- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,283
- Reaction score
- 6,296
![www.energy.gov](/proxy.php?image=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.energy.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fstyles%2Fphoto_gallery_509_x_678_%2Fpublic%2Fmigrated%2Fnnsa%2F2018%2F03%2Ff49%2F20180116_-_w88_mk5_large_v2.png%3Fitok%3DltUj4kVI&hash=1fff47b5df720adfa69437b6159b9a72&return_error=1)
Pantex reaches milestone with W88 Alt 370
Pantex has announced the successful assembly of the W88 Alt 370 First Production Capability Unit.
![]()
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
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
![]()
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
............
....... 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.
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).
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?
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.
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.
........
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.
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.
.......
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.
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.
START I, Open Skies, and New START were all signed with Russia (not the Soviet Union), as well as START II and SORT.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.
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.
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?
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.