Jump to content

ikalugin

Members
  • Content Count

    684
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

ikalugin last won the day on April 18

ikalugin had the most liked content!

About ikalugin

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

920 profile views
  1. Yes, but because not all complexes are divizions (for example look at the S300V that Ukraine operates - there a system is called a divizion) calling complexes battalions is a bad practice and is misleading the reader in my opinion. Same applies to Russia etc ofc, which is why I tend to try to use clear cut terminology.
  2. Battalion is a misleading translation because ЗРК=/=ЗРДН. And yesm sinlge Osa units would qualify too.
  3. @Haiduk I am aware of this list (and the white book) and this is why a breakdown is important, as for example ЗРК could stand for anything between a MANPADS launcher to S300V SAM battery or S300PS SAM divizion. So without those breakdowns the figures are not quite all that usefull.
  4. I think it would be fair to say that at this point the Ukrainain AFV production industry is both zombified via internal problems (ie corruption) and has it's lifeblood (workforce) drained (ie by Russian and Polish companies). But it would be nice to see agregate confirmed delivery figures on domestic orders over the past 5 years of new AFVs and for deep modernisation. While 100 upgraded T64BVs may sound impressive, they should be compared against either the opposing force or the VSU's own losses (79-175 lost?).
  5. Sanctions were the least important factor in the recent economic downturn. I guess you know more about what is happening in Russian elites than the Russian elites themselves, heh. How did sanctions limit budget allocations to the military? Spending has been fairly stable in the past ~5 years.
  6. Means that you can restrict the data provided etc. The verification measures were intentionally limited during the treaty write up due to the security concerns regarding other activities, this is why those provisions are in the treaty. Now you can argue that this weakens the verification regime, but this is how it was intended and writen.
  7. Well this is where the test of logic comes into the game. For example if a US spacecraft with a prototype reactor has it's booster explode on the launch pad - would this be covered by security provisions? In my (and it seems fairly common legally speaking) reading of the treaty it will have the right to do so, in fact this is the kind of situation those provisions were writen into the treaty according to some of the authors I talked to - so the stations could not be used to collect intelligence data.
  8. The treaty is there to cover tests of nuclear weapons. Unless you have a reasonable belief that this indeed was a nuclear weapon test (and I have not see any serious allegations to that end) this falls under those articles, as this was an event involving nuclear power plant of some sort, not a nuclear weapon explosion/test. The test of logic here would be: if a terrorist drives an aircraft into a nuclear power plant (on say a nuclear submarine) - would this be covered by the CTBT, as the event both produces an explosion and radioactive fallout? Plus, because US (and a bunch of other countries) did not ratify the treaty - it is not yet in force.
  9. Sure thing. Source: https://www.ctbto.org/fileadmin/content/treaty/treatytext.tt.html General provisions 7-8-9: 7. Each State Party shall have the right to take measures to protect sensitive installations and to prevent disclosure of confidential information and data not related to this Treaty. 8. Moreover, all necessary measures shall be taken to protect the confidentiality of any information related to civil and military activities and facilities obtained during verification activities. 9. Subject to paragraph 8, information obtained by the Organization through the verification regime established by this Treaty shall be made available to all States Parties in accordance with the relevant provisions of this Treaty and the Protocol. I guess citing them as articles may have been misleading/incorrect.
  10. Yea, seems like Russia went with articles 7-8-9 of the CTBT to preclude the use of those stations by foreighn powers for intelligence data collection.
  11. Not enough tanks to fill all the new units.
  12. This may sound like a lot, but this is a fairly small ammo dump by ammo dump standards and in a way has solved that specific ammo disposal problem faster than intended.
  13. Yea, one dude got a gamma spectrometer and did not detect tell tale signs of reactor leak (Iodine etc).
  14. That site was dealing with tube artillery ammo from what I recall.
×
×
  • Create New...