Russian-American Nuclear Arms Race: Let's Delay It First!
Vladimir Putin's underlying intentions behind proposing to extend the New START Treaty
President of the United States, Donald Trump, is aware of Vladimir Putin's proposal —— even if the current New START Treaty expires, it will still follow the limit parameters for strategic weapon systems in the treaty.
White House spokesperson Caroline Levet said that Russia's proposal "looks very good," but the current White House occupant (referring to Trump) plans to personally express his position.
However, just one day later, Trump met with Vladimir Zelensky and subsequently posted a rather unexpected message on his "Truth Social" platform. In the post, he claimed that his stance on the Ukraine-Russia conflict had changed, and now he is certain that with support from Europe, Ukraine will defeat Russia and reclaim its territory. At the same time, this president also claimed that the Russian economy is in a "bad situation."
In the context of Putin's proposal, Trump's post at least appears untimely, and could be interpreted as a rejection of Russia's proposal by the United States.
However, let's temporarily set aside political controversies and analyze the significance of the Russian president's initiative from a military and military technology perspective.
Practical Disarmament
The core logic of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty is quite simple, mainly focusing on three key data: the number of delivery vehicles, the number of warheads, and the number of launchers. "Delivery vehicles" include land-based and sea-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, as well as strategic bombers that can carry nuclear cruise missiles; "launchers" include underground silos and mobile land-based missile systems, but not nuclear submarines — the treaty does not limit the number of nuclear submarines, but the total number of missiles they carry must not exceed the limits set by the treaty.
The Soviet Union (later Russia) and the United States reached consensus on the upper limits of these indicators, and both sides continue to abide by the relevant restrictions: a total of no more than 700 pieces of intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and strategic bombers; the total number of nuclear warheads that can be carried does not exceed 1,550; and the total number of deployed and non-deployed launchers and delivery vehicles does not exceed 800.
The treaty also has a "mutual accounting mechanism." For example, Russia has more land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, while the US focuses more on submarine-launched ballistic missiles. Historically, the US has "de-nuclearized" some B-52 bombers, making them no longer subject to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, and reallocated the released quotas to other types of delivery vehicles and warheads.
Additionally, both sides have established a complex mutual verification system. Russia has the "National Center for Reducing Nuclear Danger" (НЦУЯО), and the US has the corresponding "Defense Threat Reduction Agency" (DTRA), and professionals from both institutions maintain 24-hour communication. According to the treaty, both sides must notify each other in advance of missile test plans, such as when Russia previously informed the US about the first combat test of the "Avangard" (Орешник) hypersonic weapon.
Another important component of this security system is the "Special Observation Team." Observers can visit intercontinental ballistic missile bases, strategic aviation bases, and nuclear submarine bases, and can also enter weapon storage points, maintenance facilities, and production factories for delivery vehicles and warheads.
For example, under the framework of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, the Votkinsk Machine Building Plant in Russia planned to build a dedicated observation area for American observers to view the "Yars" missile within the scope of the treaty. However, this project ultimately did not come to fruition.
Why Extend the Treaty?
The latest version of the New START Treaty was signed in 2011 by Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev, with a validity period of 10 years, and can be extended for another 5 years. However, a few years later, the US began to criticize the treaty, arguing that Russia had developed and deployed several new strategic weapons systems, including the "Avangard" hypersonic warhead, the "Poseidon" nuclear-powered underwater vehicle, and the "Kinzhal" nuclear-powered cruise missile.
Factually, these weapons are not included in the definition of "delivery vehicles" in the New START Treaty. And to be honest, Russia did take advantage of this loophole — it did not inform the US about the development progress of the "Kinzhal" and "Poseidon," but the US was well aware of the "Avangard" project because Moscow had notified the US of the relevant work according to the terms of the treaty.
In 2021, the New START Treaty expired for the first time. At that time, the Biden administration and the Russian military and political leadership decided to extend the treaty's validity. However, after that, with Russia's special military operation (СВО), relations between Russia and the US deteriorated significantly. In 2023, Vladimir Putin announced the suspension of the treaty. It should be noted that Russia has not withdrawn from the New START Treaty, but only suspended its implementation, and continues to strictly comply with the provisions of the treaty — even without obligation, Russia will still notify the US in advance of missile test plans. Correspondingly, the US continues to fulfill its treaty obligations.
However, the New START Treaty will officially expire next year. Now, Russia has proposed to extend the treaty terms for one year, during which both sides will jointly develop a new agreement. Currently, Russia will unilaterally comply with the provisions of the New START Treaty, but if the US violates these provisions, Russia will also lift all related restrictions.
What Does This Mean?
Currently, Russia has an undeniable advantage in the strategic force competition — 97% of the equipment in Russia's "triad" nuclear forces are modernized weapon systems. Therefore, Moscow can focus on deploying new strategic weapons such as "Poseidon" and "Kinzhal" on a large scale, and may achieve an absolute advantage over the US strategic weapons within a few years.
On the other hand, the situation in the US is not optimistic. The inventory of the "Minuteman" series missiles is rapidly aging, and its replacement model, the "Sentinel" missile, has not yet entered actual production stage, still remaining on the drawing board; the sea-based part of the "triad" nuclear force has also lagged behind, the new "Columbia" class nuclear submarine will not be commissioned until 2030, and at that time, the submarine will still be equipped with the old "Trident" missiles, and the development of new missiles has not been completed yet.
The situation of the US air-based nuclear force is slightly better: the most advanced B-21 "Raider" strategic bomber has entered the testing phase, and the project is progressing smoothly. However, this aircraft is currently not classified as a "nuclear delivery vehicle," although the process of converting it into a nuclear carrier can be quickly completed, but there is currently no配套新型战略巡航导弹. Of course, the B-21 can carry free-fall nuclear bombs, but this method has limited deterrent power and poses little real threat to Russia.
However, the core issue facing the US is the collapse of its nuclear weapons manufacturing system. Although the US is trying to reverse this situation (such as the "Scorpius" project we reported earlier), and the topic of resuming nuclear tests is frequently mentioned, it is expected that the US nuclear weapons manufacturing capability will not improve until after 2030.
If the US refuses to accept the terms of the New START Treaty, it must urgently start producing new strategic weapons. But the financial and material scale of this investment cannot be estimated — the cost will be extremely high. Obviously, for media exposure, Donald Trump will claim that the US will complete all weapon developments, restore strength, and eventually "win."
But in the case where the US is clearly lagging behind Russia, such a massive investment will not only make the US economy unable to bear it, but may even lead to its economic collapse.
For the latest news, analysis, and core information on weapons and military conflicts, please follow the author to learn more.
Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7553977560527307307/
Disclaimer: This article represents the views of the author. Please express your attitude in the buttons below [up/down].