US and Russia Conclude Arms-Control Treaty 165
reporter writes "According to a report just published by the NY Times, Washington and the Kremlin have finalized an agreement on limiting nuclear weapons and related hardware. Notably, the agreement does not restrict American development of an anti-missile shield. Quoting: 'The new treaty will reduce the binding limit on deployed strategic nuclear warheads by more than one-quarter, and on launchers by half. It will reestablish an inspection and verification regime, replacing one that expired in December. But while the pact recognizes the dispute between the two countries over American plans for missile defense based in Europe, it will not restrict the United States from building such a shield. ... The specific arms reductions embedded in the new treaty amount to a continuing evolution rather than a radical shift in the nuclear postures of both countries. According to people in Washington and Moscow who were briefed on the new treaty, it will lower the legal limit on deployed strategic warheads to 1,550 each, from the 2,200 allowed as of 2012 under the previous treaty. It would lower the limit on launchers to 800 from the 1,600 now permitted. Nuclear-armed missiles and heavy bombers would be capped at 700 each.'"
Re:Ha! Russia. (Score:3, Interesting)
On land the Russians have been limited to Chechnya, Georgia and Kosovo in the last 20 years.
Are you seriously saying that a superpower is only a superpower if they go having wars around the world all the time? If my country were in a constant war with everyone all around the world and had troops deployed all the time, I would feel ashamed and a bully, not a "superpower".
I'm sure both Russia and China are capable of deploying all around the world in a few days. Just because they don't usually do that but are a peace-loving countries, doesn't mean they cant.
Re:I hope Civ V isn't bound by this. (Score:3, Interesting)
plus 700 nuclear missiles and 700 nuclear armed heavy bombers.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Or you play a map sized 1:1.
Re:Not good (Score:3, Interesting)
North Korea could most likely nuke Japan. While that would result in the end of their current government its still a threat.
Re:Ha! Russia. (Score:3, Interesting)
Do MIRVs count as 1 warhead? (Score:4, Interesting)
For those that don't know, one ICBM or SLBM rocket can launch multiple hydrogen bombs. This is known as MIRV [wikipedia.org] (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles). Each one can be aimed at different target. Does such a system count as one warhead, or do each of the bombs count separately?
Thanks.
-molo
Re:Ha! Russia. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Ha! Russia. (Score:3, Interesting)
You do realize that the USA has 400.000 military personnel and China.... well 1.600.000....... Not saying they have the boats to get them all anywhere, but I would think they can deliver quite a punch if they need to.
There is a huge misconception about the size of China's military. Something like 30% are old women and children. Literally. Furthermore, over half quarters are are simply factory workers who wear uniforms. Yes, those guys who make goods in factories. That means, realistically, something like an effective fighting force, versus a real military, of only 4000,000 - 500,000 or so. Not to mention, all of China's real talent has typically been Russian.
The modern US military has extremely powerful force multipliers. A squad of guys (8-16) today is roughly equivalent to something like 30-100 soldiers during WWII. No joke. And generally speaking, much of N. Korea's tech base hasn't evolved much since the Korean war. Sure they have pockets of their own special forces with modern weapons, but by in large, most of their forces are still using modernized WWII to Vietnam era weaponry; reflective of accuracy and capability. In a nut shell, when compared to modern US forces, China's force is VERY ROUGHLY comparable to 100,000 US troops.
You need to remember, with one ground spotter, one airplane, and one cluster bomb, the US Air Force can take out an entire armored division of armor. Literally. To date, only one has actually been used in combat. It was dropped in Iraq. Ponder that for a second or two. That's what force multipliers are all about.
Realistically, and no jokes, maintaining enough ammo on hand is typically the biggest logistics issue a modern, Western, military would have in opposition to a conflict with China. That's not to say there wouldn't be deaths on the Western's side, but China is far from the big, nasty, million-man-plus boogy man everyone tries to make him out to be. In a toe to toe with the West, China would be missing its toes, feet, and ankles really quickly. And if you can't stand...you've lost.
Re:Speaking an Unspeakable Truth to Power (Score:2, Interesting)
Congradulations, you have managed to be wrong in pretty much all you points.
1. Russia does not have resources to maintain their military on functional level. The current doctrine is to rely on nukes as much as possible since everything else is in disrepair. In fact, they are cutting close to 30% of staff because of lack of money. Oil money go to Putin's private coffers so not much left for anything else.
2. Their nuclear industry is in disrepair and barely hanging on the guys who are going to retire in the next five years or so.
3. There is no manufacturing capacity as of note. Maybe dozen plants here and there again all staffed with guys in sixties.
4. There is no space _industry_. There are old thirty year old designs on life support.
5 Maybe Russia is not american enemy if you could read russian, you would know that USA and NATO is still their enemy number one on official and laymen level. They seem to be very nostalgic about russian/soviet empire. There is a Kremlin-sponsored campain to whitewash Stalin's name. Yes, the guy who directed killing of more people than Hitler ever did.
For you education, here is a greatest russian engineering project of new century: the missle that never flew as expected in like 10 years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSM-56_Bulava [wikipedia.org]
Re:Speaking an Unspeakable Truth to Power (Score:3, Interesting)
> 2. Their nuclear industry is in disrepair and barely hanging on the guys who are going to retire in the next five years or so.
Not quite sure what is meant by 'nuclear industry' here exactly but the civilian nuclear industry is alive and well. The current plans call for the construction of 20 new nuclear reactors at the pace of 1 or 2 per year. Ten are currently under construction and the first two reactors have been very recently completed.
Plus we are building new reactors all over the world, a deal to build 16 new reactors in India has recently been signed.
Skilled factory jobs now pay more than entry level paper shifting 'manager' jobs aka 'office plankton' so there are many more younger people at the factories now.
> For you education, here is a greatest russian engineering project of new century: the missile that never flew
> as expected in like 10 years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSM-56_Bulava [wikipedia.org]
The missile had 5 successful tests out of 11. It is hardly a complete failure and it's shortcomings will be fixed in the near future. How about Ares-1? Billions over budget and then canceled? This kind of cherry picking negative information and obsessing over it is why most Russians dislike the tiny but vocal (in front of Western cameras) pro Western minority. Why not write about the very successful civilian Sukhoi Superjet project or Sukhoi PAK FA next generation plane, both of which are partially assembled at the Sukhoi factory in my home city.
>Russia does not have resources to maintain their military on functional level. The current doctrine is to rely on nukes as
>much as possible since everything else is in disrepair. In fact, they are cutting close to 30% of staff because of lack of >money.
Again you do not know what you are talking about. Russian military doctrine calls for reduction of manpower gradually to allow discharged officers to have dignified existence outside of the army (like providing them with civilian skills and free housing). The amount of new equipment delivered to the military has been increasing every year. The conscription period has been reduced to one year. Russia is well on it's way to have a modern, mobile, well equipped professional army. And we can fight, just recently we totally humiliated in battle superior numbers of trained to NATO level Georgian troops who dumped their western made weapons and ran to Tbilisi like scared girls.
>Oil money go to Putin's private coffers so not much left for anything else.
Even the most basic research would tell you this is also a lie. In the last 10 years Russia has been paying it's foreign debt ahead of schedule, managed a balanced budget (unlike some other country that is well past bankrupt and is sustained by China) and on top of that accumulated nearly a trillion dollars in the stabilization fund and gold reserves which were then partially used to dampen the effects of American initiated world wide recession. I know Russia is not exactly a pillar of democracy and Putin does have authoritarian tendencies but accusing him of being a thief does not do justice to a rational person.
> 4. There is no space _industry_. There are old thirty year old designs on life support.
Russia has a very successfully Soyuz design that is now basically the only way to deliver people and payload to the ISS. And we are a major player in commercial launches. Solar system exploration projects nearly have been restarted with a major project (Phobos-Grunt) being launched soon. What does America have? A space agency in permanent crisis, a canceled Constellation program, and given a new wave of anti-intellectualism in general a very uncertain future.
To summarize - all what you wrote wa