], likely related to the attacks on Russia's nuclear triad for which they blame the US: >“Such an unrequited and brazen strike on the base of one of the parts of the [nuclear] triad publicly demonstrates their vulnerability to simple conventional means of destruction, and shows that the combat security work has actually been reduced to zero,” Voenniy Osvedomitel, a popular commentator, said on Telegram. [1] [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/12/05/explosions-hit-two-bases-russia-moscow-fires-new-missile-barrage/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/12/05/explosions-h... [2] https://www.rferl.org/a/united-states-russia-new-start-treaty-inspections-canceled-tensions/32159325.html https://www.rferl.org/a/united-states-russia-new-start-treat...
  - 0xDEF 4y ago
    Ukraine used a Soviet-era target practice drone to strike a Russian air base that has been firing cruise missiles into Ukraine.
  - justapassenger 4y ago
    It’s same BS reasoning as Putin is using to justify all his other actions in last year. Real reason is that Russia is continuing to do nuclear saber rattling, as that’s only real threat they have at this point. This war proved that Russia is no longer a global power, not even close.
timcavel 4y ago
[dead]
yucky 4y ago
[flagged]
- 1attice 4y ago
  Found the Kremlin talking-point.
  - lawn 4y ago
    It's a bit surprising that the propaganda is so prevalent on HN.
    - 1attice 4y ago
      Not at all. The demographics of this site make its users the ideal targets of propaganda. HN is where smart people peer with other smart people. A little proposition injection, a dash of Dunning-Kruger, and you have yourself a Views Differ But.
  - yucky 4y ago
    [flagged]
- sorenjan 4y ago
  I do wonder where we would be right now if Russia didn't invade Ukraine. Would the world be safer?
  - yucky 4y ago
    Safer for who? Do we have a long track record of not overthrowing governments that I'm not aware of?
    - sorenjan 4y ago
      > Safer for who? Ukrainians, Russians, the Baltics, Finland, basically most of Europe. Maybe Taiwan as well.
credit_guy 4y ago
This is a big mistake by Putin. Heading into a tripolar world had America in a bind. China is making more nukes; it is not bound by any treaties, so it can make as many as it wants. At some point in the future, China will present the fait-accompli that it has as many nukes, if not more, than Russia and the US. In such a world, treaties or not, the US can't have as many nukes as Russia and China combined. In a world without START, the US can do exactly that.
- sorenjan 4y ago
  The US have almost 5500 nuclear weapons at the moment, what practical difference would it make to have twice as many?
  - O__________O 4y ago
    Please provide a source for the 5500 count, since it appears to contradict numbers on the Wikipedia page I already linked to above; here’s link again: https://wikipedia.org/wiki/New_START https://wikipedia.org/wiki/New_START
    - ianburrell 4y ago
      The current US stockpile is 3750. Plus, 2000 retired being disposed of. New START limits deployed warheads to 1550 but doesn't limit the number in reserve. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_of_the_United_... I found source with similar numbers except that has much larger stockpile, but then the total inventory is lower than summing numbers. https://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/status-world-nuclear-forces/ https://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/status-world-nuclear-...
      - credit_guy 4y ago
        1550 is a funny number. Every warhead on an ICBN or an SLBM counts as one warhead, but the nukes carried by strategic bombers like B-52 don't count. Each strategic bomber counts as one single warhead. This was done because there was no simple way to monitor the compliance for bomber-carried nukes. So, in principle the US can have thousands more warheads. 3750 is the latest disclosed number by the State Department [1]. The same link lists the number of retired warheads, so, indeed, if the US wanted, it could ramp up the number of active nukes to 5750 in no time. How does the US benefit from having a large number of nukes? We don't live in the '70s anymore. The US population, and the western population in general would be appalled if the US used nukes against civilian targets first. Russia and China would be more than happy to exploit this self-imposed constraint. In full-scale nuclear war where civilian targets are on the menu, a nuclear power can deter with only a few hundred nukes. But if you limit yourself to only military targets, then you do need thousands of nukes. [1] https://www.state.gov/transparency-in-the-u-s-nuclear-weapons-stockpile/ https://www.state.gov/transparency-in-the-u-s-nuclear-weapon...

31 points by O__________O 4y ago

Non-JS Archive [1] [1] - https://archive.ph/cmzs6 https://archive.ph/cmzs6

Appears to be a response to Biden visiting the Ukraine, which Russia was given advanced notice of per this article on the logistics of Biden’s trip: - https://news.yahoo.com/sneaking-president-dc-kyiv-without-154524280.html https://news.yahoo.com/sneaking-president-dc-kyiv-without-15... Treaty‘s Wikipedia page is here: - https://wikipedia.org/wiki/New_START https://wikipedia.org/wiki/New_START

Ambolia 4y ago
Russia already rejected talks about New START in December [2], likely related to the attacks on Russia's nuclear triad for which they blame the US: >“Such an unrequited and brazen strike on the base of one of the parts of the [nuclear] triad publicly demonstrates their vulnerability to simple conventional means of destruction, and shows that the combat security work has actually been reduced to zero,” Voenniy Osvedomitel, a popular commentator, said on Telegram. [1] [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/12/05/explosions-hit-two-bases-russia-moscow-fires-new-missile-barrage/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/12/05/explosions-h... [2] https://www.rferl.org/a/united-states-russia-new-start-treaty-inspections-canceled-tensions/32159325.html https://www.rferl.org/a/united-states-russia-new-start-treat...
- 0xDEF 4y ago
  Ukraine used a Soviet-era target practice drone to strike a Russian air base that has been firing cruise missiles into Ukraine.
- justapassenger 4y ago
  It’s same BS reasoning as Putin is using to justify all his other actions in last year. Real reason is that Russia is continuing to do nuclear saber rattling, as that’s only real threat they have at this point. This war proved that Russia is no longer a global power, not even close.

timcavel 4y ago

[dead]

yucky 4y ago

[flagged]

1attice 4y ago
Found the Kremlin talking-point.
- lawn 4y ago
  It's a bit surprising that the propaganda is so prevalent on HN.
  - 1attice 4y ago
    Not at all. The demographics of this site make its users the ideal targets of propaganda. HN is where smart people peer with other smart people. A little proposition injection, a dash of Dunning-Kruger, and you have yourself a Views Differ But.
- yucky 4y ago
  [flagged]
sorenjan 4y ago
I do wonder where we would be right now if Russia didn't invade Ukraine. Would the world be safer?
- yucky 4y ago
  Safer for who? Do we have a long track record of not overthrowing governments that I'm not aware of?
  - sorenjan 4y ago
    > Safer for who? Ukrainians, Russians, the Baltics, Finland, basically most of Europe. Maybe Taiwan as well.

credit_guy 4y ago

This is a big mistake by Putin. Heading into a tripolar world had America in a bind. China is making more nukes; it is not bound by any treaties, so it can make as many as it wants. At some point in the future, China will present the fait-accompli that it has as many nukes, if not more, than Russia and the US. In such a world, treaties or not, the US can't have as many nukes as Russia and China combined. In a world without START, the US can do exactly that.

sorenjan 4y ago
The US have almost 5500 nuclear weapons at the moment, what practical difference would it make to have twice as many?
- O__________O 4y ago
  Please provide a source for the 5500 count, since it appears to contradict numbers on the Wikipedia page I already linked to above; here’s link again: https://wikipedia.org/wiki/New_START https://wikipedia.org/wiki/New_START
  - ianburrell 4y ago
    The current US stockpile is 3750. Plus, 2000 retired being disposed of. New START limits deployed warheads to 1550 but doesn't limit the number in reserve. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_of_the_United_... I found source with similar numbers except that has much larger stockpile, but then the total inventory is lower than summing numbers. https://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/status-world-nuclear-forces/ https://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/status-world-nuclear-...
    - credit_guy 4y ago
      1550 is a funny number. Every warhead on an ICBN or an SLBM counts as one warhead, but the nukes carried by strategic bombers like B-52 don't count. Each strategic bomber counts as one single warhead. This was done because there was no simple way to monitor the compliance for bomber-carried nukes. So, in principle the US can have thousands more warheads. 3750 is the latest disclosed number by the State Department [1]. The same link lists the number of retired warheads, so, indeed, if the US wanted, it could ramp up the number of active nukes to 5750 in no time. How does the US benefit from having a large number of nukes? We don't live in the '70s anymore. The US population, and the western population in general would be appalled if the US used nukes against civilian targets first. Russia and China would be more than happy to exploit this self-imposed constraint. In full-scale nuclear war where civilian targets are on the menu, a nuclear power can deter with only a few hundred nukes. But if you limit yourself to only military targets, then you do need thousands of nukes. [1] https://www.state.gov/transparency-in-the-u-s-nuclear-weapons-stockpile/ https://www.state.gov/transparency-in-the-u-s-nuclear-weapon...