Putin: Russia will make banned missiles if U.S. exits arms treaty

 

Russia's President Vladimir Putin speaks during a joint news conference with Argentina's President Mauricio Macri at the Casa Rosada Presidential Palace in Buenos Aires, Argentina December 1, 2018. REUTERS/Marcos Brindicci

 

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia will develop missiles now banned under the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces treaty if the United States exits the arms control pact and starts making such weapons, President VladimirPutin said on Wednesday.

 

The United States delivered Russia a 60-day ultimatum on Tuesday to come clean about what Washington says is a violation of the 1987 nuclear arms control treaty, saying it would be forced to start a six-month process of withdrawal if nothing changes.

 

Putin, in televised comments, accused the United States of blaming Russia for violations as a pretext for Washington to exit the pact.

 

Putin noted that many countries produce missiles banned under the INF treaty, but that Moscow and Washington had undertaken to limit themselves with the accord signed in 1987.

 

"Now it seems our American partners believe that the situation has changed so much that the United States must also have such a weapon. What's our response? It's simple: in that case we will also do this," he said.

 

(Reporting by Vladimir Soldatkin; writing by Tom Balmforth; Editing by Toby Chopra and Peter Graff)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-12-06

an arms race is exactly what the US weapons industry wants.

Edited December 5, 20187 yr by manarak

Does it matter ?  First off they probably already have those medium range missiles. Second: They have long range missiles that they just shoot not so far. 

World leaders who needs them divine intervention please???? 

Who would trust Putiny, they will make them , Treaty or Not

"We're going to win so much.  You're gonna get tired of winning!"

1 hour ago, IAMHERE said:

Does it matter ?  First off they probably already have those medium range missiles. Second: They have long range missiles that they just shoot not so far. 

Yes, it matters.

 

An armsrace is good for the weapons industry, but not for anybody else.

5 hours ago, manarak said:

an arms race is exactly what the US weapons industry wants.

Back to MAD.  War is good for business, especially considering that the direct and indirect spending by Congress shuffles close to $1 trillion dollars a year into the military-security industries.  Yep - never ending war is really, really good for business. 

What good are treaties?  Let's pull out. 

15 minutes ago, connda said:

What good are treaties?  Let's pull out. 

To me, your graph seems to indicate they DO work...

3 minutes ago, mikebike said:

To me, your graph seems to indicate they DO work...

Wut?

most likely Putin's already making them.

Problem with US is that it goes around making ultimatums instead of negotiations.

 

US making rules and imposes it’s decision on other country’s 

 

it will not not end well for US sooner or later 

6 minutes ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

Wut?

The treaty referenced in the OP seems to be near the nadir of the arms race in the graph and every treaty since seems to have continued the process of deproliferation right thru to 2017. 

 

What do you see?

Edited December 6, 20187 yr by mikebike

world leaders that need bigger dicks to prove themselves....

1 hour ago, connda said:

Looks like the blue have started it all, but...

 

Why not say "go ahead and make as many as you want".

 

It's not as if there's not already enough nuclear bombs to destroy the planet already.

 

Bring it on.  What's the point?

5 minutes ago, watcharacters said:

 

Why not say "go ahead and make as many as you want".

 

It's not as if there's not already enough nuclear bombs to destroy the planet already.

 

Bring it on.  What's the point?

I’d guess that “normalization” would be an issue. More proliferation, more normalization, more risk of their actually being used.

Edited December 6, 20187 yr by mikebike

50 minutes ago, mikebike said:

I’d guess that “normalization” would be an issue. More proliferation, more normalization, more risk of their actually being used.

 

I can't see the point of living in fear.

8 minutes ago, watcharacters said:

 

I can't see the point of living in fear.

Why would anyone live in fear?

It should be noted that the West( the United States) started the Arms race both times... back in 50-60s and this time as well... and each time they try to sell the story like the Russians started it... In this case - If there were no USA - nobody would be having any of these problems. NATO officials were first to make the announcement - Putin only made the only logical reply possible under the circumstances - now they are pretending like he's the one responsible... ????