Trump confirms US to pull out of nuclear treaty with Russia

President Donald Trump has said the US will pull out of a nuclear treaty with Russia because Moscow has violated the agreement.

The 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty helps protect the security of the US and its allies in Europe and the Far East.

Sky News

So I don't want to distract from this thread by tarnishing it with my own speculation about other possible reasons or motivations pushing this decision.

So just the facts.

Donald Trump has just pulled the United States of America The 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty because apparently Russia have broken said treaty. So far there is no information to suggest that any other diplomatic efforts were made nor is there any clear information on how the Russians broke said treaty.

makes a lot of sense. after all why follow and have a treaty that the other side is violating?

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.

No matter what this is not good. I'm hoping this will bring Putin to the table to put and end to this quickly.

We need to be doing everything we can to avoid increasing nuclear tensions at all. But a treaty that is not respected is No treaty at all. If Russia is developing ground-based nuclear cruise missile technology then the treaty is broken.

a reply to: Allaroundyou

We do not use Russian engines in our rockets.

a reply to: projectvxn

You sure about that???

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

He never ceases to amaze.

I think the thread could become something quite interesting so I deliberately left out my own views on this topic because I don't want that to distract from what seems like a pretty serious issue.

This is my take on it.

Seems to me like this is going to just build on nuclear tensions, Trump has not been specific on how the Russians are breaking the treaty. I am not saying that they are or are not breaking it rather just pointing out that he's not gone into any specifics. I know that recently the Russians boasted that they had ICBM's that were basically impossible to intercept and also had made advancements in using drones to deliver nuclear weapons so that could be part of his motivation.

I also cannot help but think that this just paves the way for both countries now to start building up their nuclear arsenal and I do not see that as being in anyones best interests.

I personally do not agree with this move at this point because I do not believe Trump has made it clear how the have broke the treaty, I do not see anything to suggest other diplomatic attempts have been made to resolve the issue and I also think it goes against nuclear nonproliferation and could lead to a new nuclear arms race.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Wait just a minute. I thought the Democrats said Trump was kissing Putin's ass a while back. My own speculation is that Trump is more concerned for the safety of the American people than upsetting his "best pal."

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

He never ceases to amaze.

Obviously he's colluding with the Russians again.

a reply to: Allaroundyou

Russia built more nukes with larger yields because they don't have they guidance technology that the US has. They had a "close enough" policy.

Surely you have sources to substantiate your claims of better rockets.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

eh according to wikipedia the russians considered drones violations of this treaty some how.....not sure if any one has any drone capable of using nuclear weapons of any kind

In October 2018, the United States Ambassador to NATO said that, if they cannot get Russia to withdraw missiles perceived to be in violation of the treaty, the United States "would then be looking at a capability to take out" such a missile.[40] Russian position Russia publicly considered US drones to be a violation of the treaty.[41][42]

en.wikipedia.org... source . seems it mostly covers missiles and whatnot that are not exactly in nato or us arsenals but may be in russian ones these days

ah i stand corrected i guess russian drone sub can carry nukes i had been thinking of air launched options but here it is www.newsweek.com... seems as this was a naval launch platform it would not have been limited by the treaty in the first place

Russia possesses an underwater nuclear drone capable of carrying a 100-megaton nuclear warhead, a recently leaked draft of the Pentagon's Nuclear Posture Review confirmed. The weapon, referred to in the document as an “AUV,” or autonomous underwater vehicle, is featured in a chart that lays out Russia's multiple nuclear delivery vehicles.

www.popularmechanics.com... guess we are putting tactical nukes on subs but we already have the boomer fleet so not sure how much of an escalation is .guess were shifting to smaller but more accurate missiles and warheads

a reply to: projectvxn

The ULA and pentagon still use and prefer the RD-180 a Russian built rocket engine on their rockets. The ULA has a new engine that will be used on the SLS rocket but has yet to be used outside of “proof of concept” testing and I believe 1 test launch for the Orion capsule test.

a reply to: Allaroundyou

The US often uses Russian rockets to get things into space. We also use Japanese rockets, European rockets, and rockets from the private industry. US payloads are launched into space regularly and spread around ranging from small to large. Same with satellites and other payloads from many nations beibg launched by our rockets.

What we dont do is put rocket engines from other nations into our own designs.

originally posted by: generik
makes a lot of sense. after all why follow and have a treaty that the other side is violating?

We're not talking about a treaty to save some wild woodducks or something, this is nuclear weapons which I would think deserve a lot more diplomacy than just tearing up a treaty. I guess we just have to wait for more details. Any negative news about nukes makes me nervous as I daresay it does to anyone born pre-1980.

originally posted by: ausername

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

He never ceases to amaze.

Obviously he's colluding with the Russians again.

I am only saying this is a possibility, just that its one of those things that could be possible, I am not saying I believe this just offering it up as a "out of the box" idea.

What if.....

What if Trump is doing this under direction from the Russians because it means they can now further their own nuclear agenda free of this treaty and then just turn around and say it wasn't us that pulled out.

Again I know, probably not true but just another way of thinking about it.

a reply to: watchitburn

www.popularmechanics.com... not OP but i guess russia has at least somewhat closed the accuracy gap least according to popular mechanics

Ever since the 1960s, America's fields of intercontinental ballistic missiles have promised mutually assured destruction to anyone who nuked the United States or its allies. ICBMS wait in silos that are spaced far apart to increase the number of Russian warheads needed to target them. But that’s 1960s thinking. These silos don't move, but weapons have become more precise, a fact that changes the number of warheads needed to hit them. “Leaps in weapons accuracy have diminished the value of hardening,” says one 2018 paper published by the American Physical Society. “Given a hypothetical target set of 200 hardened missile silos, a 1985-era U.S. ICBM strike — with two warheads assigned per target — would have been expected to leave 42 surviving silos. A comparable strike in 2018 could destroy every hardened silo.” These numbers are talking about American weapons, but Russia now uses the same satellite and guidance systems. Putin turns to his new wonder weapon to hit the U.S. nuclear silos before they get orders to launch. There are 25 silos in Russia, each holding what NATO calls the Satan-2 ICBM. The rockets leap out of the silos and drop stages of empty fuel tanks behind them, carrying their payloads toward space. The faring opens and the cargo of each missile is revealed. A YU-74 hypersonic boost-glide vehicle, armed with five nuclear warheads, is a careening to a suborbital altitude atop each ICBM. They separate, and each becomes an independent threat, able to steer its way to a target from unexpected directions.

kind of why we want to expand the boomer fleet and increase the accuracy of our own weapons

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: Allaroundyou

Russia built more nukes with larger yields because they don't have they guidance technology that the US has. They had a "close enough" policy.

Surely you have sources to substantiate your claims of better rockets.

Linky

a reply to: Osirisvset

I think whats also scary is that its one record that Trump asked several times during his transition briefings why they couldn't use nukes and Putin just the other day was talking about his unwavering willingness to use nukes if he believes Russia is under military attack.

Yeah starting to feel very cold again.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

eh short ranged and intermediate ranges threaten europe and in theory china due to Russia close proximity to both their boarders but would not post a threat to American homeland but could target American bases in Europe in theory at least