Posted on 02/02/2019 7:06:35 AM PST by Mariner
MOSCOW — Following in the footsteps of the U.S., Russia will abandon a centerpiece nuclear arms treaty but will only deploy intermediate-range nuclear missiles if Washington does so, President Vladimir Putin said Saturday.
U.S. President Donald Trump accused Moscow on Friday of violating the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty with "impunity" by deploying banned missiles. Trump said in a statement that the U.S. will "move forward" with developing its own military response options to Russia's deployment of banned cruise missiles that could target Western Europe.
Moscow has strongly denied any breaches and accused Washington of making false accusations in order to justify its pullout.
The collapse of the INF Treaty has raised fears of a repeat of a Cold War showdown in the 1980s, when the U.S. and the Soviet Union both deployed intermediate-range missiles on the continent. Such weapons were seen as particularly destabilizing as they only take a few minutes to reach their targets, leaving no time for decision-makers and raising the likelihood of a global nuclear conflict over a false launch warning.
After the U.S. gave notice of its intention to withdraw from the treaty in six months, Putin said Russia would do the same. He ordered the development of new land-based intermediate-range weapons, but emphasized that Russia won't deploy them in the European part of the country or elsewhere unless the U.S. does so.
(Excerpt) Read more at kcra.com ...
It's ludicrous to put the US mainland at risk to help those who will not help themselves, and absent any other strategic interest.
Whether Russia deploys or not.
However, I can see a use for about 100 IRBMs in east Asia. 50 in Japan, and 25 each in South Korea and the Philippines.
Now both sides are going to develop new weapons instead of better relations.
The Russians still can’t afford an Arms Race
Putin Already did
Now we can,too
Do you believe Russia hasn’t already been developing these weapons despite the treaty. With some entities, being stronger by a large margin is the only sure way to maintain “better relations”.
“Now we can,too”
Toward what end? Because they did?
The US has very little strategic interest in Western Europe.
Why should we aid those slackers, allowing them to continue to mooch off the American taxpayer teat?
They are perfectly capable of defending themselves.
Sometimes “mutually assured destruction” is the best way to avert the worst case scenario - I have no doubt Russia has been developing weapons contrary to the treaty and our deploying effective weapons around them doesn’t put us at greater risk....There was no doubt we had better weapons than Russia during the (official because it never really ended) Cold War and that was the real deterrent - they knew they would suffer the lion’s share of the destruction.
The “carry a big stick” strategy served us well then and having more big sticks will continue to serve us well.
We've acted like Russia (or the Soviet Union) is a huge player, threat, and military tech leader on the world stage for so many years. In reality, their economy is smaller than that of Canada. In fact, they don't even show up on the top ten:
They are actually number 12.
I doubt they could play too long in a real war. That fact that wars are no longer about throwing bodies at the front line makes them a minor threat when looked at critically.
“There was no doubt we had better weapons than Russia during the (official because it never really ended) Cold War and that was the real deterrent - they knew they would suffer the lion’s share of the destruction.”
We had strategic interests in countering the Soviet SS-20s in the 1980s.
Those interests have since diminished significantly.
Betting that Russia already has “intermediate range weapons.”
Japan and South Korea are both capable of deploying their own, thank you very much.
Driving the price of oil down certainly hasn’t helped Russia.
One month Putin brags about ICBMs that can deke around to avoid intercepts and new hypersonic missles and the next month whines about the US causing another arms race.
Didn’t Obama kill the deal to place ABM’s in Poland and other areas of Eastern Europe to counter Russia IBM’s?
The USA is not alone. Every nation in NATO agrees that Russia has already designed and put in practice a new intermediate-range weapon.
We’d be fools to think otherwise.
That’s basically due to a ruble drop to dollar in 2014. They were around top five at the time. Domestically ruble haven’t depreciated near that much and Russia is still in top ten by PPP. It also gained big time nominally in January. And there are some effective economic reforms allowing more government spending.
Perhaps a look at a wider view will aid understanding.
Rather than us and them, a look at them and them will be helpful.
Them and them is Russia and China. The arcahic treaty does not allow Russia to defend against China
In fact INF treaty made more sense for Russia back when and more so now. US has a lot of places to put missiles to target Russia and Russia needs allies in Canada or Central America which it lacks for reciprocity. Also both sides has SLBMs which is basically the same or more efficient and not covered by the treaty.
Makes sense. Russia lacks realistic capability to threaten US with IRBMs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.