Current Nuclear Weapons Development

bobbymike said:
www.defenseone.com

New START Treaty Looks Dead in the Water

Unless Trump leads, observers say hopes for renewing the arms control deal with Russia, or a bigger one with China, will expire next year.
www.defenseone.com www.defenseone.com
Click to expand...

I believe the world is at a point now where New START is no longer feasible. China is extensively modernizing and building up its military for the purposes of asserting itself across the globe. There's no telling how many warheads or launchers they are storing underground in their vast tunnel complexes to use as leverage in the event anything heats up. They hide behind their "No First Use" policy as a reason to not be a signatory to any nuclear arms control treaties and there's no way to confirm the true amount of warhead or delivery systems they have in the country. And unfortunately for the CCP, their credibility is shot and their actions are speaking louder than their words.

The United States must remain vigilant, it's no surprise Biden would want to stick with it, China's been backing Washington politicians since the 90s.
 
Long term, New START will be unworkable since the Chinese pretty clearly won't abide by any treaty. They see themselves as the up and coming power and will accept nothing but parity with the US, and that only as a stepping stone to replacing it has the global power. This is also one of the motivators for leaving the INF and I fully support that; the INF treat was both being violated by the Russians and left a huge opportunity for the Chinese.

In the near term however I've not heard any report that they have increased their strategic stockpile from the 300-400 that they are credited with, and presumably drastically scaling their ICBM fleet upwards to deploy ~1500 warheads like the US or Russia would be somewhat time consuming and somewhat noticeable. Also they solely rely on land based ICBMs for their deterrent, and I don't believe they have any effective early warning system yet. So I don't consider them a US/Russia level player and they won't be for years. As far as I know no one, not even the Trump administration, has accused the Russians of violating New START. The US for its part could rapidly re MIRV, more than doubling its warhead count. However it could not significantly increase its number of launchers - about the only non deployed launchers that could be reinstated are 50 MM3 silos and less than 20 B-52s. No new missiles, submarines, or bombers are in production. So it seems to me the US can afford to remain in the treaty until 2026 when the B-21 enters production, because leaving it doesn't really accomplish much other than giving the Russians a free hand. Worst case scenario, I believe that there is wording such that if the strategic situation changes either party can leave the treaty with three months notice, and the wording is vague enough that practically anything could be used as justification.

Until new launch platforms are in production, leaving the treaty doesn't seem to have much benefit and it would force the US to re-certify existing warheads to re MIRV when that money could be better used for future delivery programs like LRSO/Columbia/B-21. I think five more years of the treaty is useful; I think post 2026 remaining in the treaty is pointless.
 
Switching gears, is the W88 refurbishment going to include the 'smart fuse' that was added to the W76 mod1? If so, that would make that weapon truly terrifying against fixed burried targets.
 
Josh_TN said:
Switching gears, is the W88 refurbishment going to include the 'smart fuse' that was added to the W76 mod1? If so, that would make that weapon truly terrifying against fixed burried targets.
Click to expand...
Don’t remember where I read it, it might have been from the ACA website, that all refurbished and new warheads (W93) will get the smart fuse.
 
www.politico.com

White House weighs shorter extension of nuclear arms pact with Russia

The option is part of a strategy that would also seek a broader agreement with Moscow that possibly includes China.
www.politico.com www.politico.com

Despite the title, it seems in reality to be a Hail Mary Pass by those arms control advocates still left in any position of authority under the current administration, centered mostly around the State Department. Quite a few people are looking at the destruction of their rice bowls and gravy trains. The Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance for example is in all probability on the chopping block next year. Hence this manoeuver.
 
Don't forget that New START isn't just about restricting numbers, it also has a important verification part to it, the provides important intelligence and insight into Russian strategic systems. That part of the treaty is a lot more valuable to the US at the moment as Russia is introducing a large number of new systems, while all Russia gets to see is the same Minutemen and Tridents they are already quite familiar with.

Also cheating is not easy, you have to spend extra effort into covering up the cheating, which increase time and money spent. So if you can't ramp up your own production to match the cheating nation, its best to remain in a treaty as it will still provide substantial hurdles to the other side.
 
Cheating is easy if you can say:

No, you can't go there.

No, you can't see that.

No, you can't do that.

I haven't seen any details on the nature and methods of the cheating reported to Congress. But if US inspectors can't visit anywhere they want, or externally examine any specific weapon or facility they suspect, or bring any test equipment they need, then cheating would be easy.
 
fredymac said:
Cheating is easy if you can say:

No, you can't go there.

No, you can't see that.

No, you can't do that.

I haven't seen any details on the nature and methods of the cheating reported to Congress. But if US inspectors can't visit anywhere they want, or externally examine any specific weapon or facility they suspect, or bring any test equipment they need, then cheating would be easy.
Click to expand...
New START has very specific requirements allowing inspections. And remember inspections are not the only way to spot cheating, there are plenty of other intelligence gathering methods and there are things you can't hide, such as flight tests and large scale deployments.
 
More to the point, I know of no one in the current administration who has stated the Russians have cheated, much less provided any evidence. Where as it was fairly clear the INF treat was being violated (and more over no longer was suitable due to lack of Chinese involvement). Since there isn't any US nuclear weapon in production and there won't be any delivery platform in production until the B-21, again, I fail to see what leaving the treaty does at this time. It still inconveniences the Russians even if you assume they are cheating.
 
Josh_TN said:
More to the point, I know of no one in the current administration who has stated the Russians have cheated, much less provided any evidence. Where as it was fairly clear the INF treat was being violated (and more over no longer was suitable due to lack of Chinese involvement). Since there isn't any US nuclear weapon in production and there won't be any delivery platform in production until the B-21, again, I fail to see what leaving the treaty does at this time. It still inconveniences the Russians even if you assume they are cheating.
Click to expand...

Posturing.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
Desertfox said:
New START has very specific requirements allowing inspections. And remember inspections are not the only way to spot cheating, there are plenty of other intelligence gathering methods and there are things you can't hide, such as flight tests and large scale deployments.
Click to expand...


The Open Skies treaties seem to contain similar "very specific requirements" but here too we have complaints:

-Russian flights over the US appear to be for non military infrastructure targetting purposes and make unsafe low passes over DC
-US flights over Russia are being geographically restricted (direct contravention of treaty)


The issues with the START treaty may be more in the area of asymmetric negative impact to the US. We will see.

Finally, Russia has an economic limit on what it can do. It may proceed on a vast range of new weapons which will cause problems for the US. But it will also create the same effect it did last time they went down that road. And right now, the oil based underpinning of their economy isn't in good shape nor will it ever be fully restored as the US is now self reliant through fracking. Russia may need to prove this to themselves before they are willing to negotiate openly.
 
fredymac said:
Cheating is easy if you can say:

No, you can't go there.

No, you can't see that.

No, you can't do that.

I haven't seen any details on the nature and methods of the cheating reported to Congress. But if US inspectors can't visit anywhere they want, or externally examine any specific weapon or facility they suspect, or bring any test equipment they need, then cheating would be easy.
Click to expand...

Proof?

fredymac said:
The Open Skies treaties seem to contain similar "very specific requirements" but here too we have complaints:
Click to expand...

Virtually all of which are totally risible at best and completely fabricated at worst. Much as it pains me to say, you CAN make a case for ditching INF, but Open Skies is a totally different ball game.

fredymac said:
-Russian flights over the US appear to be for non military infrastructure targetting purposes and make unsafe low passes over DC
Click to expand...

Well, even if it was designed with military installations in mind, nothing in the treaty expressly forbids that, actually - Open Skies is just that, open. Its purpose is verification and you can construct an argument where you wish to verify the absence of military infrastructure from some location. Furthermore, it's frankly silly to assume Russia would depend on Open Skies flights for such data when before the existence of that treaty and with worse EO satellites at their disposal than today they were able to come up with this:


At any rate, (non-US) Western air force personnel involved with conducting Open Skies flights have stated that in their experience, the Russians aren't looking at anything the US and its allies don't also photograph when they fly over Russia. All this would be easier to argue if the US, like other Western Open Skies signatories, published the details of Russian flights (even Russia has released US overflight tracks in the past). One might surmise that the failure to do so is an attempt to protect the narratives you're espousing - it's certainly difficult to think of a respectable reason.

As for unsafe low passes, if that is true a whole raft of USAF officers needs to be court-martialed! Open Skies missions are required to submit their flight plan in advance for approval (so US servicemen would have signed off on those low passes) and when it takes place, representatives of the country overflown ride along onboard (so again US servicemen would have failed to intervene and stop this dangerous behaviour). Last but not least, the treaty prescribes fixed altitudes during photography (the lowest is about 400m, IIRC).

fredymac said:
-US flights over Russia are being geographically restricted (direct contravention of treaty)
Click to expand...

It's not as simple as all that. There are basically two areas where restrictions are in place, Kaliningrad and sections of the border region with Georgia where the renegade territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia are located.

The latter case is a problem outside the scope of Open Skies, as it is a direct consequence of Russia's recognition of these entities as sovereign states, making a 10km strip along their border with Russia off limits per the treaty, because they are not signatories. Now, Russian recognition was a moronic tit-for-tat response to Kosovo, but that's beside the point - Open Skies is simply neither the instrument nor the venue to resolve that particular conflict, it's an entirely unrelated issue that should not be conflated. In any case, the loss of observable land area is minuscule, two strips of approximately 150 and 70km long by 10km wide (in other words, less than one quarter the size of Big Island in total).

Kaliningrad is a bit different, as overflights continue to be allowed - the last US mission over this region took place in March this year, AFAIK. Here the contention is that the restriction of 500km on the length of the ground track, which was instituted after a Polish Open Skies flight disrupted civilian air traffic for hours with a willfully long and convoluted path, violates the treaty. It probably does, but has anybody who proposes to leave Open Skies on that score taken the time to break out a map and note the size (or rather, lack thereof) of Kaliningrad?! Within a 500km track it is possible to traverse the exclave three to four times and hence still cover the vast majority of its territory in a single flight. Which CANNOT be said about the reciprocal track length restrictions the US imposed for Russian overflights of Alaska, BTW. Was the 500km limit a Russian overreaction to a petty Polish provocation? Arguably so, but it leaves the spirit of the treaty largely intact, UNLIKE the US reprisal - so who's talking?
 
Last edited:
bobbymike said:
breakingdefense.com

Trump To Nominate New NBC Leader As White House Eyes Nuke Tests - Breaking Defense

Today's announcement of the administration's “intent” to nominate Polakowski, a retired Army two-star general who worked on WMD issues throughout his career, comes the day after a senior Pentagon official acknowledged that the US could resume nuclear testing “relatively rapidly,” should the...
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
Click to expand...

Not sure how I feel about this unless China is clearly engaging in underground testing.
 
Trident said:
............
Click to expand...


If you actually demand proof that you can't cheat if access/examination/testing can be restricted, that reveals far more about you than anything else. If on the other, you claim there are no restrictions and US inspectors can go anywhere (literally), look at anything, and bring whatever test gear they want, I now flip it back to you. Proof?

....... failure to [show overflight tracks of Russia] is an attempt to protect the narratives you're espousing - it's certainly difficult to think of a respectable reason.
Click to expand...

Yeah, so hard to find and therefore invalid. By the way, try flying over downtown DC and see what happens if you are a regular aircraft.

Russia Open Skies Tracks 1.jpg

Russia Overflight of DC.jpg


You admit INF treaty violations? That's surprising actually. A general question then. If you are willing to violate one nuclear treaty, what makes it unthinkable that you would violate others? Indeed, if the reaction from the other party is to look the other, why wouldn't you violate all the others?

Again, your defense of Russia (and automatic dismissal of US complaints as malicious) makes it clear, it is necessary to factor in the presence of people like you whenever a treaty is considered. There are no counterparts to you in Russia.
 
Of course there are people with divergent opinions in Russia, including on topics relating this discussion. People are people everywhere.
But those in Russia with opinions different than the Putin regime/ Russian state are either out-right silenced or largely drowned-out.
And ironically there appears to admiring aspiration to do the same to “people like you” like Trident etc (quoting your comments above).
 
kaiserd said:
Of course there are people with divergent opinions in Russia, including on topics relating this discussion. People are people everywhere.
But those in Russia with opinions different than the Putin regime/ Russian state are either out-right silenced or largely drowned-out.
And ironically there appears to admiring aspiration to do the same to “people like you” like Trident etc (quoting your comments above).
Click to expand...


No that's just you and your awesome mind reading abilities.

By the way, you must never forget. I am the Putin Puppet doing his bidding.
 
If the PRC has been conducting clandestine underground nuclear tests, then what will follow should be no surprise. I swear the Chinese Politburo lives in their own world, paranoid and detached from reality.
 
fredymac said:
If you actually demand proof that you can't cheat if access/examination/testing can be restricted, that reveals far more about you than anything else.
Click to expand...

I demanded proof that Russia is denying access required by the treaty to American inspectors. Expecting them to grant privileges that are not stipulated by its provisions is a red herring. Do always consider that you'd have to be comfortable with exposing your own arsenal to the same kind of scrutiny by the Russians - be honest and realistic about whether that'd be acceptable.

fredymac said:
If on the other, you claim there are no restrictions and US inspectors can go anywhere (literally), look at anything, and bring whatever test gear they want, I now flip it back to you. Proof?
Click to expand...

Within the scope of inspections defined in the treaty, I have not heard any serious complaints, have you? There are some legitimate concerns about said scope (compared to the preceding START I, for example), but even they're contentious. Since a *perfect* treaty with a 100% bullet-proof verification regime is a practical impossibility (for the reason alluded to above), that is to be expected and it's still *vastly* preferable to having no treaty at all. Consider that it has already given US experts a close look at the Avangard HGV - would that have happened without a treaty?

fredymac said:
Yeah, so hard to find and therefore invalid.
Click to expand...

Not released by the US government sources though, right? That's where the info SHOULD be coming from, but where we keep getting statements that directly contradict said data instead.

No matter, where are the unsafe low passes and the spying on civilian infrastructure?

fredymac said:
By the way, try flying over downtown DC and see what happens if you are a regular aircraft.
Click to expand...

Another red herring. Open Skies flights are NOT regular aircraft. It's funny how you demand unrealistically intrusive New START inspections but are up in arms about an occasional flight over DC with special privileges. And if disruption to DC airspace is a problem, why do you not consider the complaints which led the Russians to impose the 500km track length restriction over Kaliningrad perfectly justified, rather than a pretext for ditching the entire treaty?

fredymac said:
You admit INF treaty violations? That's surprising actually.
Click to expand...

It shouldn't be. If you had been reading my posts without pre-conceived notions of what my attitude is, you'd know that I've done precisely that before. I don't care about partisan positions, I care about the facts.

fredymac said:
A general question then. If you are willing to violate one nuclear treaty, what makes it unthinkable that you would violate others? Indeed, if the reaction from the other party is to look the other, why wouldn't you violate all the others?
Click to expand...

It isn't unthinkable - if you could implicitly trust the other party, you wouldn't need nuclear treaties (or nuclear weapons, for that matter) in the first place. Thing is, violating one treaty is not PROOF that the other treaty is also being violated. Where in New START does it say "if one party violates INF, it counts as a violation of New START"?

Nobody's looking the other way either, Russia was being called out on its violation of INF already under Obama and the complaints (such as their legitimacy is) about Open Skies go way back too. Doesn't change that, strictly according to the facts, the Russians would have at least as much grounds for leaving as the US does, yet they don't. Georgia actually closed its entire air space to Russian Open Skies missions over the Abkhazia & South Ossetia problem - understandable perhaps, but as clear-cut a treaty violation as they come. Considering how the flight quota and data-sharing provisions work in combination with the fact that almost 30 out of the 34 signatories are either NATO members or close non-NATO US allies, Russia is arguably disadvantaged by the treaty even without these issues.

Then there's the problem that not all violations are equal - some are blatant and seriously affect the very essence of the agreement, others are disputable as to whether they actually contravene and trivial in their implications. Not every problem is a rational (as opposed to legal) reason to leave a treaty and lose all of its benefits for good. One of my beefs with leaving INF is that it was never detailed in public what kind of violation we were talking about. Taken all round the body of evidence compels me to accept that there was a violation of some kind, but was it a mere technicality or a show stopper? Classification is invoked as a reason for not disclosing any facts, but the very poorly justified withdrawal from Open Skies (where the facts are fortunately public domain and can't be kept secret) does not inspire confidence, to say the least.

fredymac said:
Again, your defense of Russia (and automatic dismissal of US complaints as malicious) makes it clear, it is necessary to factor in the presence of people like you whenever a treaty is considered. There are no counterparts to you in Russia.
Click to expand...

I didn't *automatically* dismiss them as malicious, I considered the facts first and found the complaints specious on that basis.
 
Trident said:
........
Click to expand...


Seriously. You think radar transponder data tracks must be released through the US government or they are invalid. OK, whatever.

You are guided by facts and have no partisan opinions? How about this: I am the one guided by facts and you are the one full of political opinions. I claim this as validly as you do. I guess Russia is governed by non partisans as well.

Your entire premise is that we need these treaties with Russia. You never addressed the fundamental aspect of whether the economic status of Russia warrants treating them as a full equal. The concept of leveraging a far bigger economy and more innovative technical sector to answer our defense needs seems to be unacceptable to you.

So we will have to await a non partisan election to see whether a non partisan president will restore non partisan treaties to your liking.
 
ABM was signed by Nixon (R), INF started under Carter (D) and was signed by Reagan (R), START I started under Reagan (R) and was signed by Bush (R), Open Skies was signed by Bush (R), New START was started by and signed by Obama (D). I count four republicans and 2 democrats, it appears that arms reduction treaties are as non-partisan as they come.
 
Desertfox said:
ABM was signed by Nixon (R), INF started under Carter (D) and was signed by Reagan (R), START I started under Reagan (R) and was signed by Bush (R), Open Skies was signed by Bush (R), New START was started by and signed by Obama (D). I count four republicans and 2 democrats, it appears that arms reduction treaties are as non-partisan as they come.
Click to expand...


With a country called the Soviet Union which all the nonpartisan people knew was going to be around forever. The country called Russia is a lot smaller with a lot less people and lot smaller economy but possibly more problems.
 
fredymac said:
Seriously. You think radar transponder data tracks must be released through the US government or they are invalid. OK, whatever.
Click to expand...

No, they aren't invalid. Since other governments don't keep these things out of the public view though, it does raise questions about the attitude prevailing when US officials additionally make claims that are at odds with this information. They couldn't very well make those statements if their own data contradicted them in the same breath, so it's not unreasonable to suspect there could be an agenda at play. I note in this context that you are no longer upholding your original allegations.

fredymac said:
You are guided by facts and have no partisan opinions? How about this: I am the one guided by facts and you are the one full of political opinions. I claim this as validly as you do. I guess Russia is governed by non partisans as well.
Click to expand...

Not quite... unlike your opinions, mine are compatible with the verifiable facts (which is because I didn't form the opinions until I had checked the facts, rather than merely seeking confirmation of preconceived notions). That's a rather pivotal difference.

fredymac said:
Your entire premise is that we need these treaties with Russia. You never addressed the fundamental aspect of whether the economic status of Russia warrants treating them as a full equal. The concept of leveraging a far bigger economy and more innovative technical sector to answer our defense needs seems to be unacceptable to you.
Click to expand...

I'm at a loss as to how economics are relevant here when the Russian nuclear arsenal is nevertheless the same size as the American one, and used to be *larger* until limits established by arms control agreements brought it down to parity. The fact that this policy of (over-)matching the US deterrent was and continues to be exceedingly damaging to the welfare of the Russian people is not up for debate, but it is outside our purview to change. We can only deal with the situation at hand, and doing so by starting an arms race which has a non-trivial chance of escalating out of control instead of right-sizing Russia is indeed not acceptable to me. That seems like a question of common sense though, rather than political views.

Also, what about the Chinese economy? Suppose we ditch arms control, successfully "spend into oblivion" the Russians (who further come to the sudden realization that the US isn't trying to nuke them, an epiphany which has eluded them for the past 70 years), do you feel confident that the same approach will work with the PRC? Because the arms control option sure as hell will no longer be on the table at that point - watching Russia get hanged out to dry is going to do nothing to convince China to change its attitudes on this count.
 
Last edited:
Trident said:
.......
Click to expand...


My views are based on observable facts and behavior. So I too claim to be unbiased. You say my views represent ignorance and preconceived opinion. I say yours do. Now what?

So you are at a loss as to how economics are relevant. So were the Soviets.

You say that basing defense policy on a real world accounting of the opponent's economic capacity is "not acceptable". Again, a demonstration of non partisan fact based thinking.
 
fredymac said:
With a country called the Soviet Union which all the nonpartisan people knew was going to be around forever. The country called Russia is a lot smaller with a lot less people and lot smaller economy but possibly more problems.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but does the US really need to knock over Russia and antagonize the Chinese? I mean it can't stay on top forever. Africa's nations have a billion people, and it'll have two billion by the end of the century (organized or not... well, we'll see).

How long is the US going to keep this up? What happens when the Indians/East Africans/whatever new power bloc emerges in the late 21st start acting up? I'm really holding my breath here to see how the Third World is going to go over the next sixty-odd years.

What is the world going to look like in sixty years?

Might preserving at least cordial relations with the Chinese and Russians be useful in fifty odd years, or ninety years, when the nations start playing great games across the Eurasian and African Continents again? Is any precedent being set for the Indians and Africans to follow? How do they factor in? What happens when they flip to either side? Or maybe by then everyone will have forgotten what happened fifty years ago. We have always been at war with Eurasia and all that.

What is in the long-term interests of the United States?
 
fredymac said:
My views are based on observable facts and behavior. So I too claim to be unbiased. You say my views represent ignorance and preconceived opinion. I say yours do. Now what?
Click to expand...

Easy: if you're going to claim your opinions are grounded in factual information, you're now going to have to put up or shut up - prove me wrong!

Prove that Russia makes unsafe low passes over Washington or cheats on New START, for example. I've not only stated that I disagree but explained why, now it's your turn.

fredymac said:
So you are at a loss as to how economics are relevant. So were the Soviets.
Click to expand...

Well, at 70 years and counting it still hasn't ultimately caught up to them, so there's that. If we press them on the issue, either it eventually will, or a "use it or lose it" dynamic will put paid to both your and their economies (along with everybody else's) before that point is reached. The mere risk, however infinitesimal it might be, of the latter outcome should compel any sane person to seek other solutions.
 
fredymac said:
Desertfox said:
ABM was signed by Nixon (R), INF started under Carter (D) and was signed by Reagan (R), START I started under Reagan (R) and was signed by Bush (R), Open Skies was signed by Bush (R), New START was started by and signed by Obama (D). I count four republicans and 2 democrats, it appears that arms reduction treaties are as non-partisan as they come.
Click to expand...


With a country called the Soviet Union which all the nonpartisan people knew was going to be around forever. The country called Russia is a lot smaller with a lot less people and lot smaller economy but possibly more problems.
Click to expand...
START I, Open Skies, and New START were all signed with Russia (not the Soviet Union), as well as START II and SORT.
 
chimeric oncogene said:
Yeah, but does the US really need to knock over Russia and antagonize the Chinese? I mean it can't stay on top forever. Africa's nations have a billion people, and it'll have two billion by the end of the century (organized or not... well, we'll see).

How long is the US going to keep this up? What happens when the Indians/East Africans/whatever new power bloc emerges in the late 21st start acting up? I'm really holding my breath here to see how the Third World is going to go over the next sixty-odd years.

What is the world going to look like in sixty years?

Might preserving at least cordial relations with the Chinese and Russians be useful in fifty odd years, or ninety years, when the nations start playing great games across the Eurasian and African Continents again? Is any precedent being set for the Indians and Africans to follow? How do they factor in? What happens when they flip to either side? Or maybe by then everyone will have forgotten what happened fifty years ago. We have always been at war with Eurasia and all that.

What is in the long-term interests of the United States?
Click to expand...


Russia can do whatever it wants and the US has no aspirations for "lebens raum". I don't think I will live long enough to see an African power bloc arise based on the past 60 years of history. As for "great games", the only one I see right now is "one belt one road", island building in other peoples waters, and various investments China is making in Africa. The only thing of interest will be seeing how China reacts to anti colonial sentiment among African countries when the time comes to pay off debts and repatriate the Chinese population that has been settling there.

Right now China and India are having issues along their border. So China will have someone else to engage their attention.

As for the long term interests of the US, my hope is that they remain just that. US interests focused on addressing US problems with US solutions. And hoping that other countries act similarly with regards to their own problems. With one caveat: don't poach your neighbors territory.
 
Trident said:
Easy: if you're going to claim your opinions are grounded in factual information, you're now going to have to put up or shut up - prove me wrong!

Prove that Russia makes unsafe low passes over Washington or cheats on New START, for example. I've not only stated that I disagree but explained why, now it's your turn.

Well, at 70 years and counting it still hasn't ultimately caught up to them, so there's that. If we press them on the issue, either it eventually will, or a "use it or lose it" dynamic will put paid to both your and their economies (along with everybody else's) before that point is reached. The mere risk, however infinitesimal it might be, of the latter outcome should compel any sane person to seek other solutions.
Click to expand...


I will respond the same you respond when asked: ...........

Still hasn't caught up with them? More fact based thinking? The Soviet Union collapsed. Russia is not the same. As for when Russia collapses, that will be determined by how much they wish to divert into military spending.

A sane person would treat an infinitesimal threat with disinterest. But that's my own biased opinion.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom