Moreover, New START actually far more lax with air-based strategic cruise missiles. Under New START conditions it was ridiculously assumed that one bomber carries only one nuclear warhead. Compare:
http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms...t2txt.html#4.01. For the purposes of this Treaty, the number of warheads attributed to each deployed heavy bombers shall be equal to the number of nuclear weapons for which any heavy bomber of the same type or variant of a type is actually equipped, with the exception of heavy bombers reoriented to a conventional role as provided for in paragraph 7 of this Article. Each nuclear weapon for which a heavy bomber is actually equipped shall count as one warhead toward the limitations provided for in Article I of this Treaty. For the purpose of such counting, nuclear weapons include long-range nuclear air-launched cruise missiles (ALCMs), nuclear air-to-surface missiles with a range of less than 600 kilometers, and nuclear bombs. [ABA]
2. For the purposes of this Treaty, the number of nuclear weapons for which a heavy bomber is actually equipped shall be the number specified for heavy bombers of that type and variant of a type in the Memorandum of Understanding on Warhead Attribution and Heavy Bomber Data Relating to the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, hereinafter referred to as the Memorandum on Attribution. [ABA]
3. Each Party undertakes not to equip any heavy bomber with a greater number of nuclear weapons than the number specified for heavy bombers of that type or variant of a type in the Memorandum on Attribution. [ABA]
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/140035.pdf(b) One nuclear warhead shall be counted for each
deployed heavy bomber.
See the difference? Also, keep in mind that there is no any at all limitations to actual number of ALCMs in stockpiles. They simply completly outside of overall permitted number of nuclear warheads. Yeah, "a world without nuclear weapons.", su~ure.
Last edited by Cyborn; 03-28-2012 at 03:27 AM.
This whole discussion is a red herring. If you want to create new submarines, new offensive missiles, go ahead!1!1! Nobody cares how many new ICBMs you have, as long as the number is within treaty limits. Start as many new R&D projects as you like. Look at all the fиcks people give about that!
Stop distracting people with these non-arguments. The issue is missile defense, not offensive missiles/submarines. This is, literally, apples and oranges.
Intentions are irrelevant, only potentials are relevant. I don't care if the guy waving a gun in my face actually means to shoot someone behind me. He is still threatening to me. And I must respond to his asshatery with appropriate measures.
Funny is that the US always uses the "capabilities, not intentions" approach to national security and calls other nations that do the same paranoid
- Lower submarine operational tempo
- Open ocean targeting
- Road-mobile missiles being locked into garrisons under START (changed under New START)
- Military doctrine that officially eschews nuclear first strike strike policy
- Nuclear armed ALCM decoupled from strategic bombers
- Nuclear armed SLCM kept in central storage away from naval vessels
If you think this is a first strike posture, you are an ignoramus.
Whoever said the D-5 can't be a first strike weapon? I certainly didn't. Your claim of the SS-18 not being a first strike weapon is BS. And "locking road moble missiles in their garrisions" is nothing more than show. How long do you think it takes to drive them off base? Or even just drive them out of their shelter and launch? I "ignored the rest of the reasons" because they're meaningless (even though you'd like to think they mean something).