UN US withdraws from intermediate range nuke treaty - Which will be released first, Fallout 76 or Fallout IRL?

Paging Dr. Strangelove.

Trump says US will withdraw from nuclear arms treaty with Russia

• President says: ‘We are going to terminate the agreement’
• John Bolton had been pushing for withdrawal from INF treaty

Donald Trump in Nevada Saturday. Photograph: Carolyn Kaster/AP

Donald Trump said on Saturday the US will “terminate” a nuclear arms treaty with Russia.

The Guardian reported on Friday that Trump’s third national security adviser, John Bolton, was pushing for a US withdrawal from the 1987 intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty (INF), which the US says Russia has been violating with the development of a new cruise missile.

Speaking to reporters in Nevada after a campaign rally on Saturday, Trump said: “Russia has violated the agreement. They’ve been violating it for many years and I don’t know why President Obama didn’t negotiate or pull out.

“We’re not going to let them violate a nuclear agreement and do weapons and we’re not allowed to. We’re the ones that have stayed in the agreement and we’ve honoured the agreement but Russia has not unfortunately honoured the agreement so we’re going to terminate the agreement, we’re going to pull out.”

Such a move would be a sharp break from US arms control policy. Former US officials told the Guardian this week Bolton was blocking talks on extending another treaty with Russia, New Start, which was signed in 2010 and is due to expire in 2021.

Asked on Saturday to clarify, the president said the US will “have to develop those weapons”. He also drew in China.

“Unless Russia comes to us and China comes to us and they all come to us and they say, ‘Let’s all of us get smart and let’s none of us develop those weapons,’” he said, “but if Russia’s doing it and if China’s doing it and we’re adhering to the agreement, that’s unacceptable. So we have a tremendous amount of money to play with with our military.”

He added: “Russia has not adhered to the agreement, so we are going to terminate the agreement and we are going to develop the weapons. If we get smart and if others get smart, and say ‘Let’s not develop these horrible nuclear weapons,’ I would be extremely happy with that.

“But as long as somebody’s violating that agreement then we’re not going to be the only ones to adhere to it.”

Start digging that fallout shelter, boys.

 

[Poiseon]

So build a nuclear missile BIGGER and STRONGER than Russia? I would think the point of a nuclear arms treaty is to prevent both parties from going out of hand with nuclear energy. Mutual assured destruction.

These weapons are basically for show. If a war ever broke out neither side is likely to use nukes. Even small ones render areas useless at best and dangerous at worst. General MacArthur wanted to use thirty nukes to create a radioactive no-mans-land during the Korean War back in the fifties to stop Chinese troops from entering the country, and he was fired immediately. The most likely case when a nuke/nukes would be used is by terrorist groups who are trying to trigger a larger war (ISIS in Syria as an example.) Or when one side detects missiles incoming, or nuke strikes already confirmed.
Edit: Alternate History Hub made an interesting video on the MacArthur nuclear plan.
Link: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...=b379aN45VEE&usg=AOvVaw3AK8cQDY9RBiYLpb7bw7Us

INF treaty was designed basically to protect Europe against Russians in case they would go mental - for USA INF means nothing - no gains, no loses.

It's high time for Europe to stop using the USA as its strongman while they be oh so progressive.

The European nations went from being the hearts of massive empires to safe-space kingdoms for soy-sucking, hipster, faggots. Britain protested Trump's visit in the hundreds of thousands but when the leader of Saudi Arabia visits (Country where gays are executed, hands are cut off for stealing candy bars, and where that journalist got butchered like last week.) and it's fucking crickets. One page with a single paragraph on the BBC website.
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-43329106/crowds-gather-to-protest-against-saudi-visit
Britain and most of Europe is filled with pussies. They went from this

to this

No hope for any part of Western Europe.

Nuclear weapons are for big babies

Especially that one up there~

 

[Vorhtbame]

These weapons are basically for show.

Pretty much--or more to the point, they're insurance. Having them prevents the other fellow from using them, because nobody wants to get hit with one of those.

They're basically "DO IT FAGGOT" in a metal cylinder.

 

[Tranhuviya]

Stock up on seeds and canned food.

 

[Poiseon]

Pretty much--or more to the point, they're insurance. Having them prevents the other fellow from using them, because nobody wants to get hit with one of those.

They're basically "DO IT FAGGOT" in a metal cylinder.

;3

 

[Y2K Baby]

That would be awesome

You're awesome.

 

[uncleShitHeel]

How concerned should I be about this

More concerned than me.

 

[uncleShitHeel]

Why can’t they just invent giant fucking mechas with laser swords and shit to fight instead of gay ass OP nukes?

Because conventional and protracted ground wars are nightmarish meatgrinder.

 

[Wallace]

Pretty much--or more to the point, they're insurance. Having them prevents the other fellow from using them, because nobody wants to get hit with one of those.

They're basically "DO IT FAGGOT" in a metal cylinder.

So, Mutually Assured Destruction is still a thing then?

Let's run down the two possibilities:

1) Russia tries to get a new treaty signed, and the US has a chance to negotiate something better. A win for the US.

2) Russia doesn't try to get a new agreement in place, which suggests they never intended to keep the treaty in the first place. Scrapping the treaty is therefore a good thing, since it would otherwise keep the US' hands tied in this regard. The downside is now more people are building cruise missiles with nuclear warheads.

“Unless Russia comes to us and China comes to us and they all come to us and they say, ‘Let’s all of us get smart and let’s none of us develop those weapons,’” he said, “but if Russia’s doing it and if China’s doing it and we’re adhering to the agreement, that’s unacceptable. So we have a tremendous amount of money to play with with our military.”

This is the part that is consistent with Trump's personality. More than anything, he wants people to come to him because he has something that they want. Tossing the treaty makes Russia and China come to him, and maybe Europe too, since he's saying that he wants a better deal in exchange for protection. It's... audacious, I'll give him that. It will certainly make a lot of foreign policy folks wet themselves.

 

[Poiseon]

So, Mutually Assured Destruction is still a thing then?

Let's run down the two possibilities:

1) Russia tries to get a new treaty signed, and the US has a chance to negotiate something better. A win for the US.

2) Russia doesn't try to get a new agreement in place, which suggests they never intended to keep the treaty in the first place. Scrapping the treaty is therefore a good thing, since it would otherwise keep the US' hands tied in this regard. The downside is now more people are building cruise missiles with nuclear warheads.




This is the part that is consistent with Trump's personality. More than anything, he wants people to come to him because he has something that they want. Tossing the treaty makes Russia and China come to him, and maybe Europe too, since he's saying that he wants a better deal in exchange for protection. It's... audacious, I'll give him that. It will certainly make a lot of foreign policy folks wet themselves.

Trump's never been known for subtlety. Good to see bureaucrats pissing themselves.

 

[Norvic]

I think a lot of people in this thread, and probably Trump and John Bolton and all the crazy fuckwits now inhabiting the echelons of power in Washington, have forgotten exactly why intermediate range missiles were banned. The doctrine of mutually assured destruction is supposed to guarantee a world where people have nukes but nobody uses nukes. The idea is that if one side fires off a volley of ICBMs, there's no way to disguise the fact and you've then got a good 30 minutes to warm up your own ICBM, plus another 5 to 10 minutes to assume the position to kiss your arse goodbye depending on how close you are to the launch site.

The problem with intermediate range missiles is that they don't give a comforting time window between launch detection and detonation. This can give a country the idea that they could stage a submarine launched first strike and take out the nuclear capacity of the other country before they can respond and in such a way "win" a nuclear war, as ridiculous a prospect as that is. Thus we banned intermediate range missiles and anti-ballistic missiles systems and other things that might interfere with this perverted bit of game theory.

As insane as a world where people are building and stockpiling nuclear weapons is, at least we had a strategy for embracing and managing the insanity that lasted 40 years or so. At least Russia has the excuse that they're a kleptocracy and all their elections are shams for their leader being a pinhead who governs like he's still in the KGB. What the fuck is the USA's excuse?

 

[Wallace]

Trump's never been known for subtlety. Good to see bureaucrats pissing themselves.

I don't think I agree. I think you need some diplomacy, even if it means not getting everything you want. I'm old enough to remember the 80s, and I definitely did not like living under Mutually Assured Destruction.

 

[Konover]

I knew playing fallout would pay out one day

 

[Poiseon]

I don't think I agree. I think you need some diplomacy, even if it means not getting everything you want. I'm old enough to remember the 80s, and I definitely did not like living under Mutually Assured Destruction.

I never said not to have diplomacy or that we should get absolutely everything we want. Being diplomatic doesn't mean getting fucked in the ass and negotiating for lube. (Like England does.) . Trump has been a successful diplomat when needed and a willing leader of military action when necessary. Bureaucracy does not equal diplomacy. As for MAD, I'm not young enough to have experienced the eighties, but hasn't that policy still continued from then? We still have nukes, jut not enough to entirely destroy the earth surface.

 

[Otis Boi]

Treaties like this have always been dumb. Even back to the infamous 5:5:3 treaty with the U.K , U.S and Japan. The only one who gets punished are the ones following the rules. There is no way to make them stop.

 

[Wallace]

I never said not to have diplomacy or that we should get absolutely everything we want. Being diplomatic doesn't mean getting fucked in the ass and negotiating for lube. (Like England does.) . Trump has been a successful diplomat when needed and a willing leader of military action when necessary. Bureaucracy does not equal diplomacy. As for MAD, I'm not young enough to have experienced the eighties, but hasn't that policy still continued from then? We still have nukes, jut not enough to entirely destroy the earth surface.

With regards to MAD, not really. We have less nukes in the world than before, but still more than enough to wipe out every living thing on the planet. And we've had some very close calls.

For the sake of argument, could you give me an example of when Trump has been a successful diplomat?

 

[Poiseon]

The problem with intermediate range missiles is that they don't give a comforting time window between launch detection and detonation. This can give a country the idea that they could stage a submarine launched first strike and take out the nuclear capacity of the other country before they can respond and in such a way "win" a nuclear war, as ridiculous a prospect as that is. Thus we banned intermediate range missiles and anti-ballistic missiles systems and other things that might interfere with this perverted bit of game theory.

As insane as a world where people are building and stockpiling nuclear weapons is, at least we had a strategy for embracing and managing the insanity that lasted 40 years or so. At least Russia has the excuse that they're a kleptocracy and all their elections are shams for their leader being a pinhead who governs like he's still in the KGB. What the fuck is the USA's excuse?

Any war where nukes are used at all is immediate death for the human race. Nuclear winter would render the population fucked, and underground bunkers are only temporary. Without sunlight our species is locked away from vital nutrients. And speaking of Game Theory, they actually did a video on this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibJSWodlmyo

 

[Norvic]

Trump has been a successful diplomat when needed and a willing leader of military action when necessary.

Trump's a moron who can't read or use a computer. Anything you think he may have ever done that constitutes a success is someone else's work.

Any war where nukes are used at all is immediate death for the human race. Nuclear winter would render the population fucked, and underground bunkers are only temporary. Without sunlight our species is locked away from vital nutrients. And speaking of Game Theory, they actually did a video on this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibJSWodlmyo

Yeah, funnily enough though this fact doesn't make the people in power think that perhaps they ought to stop building nuclear weapons and decommission the ones they already have. If they're illogical in such a major way, why would you ever trust them to be logical about anything else, ever?

 

[Poiseon]

With regards to MAD, not really. We have less nukes in the world than before, but still more than enough to wipe out every living thing on the planet. And we've had some very close calls.

For the sake of argument, could you give me an example of Trump has been a successful diplomat?

I'm including a Wikipedia link. Trump is the only leader in US history and Western history who managed to arrange a peace summit with North Korea. Since the hermit kingdom was formed back in the fifties it's been entirely isolationist. No President has done this. Obama and Bush never bothered with North Korea and its threats. You can think of Trump what you will, but he's actually doing what he said he'd do if he got elected. Getting Kim to talks was one of those things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_North_Korea–United_States_summit

 

[Poiseon]

Trump's a moron who can't read or use a computer. Anything you think he may have ever done that constitutes a success is someone else's work.



Yeah, funnily enough though this fact doesn't make the people in power think that perhaps they ought to stop building nuclear weapons and decommission the ones they already have. If they're illogical in such a major way, why would you ever trust them to be logical about anything else, ever?

I don't. Did I ever say I trust people to be logical? As for Trump being a moron, I differ to Micheal Moore.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCetAMbI5Jk

 

[Norvic]

I'm including a Wikipedia link. Trump is the only leader in US history and Western history who managed to arrange a peace summit with North Korea. Since the hermit kingdom was formed back in the fifties it's been entirely isolationist. No President has done this. Obama and Bush never bothered with North Korea and its threats. You can think of Trump what you will, but he's actually doing what he said he'd do if he got elected. Getting Kim to talks was one of those things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_North_Korea–United_States_summit

North Korea would have agreed to talk at any fucking time. The reason why nobody else had "peace" talks with them is because they're not serious about peace. Basically Trump went and humiliated himself in front the entire world and announced a totally productive meeting where Kim lied to him to his face and Trump believed him, because Trump is a moron.