US - Russian nuclear arms reduction treaties; what is the real purpose?

[hammerfast]

I personally think they are simply bilateral agreements between the two super-powers to return to the more conventional and more profitable warfare of military expansionism (rather than mutually assured distruction); in the face of emerging nuclear powers of china , india , pakistan and iran ; who are less flexible in terms of conventional warfare.

What do you think?

[Sidhardha]

For Russia - its a way not to go Bankrupt trying to compete in nucklear arms with USA.
For USA - its 20% of nuclear power plants working on recycled uran from russian nuclear weapons :)

Also, for both countries as they had produced so many atomic weapons in cold war - they face major problems maintaining them. so keeping such numbers would be unreasonable.

The question of nuclear arms treaties is mainly not numbers - but ways to deliver warheads and ways to intercept them. The sides feel safe while neither side can successfully intercept others nukes or make a preventive strike
preventing them from launching.

While the strategical nukes likely to never come into play, tactical nukes are included in military doctrines and can still play a large role in case of any "conventional" conflict, even if strategic arms will not be used.

[dracon49]

I'm not sure that the US has more nukes then Russia.

[hammerfast]

For Russia - its a way not to go Bankrupt trying to compete in nucklear arms with USA.
For USA - its 20% of nuclear power plants working on recycled uran from russian nuclear weapons :)

Also, for both countries as they had produced so many atomic weapons in cold war - they face major problems maintaining them. so keeping such numbers would be unreasonable.

"The question of nuclear arms treaties is mainly not numbers - but ways to deliver warheads and ways to intercept them. The sides feel safe while neither side can successfully intercept others nukes or make a preventive strike
preventing them from launching."

While the strategical nukes likely to never come into play, tactical nukes are included in military doctrines and can still play a large role in case of any "conventional" conflict, even if strategic arms will not be used.


i wouldnt say so , nuke treaties are about reduction in numbers and types, it has nothing to do with ABM capabilities. ABMs , (like the czech controversy and the current romanian issue) have actually become the new "game" if you will, we are yet to see US-Russian ABM reduction treaties.

[hammerfast]

(continuing from the first post).... I say so because it's quite easy to imagine countries like china, india and pakistan being drawn into nuclear treaties in the very near future...

[LineDoggie]

I personally think they are simply bilateral agreements between the two super-powers to return to the more conventional and more profitable warfare of military expansionism (rather than mutually assured distruction); in the face of emerging nuclear powers of china , india , pakistan and iran ; who are less flexible in terms of conventional warfare.

What do you think?Yeah, thats it..............


Its a Conspiracy between Colt Defence and Izhmash

[Atlantic Friend]

Money. A nuclear arsenal costs an awful lot of money to build, maintain, upgrade, protect with first-strike:second-strike capabilities. If the other side is reasonable enough to engage in negotiations and you feel confident in his negotiating in good faith (or your retaining enough power to STILL be able to blow him to smithereens), then you negotiate and focus on less reasonable enemies.