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]

Diplomacy isn't going to stop a suitcase nuke. By agreeing to meet with NK, essentially without conditions, the president has handed them two of their major objectives, number one, de facto recognition as a nuclear weapons state. Kim Jong Un is having summits with everybody. And, number two, the sanctions pressure is off. This summit has given the Chinese an alibi to back off on their economic pressure, and they're 90 percent of North Korea's trade. I'll call it a victory for Trump's diplomacy when I see clear and convincing evidence of NK's denuclearization. A promise from Kim Jong Un isn't worth shit.

Besides Trump and South Korea, who is he having Summits with? Also, defacto recognition means less than horse shit, when said state HAS nuclear weapons.
https://money.cnn.com/2018/06/12/news/economy/north-korea-sanctions-explainer/index.html
Trump increased the pressure on sanctions, by the way.

 

[Poiseon]

Diplomacy isn't going to stop a suitcase nuke.

You wanted an example of diplomacy. I gave you an example of diplomacy. How exactly is starting diplomacy with a hermit country bad? Like I said to the other guy, would you rather us invade? Do nothing? What's your grand idea then?

 

[ColtWalker1847]

Give. Them. To. Terrorists. Transfer them over the border to South Korea and detonate. We've had nukes, planes and satellite tracking for weapons so long it seems people think you actually Need those things to kill people.
And no threat? Really? The American who was beaten into a fucking coma over there is fucking nothing right? Can they wipe the America off the face of the earth? No. But that doesn't mean they aren't a fucking threat.

Terrorists... fucking really...

Quit it with the Tom Clancy masturbatory fantasy.

These are Fat Man nukes. FAT. MAN. Big fucking bombs. And they only have a couple.

You mean to tell me you think them putting them into shipping containers, or whatever, then sending them out then detonated by third parties is a credible threat? Really?

Even if they managed that US would glass them for it. The US would be totally justified in doing it too. And for what? Taking out a port facility? That really struck at the heart of the American beast, didn't it. That really won them the war. That really helped them reach their goals.

Oh wait, it didn't. It just got them all killed.

 

[Norvic]

How? I gave an example of a diplomatic summit where The President Who Truly Cares About Peace started the process. Going back to that link, would you really rather us just fucking invade them? Just send the Sixth Fleet in and start dropping bombs?

There's no solution to the problem that ends with Kim and his people in power, it's impossible. You can't invade without levelling most of South Korea. The only solution is containment. Kim will never negotiate in good faith, he can't. Either he remains in power or he dies, he doesn't have a third option. There's no way he stays in power without maintaining the infrastructure that sustains it, which includes the militarism and propaganda. There is no point at all to engaging in talks with the DPRK regime until the military stage a coup and come begging to international community to please send some foreign aid.

 

[Poiseon]

Terrorists... fucking really...

Quit it with the Tom Clancy masturbatory fantasy.

These are Fat Man nukes. FAT. MAN. Big fucking bombs. And they only have a couple.

You mean to tell me you think them putting them into shipping containers, or whatever, then sending them out then detonated by third parties is a credible threat? Really?

Even if they managed that US would glass them for it. The US would be totally justified in doing it too. And for what? Taking out a port facility? That really struck at the heart of the American beast, didn't it. That really won them the war. That really helped them reach their goals.

Oh wait, it didn't. It just got them all killed.

And what makes you think their bombs are that size? Fallout is a video game. Nukes that small are pointless, you get bigger explosions from non-nuclear weapons. They have upwards of a hundred.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/north-...e-60-nuclear-weapons-south-korea-says-n915721

 

[Poiseon]

There's no solution to the problem that ends with Kim and his people in power, it's impossible. You can't invade without levelling most of South Korea. The only solution is containment. Kim will never negotiate in good faith, he can't. Either he remains in power or he dies, he doesn't have a third option. There's no way he stays in power without maintaining the infrastructure that sustains it, which includes the militarism and propaganda. There is no point at all to engaging in talks with the DPRK regime until the military stage a coup and come begging to international community to please send some foreign aid.

Eyup, while they keep working on those missiles, or sell/give them to terrorists. I say the prick should die to, but leaving them there and doing fuck all will only give him time to actually make himself a threat.

 

[mindlessobserver]

Its all meaningless posturing anyway. The US does not need mid range nukes. The problem with this treaty is that it limited the actual carrying capability, not just the nuclear device itself. Its proven to be a major hindrance to conventional weapons platforms, such as rail launch Aerial drones. The stupid treaty limited how many of those we could build since "they could be used to launch nukes". The US, being a stickler for rules, kept to the treaty while the Russians did the Pirates of the Carribean thing and went with "more of a guideline", and built their own weapons systems that were ostensibly banned but totally okay as there were no nukes on them.

 

[ColtWalker1847]

And what makes you think their bombs are that size? Fallout is a video game. Nukes that small are pointless, you get bigger explosions from non-nuclear weapons. They have upwards of a hundred.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/north-...e-60-nuclear-weapons-south-korea-says-n915721

Because their testing didn't have anything that yielded larger than that. That means they have at-best boosted fission weapons. No h-bombs. Big clunky fission weapons.

In case you didn't know, "tests" are public demonstrations of capability. You want your adversary to know what you are capable of as nukes are deterrent weapons.

 

[76LD910]

The problem with intermediate range missiles is that they don't give a comforting time window between launch detection and detonation.

Do submarine launched missiles give a comforting window between launch and detection ?

 

[Norvic]

Do submarine launched missiles give a comforting window between launch and detection ?

If they're the sort that takes a nice detour in to space before hitting the target like the Trident missile, then yes. If they're a cruise missile like a submarine launched Tomahawk, then no.

 

[CWCissey]

To quote Morrissey: Come Armageddon, come nuclear war.

Because if it's not love
Then it's the bomb, the bomb, the bomb, the bomb, the bomb, the bomb, the bomb
That will bring us together

 

[frozenrunner]

Because conventional and protracted ground wars are nightmarish meatgrinder.

but muh Minovsky particles

 

[Your Weird Fetish]

So many decades from the 60's and there are still speds on this very forum that think we could use nukes to literally end all life on Earth. Something we couldn't do even if we had the arsenal we had at our peak, and somehow salted them all with cobalt. Life is really tough. Nukes aint shit. Bad for human civilization? Sure. Extinction of all life on Earth? Not even close. Hell, a full nuclear exchange might not even wipe out Homo sapiens. We've survived global catastrophes on that scale before.

The most likely thing to start a war is a great disproportion in the capabilities of two rival nations. Russia has a history of breaking every arms treaty they ever signed. It's an open secret. But apparently we really are back to Cold War politics, with the Dems being both the war mongers and the commie traitors at the same time. Wait, nevermind, that's exactly how it was the first time around.

There's no solution to the problem that ends with Kim and his people in power, it's impossible. You can't invade without levelling most of South Korea. The only solution is containment. Kim will never negotiate in good faith, he can't. Either he remains in power or he dies, he doesn't have a third option. There's no way he stays in power without maintaining the infrastructure that sustains it, which includes the militarism and propaganda. There is no point at all to engaging in talks with the DPRK regime until the military stage a coup and come begging to international community to please send some foreign aid.

Who exactly do you think decides which Kim is in charge in the first place?

In case you didn't know, "tests" are public demonstrations of capability. You want your adversary to know what you are capable of as nukes are deterrent weapons.

Unless you're doing the weird Israeli uncertainty strategy where you act crazy and technically officially don't have nukes even though everyone knows you do.

 

[tehpope]

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

We can just take after the movie "Robot Jox" and have 1v1 mech battles instead of war. Think of the sponsors and ratings.

 

[Your Weird Fetish]

I've long maintained that the fate of Korea should just be decided in a series of Starcraft matches.

 

[Poiseon]

Because their testing didn't have anything that yielded larger than that. That means they have at-best boosted fission weapons. No h-bombs. Big clunky fission weapons.

In case you didn't know, "tests" are public demonstrations of capability. You want your adversary to know what you are capable of as nukes are deterrent weapons.

Because the 'Hermit Kingdom' is going to tell everyone exactly what they have. Let's see a source on your claim please.

 

[PS1gamenwatch]

I've long maintained that the fate of Korea should just be decided in a series of Starcraft matches.

Or they could do another pro wrestling show there. I mean WWE is still pursuing that Saudi Arabia show.

 

[CWCissey]

I've long maintained that the fate of Korea should just be decided in a series of Starcraft matches.

No I'm with the robot sword fights.

 

[Poiseon]

Do submarine launched missiles give a comforting window between launch and detection ?

No actually. Fucking terrifying lack of, to be precise. Looking into actually submarine missile technology it's quite clear one sub could end the world. The cluster style launching system can fire dozens of missiles per minute, each one carrying multiple warheads that separate and hit their targets. Being entire cities it would be over really quickly.

 

[CWCissey]

No actually. Fucking terrifying lack of, to be precise. Looking into actually submarine missile technology it's quite clear one sub could end the world. The cluster style launching system can fire dozens of missiles per minute, each one carrying multiple warheads that separate and hit their targets. Being entire cities it would be over really quickly.

It's even more terrifying for the majority of the world nuclear powers too as their capital cities are within 100km from some form of coast.