What's new
Frozen in Carbonite

Welcome to FiC! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

US to end INF treaty

Wakko

Well-known member
So it's happening: Trump says the US will pull out of Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty - CNNPolitics
Trump has said that US will terminate the INF treaty, which in 1987 removed IRBMs from Europe (US Perhing II and USSR's RSD-10). While I'm angry that this is happening, I get why US and Russia don't fight for the treaty harder - US mainland is not threatened by IRBMs with range under 5,000 km, and for Russia the treaty doesn't make much sense with Aegis Ashore blatantly violating it and without the inclusion of its other neighbours - Iran, China, Poland (for which MRBMs and IRBMs aren't out of question financially). Who I'm angry at is EU leadership, for not trying to preserve the treaty. It's Europe who benefits most from US and Russia's removal of MRBMs and IRBMs.
For reference, here's an article from 2007 about the start of the problems for INF Treaty: We will dump nuclear treaty, Putin warns | World news | The Guardian
 
Last edited:
So it's happening: Trump says the US will pull out of Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty - CNNPolitics
Trump has said that US will terminate the INF treaty, which in 1987 removed IRBMs from Europe (US Perhing II and USSR's RSD-10). While I'm angry that this is happening, I get why US and Russia don't fight for the treaty harder - US mainland is not threatened by IRBMs with range under 5,000 km, and for Russia the treaty doesn't make much sense with Aegis Ashore blatantly violating it and without the inclusion of its other neighbours - Iran, China, Poland (for which MRBMs and IRBMs aren't out of question financially). Who I'm angry at is EU leadership, for not trying to preserve the treaty. It's Europe who benefits most from US and Russia's removal of MRBMs and IRBMs.
For reference, here's an article from 2007 about the start of the problems for INF Treaty: We will dump nuclear treaty, Putin warns | World news | The Guardian
No. The only people to blame for anything is the people who voted for Trump and his party. Every bad thing that he does is their fault and every one of them should be treated like it until the publically turn on him and the Republican party ceases to exist.
 
No. The only people to blame for anything is the people who voted for Trump and his party. Every bad thing that he does is their fault and every one of them should be treated like it until the publically turn on him and the Republican party ceases to exist.
That is not how reality works.
 
That is not how reality works.
I disagree. When something is made socially unacceptable, and there are consequences for you business, you stop doing it.
 
Every bad thing that he does is their fault
Even when Trump does the opposite of what he campaigned on like cutting medicare after promising to protect it?
 
Even when Trump does the opposite of what he campaigned on like cutting medicare after promising to protect it?
Clarification: they should be treated as responsible for all the consequences of shit that e said he would do, or that all the experts said he would do, or that all the people on the left said he would do and then he did
 
OMG people, please, could we try to discuss INF and the implications of its demise? I'm sure there are 30 threads on Trump already... I'm also old enough to remember the problem with MRBMs in Europe - the 6 minute reaction time, which doesn't really give you a chance to verify a launch warning. From what I've read, a ground-attack version of SM-3 launched from the Aegis Ashore installation in Romania will be even faster, so basically once Russia gets a launch warning, it's "use it or lose it" for its silo-based nuclear arsenal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kol
OMG people, please, could we try to discuss INF and the implications of its demise? I'm sure there are 30 threads on Trump already... I'm also old enough to remember the problem with MRBMs in Europe - the 6 minute reaction time, which doesn't really give you a chance to verify a launch warning. From what I've read, a ground-attack version of SM-3 launched from the Aegis Ashore installation in Romania will be even faster, so basically once Russia gets a launch warning, it's "use it or lose it" for its silo-based nuclear arsenal.
It's fucking stupid. There was a very good reason why this treaty existed. To make it so that one faulty warning system didn't start WWIII and a nuclear holocaust.
 
It's fucking stupid. There was a very good reason why this treaty existed. To make it so that one faulty warning system didn't start WWIII and a nuclear holocaust.
Exactly. That's reason no. 1. Reason no.2, right behnd no.1, is that without the INF Treaty there's a big problem with New START. New START regulates only number of strategic warheads (ICBMs, SLBMs, ALCMs). What reason does Russia have to voluntarily cut down on its number of deployed strategic warheads, when most of it can be glassified by potentially thousands of "non-strategic" MRBMs and IRBMs deployed in Europe? From Poland, 5,000 km is way beyond Novosibirsk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kol
Even when Trump does the opposite of what he campaigned on like cutting medicare after promising to protect it?
Yes, because only a titanic moron would ever believe he wasn't lying, because both he personally and the Republican party in general have decades and decades and decades and decades of nothing but lies on their heads. Right now they're claiming they're going to protect pre-existing conditions, should we treat current voters for them as if they are voting to protect pre-existing conditions?
 
Clarification: they should be treated as responsible for all the consequences of shit that e said he would do, or that all the experts said he would do, or that all the people on the left said he would do and then he did
They should only be responsible for what he said he would do. Nothing else. What he said he'd do is why people voted for him, what Democrats said about him has virtually no bearing, because people who voted for him are likely to dismiss what most of the left says out of hand. Less so than the left in regards to the right, oddly enough, unless you're talking the increasingly-irrelevant mainstream media. And I feel that subset is still a "maybe", given the reputation of Fox News when we have more cases of flat-out falsehood from the left-wing competitors (and more hilariously inappropriate examples of political spin, such as using a drunk driver as the face of a split migrant families segment) and continued cries for representation long after the balance tips to disproportionate.

Furthermore, the Republicans are primarily cocking up foreign policy, not domestic affairs. The economy is doing better than it has in literally my entire life, in regards to employment rates, while all the doomsaying about imports is laughable because the US's internal economy is less than 10% reliant on imports. What manufacturing we have has very little need for anything in Europe or China, compared to the doomsaying's requirements. And we produce all our own needed foods, importing tropical plants, largely from South America which we aren't completely cocking up relations with, for stuff like coffee. The US economy can function entire off America, even if electronics hike in price. Cost of living would be minimally impacted.

This train of logic leads to a massive chunk of Germany's population in the 1950s being imprisoned because they agreed to put Hitler in power. Voters shouldn't be held accountable for everything done by who they vote for. Some people are single-issue voters, like those who just wanted the German economy fixed so they could live a proper life again. Some vote because the alternatives are all something they immensely disagree with, such as the Nevertrumper Republican block. Some switch their vote because the person they wanted on the ballot was put off it and the opposition is better than the replacement, to them, like the Bernie supporters that switched to Trump. Quite simply, there's too many voters with too many reasons for any sort of vote to be able to hold the voters to account, as the moment anything goes severely wrong, you end up decimating your productive population at the least. More likely gutting a solid third of it.
 
Last edited:
US's internal economy is less than 10% reliant on imports. What manufacturing we have has very little need for anything in Europe or China, compared to the doomsaying's requirements.
Ah, yes, clearly. Must be nothing:


800px-United_States_Balance_of_Trade_Deficit-pie_chart.svg.png


Totally independent and doesn't need foreign production: The Last Major TV Factory in the U.S. Is Shutting Down Because of President Trump's Tariffs

The economy is sane and safe: U.S. Budget Deficit Swells to $898 Billion, Topping Forecast

The U.S. budget deficit widened to $898 billion in the 11 months through August, exceeding the Congressional Budget Office's forecast for the first full fiscal year under the Trump presidency.

The budget deficit rose by a third in the October to August period from $674 billion in the same timeframe a year earlier, the Treasury Department said in a statement on Thursday. Spending rose by 7 percent to $3.88 trillion, outpacing revenue gains of 1 percent to $2.99 trillion. Revenue from corporations fell to $163 billion, down by $71 billion from a year ago.

The U.S. fiscal gap has continued to balloon under President Donald Trump, raising concerns the country's debt load, now at $21.5 trillion, is growing out of control. A combination of Republican tax cuts enacted this year -- that will add up to about $1.5 trillion over a decade -- and increased government spending are adding to budget strains.
The Soviet Union too had full employment, you know. The problem with Trumpnomics is that you eventually run out of other people's money to spend.
 
They should only be responsible for what he said he would do. Nothing else. What he said he'd do is why people voted for him, what Democrats said about him has virtually no bearing, because people who voted for him are likely to dismiss what most of the left says out of hand. Less so than the left in regards to the right, oddly enough, unless you're talking the increasingly-irrelevant mainstream media. And I feel that subset is still a "maybe", given the reputation of Fox News (which is generally regarded by experts as being extremely similar in extremity of bias to its competitors, it's just biased in the opposite direction) and continued cries of representation long after the balance tips.

Furthermore, the Republicans are primarily cocking up foreign policy, not domestic affairs. The economy is doing better than it has in literally my entire life, in regards to employment rates, while all the doomsaying about imports is laughable because the US's internal economy is less than 10% reliant on imports. What manufacturing we have has very little need for anything in Europe or China, compared to the doomsaying's requirements. And we produce all our own needed foods, importing tropical plants, largely from South America which we aren't completely cocking up relations with, for stuff like coffee. The US economy can function entire off America, even if electronics hike in price. Cost of living would be essentially untouched.

This train of logic leads to a massive chunk of Germany's population in the 1950s being imprisoned because they agreed to put Hitler in power. Voters shouldn't be held accountable for everything done by who they vote for. Some people are single-issue voters, like those who just wanted the German economy fixed so they could live a proper life again. Some vote because the alternatives are all something they immensely disagree with, such as the Nevertrumper Republican block. Some switch their vote because the person they wanted on the ballot was put off it and the opposition is better than the replacement, to them, like the Bernie supporters that switched to Trump. Quite simply, there's too many voters with too many reasons for any sort of vote to be able to hold the voters to account, as the moment anything goes severely wrong, you end up decimating your productive population at the least. More likely gutting a solid third of it.
The economy is doing well on borrowed money. The tax cuts weren't paid for and deficits are increasing at record speed. There isn't anything that can be cut without wrecking the middle and working class except for the military, and that's never going to happen. Additionally, we are already hearing companies talking about cutting jobs because of the tariffs.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.bu...iffs-trade-war-layoffs-business-losses-2018-8

https://amp.fastcompany.com/90180122/the-u-s-job-losses-from-trumps-tariffs-are-starting-to-pile-up

http://amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2018/07/05/trump-tariffs-us-layoffs

https://qz.com/1384543/trumps-lie-about-us-gdp-growth-and-unemployment/amp/

https://www.apnews.com/1f21cb47ab6d47bfb283c3bfc29afeee
 
No. The only people to blame for anything is the people who voted for Trump and his party. Every bad thing that he does is their fault and every one of them should be treated like it until the publically turn on him and the Republican party ceases to exist.

Except in this case, the INF treaty was all but dead as Russia had been flouting it for some time, and IRBMs can't hit CONUS (far less of an issue now that the Cold War is over). Trying to go "drumpf bad!" isn't going to cut it for this one.
 
Except in this case, the INF treaty was all but dead as Russia had been flouting it for some time, and IRBMs can't hit CONUS. Trying to go "drumpf bad!" isn't going to cut it for this one.
Every treaty he pulls us out of weakens us internationally and hurts us domestically due to lowered tourism, anger making trade deals harder to get, and other nations seeking ways to cut the US out of financial dealings. Pulling out of treaties for no appreciable gain is fucking stupid.
 
Every treaty he pulls us out of weakens us internationally and hurts us domestically due to lowered tourism, anger making trade deals harder to get, and other nations seeking ways to cut the US out of financial dealings. Pulling out of treaties for no appreciable gain is fucking stupid.

Except the Post-WW2 Order kinda probably was on the way out by the time of the 2016 election, and Trump/Sanders were the key frontrunners who advocated putting it to bed. Between then and now, you have a rise of Post-Liberal politicians such as Corbyn in Britain, AMLO in Mexico, Salvini in Italy and Duterte in the Philippines.

The INF, to my understanding, was a relic of the Cold War meant to denuclearise the NATO/WarPac frontlines. Much like NATO, it kinda really was obsolete by 1991.
 
This seems counterproductive, just do what Russia does and ignore it while being nomianlly committed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kol
This seems counterproductive, just do what Russia does and ignore it while being nomianlly committed.
We gain nothing by ignoring the treaty either. There isn't a USSR to point the missiles at anymore and the same president pulling us out says he won't be going out to defend any of our allies anyway. It's literally just Trump saying "Russia does what it wants, you in Europe had best obey them too"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kol
Ah, yes, clearly. Must be nothing:
What manufacturing the US has. Most of the economy contained within the US is fairly independent of foreign materials. Imports account for somewhere around 15% of the US' GDP, so it's higher than what I stated, but it's not a critical necessity and the US has the tech to make all the needed factories. You gave a singular incident showing a US factory closing due to import blocks. I've seen statistics showing the US does not require imports (this is the closest I can find to the type of information I'm looking for. Was looking for a GDP breakdown with imports and broad industries listed), I'm not saying it wouldn't be damaging at all. It's mainly rare earths (and that's partly because of a refusal to work Thorium-rich ores because "radiation bad!" has gone way too far) and tropical plants that the US needs for raw materials for comodities, while the entire point of the tarrifs is to try to force the massively globalized manufacturing to reconcentrate in the US. Ludicrously specific alloys, electronic components, semi-exotic manufacturing and so on simply aren't profitable enough for pure capitalism to accept the taxes and wages of the US... But a rather important note is that the US has caused a lot of countries to need it to import their products for their economies to work. Sure, the US has a massive trade deficit, but all that deficit is chunks of other country's economies that need access to the US market.

Trump's tariffs would destroy China and Europe long before destroying the US, because large chunks of those economies are reliant on the US market, and in some cases require the US's imports of resources, including food, for their economy to function in the first place. The US economy can largely survive cutting them off, while they'd collapse if they tried to.

and the same president pulling us out says he won't be going out to defend any of our allies anyway.
The closest I can find is him saying Montenegro could potentially spark World War 3 in the event of getting in a situation causing Article 5 to be triggered. As stated in that CNN article, he affirms his commitment to Article 5. It's him questioning the viability of it with Montenegro, which he calls a country of strong, aggressive people, in NATO. He's also been on NATO for the US taking the ludicrously large majority of the spending, when the treaty calls for 2% of the member's GDP to be military spending. The main defense the media spit out is that those are guidelines and not the terms of the treaty, but they're not really making a good defense of the US being the immense majority of NATO's force and the only ones keeping global trade safe at the same time. The left called out the US every time it goes to war, but for some reason, the moment Trump gets in and says it's time for the rest of the world to handle military needs, they're calling the US's massive military reach necessary and obligatory.
 
What manufacturing the US has. Most of the economy contained within the US is fairly independent of foreign materials. Imports account for somewhere around 15% of the US' GDP, so it's higher than what I stated, but it's not a critical necessity and the US has the tech to make all the needed factories. You gave a singular incident showing a US factory closing due to import blocks. I've seen statistics showing the US does not require imports (this is the closest I can find to the type of information I'm looking for. Was looking for a GDP breakdown with imports and broad industries listed), I'm not saying it wouldn't be damaging at all. It's mainly rare earths (and that's partly because of a refusal to work Thorium-rich ores because "radiation bad!" has gone way too far) and tropical plants that the US needs for raw materials for comodities, while the entire point of the tarrifs is to try to force the massively globalized manufacturing to reconcentrate in the US. Ludicrously specific alloys, electronic components, semi-exotic manufacturing and so on simply aren't profitable enough for pure capitalism to accept the taxes and wages of the US... But a rather important note is that the US has caused a lot of countries to need it to import their products for their economies to work. Sure, the US has a massive trade deficit, but all that deficit is chunks of other country's economies that need access to the US market.

Trump's tariffs would destroy China and Europe long before destroying the US, because large chunks of those economies are reliant on the US market, and in some cases require the US's imports of resources, including food, for their economy to function in the first place. The US economy can largely survive cutting them off, while they'd collapse if they tried to.
Yeah, you show as much understanding of economy as Soviet planners. Pretty much every regional area is in the same level of foreign imports dependency. The source you posted has European countries having higher imports... because they are in a bloody fucking integrated common market the size of the US. We are nowhere nearly as dependent of the US as you delude yourself into thinking.

Germany: 40 percent
France: 30 percent

Feel smug? Then you look at the facts: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_Germany and https://www.statista.com/statistics/270355/main-import-partners-for-france/

Remove the EU countries from this, and suddenly, Germany is on the level of the US in terms of dependency. France is even less dependent on extra-EU imports. But please, keep painting yourself as an ignorant and a fool who parrots the economic wisdom of a man who bankrupted seven casinos and got every single professional economist to resign from his administration.

You claim your industry can easily come back through tarrifs and overprotectionism when it is totally and utterly uncompetitive? Congratulations, comrade: you are following the Soviet rules of economic planning.
The main defense the media spit out is that those are guidelines and not the terms of the treaty, but they're not really making a good defense of the US being the immense majority of NATO's force and the only ones keeping global trade safe at the same time.
Ah, yes. Jack Sparrow and his mighty fleet of pirate missile cruisers requiring the USN to protect trade.

My dear boy: FOX News does not replace receiving an education.
 
What manufacturing the US has. Most of the economy contained within the US is fairly independent of foreign materials. Imports account for somewhere around 15% of the US' GDP, so it's higher than what I stated, but it's not a critical necessity and the US has the tech to make all the needed factories. You gave a singular incident showing a US factory closing due to import blocks. I've seen statistics showing the US does not require imports (this is the closest I can find to the type of information I'm looking for. Was looking for a GDP breakdown with imports and broad industries listed), I'm not saying it wouldn't be damaging at all. It's mainly rare earths (and that's partly because of a refusal to work Thorium-rich ores because "radiation bad!" has gone way too far) and tropical plants that the US needs for raw materials for comodities, while the entire point of the tarrifs is to try to force the massively globalized manufacturing to reconcentrate in the US. Ludicrously specific alloys, electronic components, semi-exotic manufacturing and so on simply aren't profitable enough for pure capitalism to accept the taxes and wages of the US... But a rather important note is that the US has caused a lot of countries to need it to import their products for their economies to work. Sure, the US has a massive trade deficit, but all that deficit is chunks of other country's economies that need access to the US market.

Trump's tariffs would destroy China and Europe long before destroying the US, because large chunks of those economies are reliant on the US market, and in some cases require the US's imports of resources, including food, for their economy to function in the first place. The US economy can largely survive cutting them off, while they'd collapse if they tried to.


The closest I can find is him saying Montenegro could potentially spark World War 3 in the event of getting in a situation causing Article 5 to be triggered. As stated in that CNN article, he affirms his commitment to Article 5. It's him questioning the viability of it with Montenegro, which he calls a country of strong, aggressive people, in NATO. He's also been on NATO for the US taking the ludicrously large majority of the spending, when the treaty calls for 2% of the member's GDP to be military spending. The main defense the media spit out is that those are guidelines and not the terms of the treaty, but they're not really making a good defense of the US being the immense majority of NATO's force and the only ones keeping global trade safe at the same time. The left called out the US every time it goes to war, but for some reason, the moment Trump gets in and says it's time for the rest of the world to handle military needs, they're calling the US's massive military reach necessary and obligatory.
If he has an issue with how much the US is spending on its military, he's free to cut that below 2% GDP any time he'd like.
 
Its all politics. They wanna make it look like the US doesn't need foreign economic collaboration so they can continue to project the image of the belligerent Ameroglobalist douchenozzle that riles up their base, so they can spend more on military to satiate their biggest donors, being arms dealers, private prisons justified through enabled drug cartels and what have you...
 
Back
Top Bottom