Posted on 02/02/2019 5:39:36 PM PST by Kaslin
When I woke up this morning it briefly felt as if I’d fallen through a time warp and gone back to the 1980s. The United States had pulled out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. Then the Russians pulled out. And before you had time to process all of that, Vladimir Putin was talking about building new, hypersonic nuclear weapons. So, of course, the United States will need to invest in upgrading our own nuclear arsenal. Weren’t we supposedly done with all of this saber rattling? (NY Post)
President Vladimir Putin says that Russia will abandon a centerpiece nuclear arms treaty, following in the footsteps of the United States, and that Moscow will only deploy intermediate-range nuclear missiles if Washington does so.
Putin spoke after the U.S. announced Friday it was pulling the plug on the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty over alleged Russian violations. Moscow denied any breaches and accused Washington of making false accusations in order to justify its pullout.
Following the U.S. notice of withdrawal from the treaty in six months, Putin said in televised remarks Saturday that Russia will do the same.
The Russians had already been working on new sea-based intermediate-range nukes, but those weren’t technically a violation of the INF. Now Putin is ordering the development of land-based missiles of the same type. That would have been a clear violation of the treaty, but since the INF is apparently defunct now I suppose that’s all water under the bridge.
Hopefully, I’m not being too naive here, but why are either of us flushing all of this money and effort into weapons that we’re never going to use? By this point, the reality of what would follow a nuclear war seems to be generally accepted around the world. We’ve been living under the protection of the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction for as long as much of the country can remember. When it comes to Russia and America, we won’t launch a first strike at each other because we know what happens next. Even if a new generation of hypersonic missiles can get past the other side’s missile defense systems and do so faster than they can get off a counter-strike, their boomer submarines will surface a few hours later and wipe the other side out.
As for launching a nuclear strike at a smaller opponent, as was discussed regarding North Korea, that’s a non-starter too. Any country who did that, including the United States, would immediately become an international pariah and potentially face a catastrophic military coalition forming against them.
There are only two scenarios I continue to worry about in terms of a nuclear conflagration. One would be a rogue state with leadership just crazy enough to launch while knowing they would be turned into a smoking pool of glass in response. The leading candidates there would be North Korea, Iran and (possibly) Pakistan. The other, more likely scenario would be terrorists cobbling together a dirty bomb if they can get their hands on enough material. But neither of those scenarios are really affected by treaties anyway.
It would be nice to see America and Russia return to the table and act in a civil manner when it comes to nuclear weapons. But if we don’t, I’m not sure it changes the overall international scenario all that much in the 21st century.
Why are we allowing Bolton to take us to possible Armageddon against a country that does not seek to destroy us, while we are literally being destroyed here?
This is stupid.
“Hopefully, I’m not being too naive here, but why are either of us flushing all of this money and effort into weapons that we’re never going to use?”
I guess we’re having to re-debate why having a good deterrent is a good idea when another country (actually, now, other COUNTRIES) can blow us off the map.
As for launching a nuclear strike at a smaller opponent, as was discussed regarding North Korea, that’s a non-starter too. Any country who did that, including the United States, would immediately become an international pariah and potentially face a catastrophic military coalition forming against them.
Countries have interests, not friends.
Russia was violating the treaty.
Explain why we should abide by it, when Russia isn’t.
Priorities:
1. Stop the 2,000 Mexicans crossing our borders RIGHT NOW
10,000. Develop a whole new class of space-age weapons in order to threaten slavic people we have never met
Hmmm......hey, lessay we just put priority 10,000 first:
Whaddya say..?
ICBMs have been flying at “hypersonic” speeds for decades now. Why the hoopla?
Treaty violations are an indication of seeking to destroy us. And the onus is not on Bolton.
“There are only two scenarios I continue to worry about in terms of a nuclear conflagration.”
This guy never read “Failsafe.”
Hypersonic on a ballistic trajectory translates into a half hour or so of radar tracking time.
Hypersonic at a few 10s of thousands of feet above ground level means that an incoming warhead shows up on radar over the horizon with only a few minutes or seconds before impact.
Not much time to verity it’s really incoming, decide to activate interceptors, get a valid targeting solution, and fire away.
Exactly, And they are not cheap. This is just a whole lot of chest bumping when we know neither is really going to throw a blow. Can’t afford to, all “the old stuff” already in stock will work just fine to wipe everyone off the map.
Like it or not MAD was a reason why the World haven’t seen another war and more bloody than two previous combined in 20th century.
It is somehow sad to see it flying out of window now.
Flying out? It’s coming home to roost.
Maybe I can build cruise missile parts again...
It might be good for business but newer technologies prompt changes to doctrines on using strategic weapons and these doctrines are yet to prove to be safe.
Do you advocate staying in a treaty when one side openly violates it?
Wouldn’t that be the antithesis of everything Trump purports to stand for?
Can’t we all just get along. Peace and Love.
[”As for launching a nuclear strike at a smaller opponent, as was discussed regarding North Korea, that’s a non-starter too. Any country who did that, including the United States, would immediately become an international pariah and potentially face a catastrophic military coalition forming against them.”
International “opinion” is way overrated as a deterrent.
Countries have interests, not friends.]
Why are we allowing Bolton to take us to possible Armageddon against a country that does not seek to destroy us, while we are literally being destroyed here?
**************************
Ahh....China.
IMHO, that’s the unspoken reason for this action.
ICBMs have been flying at “hypersonic” speeds for decades now. Why the hoopla?
************************************************
Susceptibility to successful interception. That will be the main difference between the ICBMs and the new delivery vehicles.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.