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

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
24,225
10,878
136
Winner winner, chicken dinner.

I was waiting to see how long it took for someone else to acknowledge China in this.
I guess I wasted my career, collecting data, that ensures that one leg of the triad is an effective and reliable deterrent. Walking away from MAD will be the destruction of the earth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: darkswordsman17

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
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.

That's ridiculous. China has a minimalist nuclear deterrent. So let's say the US develops the kind of land based nuclear missiles renouncing the treaty lets us build. Where would we deploy them in reference to China? Or to Russia, for that matter. None of our allies want them on their territory.

OTOH, it gives Putin the green light to deploy such weapons in order to counter our ABM's in eastern europe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: darkswordsman17

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
28,746
40,188
136
I guess I wasted my career, collecting data, that ensures that one leg of the triad is an effective and reliable deterrent. Walking away from MAD will be the destruction of the earth.

Oh hush. Let's not view the topic in a vacuum, is what I'm saying. Like it or not, China's dramatic and rapid ramp up to offensive war fighting ability needs to be part of the discussion. Hypersonic missiles, the variety that pass through existing defenses, are something the Pentagon can't ignore. It really surprises me to hear posters here act like the American military of the late 80s still enjoys overwhelming superiority in weapons. We've rested on our laurels. Russia has modern interceptors that can hit targets traveling at Mach 15, modern missiles like the Iskander that neighbors envy and fear. Which system would we use to counter an autonomous intercontinental nuclear torpedo that travels very fast and very deep, perhaps even with a cobalt flavored warhead?

MAD is not ensured by sticking with antiquated missiles that boot off of 5.24" floppies.

Deterrence needs to be credible in order to work.
 
Last edited:
Feb 4, 2009
35,248
16,716
136
That's ridiculous. China has a minimalist nuclear deterrent. So let's say the US develops the kind of land based nuclear missiles renouncing the treaty lets us build. Where would we deploy them in reference to China? Or to Russia, for that matter. None of our allies want them on their territory.

OTOH, it gives Putin the green light to deploy such weapons in order to counter our ABM's in eastern europe.

I’m no expert and do not want to present this as an expert.
These people disagree

https://www.armscontrol.org/blog/2018-08-22/time-address-chinas-expanding-nuclear-weapons-program

unsettling moves by China to expand its nuclear weapons program, including the development of new types of nuclear-capable missiles. These new weapons systems have largely slipped under the radar as North Korean and Russian nuclear weapons programs continue to grab headlines. However, these developments threaten to further destabilize a shaky global nuclear order, highlighting the critical need for engagement with China.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
24,225
10,878
136
Oh hush. Let's not view the topic in a vacuum, is what I'm saying. Like it or not, China's dramatic and rapid ramp up to offensive war fighting needs to be part of the discussion. Hypersonic missiles, the variety that pass through existing defenses, are something the Pentagon can't ignore. It really surprises me to hear posters here act like the American military of the late 80s still enjoys overwhelming superiority in weapons. We've rested on our laurels. Russia has modern interceptors that can hit targets traveling at Mach 15, modern missiles like the Iskander that neighbors envy and fear. Which system would we use to counter an autonomous intercontinental nuclear torpedo that travels very fast and very deep, perhaps even with a cobalt flavored warhead?

MAD is not ensured by sticking with antiquated missiles that boot off of 5.24" floppies.

Deterrence needs to be credible in order to work.
Lot you know. Ever heard of the LE program?
EDIT: clue Life Extension.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
I’m no expert and do not want to present this as an expert.
These people disagree

https://www.armscontrol.org/blog/2018-08-22/time-address-chinas-expanding-nuclear-weapons-program

You're not looking at this squarely. What would we do with the kind of missiles renouncing the treaty gives Russia the excuse to deploy? Where would we deploy them?

The Chinese nuclear deterrent isn't even in the same order of magnitude as either the US or Russia. If they doubled theirs it would be ~1/10 the size of our own.
 
  • Like
Reactions: darkswordsman17
Feb 4, 2009
35,248
16,716
136
You're not looking at this squarely. What would we do with the kind of missiles renouncing the treaty gives Russia the excuse to deploy? Where would we deploy them?

The Chinese nuclear deterrent isn't even in the same order of magnitude as either the US or Russia. If they doubled theirs it would be ~1/10 the size of our own.

That’s the idea, get China to the table and cap them.
 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
24,938
9,221
136
Don't know the details, but I briefly heard on the radio that Trump actually attended a (state?) dinner celebrating the signing of this very same treaty decades ago!
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136

You're becoming deliberately obtuse. We can develop intermediate range land based nuclear missiles until hell freezes over & gain nothing because our allies likely will not accept deployment on their territory. They're like "No, Donald, you're not painting a target on our backs." There's absolutely no point to deploying them in this country.

meanwhile, Trump threatens to disown any nuclear weapons treaties-

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45946930

It's one thing to upgrade hardware, which we are doing, & entirely another to make more. I'm having trouble figuring out why 5000 might not be enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: darkswordsman17
Feb 4, 2009
35,248
16,716
136
You're becoming deliberately obtuse. We can develop intermediate range land based nuclear missiles until hell freezes over & gain nothing because our allies likely will not accept deployment on their territory. They're like "No, Donald, you're not painting a target on our backs." There's absolutely no point to deploying them in this country.

meanwhile, Trump threatens to disown any nuclear weapons treaties-

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45946930

It's one thing to upgrade hardware, which we are doing, & entirely another to make more. I'm having trouble figuring out why 5000 might not be enough.

Obtuse? I posted a perfectly rational link to explaining the theory I heard. That’s not obtuse.
You insist upon being right about this for some reason and I suspect it involves your dislike of Trump.
Trump is still a turd, you don’t have to agree with me. I don’t think our turd is off base with this move.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Obtuse? I posted a perfectly rational link to explaining the theory I heard. That’s not obtuse.
You insist upon being right about this for some reason and I suspect it involves your dislike of Trump.
Trump is still a turd, you don’t have to agree with me. I don’t think our turd is off base with this move.

In case you hadn't noticed the Aegis systems deployed in Eastern Europe are also compatible with nuclear weapon variants of tomahawk missiles-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_41_Vertical_Launching_System
 
Feb 4, 2009
35,248
16,716
136
In case you hadn't noticed the Aegis systems deployed in Eastern Europe are also compatible with nuclear weapon variants of tomahawk missiles-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_41_Vertical_Launching_System

Are you a defense analyst? Do you work at the Pentagon? Do you have some qualifications that allow you to make that statement with confidence (google doesn’t count)
I’m looking at it like immigration. Experts say the caravan coming here can be felt with and there are processes in place to handle it.
I’m trusting the experts in the same manner on this.
 

GodisanAtheist

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2006
7,150
7,645
136
I’m no expert and do not want to present this as an expert.
These people disagree

https://www.armscontrol.org/blog/2018-08-22/time-address-chinas-expanding-nuclear-weapons-program


-I'm a little confused by both those links. If I can distill them down to their core points:

1)More nuclear shit is bad.
2)China is developing more nuclear shit.
3)China feels that the development of nuclear shit in other countries means their existing deterrant is no longer effective, necessitating their drive to expansion.

So doesn't the argument (let me know if I'm getting it wrong here) that the US needs to up it's first and second strike capability as well as upgrade it's nuclear arsenal just fuel the problem that these articles are addressing, and just send us into another nuclear arms race?

Additionally, arms limitation treaties don't prevent upgrades to the nuclear deterrent, just the manufacture of more fissile material (again, I could be very wrong here).
 
Feb 4, 2009
35,248
16,716
136
-I'm a little confused by both those links. If I can distill them down to their core points:

1)More nuclear shit is bad.
2)China is developing more nuclear shit.
3)China feels that the development of nuclear shit in other countries means their existing deterrant is no longer effective, necessitating their drive to expansion.

So doesn't the argument (let me know if I'm getting it wrong here) that the US needs to up it's first and second strike capability as well as upgrade it's nuclear arsenal just fuel the problem that these articles are addressing, and just send us into another nuclear arms race?

Additionally, arms limitation treaties don't prevent upgrades to the nuclear deterrent, just the manufacture of more fissile material (again, I could be very wrong here).

I could agree with what you’ve said. Let’s face it this is a super complicated issue. I’m no Trumper but I’ll say the move wasn’t necessary a bad thing to do.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
28,746
40,188
136
Issues of Russian compliance aside, it's the matter of the INF governing our ability to counter new Chinese cruise and land based missiles that is a problem. Remember this treaty predates the current security situation by a number of decades, before Cold War 2.0 started and before China's rise and itch for war - or the cooperation of the two really. Putin and Xi see eye to eye. I think the treaty did some great things, don't get me wrong, but the world changes and we need to change with it. I hate Trump with a passion, but just like with the Hitler thing, I can't kick him when he doesn't deserve it. DoD has been worried about this issue prior to 2016's disaster.
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Issues of Russian compliance aside, it's the matter of the INF governing our ability to counter new Chinese cruise and land based missiles that is a problem. Remember this treaty predates the current security situation by a number of decades, before Cold War 2.0 started and before China's rise and itch for war. I think the treaty did some great things, don't get me wrong, but the world changes and we need to change with it. I hate Trump with a passion, but just like with the Hitler thing, I can't kick him when he doesn't deserve it. DoD has been worried about this issue prior to 2016's disaster.

That's bullshit. Sea launched missiles are not covered by the treaty. Where would we deploy land based intermediate range missiles in order to counter this supposed Chinese threat?

"China's rise & itch for war" is pure fear mongering. It's also a complete misdirection play if the above question can't be answered.
 
  • Like
Reactions: darkswordsman17

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
28,746
40,188
136
That's bullshit. Sea launched missiles are not covered by the treaty. Where would we deploy land based intermediate range missiles in order to counter this supposed Chinese threat?

I didn't say they were. I don't agree with all the authors points, the article was intended to show a dispute in the numbers of warheads as well as the desire to change those numbers. But to answer your question, the allied countries that want our help from aggressive neighbors mainly; Japan, Poland, etc. You think the end of Scandinavian neutrality was just completely random? China's militarization of the entire SCS, and the local reactions to it, all no big deal?

"China's rise & itch for war" is pure fear mongering. It's also a complete misdirection play if the above question can't be answered.

It continually surprises me how you turn a blind eye to Xi's China. I do hope you're right Jhhnn, wrt their intentions, I just don't think you are.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
I didn't say they were. I don't agree with all the authors points, the article was intended to show a dispute in the numbers of warheads as well as the desire to change those numbers. But to answer your question, the allied countries that want our help from aggressive neighbors mainly; Japan, Poland, etc. You think the end of Scandinavian neutrality was just completely random? China's militarization of the entire SCS, and the local reactions to it, all no big deal?



It continually surprises me how you turn a blind eye to Xi's China. I do hope you're right Jhhnn, wrt their intentions, I just don't think you are.

If you think Japan will allow nuclear weapons on their territory at this juncture you're out of your mind. If you think such weapons need to be there you're ignoring the Seventh Fleet. The right winger currently leading Poland wants an independent EU deterrent, not a US one.

https://www.dw.com/en/poland-wants-nuclear-weapons-for-europe/a-37449773

Or, you know, maybe we can just sell these things like other weapons systems. The Saudis might be interested.

Your concerns about China are ridiculous. They do not possess first strike capability against the US & obviously do not strive to obtain it. If they doubled their arsenal it would be 1/10 of our own. And, I mean, who the fuck would they want to nuke, anyway? They're under no existential threat from their neighbors.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
28,746
40,188
136
Yes, I'm aware we disagree on this issue Jhhnn. Get as worked up as you need to though, I've long since realized I can't count on you to acknowledge China's behavior. I'm not really invested in changing your mind to be honest. We agree on a great number of other things, that's good enough for me.