Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

EXCLUSIVE: U.S. to stop counting new missiles in Russia

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 08:35 AM
link   

EXCLUSIVE: U.S. to stop counting new missiles in Russia


www.washingtontimes.com

The United States is about to lose a key arms-control tool from the closing days of the Cold War -- the right to station American observers in Russia to count the long-range missiles leaving its assembly line.

The end of full-time, on-site access will likely ignite complaints in Congress, with insiders from both parties arguing over whether the George W. Bush or the Obama administration is responsible.

Republicans are worried by the previously undisclosed agreement between the Obama administration and the Kremlin in October, which formalizes the inspectors' departure this Saturday. This
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Well it turns out that the US stopped producing new long range missiles some time ago, but Russia has continued to do so...


The two countries first agreed to "continuous monitoring" under the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, signed by President Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev.


Under the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) there has been a constant US staffed monitoring team at the Votkinsk Machine Building Plant, about 600 miles east of Moscow -- the site where all Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) are built. - Under a deal struck between the Bush administration and the Kremlin made last year (but not made public) this monitoring is to end on Saturday... Prez Obama seems to be locked into this decision as it was made before his administration - although he has not sought to renew or replace the agreement.


However, the head of Russia's strategic missile forces, Nikolai Solovtsov, was recently quoted by Russian news agencies as saying that the assembly and deployment of next-generation RS-24 missiles would start once the treaty expires. Analysts said that could happen, because Moscow was not banned from developing new missiles.


Hmmm... I wonder why this is? Was it a concession of good faith - maybe in relation to the missile shield plans? Or as a treaty works 2 ways, maybe the US was interested from freeing it's self for other reasons, say the freedom to develop new kit away from prying Russian inspectors? (I am leaning towards the later right now).


"When Votkinsk goes away, Russia could deploy hundreds of missiles," said one senior Republican Senate aide. "Russia is a big country with many satellites passing overhead," so it will not be easy to count missiles based on test flights. "We are worried about what Russia will do that we are not going to know."


Times they are a changing! - This particular arrangement has stood for 15 years...

www.washingtontimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 08:38 AM
link   
I say what business is it of americas.

Plus do not come out with this rubbish about how america will not know, lol.

Yep what ever.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   
Well it also means they are free(er) to develop the next generation if ICBM's - and we do know how Russia loves to proliferate weapons to the enemies of their enemies - especially if the price is right!

North Korea doesn't exactly have great launching capabilities, Iran is waiting on their S300's so clearly the arms negotiation channels are open there - Who knows what the hell Syria has or what they want to have!

At least up until this Saturday there was at least a reliable count on how many of these things were floating around... I think if Russia wanted to hide a number of these things from the rest of the world it really would not be beyond their capabilities...

 



Originally posted by andy1033
I say what business is it of americas.



Oh and this is America's interest in the whole issue



START (for Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) is a treaty between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms. The treaty was signed by the United States and the USSR, that barred its signatories from deploying more than 6,000 nuclear warheads atop a total of 1,600 ICBMs, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and bombers. START negotiated the largest and most complex arms control treaty in history, and its final implementation in late 2001 resulted in the removal of about 80% of all strategic nuclear weapons then in existence. Proposed by United States President Ronald Reagan, it was renamed START I after negotiations began on the second START treaty, which became START II.


[edit on 2/12/2009 by Now_Then]



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 09:55 AM
link   
[edit on 12/2/2009 by dashar]



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 10:08 AM
link   
my guess is that if Russia were wanting to produce a major weapon to use against us:

1.) They already have
2.) They won't produce it at any known production lines.


This is just propaganda. No different than lengthy security at airlines. It's there to make white people feel safe. the illusion of security.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Snarf
 


I can't imagine there will ever be an event large enough that in it's self makes Russia launch directly on the US, or the UK and most of western Europe... To do so would certainty change the world irreversibly... - No what you would have is little (or big) proxy wars... Russia would either directly fire on a 'rogue' state that is allied or has ties to America, or they will just supply the kit to them sit back and watch.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Now_Then
I can't imagine there will ever be an event large enough that in it's self makes Russia launch directly on the US, or the UK and most of western Europe...


Doesn't sound like you've ever heard of John Titor...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by MegaCurious
 


Why on earth are we giving so many concessions to Russia? First the missil defence system, now this... What has Russia done for us in return? So far NOTHING!

-E-



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by MysterE
 


Maybe Russia's point of view on this is that they have not yet turned the gas off to Europe... Well they did a little... They must have some sort of leverage - is it something we are missing, or something that is hidden from us?



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Maybe the US inspectors lost count.

Seriously, I can't see any reason why we should be there at all. The world wants the US to stop being the world police. That means less oversight and stop counting the missles. Me personally, though I have little military knowledge, thinks it is redundant anyways. The US has some 10k plus nukes. Russia about 15k plus. Any confrontation would be like watching two gorillas fight, one with a 50 lb advantage.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   
I would bet that we only "stopped" counting because we now have a more clandestine way of doing it w/o Russia's knowledge. Either that, or we now have "secret" technology that renders missiles obsolete.





new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join