Trump says US is ending decades-old nuclear arms treaty with Russia

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
So what’s the point & purpose of the treaty if neither party is bound to it?

What part of "purely for domestic political purposes" do you fail to understand? Renouncing the treaty just gives us license to produce & field weapons the military doesn't need & that our European allies likely won't host. Dunno why in the Hell Congress would fund it, either, other than as pork for the MIC.

It's Trump's tough guy act.
 
  • Like
Reactions: darkswordsman17
Feb 4, 2009
35,248
16,716
136
What part of "purely for domestic political purposes" do you fail to understand? Renouncing the treaty just gives us license to produce & field weapons the military doesn't need & that our European allies likely won't host. Dunno why in the Hell Congress would fund it, either, other than as pork for the MIC.

It's Trump's tough guy act.

Yes, what’s the point of the agreement if Russia does not keep its commitment?
You are doing the typical Democrat thing. Really over complicating the situation. We both know there is no reason to keep our end of a bargain if the other party will not keep their end.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Yes, what’s the point of the agreement if Russia does not keep its commitment?
You are doing the typical Democrat thing. Really over complicating the situation. We both know there is no reason to keep our end of a bargain if the other party will not keep their end.

What do we gain? We just give Putin the green light to do what we really can't & don't need to do. They've just been in the development phase up til now. We gave them an excuse to deploy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: darkswordsman17
Feb 4, 2009
35,248
16,716
136
What do we gain? We just give Putin the green light to do what we really can't & don't need to do. They've just been in the development phase up til now. We gave them an excuse to deploy.

We gain pride, that has value. Embrace it don’t over complicate it. It’s a real hard sell the idea that keeping a treaty in place that is frequently violated is still good because who knows what will happen without the treaty.
That’s fear selling stuff, the type Trump is a master at.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pcgeek11

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
We gain pride, that has value. Embrace it don’t over complicate it. It’s a real hard sell the idea that keeping a treaty in place that is frequently violated is still good because who knows what will happen without the treaty.
That’s fear selling stuff, the type Trump is a master at.

Oh, please. The idea that Russia is actually violating the treaty other than by developing such weapons is completely unsubstantiated. I'm not sure that's an actual violation, anyway. Deployment is the issue. Now they can & there's nothing anybody can say about it.

Putin- I want to deploy this stuff but I don't want to look like the bad guy.

Trump- I'll renounce the treaty & gain political advantage at home to help you out with that. MAGA! NATO can suck it.

Keep the false pride.
 
  • Like
Reactions: darkswordsman17

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,008
8,041
136
This doesn't really worry me as what our species is doing is much worse than a nuclear war and more likely to happen.

Would that be CO2, or the part where we're quite literally wrapping all life in plastic?

Our destruction appears to be a multiple choice answer at this point. Choose your own adventure.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Are you referring to our 'tactical' nukes (as if there really is such a thing)? I don't know what each has stockpiled in that regard but they are different than our nuclear triad, iirc. There is absolutely no need for any more MAD weapons but if adversaries are planning on tactical usage of nukes to offset conventional disadvantages, I'm not sure where we go. And China is obviously not a signatory either which eventually will prove problematic as both russia and china actually include offensive tactical nuclear use in their doctrines whereas we only allow for defensive use.

Think it through. Where would we deploy intermediate range land based nuclear missiles other than Europe & perhaps in Turkey? They don't want that & simply will not accept it. Their idea of the best case scenario for nuclear war is for the US & the Russians to leave them out of it. Our commitments to NATO dictate that we would respond to any attack on the West in kind which we can already accomplish with mirv'd SLBM's. The Russians can't stop them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: darkswordsman17

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
21,632
4,685
136
Because there's nothing gained in renouncing the treaty other than in domestic US politics. And maybe defense contracts. Keep the FUD level high enough to keep people voting irrationally. Tough Guy Trump!

That is an opinion and some have a different one. Even if we don't increase or upgrade our Nucs it makes a strong statement to Putin.
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
21,632
4,685
136
Oh, please. The idea that Russia is actually violating the treaty other than by developing such weapons is completely unsubstantiated. I'm not sure that's an actual violation, anyway. Deployment is the issue. Now they can & there's nothing anybody can say about it.

Putin- I want to deploy this stuff but I don't want to look like the bad guy.

Trump- I'll renounce the treaty & gain political advantage at home to help you out with that. MAGA! NATO can suck it.

Keep the false pride.

Putin doesn't care if he looks like a bad guy or not. Why would anyone develop something that expensive and not have it ready to use.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
So how much more deficit spending is building these intermediate range nukes going to take on top of our already bloated military budget?
 

GodisanAtheist

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2006
7,150
7,645
136
That's mighty white of you.

Ever wonder why the dentist covers your nuts with a tiny little piece of lead cloth, and the steps into a lead encased bunker to xray your teeth?

-Not in the spirit of the thread and I don't know if you were being sarcastic or trolling or what, but the denstist gets into a bunker when taking x-rays because they take hundreds of those x-rays a month while you get one once a year.

It's the cumulative effects of low dose x-ray exposure that they're protecting themselves from, not that one baby size x ray dose the patient gets with the x-ray.
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
21,632
4,685
136
So how much more deficit spending is building these intermediate range nukes going to take on top of our already bloated military budget?

I haven't heard anyone say they were going to build them. Only that they are voiding the agreement.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Would that be CO2, or the part where we're quite literally wrapping all life in plastic?

Our destruction appears to be a multiple choice answer at this point. Choose your own adventure.

I'll go with cooking the planet.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Putin doesn't care if he looks like a bad guy or not. Why would anyone develop something that expensive and not have it ready to use.

I'm sure that a variety of expensive weapons systems have been developed that were never deployed. Trump renouncing the treaty gives Putin the opportunity to play to Russian fears & nationalism on the home front. He's the defender of Mother Russia.
 

repoman0

Diamond Member
Jun 17, 2010
4,701
3,727
136
I'll go with cooking the planet.

Plenty of creatures could thrive if we don't get climate change under control ... just probably won't be humans or mammals: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/10/dinosaurs-dolomites/573286/

The planet's long term chances are way better with climate change as humanity's destruction rather than nuclear war. At least reptiles and plants will make it and totally paper over our short lived destruction of our environment.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Plenty of creatures could thrive if we don't get climate change under control ... just probably won't be humans or mammals: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/10/dinosaurs-dolomites/573286/

The planet's long term chances are way better with climate change as humanity's destruction rather than nuclear war. At least reptiles and plants will make it and totally paper over our short lived destruction of our environment.

Things will live, but it will likely be worse than with the dinosaurs, probably along the lines of the Permian-Triassic extinction also knows as the "Great Dying". That's because of inadequate time for oxygen-producing organisms to evolve and ecosystems to adapt.

It will get worse of course after higher life goes into a fossil record as heating trends tend to have an inertia of sorts. In some hundreds of thousands or millions of years a new stable system will reform and whether it's higher animals, insects, or microbes which survive is anyone's guess.

Naturally, people want to dismiss this, even those who are scientifically literate, and that's completely understandable. No one ever takes the end of the world as we know it seriously, and it's almost always right to do so- almost.
 

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
7,017
8,545
136
And here we have the logical conclusion of Republican governance. If it's true that Russia is violating the treaty...Trump wants us to consider a claim that might actually have merit, and it’s impossible because he has already established that he has no credibility whatsoever. It's almost impossible to assess grown-up behavior from him.

Trump makes un-supported seemingly typical move followed the next day by Russia's vow to match any military challenge. What better way to bolster the defense industry and even garner approval from fearful citizenry for another industrialist money grab.
 
Feb 4, 2009
35,248
16,716
136
Alright here is the theory I heard and it makes sense if you remove Trump from the decision making because it’s too long term and Trump does not think long term.

The agreement currently is just a place holder to use for sanctions if needed. Abandoning it removes that option but it’s not really needed at this point in time.
China was never bound to the treaty and has been going all out developing this stuff. Removing ourselves from the treaty allows us to match or exceed China. The goal is to surpass both Russia & China and bring them to the table for a new deal that covers everyone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Herr Kutz

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
28,746
40,188
136
Alright here is the theory I heard and it makes sense if you remove Trump from the decision making because it’s too long term and Trump does not think long term.

The agreement currently is just a place holder to use for sanctions if needed. Abandoning it removes that option but it’s not really needed at this point in time.
China was never bound to the treaty and has been going all out developing this stuff. Removing ourselves from the treaty allows us to match or exceed China. The goal is to surpass both Russia & China and bring them to the table for a new deal that covers everyone.

Winner winner, chicken dinner.

I was waiting to see how long it took for someone else to acknowledge China in this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Herr Kutz