comment: >
  
  If it looks like you're doing a strategic launch of nukes, you just signed your nation's death warrant, because the retaliation will all be functional.
context: "We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?" >
  
  Bet they forgot where they put em. >
  
  'Whoa, whoa, guys, I don't have your nukes! Uhh, they're at Bill's house! And-and Fred's house!"
  "What the hell you doing with my nukes in your house Fred!?" >
  
  What do ya mean the banks out of nukes? >
  
  And the consequences are what exactly? >
  
  This treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.
  So in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other. >
  
  Unironically, this would be useful. We have more resources than they do, and can increase our arsenal very loudly and publicly.
  Can Russia maintain parity? Even if Ukraine were not a thing that's happening, pushing a hostile Russia into either conformity or crisis is always going to be in our interests >
  
  A nuclear arms race is in no one's best interest. >
  
  No but there's already so damn many of the things out there that it doesn't make much of a difference. 10 nukes per city versus 100 nukes? We're all fucked either way. >
  
  lol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. 
  The sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better. >
  
  Inspections would reveal they are inoperable >
  
  To be fair, it seems like their country's weak but not really. Yes, they've used garbage soviet and world war 2 era weapons and military vehicles. They might not be rank 2 in world military rankings but with the newer tech that they actually have, they'd probably fall under rank 5-7 without counting their nuclear weapons. Remember that they still have thousands of ICBMs even without the need of nukes. They also have newer military gear but haven't used it because this war is lasting very long. 
  ​
  Russia's also taken full control of eastern Ukraine. People compare it to USA taking Afghanistan within 3 months. Afghanistan's a naturally heavily fortified country but fighting against NATO made them lose. >
  
  
  Remember that they still have thousands of ICBMs even without the need of nukes.
  
  ICBMs without nukes are pretty useless.
  
  They also have newer military gear but haven't used it because this war is lasting very long.
  
  They don't use their modern gear because it never got mass produced and only exists in numbers too low to be useful. >
  
  Launching enough ICBMs would be a good decoy system for the few legit nukes. It would just cost a lot of fuel.  There's no telling which ICBMs are fully functional either.