• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Russia deploys cruise missile in violation of arms treaty: report

Cruse missiles have been around for a long long time. Even then, any military jet could have probably had a cruse missile guidance system installed in it very quickly. Maybe even sophisticated enough to go where they needed to go, drop their payload and fly back to base.

Cruise Missiles have been used since 1944, and aircraft have been shooting them down since 1944. Even prop planes were shooting them down.

And the term for an aircraft that flies unmanned and drops it's payload and returns to base is not a cruise missile, it is a drone. We already have those.
 
I think that he is trying to say that cruise missiles are no better than planes...

The problem is not with cruise missiles themselves, those are not banned.

However, what is banned by the IMF treaty is ground launched cruise missiles as well as conventionally armed ballistic missiles.

You can launch cruise missiles from ships and aircraft all day long, those are both allowed under the IMF treaty. But the banning of ground based ones affected the US much more than the USSR. The only system under this rule retired was the US BGM-109G, the Soviets had the RK-55 (the system they are deploying now) in development, but it was claimed they had all been scrapped.

This makes me curious as to what was fielded last month. Brand new RK-55 launching systems, or RK-55 systems that had been hidden for the last 30 years?
 
Cruise Missiles have been used since 1944, and aircraft have been shooting them down since 1944. Even prop planes were shooting them down.

And the term for an aircraft that flies unmanned and drops it's payload and returns to base is not a cruise missile, it is a drone. We already have those.

One thing I forgot to add to this, is that nothing extra is needed to be installed for an aircraft to shoot down a cruise missile.

In the terminology of air and missile defense, a cruise missile is an ABT, or "Air Breathing Threat". In other words, unlike a rocket which has it's own oxidizer to provide thrust, a cruise missile uses air taken from the atmosphere like any other aircraft. They have a jet enjine, like any other aircraft.

So they are acquired, tracked, and shot down like any other aircraft.
 
Big deal.

The Russian ship in international waters means NOTHING. That is why it is called INTERNATIONAL WATERS...they are allowed to be there.
Now all you panicking neocons want to show me factual proof from an unbiased source that America has done zero surveillance of Russia in the last 6 months? ...... I did not think so.
It's just the same games that countries have been playing against each other for centuries...it means NOTHING.

As for the missile deployment? It still is no threat whatsoever...but it is odd that they would do it. I assume the Russians will say that America did something naughty first so this is a retaliation/countermeasure.
Whatever their reason, this treaty was a Cold War treaty when gigantic forces were facing each other on the NATO/Warsaw Pact border. Now, it is practically meaningless.

And I will remind ignorant/panicking neocons yet again that Russia is no threat whatsoever to America (except in nukes - which they would never use or get obliterated).

America spends TWELVE times as much on defense as Russia. 12 TIMES. Great Britain alone spends much more than Russia does on her military. The EU alone could easily defeat Russia in a conventional war.

Defense Budget by Country

And this will not change any time soon as Russia's GDP is 13 times smaller than America's. The UK's GDP alone is twice that of Russia's. Germany's almost 3 times as large.

GDP - Countries - List

When is this neocon, Cold War paranoia going to end?

Russia is no conventional threat to Western sovereignty whatsoever. Russia is not remotely as conventionally powerful as the Soviet Union was. They are two entirely different countries.

How many stats have to be shown to you before it sinks in? You people are like a bunch of wet hens, flapping around wildly whenever anyone mentions Russia.
 
Last edited:
As for the missile deployment? It still is no threat whatsoever...but it is odd that they would do it.

Actually, this is where you are dead wrong. The banning of all land based cruise missiles and all conventionally armed ballistic missiles was done for some very real and serious reasons. But here, let me educate you a bit.

One of the biggest fears during the Cold War was the triggering of an accidental nuclear war during a conventional conflict. This was heightened by both sides having large stockpiles of land based missiles, which were both nuclear and conventionally armed. Basically, that meant that if you saw the other side light off a missile, you more or less would have to wait for it to detonate to determine if it was nuclear or conventional.

The biggest fear? That the US or USSR were to launch a conventional ballistic or cruise missile and the other side react with a nuclear one. The next thing you know, we are all living in the Fallout universe.

But apparently you think that is no threat, so you are actually happy to return to the tensions and fear of nuclear war we lived with for over 35 years? I for one find that a very serious issue. One thing I am glad of is that my children have never had to grow up with the fears I did as a child and young adult.

The aircraft and subs off-shore, that does not bother me much at all to be honest. We do the same thing to them, and it by itself is no big deal. But the return of systems that had been banned 30 years ago to be honest scares the piss outta me. Simply because it returns us right back to where we were for decades.

Myself, we should simply demand they follow the treaty, or respond in kind and announce the return of one of our own banned systems. Say the Pershing II, the one that scared the bejesus out of the Soviets.

Like so often, I have to wonder how much of your responses are simply knee-jerk ones based upon politics. You go on and on about all this political nonsense, completely ignoring the facts that the response is either ignoring gross treaty violations, or scrapping of the most important weapons reduction treaty ever made, and the expansion of our nuclear arsenal again and returning to the old fears of the Cold War.
 


Trumpocalypse has already answered and given his boss the green light..........

Report: Trump Denounces Nuclear Arms Control Treaty to Putin

..........Unnamed sources said that Trump did not know what the treaty was, and had paused to ask his aides in an aside what it was, according to the report. White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer told reporters on Thursday that Trump understood the topic, but had wanted an opinion from an aide.

“It wasn’t like he didn’t know what was being said. He wanted an opinion on something,” Spicer said.

The treaty requires Russia and the United States to lower the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550 or less by 2018. It also limits deployed land- and submarine-based missiles, and nuclear-capable bombers.

In the phone call, Putin suggested extending New START, which is set to expire in 2021, the sources told Reuters......

Report: Trump Denounces Nuclear Arms Control Treaty to Putin - Breitbart

Who needs treaties, right. ;)
 
During the height of the Crimea and Donbass rhetoric a number of Putin's close officials raised some pretty hair raising thoughts. Even if they're only thoughts they're just not good or encouraging coming from the lunatics running Russia.

Putin drops a tactical nuke on some small city in Latvia or Poland then dares Nato to respond. It's a prospect of the philosophy that no one is crazier than I Vladimir Putin am so what are youse guyz in Nato going to do about it.

Are you Nato ******s going to go to war over some small city in Latvia or Poland? We here in the Kremlin are certain youse Nato pansies will not.

While Putin HimSelf never spoke any such thoughts, it is bad news for the good guyz that his close Kremlin people were carrying on with such nutcase talk. Yes it's psyche ops from the Kremlin but the question is also real which is what can make it a chilling one.

Go to war in Greater Eurasia over some small place no one ever heard of. It's happened before and more than once. This time the gonzo Russians in the Kremlin would be playing with nuclear weapons. And no one should have any doubt those guyz are gonzo.
 
Yes, he will.

And let me say this, too. It is high time for the Democrats in Congress to start being the leaders they were elected to be and stand WITH the President in the eyes of the world. That our disarray is being exploited by our enemies goes without saying.

Who will disagree?

They need to do their best to obstruct the Liar-n-Chief at every turn. Not just because they obstructed Obama at every turn (and karma's a bitch,) but because it's the right thing to do. Trump is dangerous for America. He needs to be stopped on just about every hair-brained attempt to screw us up he comes up with.
 
Back
Top Bottom