Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Pongo on January 26, 2002, 08:57:12 PM
-
The USN shot something out of space from a VLS Tico today...
very cool...... ABM treaties... who needs em...
-
Pardon? I can't find anything on this, can you point me to some sources please.
-
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Missile_Defense_System/
-
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
-
With a success rate thats, what, 1% at the moment? lol.
-
ya bout the same as the radar proximity fuze had. And the radar guided AA missle. The hs 404 cannon etc etc.
-
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
-
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
-
>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
-
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
-
>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
-
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
-
>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
-
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
-
>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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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 :D
-
>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
-
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
-
They Admit They Did (http://www.nationalsecurity.org/teamb/chap3.html)
"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."
-
In the German air defence we say:
The air defence knows no friend or enemy...only easy targets...
brainless
-
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
-
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?
-
Originally posted by Toad
They Admit They Did (http://www.nationalsecurity.org/teamb/chap3.html)
"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.
-
Privet Boroda,
I was wondering how long it would take you to find this topic lol.
-
Privet, Sikboy!
I am glad to know you miss me sometimes! :D
Hehe, wonder how i missed it.
I love to discuss something with 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. :D
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? :D
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?
:D
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) (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/facility/yeniseysk.htm)
"...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?
:D
-
>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
-
>I think we did that because of public concern of using a nuke to
>destroy a nuke in the atmosphere.
Lol. So the logic being that it is better to let it impact in the center of New York City. Heh. People are so loving stupid.:rolleyes:
Wab
-
Toad, I will ask my Father next time i'll visit him. He must know something about this radar. BTW, didnt know that you were an RC-135 commander. I hope you didn't participate in that KAL-007 accident ;) (sorry - it's the first assosiation for "RC-135" for almost any Russian who remembers Sept. 1983) BTW, general Karnukov, the one who ordered to shoot it down was a VVS commander, and retired last month.
My point is (and always was) that US acts regardless to any treaties. They use treaties and international agreements to limit their "stupid" opponents. This Krasnoyarsk story is an exellent example. Now we have this circus with "nuclear disarmament". What's next?
AKWabbit, Russia is a successor of the USSR, and all the agreements, debts, etc apply to Russia as they did to the USSR. I think I should add this to my signature template.
Unfortunately, the "coalition" we hoped to have is now in danger because of some silly tricks and bad decisions :( Let's see how it will turn this year... I hope - no more cold war.
-
Lol. So the logic being that it is better to let it impact in the center of New York City. Heh. People are so loving stupid
Yeah. that doesn't make much sense to me either, so I wish I had a source other than a foggy memory from a WMD class.
-Sikboy
-
No, I was out of the USAF when the USSR shot down KAL 007. However, I did know the RC crew that had flown a mission in the area (but were on their way home) prior to the shootdown. I did hear quite a bit about the incident.
Not to mention the KAL 707 shot down up by Murmansk.
This Krasnoyarsk story is an exellent example.
Yes, we do have an excellent example here.
The USSR, knowing that the radar was in violation of the ABM treaty, knowing it would take years to build, went ahead an built it anyway. All the while they were building it, they denied that it violated the treaty but they KNEW it did. Then they finally adimitted that it DID violate the treaty.
Yes, an excellent example indeed. :D
-
That's how one episode can look from different sides ;)
I'll try to inquire what that radar was built for. I once saw a LPAR radar site at Olenegorsk (you should remember it if you played F-19), it is simply enormous... My Father must know something about it. He was a head of a military instiute that worked on most of "strategic construction" until he retired in 1987. Buran/Energiya launch site was one of his last jobs...
An ancdote now: "Krym" military sanatorium near Gurzuf has a strange metal building, construction was stopped in early-80s. It's round in plan and about 15m tall. It was supposed to be a restaurant shaped like a vine-glass. The construction was stopped when Americans sent sattelite photos to Moscow and claimed it is a missile silo - it looked similiar from above and was built in a Defence Ministry territory. ;)
-
Boroda, it doesn't matter what it was built for.
By design/function (type: large phased array),
by location (well inside USSR, 800 kilometers from border)
and by orientation (not looking "outward")
... the Krasnoyarsk radar was a VIOLATION OF THE ABM TREATY.
AND THE SOVIET UNION ADMITTED IT!
The USSR Foreign Minister ADMITTED IT!
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....
Director of the Soviet National Air Defense Forces from 1967 to 1985 ADMITTED IT!
"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"
Now, you don't have to ADMIT it... YOU just have to ACCEPT it.
:D :D :D