US prepared to test new cruise missile after withdrawing from nuclear treaty Watch

Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#1
Well this is interesting... the us withdraws from said treaty and is already preparing to test a projectile banned under it. Wouldn’t that mean they were also in non compliance as it takes a touch more than a couple of weeks to design and build one ready for testing?



https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/02/polit...sia/index.html
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 weeks ago
#2
Isn't it a shame that the media do not put the same relentless effort into explaining why we cannot afford nationalised social housing, nationalised Utilities, health care and welfare that saves poor peoples lives into ignoring how we can afford to build drones, bombs, gun and fund 'freedom fighter' organisations that kills poor people!
2
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 weeks ago
#3
(Original post by Napp)
Well this is interesting... the us withdraws from said treaty and is already preparing to test a projectile banned under it. Wouldn’t that mean they were also in non compliance as it takes a touch more than a couple of weeks to design and build one ready for testing?
Doubtful, this was deliberately scheduled to take place immediately after the INF expired to give the impression that the US were somehow waiting for the call from Moscow until the very last minute.
0
reply
Realitysreflexx
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 weeks ago
#4
(Original post by Napp)
Well this is interesting... the us withdraws from said treaty and is already preparing to test a projectile banned under it. Wouldn’t that mean they were also in non compliance as it takes a touch more than a couple of weeks to design and build one ready for testing?



https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/02/polit...sia/index.html
Well Trump's got to show he's rebuilt the military! From so bad to soooo good!

It's finally great again!

If i want to slap tariffs on China I will because i have a big powerful beautiful, magnificent army I alone rebuilt.

Two Autocratic style leader's need toys to play with to boost their ego's.

Neither one is right, but both of their behaviours are very predictable.

But nothing to fear, they won't blow each other up. Because then no one will remember them.
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#5
Report 2 weeks ago
#5
(Original post by Burton Bridge)
Isn't it a shame that the media do not put the same relentless effort into explaining why we cannot afford nationalised social housing, nationalised Utilities, health care and welfare that saves poor peoples lives into ignoring how we can afford to build drones, bombs, gun and fund 'freedom fighter' organisations that kills poor people!
Is that meant to make sense?
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#6
Report 2 weeks ago
#6
(Original post by Napp)
Well this is interesting... the us withdraws from said treaty and is already preparing to test a projectile banned under it. Wouldn’t that mean they were also in non compliance as it takes a touch more than a couple of weeks to design and build one ready for testing?
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/02/polit...sia/index.html
I believe that vehicle on the CNN video is just a picture of the Russian 9M729 or SSC8 the delivery system that has set this all off.

It is claimed it is in breach of the treaty and has been developed, the Russians wont submit to inspection or verification procedures in the treaty and it has already been deployed in significant numbers in direct breach of the treaty. This has happened over years.

The treaty concerns missiles that have a range of between 500-5,500 km or 310-3400miles.

I believe the treaty prohibits both parties from possessing, producing or flight-testing ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of 500-5,500km. Possessing or producing ground-based launchers of those missiles is also prohibited. The ban extends to weapons with both nuclear and conventional warheads, but does not cover air-delivered or sea-based missiles.

US could have gotten there by 2 methods. Just designing something in theory or deciding to adapt existing technology.
They wouldnt be in breach because they dont possess, arent producing or flight testing ground launched ballistic missiles within the stated range or delivery systems. In contrast Russia has and is refusing to verify or comply.

The US has now withdrawn from the treaty and is free to develop to catch up with the Russians. It can adapt some existing legal systems but really to develop an effective fit for purpose weapon its going to take them years. They only have funding of $98m. The price of an F22 is $350m and an F35 $125m.

It could be quite significant and its unknown if we will go back to an arms race. The treaty eliminated basically all the weapons aimed at Europe, so its up to Nato to make a decision. The Russians claim it is about China. I hope there is a new treaty, we will have to see.
The US gave them a year to comply and they wouldnt co operate with verification. They could have stayed in and used sanctions etc.

So the answer is above, no they werent in breach because they were doing any of the prohibited acts.
0
reply
BlueIndigoViolet
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 weeks ago
#7
Understand why the US is worried when countries like China are not bounded by these non proliferation treaties, though agree with Russia in that they were looking for an escape card to the treaty.
0
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 weeks ago
#8
(Original post by 999tigger)
Is that meant to make sense?
Makes sense to me, what part are you struggling to understand?
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#9
Report 2 weeks ago
#9
(Original post by BlueIndigoViolet)
Understand why the US is worried when countries like China are not bounded by these non proliferation treaties, though agree with Russia in that they were looking for an escape card to the treaty.
It is Russia who has more concerns about China.

The questions are:
Do Russia have these prohibited weapons?
Have the tested and developed them?
Have they deployed them?
Why wont they submit to verification?

All these instances would be in violation of the treaty.
If Russia thinks the US was just looking for an escape, then why didnt it comply with its treaty obligations and remove any reason for the US to withdraw? The US put Russia on formal notice and they did nothing.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 2 weeks ago
#10
Both Russia and the US have huge weapons industries and it is about serving these interests and boosting their profiles as the key developers and sellers of weapons systems.

They are increasingly playing with fire - another dreadful development is the hypersonic missile race - and it's difficult not to feel, given the present leadership of both countries, that some sort of conflict using these weapons is now inevitable. After all, weapons must be tested in war theatres to convince customers. All leading weapons producers have to compete with Israel, which is able to regularly prove its billion-dollar system lethality on Palestinian civilians. Syria plays a similar role for Russia, now the US needs a wider active conflict zone and what better than to engage with Russia or China in that zone?
0
reply
Realitysreflexx
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#11
Report 2 weeks ago
#11
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
Both Russia and the US have huge weapons industries and it is about serving these interests and boosting their profiles as the key developers and sellers of weapons systems.

They are increasingly playing with fire - another dreadful development is the hypersonic missile race - and it's difficult not to feel, given the present leadership of both countries, that some sort of conflict using these weapons is now inevitable. After all, weapons must be tested in war theatres to convince customers. All leading weapons producers have to compete with Israel, which is able to regularly prove its billion-dollar system lethality on Palestinian civilians. Syria plays a similar role for Russia, now the US needs a wider active conflict zone and what better than to engage with Russia or China in that zone?
If the US needs a wider conflict area to test weapons... That's silly... We use our drones and weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan to this day as we please.

Why would the US be interested in a conflict with China and Russia, who indeed have their own arsenal of nuclear deterrent as a testing ground.

Finally, the US weapons industry is so self contained and de facto funded by the largest defense budget on the globe... By several small nations GDP's.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report 2 weeks ago
#12
(Original post by Realitysreflexx)
If the US needs a wider conflict area to test weapons... That's silly... We use our drones and weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan to this day as we please.

Why would the US be interested in a conflict with China and Russia, who indeed have their own arsenal of nuclear deterrent as a testing ground.

Finally, the US weapons industry is so self contained and de facto funded by the largest defense budget on the globe... By several small nations GDP's.
The US 'defence' industries rely heavily on foreign sales, these lengthen production lines and lower unit costs and assist in advertising their wares and their status. Why else would Trump salivate over every Saudi prince he comes across so blatantly? Why the White House jubilation at the recent arms deals with the Saudis? The US is and remains the #1 arms seller to the planet, but Russia in particular is a competitor and anxious to boost sales further.

Iraq and Afghanistan are both winding down now, so apart from Yemen and some final actions in Iraq/Syria, the US needs a new combat testing zone with live civilians to kill in large numbers, as does Russia and China. The hunt is on for a suitable victim region even as we speak.
1
reply
Realitysreflexx
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#13
Report 2 weeks ago
#13
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
The US 'defence' industries rely heavily on foreign sales, these lengthen production lines and lower unit costs and assist in advertising their wares and their status. Why else would Trump salivate over every Saudi prince he comes across so blatantly? Why the White House jubilation at the recent arms deals with the Saudis? The US is and remains the #1 arms seller to the planet, but Russia in particular is a competitor and anxious to boost sales further.

Iraq and Afghanistan are both winding down now, so apart from Yemen and some final actions in Iraq/Syria, the US needs a new combat testing zone with live civilians to kill in large numbers, as does Russia and China. The hunt is on for a suitable victim region even as we speak.
The US is the number one arm's seller sure, but they only sell to allies and Russian tech is far behind ours. And it's the US defense industry. It's not a British organisation so you don't apply british spelling.

I don't refer to the chancellor of the exchequer as treasury secretary either. Or Prime Minister of the UK as President of the UK.

Well i can agree the US is always looking for a nice fight where it can flex it's muscle but the way you worded it sounded more like it was looking to do so with Russia and China. But i see what you mean, they are looking for their next proxy conflict areas. However, I'm not so sure.. Iraq and Afghanistan may be winding down but they still do tons of missions completely of any sort of information you or I have access to. The US primarily utilises it's Airforce to fight most conflicts and drones continually fly missions. So it's not as calm as you believe, it's similar to Syria lots dying still occurring just the news are tired 😴 of reporting. Doesn't mean their isn't still conflict on going.
Last edited by Realitysreflexx; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#14
(Original post by 999tigger)
It is Russia who has more concerns about China.
In fairness i'd say it is about equal, albeit for different reasons. Russia is perpetually terrified China will start knawing at its eastern boarders whilst the US is unsettled, to say the least, by what China can do with its arsenal against their bases and fleets.
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#15
Report 2 weeks ago
#15
Back to the original point, then all I am seeing is Russia in breach on a number of issues and the US saying it will test a missile does not contravene the treaty that no longer exists. Designing such a missile would not either, but all the other actions I suggested above would. It isnt a unilateral decision, the entire council of Nato agreed Russia was in breach. Seems strange but now we can go back to missile deployment by all countries.
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#16
Report 2 weeks ago
#16
The probability that the US will station nuclear intermediate missiles anywhere in the forseeable future is basically zero. No-one wants them. The chance of conventional missiles being deployed are slightly higher but still probably won't happen. The US motives are basically internal:
i) Money for manufacturers of weapon parts.
ii) Old Cold Warriors like John Bolton getting erections at the thought of being allowed to play with previously forbidden toys, even if they're basically useless because there's nowhere to put them.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts

All the exam results help you need

1,099

people online now

225,530

students helped last year
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How are you feeling about GCSE Results Day?

Hopeful (180)
12.78%
Excited (116)
8.23%
Worried (264)
18.74%
Terrified (329)
23.35%
Meh (113)
8.02%
Confused (33)
2.34%
Putting on a brave face (190)
13.48%
Impatient (184)
13.06%

Watched Threads

View All