I mean yea kinda. Without such treaties in place, sanctions against Russia for violations cannot be justified. At the worst nothing changes for them since they were violating anyway. At best though, leaving the treaty obfuscates further attempts to condemn Russia for their actions. We've removed yet another barrier of security against them.
I'd also point out that there's absolutely no alternative being proposed at this time, we've simply pulled out and there are no immediate plans to replace it.
What's the point? The U.S. and Russia both already have enough nukes to destroy the world many times over. Why dispose of a treaty to be able to have an arms race that isn't even necessary in the first place? To whose benefit is this? Why destroy treaties, especially on nuclear weapons? To those who say, "So much fro Russia's puppet"....alright.....well then explain as to how the U.S. comes out on top here. What's the benefit to both, and the drawbacks?
I'm seeing no sense in this move whatsoever. It seems to me to be doing nothing more than making the world more unstable than it already is.
Why we talking 'bout nukes?! That's some 80's shit right there.
Where are my laser satellites in the sky? Where are those, ummm, kinetic weapons where they drop giant spikes at outrageous speeds? Or that earthquake weapon!?
@mandzilla said:
Seems like a smart way of convincing North Korea and Iran to refrain from pursuing nuclear weapons. Do as I say, not as I do.
And N.Korea and Iran are gonna be like "**** you, USA! You're not my real dad!" and do it anyway.
@blackhairedhero: This is to Putin's advantage dude..........
How so?
Not that I'm disagreeing with you, I'm just left dumbfounded. I'm seeing no strategic benefit to either side.
Could it be seen as a move to lower the threshold for using such weapons? Given the increased accuracy compared to when these weapons were first developed, there is much less need for large bombs. Smaller "tactical" ones with plenty of force to destroy its target without destroying everything in a 10 miles radius as well.
I think the total number of nuclear warheads slated for disposal is winding down. Plus, if the graph is accurate, the combined stockpiles of active Russian and US warheads still doesn't exceed 10k. The rest of those in the graph are obsolete or expired warheads slated for disposal. I honestly don't think the world is going to die in the event of a nuclear war. Sure, many cities would be wasted. But, I think the rest of the world will live on.
This is exactly the kind of thing a guy like Putin wants. An excuse to further ramp up military programs and use an external adversary as a means to retain control and narrative. Explain to me again how Trump is going to dissuade North Korea at his second summit when the US has just broken a literal nuclear arms treaty?
If you want to get really macabre, I recommend this site if you are interested in what the effects of a nuclear bomb would look like. You can set your bomb, location, and potential effects like fallout for surface detonations, and casualties. Enjoy!
If you want to get really macabre, I recommend this site if you are interested in what the effects of a nuclear bomb would look like. You can set your bomb, location, and potential effects like fallout for surface detonations, and casualties. Enjoy!
Thank you too.
I don't know what type of warhead is most common today. I do know a hydrogen bomb is considered a "clean" one, but again dunno how normal those are today.
If you want to get really macabre, I recommend this site if you are interested in what the effects of a nuclear bomb would look like. You can set your bomb, location, and potential effects like fallout for surface detonations, and casualties. Enjoy!
Threads (1984) and The War Game (1965) are two good UK televisions dramas showing just how catastrophic nuclear war would be, even for those who somehow survived.
It also has removed any validity to US's demands that other nations stop their own nuclear program.
There are other nuclear arms treaties still in place. The INF covers short and medium range land-based missiles. I don't think air/sea-launched nuclear missiles and long range ICBMs are covered by the INF.
It also has removed any validity to US's demands that other nations stop their own nuclear program.
There are other nuclear arms treaties still in place. The INF covers short and medium range land-based missiles. I don't think air/sea-launched nuclear missiles and long range ICBMs are covered by the INF.
Fair enough. The treaty did not cover air- or sea-launched missiles.
Which in a sense means there's won't be a plane or a submarine that'll be given any newly developed nuclear missiles, well until both parties pull themselves out of those treaties too.
I expect a large difference between nuclear power plant and a warhead, but still thanks. :)
Yeah, but the idea that nuclear fallout can spread so far and contaminate so much land for thousands of years is frightening. I was born the year Chernobyl happened and have always been fascinated by it. It just shows how little control humans still have over our universe.
I expect a large difference between nuclear power plant and a warhead, but still thanks. :)
Yeah, but the idea that nuclear fallout can spread so far and contaminate so much land for thousands of years is frightening. I was born the year Chernobyl happened and have always been fascinated by it. It just shows how little control humans still have over our universe.
I remember it was talked about on TV back in the 90's. Meat from some type of animals would be inedible for as much as 30 years or so they said.
@blackhairedhero: This is to Putin's advantage dude..........
How so?
Not that I'm disagreeing with you, I'm just left dumbfounded. I'm seeing no strategic benefit to either side.
Could it be seen as a move to lower the threshold for using such weapons? Given the increased accuracy compared to when these weapons were first developed, there is much less need for large bombs. Smaller "tactical" ones with plenty of force to destroy its target without destroying everything in a 10 miles radius as well.
I suppose so, as that's what this seems to be enabling...the development of smaller platforms for deployment?
What I don't get about Trump....so many of his policies have this, "well, it's not working perfectly, so to hell with it!" mentality. No interest in going to the table to renegotiate. No interest to ascertain it from a benefit/risk standpoint. No, instead, let's tear the whole thing up and destroy any and all progress that's been made for decades due to that singular grievance.
It’s also true that Putin isn’t sad about its termination. In fact, he’s been threatening to withdraw from the treaty for more than a decade. On Saturday, he announced Russia would suspend its participation in the treaty, following the United States' lead.
Putin has repeatedly objected to the fact that other countries haven’t joined in the treaty. In 2007, during the George W. Bush administration, he said this, according to an Associated Press report:
“We need to convince other (countries) to assume the same level of obligation as assumed by the Russian Federation and the United States,” Putin said. “If we are unable to obtain such a goal ... it will be difficult for us to keep within the framework of the treaty in a situation where other countries do develop such weapon systems, and among those are countries located in our near vicinity.”
Putin’s comments were similar in 2016. In an exchange captured by a Kremlin transcript, Putin called the leaders of the Soviet Union who forged the treaty with the United States in the late 1980s “naive” for its terms (emphasis added):
Q: Does Russia see any value in this treaty, and if yes, then what exactly? Is it even worthwhile to be part of this treaty?
PUTIN: It would be of great value to us, if other countries followed Russia and the United States. Here’s what we have: the naive former Russian leadership went ahead and eliminated intermediate-range land-based missiles. The Americans eliminated their Pershing missiles, while we scrapped the SS-20 missiles. There was a tragic event associated with this when the chief designer of these systems committed suicide believing that it was a betrayal of national interests and unilateral disarmament.
Why unilateral? Because under that treaty we eliminated our ground complex, but the treaty did not include medium-range sea- and air-based missiles. Air- and sea-based missiles were not affected by it. The Soviet Union simply did not have them, while the United States kept them in service.
What we ultimately got was a clear imbalance: the United States has kept its medium-range missiles. It does not matter whether they are based at sea, in the air, or on land; however, the Soviet Union was simply left without this type of weapons. Almost all of our neighbours make such weapons, including the countries to the east of our borders, and Middle Eastern countries as well, whereas none of the countries sharing borders with the United States, neither Canada nor Mexico, manufacture such weapons. So, for us it is a special test, but nevertheless we believe it is necessary to honour this treaty. All the more so since, as you may be aware, we now also have medium-range sea- and air-based missiles.
That doesn’t sound like someone who will be particularly unhappy without the treaty — which he argued was stacked against his country to begin with. The Russians' flouting of the treaty contributes to the idea that this was punitive, but Russia in some ways seemed to be goading the United States to cancel it.
That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the wrong call, mind you. Termination of such arms control deals has been a pet project of national security adviser John Bolton for years, and he’s a hawk on Russia and many other issues.
But just because it’s saying Russia did something wrong doesn’t necessarily mean Russia will be chastened or won’t like the outcome.
This isn't a bad thing for RU. This is not deniable, and a fact. Making your original comment rather odd.
Log in to comment