Author Topic: Russia’s Withdrawal From START: Less Than Meets The Eye  (Read 162 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Elderberry

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 24,421
Russia’s Withdrawal From START: Less Than Meets The Eye
« on: February 24, 2023, 03:00:30 pm »
Lawrence Person's BattleSwarm Blog 2/23/2023

It’s tempting to write up a piece on the one year anniversary of Russia launching its illegal war of territorial aggression against Ukraine, but the situation right now is largely a static cycle of “Russia grinds out gains near Bakhmut and Vuhledar, followed some time later by Ukraine mostly erasing those gains and inflicting heavy losses on Russian troops.

So let’s talk about Putin’s announcement that Russia is suspending the New START treaty.

    Feb 21 (Reuters) – President Vladimir Putin said on Tuesday that Russia was suspending participation in the New START nuclear arms reduction treaty with the United States, after accusing the West of being directly involved in attempts to strike its strategic air bases.

    “I am forced to announce today that Russia is suspending its participation in the strategic offensive arms treaty,” he said.

New START is the successor to START I, signed by Bush41 and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1991, limiting strategic weapons to 6,000 nuclear warheads and 1,600 ICBMs and nuclear bombers. New START, signed by Obama and Putin, lowered that to 1,550 nuclear warheads and 700 deployed missiles and bombers (800 total for non-deployed). It placed no limits on tactical nuclear weapons.

Should we worry that Putin is about to launch a new nuclear arms race?

I wouldn’t.

One repeated lesson of the Russo-Ukrainian War is that Russian equipment is ill-kept and ill-maintained. If Russia can’t even properly maintain it’s current military infrastructure, how is it going to launch a new nuclear arms race?

The United States is going to spend some $634 billion this decade maintaining its nuclear deterrent. The U.S. spends more money maintaining nuclear weapons in a given year than Russia spends annually on its entire military. Thermonuclear weapons (not fission-only tactical nuclear weapons) require regular Tritium refresh. Fission weapons still require battery and explosive refresh. Where is Russia going to find money to expand it’s nuclear arsenal when it’s going into it’s second year fighting a full-fledged conventional war, for which it’s already expended most of it’s high precision munitions?

More: https://www.battleswarmblog.com/?p=54200