U.S. says to withdraw from arms control treaty in six months

[sirineou]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Quite a bit of what Trump does is flawed because of the way he goes about things, and the sentiment he helps fostering - that the US commitment to international agreements is questionable. Even if the US is in the right on this particular score, the backdrop of Trump's presidency is still present.

 

As for learning more - same story, basically. Trump's presidency created severe issues for US credibility. He constantly lies and issues untruths over multiple issues, even contradicting and belittling his own security chiefs when it suits. 

 

 

I totally agree with everything you said above.I compare trump to a poisonous vesel, anything good that goes in it will soon  be spoiled also. US credibility is at a historic low, making it difficult for any credible player to negotiate anything major with the US. 

  But  I am also concerned with out own credibility.  If our answer  to everything trump does is with a negative knee jerk reaction IMO we also lose credibility. and so does our resistance to trump's beligerancy..

The truth of the matter is that the INF is a bilateral  agreement and one of the parties is not performing placing the other party under a distinct disadvantage.

 If the Russians are allowed to retain its 9M729 system it would IMO be unilateral disarmament. I agree that a INF withdrawal will initiate  an arms race in Europe, but it is not an arms race we initiated.  

 

[farcanell]

4 hours ago, Morch said:

 

I don't think the US can "stick more missiles in European bases", without local governments' approval. At least no nuclear ones. The line of reasoning you suggest regarding NATO spending isn't, as far as I'm aware, supported by anything much. Unless mistaken, the UK actually backed up the US's position.

 

I would agree 100% that the US cannot build up numbers of missiles in any country, without the approval of that country.... nuclear or otherwise, and I’m not suggesting they will.

 

However, i would suggest that if Russia builds up missile numbers closer to other countries, then those other countries would be amenable to the US building up the number of missiles as a counter move, in their country

 

Per the OP, and the post which you replied to.... 

“also raises fears of a new US Russia nuclear arms race in Europe”

 

as to my line of reasoning about the US touting any increased spending, should the above occur.... maybe trump wouldn’t trumpet increased spending in NATO (or other) countries, as an example of the US protecting the world, thru unmatched spending, whilst calling on them to spend more, as is the case today with current NATO spending, and his demands that other NATO countries spend more... or maybe he would.... considering he currently is, which supports the case that he would.

 

[farcanell]

6 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Do them supposed supersonic missiles come under the same treaty?

The treaty is about missile range and launch method, not speed.... so supersonic missiles would not be covered, unless they are land based, or have a range of less than 5,500 km.

 

so.... stick em on a boat, sub or airplane, and they are not covered, which is how the US has thus far primarily defeated the existing treaty regards weapons in its control

 

weopons supplied to Romania situation is another defeat of the treaty.

 

anyway.... given all the alleged breaches on both sides, scrapping the deal seems reasonable, if not sensible..... followed by US supply of icbm’s to Europe (that’s one place where they would be stationed, right?)... . followed by the US squealing about European spending not matching US spending. ????

 

 

[Scott]

Off-topic, baiting posts removed.

[Mac98]

16 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Pulling out of this agreement without first negotiating is extreme.

 

Of course Trump could have discussed this during his multiple face to face meetings with Putin.

 

But then he’s hidden the content of those meetings from Congress, the Senate and the State Department.

 

The time for some explanations has long past.

Trump has to have something to look like he is not Putin's puppet, so this is what Putin tells him to do in those secret meetings. Manufacture a stern look while changing nothing that Putin doesn't want changed. Sending a few weapons to Ukraine makes Trump look tough in facing Russia when it actually gives Russia more excuse to take action against Ukraine. It's easy to figure out, Just ask yourself, "What would Putin want?"

[IAMHERE]

I don't worry about short or medium range Russian nukes hitting my neck of the woods. Probably areas of Europe should be concerned though. Not worried about their bombers either. The subs and the hyper-speed missiles do worry me. The subs can get too close to the USA and those hype.r-speed missiles cut down the "let's decide" time just too much. When hyper-speed and sub launches give you less than 15 minutes to decide to use or lose your own missiles you can't wait. Like Tuco says "

When you gotta shoot, shoot". 

I am looking on Ebay for a sturdy wooden students desk .

[Morch]

20 hours ago, sirineou said:

I totally agree with everything you said above.I compare trump to a poisonous vesel, anything good that goes in it will soon  be spoiled also. US credibility is at a historic low, making it difficult for any credible player to negotiate anything major with the US. 

  But  I am also concerned with out own credibility.  If our answer  to everything trump does is with a negative knee jerk reaction IMO we also lose credibility. and so does our resistance to trump's beligerancy..

The truth of the matter is that the INF is a bilateral  agreement and one of the parties is not performing placing the other party under a distinct disadvantage.

 If the Russians are allowed to retain its 9M729 system it would IMO be unilateral disarmament. I agree that a INF withdrawal will initiate  an arms race in Europe, but it is not an arms race we initiated.  

 

 

When it comes to violations of said treaty over time, it would appear that both sides could be faulted. The recent issue which serves as the US's reasoning for the move is just the latest episode.

 

I think this is more about the treaty serving out it's usefulness with regards to sides' respective strategic interests.

 

Laying the blame solely on Russia is easy, but maybe off mark.

[Morch]

17 hours ago, farcanell said:

I would agree 100% that the US cannot build up numbers of missiles in any country, without the approval of that country.... nuclear or otherwise, and I’m not suggesting they will.

 

However, i would suggest that if Russia builds up missile numbers closer to other countries, then those other countries would be amenable to the US building up the number of missiles as a counter move, in their country

 

Per the OP, and the post which you replied to.... 

“also raises fears of a new US Russia nuclear arms race in Europe”

 

as to my line of reasoning about the US touting any increased spending, should the above occur.... maybe trump wouldn’t trumpet increased spending in NATO (or other) countries, as an example of the US protecting the world, thru unmatched spending, whilst calling on them to spend more, as is the case today with current NATO spending, and his demands that other NATO countries spend more... or maybe he would.... considering he currently is, which supports the case that he would.

 

 

If European nations would feel threatened by Russia to a degree that they'd invite more US military presence and hardware - even under Trump's presidency - then it says something about how seriously the threat is perceived. Since none of this actually happened, the assertions suggested are speculative, at best. Either way, the decision would lie with the Europeans, not the US.

 

Your "line of reasoning" with regards to what Trump may or may not say is not based on anything much either.

[Morch]

17 hours ago, farcanell said:

The treaty is about missile range and launch method, not speed.... so supersonic missiles would not be covered, unless they are land based, or have a range of less than 5,500 km.

 

so.... stick em on a boat, sub or airplane, and they are not covered, which is how the US has thus far primarily defeated the existing treaty regards weapons in its control

 

weopons supplied to Romania situation is another defeat of the treaty.

 

anyway.... given all the alleged breaches on both sides, scrapping the deal seems reasonable, if not sensible..... followed by US supply of icbm’s to Europe (that’s one place where they would be stationed, right?)... . followed by the US squealing about European spending not matching US spending. ????

 

 

 

I agree that both sides acted, over time, in ways which are possible violations of the treaty. Whether or not supposed violations are of a similar magnitude is a different matter, and perhaps less material at this point.

 

Assuming that the current US complaint is well-founded, what would be the advantage of "scraping the deal" while the opposition got an upper hand (in terms of hardware availability)? Also, what's the benefit of doing so in a manner which makes the US look bad?

 

As for the above ICBM musings, about the same fare as your previous post. There would be no need for anything of the sort (the acronym being pretty self-explanatory).

[simple1]

NATO's formal response to US notification of withdrawal from INF Treaty.

 

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_162996.htm

 

Russian notification of suspending INF Treaty.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47101429

 

 

[Morch]

8 hours ago, Mac98 said:

Trump has to have something to look like he is not Putin's puppet, so this is what Putin tells him to do in those secret meetings. Manufacture a stern look while changing nothing that Putin doesn't want changed. Sending a few weapons to Ukraine makes Trump look tough in facing Russia when it actually gives Russia more excuse to take action against Ukraine. It's easy to figure out, Just ask yourself, "What would Putin want?"

 

Well, if Putin wanted out of the treaty, and a have the US lose credibility, I guess he's a happy camper.

[farcanell]

35 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I agree that both sides acted, over time, in ways which are possible violations of the treaty. Whether or not supposed violations are of a similar magnitude is a different matter, and perhaps less material at this point.

 

Assuming that the current US complaint is well-founded, what would be the advantage of "scraping the deal" while the opposition got an upper hand (in terms of hardware availability)? Also, what's the benefit of doing so in a manner which makes the US look bad?

 

As for the above ICBM musings, about the same fare as your previous post. There would be no need for anything of the sort (the acronym being pretty self-explanatory).

Trump is doing all kinds of things in a manner that makes the US look bad.... seemingly for the benefit of his fan base, because they all stand to attention and clap.... or maybe he does it because he’s as mad as a hatter... I don’t know why he swallowed a fly.

 

but.... which team has the upper hand? I’m assuming team USA, with all their drones and sub launched missiles and what not.... in which case, getting out of the deal, and reinvigorating the arms suppliers will keep them ahead of the curve, in the first instance... and secondly, reinvigorating arms manufacturing will add jobs and money to the economy, giving trump bragging rights come next election

 

and I still muse my earlier musings, because they amuse me.... of course, your welcome to be not amused by those musings, which too, amuses me.... so ....winner winner chicken dinner.

[Morch]

25 minutes ago, farcanell said:

Trump is doing all kinds of things in a manner that makes the US look bad.... seemingly for the benefit of his fan base, because they all stand to attention and clap.... or maybe he does it because he’s as mad as a hatter... I don’t know why he swallowed a fly.

 

but.... which team has the upper hand? I’m assuming team USA, with all their drones and sub launched missiles and what not.... in which case, getting out of the deal, and reinvigorating the arms suppliers will keep them ahead of the curve, in the first instance... and secondly, reinvigorating arms manufacturing will add jobs and money to the economy, giving trump bragging rights come next election

 

and I still muse my earlier musings, because they amuse me.... of course, your welcome to be not amused by those musings, which too, amuses me.... so ....winner winner chicken dinner.

 

The way Trump does things, when it comes to Russia, doesn't only make the US look bad - but contributes to enhancing Russia's image. Makes one wonder.

 

As for the upper hand thing, the comment was with regard to the scope of the treaty and the sort of weapon systems involved. I don't know what "reinvigorating the arms suppliers" you  imagine, as they are doing pretty fine already. The development of a new, specific system of this sort or adjustments to the existing ones aren't earth-shattering in terms of related budgets and funds. There's more money in conventional arms. 

 

[farcanell]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

The way Trump does things, when it comes to Russia, doesn't only make the US look bad - but contributes to enhancing Russia's image. Makes one wonder.

 

As for the upper hand thing, the comment was with regard to the scope of the treaty and the sort of weapon systems involved. I don't know what "reinvigorating the arms suppliers" you  imagine, as they are doing pretty fine already. The development of a new, specific system of this sort or adjustments to the existing ones aren't earth-shattering in terms of related budgets and funds. There's more money in conventional arms. 

 

I doubt they will stop making conventional arms... ergo, that their is more money in their manufacture, is irrelevant.

 

relevant is the reinvigoration in manufacture of weapons that have been banned.... and the development of new technologies.... nothing beats weapons of war, when it comes to making money.

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, farcanell said:

I doubt they will stop making conventional arms... ergo, that their is more money in their manufacture, is irrelevant.

 

relevant is the reinvigoration in manufacture of weapons that have been banned.... and the development of new technologies.... nothing beats weapons of war, when it comes to making money.

 

So, in your expert opinion, the US's motivation for withdrawing from the treaty (following a few years of back and forth) is related to "reinvigorating" its already invigorated arms trade? Guess that European governments and NATO are all in it too, then, seeing their support for the move.

 

As far as I'm aware, the segment of arms trade involved isn't particularly wide, nor necessarily super-lucrative - as it would have to be in order to fit your "argument".

[farcanell]

38 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

So, in your expert opinion, the US's motivation for withdrawing from the treaty (following a few years of back and forth) is related to "reinvigorating" its already invigorated arms trade? Guess that European governments and NATO are all in it too, then, seeing their support for the move.

 

As far as I'm aware, the segment of arms trade involved isn't particularly wide, nor necessarily super-lucrative - as it would have to be in order to fit your "argument".

Snippy snippy.... what’s this sarcasm about, in referencing my “expert opinion” ( especially in light of earlier comments about my “musings”).... do I slag you off by calling you an expert?

 

For you information, my non expert opinion is that the treaty has exceeded its usefulness to both sides, given the expansion in weoponry in other countries (most significantly effecting/ threatening Russia), which are not bound by the treaty, underscored by the fact that both sides are potentially breaking the treaty anyway (most significantly the USA with its drone launching capabilities)

 

that said... I do firmly believe that in abandoning the treaty, both countries will more actively pursue manufacture of new weapons, and that this will most certainly lead to more employment and more profit for arms manufacturing.... an increase of 10% ( for want of a figure) is still 10% more money.... it doesn’t have to be a 300% ( for want of a figure) to justify manufacturing more weapons.... so, no need to toss in any implication that I think it needs to be “super lucrative”... it does not... in fact, just creating more paid jobs would do the trick, enhanced by whatever profit is left over once costs are paid.

 

greed sees you toss in terms like “super lucrative”... an assumption of greed on the side of arms manufacturers I suppose, I don’t know, that’s for you to explain... but whatever it is, it has nothing to do with my POV, beyond more jobs and a modest profit.

 

meanwhile... as to your reference about NATO being in on it.... in this threads OP, and in the other one of today, there is mention of fear of a European based arms race, which suggests that NATO countries, in general, are not happy about this, contrary to your statement that they support killing the treaty.

[goferman]

15 hours ago, Morch said:

 

The way Trump does things, when it comes to Russia, doesn't only make the US look bad - but contributes to enhancing Russia's image. Makes one wonder.

Can't help but wonder if Putin and Trump aren't suckering us with their status recovery plan (both are in the low 30s in the polls).

 

Could this be old-fashioned crisis management in that a crisis is manufactured with a predetermined solution at hand to be played at a time most opportune?

 

That time could be after stats show a boon for the US arms manufacturers and before the next US election. It would be designed to make them joint candidates for the Nobel Peace Prize.

 

In the meantime, the staged duel washes away thoughts of collusion between them while awarding Putin with fruits such as further dividing NATO and elevating the status of his regime.

 

Perhaps there was something in my coffee this morning … whatever … had to share this with you … just in case ????

 

[Ahab]

On ‎2‎/‎2‎/‎2019 at 9:25 AM, BestB said:

This is assuming US is telling the truth and Russia is lying, which may or may not be true .

 

US does not really have a clean record of telling the truth when it suits a variety of agenda’s

 

 

Has a country ever existed that had a clean record of telling the truth? I certainly cannot think of any.

[unblocktheplanet]

The arms industry generates profits which support the banks. That they might end like on earth while bankrupting ordinary people is never mentioned. 

[metisdead]

A personal bickering session between two members have been removed.