Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[US Foreign Policy] Talk about the Foreign Policy of the United States

12467100

Posts

  • Jealous DevaJealous Deva Registered User regular
    edited October 2018
    moniker wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    New START was a fucking miracle when it happened. I'm so fucking mad that Bolton is getting in the way of the next iteration of it. Trump is probably too stupid to understand it and the INF to have wanted to do this of his own mind.

    He certainly doesn't know the names of the treaties, or the particulars, but don't forget that this happened literally a year ago.

    *11 October 2017*
    NBC wrote:

    WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump said he wanted what amounted to a nearly tenfold increase in the U.S. nuclear arsenal during a gathering this past summer of the nation’s highest-ranking national security leaders, according to three officials who were in the room.
    *11 October 2017*
    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/all/trump-wanted-dramatic-increase-nuclear-arsenal-meeting-military-leaders-n809701

    He wants more nukes because nukes are powerful and he's still living in the 80's. Hell, I hope nobody tells him about the Tsar Bomba.

    Mr. President, just because Vladimir Putin has a weapon over twice as big as yours doesn’t mean you have to constantly be trying to overcompensate for it.

    Jealous Deva on
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited October 2018
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Worrying about a large scale nuclear exchange should be put on the same shelf as the yellowstone caldera and getting hit by lightning while a shark attacks you.

    Honestly it would be a refreshingly swift end.
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Worrying about a large scale nuclear exchange should be put on the same shelf as the yellowstone caldera and getting hit by lightning while a shark attacks you.

    Donald Trump can start s nuclear war any time he wants. Sleep well!

    Nixon was drunk one night and tried. I'll sleep fine.

    Nixon didn't express a combination of stunted emotional development and a desire to normalize the use of Nukes.

    No he was just a deeply paranoid man with a war criminal whispering in his ear

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    Doodmann
  • [Tycho?][Tycho?] Registered User regular
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Worrying about a large scale nuclear exchange should be put on the same shelf as the yellowstone caldera and getting hit by lightning while a shark attacks you.

    Oh god I hope this is a joke that I just don't get

    mvaYcgc.jpg
    shrykeKetBra
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    New START was a fucking miracle when it happened. I'm so fucking mad that Bolton is getting in the way of the next iteration of it. Trump is probably too stupid to understand it and the INF to have wanted to do this of his own mind.

    He certainly doesn't know the names of the treaties, or the particulars, but don't forget that this happened literally a year ago.

    *11 October 2017*
    NBC wrote:

    WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump said he wanted what amounted to a nearly tenfold increase in the U.S. nuclear arsenal during a gathering this past summer of the nation’s highest-ranking national security leaders, according to three officials who were in the room.
    *11 October 2017*
    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/all/trump-wanted-dramatic-increase-nuclear-arsenal-meeting-military-leaders-n809701

    He wants more nukes because nukes are powerful and he's still living in the 80's. Hell, I hope nobody tells him about the Tsar Bomba.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/03/trump-asks-why-us-cant-use-nukes-msnbcs-joe-scarborough-reports.html
    Trump reportedly asks why US can't use nukes: MSNBC
    10:06 AM ET Wed, 3 Aug 2016 | 01:20
    Donald Trump asked a foreign policy expert advising him why the U.S. can't use nuclear weapons, MSNBC's Joe Scarborough said on the air Wednesday, citing an unnamed source who claimed he had spoken with the GOP presidential nominee.

    "Several months ago, a foreign policy expert on the international level went to advise Donald Trump. And three times [Trump] asked about the use of nuclear weapons. Three times he asked at one point if we had them why can't we use them," Scarborough said on his "Morning Joe" program.

    This is the mentality in question, in case anyone forgot.


    Also it's weird because back in the 80s he seemed fucking obsessed with the idea that he could end the threat of Nuclear War, Forever.

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    shrykeMild ConfusionElldrenelectricitylikesmeKristmas Kthulhu
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular


    Also, depressingly, distressingly, relevant, I guess.

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    FencingsaxRedTideBlackDragon480knitdanKristmas Kthulhu
  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    For the love of all fucks, why?!

    Is there money in making bombs again? Is this some penis issue or something?

    For fucks same man!

    steam_sig.png

    Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
    electricitylikesme
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    For the love of all fucks, why?!

    Is there money in making bombs again? Is this some penis issue or something?

    For fucks same man!

    Yes.

    Remember that their primary foreign policy goal is "We're America bitch!". And really, that's not too surprising as an encapsulation of the beliefs of a lot of americans re: foreign policy.

    FencingsaxmrondeauMan in the MistselectricitylikesmeRingoCommander ZoomGnome-InterruptusCelestialBadgerJazzTetraRayKamarCantideGennenalyse RuebenSkeithKristmas KthulhuJuliusBullheadMagellemp123
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    The arms deals maintain the neo-colonial system. The West sells arms to and guarantees the survival of these shitty regimes so they keep their resources on the world market that the West dominates. The dictators repress their populations so we don't have to do it ourselves. We outsource oppression.

    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
    electricitylikesmeDouglasDangerJulius
  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    Jephery wrote: »
    The arms deals maintain the neo-colonial system. The West sells arms to and guarantees the survival of these shitty regimes so they keep their resources on the world market that the West dominates. The dictators repress their populations so we don't have to do it ourselves. We outsource oppression.

    I'm going to get a lot of flak for this but: Is either that or let China and Russia grab everything not nailed down. I made my choice. You are naive if you think that small countries actually take their own decisions.

    SmrtnikNSDFRand
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    The arms deals maintain the neo-colonial system. The West sells arms to and guarantees the survival of these shitty regimes so they keep their resources on the world market that the West dominates. The dictators repress their populations so we don't have to do it ourselves. We outsource oppression.

    I'm going to get a lot of flak for this but: Is either that or let China and Russia grab everything not nailed down. I made my choice. You are naive if you think that small countries actually take their own decisions.

    As has been commented, if they were to switch to Russian or Chinese systems, that would be a monumentous investment. None are intercompatible, for many onvious reasons

    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
    Bullhead
  • lonelyahavalonelyahava Mortius is correct Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    Jesus christ

    I take back what I said about the title reflecting headlines.

    I did not need to read that right before bed.

  • silence1186silence1186 Character shields down! As a wingmanRegistered User regular
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    The arms deals maintain the neo-colonial system. The West sells arms to and guarantees the survival of these shitty regimes so they keep their resources on the world market that the West dominates. The dictators repress their populations so we don't have to do it ourselves. We outsource oppression.

    I'm going to get a lot of flak for this but: Is either that or let China and Russia grab everything not nailed down. I made my choice. You are naive if you think that small countries actually take their own decisions.

    Sort of like: the people in the small countries are going to suffer no matter who's in charge among the USA, China, or Russia, so given that the suffering is unavoidable, might as well be America who benefits from it, since if it were China or Russia, the USA would be worse off?

    V wrote:
    Words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth.

    Harry DresdenSleep
  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    The arms deals maintain the neo-colonial system. The West sells arms to and guarantees the survival of these shitty regimes so they keep their resources on the world market that the West dominates. The dictators repress their populations so we don't have to do it ourselves. We outsource oppression.

    I'm going to get a lot of flak for this but: Is either that or let China and Russia grab everything not nailed down. I made my choice. You are naive if you think that small countries actually take their own decisions.

    Sort of like: the people in the small countries are going to suffer no matter who's in charge among the USA, China, or Russia, so given that the suffering is unavoidable, might as well be America who benefits from it, since if it were China or Russia, the USA would be worse off?

    Also, you know, that being on the US sphere of influence is better for (most) countries than being on the Russia/China one.

    Yes, I'm saying that there is a "less bad" option.

    DoodmannNSDFRandFencingsaxDongs GaloreKamarshrykeGONG-00Kristmas KthulhuJoolander
  • Dongs GaloreDongs Galore Registered User regular
    edited October 2018
    if the neo-colonial system means that we don't physically walk in and take possession of the country and replace everyone with white people, that makes America the most benign colonial empire in history tbh

    like, how much better would South Africa be if the British had just sold King Cetshwayo a bunch of maxim guns instead of overthrowing him and conquering his homeland and giving it over the Boers

    Dongs Galore on
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    edited October 2018
    The people in Yemen sure are so much better off with the US backed Saudis killing them than Chinese backed ones, sure.

    Though to be honest the Saudis would have covered Yemen in chemical gas like Assad did Syria if the US wasn't holding them back, heh.

    Jephery on
    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
    Julius
  • BlackDragon480BlackDragon480 Bluster Kerfuffle Master of Windy ImportRegistered User regular
    Sadly, the Yemeni have been stuck inside and eating a shit sandwich for the past 60 years, from the first proxy war between Egyptian-backed republicans (and the Egyptians were a de facto proxy of the USSR, since their primary military supplier was the Eastern Bloc (more specifically Czechoslovakia)) and Saudi-backed monarchists (Saudi's being US proxies, of course) in 1962 to the clusterfuck of today.

    First they came for the Muslims and we said...NOT TODAY MOTHERFUCKERS!
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited October 2018
    "Sure yemen is bad but itd be worse without us" is really gross.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    JepheryBlackDragon480NeveronPolaritieEchoDoodmannMan in the MistsDouglasDangerMonsieur TelectricitylikesmeStabbity StyleJuliusDhalphir
  • Dongs GaloreDongs Galore Registered User regular
    edited October 2018
    without us the Saudis would still be bombing them, just with even less accurate bombs. And kids would also be getting killed by Houthi ballistic missiles in the streets of Riyadh, with no Patriot batteries there to intercept them

    Dongs Galore on
  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    Also, I wrote "most" countries for a reason. Like, taking military power aside (though is very much related), the sheer size of the economy of the big countries has its own gravitational field: Everybody else just picks which planet they want to orbit around.

    Commander ZoomSmrtnik
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    edited October 2018
    Then let them suck up to the CCP. Why do we need or want their blood money? Our ideological values aren't being transferred, and we're selling out our own values in this transaction.

    Right now Trump is telling his Republican base that assassination and mass murder is fine as long as the guys doing it are paying us enough. Engaging in market activity with them isn't turning Saudi Arabia into a liberal country, its turning us into them.

    Jephery on
    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
    electricitylikesme
  • Dongs GaloreDongs Galore Registered User regular
    btw we're withdrawing from the IRBM Treaty

  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    btw we're withdrawing from the IRBM Treaty

    Which means instead of trying to push Russia into compliance with the treaty through diplomatic/economic means, in an effort to curb nuclear proliferation, Trump goes "Fuck it, you can develop what you want, and we're not gonna say shit about it.". Because intermediate range weapons aren't really ones that'll potentially be used against the US.

    Way to go, dipshit. Make it clear to Europe that they're definitely on their own. Tough stance against Russia, giving them pretty much exactly what they want.

    Seriously, at what point is this asshole not a domestic enemy, in the "against all enemies, foreign and domestic" part of the Oath of Allegiance?

    BigJoeMPhoenix-DJepherymonikerForarGennenalyse RuebenMan in the MistsSmrtnikOrcaMonsieur TelectricitylikesmehippofantSkeithElldrenMegaMekKristmas KthulhuKamarMagellvalhalla130emp123
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    MorganV wrote: »
    btw we're withdrawing from the IRBM Treaty

    Which means instead of trying to push Russia into compliance with the treaty through diplomatic/economic means, in an effort to curb nuclear proliferation, Trump goes "Fuck it, you can develop what you want, and we're not gonna say shit about it.". Because intermediate range weapons aren't really ones that'll potentially be used against the US.

    Way to go, dipshit. Make it clear to Europe that they're definitely on their own. Tough stance against Russia, giving them pretty much exactly what they want.

    Seriously, at what point is this asshole not a domestic enemy, in the "against all enemies, foreign and domestic" part of the Oath of Allegiance?

    He's actually doing a pretty good job of expressing the foreign policy views of a rather good-sized chunk of the US.

    US foreign policy has always been run by and it's goals chosen by america's elite class while a lot of the general population has had a highly isolationist and aggressive "We're America Bitch!" view on the subject.

    electricitylikesmeRchanenBlackDragon480
  • GONG-00GONG-00 Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    MorganV wrote: »
    btw we're withdrawing from the IRBM Treaty

    Which means instead of trying to push Russia into compliance with the treaty through diplomatic/economic means, in an effort to curb nuclear proliferation, Trump goes "Fuck it, you can develop what you want, and we're not gonna say shit about it.". Because intermediate range weapons aren't really ones that'll potentially be used against the US.

    Way to go, dipshit. Make it clear to Europe that they're definitely on their own. Tough stance against Russia, giving them pretty much exactly what they want.

    Seriously, at what point is this asshole not a domestic enemy, in the "against all enemies, foreign and domestic" part of the Oath of Allegiance?

    He's actually doing a pretty good job of expressing the foreign policy views of a rather good-sized chunk of the US.

    US foreign policy has always been run by and it's goals chosen by america's elite class while a lot of the general population has had a highly isolationist and aggressive "We're America Bitch!" view on the subject.

    It’s easy to be “we’re America Bitch!” when one lives outside the detonation radius of a typical Russian ICBM payload targeting US population centers or military installations.

    Future Employee of Planetary Acquisitions, Inc.
    Pax Arcadia(PC) Division Agent
    xu257gunns6e.png

    Man in the MistsCommander ZoomMoridin889
  • Dongs GaloreDongs Galore Registered User regular
    edited October 2018
    MorganV wrote: »
    btw we're withdrawing from the IRBM Treaty

    Which means instead of trying to push Russia into compliance with the treaty through diplomatic/economic means, in an effort to curb nuclear proliferation, Trump goes "Fuck it, you can develop what you want, and we're not gonna say shit about it.". Because intermediate range weapons aren't really ones that'll potentially be used against the US.

    Way to go, dipshit. Make it clear to Europe that they're definitely on their own. Tough stance against Russia, giving them pretty much exactly what they want.

    Seriously, at what point is this asshole not a domestic enemy, in the "against all enemies, foreign and domestic" part of the Oath of Allegiance?

    Obama also seriously considered withdrawing from the INF treaty when it became clear Russia was blatantly violating it. This does not necessarily signal to Europe that they're "on their own," since it signifies we will also begin developing intermediate-range systems to deploy in Europe.
    Staying in the treaty while Russia ignores it would also be giving Russia exactly what they want. So far, Russian behavior has not been modified by sanctions.

    I'm not saying this is a good idea but it isn't treasonous

    e: also, China is not party to the treaty, and intermediate-range systems would significantly expand our options in the Pacific, where there are vast distances involved

    Dongs Galore on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    MorganV wrote: »
    btw we're withdrawing from the IRBM Treaty

    Which means instead of trying to push Russia into compliance with the treaty through diplomatic/economic means, in an effort to curb nuclear proliferation, Trump goes "Fuck it, you can develop what you want, and we're not gonna say shit about it.". Because intermediate range weapons aren't really ones that'll potentially be used against the US.

    Way to go, dipshit. Make it clear to Europe that they're definitely on their own. Tough stance against Russia, giving them pretty much exactly what they want.

    Seriously, at what point is this asshole not a domestic enemy, in the "against all enemies, foreign and domestic" part of the Oath of Allegiance?

    Obama also seriously considered withdrawing from the INF treaty when it became clear Russia was blatantly violating it. This does not necessarily signal to Europe that they're "on their own," since it signifies we will also begin developing intermediate-range systems to deploy in Europe.
    Staying in the treaty while Russia ignores it would also be giving Russia exactly what they want. So far, Russian behavior has not been modified by sanctions.

    I'm not saying this is a good idea but it isn't treasonous

    e: also, China is not party to the treaty, and intermediate-range systems would significantly expand our options in the Pacific, where there are vast distances involved

    If Obama withdrew from it, I would believe it was for that reason.

    When Trump does it, all evidence suggests it's because he doesn't understand international politics and just likes to swing his dick around.

    PreacherFencingsaxMan in the MistsBigJoeMhippofantHarry DresdenMild ConfusionMorganVSkeithElldrenMegaMekNeveronJazzKristmas KthulhuStabbity StyleQanamilMoridin889Kamarvalhalla130emp123Nyysjan
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    MorganV wrote: »
    btw we're withdrawing from the IRBM Treaty

    Which means instead of trying to push Russia into compliance with the treaty through diplomatic/economic means, in an effort to curb nuclear proliferation, Trump goes "Fuck it, you can develop what you want, and we're not gonna say shit about it.". Because intermediate range weapons aren't really ones that'll potentially be used against the US.

    Way to go, dipshit. Make it clear to Europe that they're definitely on their own. Tough stance against Russia, giving them pretty much exactly what they want.

    Seriously, at what point is this asshole not a domestic enemy, in the "against all enemies, foreign and domestic" part of the Oath of Allegiance?

    Obama also seriously considered withdrawing from the INF treaty when it became clear Russia was blatantly violating it. This does not necessarily signal to Europe that they're "on their own," since it signifies we will also begin developing intermediate-range systems to deploy in Europe.
    Staying in the treaty while Russia ignores it would also be giving Russia exactly what they want. So far, Russian behavior has not been modified by sanctions.

    I'm not saying this is a good idea but it isn't treasonous

    e: also, China is not party to the treaty, and intermediate-range systems would significantly expand our options in the Pacific, where there are vast distances involved

    If Obama withdrew from it, I would believe it was for that reason.

    When Trump does it, all evidence suggests it's because he doesn't understand international politics and just likes to swing his dick around.

    Also, after serious consideration Obama decided not to...

    shrykeFencingsaxMan in the MistselectricitylikesmehippofantMild ConfusionRchanenMegaMekJazzKristmas KthulhuStabbity StyleKamarvalhalla130emp123BandableJoolander
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    Whereas "serious consideration" is not in this administration's vocabulary.

    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    Echovalhalla130
  • Dongs GaloreDongs Galore Registered User regular
    I assure you that is the argument which he was given by his advisors

    ArbitraryDescriptor
  • Dongs GaloreDongs Galore Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    MorganV wrote: »
    btw we're withdrawing from the IRBM Treaty

    Which means instead of trying to push Russia into compliance with the treaty through diplomatic/economic means, in an effort to curb nuclear proliferation, Trump goes "Fuck it, you can develop what you want, and we're not gonna say shit about it.". Because intermediate range weapons aren't really ones that'll potentially be used against the US.

    Way to go, dipshit. Make it clear to Europe that they're definitely on their own. Tough stance against Russia, giving them pretty much exactly what they want.

    Seriously, at what point is this asshole not a domestic enemy, in the "against all enemies, foreign and domestic" part of the Oath of Allegiance?

    Obama also seriously considered withdrawing from the INF treaty when it became clear Russia was blatantly violating it. This does not necessarily signal to Europe that they're "on their own," since it signifies we will also begin developing intermediate-range systems to deploy in Europe.
    Staying in the treaty while Russia ignores it would also be giving Russia exactly what they want. So far, Russian behavior has not been modified by sanctions.

    I'm not saying this is a good idea but it isn't treasonous

    e: also, China is not party to the treaty, and intermediate-range systems would significantly expand our options in the Pacific, where there are vast distances involved

    If Obama withdrew from it, I would believe it was for that reason.

    When Trump does it, all evidence suggests it's because he doesn't understand international politics and just likes to swing his dick around.

    Also, after serious consideration Obama decided not to...

    It was a difficult call to make, both options have major downsides. His decision does not invalidate a future administration's decision.

    I wouldn't be surprised if this was what Kelly and Bolton's screaming match a few days ago was about.

    TryCatcherhippofant
  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    MorganV wrote: »
    btw we're withdrawing from the IRBM Treaty

    Which means instead of trying to push Russia into compliance with the treaty through diplomatic/economic means, in an effort to curb nuclear proliferation, Trump goes "Fuck it, you can develop what you want, and we're not gonna say shit about it.". Because intermediate range weapons aren't really ones that'll potentially be used against the US.

    Way to go, dipshit. Make it clear to Europe that they're definitely on their own. Tough stance against Russia, giving them pretty much exactly what they want.

    Seriously, at what point is this asshole not a domestic enemy, in the "against all enemies, foreign and domestic" part of the Oath of Allegiance?

    Obama also seriously considered withdrawing from the INF treaty when it became clear Russia was blatantly violating it. This does not necessarily signal to Europe that they're "on their own," since it signifies we will also begin developing intermediate-range systems to deploy in Europe.
    Staying in the treaty while Russia ignores it would also be giving Russia exactly what they want. So far, Russian behavior has not been modified by sanctions.

    I'm not saying this is a good idea but it isn't treasonous

    e: also, China is not party to the treaty, and intermediate-range systems would significantly expand our options in the Pacific, where there are vast distances involved

    If Obama withdrew from it, I would believe it was for that reason.

    When Trump does it, all evidence suggests it's because he doesn't understand international politics and just likes to swing his dick around.

    Also, after serious consideration Obama decided not to...

    It was a difficult call to make, both options have major downsides. His decision does not invalidate a future administration's decision.

    I wouldn't be surprised if this was what Kelly and Bolton's screaming match a few days ago was about.

    Aye. I don't get the "is a Russian plot" when Bush-tier warhawks like Bolton wanting more nukes is a more simple explanation.

    Dongs GaloreshrykeCelestialBadgerElldrenShadow DemonJuliusKamar
  • Dongs GaloreDongs Galore Registered User regular
    seriously, it would be way more convergent with Russian interests for us to sit there bound by a useless treaty while they develop a capability we don't have

    NSDFRandMoridin889
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited October 2018
    seriously, it would be way more convergent with Russian interests for us to sit there bound by a useless treaty while they develop a capability we don't have

    Obama's position was that they'd coerce the Russians back into compliance, which, if achieved, would be generally optimal for all opposed to nuclear annihilation.

    Trump though... like... I think there's a major question about whether he's actually going to instigate (successful) development and deployment of such weapons anyways. Like his Space Force, I can't help but wonder if his actions are entirely on paper and not actually manifesting in reality. The US not being bound by the treaty does not necessarily mean that the US will develop said capability, and Trump, occupied as he always is with symbolism and distracted as he always is from actual long-term planning and action, might just be tearing up the treaty and thinking that that's enough. Maybe people in DoD will take up the slack, but also maybe not.

    hippofant on
    FencingsaxGnome-InterruptusCommander ZoomVeagleDarkPrimusKristmas Kthulhu
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    MorganV wrote: »
    btw we're withdrawing from the IRBM Treaty

    Which means instead of trying to push Russia into compliance with the treaty through diplomatic/economic means, in an effort to curb nuclear proliferation, Trump goes "Fuck it, you can develop what you want, and we're not gonna say shit about it.". Because intermediate range weapons aren't really ones that'll potentially be used against the US.

    Way to go, dipshit. Make it clear to Europe that they're definitely on their own. Tough stance against Russia, giving them pretty much exactly what they want.

    Seriously, at what point is this asshole not a domestic enemy, in the "against all enemies, foreign and domestic" part of the Oath of Allegiance?

    Obama also seriously considered withdrawing from the INF treaty when it became clear Russia was blatantly violating it. This does not necessarily signal to Europe that they're "on their own," since it signifies we will also begin developing intermediate-range systems to deploy in Europe.
    Staying in the treaty while Russia ignores it would also be giving Russia exactly what they want. So far, Russian behavior has not been modified by sanctions.

    I'm not saying this is a good idea but it isn't treasonous

    e: also, China is not party to the treaty, and intermediate-range systems would significantly expand our options in the Pacific, where there are vast distances involved

    If Obama withdrew from it, I would believe it was for that reason.

    When Trump does it, all evidence suggests it's because he doesn't understand international politics and just likes to swing his dick around.

    Also, after serious consideration Obama decided not to...

    It was a difficult call to make, both options have major downsides. His decision does not invalidate a future administration's decision.

    I wouldn't be surprised if this was what Kelly and Bolton's screaming match a few days ago was about.

    Sure, and if President Clinton or President Romney withdrew I'd disagree but believe it was a considered decision. I'm pretty sure somebody just told Trump that Obama was too chicken to do it.

    Harry DresdenFencingsaxGennenalyse RuebenMorganVCommander ZoomshrykeiTunesIsEvilJazzKristmas KthulhuKamaremp123
  • Dongs GaloreDongs Galore Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    seriously, it would be way more convergent with Russian interests for us to sit there bound by a useless treaty while they develop a capability we don't have

    Obama's position was that they'd coerce the Russians back into compliance, which, if achieved, would be generally optimal for all opposed to nuclear annihilation.

    Trump though... like... I think there's a major question about whether he's actually going to instigate (successful) development and deployment of such weapons anyways. Like his Space Force, I can't help but wonder if his actions are entirely on paper and not actually manifesting in reality. The US not being bound by the treaty does not necessarily mean that the US will develop said capability, and Trump, occupied as he always is with symbolism and distracted as he always is from actual long-term planning and action, might just be tearing up the treaty and thinking that that's enough. Maybe people in DoD will take up the slack, but also maybe not.

    development of treaty-compliant intermediate-range missile systems was part of the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review. This would just make it easier by eliminating the "treaty compliant" part.

    Kayne Red Robe
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    seriously, it would be way more convergent with Russian interests for us to sit there bound by a useless treaty while they develop a capability we don't have

    The question I have is what use is intermediate range weaponry to the US?

    electricitylikesme
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited October 2018
    hippofant wrote: »
    seriously, it would be way more convergent with Russian interests for us to sit there bound by a useless treaty while they develop a capability we don't have

    Obama's position was that they'd coerce the Russians back into compliance, which, if achieved, would be generally optimal for all opposed to nuclear annihilation.

    Trump though... like... I think there's a major question about whether he's actually going to instigate (successful) development and deployment of such weapons anyways. Like his Space Force, I can't help but wonder if his actions are entirely on paper and not actually manifesting in reality. The US not being bound by the treaty does not necessarily mean that the US will develop said capability, and Trump, occupied as he always is with symbolism and distracted as he always is from actual long-term planning and action, might just be tearing up the treaty and thinking that that's enough. Maybe people in DoD will take up the slack, but also maybe not.

    development of treaty-compliant intermediate-range missile systems was part of the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review. This would just make it easier by eliminating the "treaty compliant" part.

    I have persistent, long-term doubts about the significance of the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review, and the overall National Defense Strategy, period. While I have no doubt that there are parts of those documents that are written strategically, by strategically-minded individuals, for strategically-minded individuals, who are in positions to implement strategy, there are also large parts of those documents that seem written purely for domestic political consumption, with perhaps minimal thought given to feasibility and effectiveness. This is, of course, true for any public military strategy document,* but these documents seem particularly compromised, due to how they were wielded as political campaign tools and the ongoing relationship "freeze" between the White House and the Pentagon.

    I'm *pretty* sure DoD's driving the interest in developing these weapons, so I'm *pretty* sure we'll see them eventually, but it's also true that just because DoD wants something doesn't mean that it's something they need/should actually have.


    * Consider, for example, how long the "Asian pivot" had been written about in strategic planning documents, and how it was continually put off by demands in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. The actual Asian pivot we've seen so far still doesn't live up to those proposed a long time ago.

    hippofant on
  • Dongs GaloreDongs Galore Registered User regular
    edited October 2018
    seriously, it would be way more convergent with Russian interests for us to sit there bound by a useless treaty while they develop a capability we don't have

    The question I have is what use is intermediate range weaponry to the US?

    1. We can station it in Europe to defend our allies and USAREUR. We have very few nuclear options besides ICBMs and SLBMs (not useful for targeting forces at the operational level) and the B-61 gravity bomb, which is only deliverable by jets and could therefore be defeated if we don't have air supremacy - which against the Russians might not be guaranteed. A medium or intermediate-range platform (these are not technically the same, but MRBMs and IRBMs were both banned by the INF and we scrapped all of them) can be stationed in Europe and provide an option for for theater-level strikes. Note that these also need not be nuclear-armed; we could use conventional MRBMs as well.

    2. The Chinese have a large MRBM and IRBM force, which they use to exert control beyond their littoral. Their IRBMs can hit Guam, and their MRBMs are accurate enough to be used in the anti-ship role, keeping our SRBM platforms away from their islands in the South China Sea. An MRBM or IRBM would give us the means to retaliate (conventionally or otherwise) from a standoff distance without resorting to ICBMs or risking our air and submarine assets to close in and launch Tomahawks, which is increasingly difficult as Chinese AA and ASW capability improves.

    Dongs Galore on
    valhalla130
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited October 2018
    seriously, it would be way more convergent with Russian interests for us to sit there bound by a useless treaty while they develop a capability we don't have

    The question I have is what use is intermediate range weaponry to the US?

    1. We can station it in Europe to defend our allies and USAREUR. We have very few nuclear options besides ICBMs and SLBMs (not useful for targeting forces at the operational level) and the B-61 gravity bomb, which is only deliverable by jets and could therefore be defeated if we don't have air supremacy - which against the Russians might not be guaranteed. A medium or intermediate-range (these are not technically the same, but MRBMs and IRBMs were both banned by the INF and we scrapped all of them) can be stationed in Europe and provide an option for for theater-level strikes. Note that these also need not be nuclear-armed; we could use conventional MRBMs as well.

    2. The Chinese have a large MRBM and IRBM force, which they use to exert control beyond their littoral. Their IRBMs can hit Guam, and their MRBMs are accurate enough to be used in the anti-ship role, keeping our SRBM platforms away from their islands in the South China Sea. An MRBM or IRBM would give us the means to retaliate (conventionally or otherwise) from a standoff distance without resorting to ICBMs or risking our air and submarine assets to close in and launch Tomahawks, which is increasingly difficult as Chinese AA and ASW capability improves.

    Importantly, it provides a step up the escalatory ladder if the US were to choose to use it.

    The idea behind cutting out all such intermediate, theatre- or battlefield-scale nuclear weapons is that by removing the lower/middle rungs of the escalatory ladder, you minimize the chance of escalation to MAD. If everybody has nuclear weapons ranging from small battlefield weapons to world-destroyers, then you can easily imagine an escalatory exchange that starts off with the smallest nuclear weapon but soon leads to both sides trading the big ones. By removing those smaller weapons as options, then the only way we get to MAD is if somebody just decides to go MAD, which ... you know, isn't great, but that's kinda unsolvable, so we'll live (or not) with it.

    The problem, then, of not having those weapons while the other side does is that they have escalation/deterrence capabilities that you do not. If the Russians have these mid-size, medium-range nuclear weapons, they can use those weapons and then force the US to choose between MAD or nothing (or conventional response, rather). The US cannot respond like-for-like in that case, which is the basis of MAD as deterrence: nobody will launch their ICBMs, because launching guarantees tit for tat, which is MAD.

    Similarly, these weapons could be placed in Europe, which would both increase deterrence and increase the risk of escalatory spirals: increased deterrence because the Russians will now know that any nuclear launch against Europe will guarantee counter-launches of the weapons located in Europe, lest they be lost, but also now the Europeans might launch based on lower levels of pressure, either due to overaggressive or misreading of the tactical situation.

    This is especially problematic with certain sorts of missiles onto which different sized warheads can be fit: if a missile could carry a battlefield-sized tactical warhead OR a strategic-level (MIRV) warhead, then radar cannot reassure you that it's not a world-destroyer, and so you may counter-launch your MAD weapons just in case their incoming weapon is a MAD weapon. This is one of the major issues with the Russian's development of long-range nuclear-armed cruise missiles: now different sorts of warheads may have the same external profile, increasing the risk of misread and overzealous response. Imagine, for example, NATO seeing a cruise missile launched from a known nuclear weapon site in Russia westwards: they have no idea whether that weapon carries a small nuclear warhead to land on a battlefield or whether it'll carry on to hit Berlin. Then, the appropriate response it is to assume it's hitting Berlin, and counter-fire at Moscow. Oops. So clear delineation between strategic-level vs tactical-level nuclear weapons is important, and developing these various intermediate weapons, in and of itself, can muddy the waters.

    (And then, if you really want to point fingers, some of this goes back to SDI and ABM, which is arguably why the Russians felt compelled to develop these sorts of nuclear capabilities in the first place, thus requiring the US to counter them, but there are many fingers to be pointed every which way and many untestable interpretations to be had here.)



    The real nut of it is that MAD is the real deterrence in nuclear strategy, so the basis of any deterrence is that it might escalate to MAD, but the only way that deterrence works is to convince your opponent that any of their actions you want to deter might escalate to MAD, and the best/easiest way to do that is to actually set it up so those actions will lead to MAD, which naturally makes MAD more likely to occur.

    hippofant on
    Commander ZoomGnome-Interruptus
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    Here, if you want to read what some experts have to say about low-yield nuclear weapons, some WotR links I read back when the Nuclear Posture Review came out:

    The Discrimination Problem: Why Putting Low-Yield Nuclear Weapons on Submarines Is So Dangerous
    Discrimination Details Matter: Clarifying an Argument About Low-Yield Nuclear Warheads
    Escalation Dominance in America’s Oldest New Nuclear Strategy

    Harry Dresden
This discussion has been closed.