6 ms·

In February Biden left the Russian Arms Control Talks in reaction to the Russian troop movements. They were discussing reinstating the INF. With intermediate ra

In February Biden left the Russian Arms Control Talks in reaction to the Russian troop movements. They were discussing reinstating the INF. With intermediate range missiles like the SS20 and Pershing with especially short reaction cycles. Which we actually got rid of in the 80s. Could you be more specific with treaty violations? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate-Range_Nuclear_Forces_Treaty#Initial_skepticism_and_allegations_of_treaty_violations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate-Range_Nuclear_For... Has the tests for missiles with a disputed range On a side note, when searching for it google also told me that the last policy round apparently allowed the first strike use of nuclear weapons https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2022-04/news/biden-policy-allows-first-use-nuclear-weapons https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2022-04/news/biden-policy-al...

tablespoon 5y ago
> With intermediate range missiles like the SS20 and Pershing with especially short reaction cycles. Which we actually got rid of in the 80s. Did we though? https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/01/Hair-Trigger%20FAQ.pdf https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/01/Ha...: > a submarine-based missile could strike in as little as 10 to 15 minutes after launch IIRC, INF treaty only banned US and Russian land-based intermediate-range missiles. It didn't ban similar sea-based missiles nor did it ban Chinese land or sea-based intermediate-range missiles.
- cf141q5325 5y ago
  And they were renegotiation, a point in time where addressing such shortcomings was a real possibility. China is also not currently involved in reckless power plays. It was plain and simply better then the alternative. We are stuck with people having an end of the species button and are left dealing with this somehow. There are two approaches, one is to do everything to prevent accidental triggering. You put a case over it and and agree to not make any sudden movements. Arms control is about giving both sides a clear picture that the other one isnt going to use theirs. In short deescalation, making sure nobody is getting nervous because we know that nuclear holocaust would be a bad thing. The other is to use it as a threat. In short escalation. It is quite clearly heavily escalating with the second approach in a time where the former is absolutely necessary. Lets not sugarcoat it, such behavior is very much in villain territory. Its risking the end of the species for short term political power plays. edit: Differently put, i am going to go out on a limb here and argue that increasing the risk for a nuclear holocaust is a bad thing. I havent seen many people disagree here outside of some posadist circles
- aerostable_slug 5y ago
  And we had solid intel under the Obama administration that the Russians were cheating w/ INF. I am a huge fan of INF and think it was one of the great achievements of Cold War arms control. I also think it didn't make sense to keep it given Russian cheating and the fact that China's not covered at all. Cheating isn't new with Russia: during the Late Unpleasantness, the SA-5 system was given an ABM capability in clear violation of applicable treaties.

tablespoon 5y ago

> With intermediate range missiles like the SS20 and Pershing with especially short reaction cycles. Which we actually got rid of in the 80s. Did we though? https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/01/Hair-Trigger%20FAQ.pdf https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/01/Ha...: > a submarine-based missile could strike in as little as 10 to 15 minutes after launch IIRC, INF treaty only banned US and Russian land-based intermediate-range missiles. It didn't ban similar sea-based missiles nor did it ban Chinese land or sea-based intermediate-range missiles.

cf141q5325 5y ago
And they were renegotiation, a point in time where addressing such shortcomings was a real possibility. China is also not currently involved in reckless power plays. It was plain and simply better then the alternative. We are stuck with people having an end of the species button and are left dealing with this somehow. There are two approaches, one is to do everything to prevent accidental triggering. You put a case over it and and agree to not make any sudden movements. Arms control is about giving both sides a clear picture that the other one isnt going to use theirs. In short deescalation, making sure nobody is getting nervous because we know that nuclear holocaust would be a bad thing. The other is to use it as a threat. In short escalation. It is quite clearly heavily escalating with the second approach in a time where the former is absolutely necessary. Lets not sugarcoat it, such behavior is very much in villain territory. Its risking the end of the species for short term political power plays. edit: Differently put, i am going to go out on a limb here and argue that increasing the risk for a nuclear holocaust is a bad thing. I havent seen many people disagree here outside of some posadist circles
aerostable_slug 5y ago
And we had solid intel under the Obama administration that the Russians were cheating w/ INF. I am a huge fan of INF and think it was one of the great achievements of Cold War arms control. I also think it didn't make sense to keep it given Russian cheating and the fact that China's not covered at all. Cheating isn't new with Russia: during the Late Unpleasantness, the SA-5 system was given an ABM capability in clear violation of applicable treaties.