Failure to prolong the treaty on the reduction of strategic offensive arms could entail serious spending on the part of the Pentagon in the next few decades. This is stated in the published report of the US Congressional Budget Office.

The authors of the document considered several options for the development of events if the START Treaty is not extended.

“If the treaty is terminated in 2021, the United States and Russia can respond by maintaining the status quo. Alternatively, they could take various measures to compensate for the absence of restrictions under the treaty, perhaps to solve the problem of real or perceived buildup of forces by the other side, ”the report says.

It is also noted that in the latter case, the United States may return to the limits prescribed in the Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions (SORT) of 2002, START II or START I.

When returning to the restrictions that were spelled out in the SNP, a serious increase in costs from the Pentagon is not expected. In two other cases, American analysts identify two possible paths of development of events. The first is to increase the number of warheads on existing delivery vehicles. This approach in the US Congressional Budget Office was called "least costly." The second is an increase in the number of delivery vehicles (bombers, submarines and missiles), which experts consider "a more flexible approach." A combination of these options is also not excluded.

“If the Pentagon ramped up its forces to the level of the START-I limits, then with the least-cost approach, its one-time expenses would increase by $ 88 billion to $ 149 billion, and annual costs - by $ 4 billion to $ 10 billion. With more flexible approach, the Pentagon's one-time costs could rise by $ 410 billion to $ 439 billion, and annual costs by $ 24 billion to $ 28 billion, ”the report said.

At the same time, it is indicated that the total production costs would amount to almost three times the amount "which the Ministry of Defense currently plans to spend on production in the next few decades."

In addition, the report emphasizes that these estimates do not include additional costs for the production of new warheads, the construction of bases and training centers, as well as the modernization of production, if the need arises.

  • Capitol
  • Reuters
  • © Erin Scott

The document also outlines the consequences that Russia and the United States may face if the treaty on the reduction of strategic offensive arms is not extended.

"The procedures for increasing transparency and confidence-building stipulated in START III and previous treaties will cease, and in this case, both sides will lose the opportunity to directly receive information about the capabilities of their adversaries," the authors of the report say.

In addition, it says that without on-site inspections, information exchange and restrictions on encryption of text flight data "over time, the level of uncertainty about each other's forces will grow."

"For example, the lack of specific knowledge about the forces of the other side may prompt the United States to expand its intelligence capabilities or develop missile defense in order to hedge against the uncertainty about the intentions of the other side," the document says.

It is also noted that the United States can "opt for conventional deterrence" by increasing its missile forces or in favor of building up its own potential "to resolve regional conflicts by expanding non-strategic nuclear forces."

"Decision not to renew"

Recall that the START III Treaty, signed ten years ago, expires in February 2021. Moscow has repeatedly declared its readiness to extend the document. However, Washington did not announce its final decision regarding the fate of the agreement. Instead, the United States is pushing the conditions for a new treaty to replace START III. In particular, the American side is in favor of involving China in the negotiations, despite the fact that Beijing has repeatedly refused to do so.

The possibility of extending the Treaty on the Reduction of Strategic Offensive Arms was discussed at the last Russian-American consultations on strategic stability, held on August 16-18.

According to Mikhail Ulyanov, Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to international organizations in Vienna, at the meeting, "the United States insisted on the importance of a trilateral agreement with the participation of the PRC."

“For us, the more preferable format could be the Pentagon - participation in the negotiations of all five official nuclear powers. But voluntarily, ”the diplomat said on his Twitter page.

Recall, in addition to the Russian Federation, the United States and China, Great Britain and France also possess nuclear weapons.

At the same time, according to Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, due to the unwillingness of the above countries to join arms control negotiations, Washington and Moscow should focus on bilateral contacts.

Ryabkov also noted that the parties "are trying to identify issues on which progress is possible." He also stressed that the Russian side favors the prolongation of START III, but is not ready to "pay any price" for this.

According to the expert of the International Institute for Humanitarian and Political Research, Vladimir Bruter, “the current US administration has already made a decision to not extend START III quite a long time ago,” but now it cannot declare this due to internal political reasons.

“The mandate of the current American leadership is expiring, so it cannot officially make a decision on non-prolongation - it will need to be announced in February or at the end of January, because then it will be possible to legalize everything. Therefore, in Washington now they are playing for time, pretending that they are thinking about something else. At the same time, if Trump is not re-elected, a situation may arise in which the new administration, which has no fundamental objections to the prolongation, simply does not have time to do this, "the analyst said in a conversation with RT.

  • During the launch of a US intercontinental missile
  • Reuters
  • © US Air Force / Michael Peterson

"Will not be able to maintain the status quo"

At the same time, Trump is not ready to take responsibility for the termination of START III, since “it will not add pre-election points to him,” Bruter said. However, he did not rule out that the current president, in case of re-election, would nevertheless change his mind and agree to an extension.

As political analyst Alexander Asafov explained, "Americans consider START to be outdated and unfair, since it does not provide obvious advantages to the United States."

"For example, the treaty does not include containment of China, and this is a fundamental task for the current administration and President Trump," the expert said in an interview with RT.

For this very reason, American politicians are preparing reports in which they are already calculating expenses in connection with the termination of START III, Asafov said.

“This is a kind of preparation for a possible non-prolongation of the agreement. The document, prepared in Congress, does not exclude the emergence of new threats, as well as an increase in the budget of the American defense industry, which only inspires the Pentagon, "the analyst believes.

Bruter, in turn, predicts that if the agreement is not prolonged, Russia and the United States "will not be able to maintain the status quo."

“The divergence of positions for this is too great between countries, and trust is at a very low level. It is obvious that the development of new weapons systems will proceed quickly enough, and therefore no one will particularly restrain themselves in this, ”the expert noted.

According to Bruter, if Trump is re-elected to the presidency, he will be ready to go to "additional spending" if START III is not extended.

  • US intercontinental missile launch
  • Reuters
  • © Scott Howe / US Dept of Defense

“Until the elections, Washington will continue to hide behind the formula that China should be involved in the negotiations, knowing full well that Beijing will not agree to this. In addition, until various parts of the US political elite come to some more or less consensus opinion, there will be no real movement forward, ”the analyst predicted.

At the same time, as Bruter emphasized, if everything ends with the termination of the START Treaty, "this will negatively affect international security."

“There will be less trust and more weapons. This does not mean that the war will start tomorrow. But this means that another big step will be taken towards it, ”the expert concluded.