Trump pulls out of nuclear treaty, signs of something bigger? - Page 2 - Survivalist Forum
Survivalist Forum

Advertise Here

Go Back   Survivalist Forum > >
Articles Classifieds Donations Gallery Groups Links Store Survival Files


Notices

Manmade and Natural Disasters Drought, Diseases, Earthquakes, Riots, Wars

Advertise Here
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
No Trespassing Warning Signs PreppingGal Disaster Preparedness General Discussion 62 02-01-2019 12:48 PM
Per Steve Bannon. Treasonous meeting. workquik Political News and Discussion 321 01-19-2018 02:28 PM
President Trump Pulls the Plug on Obama Care Batko10 Political News and Discussion 149 10-25-2017 09:20 AM
Key Immigration Group Pulls Trump Endorsement ACME_MAN Political News and Discussion 3 05-03-2017 07:26 PM
Jennifer Holliday Pulls Out of Trump Inauguration clocker General Discussion 56 01-23-2017 03:35 PM

View Poll Results: Signs of something bigger?
Yes 11 30.56%
No 14 38.89%
Maybe 11 30.56%
Voters: 36. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-06-2019, 05:45 PM
puttster's Avatar
puttster puttster is offline
Golfer
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,895
Thanks: 1,820
Thanked 3,111 Times in 1,700 Posts
Default



Advertise Here

Renegotiating a 30 year old treaty is probably a good thing. A lot has changed from the Reagan-Gorbachev days. China is now a power, cruise and anti missiles are big deals now, the USSR does not even exist any more.

I don't see why both sides have to be so rude about it but threats and brinkmanship is the new politics of leadership, I guess.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to puttster For This Useful Post:
Old 02-14-2019, 06:26 AM
zumhug's Avatar
zumhug zumhug is offline
Paramedic and ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: United States
Posts: 3,053
Thanks: 7,845
Thanked 5,956 Times in 2,019 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad Tepes View Post
I`m Sure they Know what 2 or 3 Boomers would do to Russia....Nothing but a BIG Smoking Hole Forever!. Does the new Tsar want that to happen??. I think Not BUT???.
Putin stated
Quote:
"Unfortunately, we have this trend to underestimate the current situation. There are dangers, there are risks in our day-to-day lives. What are those risks? First and foremost, the collapse of the international system of arms control, of moving away from an arms race," he said.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/20/puti...stimated-.html
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to zumhug For This Useful Post:
Old 02-14-2019, 08:34 PM
Im RIght's Avatar
Im RIght Im RIght is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Redneck Riviera
Posts: 5,213
Thanks: 9,284
Thanked 12,305 Times in 3,603 Posts
Default

Not knowing the international law aspect, wouldn't the treaty be nullified when the USSR dissolved?
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Im RIght For This Useful Post:
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 02-14-2019, 11:49 PM
alv7722's Avatar
alv7722 alv7722 is offline
Come and Take Them!
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Where I Am Now
Posts: 2,923
Thanks: 15,878
Thanked 7,655 Times in 2,215 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pikepole20 View Post
I think it is mainly about Russia not keeping the agreement anyway, so, why should we. This will give us a chance to increase our missiles distances.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Russia violated the agreement, and China was not a signatory. This puts US at a distinct disadvantage. Trump was correct about the stupidity, or out and out subversion, of US interests, by former 'leaders'.

He wants a 'Space Force'. That is an incredibly smart idea. We should install high power lasers that can shoot down any hostile missile launches. Russia and China will scream. I don't care.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to alv7722 For This Useful Post:
Old 02-15-2019, 05:31 AM
Aerindel's Avatar
Aerindel Aerindel is offline
Abnormality biased.
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Montananistan.
Posts: 8,055
Thanks: 10,620
Thanked 22,152 Times in 6,398 Posts
Default

Quote:
He wants a 'Space Force'. That is an incredibly smart idea. We should install high power lasers that can shoot down any hostile missile launches. Russia and China will scream. I don't care.
You would care if you live anywhere worth nuking. An effective missile defense system would leave them with no choice but pre-emptive attack. The day we starting building such a system would be the day WWIII started.

It would be just like the cuban missile crisis but in reverse. Anything that reverses MAD can only be countered by a pre-emptive strike, even if the odds where not in their favor it would be their only choice.
Quick reply to this message
Old 02-15-2019, 06:24 AM
HomeDefense's Avatar
HomeDefense HomeDefense is online now
Dog Lives Matter
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Hellfire, Arizona
Posts: 5,273
Thanks: 3,175
Thanked 21,293 Times in 4,551 Posts
Default

Trump will push for a new treaty that includes China and other countries -- perhaps North Korea. The little pork chop in NK would be thrilled to play with the big boys.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to HomeDefense For This Useful Post:
Old 02-15-2019, 07:30 AM
Glockpride Glockpride is offline
Target Shooter
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 434
Thanks: 3,904
Thanked 1,158 Times in 309 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aerindel View Post
You would care if you live anywhere worth nuking. An effective missile defense system would leave them with no choice but pre-emptive attack. The day we starting building such a system would be the day WWIII started.

It would be just like the cuban missile crisis but in reverse. Anything that reverses MAD can only be countered by a pre-emptive strike, even if the odds where not in their favor it would be their only choice.
I disagree that it would start WW3. They’d have to know that their chances for it turning out in their favor with limited pain would be extremely low. Now, what it would do is inspire a new race for new tech, in order to circumvent or exploit whatever weaknesses the combined systems have. And every system has weaknesses.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Glockpride For This Useful Post:
Old 02-15-2019, 02:56 PM
Peter's Avatar
Peter Peter is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Above ground
Posts: 8,653
Thanks: 4,947
Thanked 8,993 Times in 4,271 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aerindel View Post
You would care if you live anywhere worth nuking. An effective missile defense system would leave them with no choice but pre-emptive attack. The day we starting building such a system would be the day WWIII started.

It would be just like the cuban missile crisis but in reverse. Anything that reverses MAD can only be countered by a pre-emptive strike, even if the odds where not in their favor it would be their only choice.
I don't think so, I believe they'd redouble their efforts to steal the technology and reestablish some kind of parity.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Peter For This Useful Post:
Old 02-15-2019, 04:06 PM
Vlad Tepes's Avatar
Vlad Tepes Vlad Tepes is offline
Hunter
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,098
Thanks: 13,944
Thanked 2,188 Times in 799 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aerindel View Post
You would care if you live anywhere worth nuking. An effective missile defense system would leave them with no choice but pre-emptive attack. The day we starting building such a system would be the day WWIII started.

It would be just like the cuban missile crisis but in reverse. Anything that reverses MAD can only be countered by a pre-emptive strike, even if the odds where not in their favor it would be their only choice.

Don`t think so as Moscow has always been protected by an anti-ballistic system since I can remember.
Quick reply to this message
Old 02-15-2019, 04:34 PM
puttster's Avatar
puttster puttster is offline
Golfer
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,895
Thanks: 1,820
Thanked 3,111 Times in 1,700 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alv7722 View Post
He wants a 'Space Force'. That is an incredibly smart idea. We should install high power lasers that can shoot down any hostile missile launches. Russia and China will scream. I don't care.
Every effective antimissile requires a replacement ICBM in response, to restore the balance.

Let's say Russia has 3,000 and USA has 3,000 ICBMs. The USA reveals it is implementing an antimissile system guaranteed to knock out 2,000 incoming ICBMs, should the Russkies ever launch them.

Russia's only possible response is to add 2,000 new ICBMs. What has our antimissile system achieved but more danger for everyone?
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to puttster For This Useful Post:
Old 02-15-2019, 05:08 PM
PatrioticAmerican's Avatar
PatrioticAmerican PatrioticAmerican is online now
Hunter
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Castle Rock, CO
Age: 60
Posts: 1,533
Thanks: 3,426
Thanked 3,487 Times in 1,031 Posts
Default

Trump is looking to remove US babysitting from foreign soil. To remove those nukes, he know missiles on US territory are much cheaper and more effective.
Quick reply to this message
Old 02-17-2019, 03:04 PM
WilliamAshley WilliamAshley is offline
Birds of a Feather
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,535
Thanks: 97
Thanked 852 Times in 515 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad Tepes View Post
Why Not??. Russia is Cheating and building Hypersonic Nuclear weapons and America is supposed to sit by and do Nothing??. Go America!.
lol,
The US was developing hypersonic weapons long before Russia. Skunk works was pioneering the tech over a decade ago. US also coordinated with other hypersonic systems such as Israel's Arrow 3.


Skunk works was working with hydrogen oxygen systems.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/03/hype...-official.html

Now we have two phase conventional systems.

Quote:
Griffin, a former NASA administrator, explained that Russia's and China's pursuit of hypersonics, a kind of weapon the U.S. currently cannot defend against, has prompted the Pentagon to accelerate its development of space-based systems.

Hypersonic doesn't beat hypersonic.. hypersonic defence is space based, meanwhile now there is ground to space kill so that the hypersonic cannot be defeated.. the next step after that is just totally screwing over all of space by taking out all space systems including space based kill systems.


Keep in mind peacekeeper / minuteman systems were hypersonic, but the difference is that these new systems are not ICBMs necessarily, and they travel not in space but in atmosphere... so if the space theatre was closed access these systems would still be able to travel in atmosphere at hypersonic speeds. (Speed:
Approximately 15,000 miles per hour at burnout (Mach 20 at sea level))

These new systems aim to gtfo of their launch site to prevent being shut down at launch or early in the launch. They also do not require to enter space for maximum delivery speed.

The US tech was close to 40 years old.


https://nationalinterest.org/feature...americas-15926


This decision to get rid of the treaty wasn't unplanned. US defence contractors had already expanded their facilities for the new building program well before it was killed. Upgrading US systems was in the works for years. The systems, production facilities were already in place... testing, and deployment of the new system was held up until the treaty was killed.


In the works for years

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground...egic_Deterrent
Quick reply to this message
Old 02-19-2019, 05:51 AM
franklin franklin is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Eastern US
Posts: 6,967
Thanks: 1,687
Thanked 13,039 Times in 4,516 Posts
Default

The real danger is having a leader who isn't willing to launch retaliatory attacks if struck. Obama recent gave a speech where he as much as said he wouldn't have launched a retaliatory attack if China or Russia struck us first. I don't think anyone believes Trump wouldn't strike back. This is an important point in mutual deterrence. If we elect a leader that our adversaries perceive as weak enough to hold back a retaliatory strike we are in trouble.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to franklin For This Useful Post:
Old 02-19-2019, 08:49 AM
charliemeyer007's Avatar
charliemeyer007 charliemeyer007 is online now
reluctant sinner
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Rent Free in your head
Posts: 15,632
Thanks: 34
Thanked 28,941 Times in 10,148 Posts
Default

Some people actually read the manuals. I'd bet there are a few people that could hot wire the system.

I think the Boomer's are still independent.
Quick reply to this message
Old 02-19-2019, 01:40 PM
CONELRAD's Avatar
CONELRAD CONELRAD is offline
Emergency Manager
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Upper Midwest
Posts: 2,676
Thanks: 531
Thanked 4,454 Times in 1,756 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by puttster View Post
Every effective antimissile requires a replacement ICBM in response, to restore the balance.

Let's say Russia has 3,000 and USA has 3,000 ICBMs. The USA reveals it is implementing an antimissile system guaranteed to knock out 2,000 incoming ICBMs, should the Russkies ever launch them.

Russia's only possible response is to add 2,000 new ICBMs. What has our antimissile system achieved but more danger for everyone?
That's only the case if you believe Russian disinformation and propaganda. In its current state, we have between 44 and 70 interceptors. Which might grow to 200 in the distant future... but then again, it might not. Fielding enough to blunt every one, or even a significant portion of Russia's 1600 deployed warheads would be cost-prohibitive.

Let's say for the sake of argument, we had 1600 interceptors with a 100% hit rate. In reality, it's 56% one-shot, 97% 4-shot.
The way the system is currently implemented, it could be wiped out by a single warhead at each of the two launch sites (Vandenberg and Greely). The interceptor silos are packed tight, with silos literally right next to each other. All it would take is one SLBM, air-launched, or sub-launched cruise missile at each site and 1600 interceptors go up in smoke.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/63...6.249167?hl=en

I honestly don't know if this was done deliberately to show Russia the system isn't a threat to their deterrent or as a cost-savings measure, or both. But right now, one small nuke or a few 2000 pound cruise missiles would take out each facility. The system is literally zero threat to Russia's ability to strike the United States with its nuclear deterrent. The NMD capability isn't part of the equation because both sites will be blown off the map within 15 minutes of the start of WWIII. Bet on it.
Quick reply to this message
Old 02-19-2019, 02:01 PM
puttster's Avatar
puttster puttster is offline
Golfer
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,895
Thanks: 1,820
Thanked 3,111 Times in 1,700 Posts
Default

Interesting WIMM. Not sure why you quoted me though. You are painting a scenario where the antimissile system is not effective.
Though I think we agree that building one is a waste of time and money.
Quick reply to this message
Old 02-19-2019, 06:43 PM
CONELRAD's Avatar
CONELRAD CONELRAD is offline
Emergency Manager
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Upper Midwest
Posts: 2,676
Thanks: 531
Thanked 4,454 Times in 1,756 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by puttster View Post
Interesting WIMM. Not sure why you quoted me though. You are painting a scenario where the antimissile system is not effective.
Though I think we agree that building one is a waste of time and money.
Then we don't agree. I think the NMD is absolutely a worthwhile venture for dealing with threats from emerging nuclear powers. My point was simply that it doesn't negate Russia's strategic nuclear deterrent, nor was it alone ever meant to. Our strategic nuclear capabilities are still the primary means of deterring aggression from Russia and China.

The GBMD system is only one small part, or more accurately the cheapest and easiest part of the larger SDI concept conceived of back in the 80s which was supposed to negate Russia's strategic nuclear deterrent. What we have now isn't meant to do that. So if Russia pulls out of other treaties to deploy more warheads or develop and deploy other technologies, regardless of what they claim, they're doing it for a completely illegitimate reason. It's not because of American aggression or imperialism, neocons, the military-industrial complex or any of that other rot. It's because Putin wants an excuse to grow and modernize his military and the US NMD program provides him with that excuse.

Last edited by CONELRAD; 02-20-2019 at 10:24 AM..
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CONELRAD For This Useful Post:
Old 02-19-2019, 08:54 PM
Resto's Avatar
Resto Resto is online now
Any Time, Any Place
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: AZ
Posts: 1,966
Thanks: 3,509
Thanked 2,550 Times in 1,088 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad Tepes View Post
Please lookup the "Samson Option" from Israel.
BINGO! Russia has a HUGE Problem. Iran is dragging them into a Fight that only Israel will win. They have No Problem with a First Strike and they will go "All In" when they do. Israel is the Most Dangerous Country on this Planet.

Forget China, they are destroying themselves, wait for it.
Quick reply to this message
Old 02-23-2019, 10:04 AM
Idaho Survivalist Idaho Survivalist is online now
Survivor
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,294
Thanks: 563
Thanked 2,196 Times in 1,115 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kev View Post
President Trump is supposed to pull the US out of a nuclear treaty limiting land based nuclear cruise missiles.

I am sure both parties will come to the table and make a new treaty, or maybe not. There is speculation China wants some type of conflict in the South China sea. I speculate this conflict is for a land grab over various islands and the oil under those islands.

It has been also speculated Putin has been ignoring the land based nuclear treaty.

The question is, is Russia prepping for an Asian conflict? Not with China, but to back China up?

China exerts control over the South China sea, and may fire upon US ships.

NATO responds by attacking China, but Russia has a line of land based nukes.

NATO knows about the land based nukes and sits on its hands - much like what happened when Germany and Russia invaded Poland in 1939.

China exerts ownership of various segments of the South China sea, and numerous countries sign peace treaty with China.

Maybe there is a much bigger picture as to why Trump is pulling troops out of the middle east?

Now the U.S. can go back to building bigger bombs to help make our military stronger. But that also means that Russia can also get stronger. But we have much more than they do so we can take them out completely. We may lose a hundred million or so U.S. citizens but at least we won't have to worry about Russia. Then we'll have to take out China so that eventually we will have a one-world government just like the super rich have always envisioned. Adam Weishaupt, founder of the Illuminati would be proud!
Quick reply to this message
Old 02-23-2019, 10:18 AM
puttster's Avatar
puttster puttster is offline
Golfer
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,895
Thanks: 1,820
Thanked 3,111 Times in 1,700 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho Survivalist View Post
Now the U.S. can go back to building bigger bombs to help make our military stronger. But that also means that Russia can also get stronger. But we have much more than they do so we can take them out completely. We may lose a hundred million or so U.S. citizens but at least we won't have to worry about Russia. Then we'll have to take out China so that eventually we will have a one-world government just like the sup
er rich have always envisioned. Adam Weishaupt, founder of the Illuminati would be proud!
Let's keep fighting till we all agree!
Quick reply to this message
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
asia, china, korea, nuclear war, nuclear weapons, putin, russia, world war iii



Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Survivalist Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Gender
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Kevin Felts 2006 - 2015,
Green theme by http://www.themesbydesign.net