5 ms·

Why is the US receiving flack for deciding to no longer uphold their end of a bargain that Russia has been breaking for years

webmobdev 8y ago
The Russian counter is that the "missile shield" being deployed by NATO in Europe, to knock out russian missiles before they reach their intended target, can also be modified from their "defensive" use to also attack (as regular missiles). Thus, they feel that the US has already violated the treaty by using a loophole (anti-missile defences were never considered when the treaty was made). Moreover, some analysts are suggesting that this move is more directed towards China, then Russia. The treaty makes it difficult for US to deploy missiles targeted at China in that region as these missiles could, in theory, also target Russia. So maybe some of the criticism is justified, if it is indeed the US that is trying to come up with excuses to wiggle out of this treaty.
- justin66 8y ago
  > The Russian counter is that the "missile shield" being deployed by NATO in Europe, to knock out russian missiles before they reach their intended target, can also be modified from their "defensive" use to also attack (as regular missiles). Are you sure that's what has been said? That they might be re-purposed for delivering nuclear warheads? That's crazy. Their use in assisting a US first strike would be to help neutralize Russia's offensive threat, making whatever retaliatory response Russia could muster that much more survivable. From Russia's point of view, that's bad enough. It's the sort of thing that was always a big roadblock to disarmament in the eighties, when people still cared about disarmament. You need to coordinate bringing up defensive weapons with retiring offensive weapons in a way that preserves some strategic balance, and if one side doesn't have the right sort of defensive weapons, or a good place to put them... It's why notions like the US partnering with the USSR to deploy defensive weapons were publicly floated. “A President of the United States could offer to give that same defensive weapon to them to prove to them that there was no longer any need for keeping these missiles,” explained Reagan. “Or with that defense, he could then say to them, ‘I am willing to do away with all my missiles. You do away with yours’”
  - webmobdev 8y ago
    > That they might be re-purposed for delivering nuclear warheads? That's crazy. Why do you think so? The Indian Ballistic Missile Defence system was built by modifying a nuclear capable short range ballistic missile (Prithvi Missile - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prithvi_(missile) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prithvi_(missile) ). This modified version was designed in different configurations to intercept missiles in high and low altitude. ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Ballistic_Missile_Defence_Programme https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Ballistic_Missile_Def... ).
    - justin66 8y ago
      > Why do you think so? First, it'd be illegal to do in secret. Second and I suppose more significantly, it would not offer a military advantage over actually having them serve their intended purpose as defensive weapons (which would be useful in any hypothetical nuclear exchange, including a US first strike) and then moving a ballistic missile submarine or two to the Barents sea, or equipping some of the many attack submarines operating in those waters with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, or some combination of both.
      - webmobdev 8y ago
        > First, it'd be illegal to do in secret. There isn't any need for secrecy. An anti-ballistic missile is also a missile. So they can theoretically be designed to be both defensive and offensive. That's what the indians did - converted one of their offensive missile to also be a defensive missile that can shoot down other missiles (I am not claiming that the Indians are using the same missile both as an offensive arsenal and in their missile defence shield, but just that it may be possible in the future for them. Both Russia and the US are well ahead of India in missile R&D, and it may not be far fetched to think that they may have already developed configurable missiles that could be used for both offence and defence.)
        justin66 8y ago
        > There isn't any need for secrecy. The Russian hypothesis we're discussing here is that these are not defensive weapons, they are secretly offensive weapons. Strictly speaking, there would be a legal need for secrecy until we're fully withdrawn from the INF treaty. You'd also have to develop the nuclear warhead to fly on the interceptors in secret. They'd have to be awfully lightweight, since these interceptors aren't designed to carry a nuclear warhead. (a quick look at wiki indicates the RIM-161 uses a kinetic energy warhead, which is a little hint at how silly it is to even be having this discussion) So that's a weapons program you'd have to fund in secret, as well as the funding needed to adapt all those weapons systems to a completely different purpose and test them. You'd have to keep the whole thing secret from those among our NATO allies who would never approve such a thing. Great idea. None of this would give the United States any first strike capabilities it doesn't already have thanks to its navy. I'm trying to be polite but this is all very silly. It's just not what those systems are there for.
astazangasta 8y ago
Because that sort of "well they are doing it!" garbage is always what justifies nuclear escalation. The answer is to negotiate them back to a reasonable position. The Russians make the same complaints; not without reason. If the response to violation is abandonment and escalation rather than negotiation how will things ever improve?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
Azerty89 8y ago
There's a good analysis on CNN here: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/01/opinions/us-pulling-out-of-the-inf-treaty-rewards-putin-hurts-nato-engel-smith/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/01/opinions/us-pulling-out-o...
- Azerty9999 8y ago
  FTA: >"In addition to giving Russia free rein to build and deploy an unlimited number of intermediate-range missiles that could potentially be fitted with nuclear weapons, withdrawing from the treaty would allow Putin to deflect responsibility and blame the US for both the treaty's collapse and any ensuing arms race."
- joejerryronnie 8y ago
  The problem with this analysis is that it assumes this move has anything whatsoever to do with Russia.
craftyguy 8y ago
So a race to the bottom is somehow a good idea now?
- cloakandswagger 8y ago
  Better than asymmetrical capabilities.
adventured 8y ago
It's crazy for the US to be bound to such a treaty with Russia while the most powerful country of the last 200 years not named the United States is rising rapidly to superpower status and is entirely unbound by the treaty. Not just unbound, they would never sign it under any circumstances. Russia is a joke of a potential problem next to China, both economically and militarily. As China's technological capabilities mature in the military sphere, the former USSR will be a joke compared to what China will be capable of. The USSR always struggled with true global projection, that's not a problem China is going to have eventually. Russia can't keep up with either the US or China. The US added $1.1-$1.2 trillion to its economic output in 2018. Russia's entire annual economic output is $1.5 trillion. At a 3% of GDP defense spending rate, the US can add 1/2 of Russia's defense spending every year (even after you adjust for the difference in costs between them, it's an impossible situation for Russia). China was the size of Russia's economy 20 years ago, now it's nearing ten times larger. Russia will never be able to spend the money necessary to keep up with the two superpowers on conventional forces and technology, they'll only be able to keep up on very narrow high value tech (eg hypersonic missiles or the S-300/400/500 missile systems). As Russia's economy goes nowhere for the next decade, they'll continue to try to flex their regional power to divert attention. However, Russia is never going to be more than a regional problem. If you're the US, you don't want to be in a position of dramatic military weakness to China at any point or in any critical weapons segment over the next 20-30 years at least. While the US can just withdraw from Asia and go home (nicely protected by the enomority of the Pacific), if the US doesn't keep up with China (ideally working in tandem with its allies to offset the burden of cost), it ultimately leaves Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Philippines and every other ally in greater Asia in a very vulnerable position of forced deference as China's military pushes outward.
- webmobdev 8y ago
  > Russia is a joke of a potential problem next to China, both economically and militarily. You overestimate China's capabilities, and underestimate Russia's. Russia is better at international politics than China, while China's dominating and new found arrogance makes potential allies uncomfortable. Not to mention that Russia still has a better military, and better weapons. In both Africa and Asia, nations that welcomed Chinese investment are now very uncomfortable on the demands being placed on them. Increasing comparisons are being made to the way India handles their diplomatic relations with them (less aggressive, more cooperative). For example, both Maldives and Sri Lanka have turned to India after Chinese economic investments soured there. Second, while India today may be faltering under the current inexperienced, right-wing loonies running it, the previous government with Dr. Manmohan Singh at the helm has already demonstrated that India has the potential to take on the Chinese both economically and militarily. Ultimately, India as an ally of both the Russians and the West, knows that it will have to bear the brunt of any new future cold war between China and the west and is preparing for it.
cmurf 8y ago
Because the inevitable outcome is less stability and more expense. The arms race will resume. Europe is less safe. If there's no treaty, it's not cheating, and there's nothing to negotiate. If it's cheating, there's a point of negotiating. Putin has a long history of criticizing Gorbechev's legacies, the treaties, perestroika, he laments the end of the USSR and the loss of its various fiefdom republics. And on the U.S. side, is John Bolton, who doesn't believe in having a U.N., is anti-EU, promoted Brexit, doesn't believe in arms control treaties of any kind, was a central cause of the U.S. unilaterally withdrawing from the Iran JCPA treaty, and also pushed North Korea to withdraw from the NPT, which they did, and it makes their entire nuclear program completely legal, and was a principle architect and chickenhawk of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. And to this day says that was not a mistake, it was good and appropriate.

webmobdev 8y ago

The Russian counter is that the "missile shield" being deployed by NATO in Europe, to knock out russian missiles before they reach their intended target, can also be modified from their "defensive" use to also attack (as regular missiles). Thus, they feel that the US has already violated the treaty by using a loophole (anti-missile defences were never considered when the treaty was made). Moreover, some analysts are suggesting that this move is more directed towards China, then Russia. The treaty makes it difficult for US to deploy missiles targeted at China in that region as these missiles could, in theory, also target Russia. So maybe some of the criticism is justified, if it is indeed the US that is trying to come up with excuses to wiggle out of this treaty.

justin66 8y ago
> The Russian counter is that the "missile shield" being deployed by NATO in Europe, to knock out russian missiles before they reach their intended target, can also be modified from their "defensive" use to also attack (as regular missiles). Are you sure that's what has been said? That they might be re-purposed for delivering nuclear warheads? That's crazy. Their use in assisting a US first strike would be to help neutralize Russia's offensive threat, making whatever retaliatory response Russia could muster that much more survivable. From Russia's point of view, that's bad enough. It's the sort of thing that was always a big roadblock to disarmament in the eighties, when people still cared about disarmament. You need to coordinate bringing up defensive weapons with retiring offensive weapons in a way that preserves some strategic balance, and if one side doesn't have the right sort of defensive weapons, or a good place to put them... It's why notions like the US partnering with the USSR to deploy defensive weapons were publicly floated. “A President of the United States could offer to give that same defensive weapon to them to prove to them that there was no longer any need for keeping these missiles,” explained Reagan. “Or with that defense, he could then say to them, ‘I am willing to do away with all my missiles. You do away with yours’”
- webmobdev 8y ago
  > That they might be re-purposed for delivering nuclear warheads? That's crazy. Why do you think so? The Indian Ballistic Missile Defence system was built by modifying a nuclear capable short range ballistic missile (Prithvi Missile - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prithvi_(missile) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prithvi_(missile) ). This modified version was designed in different configurations to intercept missiles in high and low altitude. ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Ballistic_Missile_Defence_Programme https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Ballistic_Missile_Def... ).
  - justin66 8y ago
    > Why do you think so? First, it'd be illegal to do in secret. Second and I suppose more significantly, it would not offer a military advantage over actually having them serve their intended purpose as defensive weapons (which would be useful in any hypothetical nuclear exchange, including a US first strike) and then moving a ballistic missile submarine or two to the Barents sea, or equipping some of the many attack submarines operating in those waters with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, or some combination of both.
    - webmobdev 8y ago
      > First, it'd be illegal to do in secret. There isn't any need for secrecy. An anti-ballistic missile is also a missile. So they can theoretically be designed to be both defensive and offensive. That's what the indians did - converted one of their offensive missile to also be a defensive missile that can shoot down other missiles (I am not claiming that the Indians are using the same missile both as an offensive arsenal and in their missile defence shield, but just that it may be possible in the future for them. Both Russia and the US are well ahead of India in missile R&D, and it may not be far fetched to think that they may have already developed configurable missiles that could be used for both offence and defence.)
      - justin66 8y ago
        > There isn't any need for secrecy. The Russian hypothesis we're discussing here is that these are not defensive weapons, they are secretly offensive weapons. Strictly speaking, there would be a legal need for secrecy until we're fully withdrawn from the INF treaty. You'd also have to develop the nuclear warhead to fly on the interceptors in secret. They'd have to be awfully lightweight, since these interceptors aren't designed to carry a nuclear warhead. (a quick look at wiki indicates the RIM-161 uses a kinetic energy warhead, which is a little hint at how silly it is to even be having this discussion) So that's a weapons program you'd have to fund in secret, as well as the funding needed to adapt all those weapons systems to a completely different purpose and test them. You'd have to keep the whole thing secret from those among our NATO allies who would never approve such a thing. Great idea. None of this would give the United States any first strike capabilities it doesn't already have thanks to its navy. I'm trying to be polite but this is all very silly. It's just not what those systems are there for.

astazangasta 8y ago

Because that sort of "well they are doing it!" garbage is always what justifies nuclear escalation. The answer is to negotiate them back to a reasonable position. The Russians make the same complaints; not without reason. If the response to violation is abandonment and escalation rather than negotiation how will things ever improve?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

Azerty89 8y ago

There's a good analysis on CNN here: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/01/opinions/us-pulling-out-of-the-inf-treaty-rewards-putin-hurts-nato-engel-smith/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/01/opinions/us-pulling-out-o...

Azerty9999 8y ago
FTA: >"In addition to giving Russia free rein to build and deploy an unlimited number of intermediate-range missiles that could potentially be fitted with nuclear weapons, withdrawing from the treaty would allow Putin to deflect responsibility and blame the US for both the treaty's collapse and any ensuing arms race."
joejerryronnie 8y ago
The problem with this analysis is that it assumes this move has anything whatsoever to do with Russia.

craftyguy 8y ago

So a race to the bottom is somehow a good idea now?

cloakandswagger 8y ago
Better than asymmetrical capabilities.

adventured 8y ago

It's crazy for the US to be bound to such a treaty with Russia while the most powerful country of the last 200 years not named the United States is rising rapidly to superpower status and is entirely unbound by the treaty. Not just unbound, they would never sign it under any circumstances. Russia is a joke of a potential problem next to China, both economically and militarily. As China's technological capabilities mature in the military sphere, the former USSR will be a joke compared to what China will be capable of. The USSR always struggled with true global projection, that's not a problem China is going to have eventually. Russia can't keep up with either the US or China. The US added $1.1-$1.2 trillion to its economic output in 2018. Russia's entire annual economic output is $1.5 trillion. At a 3% of GDP defense spending rate, the US can add 1/2 of Russia's defense spending every year (even after you adjust for the difference in costs between them, it's an impossible situation for Russia). China was the size of Russia's economy 20 years ago, now it's nearing ten times larger. Russia will never be able to spend the money necessary to keep up with the two superpowers on conventional forces and technology, they'll only be able to keep up on very narrow high value tech (eg hypersonic missiles or the S-300/400/500 missile systems). As Russia's economy goes nowhere for the next decade, they'll continue to try to flex their regional power to divert attention. However, Russia is never going to be more than a regional problem. If you're the US, you don't want to be in a position of dramatic military weakness to China at any point or in any critical weapons segment over the next 20-30 years at least. While the US can just withdraw from Asia and go home (nicely protected by the enomority of the Pacific), if the US doesn't keep up with China (ideally working in tandem with its allies to offset the burden of cost), it ultimately leaves Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Philippines and every other ally in greater Asia in a very vulnerable position of forced deference as China's military pushes outward.

webmobdev 8y ago
> Russia is a joke of a potential problem next to China, both economically and militarily. You overestimate China's capabilities, and underestimate Russia's. Russia is better at international politics than China, while China's dominating and new found arrogance makes potential allies uncomfortable. Not to mention that Russia still has a better military, and better weapons. In both Africa and Asia, nations that welcomed Chinese investment are now very uncomfortable on the demands being placed on them. Increasing comparisons are being made to the way India handles their diplomatic relations with them (less aggressive, more cooperative). For example, both Maldives and Sri Lanka have turned to India after Chinese economic investments soured there. Second, while India today may be faltering under the current inexperienced, right-wing loonies running it, the previous government with Dr. Manmohan Singh at the helm has already demonstrated that India has the potential to take on the Chinese both economically and militarily. Ultimately, India as an ally of both the Russians and the West, knows that it will have to bear the brunt of any new future cold war between China and the west and is preparing for it.

cmurf 8y ago

Because the inevitable outcome is less stability and more expense. The arms race will resume. Europe is less safe. If there's no treaty, it's not cheating, and there's nothing to negotiate. If it's cheating, there's a point of negotiating. Putin has a long history of criticizing Gorbechev's legacies, the treaties, perestroika, he laments the end of the USSR and the loss of its various fiefdom republics. And on the U.S. side, is John Bolton, who doesn't believe in having a U.N., is anti-EU, promoted Brexit, doesn't believe in arms control treaties of any kind, was a central cause of the U.S. unilaterally withdrawing from the Iran JCPA treaty, and also pushed North Korea to withdraw from the NPT, which they did, and it makes their entire nuclear program completely legal, and was a principle architect and chickenhawk of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. And to this day says that was not a mistake, it was good and appropriate.