Intermediate range ballistic missiles

[Ian]

President Trump is becoming a serial offender at pulling out of treaties, although this one is just a threat right now. Trump claims the Russians have already violated it, so maybe he is right. For brief history (which others may feel the need to correct) at the end of WW 2 the USSR realised the US had nuclear bombs and had used them to impose power, while it did not. The US went on to develop a hydrogen bomb and the cold war was on. In terms of technology, the US was far ahead in bombs, but the USSR won the espionage war and soon had its own nukes. By the mid 1960s, the US decided the USSR was a threat to Europe and hence to the US, so it maintained the strategy of repelling that by maintaining nuclear-armed aircraft in flight, and it let everyone know it was prepared to use nukes. Problem was, by the end of the 1950s, it was clear the USSR had a lead in rockets. By the end of the 1960s the US had easily caught up, and stalemate. The two countries engaged in production, and each ended up with enough to wipe out the Earth several times over. The US had by far the better targeting controls, but the USSR developed the 500 Mt monsters that don't need accuracy. Then Reagan began the "Star Wars" program to shoot down missiles, the USSR was beaten economically and was in tatters, so this missile treaty was signed. OK that is all a bit rough, but . . .

The US got the best out of that treaty because the sides agreed to stop developing land-based missiles with ranges between, I think, 300 - 5000 km, BUT missiles delivered from sea were exempt. The US navy effectively rules the sea, but that was fairly irrelevant because Gorbachev lost control, the USSR fell to bits, Yeltsin did his best to wreck Russia, and the cold war was over. Now Putin is trying to restore Russia. Given that Russia has recently fired some cruise missiles at terrorists in Syria, and they presumably came from land, it looks like Russia has violated the treaty, depending on exactly what it says, but they might argue that the US fires cruise missiles at any provocation, and it has brought anti-ballistic missile defences right up to the Russian border against a late 1990s agreement, and these launch systems are just as capable of launching intermediate ballistic missiles.

The question is, what now? Trump has argued the US can follow Reagan's approach and use its economy to out-muscle Russia, but can it? US debt interest payments are now approaching the total US defence budget, and interest rates are rising. The cynic might say the move is just to put more money into the US military industrial complex, because what is this money going to be spent on? Is there any strategic advantage in using tactical nukes when Russia still has the big 500 Mt MIRVs? If it is not going to be used, should Russia simply ignore it? Trump may want to renegotiate, and bring China in, but China is hardly likely to be interested without something back, because China is only threatened by sea-based missiles, and they are exempt. Any guesses on why next?

[Scout]

I don't know enough to comment, but I'm interested in the discussion.

[Ian]

Not much discussion so far :-(

[Scout]

Well, I like to ask questions, so I'll ask you to boil your post down and ask a clear question, based on facts you've stated. I got lost in there somewhere.

[Ian]

If Trump goes ahead and withdraws, what will be the consequences?

Simple question, Scout, but the answer may be complicated,

[Nik]

If the accord was indeed violated, then the breaching party wasn't bound by it anyway. If it's just a pretext - it's another thing.
US and Russia anyway have capabilities to annihilate each other (and everyone else with them) many times over, so the limitations are basically about the minutes: whether a strike from a close range will cover the distance in seconds or from the long (inter-continental range) - in minutes, encouraging (maybe false) strategies concerning "second strike", 'possible interception" and so on. Even if half or two-thirds are intercepted, it's hardly decisive.
Now, if short range is allowed, then Europe clearly becomes an 'easier' target. For US there is no sense in having medium-short range missiles in N. America. They need them stationed closer to adversaries - a move that won't be liked neither by Russia nor China. Hence - Cuba-esque crises may evolve.
If renegotiating - going trilateral (or more), i.e. - having China and other players on-board makes sense..

Read also that US is gonna withdraw from 150 years old mail service treaty - giving advantages to China and other (then) under-developed countries.

I guess the guys are pretty much into a total overhaul of the global architecture -:)

[Ian]

If he is withdrawing from mail service he is a serial offender. Mail is just about dying except for parcels, and Amazon is probably the biggest parcel delivery agent.

I can't see China being interested in the missile treaty as it stands because the US Navy can hit China and China cannot do much in retaliation. And Russia will not like close intermediate missiles but there is nothing much they can do about it right now. Their best strategy might be to announce that ANY missile launched from close to their border into Russia will be assumed to be nuclear and this will be taken as a declaration of nuclear war, and they will turn the US into ash. It wouldn't do them any good, but it puts the intermediate missile back into the Dr Strangelove scenario, which worked well back in the 60s.

My big problem with this is I cannot see what the US hopes to achieve, apart from more employment from building bombs. With the deficit the way it is, that means they have to give up on the big infrastructure renewal, and reduce "social" spending on medicine, education, etc.

[J.J.]

The PBS Newshour reported that our NATO allies agree with Trump that Russia violated the treaty, so...

[Ian]

J.J. wrote: "The PBS Newshour reported that our NATO allies agree with Trump that Russia violated the treaty, so..."

Does it say how? I don't know exactly what the treaty says, but if it forbids cruise missiles launched from land, then Russia has launched some at Syria so that would mean yes it had with clear evidence. However, it might depend on the wording of the treaty. As soon as you have an agreement, lawyers spend unlimited time getting around it. If, for example, they were launched from aircraft, even if the aircraft hardly left the airport, they would be OK, as I understand the wording (only land-based included, at US insistence because it was planning naval launches.)

[J.J.]

I tend to half-hear the news at times because usually I put it on while I'm doing something else, but I think that agreement was as vague as Trump's statement on the violations.

[Nik]

Not intending to hijack the thread, just wanted to add a reference regarding postal treaty, if anyone may find it interesting:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...
Discounted delivery rates can be indeed a serious advantage for China.

[Ian]

Nik wrote: "Not intending to hijack the thread, just wanted to add a reference regarding postal treaty, if anyone may find it interesting:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl......"

Hmm - intermediate range parcels :-) As I remarked, Trump is becoming a serial offender but it is fair that China pays its fair share. However, given that Amazon makes a huge amount from sending parcels to other countries, is pulling out all that good an idea?

Back to the missiles, I gather Bolton has been in Moscow and was talking tough to Putin. The question then is, what can the US really do? It can make huge numbers of nukes, but I fail to see what that achieves as there are still enough right now to wipe out humanity.