The U.S. Withdrawal from the INF Treaty Is the Next Step in a Global Arms Race

The nuclear aspect of the Cold War is something completely different from the rest of the Cold War which is mostly about influence and economics. Once you have MAD, there isn't really much point is continuing the nuclear game especially for intermediate range ICBMs. So I don't get what this is supposed to achieve other than to send a message that we're going into a new Cold War.

As long as Russia is a paltry market with a tiny sphere of economic influence, China will always face the US.

What makes you think the US won't use the same Cold War strategy but in reverse, i.e. normalizing relations with Russia to box in China? After all, only the US has what Russia really wants - control over Russia's western expansion.

The Russian counter is that the "missile shield" being deployed by NATO in Europe, to knock out russian missiles before they reach their intended target, can also be modified from their "defensive" use to also attack (as regular missiles). Thus, they feel that the US has already violated the treaty by using a loophole (anti-missile defences were never considered when the treaty was made).

Moreover, some analysts are suggesting that this move is more directed towards China, then Russia. The treaty makes it difficult for US to deploy missiles targeted at China in that region as these missiles could, in theory, also target Russia.

So maybe some of the criticism is justified, if it is indeed the US that is trying to come up with excuses to wiggle out of this treaty.

So a race to the bottom is somehow a good idea now?

There's a good analysis on CNN here:

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/01/opinions/us-pulling-out-o...

Because the inevitable outcome is less stability and more expense. The arms race will resume. Europe is less safe.

If there's no treaty, it's not cheating, and there's nothing to negotiate. If it's cheating, there's a point of negotiating. Putin has a long history of criticizing Gorbechev's legacies, the treaties, perestroika, he laments the end of the USSR and the loss of its various fiefdom republics.

And on the U.S. side, is John Bolton, who doesn't believe in having a U.N., is anti-EU, promoted Brexit, doesn't believe in arms control treaties of any kind, was a central cause of the U.S. unilaterally withdrawing from the Iran JCPA treaty, and also pushed North Korea to withdraw from the NPT, which they did, and it makes their entire nuclear program completely legal, and was a principle architect and chickenhawk of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. And to this day says that was not a mistake, it was good and appropriate.

Because that sort of "well they are doing it!" garbage is always what justifies nuclear escalation. The answer is to negotiate them back to a reasonable position. The Russians make the same complaints; not without reason. If the response to violation is abandonment and escalation rather than negotiation how will things ever improve?

It's crazy for the US to be bound to such a treaty with Russia while the most powerful country of the last 200 years not named the United States is rising rapidly to superpower status and is entirely unbound by the treaty. Not just unbound, they would never sign it under any circumstances.

Russia is a joke of a potential problem next to China, both economically and militarily. As China's technological capabilities mature in the military sphere, the former USSR will be a joke compared to what China will be capable of. The USSR always struggled with true global projection, that's not a problem China is going to have eventually.

Russia can't keep up with either the US or China. The US added $1.1-$1.2 trillion to its economic output in 2018. Russia's entire annual economic output is $1.5 trillion. At a 3% of GDP defense spending rate, the US can add 1/2 of Russia's defense spending every year (even after you adjust for the difference in costs between them, it's an impossible situation for Russia). China was the size of Russia's economy 20 years ago, now it's nearing ten times larger. Russia will never be able to spend the money necessary to keep up with the two superpowers on conventional forces and technology, they'll only be able to keep up on very narrow high value tech (eg hypersonic missiles or the S-300/400/500 missile systems). As Russia's economy goes nowhere for the next decade, they'll continue to try to flex their regional power to divert attention. However, Russia is never going to be more than a regional problem.

If you're the US, you don't want to be in a position of dramatic military weakness to China at any point or in any critical weapons segment over the next 20-30 years at least. While the US can just withdraw from Asia and go home (nicely protected by the enomority of the Pacific), if the US doesn't keep up with China (ideally working in tandem with its allies to offset the burden of cost), it ultimately leaves Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Philippines and every other ally in greater Asia in a very vulnerable position of forced deference as China's military pushes outward.

1. The US never bothered to prove their allegations 2. The US’s ABM batteries are more likely to be afoul of the INF 3. The Ruskies invited the US to explain what concerned them about their missles - they never answered. 3. The US - particularly the folks in charge now - has a history of withdrawing from arms control treaties (see ABM) 4. The US has a history of telling ridiculous lies about arms control (See ABM treaty, and how the Ruskies called all the US’s bluffs) 5. The US has already started attacking another treaty (weapons in space ban).

So the US doesn’t supply proof. Has a history of tearing treaties. Has been almost surely in violation of the INF for some time. Is poking holes in the last few remaining treaties.

But don’t worry about Armageddon: w/out an arms treaty, launching the thousands of obsolete ICBMs loaded with tungsten carbide bearings into orbit solves any countries’ security concerns vis a vis space ;)

Exactly. We really want to make it easier to return to that way of thinking, let alone actually restart building it?

That's in the article.

That is a popular myth but really the USSR military spending sloped up independent of external factors and while pervasive never moved the needle in terms of political problems.

Far more destructive we’re long term structural problems (inability to provide consumer goods, lack of various sorts of personal freedoms). These had been tolerable in extremis (post revolutionary fervor, rapid growth/modernization, a big war) but increasingly destroyed enthusiasm and then support formhe regime. Low oil prices were the trigger.

Also for perspective: Russia’s economy is about the same size as Australia’s (but has 6x the population). This doesn’t give them a lot of money to work with; asymmetric warfare is much more cost effective.

Russia has already signaled openly that they know they can't keep up on spending with the US and China. Their forward budgeting statements indicate a halt to the formerly rapid military spending growth. China is what this treaty withdrawal is all about.

Pretty soon the US will be adding a new Russia every year in new economic output. Russia is not a competitive threat with the US overall, only on select regional matters and on a few important weapons systems. The dumbest thing the US could do, is worry about bankrupting Russia.

And if the US wanted to do that, there's only one good option: tank the price of oil dramatically by pushing up the value of the dollar. That won't work very well here, because the dollar is already relatively high, the US is now vulnerable on oil as a huge industry (and will be more so in the near future), and inflation adjusted (eg back to 1995 or 2005) oil is almost cheap right now (and it's not tanking Russia, they can roughly hold their ground at current prices). The dollar is how the USSR was bankrupted, as they over-bet their economic security on oil output from 1970-1990. Russia is being far better run with regard to macro economic choices right now than the USSR was, which limits their exposure to bankrupting shocks (again, short of eg sustained $20 oil).

The primary hope on the containment front is probably that Russia's need to raise or at least maintain its social welfare output (against a zero growth economy) is checked by oil prices (held down by US shale output), forcing a choice between military spending and social welfare. That's happening right now and has badly soured Putin's popularity at home. Oil goes to $110 and Putin gets a lot more money to play with while also placating domestic demands.

The Russians have cut their military budget.

The neocons assume the Russians can’t match the US for “tactical” nuclear capability and will stay put if, say, a small tactical nuke is used against an ally.

But the Ruskies have also been very clear that they are not going to spend insane amounts of money on an arms race. They’re stance is to go for the big fireworks early on in a potential conflict.

Also, don’t underestimate their arms industry. Their GDP is low, but their PPP GDP is not. They can build a twin engine fourth or fifth gen fighter at a fraction of the cost it takes us. A lot of the research for weapons has already been paid for by the USSR. They’re the second largest arms exporter brining in cash.

Also their weapons philosophy is to favor brutal efficiency. Their ABM over Moscow doesn’t try to hit a bullet with a bullet. It just set off a nuke in the skies over Lithuania.

Finally, weren’t the sanctions supposed to have bankrupt the Russians by now? They have very low debt, huge reserves (in Au, not their adversary’s paper).

Never mind balancing the budget; we can’t even pass a budget. The fed is forced to keep interests rates near zero because otherwise interest payments on a > 100% GDP debt become ruinous.

An arms race is something no one needs

I sure hope we’re not trying to spend China into bankruptcy the way we supposedly did with the USSR. China’s economy may not be as amazing as the official figures show, but it’s in vastly better shape than the 1970s USSR. Considering how US defense contracting loves to overspend to an absurd degree, I think we’d lose that fight badly.