The U.S. has rejected Russia’s offer to try to save a key nuclear treaty

Jul 2018
985
250
Earth
#41
Both of you guys are forgetting Alaska, western part of the lower 48, Canada, Taiwan, and possibly the Philippines. The assessed range of the 9M729 is approximately 3.400 miles - Los Angeles is within range, and the Philippines is only 3,455 away from Russia and missile ranges tend to improve through constant improvements.
What good would it do the Russians to nuke the Philippines or Canada? They don't have nukes.

Sure, they could nuke a lot of the USA if they had those missiles based in Siberia but if they were going to nuke us then why not use the Satan 2? Putin fired Russia's new "Satan 2" nuclear missile at this U.S. city in his video Just six of those would kill everyone in the country if used during a cold snap.
 
Jul 2018
985
250
Earth
#42
Certainly it's possible that Putin is pulling a reverse Reagan on Trump, luring the US into spending additional trillions in a new arms race that is pointless.

Nobody even took a little nibble on the point I made earlier, that the US has 14 Ohio-class nuclear submarines, each with 24 Trident missiles that can have up to 12 MIRV thermonuclear warheads. These missiles are first-strike accurate, they can hit targets 7,000 mi. distant, and all 24 missiles can be launched in a minute's time.

Does it make a blip what new missiles the Russkis or anyone else say they have when nuclear annihilation is guaranteed for any nation insane enough to usher in The Nuclear Apocalypse with a nuclear strike on the US?

The greatest value possible to derive from a nuclear arsenal is achieved by never using it. Its greatest value comes from its worth as a deterrent.

Our nuclear arsenal provides that.
The retaliation is dependent on the subs surviving and killing all of the Russian population. If the missiles are aimed at military targets they are useless as a counterstrike weapon.
 
Sep 2017
1,462
764
Hell
#43
What good would it do the Russians to nuke the Philippines or Canada? They don't have nukes.

Sure, they could nuke a lot of the USA if they had those missiles based in Siberia but if they were going to nuke us then why not use the Satan 2? Putin fired Russia's new "Satan 2" nuclear missile at this U.S. city in his video Just six of those would kill everyone in the country if used during a cold snap.
Those are US allies.

We have US military bases in the Philippines. Philippines and Vietnam are contesting some disputed islands in the South China Sea and are in their own little Cold War. Vietnam's big brother is Russia, and guess who is Philippines' big brother? Most Filipinos speak better American English than demonstrated by some Americans here.

Canada is part of both NATO and NORAD.

Who said anything about nuking? What cruise missile have we ever fired were tipped with a nuclear warhead?

But since we're at it, owning nukes is not a qualifier for possibly getting nuked. As far as I know the only nation that had ever been nuked in anger had no nukes. Now, if you had a nuke, who do you think will respond in kind, someone with his own nuke or someone without?
 

imaginethat

Forum Staff
Oct 2010
64,836
25,703
Colorado
#44
The retaliation is dependent on the subs surviving and killing all of the Russian population. If the missiles are aimed at military targets they are useless as a counterstrike weapon.
The subs are eminently survivable, and the other side(s) wish like hell that they had anything close to our Ohio-class subs.

Absolutely no reason exists to kill all of the Russian population in a counterstrike, or God forbid, a first strike, with weaponry. That's a silly parameter, if silly can apply to nuclear warfare.

Radiation, famine, cancer, and the inevitable internecine struggles over what resources remain will kill more people than those who are killed directly by weaponry.

Plus, no reason exists to doubt the ability of our land-based ICBMs or our B-52s, B-1s, and B-2s to deliver deadly blows to any enemy.
 
Sep 2015
13,444
4,928
Brown Township, Ohio
#45
Further proof that the military industrial complex owns our Dear Leader.

The U.S. has rejected Russia’s offer
to try to save a key nuclear treaty
The U.S. is threatening to pull out of a key longstanding nuclear treaty with Russia within weeks over a cruise missile system that’s believed to violate the agreement.​
Russia had offered to allow American officials to inspect the 9M729 nuclear-capable cruise missile system at the heart of the dispute over the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, which has helped keep peace in Europe for 30 years. But Washington says that won’t be enough, and insists Russia must destroy the system to remain compliant....​

....“We explained to our Russian counterparts specifically what they would need to do in order to return to compliance in a manner that we can confirm, verifiable destruction of the non-compliant system,” Thompson told reporters.​
“To see the missile does not confirm the distance that missile can travel, and at the end of the day, that’s the violation of the treaty.”​
...Thompson said if Moscow didn’t indicate its intention to comply by Feb. 2, the U.S. would stop observing the treaty — allowing American defense researchers to resume development of missiles within the proscribed range — and would formally give notice of its withdrawal, to take effect Aug. 2. She said there were no plans for further talks before the Feb. 2 deadline.​
...Russian President Vladimir Putin warned last month of a new arms race if the U.S. begins developing the intermediate-range missiles banned under the treaty, vowing that his military would respond in kind. The prospect of a renewed arms race in Europe has caused alarm across the continent, where there will no longer be restrictions on deployment of medium-range missiles if the pact collapses. The European Union has urged both sides to save the treaty, which foreign affairs chief Federica Mogherini stressed had “guaranteed peace and security in European territory for 30 years.”​

More: The U.S. has rejected Russia’s offer to try to save a key nuclear treaty
Old News. Short range nukes are being built by America and Russia again. Jimmy Carter banned the Neutron Bomb and good luck with that.
 
Nov 2018
1,904
797
Montana
#46
The INF does not contain any specific sanctions that would injure the US OR Russia and largely was a benefit only if both sides voluntarily adhered to it. The "prisoners dilemma" comes to mind.

Since we have not been whipped into a frenzy for years at the alleged Russian violations of the INF that are long-standing and the US could have just acted to ignore the treaty in whatever fashion it wanted and allowed or provoked Russia into a public withdrawal. I am inclined to think that treaty had little significance to US policy for years and just now it has become beneficial for the Trump Administration to publicly denounce. Why would there be some tactical or strategic value to this action NOW as opposed to years ago if actions by Russia really were a threat? The treaty could just die by bilateral, unspoken, violation. "Violation" suggests that some punishment would ensue, but in this case, there would only be potential repercussions in European countries with vocal anti-nuclear protest.

So, I see the following potential issues that have made the INF a public event:

1. Misdirection to counter other issues , such as Mueller investigation?
2. A symbolic attempt to demonstrate resistance to Russia?
3. It is an impediment to discussions with North Korea and might be a way to threaten re-nuclearization of So Korea or Japan?
4. A step toward establishing defensive anti-missile systems or offensive systems in Alaska and Europe against non-Russian actors?
5. A bit of drama to bring missile production advocacy to the public eye and encourage funding for unrelated issues of defense?
6. Drama to enliven support from the Trump base.
7. A step in some as yet unmentioned international diplomacy gambit.

The Trump Administration seems incapable of Machiavellian complexity or strategic chess moves, so I am inclined to think that it is largely for show to play to his voter base in a clumsy bit of posturing. Any other thoughts?

From Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...u-s-and-europe-and-why-trump-mentioned-china/


....The State Department first declared Moscow had violated the treaty in July 2014. U.S. officials have since identified the 9M729 cruise missileas their main concern. NATO designated the new Russian cruise missile as the SSC-8. The United States has not released an assessment, but the missile is rumored to have a range of approximately 2,000 kilometers(about 1,250 miles).

In February 2017, U.S. officials said they believed Russia had deployed the system operationally. The United States has pursued an increasingly robust policy, including sanctions, to pressure Moscow back into compliance with the treaty.


Moscow has denied the treaty violation, demanded to see the evidence and responded with its own list of alleged U.S. infractions. However, it has provided no substantive rebuttal of U.S. accusations.

The United States has not published any supporting intelligence, so it is impossible to fully verify its claims. However, as NATO allies have learned more, their position has become more closely aligned with Washington’s. At their summit in July, NATO leaders stated that Russian violation is “the most plausible assessment” of the available evidence.

3. Why did Trump mention China?

China is not bound by the INF Treaty and has deployed intermediate-range missiles in significant numbers. As analysts have noted, Harry Harris, the U.S. ambassador to South Korea and former head of the U.S. Pacific Command, has estimated that intermediate-range systems make up “approximately 95 percent” of the People’s Liberation Army missile force.

Some observers have argued that the INF Treaty is anachronistically Eurocentric, failing to take into account the U.S.-Chinese military balance, which is becoming increasingly central to Washington’s strategic calculations. It would be far cheaper for the United States to deploy ground-based systems in Asia rather than to position them on small and expensive sea- and air-based platforms. Trump may have been hinting at such reasoning in his public comments.

However, Washington has few bases in the Pacific where it could place a ground-launched missile within range of China without consent from allies. It is an open question whether governments such as Japan, South Korea or Australia would be willing to host such systems.

4. What are the military implications of withdrawal?

It is unclear what INF-prohibited systems the United States could deploy to Europe or Asia in the near term. The U.S. military has not developed any land-based missiles within the prohibited ranges for decades and has only just started funding a new ground-launched cruise missile to match the 9M729.

Moscow is in a very different position and could rapidly expand deployment. The number of operational 9M729 missiles has been quite limited, but released from its official obligations under the treaty, Moscow could deploy more units rapidly.

Russia could also effectively reclassify the RS-26 Rubezh, an experimental system that has been tested just above the INF Treaty’s 5,500-kilometer limit. To avoid violating the INF, Russian officials previously described the RS-26 as an intercontinental ballistic missile. However, it could form the basis for a missile of a slightly shorter range if Moscow wished to boost its INF forces — without counting it under the U.S.-Russian New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or New START, governing longer-range systems.

5. What are the diplomatic implications of withdrawal?

Withdrawal is likely to be controversial with U.S. allies in NATO, further splitting the alliance at a difficult time for transatlantic relations. Many Western European NATO states favor retaining the INF, in conjunction with previous U.S. policy designed to push Moscow back into compliance. This raises concerns that divisions within NATO may worsen when the United States officially withdraws from the INF.

There is little desire for a new arms race in Europe, and few NATO countries are likely to want to host any new U.S. systems. German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas described Trump’s announcement as “regrettable” and has urged Moscow to resolve its compliance issues. British Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson declared Britain stands with the United States but also hopes the treaty will “continue.” Central and Eastern European states may align more closely with Trump’s stance, though their positions are unclear.

Withdrawal will probably not lead to a new INF deal. Given its heavy investment in intermediate-range systems, China will not take up Trump’s offer of talks with the United States and Russia. Moscow seems to be in no mood for negotiations.

Trump’s move is also likely to undermine the 2010 New START treaty governing U.S. and Russian long-range nuclear systems. The INF Treaty’s demise will undercut New START by reopening questions on the relationship between intermediate and strategic systems that have been resolved for 30 years by the elimination of ground-based, intermediate-range missiles.
 
Sep 2017
1,462
764
Hell
#47
The subs are eminently survivable, and the other side(s) wish like hell that they had anything close to our Ohio-class subs.

Absolutely no reason exists to kill all of the Russian population in a counterstrike, or God forbid, a first strike, with weaponry. That's a silly parameter, if silly can apply to nuclear warfare.

Radiation, famine, cancer, and the inevitable internecine struggles over what resources remain will kill more people than those who are killed directly by weaponry.

Plus, no reason exists to doubt the ability of our land-based ICBMs or our B-52s, B-1s, and B-2s to deliver deadly blows to any enemy.
Targets have already been chosen and listed in priorities. Contrary to what some people may think, except for terrorism, military leaders generally do not place high value in civilians as targets. Even in total warfare such as WWII, civilians were rarely the intended targets in bombing campaigns, but were collateral damage for participating in a war industry. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military and industrial targets and were painstakingly chosen because they had a relatively small population compared to some "juicier" targets such as Tokyo or Osaka.

Excluding bad intel, navigational and sighting errors, every city bombed during WWII was a legitimate target. Yes, some will say the German Luftwaffe bombed the historic British city of Coventry, but not mention that Coventry had munitions and aircraft engine factories. Some will say that the USAAC and the RAF bombed historic Dresden, but they won't tell you that it also had war industry and was a major railway hub. At the time of the Dresden bombing, the Germans had basically given up on the western front and retreating as fast as they could - where were the troops going? To the eastern front to reinforce their people trying to defend against the Soviet's push toward Berlin. How were these German troops being transported? On rail through the Dresden train yards and switch stations. The Soviets had no strategic air capabilities, so Stalin at Yalta had specifically asked Churchill and Roosevelt for this aid when the time should occur. Berlin fell to the Soviets because US and Britain bombed the crap out of Dresden, target 0 being the main switching and train yard. Unfortunately the resulting firestorm killed a lot more people than anticipated.
 
Likes: imaginethat
Nov 2012
39,563
11,526
Lebanon, TN
#48
Likes: Citizen Kane

Similar Discussions