It flies...it dies

[Pongo]

The USN shot something out of space from a VLS Tico today...
very cool...... ABM treaties... who needs em...

[Thrawn]

Pardon?  I can't find anything on this, can you point me to some sources please.

[Tac]

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Missile_Defense_System/

[Sikboy]

Wow. I wrote a paper on the evolution of ABM systems while I was an undergrad, and using the Ticos (and next gen airdefence platforms) was one of my conclusions. I figured that we would keep a low profile and try to keep this under the radar of the ABM treaty. I guess the administration doesn't need to do this, since they chose to move forward on treaty abbrigation. I'm not a big fan of National ABM systems, but this is a very interesting development for theater ABM.

-Sikboy

[mrsid2]

With a success rate thats, what, 1% at the moment? lol.

[Pongo]

ya bout the same as the radar proximity fuze had. And the radar guided AA missle. The hs 404 cannon etc etc.

[CptTrips]

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

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by mrsid2
With a success rate thats, what, 1% at the moment? lol.

This is the first test using the Aegis ships to knock down a ballistic missile that I've ever heard of. With that in mind, it's closer to a 100% success rate. I'm surely not saying that that's the case, but we need to look at this as an individual system, and not confuse it with the NMD systems that are also being tested.
In fact, without having the ABM treaty in front of me, I'm not sure if this system (sea born TMD) would be a violation of that treaty any more than the latest Patriot is.

As far as the "treaty signed with the USSR" I'm not sure that I buy that argument. I've often heard treaties describes as "agreements between peoples" As in an agreement between the People of the United States and the Soviet Union. While the names have changed the people still exist, and if you accept that definition of a treaty, then the treaty is still applicable. Does this mean that the Russian Federation, or any of the CIS nations would have been no longer obligated to accept the terms of treaties that they had signed? Could Ukraine now give unlimited nuclear assistence to Iran, in direct violation of the NPT signed by the USSR? Does this only go into effect when a nation breaks appart, like Yugoslavia or the Soviet Union, or is it also applicable when a nation disolves it's government without territorial loss, like the French 4th republic?

Anyhow the treaty has the language written into it which allow us to disolve it, so it's validity isn't really a legal question. I think the arguments about irrelivence in the aftermath of Soviet Collapse are more to gain political support here in the states (Although I'm not sure they've changed anyones mind, just given us more slogans)
I do wish that other nations would have stepped up to negotiate a new one, that is more inclusive, I mean if nothing else all the Nuclear Weapons states should be included in any ABM treaty (although since India and Pakistan aren't recognised in the NPT as nuclear weapons states, I'm not sure what signals including them in an ABM framework would send).

Its a tough question that's for sure.

-Sikboy

[CptTrips]

>I've often heard treaties describes as "agreements between
>peoples"

So are the "people" of the modern state of Italy bound by all the treaties signed by the ancient Roman Empire?

Are the "people" of the modern state of Turkey bound by all the treaties signed by the Ottoman Empire?

Are the "people" of the modern state of Macidonia
 bound by all the treaties signed by Alexander the Great?


Different name, different political model, different econmic model, different territorial bounderies....etc.  Yep, I'd say its a different political entity.
 

Wab

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by AKWabbit
So are the "people" of the modern state of Italy bound by all the treaties signed by the ancient Roman Empire?

Are the "people" of the modern state of Turkey bound by all the treaties signed by the Ottoman Empire?

Are the "people" of the modern state of Macidonia
 bound by all the treaties signed by Alexander the Great?
[/B]

Presumably, Yes. Unless other agreements have been reached that replaced those of the previous government. In these extreme cases, the evolution of the Nation-State systems has occured over hundreds of years. The government of Turkey would be obligated to continue the treaties and Polocies of the Ottoman Empire, until other treaties were established. Considering the fact that the Otomman Empire was vanquished and dissasembled, new agreements were imposed on Turkey which replaced prior arrangements. In my opinion Evolution, not Catostrophism should guide national transitions in the International community.

-Sikboy

[CptTrips]

>Presumably, Yes.


So let me see if I understand your position here:

Lets say the modern state of Italy finds a treaty in some dusty ruin that was signed between the then emperor and the tribal chieftains of Gaul and Germainia.  In such treaty, The "people" of Gaul and Germainia agree to pay a tribute 10000 gold pieces each year to the empire.  

Now unless the "peoples" of the modern states of France and Germany can unearth some opposing treaty signed later that rescinds the previous then they are obligated to send the modern state of Italy 10000 gold pieces each year?


Is this what you're asserting?


Wab

[Sikboy]

You're making an argument based completely on assumtions, but yes. Although, I find it fairly unlikely that there would not, in the histories of each nation, be a document, or agreement disolving relations with one another, during the evolution of relations between these peoples.
Also, any disagreement about a 2,000 year old treaty could be sovled through diplomatic channels (hell take it up with the world court) In the case that you've invented, the treaty would most likey be nullified, but I doubt it would ever go that far. But this is all getting away from the origins of this topic which considers a nation that disolved 11 years ago, not 1,100.

It looks like we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this.

-Sikboy

[CptTrips]

>But this is all getting away from the origins of this topic which
>considers a nation that disolved 11 years ago, not 1,100.

Oh I didn't realize there was a statutory limitation.   And the limit is?  10 year?  15 year?  15 years, 3 months, 10 days, 8 hours, and 14 minutes?   And where exactly is this statute of limitations written down?


And what about the states that chose not to join the C.I.S.?
Are they still obligated to all the treaties signed by the U.S.S.R.?

Since West Germany absorbed East Germany, is it obligated to the treaties signed by East Germany as a member of the Warsaw Pact?  Or is only half the country obligated?


Wab

[Sikboy]

Oh I didn't realize there was a statutory limitation. And the limit is? 10 year? 15 year? 15 years, 3 months, 10 days, 8 hours, and 14 minutes? And where exactly is this statute of limitations written down?

Ooops, sorry I didn't finish that thought. By that I meant that because the time difference is so short, the record is not obscured as it might be when considering the differences between Italy and the Roman Empire.

In regard to the Non-CIS states of the former Soviet Union, Yes, they could be expected to follow the international agreements signed under to Soviet Union, until such time as they make new agreements.

The Unification of Germany was a huge diplomatic tangle which resolved the very question which you have posed. In this case, the GDR gave over to the FRG, and all diplomatic channels transferred to the FRG. I'm not aware of any dissention about this agreement, but there could have been, and once again, this would be resolved through diplomatic channels. Diplomacy is fluid, things change as the situation changes. I wholly agree with you that the situation had changed and the ABM treaty needed to change with it, but I don't think that the dissolution of the USSR means that the treaty is null and viod, especially when the focus of the treaty (the nuclear capability of the USSR) is entirely in the hands of the Russian Federation.

Once again, we just see this differently.

-Sikboy

[CptTrips]

>the GDR gave over to the FRG, and all diplomatic channels
>transferred to the FRG.


You didn't answer the question.  Let me re-phrase:

If under the Warsaw Pact, East Germany was obligated to give military assistance to Russia if Russia was attacked does that mean that if Russia is attacked now that Germany must come to Russia's aid?  Or only the Eastern half?  

Did the East German treaty Warsaw Pact treaty obligations disappear when that goverment disolved or did the new unified goverment assume them?

What if it is NATO that attacks Russia?  Is Germany obligated to NATO by the NATO treaty or to Russia under the Warsaw Pact treaty?  Or both, or neither?


Wab