So here's my take: the answer to the "how long" question is that it depends on whether you return the warheads during regular maintenance/deployment cycles or whether you provide the human and financial resources to do it quickly. In a tight budget environment. (1) https://twitter.com/laraseligman/status/1310704100862984192

Also depends on whether you just want to reload one sub/one flight of missiles as a sign and symbol that you can (more on that in a moment), or whether you want to reload the whole force to return to pre-START levels, in spite of the fact that STRATCOM does not require that. (2)

The real issue, though, as article shows, is that this may be a signal/message of the U.S. ability to reload warheads. We would do so in the "eliminated" launchers on SSBNs. Recall that the Russians complained bitterly about the fact that the conversions could be reversed. (3)

It was our right within the Treaty to do it this way, but the Russians still want this resolved. So we would respond to NST expiration by proving they were right about our ability to violate the Treaty. Does that sound familiar? It should... (4)

We had the same conversation with them about INF compliance. They insisted MK41 launchers in Aegis ashore violated INF because we could launch Tomahawk from them. We told them they were wrong. Two weeks after INF lapsed, we launched a Tomahawk from a MK41 bolted to a truck. (5)

So, the article says the strategy here is to prove to the Russians that we can raise the price if they don't accept the deal Marshall offered them last month. Kind of a "mob" style negotiating tactic, and this admin does not have a great record with "maximum pressure." (6)

It could work, they could say "we'd better take the bad deal before it gets worse." Or they could say "No," then ramp up the production of all those weapons that have led Marshall to claim NST is insufficient. They have open production lines on delivery vehicles, we don't. (7)

Bottom line: this could be a clever negotiating tactic, or just effort to not tank NST and salt earth for future arms control after U.S. twice proves that Russia was right with its claims of U.S. evasion of treaties (INF and NST) and Russia won't be fooled again. (8/fin)

Oops. Supposed to say "just effort to tank NST and salt earth."