1) You don't mention the RS-SS-26 Stone/Iskander-Ms, which Russia also has transferred to Belarus specifically, according to Putin, to deliver nuclear weapons. This surely is a violation of the MTCR, which no one has mentioned.
2) The cynicism of the DU accusation by Russia is similarly breathtaking. Their tanks have been armed with DU rounds since the 1970s.
When you read his statement on the green paper (no F-16s and long-range missiles, don't get into a direct war with Russia), how different is his stated position from the current U.S. position, anyway?
He's producing a word salad response almost like a live version of ChatGPT. He's paraphrasing mainstream news articles in his line about "not engaging in offensive campaigns beyond their borders." A lot of words but no information. The takeaway is that he wants to sound like he is against supporting Ukraine very much. He's rhetorically saying the US is doing too much, but in the details he doesn't say what he'd do different.
You write, "Russia keeps an estimated 1000 to 2000 nuclear weapons in storage areas in Russia that could be quickly fitted to a variety of dual-use weapons for delivery."
Facts like these have had me wondering why we're worrying about the START treaty. What difference would it really make if Putin had another 1,000 nukes? Wouldn't those just be bounce the rubble weapons?
I don't know. Perhaps you can address this for us in some future article.
I will address this. Thanks for asking. Basically, almost all previous treaties that limited or reduced nuclear weapons have only dealt with strategic systems. That is, weapons that can be loaded on long-range missiles or bombers that could directly attack the other side. The exception was the Reagan-Gorbachove Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) that eliminated thousands of US and Soviet missiles designed for war in Europe. If there is another treaty between the US and Russia it will almost certainly include limitation or reductions of medium- and short-range systems.
I'm trying to ask, what real difference do limited reductions make? What is accomplished by reducing the short and/or long range arsenals by, say, 10 or 20%? And, what is accomplished by limiting the growth of the arsenals?
If we get in to a nuke shootout with the Russians, are any such tweaks really going to matter?
If we had a plan for moving towards eliminating nukes that would be meaningful. Except that as soon as we got rid of the last nuke people like Putin would just turn their attention to other means of mass chaos, right?
As a Floridian, I can say DeSantis is a bit genius at making "thread the needle" statements that both fire up the Trump base, while also sounding reasonable to independents. He doesn't have the cult leader charisma of Trump, but he speaks well to those who want Trumpism minus Trump.
"39% say U.S. doing right amount to aid Ukraine, 28% too much, 30% not enough"
That's about 70% in support of our engagement in Ukraine. So if DeSantis succeeds in the primary with his message, he's going to face a problem in the general election. The outcome I'm hoping for is that DeSantis defeats Trump in the primary, and then loses in the general election, an outcome which could end both of their careers.
One thing we might learn is the danger of having smiley face tea parties with psychopaths. Photos like these have done a lot to confuse many in the public. There are some blogs here on Substack which are VERY confused on such matters.
Another thing we might learn is that it's not really nukes which are the problem so much as those who would use them. As example, if we somehow got rid of all nukes violent men like Putin would then just shift their attention to other means of projecting power, which an accelerating knowledge explosion will be happy to hand them. Which brings us to this formula...
In the 21st century, violent men and an accelerating knowledge explosion are incompatible. We can have either, but not both. Pick one. Just one.
If we can't raise our vision to this level then the most likely result seems to be that events like the war in Ukraine keep happening until finally one of them spins out of control and brings the Great Game to an end.
Great article. Two minor comments:
1) You don't mention the RS-SS-26 Stone/Iskander-Ms, which Russia also has transferred to Belarus specifically, according to Putin, to deliver nuclear weapons. This surely is a violation of the MTCR, which no one has mentioned.
2) The cynicism of the DU accusation by Russia is similarly breathtaking. Their tanks have been armed with DU rounds since the 1970s.
Thank you. Both are great points.
When you read his statement on the green paper (no F-16s and long-range missiles, don't get into a direct war with Russia), how different is his stated position from the current U.S. position, anyway?
He's producing a word salad response almost like a live version of ChatGPT. He's paraphrasing mainstream news articles in his line about "not engaging in offensive campaigns beyond their borders." A lot of words but no information. The takeaway is that he wants to sound like he is against supporting Ukraine very much. He's rhetorically saying the US is doing too much, but in the details he doesn't say what he'd do different.
You write, "Russia keeps an estimated 1000 to 2000 nuclear weapons in storage areas in Russia that could be quickly fitted to a variety of dual-use weapons for delivery."
Facts like these have had me wondering why we're worrying about the START treaty. What difference would it really make if Putin had another 1,000 nukes? Wouldn't those just be bounce the rubble weapons?
I don't know. Perhaps you can address this for us in some future article.
I will address this. Thanks for asking. Basically, almost all previous treaties that limited or reduced nuclear weapons have only dealt with strategic systems. That is, weapons that can be loaded on long-range missiles or bombers that could directly attack the other side. The exception was the Reagan-Gorbachove Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) that eliminated thousands of US and Soviet missiles designed for war in Europe. If there is another treaty between the US and Russia it will almost certainly include limitation or reductions of medium- and short-range systems.
Thanks Joe. I didn't phrase my question well.
I'm trying to ask, what real difference do limited reductions make? What is accomplished by reducing the short and/or long range arsenals by, say, 10 or 20%? And, what is accomplished by limiting the growth of the arsenals?
If we get in to a nuke shootout with the Russians, are any such tweaks really going to matter?
If we had a plan for moving towards eliminating nukes that would be meaningful. Except that as soon as we got rid of the last nuke people like Putin would just turn their attention to other means of mass chaos, right?
As a Floridian, I can say DeSantis is a bit genius at making "thread the needle" statements that both fire up the Trump base, while also sounding reasonable to independents. He doesn't have the cult leader charisma of Trump, but he speaks well to those who want Trumpism minus Trump.
This Gallup analysis...
https://news.gallup.com/poll/469328/one-year-later-americans-stand-ukraine.aspx
....reports this:
"39% say U.S. doing right amount to aid Ukraine, 28% too much, 30% not enough"
That's about 70% in support of our engagement in Ukraine. So if DeSantis succeeds in the primary with his message, he's going to face a problem in the general election. The outcome I'm hoping for is that DeSantis defeats Trump in the primary, and then loses in the general election, an outcome which could end both of their careers.
One thing we might learn is the danger of having smiley face tea parties with psychopaths. Photos like these have done a lot to confuse many in the public. There are some blogs here on Substack which are VERY confused on such matters.
https://d1e00ek4ebabms.cloudfront.net/production/d5ee2a52-1973-4f8b-901f-35362364164f.jpg
Another thing we might learn is that it's not really nukes which are the problem so much as those who would use them. As example, if we somehow got rid of all nukes violent men like Putin would then just shift their attention to other means of projecting power, which an accelerating knowledge explosion will be happy to hand them. Which brings us to this formula...
In the 21st century, violent men and an accelerating knowledge explosion are incompatible. We can have either, but not both. Pick one. Just one.
If we can't raise our vision to this level then the most likely result seems to be that events like the war in Ukraine keep happening until finally one of them spins out of control and brings the Great Game to an end.