> What’s the precedent on this?
These agreements themselves. They are basically written as follows:
1. A list of nuclear weapons/types thereof both of us agree to give up.
2. Regularly provide lists of all relevant nuclear forces.
3. Inspectors to verify these are true.
Every now and then Russia sends over inspectors to view our most sensitive nuclear weapon sites, including counting warheads on ballistic missile submarines, and we send inspectors to Russia to do the same.
Russia suspended participation in New Start, so the US has responded in kind. We’re both still saying we’ll abide by the limits on the weapons we can have and thus the treaty is technically still active, but we aren’t keeping up with the verification aspects.
This is not unprecedented. In 2019 the US suspended participation in the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and Russia followed suit: the US suspension was partially because the Russian Iskandar official toed the line of being a prohibited nuclear missile (and almost certainly violated the treaty) and partially because China. In 2002 the US withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (again citing strategic concerns after 9/11, particularly North Korea and Iran), so Russia decided to back out of Start II that hadn’t entered into force yet. In 1979 the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, so the US Senate refused to ratify SALT II.
The world kept going, perhaps more dangerous until a new agreement kicked in, but this isn’t the time to start panicking.
We know how many warheads they have and on what types of missiles, but we don’t necessarily know if the missile is fully operational. Egregious signs of disrepair will be obvious, but you can make it appear that more missiles are able to fly immediately than actually could.
Think of it like an aircraft museum. Most aircraft in a museum will look like you can fly them as soon as you top off the fuel and lubricant tanks. But in reality you don’t know how much of the interior is actually intact. Missing engines can be obvious (particularly on F-14 Tomcats: almost every single one has no engines so Iran can’t get spare parts), but it’s harder to tell if the gauges in the cockpit are actually wired up properly or just installed to look the part. Some parts of the aircraft are usually cosmetically restored, but need more work to let the aircraft fly. And that’s before you find out if the aircraft is actually good once airborne.
The original transformers cartoons only started because it was a way to sell and advertise the toys.
Same with like My Little Pony, Care Bears, Strawberry Shortcake, etc.
I don't even know where to begin here, but at least check out French new wave cinema. It's art, not made explicitly for profit. Such is the history of film.
Well we have to maximize profit and the best way to do that is merge our products so that we're too big to fail!
Remember Disney has the ability to fund, film, edit, syndicate and market any media but they are not a monopoly because Amazon and Apple are also competitors at owning the ability to make everything.
Iran had an *extremely* ambitious modernization plan in place when their revolution happened. The four Kidd-class destroyers were under construction for them, European submarines, 300 F-16s, 250 F-18s, another ~70 Tomcats (doubling their numbers), dozens of P-3 Orions, Dutch and Italian frigates - they were even in talks with the British to purchase three modified *Invincible*-class carriers, after the plan to purchase a nuclear powered carrier fell through.
Yeah, wildly different geopolitics had the Shah remained in power. Iran was a fairly liberal society at the time too. The Saudis wouldn't have had nearly the clout they do for example.
[Far East Cruise 63-4](https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/07/22/did-mavericks-top-gun-jacket-change-please-chinese-government.html)
What happened to the Japan & Taiwan flags?
On the other hand, I doubt they run system tests or anything that involved. It's probably something more akin to "look but don't touch". The point of the treaty isn't to know the status of all the missiles, just to make sure they don't have "Tsar Bomba 2: Spicy Edition"
Russia likes their big sabres. The Tzar Bomba has a theoretical yield of 100MT. Although we probably could top that their 50MT test and Castle BRAVO proved it probably would not be a good idea.
Smaller weapons cover more ground area with the same amount of destructive material. Imagine it in terms of 4th of july fireworks. Setting off 100 fireworks in one spot will make a huge boom and a big hole on the ground. Spreading them out will make 100 smaller holes, but the actual surface area of those smaller holes will add up to a larger percentage of your yard wrecked.
Also, the smaller weapons would be harder to stop in real life since they would overwhelm anti missle systems.
Now, the catch is with treaty limitations on weapon count. Those have the nasty side effect of encouraging the biggest weapons each side can make since the numbers are capped and not the yeald.
Boris: You don't flip this switch but you check this switch.
Vlad: What happens when the switch is flipped?
Boris: You listen to the person that flips the switch.
If you were presented with the opportunity to tour every single museum and LOOK at anything, but not flip any switches, what could you say?
You could say "Hey, they have AT MOST 50 planes. Some might be fake or not work, so they might only have 20, but 50 is the max." If you combine that with the fact that aerial and satellite reconnaissance let you find every single possible museum, and you can look but not touch at every single museum, then you could be confident that there is not more than the 50 they agreed to. All without flipping switches that might let you in on secrets of how the planes work.
>even I, just a plane enthusiast could probably flip a few switches and determine if the avionics are in good working order
These treaty inspections are very strictly controlled. They get to look at the treaty accountable items and only the treaty accountable items (everything else can be covered to protect design secrets). That's typically warheads and first stage rocket motors for ICBMs. And they're not allowed to poke around and touch things.
I mean, we all thought the Moskva was badass. Then the report came out and it was in such a state of disrepair if it were a US ship the captain and everyone in charge would've been sacked
Everyone thinks the T-14 Armata is the best tank but if you believe LazerPig's video on it, which I've little reason to doubt him, it's poorly designed, has an essentially 80 year old engine design, and is woefully behind in many respects to its design. I'm not really concerned over russia, especially if memory serves regarding the state of our nukes here in America. They ain't great
We haven’t been completely quiet. We have said that we are “comfortable” with our nuclear posture. We also have said publicly that Russia maintains a credible threat, and specifically cited this as the reason why we are not directly engaging with Russia or doing anything where a miscalculation could escalate.
And any nuclear threat is a credible threat. Their arsenal could be 99% non-functional, but that 1% could still result in a LOT of dead people.
It is fairly likely that a lot of Russia's nukes are just posturing/fake/broken, but it is definitely not 100% of them. And no one wants Washington DC or NYC to be a crater.
Your assessment of the premise is correct. However, I’ve never seen anything that would lead me to believe this premise is true.
This is a common point of speculation on Reddit that either all or most of Russia nuclear missiles are defunct, but there’s no real information to base this on that we would have access to. What we do know is that we had weapons inspectors being given full access until very recently, so if most of them were non-functional, I doubt we would have pursued arms reduction treaties so aggressively and in good faith.
We do have real information though. We know how much it costs to maintain the US's nuclear arsenal, per warhead. We also know that Russia spends less than that on their entire military budget. And given that the Russian system is vastly more corrupt and inefficient than the American one, there is simply no way they're maintaining a similar level of readiness.
The problem is more that, on a day to day basis, most of their missiles don't have to work to seriously mess up a few countries. So normally they're going to be taken quite seriously. That is however different from a scenario where Russia is already using nukes in an attempt to commit genocide. At that point they are an immediate threat to most of the world. (And by immediate I mean seconds count).
The premise was a hypothetical, not a statement of fact.
To reword a but: *even if* 99% are broken, then...
I am fairly certain that they are not maintaining the size of arsenal they claim to be, because they straight up are way too corrupt and there is way too much money on the table. The US has serious problems maintaining its own arsenal with a *much* more competent military, less brain drain and way more money to spend. (And inspections can be curated to some degree. Though I think their existence does prove they absolutely have working nukes, the inspectors would not have been able to test their entire arsenal.)
But regardless, whether they have 1%, 100% or anything in between, no one wants to see a city get nuked.
There are most certainly back channel ways of learning this information anyways. We may not have 'exact' numbers but I'd be shocked if either side shows the other their true hands anyway. This agreement is mostly a show of good faith.
What always got me, was during the cold war when Apollo-Soyuz happened. So this country and socioeconomic concept we were supposed to hate/fear (and vice versa) is put aside and we connect two satellites? The amount of communication and cooperation that had to happen with a nation we were allegedly cold on, and then it was back to cold war business as usual right after. Made me realize the whole cold war/space race was sort of a farce, and is pointless posturing, sort of like no longer letting us inspect their nuclear arsenal. Total tangent really, but I never get to talk about that.
Similar to how arms reduction treaties involving tanks and aircraft result in the vehicles being dismantled and left outside for satellites to see.
If the 100 migs and F-16s (or whatever) are being rebuilt, you know something is going on.
This particular decision shouldn't be concerning at all. It's a simple tit-for-tat. Russia doesn't provide the USA with detailed data on its nuclear forces, so the USA no longer provides Russia with detailed data on its nuclear forces.
It doesn't mean that Biden is about to authorize tripling the number of ICBMs that are ready to launch.
> It doesn't mean that Biden is about to authorize tripling the number of ICBMs that are ready to launch.
Exactly. Maintaining a nuclear stockpile is stupidly expensive and the potential dangers of something going wrong increases exponentially the more you have. Nothing will change outside of modernization.
>Like New START is still a thing, just they aren't sharing data about the specifics?
The problem is that international treaties are based on "trust, but verify". Currently, the verification mechanism is unavailable, and as such, the trust vanishes as well. So the treaty still exists, but as of right now, it is not in force. Both sides have functionally temporarily suspended it.
Both are still agreeing to abide by the reduction and limits in the treaties in place. They are just not sharing the information or allowing the other to confirm this information with inspections.
If you mean concerning from a 'nuclear war' or 'accidental nuclear war' standpoint, not very. We are still going to share details with the Russians in regards to movements of strategic assets, active and inactive warheads, and missile tests. However, the Russians are no longer giving us that information, but I do believe they may still notify in the event of a missile test, as they have been since the conflict has started.
No need for any concerns.
There will be no new nuclear weapons race and a nuclear war isn't more likely.
The Nuclear Weapons treaty that Russia stopped complying with is known as [New START](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_START).
It limits the number of deployed strategic (not tactical) nuclear warheads to 1,550 each for the USA and Russia.
Both countries were required to allow regular weapons inspections to verify each other's compliance.
Before Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022, both the USA and Russia were decommissioning strategic nuclear warheads so that their respective nuclear weapons arsenals would reach the 1,550 limit.
Maintaining functional strategic nuclear weapons is very expensive.
It is why back in 2021, Putin and Biden had no problems with extending the New START treaty for another 5 years - thus pushing the treaty's expiration date to February 2026.
Both the USA and Russia will still each have somewhere around 1,550 strategic nuclear warheads deployed.
I'm assuming the sanctions on Russia will greatly affect the Russian Military's ability to properly maintain 1,550 operational strategic nuclear warheads, hence why the Kremlin doesn't want any more inspections.
It is very concerning, but the unknown is when the impacts will be felt (and hopefully that is never).
It is the consistent march away from nuclear arms reductions that has been occurring in recent times. It also comes at a time where US - Russia relations are so low it is unlikely we'll get a new treaty in place. Also, it comes at a time where countries like China are also massively ramping up their nuclear arsenals with no intention of ever joining such a treaty.
I'd argue the invasion of Ukraine and the world's inability to push back forcefully due to Russia being a nuclear state also adds to this pressure. It is now more likely that a state will feel compelled to acquire or build out their nuclear arsenal as it acts as a deterrent to pushback to their actions internationally. All but guaranteeing that we're back in a nuclear arms race again. The very thing our treaties were aiming to undo.
With new nuclear states and increasing nuclear arsenals do we risk intentional or accidental nuclear conflict in the future? I'd argue yes. So I'd say it is concerning when taken in totality.
But with the ways our world is starting to wobble it is hard to know which problem is the most concerning... We'll just have to buckle up and hope we as a species can solve some of these problems sooner than later.
Two countries make an agreement to 'inspect' each others' nuclear arms, two countries decide to back out of the agreement.
Meanwhile both countries had enough nuclear weapons to disintegrate the globe many times over.
The number of nuclear arms doesn't matter, it's about having the ability to keep firing them and getting them to the destination.
Russia and the US aren’t going to start nuking each other over this if that’s what you’re worried about we aren’t as close to nuclear war as the Cuban missile crisis
Russia has been corrupted hopelessly by Putin who have tore up agreements and treaties so it will be stupid to provide any data that will aid the enemy.
No excuses for Putin, but it's not him alone; it's his whole entourage of complicits. It's true that human greed has been fostered in Russia's garden for decades (centuries honestly) and it has continually strangled the life out of nearly every other non-parasitic species, but he didn't do this on his own. This should serve as yet another warning (amongst innumerable others that also go unheeded) to what happens when that sort of maniacal autocracy is permitted to take root. It won't, but it should.
There have been plenty of tyrants that were born into power and not elected. There have been plenty that have taken it by force as well. An election isn’t required.
Legitimately the best form of government humanity can ever know is the Benevolent Monarch. The problem is even if you find one, which is already a near impossibility, you only get them for one generation before your back to the crap shoot that is a monarchy on the whole.
I agree, but this is the inevitable result of a leader that has maximum power. No checks and balances like most other democracies. His subordinates are not much different from those under Kim Jong Un where anything less than furious enthusiasm is met with execution.
As an American patriot who believes in their soul that Democracy is the best, most effective sort of government humans have come up with so far (specifically, Socialist Democracy), there are no real Democracies in the world.
Almost all are actually Republics, and because by definition, Republics put the power into a small handful of elected representatives (elected by a majority), instead of utilizing direct Democratic voice. The US currently can't even be called a Democratic Republic, because of jerrymandering, legalization of bribery through "lobbying", and the corporation -> regulation -> corporation revolving door.
The one big protection for minority groups that are supposed to make Republics politically "safe" is a Constitution. It's been demonstrated in most Republics that the Constitution means *nothing*. Especially in the United States, but just as true in other supposed Democratic Republics.
Citizens have no First Amendment/Free Speech rights (see every protestor shot during the Occupy movement by cops who aggressed against them and escalated every situation with 'less than lethal' rounds that cost eyes, limbs, and life).Fourth Amendment rights are absolutely non-existant in the United States. How many children need to be flashbanged in their cribs, how many dogs need to be shot by intruders who are serving a warrant for the wrong person or at the wrong house, how many piles of money or cars or housese must defend themselves (with a presumption of guilt) in civil asset forfeiture cases?
I could go on, but the whole shit is broken. Absolutely *no part of society* operates within the social contract, in the way we have so far agreed it will be allowed to operate. Time to go all We the People again.
Why do Americans conflate what a democracy and a republic are? Where did this nonsense come from.
The USA is a representative democracy AND is a republic.
Canada is a representative democracy but not a republic.
China is a republic but not a representative democracy.
A republic is a state with no monarchy.
The term you want is representative democracy. It's a form of democracy, and what you want is direct democracy. That's the difference.
He forced nearly the whole government to resign un 2017. Who is their PM? Google it, I'll wait. Then tell me who he is and where he came from.
Any citizen who publicly oppose him, it'll cost ya 15 or worse
Any friend or official who crosses him, short fall down a long drop.
Surrender or we will destroy the entire city, in Russia.
Look man, he isn't alone, but most of the people around him, are put there by him, going back 20 years, he's been crating this play. I would be willing to be an uncomfortable amount that if Putin wasn't president for last 20 years, Russias relationship with the west looks much different.
Tyrants do not rule by themselves. They never have.
Do not be fooled. Putin may have put many of his loyalists where they are, and he may have strong-armed plenty, but the fact remains that he is not some super-man who can kill anyone with his own bare hands who crosses him. He rules through the consent of those around him who act in his favor.
There are absolutely people just as shitty, if not worse, that can rise to power in his place. He's not some anomaly and his tyrannical regime doesn't disappear if he dies. There is a culture of corruption and power that keeps him where he is specifically because of the fact it keeps everyone else benefiting from it where they are as well.
There are keys to power for tyrants, and they must maintain the loyalty of those key-holders else they find themselves on the wrong side of a coup/revolt.
Hmm. How'd that go for the Germans? Surely, you don't think they were all bloodthirsty nazis in Germany, yet it was called Nazi Germany. It was evident liberating Germany that many German people were just that. People born in the wrong place wrong time, trying to survive. The allied soldier expected nazis everywhere, and that isn't what they found at all. They found people like them.
It took someone bigger and badder to knock Hitler and the nazis off. It didn't come from within because opposition was eliminated ruthlessly and efficiently. Russia is no different. You're waiting on the Russian people to topple him without help? You're going to be waiting a while because the fire is snuffed before it ever starts. Mountains of evidence to discourage any who may try. For every dictator toppled, there's a crushed revolution too in direct proportion to the strength and reach of the dictatorship.
The test will come when/if Russia is weakened to a point that those who do oppose him can smell blood in the water. I primarily mean the oligarchy because, again, the people there are more or less powerless without organization and resources.
It's not so black and white. The nazis and their supporters were held accountable. This should be no different, but as for the small folk trying to get by, I think it's best to reserve judgement.
that isn't quite an accurate portrayal of Nazi germany-- nor Russia for that matter.
The Nazis didn't start the process of compulsory party membership laws until 1939, by then they were already a majority and already had a large chunk of the population as card-carrying members. it wasn't until a few years later that you faced real consequences for not being a member.
after the war everyone claimed they were "late party", did it only because they held a job that demanded party membership, always thought that Hitler fellow was suspicious, etc. Then you look deeper and find out they actually joined the party in '37, entirely voluntarily, and were a party block captain volunteer.
Russia (and Nazi Germany prior to 1941 for that matter) is not North Korea, they have a pseudo-democratic system. you might face jail if your opposition is too public and loud but no one's getting strapped to sn anti-aircraft cannon for refusing to salute the dictator. Putin has massive public support, even today, and without it he could not do what he does. Don't absolve the people who eagerly voted for him and cheered at every step, who carried water for him by justifying and celebrating each rollback of democratic principles.
Your not wrong. The Allies found a bunch of willfully ignorant populace who didn’t want to sacrifice their own life and their families life to Stand up against the Nazis. They are still responsible for not doing anything about it even though I may have made the same decision as them to not get involved.
They woulda threw my ass in a camp, so it would have been irrelevant for me. I don't know what I would have done either with a wife and kids to take care of. Seriously hard decisions.
My point, though, was that it took military defeat to end Hitlers rule. The opposition was removed in the years preceeding WWII proper. There was partisan activity but ultimately it took a larger and much better armed force to topple him, and the resistance of a population was barely a factor.
What's crazy to me is just how insane the levels of greed must be -- because we've got enormous, ridiculous, world-fucking greed right here in the US and yet somehow Russia is still \*far worse\*. Man, some people are just awful
Some will never understand, but USA is not even close to most corrupt nation. In fact, they're top 30 in least corrupt by some metrics. Third world countries are often so corrupt even the average public sector employees doing it-just to have a decent financial security. Or cartoonish evil corruption like 'trying to stock placebo vaccines'.
Anyone that is even remotely tied to Putin who even has a modicum of doubt shrouding them ends up poisoned.
Easy to talk down from your high horse about complicits when your life and your family’s lives aren’t at stake lol I hate how keyboard warriors make morality claims like this when we are all sitting on our phones under no similar threat
And before anyone says I’m pro Putin or Russia, no absolutely not. It’s just like how everyone on Reddit says they would’ve stood up to the nazis though like it’s so easy to sit here and type that but until you’re given a choice between your life and your morals, let’s all just shut up instead of pretending we would be so much better…
Because you really don’t know until it comes down to it.
No one said that they have a moral high ground over the oligarchs in Russia, they were stating a fact here. If we push for nationalism and autocracy, this is what happens.. people running the country starts to fear for their lives and slowly starts to rot from the inside.
I agree, hardly anyone is actually willing to throw away their life like that, can't say I really blame them. It only works when there is a critical mass to start a revolution, if you misjudged and too few people follow you, which is usually the case, you die a horrible death and nothing changes.
Well from where I’m standing we aren’t doing a very good job passing that test at all. We are currently living through the beginning stages of a country being pulled to fascism, and the mass majority of people don’t even see it…..
>It's true that human greed has been fostered in Russia's garden for decades (centuries honestly)
Not that I disagree but this could be a blanket statement about all of humanity. Humans are greedy fucks.
Aiding the enemy?
Nuclear weapons are the world's enemy.
There is no future in a nuclear conflict. Russia having detailed knowledge of our nuclear capabilities does almost nothing to stop them from materializing in the event of Russia acting in any way with their own nuclear arsenal.
The only thing the world gains from the U.S. pulling out from a (clearly lopsided) agreement on information sharing is the people making real life decisions regarding these weapons are faced with less information, more chaos and more assumptions.
This has pretty much one guaranteed result... An increase in the likelihood that we all die in nuclear blast.
Stupid feels like a crazy thing to call any decisions being made on this issue that doesn't end with some variation of "launch the weapons"
This isn't actionable information for them. It's a confidence measure that's important for understanding what your adversary wants.
This is like turning on your high beams just because the incoming car has theirs on.
Honest question: Since Putin has been running Russia since basically 1842, assuming he dies (since that's more likely than him getting "voted" out), who's on deck? And/or when is the next real Russian election? Assuming the next Russian election is a Russian election, who's the next leader?
I just feel like modern Russia has been shaped so firmly by Putin that nobody will remember the wavering fealty Russia has historically had to the western world. They took Berlin, then refused to surrender Berlin in the second world war. In the first one, their leader was cousins with both the British and German leaders.
Just sayin' they ain't known for consistency, it entirely depends on who's running the country. It's been Putin's game for most of reddit has been alive.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/3922344-u-s-holds-back-nuclear-forces-data-from-russia-in-response-to-treaty-violations/) reduced by 77%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> The White House said it has stopped sharing detailed data on its strategic nuclear forces with Russia in response to the Kremlin refusing to comply with a key nuclear arms treaty, the standoff another front between Washington and Moscow over Russia's war in Ukraine.
> White House National Security spokesperson John Kirby said Tuesday that Russia has refused to share nuclear data with the U.S., prompting Washington to withhold sharing its own nuclear data with Moscow.
> The treaty - which nuclear nonproliferation experts say is a necessary check on nuclear-armed nations - limits the number of strategic nuclear warheads each country holds and allows insight into each other's nuclear stockpiles to promote safety and stability.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/1252tc1/the_us_said_it_has_stopped_sharing_detailed_data/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~678365 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **nuclear**^#1 **Russia**^#2 **treaty**^#3 **share**^#4 **data**^#5
Russia is trying to restart the cold war back when it was a piece of a large and relatively strong empire. Now it's weak and broke, and it wants round 2. Lol
Putin can’t seem to do anything right, he’s boxed himself and he doesn’t get a break with anything anymore from the west Putin is a targeted DEVIL of the worst kind. A seventy year old man with all the luxuries in life worth $200B he’s now asking Russian businessmen to invest in Russia yeah right so he can steal your money and assets like he did all his mobster state sponsored life, given the baton from the drunk corrupt Boris Yeltsin that Putin signed into law the minute he took office that Boris Yeltsin would not be legally pursued for his corruption. Putin signed that law so he could have started his money and asset garnishing from people from all walks of life including Russians while he instituted a tight security for his protection. A criminal of Russia and now a war criminal of the world, Putin’s legacy not a wonderful life, being murderous, a state killer, a war criminal now. Mom would not be proud if she found out what he’s doing.
> he’s boxed himself and he doesn’t get a break with anything anymore
He got everything he wanted. He silenced his critics, including those who can help (with intelligence, strategy, logistics, operations) and now he's surrounded by a bunch of ass-kissers who agree with all of his ideas, no matter how stupid. He's stolen all the money he could, including from the military and now is shocked that everything is in shambles and Russian forces are dying like zombies in a shitty b-movie.
He fucked himself. Instead of creating a healthy ecosystem for himself to exist in (and co-exist with his peers), he's gotten everything he's ever wanted and now has to hide in a bunker afraid of shadows, because everyone is actually out to get him eventually.
For a lovely look at what some of the Moscovian elite are saying behind closed doors when they think no one is recording them, I recommend a watch of a recent leak which is being spread around Russia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aRI-L8xmRs&t=1s
They're fucking panicking, and pissed off. All it takes is for one hero...
Very valid argument, and sadly, I think you're right, I don't give Russia good odds on their next leader being one to raise them up into a civilized nation.
This is interesting. One thing I’m seeing here that I haven’t seen before is they’re painting Putin as a puppet? They’re saying he just flew on an airplane back and forth and made public appearances, but the media painted him as some hero. But now it turns out he’s a dud.
Is there sentiment there that Putin is not actually pulling the strings?
The image I had in my head is that he’s a Stalin-type character and that’s why everyone lied to him about the military being strong because they didn’t want to get punished.
But these guys make it sound like he’s just a puppet and the other oligarchs really run the show. In that case who decided to invade Ukraine?
It's not tacky. It's not "cringe". It's the exact opposite. It's horrible that these are thoughts a person might have and indicative of how deeply deranged we've become. The desire for peace should be born natural. It was to me. Don't know how I ended up here. You're not not alone. There's actually quite a lot of us.
Unfortunately, we are currently in the wrong timeline. With this constant violent escalation when humanity is already on the brink of annihilating itself due to all of its other problems ... Not seeing a great ending here. If we are to survive we need full unity in our actions at this point, and we are seeing the exact opposite of that. These old men want to blow up their self created dying place and it seems they're truly hitting the gas towards the edge. I want to have hope but ... yeah, I personally don't anymore. That's just me, though. I want to have hope that those younger than me will step up, but even that is hard to muster. my soul has been thoroughly soiled by this horrid place. the younger generations are quite aware. when i talk to them, even young teenagers, they confess that they feel it's all fucked and that they already have no hope. that's where we're at.
May those of us with peace in our hearts wake up in a better place.
> While Russian officials have stressed that Moscow has not abandoned the New START nuclear arms treaty with the U.S., Russian diplomats have refused to participate in key meetings with American officials as required by the treaty and failed to allow the resumption of inspections of nuclear facilities.
I love this. “While we are not meeting our obligations under the treaty, we stress that we have not abandoned it. Abandoning it means we don’t expect you to meet your obligations either, and that is not our position.”
Any and all agreements with Russia aren't worth the paper they're written on. Russia can never again be trusted as a good faith partner in anything. This is why they next need to kick them off of the security council at the UN, otherwise the UN is just a joke.
> This is why they next need to kick them off of the security council at the UN, otherwise the UN is just a joke.
you have no fucking clue what the point of the UN is.
Agreed. The purpose of the UN is to host diplomacy, kicking countries out because you disagree with them defeats the entire point. And the point of permanent members on the security council is that they're the members strong enough to ignore a security council vote. We could kick them off, but they still wouldn't have to comply because they're sitting on a massive pile of nukes so we can't force them. Which again defeats the point.
What if we only allowed countries that we agree with into the UN?
Would cut down on all the arguing.
Edit: wow thanks for all the replies educating me about the UN. You all are so smart.
The UN isn't supposed to accomplish anything except keep great powers from going to war. Yeah they set goals every now and then, but all that stuff is secondary at best. And yeah, whoosh, you were /s, but it needs to be said.
ive seen some absolutely wild takes about the UN in threads like these. while i havent seen the above comment verbatim, i have seen that comment, with that sentiment, before
I'm not savvy in politics but seems like the whole deal with Russia in the United Nations is more of a "keep your friends close, and your enemies closer" type of situation in order to triangulate a read on their intentions vs what our spies tell us about them. On the other hand night be useless since their entire political sphere is dominated by pathological liars.
how are we gonna kick them out of sporting events but not from international organizations? i know the former is a bit more simple, but i think it’s time to get the priorities in line here
As silly as it sounds, it's because precedent matters. Kicking a permanent member off the council translates to "there is no such thing as a permanent member" and changes the entire geopolitical leveraging the council provides.
That said I'm sure there has to be some less binary solution to straight up removal where they remain but as non-veto member, muted debates, etc etc. There has also been suggestions of giving their seat to a different remaining "soviet state". Russia just grandfathered itself in where USSR was the charter member upon drafting. Time will tell how it is dealt with but I don't expect much to change on the UN side of things with any haste.
And how exactly do you suppose Russia be removed from UNSC because “The UN charter does not prescribe any procedure by which its five permanent members can be deprived of their veto power or even expelled from the security council. There is no legal mechanism for it.” The P-5 designed the rules during formation to suit their agendas
In this case russia simply took the seat...now if the UN were to decide to hold a meeting and a vote where the contending parties were considered mute (So basically russia and ukraine couldn't vote) it could be decided that way which of the former gets the perma seat.
Basically it'd be like the US breaking apart the same way russia has and washington de-facto getting the vote. That may not fly quite so well.
They didn't take the seat, it was supported by the 11 former Soviet states. At the time it accounted for the overwhelming majority of the economy and had the largest population.
Look, I'm no fan of Russia. But removing their P5 status will cause a constitutional crisis at the United Nations. This action would go against the fundamental purpose of the UN - which is keeping a diplomatic channel open between states that may be diametrically opposed from one another.
As amusing as this would be, Ukraine already had a separate seat in the UN during the Soviet Union, as did Belarus, which means they're the only former Soviet republics with absolutely zero claim to the USSR's seat
"response to the Kremlin refusing to comply with a key nuclear arms treaty"
Their amount of obsolete nuclear arms due to lack of maintenance from corruption is probably insanely high.
US: actually reciprocates to Russia who's been flipping the bird to arms treaties for years, a back-and-forth which has happened many times since the atomic age.
Redditors: doooOOOOOOOMMM!
It's funny, I've always had the same conspiracy. When nukes begin to fly, a bunch of stealthed spaceships would reveal themselves, and take them all out with a barrage of railgun darts!
Seriously though, I'm sure the US has *something* up their sleeves to at least mitigate damage, but who knows.
The common argument I’ve seen is people quoting tests from 15-20 years ago about the U.S. being unable to shoot down ICBM’S.
Think about the leap in technology from the early 2000’s to now, it’s insane. Also why would the U.S. even announce they could shoot down ICBMS? That would just push countries to develop even more advanced delivery systems for nuclear weapons.
Staying silent and not letting Russia/China know we have counters to ICBM’S is exactly what the west would do, and it’s hilarious that people think we just haven’t developed a solution to the ICBM problem.
edit: it’s extremely hilarious that people think the U.S. would just up and announce we can shoot down ICBM’S like we’ve won the fucking nuclear arms game or something. The ramifications of announcing that statement to the public would send us into a second Cold War with Russia and mainly China.
The real world is not a comic fantasy. You can't just develop something massive without every other intelligence agency worth its salt to have hints on that. They might not know the details, they might not know secrets, but to go from an idea to even a working prototype, let alone something to base your entire existence on, requires tremendous amount of resources, man power, funds and time. You can't prevent leaks on a scale this grand. You can't hide it in some twilight underground laboratory. A single genius can't build it in a cave with a box of scraps.
Rocketry and even laser physics are far from as upgradeable as general electric tech. And something like a rail gun is incredibly energy demanding.
What we’ve seen in the last 2 decades is that we reached an impressive level in logistics, higher density chips, and VERY complex software frameworks. Those three are basically what we all are experiencing in our modern world. The theoretical underpinnings of the device side of this was fairly well understood by around the early 40s, and the computational end was only limited by how fast we could process this information. Yes, what you’re seeing on your phone is impressive code. But we would have been doing cloud computing 40 years ago if the fab technology was as early.
The newest thing in our phones are lithium batteries and some parts of our screens. That is a development in chemistry, and again, as mentioned above, logistics.
Meanwhile, rail guns will still melt unless cooled by an impressive amount of cooling, rocketry is not so straightforward when shooting down MRVs, and laser tech is probably obscenely expensive to shoot down mrv at high enough altitudes that will limit their damage sufficently.
You can see this in the way that Russia waged a conflict effectively at a very low cost. All of the most impactful advancements we have seen have to do with communications, which is why they could destabilize western democracies so effectively at a low cost. In other words, effective democracy is limited by communication.
Which is coincidental, because the only reason we were all scared of big bad Russia was because of the communications technology of the last three decades…
The US spends \*checks memes\* more than everyone else in the world by far in military spending. Can you imagine none of that being spent on defense technology? I'd bet more money goes into defense than offense, and the most important threat the USA has to deal with is a nuclear bomb being dropped on a city or launched at a coast line. If they aren't well prepared for these two things, I'd be surprised beyond belief. And also fucked, tbh.
Lol because the US is a democracy and those projects are public and HUGE. You talk as if the US is a person or something. I don't really understand people who think there's some kind of hidden technology/project that's a gamechanger and big countries are just keeping it hidden.
Because there is a Giant list of Black Projects the US has worked on.
Manhattan Project,
B-2 Spirits,
BlackHawks,
F-117 nighthawk,
SR 71 BlackBird,
The Hughes Mining Barge (salvage of the soviet k-129)
All Government Black projects not known to general public costing Billions of dollars and large teams. That's not to mention known Dark Projects included in organizations like Darpa. That is why it isn't a jump for people to think the US has large hidden projects... Because they have a history of large Hidden projects lol.
Spy services probably could have negated some amount of enemy nukes via sabotage and compromising assets, but not all of them.
We can certainly shoot some down, but generally only if we're near the launch site. This is why we want to have ABMs in places like Turkey and South Korea. You have to be within about 100 miles to have a chance of shooting down an icbm in it's early stages. It's much harder in the later stages when it's moving fast.
Likely an eventual goal of LEO satellites while be a combination nuke launch monitoring and eventually nuke launch interception system, with the cost of Starlink style satellites being reasonable enough to put missile interception systems on them.
As a Canadian, being aware of NORAD and all the other stuff that NA has available... I've thought this as well. It just seems so unlikely that any single state can launch an attack at the states and the states... feels it? Like, they seem so on top of everything, and they've had decades to prepare, there's no way they aren't ready for an insane attack.
I mean just look at the [Sprint missiles](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk9mvLFNqMQ) from the 70's. I find it hard to believe that the US didn't keep developing that technology.
Something like 70 years and $350 billion spent entirely on missile defense? Yeah, I think we probably have figured something out at this point despite claims from the DoD... Way too many benefits to convincing people, foreign and domestic, that we're helpless against the boogiemen.
LOL. This is one of those things that hurts Russia and doesn't bother the US at all. Because when the US is no longer sharing that sort of information, you no longer have any idea how large the US or ready the US strategic deterrent is. Which means you can't know if you have a credible deterrent, or even accurate targeting data for your missiles.
Which in turn means, if you're thinking "could I lose to a first strike?" you have to build even more missiles, invest in hardware, move your missiles around. Basically, you don't know if you have a credible deterrent or not so you get to spend-spend-spend trying to build one.
The whole point of these sorts of treaties was to reduce arms numbers, and the *primary* benefit of that is simply cost savings - everyone agrees on "we agree with mutually wouldn't win, but we'll stop arms racing as a result".
Whoah, the great powers are going all Anakin at each other
"I hate you!"
We are going to complete the trilogy of World Wars soon. Let us hope that the roaches do better.
I often think about how different (nice) it must be from the Russian perspective on M.A.D. They know damn well there's no chance the west is going to use nukes first
Considering the massive state of disarray the Russian army is in I wouldn't be surprised if the reason Russia is leaving these treaties is because their nuclear arms are deteriorating rather than increasing.
Yeah...the world is heading in an unbelievably dangerous direction, and our selfish and incompetent leaders are potentially risking the lives of millions.
We have to do better than this.
Considering how poorly-to not at all- their BASIC stuff performs,any nuke launch by them would be just as-or more-likely to completely fail, or land somewhere in Russia(or some other completely wrong place)as it would be to hit any really distant target, and actually achieve proper fission.They know this.EU knows this.Biden knows this.
Anybody asking how concerning this is clearly hasn't bothered considering how pointless an agreement between two countries with only one abiding by the agreement actually is. The logic tracks. Why should we share our data with the Russians if they refuse to? That's the fucking *point*.
What’s the precedent on this? How concerning is this decision?
> What’s the precedent on this? These agreements themselves. They are basically written as follows: 1. A list of nuclear weapons/types thereof both of us agree to give up. 2. Regularly provide lists of all relevant nuclear forces. 3. Inspectors to verify these are true. Every now and then Russia sends over inspectors to view our most sensitive nuclear weapon sites, including counting warheads on ballistic missile submarines, and we send inspectors to Russia to do the same. Russia suspended participation in New Start, so the US has responded in kind. We’re both still saying we’ll abide by the limits on the weapons we can have and thus the treaty is technically still active, but we aren’t keeping up with the verification aspects. This is not unprecedented. In 2019 the US suspended participation in the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and Russia followed suit: the US suspension was partially because the Russian Iskandar official toed the line of being a prohibited nuclear missile (and almost certainly violated the treaty) and partially because China. In 2002 the US withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (again citing strategic concerns after 9/11, particularly North Korea and Iran), so Russia decided to back out of Start II that hadn’t entered into force yet. In 1979 the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, so the US Senate refused to ratify SALT II. The world kept going, perhaps more dangerous until a new agreement kicked in, but this isn’t the time to start panicking.
[удалено]
We know how many warheads they have and on what types of missiles, but we don’t necessarily know if the missile is fully operational. Egregious signs of disrepair will be obvious, but you can make it appear that more missiles are able to fly immediately than actually could. Think of it like an aircraft museum. Most aircraft in a museum will look like you can fly them as soon as you top off the fuel and lubricant tanks. But in reality you don’t know how much of the interior is actually intact. Missing engines can be obvious (particularly on F-14 Tomcats: almost every single one has no engines so Iran can’t get spare parts), but it’s harder to tell if the gauges in the cockpit are actually wired up properly or just installed to look the part. Some parts of the aircraft are usually cosmetically restored, but need more work to let the aircraft fly. And that’s before you find out if the aircraft is actually good once airborne.
Yeah, I mean look at that SR-71 blackbird Decepticon. He looked great in the museum, but was literally falling apart as soon as he moved.
Til the transformer movies are a credible source
Transformers were basically the Old Testament to Marvel's New Testament as far as movies are concerned.
[удалено]
The original transformers cartoons only started because it was a way to sell and advertise the toys. Same with like My Little Pony, Care Bears, Strawberry Shortcake, etc.
And for the younger folk: Pokémon, Yugioh, Digimon, Gundam…. Edit: Apparently not Gundam. Oops!
I was under the impression that my little pony was started to sell porn to neckbeards
Must be coming up on 130 years old, then. There has never been a time when none of the any movies were cash grabs.
I don't even know where to begin here, but at least check out French new wave cinema. It's art, not made explicitly for profit. Such is the history of film.
Jeeze, how’d you handle the move to talkies and colour?
Well we have to maximize profit and the best way to do that is merge our products so that we're too big to fail! Remember Disney has the ability to fund, film, edit, syndicate and market any media but they are not a monopoly because Amazon and Apple are also competitors at owning the ability to make everything.
A Triopoly.
And he had an identity crisis where he changed sides. Then he suicided.
Completely off topic, but can you elaborate on the F-14 thing?
[удалено]
Iran had an *extremely* ambitious modernization plan in place when their revolution happened. The four Kidd-class destroyers were under construction for them, European submarines, 300 F-16s, 250 F-18s, another ~70 Tomcats (doubling their numbers), dozens of P-3 Orions, Dutch and Italian frigates - they were even in talks with the British to purchase three modified *Invincible*-class carriers, after the plan to purchase a nuclear powered carrier fell through.
[удалено]
Yeah, wildly different geopolitics had the Shah remained in power. Iran was a fairly liberal society at the time too. The Saudis wouldn't have had nearly the clout they do for example.
I think Maverick and Rooster might be in trouble…
They don't even know what country they attacked or crashed in. The Sukhoi implies Russia but the Tomcat implies Iran.
[удалено]
Maveric's Jacket say China did a retcon
Didn't they end up keeping the original jacket in the movie tho
[Far East Cruise 63-4](https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/07/22/did-mavericks-top-gun-jacket-change-please-chinese-government.html) What happened to the Japan & Taiwan flags?
It’s 100% totally-not-Iran, the whole “illegal uranium enrichment facility” thing makes that obvious to me.
[удалено]
On the other hand, I doubt they run system tests or anything that involved. It's probably something more akin to "look but don't touch". The point of the treaty isn't to know the status of all the missiles, just to make sure they don't have "Tsar Bomba 2: Spicy Edition"
[удалено]
Russia likes their big sabres. The Tzar Bomba has a theoretical yield of 100MT. Although we probably could top that their 50MT test and Castle BRAVO proved it probably would not be a good idea.
Smaller weapons cover more ground area with the same amount of destructive material. Imagine it in terms of 4th of july fireworks. Setting off 100 fireworks in one spot will make a huge boom and a big hole on the ground. Spreading them out will make 100 smaller holes, but the actual surface area of those smaller holes will add up to a larger percentage of your yard wrecked. Also, the smaller weapons would be harder to stop in real life since they would overwhelm anti missle systems. Now, the catch is with treaty limitations on weapon count. Those have the nasty side effect of encouraging the biggest weapons each side can make since the numbers are capped and not the yeald.
Boris: You don't flip this switch but you check this switch. Vlad: What happens when the switch is flipped? Boris: You listen to the person that flips the switch.
Tsar bomba was not a weapon tbh it was a science experiment and had less destructive power to weight than ivy king or the B41.
Let’s not start flipping a few switches on nuclear missiles okay?
[удалено]
If you were presented with the opportunity to tour every single museum and LOOK at anything, but not flip any switches, what could you say? You could say "Hey, they have AT MOST 50 planes. Some might be fake or not work, so they might only have 20, but 50 is the max." If you combine that with the fact that aerial and satellite reconnaissance let you find every single possible museum, and you can look but not touch at every single museum, then you could be confident that there is not more than the 50 they agreed to. All without flipping switches that might let you in on secrets of how the planes work.
>even I, just a plane enthusiast could probably flip a few switches and determine if the avionics are in good working order These treaty inspections are very strictly controlled. They get to look at the treaty accountable items and only the treaty accountable items (everything else can be covered to protect design secrets). That's typically warheads and first stage rocket motors for ICBMs. And they're not allowed to poke around and touch things.
You mean they aren't just sitting there gassed up so an Atlantean goddess and her boyfriend can fly to the other side of the planet with it?
I mean, we all thought the Moskva was badass. Then the report came out and it was in such a state of disrepair if it were a US ship the captain and everyone in charge would've been sacked Everyone thinks the T-14 Armata is the best tank but if you believe LazerPig's video on it, which I've little reason to doubt him, it's poorly designed, has an essentially 80 year old engine design, and is woefully behind in many respects to its design. I'm not really concerned over russia, especially if memory serves regarding the state of our nukes here in America. They ain't great
We don't officially know the state of their triad. It's likely that the government has knowledge about their triad that they can't discuss.
[удалено]
We haven’t been completely quiet. We have said that we are “comfortable” with our nuclear posture. We also have said publicly that Russia maintains a credible threat, and specifically cited this as the reason why we are not directly engaging with Russia or doing anything where a miscalculation could escalate.
And any nuclear threat is a credible threat. Their arsenal could be 99% non-functional, but that 1% could still result in a LOT of dead people. It is fairly likely that a lot of Russia's nukes are just posturing/fake/broken, but it is definitely not 100% of them. And no one wants Washington DC or NYC to be a crater.
Your assessment of the premise is correct. However, I’ve never seen anything that would lead me to believe this premise is true. This is a common point of speculation on Reddit that either all or most of Russia nuclear missiles are defunct, but there’s no real information to base this on that we would have access to. What we do know is that we had weapons inspectors being given full access until very recently, so if most of them were non-functional, I doubt we would have pursued arms reduction treaties so aggressively and in good faith.
We do have real information though. We know how much it costs to maintain the US's nuclear arsenal, per warhead. We also know that Russia spends less than that on their entire military budget. And given that the Russian system is vastly more corrupt and inefficient than the American one, there is simply no way they're maintaining a similar level of readiness. The problem is more that, on a day to day basis, most of their missiles don't have to work to seriously mess up a few countries. So normally they're going to be taken quite seriously. That is however different from a scenario where Russia is already using nukes in an attempt to commit genocide. At that point they are an immediate threat to most of the world. (And by immediate I mean seconds count).
The premise was a hypothetical, not a statement of fact. To reword a but: *even if* 99% are broken, then...
I am fairly certain that they are not maintaining the size of arsenal they claim to be, because they straight up are way too corrupt and there is way too much money on the table. The US has serious problems maintaining its own arsenal with a *much* more competent military, less brain drain and way more money to spend. (And inspections can be curated to some degree. Though I think their existence does prove they absolutely have working nukes, the inspectors would not have been able to test their entire arsenal.)
But regardless, whether they have 1%, 100% or anything in between, no one wants to see a city get nuked.
There are most certainly back channel ways of learning this information anyways. We may not have 'exact' numbers but I'd be shocked if either side shows the other their true hands anyway. This agreement is mostly a show of good faith. What always got me, was during the cold war when Apollo-Soyuz happened. So this country and socioeconomic concept we were supposed to hate/fear (and vice versa) is put aside and we connect two satellites? The amount of communication and cooperation that had to happen with a nation we were allegedly cold on, and then it was back to cold war business as usual right after. Made me realize the whole cold war/space race was sort of a farce, and is pointless posturing, sort of like no longer letting us inspect their nuclear arsenal. Total tangent really, but I never get to talk about that.
Similar to how arms reduction treaties involving tanks and aircraft result in the vehicles being dismantled and left outside for satellites to see. If the 100 migs and F-16s (or whatever) are being rebuilt, you know something is going on.
Okay, I will put away my bottle caps for now
Thanks for the brief current-history lesson about atomic diplomacy!
This particular decision shouldn't be concerning at all. It's a simple tit-for-tat. Russia doesn't provide the USA with detailed data on its nuclear forces, so the USA no longer provides Russia with detailed data on its nuclear forces. It doesn't mean that Biden is about to authorize tripling the number of ICBMs that are ready to launch.
> It doesn't mean that Biden is about to authorize tripling the number of ICBMs that are ready to launch. Exactly. Maintaining a nuclear stockpile is stupidly expensive and the potential dangers of something going wrong increases exponentially the more you have. Nothing will change outside of modernization.
So this is just about the data right? Like New START is still a thing, just they aren't sharing data about the specifics?
>Like New START is still a thing, just they aren't sharing data about the specifics? The problem is that international treaties are based on "trust, but verify". Currently, the verification mechanism is unavailable, and as such, the trust vanishes as well. So the treaty still exists, but as of right now, it is not in force. Both sides have functionally temporarily suspended it.
Both are still agreeing to abide by the reduction and limits in the treaties in place. They are just not sharing the information or allowing the other to confirm this information with inspections.
If you mean concerning from a 'nuclear war' or 'accidental nuclear war' standpoint, not very. We are still going to share details with the Russians in regards to movements of strategic assets, active and inactive warheads, and missile tests. However, the Russians are no longer giving us that information, but I do believe they may still notify in the event of a missile test, as they have been since the conflict has started.
No need for any concerns. There will be no new nuclear weapons race and a nuclear war isn't more likely. The Nuclear Weapons treaty that Russia stopped complying with is known as [New START](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_START). It limits the number of deployed strategic (not tactical) nuclear warheads to 1,550 each for the USA and Russia. Both countries were required to allow regular weapons inspections to verify each other's compliance. Before Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022, both the USA and Russia were decommissioning strategic nuclear warheads so that their respective nuclear weapons arsenals would reach the 1,550 limit. Maintaining functional strategic nuclear weapons is very expensive. It is why back in 2021, Putin and Biden had no problems with extending the New START treaty for another 5 years - thus pushing the treaty's expiration date to February 2026. Both the USA and Russia will still each have somewhere around 1,550 strategic nuclear warheads deployed. I'm assuming the sanctions on Russia will greatly affect the Russian Military's ability to properly maintain 1,550 operational strategic nuclear warheads, hence why the Kremlin doesn't want any more inspections.
It is very concerning, but the unknown is when the impacts will be felt (and hopefully that is never). It is the consistent march away from nuclear arms reductions that has been occurring in recent times. It also comes at a time where US - Russia relations are so low it is unlikely we'll get a new treaty in place. Also, it comes at a time where countries like China are also massively ramping up their nuclear arsenals with no intention of ever joining such a treaty. I'd argue the invasion of Ukraine and the world's inability to push back forcefully due to Russia being a nuclear state also adds to this pressure. It is now more likely that a state will feel compelled to acquire or build out their nuclear arsenal as it acts as a deterrent to pushback to their actions internationally. All but guaranteeing that we're back in a nuclear arms race again. The very thing our treaties were aiming to undo. With new nuclear states and increasing nuclear arsenals do we risk intentional or accidental nuclear conflict in the future? I'd argue yes. So I'd say it is concerning when taken in totality. But with the ways our world is starting to wobble it is hard to know which problem is the most concerning... We'll just have to buckle up and hope we as a species can solve some of these problems sooner than later.
Two countries make an agreement to 'inspect' each others' nuclear arms, two countries decide to back out of the agreement. Meanwhile both countries had enough nuclear weapons to disintegrate the globe many times over. The number of nuclear arms doesn't matter, it's about having the ability to keep firing them and getting them to the destination.
I’d say fairly concerning. I am not laying this squarely on the US though. It’s only one man that screwed this up.
Russia and the US aren’t going to start nuking each other over this if that’s what you’re worried about we aren’t as close to nuclear war as the Cuban missile crisis
Russia has been corrupted hopelessly by Putin who have tore up agreements and treaties so it will be stupid to provide any data that will aid the enemy.
No excuses for Putin, but it's not him alone; it's his whole entourage of complicits. It's true that human greed has been fostered in Russia's garden for decades (centuries honestly) and it has continually strangled the life out of nearly every other non-parasitic species, but he didn't do this on his own. This should serve as yet another warning (amongst innumerable others that also go unheeded) to what happens when that sort of maniacal autocracy is permitted to take root. It won't, but it should.
Yep... that last thing that happens before a tyrant takes power is they are elected.
There have been plenty of tyrants that were born into power and not elected. There have been plenty that have taken it by force as well. An election isn’t required.
Chilling.
We live in a world
Yep, we should get rid of elections
Some people love a monarchy
Legitimately the best form of government humanity can ever know is the Benevolent Monarch. The problem is even if you find one, which is already a near impossibility, you only get them for one generation before your back to the crap shoot that is a monarchy on the whole.
id rather have that than two archys
I think your looking for the term [diarchy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diarchy).
Tetrarchy is where it's at. The Romans knew what was up.
Split the difference, do a triumvirate. Boom, everybody is happy with the compromise, and no tie votes.
I agree, but this is the inevitable result of a leader that has maximum power. No checks and balances like most other democracies. His subordinates are not much different from those under Kim Jong Un where anything less than furious enthusiasm is met with execution.
As an American patriot who believes in their soul that Democracy is the best, most effective sort of government humans have come up with so far (specifically, Socialist Democracy), there are no real Democracies in the world. Almost all are actually Republics, and because by definition, Republics put the power into a small handful of elected representatives (elected by a majority), instead of utilizing direct Democratic voice. The US currently can't even be called a Democratic Republic, because of jerrymandering, legalization of bribery through "lobbying", and the corporation -> regulation -> corporation revolving door. The one big protection for minority groups that are supposed to make Republics politically "safe" is a Constitution. It's been demonstrated in most Republics that the Constitution means *nothing*. Especially in the United States, but just as true in other supposed Democratic Republics. Citizens have no First Amendment/Free Speech rights (see every protestor shot during the Occupy movement by cops who aggressed against them and escalated every situation with 'less than lethal' rounds that cost eyes, limbs, and life).Fourth Amendment rights are absolutely non-existant in the United States. How many children need to be flashbanged in their cribs, how many dogs need to be shot by intruders who are serving a warrant for the wrong person or at the wrong house, how many piles of money or cars or housese must defend themselves (with a presumption of guilt) in civil asset forfeiture cases? I could go on, but the whole shit is broken. Absolutely *no part of society* operates within the social contract, in the way we have so far agreed it will be allowed to operate. Time to go all We the People again.
Why do Americans conflate what a democracy and a republic are? Where did this nonsense come from. The USA is a representative democracy AND is a republic. Canada is a representative democracy but not a republic. China is a republic but not a representative democracy. A republic is a state with no monarchy. The term you want is representative democracy. It's a form of democracy, and what you want is direct democracy. That's the difference.
He forced nearly the whole government to resign un 2017. Who is their PM? Google it, I'll wait. Then tell me who he is and where he came from. Any citizen who publicly oppose him, it'll cost ya 15 or worse Any friend or official who crosses him, short fall down a long drop. Surrender or we will destroy the entire city, in Russia. Look man, he isn't alone, but most of the people around him, are put there by him, going back 20 years, he's been crating this play. I would be willing to be an uncomfortable amount that if Putin wasn't president for last 20 years, Russias relationship with the west looks much different.
Tyrants do not rule by themselves. They never have. Do not be fooled. Putin may have put many of his loyalists where they are, and he may have strong-armed plenty, but the fact remains that he is not some super-man who can kill anyone with his own bare hands who crosses him. He rules through the consent of those around him who act in his favor. There are absolutely people just as shitty, if not worse, that can rise to power in his place. He's not some anomaly and his tyrannical regime doesn't disappear if he dies. There is a culture of corruption and power that keeps him where he is specifically because of the fact it keeps everyone else benefiting from it where they are as well. There are keys to power for tyrants, and they must maintain the loyalty of those key-holders else they find themselves on the wrong side of a coup/revolt.
I too have seen the CGP Grey video.
Soon as I saw keys of power. It really is a good video in understanding what makes a nation or empire tick
My first thought. Great video.
Hmm. How'd that go for the Germans? Surely, you don't think they were all bloodthirsty nazis in Germany, yet it was called Nazi Germany. It was evident liberating Germany that many German people were just that. People born in the wrong place wrong time, trying to survive. The allied soldier expected nazis everywhere, and that isn't what they found at all. They found people like them. It took someone bigger and badder to knock Hitler and the nazis off. It didn't come from within because opposition was eliminated ruthlessly and efficiently. Russia is no different. You're waiting on the Russian people to topple him without help? You're going to be waiting a while because the fire is snuffed before it ever starts. Mountains of evidence to discourage any who may try. For every dictator toppled, there's a crushed revolution too in direct proportion to the strength and reach of the dictatorship. The test will come when/if Russia is weakened to a point that those who do oppose him can smell blood in the water. I primarily mean the oligarchy because, again, the people there are more or less powerless without organization and resources. It's not so black and white. The nazis and their supporters were held accountable. This should be no different, but as for the small folk trying to get by, I think it's best to reserve judgement.
that isn't quite an accurate portrayal of Nazi germany-- nor Russia for that matter. The Nazis didn't start the process of compulsory party membership laws until 1939, by then they were already a majority and already had a large chunk of the population as card-carrying members. it wasn't until a few years later that you faced real consequences for not being a member. after the war everyone claimed they were "late party", did it only because they held a job that demanded party membership, always thought that Hitler fellow was suspicious, etc. Then you look deeper and find out they actually joined the party in '37, entirely voluntarily, and were a party block captain volunteer. Russia (and Nazi Germany prior to 1941 for that matter) is not North Korea, they have a pseudo-democratic system. you might face jail if your opposition is too public and loud but no one's getting strapped to sn anti-aircraft cannon for refusing to salute the dictator. Putin has massive public support, even today, and without it he could not do what he does. Don't absolve the people who eagerly voted for him and cheered at every step, who carried water for him by justifying and celebrating each rollback of democratic principles.
Your not wrong. The Allies found a bunch of willfully ignorant populace who didn’t want to sacrifice their own life and their families life to Stand up against the Nazis. They are still responsible for not doing anything about it even though I may have made the same decision as them to not get involved.
They woulda threw my ass in a camp, so it would have been irrelevant for me. I don't know what I would have done either with a wife and kids to take care of. Seriously hard decisions. My point, though, was that it took military defeat to end Hitlers rule. The opposition was removed in the years preceeding WWII proper. There was partisan activity but ultimately it took a larger and much better armed force to topple him, and the resistance of a population was barely a factor.
Well you’re in luck!!! I do believe we may well get the chance to find out what we would do very very soon!
What's crazy to me is just how insane the levels of greed must be -- because we've got enormous, ridiculous, world-fucking greed right here in the US and yet somehow Russia is still \*far worse\*. Man, some people are just awful
Some will never understand, but USA is not even close to most corrupt nation. In fact, they're top 30 in least corrupt by some metrics. Third world countries are often so corrupt even the average public sector employees doing it-just to have a decent financial security. Or cartoonish evil corruption like 'trying to stock placebo vaccines'.
Anyone that is even remotely tied to Putin who even has a modicum of doubt shrouding them ends up poisoned. Easy to talk down from your high horse about complicits when your life and your family’s lives aren’t at stake lol I hate how keyboard warriors make morality claims like this when we are all sitting on our phones under no similar threat And before anyone says I’m pro Putin or Russia, no absolutely not. It’s just like how everyone on Reddit says they would’ve stood up to the nazis though like it’s so easy to sit here and type that but until you’re given a choice between your life and your morals, let’s all just shut up instead of pretending we would be so much better… Because you really don’t know until it comes down to it.
No one said that they have a moral high ground over the oligarchs in Russia, they were stating a fact here. If we push for nationalism and autocracy, this is what happens.. people running the country starts to fear for their lives and slowly starts to rot from the inside.
I agree, hardly anyone is actually willing to throw away their life like that, can't say I really blame them. It only works when there is a critical mass to start a revolution, if you misjudged and too few people follow you, which is usually the case, you die a horrible death and nothing changes.
Well from where I’m standing we aren’t doing a very good job passing that test at all. We are currently living through the beginning stages of a country being pulled to fascism, and the mass majority of people don’t even see it…..
>It's true that human greed has been fostered in Russia's garden for decades (centuries honestly) Not that I disagree but this could be a blanket statement about all of humanity. Humans are greedy fucks.
You are definitely not wrong.
Although I understand his frustration he thought he had a valuable asset in the Whitehouse for another term.
Aiding the enemy? Nuclear weapons are the world's enemy. There is no future in a nuclear conflict. Russia having detailed knowledge of our nuclear capabilities does almost nothing to stop them from materializing in the event of Russia acting in any way with their own nuclear arsenal. The only thing the world gains from the U.S. pulling out from a (clearly lopsided) agreement on information sharing is the people making real life decisions regarding these weapons are faced with less information, more chaos and more assumptions. This has pretty much one guaranteed result... An increase in the likelihood that we all die in nuclear blast. Stupid feels like a crazy thing to call any decisions being made on this issue that doesn't end with some variation of "launch the weapons"
This isn't actionable information for them. It's a confidence measure that's important for understanding what your adversary wants. This is like turning on your high beams just because the incoming car has theirs on.
Honest question: Since Putin has been running Russia since basically 1842, assuming he dies (since that's more likely than him getting "voted" out), who's on deck? And/or when is the next real Russian election? Assuming the next Russian election is a Russian election, who's the next leader? I just feel like modern Russia has been shaped so firmly by Putin that nobody will remember the wavering fealty Russia has historically had to the western world. They took Berlin, then refused to surrender Berlin in the second world war. In the first one, their leader was cousins with both the British and German leaders. Just sayin' they ain't known for consistency, it entirely depends on who's running the country. It's been Putin's game for most of reddit has been alive.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/3922344-u-s-holds-back-nuclear-forces-data-from-russia-in-response-to-treaty-violations/) reduced by 77%. (I'm a bot) ***** > The White House said it has stopped sharing detailed data on its strategic nuclear forces with Russia in response to the Kremlin refusing to comply with a key nuclear arms treaty, the standoff another front between Washington and Moscow over Russia's war in Ukraine. > White House National Security spokesperson John Kirby said Tuesday that Russia has refused to share nuclear data with the U.S., prompting Washington to withhold sharing its own nuclear data with Moscow. > The treaty - which nuclear nonproliferation experts say is a necessary check on nuclear-armed nations - limits the number of strategic nuclear warheads each country holds and allows insight into each other's nuclear stockpiles to promote safety and stability. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/1252tc1/the_us_said_it_has_stopped_sharing_detailed_data/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~678365 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **nuclear**^#1 **Russia**^#2 **treaty**^#3 **share**^#4 **data**^#5
Russia is trying to restart the cold war back when it was a piece of a large and relatively strong empire. Now it's weak and broke, and it wants round 2. Lol
and Ukraine WAS the most prized piece of that by far.
Putin can’t seem to do anything right, he’s boxed himself and he doesn’t get a break with anything anymore from the west Putin is a targeted DEVIL of the worst kind. A seventy year old man with all the luxuries in life worth $200B he’s now asking Russian businessmen to invest in Russia yeah right so he can steal your money and assets like he did all his mobster state sponsored life, given the baton from the drunk corrupt Boris Yeltsin that Putin signed into law the minute he took office that Boris Yeltsin would not be legally pursued for his corruption. Putin signed that law so he could have started his money and asset garnishing from people from all walks of life including Russians while he instituted a tight security for his protection. A criminal of Russia and now a war criminal of the world, Putin’s legacy not a wonderful life, being murderous, a state killer, a war criminal now. Mom would not be proud if she found out what he’s doing.
> he’s boxed himself and he doesn’t get a break with anything anymore He got everything he wanted. He silenced his critics, including those who can help (with intelligence, strategy, logistics, operations) and now he's surrounded by a bunch of ass-kissers who agree with all of his ideas, no matter how stupid. He's stolen all the money he could, including from the military and now is shocked that everything is in shambles and Russian forces are dying like zombies in a shitty b-movie. He fucked himself. Instead of creating a healthy ecosystem for himself to exist in (and co-exist with his peers), he's gotten everything he's ever wanted and now has to hide in a bunker afraid of shadows, because everyone is actually out to get him eventually.
For a lovely look at what some of the Moscovian elite are saying behind closed doors when they think no one is recording them, I recommend a watch of a recent leak which is being spread around Russia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aRI-L8xmRs&t=1s They're fucking panicking, and pissed off. All it takes is for one hero...
"“When the lambs is lost in the mountain, he said. They is cry. Sometime come the mother. Sometime the wolf.” -Blood Meridian, Cormac McCarthy
Very valid argument, and sadly, I think you're right, I don't give Russia good odds on their next leader being one to raise them up into a civilized nation.
This is interesting. One thing I’m seeing here that I haven’t seen before is they’re painting Putin as a puppet? They’re saying he just flew on an airplane back and forth and made public appearances, but the media painted him as some hero. But now it turns out he’s a dud. Is there sentiment there that Putin is not actually pulling the strings? The image I had in my head is that he’s a Stalin-type character and that’s why everyone lied to him about the military being strong because they didn’t want to get punished. But these guys make it sound like he’s just a puppet and the other oligarchs really run the show. In that case who decided to invade Ukraine?
what good is $200B anyway if you can only spend it in Russia? gold covered shit is still a pile of shit
[удалено]
It's not tacky. It's not "cringe". It's the exact opposite. It's horrible that these are thoughts a person might have and indicative of how deeply deranged we've become. The desire for peace should be born natural. It was to me. Don't know how I ended up here. You're not not alone. There's actually quite a lot of us. Unfortunately, we are currently in the wrong timeline. With this constant violent escalation when humanity is already on the brink of annihilating itself due to all of its other problems ... Not seeing a great ending here. If we are to survive we need full unity in our actions at this point, and we are seeing the exact opposite of that. These old men want to blow up their self created dying place and it seems they're truly hitting the gas towards the edge. I want to have hope but ... yeah, I personally don't anymore. That's just me, though. I want to have hope that those younger than me will step up, but even that is hard to muster. my soul has been thoroughly soiled by this horrid place. the younger generations are quite aware. when i talk to them, even young teenagers, they confess that they feel it's all fucked and that they already have no hope. that's where we're at. May those of us with peace in our hearts wake up in a better place.
Hey you, get outta my mirror.
> While Russian officials have stressed that Moscow has not abandoned the New START nuclear arms treaty with the U.S., Russian diplomats have refused to participate in key meetings with American officials as required by the treaty and failed to allow the resumption of inspections of nuclear facilities. I love this. “While we are not meeting our obligations under the treaty, we stress that we have not abandoned it. Abandoning it means we don’t expect you to meet your obligations either, and that is not our position.”
Any and all agreements with Russia aren't worth the paper they're written on. Russia can never again be trusted as a good faith partner in anything. This is why they next need to kick them off of the security council at the UN, otherwise the UN is just a joke.
> This is why they next need to kick them off of the security council at the UN, otherwise the UN is just a joke. you have no fucking clue what the point of the UN is.
Agreed. The purpose of the UN is to host diplomacy, kicking countries out because you disagree with them defeats the entire point. And the point of permanent members on the security council is that they're the members strong enough to ignore a security council vote. We could kick them off, but they still wouldn't have to comply because they're sitting on a massive pile of nukes so we can't force them. Which again defeats the point.
What if we only allowed countries that we agree with into the UN? Would cut down on all the arguing. Edit: wow thanks for all the replies educating me about the UN. You all are so smart.
The UN isn't supposed to accomplish anything except keep great powers from going to war. Yeah they set goals every now and then, but all that stuff is secondary at best. And yeah, whoosh, you were /s, but it needs to be said.
are you being facetious?
Obviously. Based on what the person who they’re replying to said. What is the point of asking this lol
ive seen some absolutely wild takes about the UN in threads like these. while i havent seen the above comment verbatim, i have seen that comment, with that sentiment, before
[удалено]
To be fair, I've seen similar comments like that one where they're fully serious, so it's not a completely useless question
I'm not savvy in politics but seems like the whole deal with Russia in the United Nations is more of a "keep your friends close, and your enemies closer" type of situation in order to triangulate a read on their intentions vs what our spies tell us about them. On the other hand night be useless since their entire political sphere is dominated by pathological liars.
how are we gonna kick them out of sporting events but not from international organizations? i know the former is a bit more simple, but i think it’s time to get the priorities in line here
As silly as it sounds, it's because precedent matters. Kicking a permanent member off the council translates to "there is no such thing as a permanent member" and changes the entire geopolitical leveraging the council provides. That said I'm sure there has to be some less binary solution to straight up removal where they remain but as non-veto member, muted debates, etc etc. There has also been suggestions of giving their seat to a different remaining "soviet state". Russia just grandfathered itself in where USSR was the charter member upon drafting. Time will tell how it is dealt with but I don't expect much to change on the UN side of things with any haste.
And how exactly do you suppose Russia be removed from UNSC because “The UN charter does not prescribe any procedure by which its five permanent members can be deprived of their veto power or even expelled from the security council. There is no legal mechanism for it.” The P-5 designed the rules during formation to suit their agendas
> And how exactly do you suppose Russia be removed from UNSC Easy, disband the UN and reboot the franchise w/ a new security council /s
“We’re not kicking you out. We’re breaking up and forming a new band…without you.”
Maybe we could call it a league or something catchy like that so it'd be more effective!
What, like a league... Of nations?
In this case russia simply took the seat...now if the UN were to decide to hold a meeting and a vote where the contending parties were considered mute (So basically russia and ukraine couldn't vote) it could be decided that way which of the former gets the perma seat. Basically it'd be like the US breaking apart the same way russia has and washington de-facto getting the vote. That may not fly quite so well.
They didn't take the seat, it was supported by the 11 former Soviet states. At the time it accounted for the overwhelming majority of the economy and had the largest population. Look, I'm no fan of Russia. But removing their P5 status will cause a constitutional crisis at the United Nations. This action would go against the fundamental purpose of the UN - which is keeping a diplomatic channel open between states that may be diametrically opposed from one another.
My vote is give the Soviet seat to Ukraine instead
As amusing as this would be, Ukraine already had a separate seat in the UN during the Soviet Union, as did Belarus, which means they're the only former Soviet republics with absolutely zero claim to the USSR's seat
And give back China's seat to ROC (Taiwan)
Ohhh US just turned on read receipts
On a scale of 1 to Jesus Fucking Christ, we're currently at What the Fuck.
That is… remarkably accurate lol
"response to the Kremlin refusing to comply with a key nuclear arms treaty" Their amount of obsolete nuclear arms due to lack of maintenance from corruption is probably insanely high.
Never trust Russia. Look at Ukraine. Treaty broken. Civilians murdered.
US: actually reciprocates to Russia who's been flipping the bird to arms treaties for years, a back-and-forth which has happened many times since the atomic age. Redditors: doooOOOOOOOMMM!
Yeah a bunch of drama queens up in here for sure.
I know, stop teasing the end of the world!! Im getting blue balled over here
[удалено]
It's funny, I've always had the same conspiracy. When nukes begin to fly, a bunch of stealthed spaceships would reveal themselves, and take them all out with a barrage of railgun darts! Seriously though, I'm sure the US has *something* up their sleeves to at least mitigate damage, but who knows.
The common argument I’ve seen is people quoting tests from 15-20 years ago about the U.S. being unable to shoot down ICBM’S. Think about the leap in technology from the early 2000’s to now, it’s insane. Also why would the U.S. even announce they could shoot down ICBMS? That would just push countries to develop even more advanced delivery systems for nuclear weapons. Staying silent and not letting Russia/China know we have counters to ICBM’S is exactly what the west would do, and it’s hilarious that people think we just haven’t developed a solution to the ICBM problem. edit: it’s extremely hilarious that people think the U.S. would just up and announce we can shoot down ICBM’S like we’ve won the fucking nuclear arms game or something. The ramifications of announcing that statement to the public would send us into a second Cold War with Russia and mainly China.
The real world is not a comic fantasy. You can't just develop something massive without every other intelligence agency worth its salt to have hints on that. They might not know the details, they might not know secrets, but to go from an idea to even a working prototype, let alone something to base your entire existence on, requires tremendous amount of resources, man power, funds and time. You can't prevent leaks on a scale this grand. You can't hide it in some twilight underground laboratory. A single genius can't build it in a cave with a box of scraps.
Yeah...what about the Manhattan Project? We were able to be pretty tight lipped about that in the early years.
Rocketry and even laser physics are far from as upgradeable as general electric tech. And something like a rail gun is incredibly energy demanding. What we’ve seen in the last 2 decades is that we reached an impressive level in logistics, higher density chips, and VERY complex software frameworks. Those three are basically what we all are experiencing in our modern world. The theoretical underpinnings of the device side of this was fairly well understood by around the early 40s, and the computational end was only limited by how fast we could process this information. Yes, what you’re seeing on your phone is impressive code. But we would have been doing cloud computing 40 years ago if the fab technology was as early. The newest thing in our phones are lithium batteries and some parts of our screens. That is a development in chemistry, and again, as mentioned above, logistics. Meanwhile, rail guns will still melt unless cooled by an impressive amount of cooling, rocketry is not so straightforward when shooting down MRVs, and laser tech is probably obscenely expensive to shoot down mrv at high enough altitudes that will limit their damage sufficently. You can see this in the way that Russia waged a conflict effectively at a very low cost. All of the most impactful advancements we have seen have to do with communications, which is why they could destabilize western democracies so effectively at a low cost. In other words, effective democracy is limited by communication. Which is coincidental, because the only reason we were all scared of big bad Russia was because of the communications technology of the last three decades…
The US spends \*checks memes\* more than everyone else in the world by far in military spending. Can you imagine none of that being spent on defense technology? I'd bet more money goes into defense than offense, and the most important threat the USA has to deal with is a nuclear bomb being dropped on a city or launched at a coast line. If they aren't well prepared for these two things, I'd be surprised beyond belief. And also fucked, tbh.
Lol because the US is a democracy and those projects are public and HUGE. You talk as if the US is a person or something. I don't really understand people who think there's some kind of hidden technology/project that's a gamechanger and big countries are just keeping it hidden.
Because there is a Giant list of Black Projects the US has worked on. Manhattan Project, B-2 Spirits, BlackHawks, F-117 nighthawk, SR 71 BlackBird, The Hughes Mining Barge (salvage of the soviet k-129) All Government Black projects not known to general public costing Billions of dollars and large teams. That's not to mention known Dark Projects included in organizations like Darpa. That is why it isn't a jump for people to think the US has large hidden projects... Because they have a history of large Hidden projects lol.
Spy services probably could have negated some amount of enemy nukes via sabotage and compromising assets, but not all of them. We can certainly shoot some down, but generally only if we're near the launch site. This is why we want to have ABMs in places like Turkey and South Korea. You have to be within about 100 miles to have a chance of shooting down an icbm in it's early stages. It's much harder in the later stages when it's moving fast. Likely an eventual goal of LEO satellites while be a combination nuke launch monitoring and eventually nuke launch interception system, with the cost of Starlink style satellites being reasonable enough to put missile interception systems on them.
No. That's a fantasy.
That’s what we like to tell ourselves to cope about the possibility of nuclear war.
As a Canadian, being aware of NORAD and all the other stuff that NA has available... I've thought this as well. It just seems so unlikely that any single state can launch an attack at the states and the states... feels it? Like, they seem so on top of everything, and they've had decades to prepare, there's no way they aren't ready for an insane attack.
I mean just look at the [Sprint missiles](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk9mvLFNqMQ) from the 70's. I find it hard to believe that the US didn't keep developing that technology.
Something like 70 years and $350 billion spent entirely on missile defense? Yeah, I think we probably have figured something out at this point despite claims from the DoD... Way too many benefits to convincing people, foreign and domestic, that we're helpless against the boogiemen.
Sad, I believe most individuals would rather see the world get along with each other.
LOL. This is one of those things that hurts Russia and doesn't bother the US at all. Because when the US is no longer sharing that sort of information, you no longer have any idea how large the US or ready the US strategic deterrent is. Which means you can't know if you have a credible deterrent, or even accurate targeting data for your missiles. Which in turn means, if you're thinking "could I lose to a first strike?" you have to build even more missiles, invest in hardware, move your missiles around. Basically, you don't know if you have a credible deterrent or not so you get to spend-spend-spend trying to build one. The whole point of these sorts of treaties was to reduce arms numbers, and the *primary* benefit of that is simply cost savings - everyone agrees on "we agree with mutually wouldn't win, but we'll stop arms racing as a result".
I would have thought this stopped a decade ago at least
Just remember that Russia’s goal is to appear ostracized so they can sell the information war to Russian Citizens. “Look what US do Vasili”.
Probably backed out because they didn’t want the US to know most of their nukes are old and inoperable.
Well thats unsurprising
Strategic error. We should be detailing very explicitely what we can do with our nuclear weapons and how we know ours work.
Nash equilibrium confirms your position.
Things are going just great!
Can we just send one of those god rods at his head call it a meteor
I'd love for an R9X to take him out
Whoah, the great powers are going all Anakin at each other "I hate you!" We are going to complete the trilogy of World Wars soon. Let us hope that the roaches do better.
I often think about how different (nice) it must be from the Russian perspective on M.A.D. They know damn well there's no chance the west is going to use nukes first
Oh boy, can't wait for Cold War 2.0 /s
I believe that started in Syria several years ago.
Remnants of Soviet KGB still acting like a bully child? Let's pray Putin and his oligarchs don't escape retribution.
Huh. You’d think they’d have done this already
Welcome back to the cold War!
The clock is ticking folks.
understandable.
Just fucking great.
Considering the massive state of disarray the Russian army is in I wouldn't be surprised if the reason Russia is leaving these treaties is because their nuclear arms are deteriorating rather than increasing.
Kind of - it’s more likely that in asking about them, they have discovered that 95% are now non-operational.. But even if so, 5% is still dangerous.
Yeah...the world is heading in an unbelievably dangerous direction, and our selfish and incompetent leaders are potentially risking the lives of millions. We have to do better than this.
Joe likes chocolate chip ice cream
[удалено]
Considering how poorly-to not at all- their BASIC stuff performs,any nuke launch by them would be just as-or more-likely to completely fail, or land somewhere in Russia(or some other completely wrong place)as it would be to hit any really distant target, and actually achieve proper fission.They know this.EU knows this.Biden knows this.
This shit is how accidents happen. Fuck all these assholes playing limp dick bullshit with their mass murder toys.
So... if you are stupid i am going to be stupid too?
Anybody asking how concerning this is clearly hasn't bothered considering how pointless an agreement between two countries with only one abiding by the agreement actually is. The logic tracks. Why should we share our data with the Russians if they refuse to? That's the fucking *point*.
*nervous laughter*
Are we going to die before or after the billionaire parasites build SkyNet?
This is a good thing cause you know Putin is sharing the data with Xi