A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Bye-bye INF treaty?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 16th 07, 12:28 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,466
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?

Remember how I said pulling out of the ABM treaty was a dumb move,
because the Russians would think that any treaty we had with them wasn't
worth the paper it was written on?
Well, guess what?:
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russ...reaty_999.html

Pat

Ads
  #2  
Old February 16th 07, 12:49 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Rand Simberg[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,311
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 06:28:14 -0600, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Remember how I said pulling out of the ABM treaty was a dumb move,
because the Russians would think that any treaty we had with them wasn't
worth the paper it was written on?


No, but I can imagine you saying such a silly thing. We didn't
abrogate the treaty. We withdrew, which was completely within the
bounds of the treaty.

Well, guess what?:
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russ...reaty_999.html


So? Do you really fantasize that they wouldn't do this if we hadn't
withdrawn from ABM? And do you really imagine that the Soviets were,
or Russians are, punctilious about treaties in general?
  #3  
Old February 16th 07, 01:13 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Jim Oberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 434
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?

It's unclear to me if the INF treaty has, like the ABM treaty did have,
the legal option for parties to withdraw with appropriate notice -- or was
it open-ended? The US did not 'break' the ABM treaty -- the question
remains, do the Russians intend now to 'break' the INF treaty, or are
they legally exercising a codacile in it?




"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...
Remember how I said pulling out of the ABM treaty was a dumb move, because
the Russians would think that any treaty we had with them wasn't worth the
paper it was written on?
Well, guess what?:
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russ...reaty_999.html

Pat



  #4  
Old February 16th 07, 01:53 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,466
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?



Rand Simberg wrote:
So? Do you really fantasize that they wouldn't do this if we hadn't
withdrawn from ABM? And do you really imagine that the Soviets were,
or Russians are, punctilious about treaties in general?


http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Why_...nse_999.htm l
The Russians are having a hard time figuring out why ABMs are to be put
in Poland to defend the U.S. against missile attack from Iran or North
Korea, in much the same way we would think it odd if Russia started
deploying ABMs in Mexico or Canada to defend Moscow from Chinese missile
attack.
What makes it so pointless is that 10 ABMs in Poland are worthless
against a North Korean attack and so would only be of any possible use
against a Iranian attack that overflew Europe on the way to the U.S..
Iran would realize an attack by that few missiles would be suicidal, so
that doesn't make sense either, so what's the point of all this?
Simple; the point of all this is to act like real assholes and see if we
can **** off the Russians, and rub their little red noses in it.
With luck they'll start a new cold war, and then we can spend uncounted
more hundreds of billions defending ourselves against them.
In the spirit of the treaty, the Russians are abiding by the means to
withdraw from it:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/inf/text/inf.htm
"Article XV

1. This Treaty shall be of unlimited duration.

2. Each Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the
right to withdraw from this Treaty if it decides that extraordinary
events related to the subject matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its
supreme interests. It shall give notice of its decision to withdraw to
the other Party six months prior to withdrawal from this Treaty. Such
notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events the
notifying Party regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests."
Having a foreign country deploying missiles on your border would
probably be considered an extraordinary event that jeopardized your
supreme interests, as the Cuban Missile Crisis showed.
So they are now going to have some fun at our expense, I imagine.
Our ABMs are designed to intercept ballistic missiles, so I imagine
they'll get working on hypersonic cruise missiles now.
If they can fake us out by pretending to have some super technology that
we must counter, they can bankrupt us the way we did them with Star
Wars, which would be quite ironic really.

Pat


  #5  
Old February 16th 07, 01:58 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Rand Simberg[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,311
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 07:53:31 -0600, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:



Rand Simberg wrote:
So? Do you really fantasize that they wouldn't do this if we hadn't
withdrawn from ABM? And do you really imagine that the Soviets were,
or Russians are, punctilious about treaties in general?


http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Why_...nse_999.htm l
The Russians are having a hard time figuring out why ABMs are to be put
in Poland to defend the U.S. against missile attack from Iran or North
Korea, in much the same way we would think it odd if Russia started
deploying ABMs in Mexico or Canada to defend Moscow from Chinese missile
attack.
What makes it so pointless is that 10 ABMs in Poland are worthless
against a North Korean attack and so would only be of any possible use
against a Iranian attack that overflew Europe on the way to the U.S..
Iran would realize an attack by that few missiles would be suicidal, so
that doesn't make sense either, so what's the point of all this?
Simple; the point of all this is to act like real assholes and see if we
can **** off the Russians, and rub their little red noses in it.
With luck they'll start a new cold war, and then we can spend uncounted
more hundreds of billions defending ourselves against them.


Yes, obviously, that's the real point.

rolling eyes

If they can fake us out by pretending to have some super technology that
we must counter, they can bankrupt us the way we did them with Star
Wars, which would be quite ironic really.


Dream on, Pat. Dream on.
  #6  
Old February 16th 07, 02:07 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,865
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?



--
--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting
sql (at) greenms.com

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 06:28:14 -0600, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Remember how I said pulling out of the ABM treaty was a dumb move,
because the Russians would think that any treaty we had with them wasn't
worth the paper it was written on?


No, but I can imagine you saying such a silly thing. We didn't
abrogate the treaty. We withdrew, which was completely within the
bounds of the treaty.


Your imagination really must be working over time. He never said we
abrogated it.

But hey, don't let what he actaully said get in the way of what you want to
say.



Well, guess what?:
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russ...reaty_999.html


So? Do you really fantasize that they wouldn't do this if we hadn't
withdrawn from ABM? And do you really imagine that the Soviets were,
or Russians are, punctilious about treaties in general?



  #7  
Old February 16th 07, 02:08 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,466
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?



Jim Oberg wrote:
It's unclear to me if the INF treaty has, like the ABM treaty did have,
the legal option for parties to withdraw with appropriate notice -- or was
it open-ended? The US did not 'break' the ABM treaty -- the question
remains, do the Russians intend now to 'break' the INF treaty, or are
they legally exercising a codacile in it?



http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/inf/text/index.html
http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/inf/text/inf.htm
"Article XV

1. This Treaty shall be of unlimited duration.

2. Each Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the
right to withdraw from this Treaty if it decides that extraordinary
events related to the subject matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its
supreme interests. It shall give notice of its decision to withdraw to
the other Party six months prior to withdrawal from this Treaty. Such
notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events the
notifying Party regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests."

They consider the ABMs in Poland to meet that criteria, and I don't
blame them one bit for seeing it like that.
What's really tragic about all this is that it was a very good treaty
that was mutually beneficial to both our countries.
Because of the short distances between launch sites in Russia and
European capitals there was a real potential for a decapitating nuclear
strike that wouldn't be detected till it was too late, which threw the
MAD concept in the trashcan.
If they have any brains, the EU will tell Poland to ditch this idea
pronto, under threat of economic sanctions against Polish products, as
if this goes through all of Europe is going to be a lot less safe five
years down the road.

Pat
  #8  
Old February 16th 07, 02:34 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Rand Simberg[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,311
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:07:32 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Greg D.
Moore \(Strider\)" made the phosphor
on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Remember how I said pulling out of the ABM treaty was a dumb move,
because the Russians would think that any treaty we had with them wasn't
worth the paper it was written on?


No, but I can imagine you saying such a silly thing. We didn't
abrogate the treaty. We withdrew, which was completely within the
bounds of the treaty.


Your imagination really must be working over time. He never said we
abrogated it.


It was implied. Or at least I (reasonably, I think) inferred it,
based on the context.
  #9  
Old February 16th 07, 03:50 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,999
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?

Pat Flannery wrote:

Remember how I said pulling out of the ABM treaty was a dumb move,
because the Russians would think that any treaty we had with them wasn't
worth the paper it was written on?
Well, guess what?:
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russ...reaty_999.html


Do you have a reference from a source more reliable than the Weekly
World News?

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
  #10  
Old February 16th 07, 04:49 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Allen Thomson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 372
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?

On Feb 16, 7:53 am, Pat Flannery wrote:

The Russians are having a hard time figuring out why ABMs are to be put
in Poland to defend the U.S. against missile attack from Iran or North
Korea,



Surprisingly enough, there's a not-bad discussion of possible Russian
worries in this regard from a Russian analyst at http://
www.kommersant.com/p741700/strategic_weapons/ . (Most such analysis
coming out of the FEE fails to impress.)


"Now the American military is covering itself against Iran. From the
military point of view, placing interceptor missiles in Poland and
radar facilities in the Czech Republic is a sound idea. The trajectory
of middle-range or intercontinental missiles, if they are created, and
aimed at targets in Europe or North America, is such that Poland looks
like the optimal location for interceptors.

[snip]

"What Russia Has to Be Afraid Of

"It is highly likely that the missile threat from "problem" states is
not the genuine reason for the creation of the missile defense system
by the Americans. The real motivation of the multibillion-dollar
undertaking is the desire to expand U.S. military and strategic
capacities and constrict those of other states that have nuclear
missiles, Russia and China most of all. Even a limited missile defense
system injects a high degree of indeterminacy into the strategic plans
of other countries and undermines the principle of mutual nuclear
deterrence. With Russia continuing to reduce its nuclear arsenal
significantly and China maintaining a low missile potential, the
Americans' ability to down even a few dozen warheads could deprive the
other side of guaranteed ability to cause the U.S. unacceptable damage
in a nuclear war.

"If current tendencies continue, Russia will be unlikely to have the
capacity to maintain more than 400-500 nuclear warheads by 2020.
Russian experts have estimated that the U.S. could down half of that
quantity with its missile defense system. That would be an especially
heavy blow if the Americans delivered a disarming nuclear missile
first strike and the remaining Russian missiles could be eliminated
almost completely.

"Of course, the first ten U.S. interceptor missiles in Poland will not
make a serious dent in Russian nuclear potential for the first few
years. But the Russian Army is buying six or seven Topol-M ballistic
missiles per year. The destruction of just one of two of them by the
American missile defense system would have a high price for Russia.
And the placement of a strategic weapons system in Poland, even a
defensive one, is a challenge to Moscow by Washington.

"Practically the only way to prevent a slow growth of the American
strategic advantage is a significant increase in the purchase of new
ballistic missiles by Russia. But the current Russian leadership is
not prepared for that, mainly for political reasons. Therefore,
Russia's reaction to the news of the possible placement of American
interceptor missiles by the Russian border was loud and disorderly,
both in political circles and in the press. Officials, as usual, made
a number of contradictory statements that amounted to the usual vague
threats to "take adequate measures," boasting ad unconvincing
justification for their helplessness. The Russian leadership had the
same initial reaction to the expansion of NATO and the U.S. withdrawal
from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty. Everything possible has been
done to convince the West that there is no need to pay attention to
Russia and Moscow's loud objections. For an "energy superpower," it is
more important to be able to pump its energy resources westward than
to maintain any strategic balances."



What makes it so pointless is that 10 ABMs in Poland are worthless
against a North Korean attack and so would only be of any possible use
against a Iranian attack that overflew Europe on the way to the U.S..



It's instructive to fire up Google Earth and draw great circles
between a site in Iran (I use central Iran, but choose your own launch
point), Washington D.C. and Los Angeles. Remember to lead the targets
by a few degrees to take earth rotation into account. The trajectory
to DC does run right over the proposed Polish GBI sites in the
vicinity of Slupsk, but those towards more westerly CONUS targets pass
over western Russia. So either the GBIs would have to be fired in the
direction of Russia and intercept the Iranian warhead over Russia, or
wait until the warheads got over the Arctic Ocean and do a stern
chase.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Limited ASAT test ban treaty Totorkon Policy 3 March 9th 07 02:19 AM
Outer Space Treaty John Schilling Policy 24 May 24th 06 03:14 PM
Bush to Withdraw from Outer Space Treaty, Annex the Moon Mark R. Whittington Policy 7 April 2nd 05 08:02 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.