It flies...it dies

[Sikboy]

the GDR Chose to withdraw from the Warsaw Pact as part of its disolution. While it is true that there could have been no unification without choosing either NATO or the Warsaw pact, but either way it would have been a reflection of the new national will of a united Germany, and not the de-facto result of a change in Government. Unlike the GDR, the Russian Federation did not choose to withdraw from the ABM treaty, once the obligations of that treaty fell to them.

France withdrew from NATO without a complete governmental collapse, and we will most likely withdraw from the ABM treaty without any anarchy. In all of these examples, it is a choice of national will that determines that a treaty obligation is no longer a matter of national interest. The determination is not simply assumed because of a change in Government.

-Sikboy

[CptTrips]

Well, you make some good points.  I'll give you that.  But I still think your basic premise is flawed.

I think we both agree that the scenario of the modern states of Germany and France feeling obligated to ship 10000 gold pieces to modern Italy in tribute to a Empire that hasn't existed for over 1500 years is frankly absurd.  To me it’s not absurd because of the time lapse.  Its absurd because of what the time span did.  The "political entities" of the German and Gaul tribes and the Roman Empire no longer exist.  Any agreements between them ceased to exist when they ceased to exist as "political entities".  That’s why that scenario seems so absurd.  

The "political entity" of the U.S.S.R. no longer exists.  By their own words, their government was DISOLVED.  They even told their own states that their obligations under the previous "political entity" were void but they could CHOOSE to assume a new allegiance under the C.I.S.  Their obligations dissolved because the "political entity" they were obligated to dissolved.

Now I'm sure it is in the new governments interest to assume the treaty obligations of their predecessor.  And for the most part it’s in our interest to  reassign  our previous treaty obligations to this new entity.  But we're NOT obligated to.  Our treaties were with the entity U.S.S.R.  and it is gone.  

I guess it comes down to how many planks you have to replace on a boat before you really have a new and different boat.  I'd say a redrawing of the boundaries and a fundamental reversal of both their political and economic models, and thier own admission that the previous nation has been dissolved,  pretty much make it a new fediddlein boat!

Oh well, fekit.  Didn't the reds break the treaty a long time ago?  I thought I heard that had put a rudimentary ABMS around moscow in the 70's.

I guess we will just have to agree to see this differently.


Regards,
Wab

[capt. apathy]

for what it's worth, it is my opinion that when people over throw a gov't or it colapses, is conquered or what ever that entity vanishes and a new one apears.

not sure what the law says on this but i'd liken it to a corparation going under, a new corperation buys it's factory's and hires many of it's old employees, that doesn't obligate the new corp to honor the olds agreements

[fd ski]

Originally posted by AKWabbit
The ABM treaty was signed between the U.S.S.R.  and the U.S.  The U.S.S.R. no longer exists and all treaties signed with it are void.  We have signed no such treaty with the current C.I.S.

Wab

And yet we toejam a collective brick when they infringe on our copyrights there

[CptTrips]

>And yet we toejam a collective brick when they infringe on our
>copyrights there

Are you saying we haven't signed any IP treaties with the C.I.S. since the the collapse of the U.S.S.R.?

Even if we did I doubt it would make much difference.    They'll learn eventually if they want us to let them into our cool clubs like the WTO.  They'll eventually play ball.

Did you live under Soviet rule when you were younger?  Did you like it?  Would you like to go back to it?


Wab

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by AKWabbit


Oh well, fekit.  Didn't the reds break the treaty a long time ago?  I thought I heard that had put a rudimentary ABMS around moscow in the 70's.

Both the US and the USSR had deployed ABM systems in the 70's. In the US we deployed Safeguard in North Dakota, and the Soviets deployed Galash (NATO Codenam, not sure what they called it). Under the original treaty setup, both sides were allowed two ABM sites, one as a force protection measure, and one for Capital Defense. The Treaty was amended so that each side could only build one site. We pulled Safeguard off line later in the 70's, I think we did that because of public concern of using a nuke to destroy a nuke in the atmosphere, but I could be wrong.

I guess we will just have to agree to see this differently.

Yep lol.

-Sikboy

[Toad]

They Admit They Did

"For example, on the one hand, the U.S. deliberated for over a year after discovering the Krasnoyarsk radar before it resolved to charge the Soviet Union with a violation of the ABM Treaty. Yet, this football field size radar — which went undiscovered for years after its construction was undertaken — was a clear, unambiguous violation. Soviet Foreign Minister Shevardnadze finally admitted as much in 1989, after five years of Soviet (and U.S. apologists') denials."

[brainless]

In the German air defence we say:

The air defence knows no friend or enemy...only easy targets...


brainless

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by Toad
Excuse me.. WHO violated the ABM treaty?

I'm not sure if this is directed at me or not, but I never made any claim about either side violating/not violating the treaty. I only mentioned that the ABM system around Moscow was not a violation of the treaty that's all.

If you want to argue that our withdrawel from the ABM treaty is justified by Soviet non-compliance, or violation, feel free to do so. That would be the best case I've heard yet. To tell you the truth I'm not a big fan of the ABM treaty (Althought I think that I've painted myself as such by not accepting the argument that the USSR's demise constitutes an absolvement of the treaty) I don't think that it's a cornerstone of arms contrtol as it is portrayed, and it has some very serious flaws.  I also think that we gave Putin pleanty of warning that this was coming, and he should have moved to build a new treaty while Clin-Ton was is office. But he didn't and this is the result.

Getting back to the original topic, does this missile test even constitute a violation of the ABM treaty? I'm not sure that it does, which would make this argument pretty pointless with regards to the original topic.

-Sikboy

[Boroda]

Originally posted by AKWabbit
The ABM treaty was signed between the U.S.S.R.  and the U.S.  The U.S.S.R. no longer exists and all treaties signed with it are void.  We have signed no such treaty with the current C.I.S.

Wab

Is it what you are told on TV?

Then Russia should just stop paying the debts of the USSR. OK?

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Toad
They Admit They Did

"For example, on the one hand, the U.S. deliberated for over a year after discovering the Krasnoyarsk radar before it resolved to charge the Soviet Union with a violation of the ABM Treaty. Yet, this football field size radar — which went undiscovered for years after its construction was undertaken — was a clear, unambiguous violation. Soviet Foreign Minister Shevardnadze finally admitted as much in 1989, after five years of Soviet (and U.S. apologists') denials."

Here we go again:

ABM treaty was initiated by the US. All the way they accused USSR of "violating" it. Now they fee they finaly can afford a full-scale ABM system - and the treaty goes down the drain.

Toad, Shevardnadze, Gorbachev and gang are a bunch of liars and amazinhunks.  Frankly - I shouldn't believe a single Shevardnadze's word. He can say almost anything if he gets paid enough. Like he did with Arctic ocean economic zones. He should better keep catching illegal taxi drivers in Tbilisi as he did when he was a Georgian KGB chief.

Nice how you use my arguments in your favour - this summer I told you about this story to show how desperate the US was protecting the ABM treaty when they needed it. And now they just spit at it, and offer us a "disarmament" when they "remove" warheads by storing (!!!) them instead of destroying. Bush is a really smart guy, he fooled that stupid Russians once more

I expect Russia to equip our ABMs with multiple warheads now. It was already said that we should withdraw from "offencive weapons" treaties.

[Sikboy]

Privet Boroda,

I was wondering how long it would take you to find this topic lol.

[Boroda]

Privet, Sikboy!

I am glad to know you miss me sometimes!

Hehe, wonder how i missed it.

I love to discuss something with Toad

[Toad]

Originally posted by Boroda
Toad, Shevardnadze, Gorbachev and gang are a bunch of liars and amazinhunks.

That may well be true... however it does NOT change the fact that the Yeniseysk-15 radar near Krasnoyarsk was a clear violation of the ABM treaty.  By the Soviet Union.  

Originally posted by Boroda
- this summer I told you about this story to show how desperate the US was protecting the ABM treaty when they needed it..

Sorry, I knew about Krasnoyarsk a LONG time before you and I ever came to these boards. I also knew about the controversy this radar was causing with respect to the ABM treaty.  I was an RC-135 aircraft commander remember?

Funny how everything is a lie if you don't agree with it, eh? Where'd you learn that way of coping with the world?


Sometimes the truth hurts. Sometimes it makes you smile. Sometimes it makes you proud. No matter what effect it has, it is still the truth.

Yeniseysk (Krasnoyarsk)

"...This installation was roughly 800 kilometers from the nearest border and thus in violation of the ABM Treaty (which required that all such radars be located on a nation's periphery and oriented outward). The United States raised the issue of the Krasnoyarsk radar in the fall 1983 Standing Consultative Commission (SCC) session....

...Specifically, the United States discussed with the Soviets its serious concern that the Soviet Union's deployment of a large phased-array radar near Krasnoyarsk constitutes a significant violation of a central element of the ABM Treaty. Such radars take years to build and are a key to providing a nation-wide defense -- which is prohibited by the Treaty. The Treaty's restrictions on the location, orientation, and functions of such radars are, thus, essential provisions of the Treaty...

...The Soviet Union agreed at the 22-23 September 1989 Wyoming Foreign Ministers meeting to eliminate the radar without preconditions during two days of meetings between U.S. Secretary of State James Baker and Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze. On 23 October 1989, Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union Eduard Shevardnadze conceded that the Krasnoyarsk radar was a violation of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty....


Retired Soviet General Y.V. Votintsev, Director of the Soviet National Air Defense Forces from 1967 to 1985, subsequently publicly stated that he was directed by the Chief of the Soviet General staff to locate the large phased-array radar at Krasnoyarsk despite the recognition by Soviet authorities that the location of such a radar at that location would be a clear violation of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty; and that Marshal D.F. Ustinov, Soviet Minister of Defense, threatened to relieve from duty any Soviet officer who continued to object to the construction of a large-phased array radar at Krasnoyarsk. "


So, Boroda.......  how can you say the large-phased array radar at Krasnoyarsk was NOT a violation of the ABM treaty. The Soviet Union has already publicly admitted that it was.

Do you have inside information that the Government of the Soviet Union does not have? Do you have a "secret" correct copy of the ABM treaty that neither the US or the old USSR had?

[CptTrips]

>Toad, Shevardnadze, Gorbachev and gang are a bunch of liars
>and amazinhunks.

Oh come on now.   Personally attacking these guys does not constitute a refutation of the charge.  OK fine.  Lets say you're right, they're amazinhunks.  They're liars.  

Now prove they lied in this instance.



>Then Russia should just stop paying the debts of the USSR. OK?

I don't think they're really obligated to.

However, like I said earlier.  Its often in the best interests of the new government to agree to assume the obligations of its predecessor.  They're going to have to if they want any future aid.

Actually I've been warming up to Russia.  I think there are a lot of oppertunities for us to work together now.  They got crap loads of oil.  I'd much rather be giving them money for oil than those (censored) arabs.  And yes that includes the saudi's who are NOT our ally.  


Wab