comment: >
  
  I.e. Biden says Vladimir is under equiped
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. >
  
  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. >
  
  Depends on if it's icbms, vs launchers.  ICBMs really only have one use.  Bombers can be loaded with conventional warheads >
  
  Lotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying "what did you expect?"
  Of course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. 
  Honestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people. >
  
  The problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.
  This treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.
  Prepare for a return to that norm. >
  
  The tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. 
  Fwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing. >
  
  I really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. 
  No treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.
  But I guess you never know. >
  
  A significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything. >
  
  Q, is that you? >
  
  “We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected.  All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for.  There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.” >
  
  Of course.  They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting.  Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps. >
  
  Most of their weapons are expired, most of their delivery systems are vulnerable or hardly work, the threats haven’t had the usual effect…so their last card is to obscure their inventory and hope that the lack of information scares us.
  This tactic, however, relies heavily on fear that the aforementioned problems aren’t accurate.
  The US still plays the “talk softly, carry a big stick” strategy…but it may be time to talk louder so the Russians are constantly reminded how fucked they are. >
  
  Inspections were going on both ways till last year. Why do you think their weapons expired in the last year. >
  
  They don't have access to any data so it's pretty safe to just disregard any opinion that says stuff like "they aren't working anymore, they are expired" etc etc. It's pretty much talking out of their asses. >
  
  No one has access to viability data, however, Russia would be spending many more billions per year on their arsenal if they actually had the number of functional weapons they claim. Because the treaties only allow nations to count warheads, without testing their function, means that expired warheads would be counted the same as active warheads. >
  
  Not saying you are wrong, but there's always the possibility (albeit VERY small possibility) that the russians somehow figured out how to maintain nuclear weapons at a fraction of the cost it takes the west to. We have to account for all possible scenarios when it comes to nukes and that's one of them. >
  
  Russia will naturally have cheaper maintainance due to the lower wages than the west. So you can never do a 1:1 budget comparison. >
  
  People don't seem to understand this. And it is not just labor. Parts too. >
  
  while true
  there's a HUGE difference between russians and even the UK's
  Who has a fraction of the nukes that russia has >
  
  I wonder what prior inspections revealed. >
  
  Sorry I'm lazy.  Got a tldr? >
  
  You have 24 hours to live. >
  
  I knew it... >
  
  One more agreement that Russia broke? What a shocker... 
  What does disappoint me is that so many countries and international organizations - that consider themselves to be better than Russia - allow for Russia's government (and other terroristic/autocratic countries) to commit such inhumane atrocities. >
  
  Who's going to stop a nuclear armed country? >
  
  Ukraine, apparently. >
  
  So what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. 
  Should I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea? >
  
  If nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts. >
  
  And? So what's gonna be done about it?? Absolutely nothing probably.. >
  
  Consequences??  Let me guess… sanctions.  
  Of course they blocked inspections.. >
  
  Remember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea? >
  
  Well, duh. They don't want anyone finding out their nukes don't work. >
  
  As a sidenote, this is why I hate 'he said she said' journalism.
  The US says Russia violated the treaty, Russia of course says they have not, and it's the job of the journalist to determine who is telling the truth.
  As much as I highly doubt Russia is the truthful one here it's the job of the newspaper to investigate and actually pick a side. >
  
  Anyone want the simple answer?
  an inspection would show just how badly they are maintained and how many are functional. Russia does not want that info getting out. >
  
  Or that they gave some to Iran.. >
  
  They never keep their word. It doesn't matter if the world signed a million contracts, agreements!! 🤬 all BS.