Jump to content

US pulling out of INF Treaty

HOOK'EMHOOAH

By HOOK'EMHOOAH
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

HOOK'EMHOOAH

HOOK'EMHOOAH 1606

Posted
Posted

The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the one that the US and Russia signed to agree to not stage nuclear arms right next to each other in allied countries... yeah dear leader is ending it. The US will no longer be signatory to one of the strongest and biggest factors that helped ease tensions during the cold war.

The notion of adding any nuclear arms to the planet is such a terrible idea. This is a horrible day and we are watching something infamous unfold.

US pulls out of treaty report:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45930206

Russia will respond in-kind:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45971537

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HOOK'EMHOOAH

HOOK'EMHOOAH 1606

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The answer here isn't more fucking nuclear arms. The only acceptable answer is disarmament by all concerned. I understand the concept of mutually assured destruction and I don't want that for anyone. Diplomacy must win the day and this is taking everyone away from that. I applaud South Africa for being the only country in the history of the world to completely denuclearize on their own. Granted, they have a shady past that still haunts them, but at least they can stand before the world and say they aren't going to nuke anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
housious

housious 468

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

The answer here isn't more fucking nuclear arms. The only acceptable answer is disarmament by all concerned. I understand the concept of mutually assured destruction and I don't want that for anyone. Diplomacy must win the day and this is taking everyone away from that. I applaud South Africa for being the only country in the history of the world to completely denuclearize on their own. Granted, they have a shady past that still haunts them, but at least they can stand before the world and say they aren't going to nuke anyone.

Disarmament is a pipe dream. Nukes will be around forever, and any nation disarming itself is doing itself a disservice. 

And before you run around applauding South Africa, let's be clear. They denuclearized so that blacks wouldn't have control of their nuclear arsenal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HOOK'EMHOOAH

HOOK'EMHOOAH 1606

Posted
  • Author
Posted
26 minutes ago, housious said:

Disarmament is a pipe dream. Nukes will be around forever, and any nation disarming itself is doing itself a disservice. 

And before you run around applauding South Africa, let's be clear. They denuclearized so that blacks wouldn't have control of their nuclear arsenal. 

I don't think disarmament is a pipedream. We just need world leaders on all sides strong enough to lead us to it. Presently, that is not the landscape that exists and won't until major changes occur in Russia. We have elections every 4 years and can get new leadership that can possibly work towards that end at most every 8 years.

There are significant hurdles that get in the way of working towards that goal by way of the wealthy pushing for contracts to build such weapons here in the US and oligarchs in Russia meddling in the affairs of the government.

I'm not blind to the issues in South Africa and the reasoning they had for disarming. However they, nevertheless, did disarm on their own. Which was why I stated they have their own shady history. that is something that can't be overlooked. However, disarmament is still possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SmokeyTheBear

SmokeyTheBear 5562

Posted
Posted

I do not think America will ever be as powerful as it once was. It seems the American global order has been systematically dismantled and it will take a generation or a major event (war) to get us to where we were once again. 

You can agree or disagree on whether that is a good thing, but that's what it is now. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
retread

retread 2951

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

Full thread

Quote

Okay, everyone, I'm going to explain why the INF Treaty even existed and why it's an idiotic move to dump it and think we can replicate our success against the USSR in the 1980s all over again. Mute or turn off notifications if you don't want this mini-lecture. /1

The problem centers around "extended deterrence." How do you convince your opponent you'll respond to an attack on your allies as you would an attack on yourself? You can *say* that you will treat invading Bonn like it's an invasion of New York, but how do you make it stick? /2

NATO had this problem because it was grossly outnumbered during the Cold War. So we said: Well, we'll nuke you. The Soviets said: "Whatever. You won't trade Chicago for Frankfurt." For us to jump from "war in Europe" to "nuking Leningrad" was a stretch. /3

We had a gap. We had"battlefield" nukes for affecting the course of battles (like tank engagements) and "strategic" nukes for US vs USSR strikes. We needed something in between, which would strike Soviet forces in Eastern Europe as a step toward all-out war./4

Both sides developed "theater" nukes that could strike far in the rear of each alliance, and thus provide a link from Europe to all-out nuclear war. This is why they were a deterrent: because they made it, paradoxically, easier to get from "shots fired" to "Moscow melted." /5

In the 1970s, the Soviets (as usual) tried to get the upper hand in this competition and fielded a much more accurate, mobile version of these weapons, a strategically insane move that was even opposed by the Soviet diplomatic establishment. But Moscow's generals got their way /6

These Soviet weapons were so menacing that NATO came together in the late 70s - yes, at the behest of Carter, not Reagan - to field a responding system that could also drop a nuke down a rabbit hole (or on Moscow) almost immediately. This was an *immensely* dangerous time. /7

By the 1980s, war in Europe could go to all-out nuclear war in minutes. But here's what was *different*: We put those weapons in Europe *in the path of a Soviet invasion.* We told the Soviets: "If you come in, we'll have no choice. It'll be your doing, not ours." /8

In other words, deterrence relied on the Soviets triggering a "use or lose" crisis, rather than relying on some steely-eyed decision in Washington to unleash hell. That made a huge difference. Maybe a POTUS would lose his nerve...but what about the guys about to be overrun? /9

This was a good move, because it made the link from war in Europe to the end of the USSR a lot more credible. Deterrence was, in a way, taken out of our hands, and nuclear war would be the fault of the Soviets for invading, whether we wanted it or not, and they knew it./10

And there's the hitch: today, we're not defending against some massive Soviet invasion anymore. The targets for most of the old US INF were areas that are now part of NATO. 

Now, a new US INF would have only one target: Russia. /11

Today, there's no "Warsaw Pact" to fight this out on. If we use INF, we'll be hitting inside Russia. If you think that this is a good idea, well, te salud, Don Corleone, because there's no way the Russians will sit around and just take a nuke strike inside Russia. /12

Likewise, in Asia, we have nowhere to put these weapons if we develop them again. (Japan? South Korea? Uh, no.) And the only targets for them will be in China itself. There's no "theater" in which we'll be striking; in both Russia and China, these will be strategic strikes. /13

Or, put another way, the Russians and the Chinese will have to *assume* these are strategic strikes, especially if we do something ludicrous like put the new INF on submarines. "Oh, that launch? Just a theater strike. Don't overreact." Sure. Good luck with that. /14

What will deter Russia? If they know they'd lose a conventional action of any size. But we don't like spending money on expensive troops and guns, so instead, we're letting the Russians bait us into a nuclear standoff that benefits *them*, because of the home turf advantage. /15

Without the trigger of INF placed in the way of advancing Russian armies - and no one's going to do that, unless you think we should line the Polish and Baltic borders with nukes - we're left with a *discretionary* force that relies solely on our promise to go nuclear. /16

This is the situation we were trying to get *out of* in the 60s, that we solved briefly in the 80s (at the risk of a holocaust), and that Reagan got us out of as soon he could. We're now the conventionally superior power - but we're acting like it's 1975. /17

And trying to replicate the 1980s in Europe by doing it again in Asia is mindless and ahistorical, the kind of thing wargamers come up when they treat nuclear weapons like a big game of Risk. You want to worry China? Build more ships, not more nukes that you won't use./18

Dumping the INF Treaty has long been a cherished idea among guys like Bolton who hate treaties, and nuclear enthusiasts who think you can pop off a couple of dozen small nukes and not escalate to Armageddon. No Dem or GOP administration wanted that until now, so here we are. /19

In sum, we don't know what we're doing. We're not thinking about why we would go to war, what scenarios we're trying to defeat. We're just playing tit for tat, without even knowing why. We're just flailing around, alienating our own NATO allies, then pretending we're tough. /20

Worse, we've come to believe that everything worked out fine in the 1980s, when in fact guys on both sides had to change their shorts when all that was over. We got by that with careful leadership and some basic luck. I guess now all that's left is to buy stock in Vault-Tec. /21x

Edited by retread
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HOOK'EMHOOAH

HOOK'EMHOOAH 1606

Posted
  • Author
Posted

All this does is incentivizes if not directly pushes the Russians to develop Intermediate nukes they can use to escalate or coerce Europe to cooperate with them and not with us. If I were to guess, this is one of the items putin pushed trump to do so as to not make Russia look like the aggressors. With the US pulling out of the treaty, Russia is free to develop this arena without fear of reprisal on the international community in the form of additional sanctions from the US for breaking the treaty. I'm wondering what other treaties or accords are going to get destroyed and further strengthen  Russia's hand in the near future as long as dotard is in the oval office.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23355

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

If not WWIII, then the cold war is definitely back on.

I always considered the Cold War as WWIII.  Two competing superpowers slowly trying to conquer the globe through economic and strategic influence.  We stopped fighting when communism fell but the Russians never really gave up. 

And here we are. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bruno Sardine

Bruno Sardine 147

Posted
Posted

Long-time lurker, etc. 

The Obama administration accused Russia of violating the INF Treaty a number of years ago. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/world/europe/us-says-russia-tested-cruise-missile-in-violation-of-treaty.html

If you want to argue that it’s a bad idea to pull out of the INF for some of the reasons stated in this thread – even though Russia has already effectively pulled out of the INF – then fine by me. But the lack of context provided is either willful obfuscation or ignorance. All of this started when the US made the decision to deploy missile defense systems in Eastern Europe under the Bush administration, undermining, in the eyes of the Russians, the doctrine of M.A.D. as it applies to the European theater. The Russian response was to violate the INF. The argument that withdrawing from the INF benefits Russia because they can now aim additional missiles at Europe, intimidating our allies, would hold true if we invoke ceteris paribus. A likelier assumption is we will not stand pat but will place new missiles ourselves in Eastern Europe (Poland, Hungary) aimed at Russia. 

That said, none of this is good. 
 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nivek

Nivek 16772

Posted
Posted
I always considered the Cold War as WWIII.  Two competing superpowers slowly trying to conquer the globe through economic and strategic influence.  We stopped fighting when communism fell but the Russians never really gave up. 
And here we are. 

Sparta won the war but Athens won the peace. We seem to have ignored this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HOOK'EMHOOAH

HOOK'EMHOOAH 1606

Posted
  • Author
Posted
7 hours ago, HtownHorn said:

Interesting this thread is now a few days old, and not one mention that NATO approved of Trump's decision, and very little mention that Russia has been violating this treaty for years, but yes, Trump bad, so carry on.

Whether NATO or anyone else approves, pulling out of nuclear treaties aimed at reducing nuclear arms is objectively bad. Instead of pulling out of the treaty, the smarter move if Russia is violating the treaty, is to address it diplomatically and if allegations are found to be accurate then impose additional sanctions and force the offending country to return to compliance or suffer economically. It's abundantly clear the previous sanctions were effective and made the Russian government hurt.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28696

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

Whether NATO or anyone else approves, pulling out of nuclear treaties aimed at reducing nuclear arms is objectively bad. Instead of pulling out of the treaty, the smarter move if Russia is violating the treaty, is to address it diplomatically and if allegations are found to be accurate then impose additional sanctions and force the offending country to return to compliance or suffer economically. It's abundantly clear the previous sanctions were effective and made the Russian government hurt.

Instead we lifted sanctions on Deripaska's companies.

Now that we're out of the treaty, it's imperative that we start producing and deploying nuclear weapons in whatever way(s) the treaty prohibited. If we don't then it will be a disaster because you know Russia will do it. That would make us more vulnerable than just sticking with the treaty despite Russia's infractions.

So we must engage in an arms race. That's the logical outcome of this move. (Although since Trump is a de facto asset of Russian intelligence, it's not a given that he won't just cede power to Putin and let him expand his advantage unchallenged.)

But let's assume we play properly according to the new rules of the game. We have to put pressure on them by gaining an advantage in the arms race. The logical outcome of that conflict is a disarmament treaty. 

Of course, Trump is ignorant of history so he doesn't know that. And it's possible that he's just doing Putin's bidding. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HOOK'EMHOOAH

HOOK'EMHOOAH 1606

Posted
  • Author
Posted
7 hours ago, workswithseed said:

Seems like some super powers want to punch some blows and haven't really been able to.

I'm not so sure that is the goal. However, that may be an unintended consequence. It's more likely, Russia's goal is to destabilize the world's reliance upon the US economy and assert itself in its place following the vacuum that will result. So instead of forcing the issue diplomatically as it should've been, this move will seek to further downgrade the US with the rest of the world as we recoil into ourselves militarily. There are a few other aspects already working to erode our internal ability to remain at the forefront of the world economy. Anyone with a pulse knew from the outset of the promise that Mexico was never going to pay for any infrastructure along the border, i.e. the wall. With trump shifting from that front to trying to force Congress, read the tax payer, to foot the bill it would draw funds from other desperately needed infrastructure projects such as bridges and dams. Next, there were the "tax cuts" that added onto the already massive deficit and will only make it grow faster because there isn't any capital to either pay it and/or fund the other necessary elements of the government. This entire charade is taking us further down into the depths of an abyss. These are willful actions that have a very real consequence. This isn't being done by some incompetent baffoon; at least with someone incompetent in the oval office they are limited by their own intellect. This is being done by someone who wants to have a complete paradigm shift on the world stage and if it takes risking a nuclear standoff to do it, they will. The problem here is that if it comes to that, the death toll of human lives will be catastrophic.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45439

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

I'm not so sure that is the goal. However, that may be an unintended consequence. It's more likely, Russia's goal is to destabilize the world's reliance upon the US economy and assert itself in its place following the vacuum that will result. So instead of forcing the issue diplomatically as it should've been, this move will seek to further downgrade the US with the rest of the world as we recoil into ourselves militarily. There are a few other aspects already working to erode our internal ability to remain at the forefront of the world economy. Anyone with a pulse knew from the outset of the promise that Mexico was never going to pay for any infrastructure along the border, i.e. the wall. With trump shifting from that front to trying to force Congress, read the tax payer, to foot the bill it would draw funds from other desperately needed infrastructure projects such as bridges and dams. Next, there were the "tax cuts" that added onto the already massive deficit and will only make it grow faster because there isn't any capital to either pay it and/or fund the other necessary elements of the government. This entire charade is taking us further down into the depths of an abyss. These are willful actions that have a very real consequence. This isn't being done by some incompetent baffoon; at least with someone incompetent in the oval office they are limited by their own intellect. This is being done by someone who wants to have a complete paradigm shift on the world stage and if it takes risking a nuclear standoff to do it, they will. The problem here is that if it comes to that, the death toll of human lives will be catastrophic.

Ho hum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
On 2/2/2019 at 3:12 PM, Bruno Sardine said:

A likelier assumption is we will not stand pat but will place new missiles ourselves in Eastern Europe (Poland, Hungary) aimed at Russia. 
 

I thought Trump was a Russian asset?  Why would he do that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bruno Sardine

Bruno Sardine 147

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Fozzz said:

I thought Trump was a Russian asset?  Why would he do that?

Why would he pull out of the INF if that was not our intention? If I'm wrong, I'll be happy to own it. But it seems to me this is a prelude to a new arms race. And you are correct, it does not benefit Putin. Nobody wins with this decision. Except maybe the defense contractors. So maybe it does all make sense. 

5 hours ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

It's more likely, Russia's goal is to destabilize the world's reliance upon the US economy and assert itself in its place following the vacuum that will result. 

You serious Clark? Yes, with Russia's vibrant technological, financial and manufacturing sectors, the only thing holding them back from world economic dominance is the United States. Aside from the nukes, Russia is a joke of a country. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29261

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

(T)his move will seek to further downgrade the US with the rest of the world as we recoil into ourselves militarily.

 

I agree with this line 100%. With medium-range missiles, Putin can now openly threaten its neighbors with nuclear annihilation. Before (at least theoretically) only the US was really their potential target, but they'd (theoretically) never strike because of MAD. No one in the Eastern Hemisphere (other than China) can credibly threaten MAD against them.

That leaves our NATO friends in Europe exposed to Russian nuclear threat without knowing whether or not the US really has their back anymore. Would we really invoke Article 5 to shield them? Is this Administration even going to remain in NATO? After all, our illustrious leader has already threatened to pull out of the single most important international arrangement to have ever existed in the history of Western Civilization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bruno Sardine

Bruno Sardine 147

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, bolverk said:

With medium-range missiles, Putin can now openly threaten its neighbors with nuclear annihilation. 

There is nothing new about any of this. 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/08/russia-confirms-deployment-of-nuclear-capable-missiles-to-kaliningrad

Russia can also launch nukes from planes and submarines. They don't need land-based missiles to nuke Europe. 

13 minutes ago, bolverk said:

No one in the Eastern Hemisphere (other than China) can credibly threaten MAD against them.

But the UK and France can.

18 minutes ago, bolverk said:

That leaves our NATO friends in Europe exposed to Russian nuclear threat without knowing whether or not the US really has their back anymore. Would we really invoke Article 5 to shield them? 

Now that's a good question. And doubtless the EU's recent calls for an EU army are related to this concern.

Seriously though, does anyone actually think the US or Russia would deliberately start a nuclear war? The real concern has always been that someone along the chain of command, wittingly or unwittingly, in conjunction with some kind of procedural or technological failure, could trigger a nuclear conflict accidentally. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29261

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Bruno Sardine said:

There is nothing new about any of this. 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/08/russia-confirms-deployment-of-nuclear-capable-missiles-to-kaliningrad

Russia can also launch nukes from planes and submarines. They don't need land-based missiles to nuke Europe. 

Thanks for this info - I was unaware of it. I still maintain that pulling out of the treaty completely is the wrong approach. Before, Russia was clearly in the wrong. Now, we've lost "moral authority" in the international realm for having left the treaty first and have lost the ability to push for a diplomatic option. The only current logical option is an arms race now. 

But the UK and France can.

I'm not sure their arsenals are large enough to ensure the destruction of the entire Russian population. Maybe though.

Now that's a good question. And doubtless the EU's recent calls for an EU army are related to this concern.

Seriously though, does anyone actually think the US or Russia would deliberately start a nuclear war? The real concern has always been that someone along the chain of command, wittingly or unwittingly, in conjunction with some kind of procedural or technological failure, could trigger a nuclear conflict accidentally. 

During the Cold War, our fail safe was always MAD: America versus the USSR. A direct exchange of long-range missiles.

The problem with nukes in Europe is that you never know if the person/country directly in the line of fire and standing in the way of a column of tanks would just say "Fuck it." Putting nukes in Europe poses the risk of escalating a conventional war into a nuclear exchange in the of an overwhelming Russian ground invasion. This is why I'd be fully supportive of a unified, independent, and allied EU armed forces. I think Macron has been wrong on several fronts but not that one. 

1

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...