Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Russia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: The Russian nuclear threat
WZeranski    8/24/2001 8:05:40 AM
Excuse? It's a fact that the USSR is nonexistence. The USA should be able to police itself, and that means PROTECT itself. So, you think self-defense is a crime? Now, wouldn't it be nice if Russia could police itself? And are Ukraine and Georgia bond by this "treaty"? They were part of the USSR. If they are bond,who says so, you? Public opinion? The UN? Give facts--a reasoned statement, not childish whines: It's bad--it's not fair because the USA is THE world power, and has the WILL and the POWER to create a DEFENSIVE system which Russia does not have at this time, and the USSR never-ever-had.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Themba    RE:The Russian nuclear threat   8/25/2001 1:20:55 AM
Well let me first respond to WZeranski On January 13 1992, Russia announced unilaterally their succession to all Soviet arms agreements. On September 26, 1997 Belarus Kazakhstan Russia Ukraine and the US signed what is known as THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING RELATING TO THE TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS ON THE LIMITATION OF ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE SYSTEMS Here are some links to the text of the agreement http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/abmt/text/ad-mou.html http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/factsheets/missdef/abm_mou.html Although this follow on has yet to be ratified, there is room to argue that since the US has continued the timetable set forth for the meetings every 5 years in the original treaty that the US has recognized Russia as the de facto successor which is a binding action under International Norms dating back centuries. Now don?t get me wrong, I actually think we should just give our six month notice and abrogate the treaty. Russia certainly has not allowed this treaty to stop them from developing systems that violate the standards set out in the framework while the US has hamstrung our own research and development in an effort to avoid violating the treaty. The only reason this is an issue now, is we are nearing the point that our development process will violate the treaty, although it has not yet. Now I have a few questions for JCO. First, name one treaty the US has ratified (meaning it has been submitted to the US Senate and passed) that we have violated? Second, which nations have been or are now demanding the US get more involved in the following conflicts? A. The Balkans B. The Middle East The irony is that the US is often called upon to handle situations, which we would rather leave to others, and normally lend themselves to us be stuck between a rock and a hard place. While we receive from our allies and friends increasing criticism saying we are acting as the policeman and we are too uninvolved at the same time. Next time that a nation calls screaming for aid or assistance maybe, we should just let the machine get it. One final request, before anyone tries to debate me concerning the ABM treaty, please do both of us the simple courtesy of reading the actual text here is a link to it. http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/abmt/text/abm2.htm
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics