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

Jul 2018
2,138
521
Earth
#51
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?
What is the OP about, pop guns or nuclear cruise missiles?

edited = deleted duplicate
 
Sep 2017
2,353
1,180
Hell
#52
What is the OP about, pop guns or nuclear cruise missiles?

edited = deleted duplicate
Neither. If you had proper reading comprehension and following the flow of conversation skills, the issue is over one particular cruise missile which I identified and addressed. Range and target has nothing to do with it being nuclear or not, that is an option. It is the range of the missile that makes it a topic of treaty.

Please keep up.
 
Jul 2018
2,138
521
Earth
#53
Neither. If you had proper reading comprehension and following the flow of conversation skills, the issue is over one particular cruise missile which I identified and addressed. Range and target has nothing to do with the being nuclear or not, that is an option. It is the range of the missile that makes it a topic of treaty.

Please keep up.
It seems that the NYTimes has a different spin on it than you do =

U.S. Suspends Nuclear Arms Control Treaty With Russia
Video

U.S. Suspends Nuclear Arms Control Treaty With Russia

The I.N.F. Treaty, Explained
The I.N.F. Treaty, Explained
 
Sep 2017
2,353
1,180
Hell
#54
It seems that the NYTimes has a different spin on it than you do =

U.S. Suspends Nuclear Arms Control Treaty With Russia
Video

U.S. Suspends Nuclear Arms Control Treaty With Russia

The I.N.F. Treaty, Explained
The I.N.F. Treaty, Explained
It seems like you can't read, once again.

Your own article says violation is the range, which is exactly what I said.

Do you ever bother to read and think through arguments or do you just pretend to assume what someone is saying and argue against that?
 
Likes: imaginethat
Dec 2016
5,431
2,774
Canada
#55
You're right, but to be fair the US also unilaterally pulled out of the ABM treaty. GW did it I think.
Yes, under the cover of darkness...when all that war on terror bullshit had everyone's attention, Dubya withdrew the US from the ABM Treaty in 2002, and there was so little notice in the media, I don't recall the story until several years afterwards also!

The intermediate range missiles are even more serious, because it shows that....just as the Reagan Administration's "Star Wars" plans in the 80's, the psychopaths ruling the rightwing of the birdcage think nuclear wars are winnable! This was considered impossible even before the "nuclear winter" phenomena was discovered in the 80's, but the children of Edward Teller are still at it and who knows when they will make their move and try to win that ultimate war!

Daniel Ellsberg released a new book over a year ago...that also got ignored...in his notes he pointed out that his bosses at the Rand Corporation (working exclusively with DOD) felt that even back in 1960, one third of America being destroyed in an all-out nuclear war was acceptable odds! The pro-war supporters need to get the point that they are almost certainly dead also if their heroes try to act on their objectives!
 
Jul 2018
2,138
521
Earth
#56
It seems like you can't read, once again.

Your own article says violation is the range, which is exactly what I said.

Do you ever bother to read and think through arguments or do you just pretend to assume what someone is saying and argue against that?
So you think that they are going to use a can of black powder as the war head instead of a nuke? The Russians don't need ICBMs to fight in Europe. They need shorter range missiles so why wouldn't they build them? The treaty is to their disadvantage. If the Europeans want similar short range missiles to use against Russia they should build them themselves and not rely on us to do it for them. Remember the Cuban missile crisis? If the US puts comparable missiles in Europe then the Russians would be fools to not regard it as an act of war.
 

imaginethat

Forum Staff
Oct 2010
67,687
27,573
Colorado
#57
So you think that they are going to use a can of black powder as the war head instead of a nuke? The Russians don't need ICBMs to fight in Europe. They need shorter range missiles so why wouldn't they build them? The treaty is to their disadvantage. If the Europeans want similar short range missiles to use against Russia they should build them themselves and not rely on us to do it for them. Remember the Cuban missile crisis? If the US puts comparable missiles in Europe then the Russians would be fools to not regard it as an act of war.
Two points. One, if the Russians started a nuclear war in Europe, the prevailing winds would dust Russia with the fallout.

Two, the Cuban missile crisis was the Soviet reaction to the US putting IRBMs in Turkey. JFK stood firm, but the ultimate deal had the Soviets removing its missiles in Cuba with the US removing its missiles in Turkey.
 
Likes: RNG
Sep 2017
2,353
1,180
Hell
#58
So you think that they are going to use a can of black powder as the war head instead of a nuke? The Russians don't need ICBMs to fight in Europe. They need shorter range missiles so why wouldn't they build them? The treaty is to their disadvantage. If the Europeans want similar short range missiles to use against Russia they should build them themselves and not rely on us to do it for them. Remember the Cuban missile crisis? If the US puts comparable missiles in Europe then the Russians would be fools to not regard it as an act of war.
Post-Nagasaki, name one conflict where missiles that were launched in anger were tipped with a nuclear warhead. Why do you think that the Russians will arm this cruise missile in question with only nukes?

The US Pershings were in in response to the Soviet SS-20's. The INF was the direct result of this missile match. The Pershings and SS-20's have all been destroyed because the idea of the so-called "limited nuclear exchange" in Europe would be stupid because the fallout will affect both Russia and Europe.

What the US really fears right now is that what this Russian cruise missile will do is to counter the technological and numerical superiority of the the US and Japanese navies. The Russians are following the example of the Chinese.
 
Apr 2013
38,042
26,055
La La Land North
#59
Post-Nagasaki, name one conflict where missiles that were launched in anger were tipped with a nuclear warhead. Why do you think that the Russians will only arm this cruise missile in question with only nukes?

The US Pershings were in in response to the Soviet SS-20's. The INF was the direct result of this missile match. The Pershings and SS-20's have all been destroyed because the idea of the so-called "limited nuclear exchange" in Europe would be stupid because the fallout will affect both Russia and Europe.

What the US really fears right now is that what this Russian cruise missile will do is to counter the technological and numerical superiority of the the US and Japanese navies. The Russians are following the example of the Chinese.
As Carl von Clausewitz famously said that one must plan for the enemy's capabilities and not their intentions as you can't foresee their intentions.
 
Likes: FrostKing
Sep 2017
2,353
1,180
Hell
#60
As Carl von Clausewitz famously said that one must plan for the enemy's capabilities and not their intentions as you can't foresee their intentions.
That is why this missile is in violation because it is it's RANGE is what it more potentially dangerous regardless of the type of warhead that it will be armed with. The violation is the delivery system itself.

To have peace we must always prepare for war.

"Der Eroberer ist immer friedliebend (wie Bonaparte auch stets behauptet hat), er zöge ganz gern ruhig in unseren Staat ein; damit er dies aber nicht könne, darum müssen wir den Krieg wollen und also auch vorbereiten, d. h. mit anderen Worten: es sollen gerade die Schwachen, der Verteidigung Unterworfenen, immer gerüstet sein und nicht überfallen werden; so will es die Kriegskunst." - Carl von Clausewitz