1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

USA expected to pull out of the INF Treaty

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by RedvGreen, Feb 1, 2019.

  1. RedvGreen

    Mobster

    Joined: Dec 2, 2009

    Posts: 3,267

    Location: Midlands

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/20/trump-us-nuclear-arms-treaty-russia

    Arguably a further blow to current world 'equilibrium', USA are expected to pull out of the INF - Intermediate (range) Nuclear Forces Treaty which prohibits nuclear weapons that have an effective range of 500km - 5500km.

    This is in response to Russia having allegedly developed a further payload delivery mechanism which extend the range by utilising upper atmosphere/space to reach the target faster and with less fuel usage.

    Is this the escalation event that could threaten the balance of power between USA and Russia, or more silly little wargames between Twitter-magnet Trump and Vlad-the-Denier?

    For the record, the Doomsday Clock is still two minutes to midnight.
     
  2. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 46,251

    Location: Plymouth

    This stems back into the previous administration as the violations by russia were first identified in 2014.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...-nuclear-treaty-iskander-r500-missile-test-us

    A bilateral treaty that only one party is respectively isn't functional, and it makes no sense to allow yourselves to be hamstrung by the provisions while the other party is ignoring them.

    The USA has been very restrained in following the broken treaty for as long as it has.
     
  3. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 61,160

    Despite the fanboying of Obama in the light of Trump there are a lot of defence failures of late that are firmly down to Obama taking a more hands off approach and not tackling the issues in the early stages this has left situations like this to develop especially with Trumps failings. For instance Obama pretty much facilitated North Korea to develop and put into production the KN-09 platform that means now they really have a workable long range artillery system, in mass production, that can threat all of Seoul to a significant degree versus what they had before where only 3% of their massed artillery could even reach Seoul in reality.

    It is quite a dangerous turn of affairs because it makes tactical battlefield use of nuclear weapons less of a risk for escalation compared to strategic use.
     
  4. nkata

    Soldato

    Joined: Mar 1, 2010

    Posts: 6,846

    Location: Cheshire / Staffordshire

    I expect it would still be like petrol on a fire. Nobody can expect to be nuked, even on a well defined battlefield (as if there were such a thing nowadays) and not have severe retaliation in mind.
     
  5. BowdonUK

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jan 17, 2016

    Posts: 1,746

    I've heard that one of the reasons for this is because China isn't part of the deal. So China can produce and deploy them while the US is restricted due to this agreement with Russia.
     
  6. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 61,160

    Thing is currently with a strategic launch - even if the intention is for a tactical strike - it makes everyone twitchy and rolls the dice that another country might decide to initiate their strategic response just in case they are the intended target. Which means that in reality no one is likely going to be using nuclear weapons ever.

    With intermediate range capabilities a country can much more easily use a build up of shorter range launchers to intimidate another country without the direct worry of a launch triggering a strategic response (and potentially a real test of NATO resolve) and TBH it isn't really in Russia's interest as they'd be hard pressed to protest a build up of launchers in Eastern Europe that are in range of their capitals while they'd have a harder time putting missiles in range of the US, etc. and a build up of shorter range platforms in Russia bordering Europe, etc. is a danger no one wants.

    If Russia was in some theoretical situation to nuke a city or two tactically in Europe that doesn't guarantee a MAD response as the major powers are still going to be considering the strategic side of it - as things stand none have directly lost a major city, etc. and have everything still to play for - which makes tactical use of nuclear weapons much more likely, albeit still unlikely, post INF.

    EDIT: Admittedly there is a bit of a question there over the use of stuff like shorter range submarine launch platforms.
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2019
  7. StriderX

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 17,472

    Well considering they've likely positioned nuclear ordinance in Crimea, it would appear their game plan is obvious, eat away a bit at a time, plant a strategic weapon, wait a bit... repeat.

    How likely are the west going to retaliate if Russia nukes Kiev for example? They seem to be making it viable. (though considering the Russian reasoning with Crimea, killing ethnic Russians might not be a winning policy)
     
  8. nkata

    Soldato

    Joined: Mar 1, 2010

    Posts: 6,846

    Location: Cheshire / Staffordshire

    The arms race with the USA was a big contributor to almost bankrupting the USSR in the 1980's hence Gorbachev sitting down with Reagan. Perhaps the USA thinks that it may do the same for Russia now. I am sure that $100BN is easier for America to find than Russia at the moment. Unless oil spikes again of course but that market is still contracting as China uses less.
     
  9. SPG

    Soldato

    Joined: Jul 28, 2010

    Posts: 5,119

    Chernobyl was the beginning of the collapse of the soviet union.

    Radiation costs.
     
  10. Nasher

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 22, 2006

    Posts: 11,542

    If Russia is cheating to gain an advantage anyway (which they are), then there isn't much point in it.
     
  11. 4K8KW10

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 2, 2017

    Posts: 5,274

    Russia's debt is negligible 10.6% of the GDP, us debt is gigantic 130% of the GDP. The us is closer to bankruptcy, as of writing right now.
     
  12. doodah

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 19,225

    Location: London

    It's a little higher but damn I did not think it would be this low. America's debt, corruption, shortsightedness and military industrial complex will break the country financially. It's not viable.
     
  13. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 46,251

    Location: Plymouth

    Russia has defaulted on its debts relatively recently though.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Russian_financial_crisis