It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump confirms US to pull out of nuclear treaty with Russia

page: 11
18
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 22 2018 @ 01:26 PM
link   
And people still think Trump and Co are "Russkie Agents". Trump is more hostile to Russia than Bush and Obama combined.




posted on Oct, 22 2018 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Russia has clearly stated any attack on Russia will be met with nuclear retaliation.



posted on Oct, 22 2018 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

My guess for this decision to be made has to do with the testing of Russias nuclear powered cruise missile. And I don’t think this is a wise move. Considering they already have more warheads than we do and have better rocket engines than we do. Hence us using Russian made rocket engines on most of our rockets.



Wow. So much misinformation in one post.

We use the Russian RD-180 engine on ONE rocket. ONE, the Atlas 5. Not "most".

We buy them from Russia because it was initially cheaper than designing and building a new engine, or reproducing the Rocketdyne F-1 from the Saturn V.



posted on Oct, 22 2018 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: yostiller

Russia lies. It's like saying if you steal a dollar from me I will kill us both!



posted on Oct, 22 2018 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

That link was referencing Bush exiting the ABM treaty with Russia. I simply used that one because in my opinion it was the article that best spelled out the presidents authority to cancel treaties.

Sorry for the confusion


ETA*
DOH!
I didn't read your link, I'm the one that got confused lol. Apparently article XV is standard throughout treaties, the article I referenced regarding the ABM treaty has an article XV that is word for word with the INF treaty.
need more
edit on 22-10-2018 by Vector99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2018 @ 09:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: Vector99

Not being part of a treaty that wasn't being followed doesn't change anything.


We are not more or less safe.

So what your saying is it doesn't matter if we withdraw from the treaty? Why is everyone making such a big deal then?



posted on Oct, 23 2018 @ 02:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: Vector99

Not being part of a treaty that wasn't being followed doesn't change anything.


We are not more or less safe.

So what your saying is it doesn't matter if we withdraw from the treaty? Why is everyone making such a big deal then?

People that don’t understand and the Russians are the ones making noise and one of those parties has a vested interest in keeping their illgotten weapons...



posted on Oct, 23 2018 @ 02:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: poncho1982

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

My guess for this decision to be made has to do with the testing of Russias nuclear powered cruise missile. And I don’t think this is a wise move. Considering they already have more warheads than we do and have better rocket engines than we do. Hence us using Russian made rocket engines on most of our rockets.



Wow. So much misinformation in one post.

We use the Russian RD-180 engine on ONE rocket. ONE, the Atlas 5. Not "most".

We buy them from Russia because it was initially cheaper than designing and building a new engine, or reproducing the Rocketdyne F-1 from the Saturn V.




We all make mistakes and mind the RD-180 isn’t the only rusky engine used by US spacecraft the RD-181 is used for the Antares and I very much doubt it was posted as misinformation, we’re all human so next time perhaps just make the correction without pulling the misinformation card. He also might have been referring to the percentage of ULA launches that use Rusky Thrust, which indeed is most.
edit on 10/23/2018 by BigDave-AR because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2018 @ 05:28 AM
link   
Before reply to this post, please familiarize yourself with my post on the previous thread.

The alternative to withdrawing from the treaty, would be to stay in it yet develop additional nuclear delivery systems that are not bound by the treaty. That allows a tit-for-tat response in terms of nuclear capabilities, yet allows the United States to maintain the moral high ground.

Not sure if this is entirely a good idea, but I love the idea of putting a nuclear armed cruise missile into the F-35. Then selling that to NATO allies who are under the nuclear sharing agreement.

Interesting thing to ponder, but I don't really fault pulling out of it.
edit on 23/10/18 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2018 @ 10:26 AM
link   
No surprise. Russia will never get rid of its nuclear weapons the way America tells Russia to do so America terminated nuclear deal with Russia.



posted on Oct, 23 2018 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: yostiller

Russia lies. It's like saying if you steal a dollar from me I will kill us both!


The world is not black and white. There are lies. There are truths. This is a truth. Russia will certainly use nukes if attacked. Russia has very few people, very many enemies. So nukes is their best defense.



posted on Oct, 23 2018 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: C0bzz

I say first move is to take out the rotary divider out of the B-1B just to piss off the Ruskies, perhapss next time its time to throw some ‘hawks let the Bones through a few downrange. Alls fair they had to have the kinzhal I say two can play that game.



posted on Oct, 23 2018 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

How many people remember the cold war, the drills and the thoughts of nuclear war? Of the people who were building bomb shelters and looking at maps to see and figure out if they were at ground zero?

I know about that, for I lived at ground zero for all of my life, and knew in my mind in the event of a nuclear exchange, that I would not survive. Many who I grew up with, also knew this to be true.

This treaty, even though Russia may have been cheating, was an instrument to lower the chances of a nuclear war. With the removal of that treaty, one that was signed by President Reagan, removes those lower chances, that raises the percentage that such may happen again.

What happens when the President decides that we need to test a weapon to show that it is still viable,to test a new design, is everyone going to support the pulling out of the test ban treaty as well? As any new design and weapons would have to be tested, to show that it is a viable weapon system.



posted on Oct, 23 2018 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

The Senate is constitutionally required to approve treaties to make them official (to become part of the US body of law). However it doesnt not require the Senate to approve a withdrawal from the treaties they ratified.

The President has the sole authority to remove the US from ratified treaties and does not need Senate approval to do so.
edit on 23-10-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2018 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Xcathdra

That link was referencing Bush exiting the ABM treaty with Russia. I simply used that one because in my opinion it was the article that best spelled out the presidents authority to cancel treaties.

Sorry for the confusion


ETA*
DOH!
I didn't read your link, I'm the one that got confused lol. Apparently article XV is standard throughout treaties, the article I referenced regarding the ABM treaty has an article XV that is word for word with the INF treaty.
need more


Lol.. no worries.

Actually I am glad you brought that up. It was another Senate ratified treaty that President Bush removed the US from without the need for Senate approval.



posted on Oct, 23 2018 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

Reality is Russia developed nuclear cruise missiles. Then even put out a video showing it flying over florida. This is a clear violation of the agreement. So we have an agreement which the US has followed but Russia did not. So they now have a capability that will take the US years to make and test. The idea of the treaty was to reduce the number while keeping parity it obviously failed.

Than we have the reality of China they have no such restrictions and have been actively developing their nuclear arsenal. At this point any agreement needs to include Russia, China, India and pakistan. So this agreement just tied the US hands while allowing others to modernize their nuclear arsenal



posted on Oct, 23 2018 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Kh-102 nuclear tipped air launched cruise missile range 3000+ km has been around for years. Why do Americans act so surprised? You know what? America is free to have nuclear tipped cruise missiles too.
edit on 23-10-2018 by yoktishi because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2018 @ 04:26 AM
link   
a reply to: yoktishi


The 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty bans medium-range missiles capable of hitting Europe or Alaska.

www.abc.net.au...

Putin was bragging he has new missiles to hit Europe that can't be defended against.



posted on Oct, 24 2018 @ 04:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: yoktishi
Kh-102 nuclear tipped air launched cruise missile range 3000+ km has been around for years. Why do Americans act so surprised? You know what? America is free to have nuclear tipped cruise missiles too.


No they are banned by the treaty that Russia doesn't follow. So see, unlike Russia the US played by the rules. So now since Russia broke the agreement there is no longer a need to abide by it. Russia has proven an agreement with them is not worth the paper its printed on.


edit on 10/24/18 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2018 @ 06:11 AM
link   
Will the Russians deploy IRBMs in Syria in large numbers to keep Paris, London, Berlin and Rome in the crosshair ?



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join