Putin Suspends Nuclear-Arms Treaty Between Russia, U.S. | Hacker News Reader

Putin Suspends Nuclear-Arms Treaty Between Russia, U.S.

wsj.com

31 pointsO__________O28 comments

Non-JS Archive [1]

Appears to be a response to Biden visiting the Ukraine, which Russia was given advanced notice of per this article on the logistics of Biden’s trip:

- https://news.yahoo.com/sneaking-president-dc-kyiv-without-15...

Treaty‘s Wikipedia page is here:

- https://wikipedia.org/wiki/New_START

Russia already rejected talks about New START in December [2], likely related to the attacks on Russia's nuclear triad for which they blame the US:

>“Such an unrequited and brazen strike on the base of one of the parts of the [nuclear] triad publicly demonstrates their vulnerability to simple conventional means of destruction, and shows that the combat security work has actually been reduced to zero,” Voenniy Osvedomitel, a popular commentator, said on Telegram. [1]

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/12/05/explosions-h...

[2] https://www.rferl.org/a/united-states-russia-new-start-treat...

Ukraine used a Soviet-era target practice drone to strike a Russian air base that has been firing cruise missiles into Ukraine.

It’s same BS reasoning as Putin is using to justify all his other actions in last year.

Real reason is that Russia is continuing to do nuclear saber rattling, as that’s only real threat they have at this point. This war proved that Russia is no longer a global power, not even close.

This is a big mistake by Putin.

Heading into a tripolar world had America in a bind. China is making more nukes; it is not bound by any treaties, so it can make as many as it wants. At some point in the future, China will present the fait-accompli that it has as many nukes, if not more, than Russia and the US.

In such a world, treaties or not, the US can't have as many nukes as Russia and China combined. In a world without START, the US can do exactly that.

The US have almost 5500 nuclear weapons at the moment, what practical difference would it make to have twice as many?

Please provide a source for the 5500 count, since it appears to contradict numbers on the Wikipedia page I already linked to above; here’s link again:

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/New_START

The current US stockpile is 3750. Plus, 2000 retired being disposed of. New START limits deployed warheads to 1550 but doesn't limit the number in reserve.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_of_the_United_...

I found source with similar numbers except that has much larger stockpile, but then the total inventory is lower than summing numbers.

https://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/status-world-nuclear-...

1550 is a funny number. Every warhead on an ICBN or an SLBM counts as one warhead, but the nukes carried by strategic bombers like B-52 don't count. Each strategic bomber counts as one single warhead. This was done because there was no simple way to monitor the compliance for bomber-carried nukes. So, in principle the US can have thousands more warheads.

3750 is the latest disclosed number by the State Department [1]. The same link lists the number of retired warheads, so, indeed, if the US wanted, it could ramp up the number of active nukes to 5750 in no time.

How does the US benefit from having a large number of nukes? We don't live in the '70s anymore. The US population, and the western population in general would be appalled if the US used nukes against civilian targets first. Russia and China would be more than happy to exploit this self-imposed constraint. In full-scale nuclear war where civilian targets are on the menu, a nuclear power can deter with only a few hundred nukes. But if you limit yourself to only military targets, then you do need thousands of nukes.

[1] https://www.state.gov/transparency-in-the-u-s-nuclear-weapon...

I think a big part of it is inertia. They have a certain number of ICBMs and SLBMs. I think they are going to replace with same numbers of Sentinel ICBMs and Columbia SSBNs. I wouldn't be surprised if they want to keep enough warheads in storage to fully MIRV them.

They are also keeping a lot of gravity bombs and cruise missiles, both active and in storage, when don't need that many.

I wonder if the expense of maintaining them will cause the stockpile to shrink. There is big program to refurbish nukes and they should retire many of them instead.

My understanding is that the retired weapons are being dismantled and probably can't be reactivated. Also, the US has the 50 tons of plutonium, much of it in pits, from retired weapons. It sounded like storing the plutonium is a blockage in dismantling old ones.

I agree with you about the number of warheads. I think the main danger is someone trying for enough for first strike and thinking it is possible. Also, China has been cautious about nukes, I don't see them going for a lot. Russia has other problems right now.

> Also, China has been cautious about nukes, I don't see them going for a lot.

That's not the assessment of the US Department of Defense [1]:

  In 2021, Beijing probably accelerated its nuclear expansion. The Department of Defense estimates that the PRC’s operational nuclear warheads stockpile has surpassed 400.

  The PLA plans to "basically complete modernization" of its national defense and armed forces by 2035. If China continues the pace of its nuclear expansion, it will likely field a stockpile of about 1500 warheads by its 2035 timeline.

[1] https://media.defense.gov/2022/Nov/29/2003122279/-1/-1/1/202...

The Pentagon knows more than I do. China has definitely changed strategy and expanded recently. It is impressive and scary how much they've built in last couple of years.

I can see a few reasons why they would stop nuclear expansion early. They are already at a place where can deter. They don't need the same number of platforms like they don't need strategic bombers or as many SSBNs. The main reason I can see them building more warheads is to match the US and Russia especially if they expand after arms control failure.

https://fas.org/blogs/security/2023/02/stratcom-says-china-h...

I found article about potential increase and the US stockpile numbers match what is needed to fully MIRV all missiles.

https://fas.org/blogs/security/2023/02/if-arms-control-colla...

I googled "how many nuclear weapons does the us have" and Google suggested a number slightly below 5500. I don't think the exact number matters much though, what can you do with 5000 that you can't do with 500 or even 50?

You can hit 5,000 targets

Reply on news.ycombinator.com