Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Can anyone explain the logic of this?
The US is withdrawing from the INF treaty, claiming "Russia is violating the terms." That may very well be true, but the fact is that Russia is the only one constrained by the terms, or who has ever been constrained by the terms. So rather than having Russia constrained by trying to at least maintain a pretense of compliance we eliminate the treaty and they aren't constrained at all. What exactly does that accomplish for anyone but Russia?
I would have thought this was more of Trump's "hey, thanks for the help with the election" paybacks, but it seems like there's a lot of support for this move from Europe as well. WTH?
For those who don't know the history, the INF is a limit on land based intermediate range nuclear weapons, ie cruise missiles. It was agreed to with the US quietly on the doorstep development of reliable sea launched nuclear payload cruise missiles, which allowed the US to effectively comply with the letter of the treaty without compromising their strategic arsenal at all. It was one of the great coups of the cold war as the Soviets agreed to abandon theirs in response to the US phasing theirs out...which they were going to do anyway. There is no indication that, treaty voided or not, the US is going to suddenly start production of a weapon system that we haven't had a strategic use for since shortly after the treaty was signed.
So what exactly is the point here? Russia is almost certain to respond by ramping up production and deployment of weapons that are an extremely valuable component of their strategic arsenal, because without the treaty there is no reason whatever that they shouldn't. There's not even a threat of an "arms race" since the US already has all that it can effectively use.
The US is withdrawing from the INF treaty, claiming "Russia is violating the terms." That may very well be true, but the fact is that Russia is the only one constrained by the terms, or who has ever been constrained by the terms. So rather than having Russia constrained by trying to at least maintain a pretense of compliance we eliminate the treaty and they aren't constrained at all. What exactly does that accomplish for anyone but Russia?
I would have thought this was more of Trump's "hey, thanks for the help with the election" paybacks, but it seems like there's a lot of support for this move from Europe as well. WTH?
For those who don't know the history, the INF is a limit on land based intermediate range nuclear weapons, ie cruise missiles. It was agreed to with the US quietly on the doorstep development of reliable sea launched nuclear payload cruise missiles, which allowed the US to effectively comply with the letter of the treaty without compromising their strategic arsenal at all. It was one of the great coups of the cold war as the Soviets agreed to abandon theirs in response to the US phasing theirs out...which they were going to do anyway. There is no indication that, treaty voided or not, the US is going to suddenly start production of a weapon system that we haven't had a strategic use for since shortly after the treaty was signed.
So what exactly is the point here? Russia is almost certain to respond by ramping up production and deployment of weapons that are an extremely valuable component of their strategic arsenal, because without the treaty there is no reason whatever that they shouldn't. There's not even a threat of an "arms race" since the US already has all that it can effectively use.