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.
Russia couldnt destroy the US if they tried. Even if the tried really, really, hard.
Economically, they are pint sized.
You make sense but nuclear Armageddon is not really that expensive.
Explain why we should abide by it, when Russia isnt.
Because abiding by ALL treaties weakens the US military and the defense contractors, allowing the Russians to pioneer new stuff. All according to the Dem war plan to destroy the US as constructed.
It would require a mad man president on either side
Have you checked out the Democrat Presidential candidate field lately as well as those like AOC waiting stage left?
I understand that. But Putin is trying to scare us into a form of capitulation. And our MIC is lapping it up like soup.
Why and what such ‘capitulation’ looks like?
Why? Because the US blocks all of their attempts at expanding their markets. Thats why they are in Syria, we are trying to block their northern oil pipes, we are trying to keep them out of Turkey, etc.
This isnt about Ukraine or territories. Its about economics.
At 23 trillion in debt, it wont take a whole lot to push us over the edge.
But do you think is it okay for US to use political tools to remove them from markets?
How does it correspond with values on which US was founded?
It is a million dollar question in light of fact that US for decades criticized the Soviet ways on economy and politics go hand in hand and they finally caved on it to the point of adopting another system at great price.
The answer is very important for the purpose of understanding the issues of American influence in the World nowadays.
No, I think we should fight them in the marketplace. But that hasnt been the US way since the 1950s.
You are right and you are not the only one who see it.
It’s not about Russia, it’s about China who never signed a treaty and has been developing the missiles. Russia just gave us a good excuse to pull out.
“I bet youll say the same thing about the JCPOA too. “
Only a weak mind would make that association.
Attack the man rather than argue the point.
“We should stay in a treaty that Putin flagrantly violated with (unspecified) minor, technical violations as Obama might put it? “
I don’t know how you got the idea that I support the INF treaty.
I don’t. Have not since the fall of the Soviets. This treaty has run its course.
But to suggest that it’s failure was solely because Russia deployed a non-nuke missile which just barely exceeds limits is naive.
The US wants out of this treaty for our own reasons, and it has nothing to do with the deployment of nuke IR weapons in Europe. Which neither the US or Russia will do.
Please don’t put words in my mouth. Asking if we ought to stay in a treaty is not the same as my saying you support it. Notwithstanding, claiming “minor, technical violations” on Russia’s part is a defense of a broken treaty, on the part of the party who breached it.
You make a good point about the EU’s faux outrage over the treaty’s end. It is they who want the USA restrained militarily, in spite of their rhetoric when it comes to NATO; they also make themselves look like they’re stuck in the Cold War, which speaks volumes about their own ambitions.
No, I fully support withdraw from the treaty and have for over 20 years.
It has nothing to do with what the Russians have, or have not done.
Thanks for that.
The reason the US wants out of the INF treaty is to counter China in East Asia.
Something I support.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/dropping-weapons-treaty-let-us-nuclear-arsenal-051525222.html
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.