
The U.S. Withdrawal from the INF Treaty Is the Next Step in a Global Arms Race - Melchizedek
https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/us-withdrawal-inf-treaty-russia-global-arms-race-missiles
======
burlesona
I think it’s easy for Americans to see things as a resumption of the Cold War,
which we won, and think that’s good.

But this time there are three players in the mutually assured destruction
game, and we’ve been poking our thumb in both of their faces. The article
mentions how much relations between Moscow and Beijing have improved.

The entire reason we normalized relations with China was to further box in the
USSR, stretching them further than they could sustain.

It seems obvious to me that the tables have turned.

~~~
devoply
The nuclear aspect of the Cold War is something completely different from the
rest of the Cold War which is mostly about influence and economics. Once you
have MAD, there isn't really much point is continuing the nuclear game
especially for intermediate range ICBMs. So I don't get what this is supposed
to achieve other than to send a message that we're going into a new Cold War.

~~~
cloakandswagger
At 7km/s, it would take around 20 minutes for an ICBM fired from the US to
reach Moscow. It takes about 3 minutes for an intermediate range missile to
travel from Poland to Moscow.

So yes, there is a huge advantage to pursuing intermediate range missiles.

~~~
ben_w
Why is 17 minutes important when the context is Mutually Assured Destruction,
possibly enforced via stealth subs you can’t hit preemptively and deadman
switches to detect the first strike?

~~~
Zach_the_Lizard
That 17 minutes is important in terms of being able to assess the threat and
react. 3 minutes might mean by the time you launch, enough launchers are
destroyed that it's "worth it" to eat the counter attack and "win" at MAD.

~~~
ben_w
I thought the point of nuclear submarines was that they don’t get destroyed in
the other side’s first strike?

------
djohnston
Why is the US receiving flack for deciding to no longer uphold their end of a
bargain that Russia has been breaking for years

~~~
Azerty89
There's a good analysis on CNN here:

[https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/01/opinions/us-pulling-
out-o...](https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/01/opinions/us-pulling-out-of-the-
inf-treaty-rewards-putin-hurts-nato-engel-smith/index.html)

~~~
joejerryronnie
The problem with this analysis is that it assumes this move has anything
whatsoever to do with Russia.

------
travisoneill1
Incorrect. Russia's violation of the INF Treaty is the next step in a global
arms race. The US withdrawal from the treaty is a common sense response, since
a treaty that one side is violating is worthless.

~~~
fixvzbdjzis
1\. The US never bothered to prove their allegations 2\. The US’s ABM
batteries are more likely to be afoul of the INF 3\. The Ruskies invited the
US to explain what concerned them about their missles - they never answered.
3\. The US - particularly the folks in charge now - has a history of
withdrawing from arms control treaties (see ABM) 4\. The US has a history of
telling ridiculous lies about arms control (See ABM treaty, and how the
Ruskies called all the US’s bluffs) 5\. The US has already started attacking
another treaty (weapons in space ban).

So the US doesn’t supply proof. Has a history of tearing treaties. Has been
almost surely in violation of the INF for some time. Is poking holes in the
last few remaining treaties.

But don’t worry about Armageddon: w/out an arms treaty, launching the
thousands of obsolete ICBMs loaded with tungsten carbide bearings into orbit
solves any countries’ security concerns vis a vis space ;)

~~~
lostmsu
What a load of BS. The proof, that Russia violated the treaty in 2014 is
mentioned in the article.

------
tomohawk
This is all about China.

[https://freebeacon.com/national-security/china-opposes-u-
s-w...](https://freebeacon.com/national-security/china-opposes-u-s-withdrawal-
from-missile-treaty-to-keep-advantage/)

------
erentz
Highly recommend the book Doomsday Machine by Ellsberg for those interested in
this kind of thing.

~~~
cmurf
Exactly. We really want to make it easier to return to that way of thinking,
let alone actually restart building it?

------
NedIsakoff
I like to point out that Russia violated the INF Treaty in 2014.
[https://www.csis.org/analysis/putin%E2%80%99s-treaty-
problem...](https://www.csis.org/analysis/putin%E2%80%99s-treaty-problem-
lessons-russia%E2%80%99s-inf-treaty-violations)

~~~
twtw
That's in the article.

------
MysticFear
How to bankrupt a corrupt Russian government? Induce them to spend a lot of
money on their military. Worked in the Cold War.

~~~
adventured
Russia has already signaled openly that they know they can't keep up on
spending with the US and China. Their forward budgeting statements indicate a
halt to the formerly rapid military spending growth. China is what this treaty
withdrawal is all about.

Pretty soon the US will be adding a new Russia every year in new economic
output. Russia is not a competitive threat with the US overall, only on select
regional matters and on a few important weapons systems. The dumbest thing the
US could do, is worry about bankrupting Russia.

And if the US wanted to do that, there's only one good option: tank the price
of oil dramatically by pushing up the value of the dollar. That won't work
very well here, because the dollar is already relatively high, the US is now
vulnerable on oil as a huge industry (and will be more so in the near future),
and inflation adjusted (eg back to 1995 or 2005) oil is almost cheap right now
(and it's not tanking Russia, they can roughly hold their ground at current
prices). The dollar is how the USSR was bankrupted, as they over-bet their
economic security on oil output from 1970-1990. Russia is being far better run
with regard to macro economic choices right now than the USSR was, which
limits their exposure to bankrupting shocks (again, short of eg sustained $20
oil).

The primary hope on the containment front is probably that Russia's need to
raise or at least maintain its social welfare output (against a zero growth
economy) is checked by oil prices (held down by US shale output), forcing a
choice between military spending and social welfare. That's happening right
now and has badly soured Putin's popularity at home. Oil goes to $110 and
Putin gets a lot more money to play with while also placating domestic
demands.

~~~
chupasaurus
Long and boring necropost, but still I want to add some PoV from inside.

By numbers provided by Rosstat Russia looks somewhat stable, but in reality
internal economic there is going to break if it would be treated the same way
as for now. Some of the problems:

The real inflation rate is way higher than salary grow, especially in 60-th
percentile and below which means 60% of active workers who already have income
lower comparable to China are become poorer each day.

Whooping 11+% rate for loans on housing: with quick calculations a family of
two working parents who can't apply to a subsidized loan (less than 2 children
or both are older than 35) would have to pay 61% of a single average net
salary each month for a 2-room apartment outside of Moscow or St. Petersburg
and 10% for housing expenditures, so they both have to live on $729 in current
exchange rate, which would be not enough to raise a single child.

There was a historical event on the 3rd of December, 2018: average price for
Regular Conventional gas in US went below the correspondent mark of gas in
Russia and is still lower. Why? Russian oil companies (there are only 3 of
them as of now) haven't heard of work efficiency and ROI, but can make citizen
pay to them.

The two biggest expenditures in budget from 2017 are military (with other
secret parts) and current pensions, the latter is a 20-year of fkups in
pension reforms, currently each worker indirectly (employees pay these to
government in addition to wages without any reports to employers) sends 22% of
their salary to pay current pensions and that covers 30% of them.

Social welfare spending? Education and science fundings were cut twice last
year.

Would provide sources if someone asks, I just don't have enough time to lurk
back on them to get the links and most of them would show you texts in russian
anyway.

------
joejerryronnie
The question is: why is the US backing out of this treaty now when they knew
Russia had been violating it for years. I believe the US is preparing for a
new arms race with China and is just lining up the paperwork.

The massive arms race in the 70s & 80s is what arguable took down the Soviet
Union by applying too much pressure to a shaky economic system. With major
cracks showing in the Chinese economy, is the US beginning to employ this
tactic again?

Edit: I added this comment before reading the article based on news stories I
heard yesterday. The article is basically positing the same theory.

~~~
mikeash
I sure hope we’re not trying to spend China into bankruptcy the way we
supposedly did with the USSR. China’s economy may not be as amazing as the
official figures show, but it’s in vastly better shape than the 1970s USSR.
Considering how US defense contracting loves to overspend to an absurd degree,
I think we’d lose that fight badly.

~~~
joejerryronnie
I think it is a multi-pronged approach to Chinese economic, political, and
military containment - trade war, attack on Chinese tech, arms race, etc. It
will apply various pressure points to China's economy, political structure,
and world standing. This added pressure will force Xi's regime to take more
extreme measures to retain control, thus adding more systemic pressure. US
allies are also beginning to adopt these policies.

I believe the US will start countering Belt and Road initiatives with
alternative economic packages to African and Asian nations. Also, I wouldn't
be surprised if the US backed off of Russian aggression in exchange for anti-
China support. I bet there's a white paper somewhere in Washington which lays
out a similar strategy.

