Summary:
On Tuesday, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said that Russia's aim was to create new ground-based missiles within two years. This comes directly after both Russia and the US withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty last week that had previously prevented both countries from creating close-to-mid-range ground-based missiles.
The INF Treaty was an agreement between Russia and the US to ban all missiles with short and medium ranges in 1987 after the Cold War. The US already withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (another treaty between the US and Russia signed after the Cold War) in 2002 and President Putin stated in 2007 that the INF Treaty no longer served Russia's best interests.
Mr Shoigu says that the US has already been violating the accord by creating ground-based missiles with the range capability of over 500 km, thus violating the INF Treaty. He also says that the Russian president has told the defense ministry to take "tit-for-tat mirrored measures" in response to these missiles.
The Trump administration pulled the US out of the pact last week after expressing its concerns about nuclear threats posed by both Russia and China. The US also accuses Russia of developing new missiles whose range falls within 500-5,500 km, which is also in violation of the INF Treaty.
If the US allegations pose true, then Moscow is already ahead in the race to develop new previously-banned weapons technology, with reports suggesting that Russia has already deployed up to 100 of their new missiles. President Putin has also discussed the potential of developing a ground-launched version of their Kalibr naval missile. The US is also already allocating funds for nuclear research and development. Many have expressed concerns that these events are beginning a new arms race.
Reaction:
I think I can speak for most of us when I say this behavior from these two countries in particular is deeply worrying. My initial thought was that this is a symptom of a return to Cold War tactics and ideas. Ideally we would have learned our lesson from the use of these tactics at that time, however, it's very clear that we haven't learned at all. It's almost as if we've turned the clock back fifty years with neither side showing any sign that they learned from the Cold War.
Connection:
It's no surprise that this story connects directly to the Cold War unit. This story involves everything in the unit from treaties and pacts signed after the Cold War (the INF Treaty and Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty) to similar actions and policies taken by both sides during the Cold War (the arms race). This could also link back to the situation in Venezuela, where mostly capitalist, democratic countries are rallying behind the democratically elected leader and mostly communist, autocratic countries are rallying behind the lingering dictator, re-creating a battle between capitalism and communism just like the Cold War.
(Diagram illustrating where countries stand on Venezuela)
Questions for Discussion:
1) Who do you think is more responsible for restarting the arms race, the US or Russia?
2) Do you think that these countries were right to develop banned weapons technology behind each other's backs?
3) What do you think will happen as an effect of both countries (the US and Russia) pulling out of the INF Treaty?
I agree with you that this situation is worrying. Russia seems to be more responsible for restarting the arms race as the US withdrawal from the treaty was triggered partially by Russia violating the treaty. It is understandable that the US would want to pull out of the treaty in fear that they would fall behind in nuclear technology. Despite of this however, I think it is critical that the US realizes they are getting into a similar situation to that of the Cold War, and they should find a better way to approach the issue, rather than engaging in an arms race.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I think that the withdrawal of both countries from the INF treaty will result in worry, but I do not think it will escalate the same way that the Cold War did. In an article by the New York Times, it quotes Putin saying, "'I would like to draw your attention to the fact that we must not and will not let ourselves be drawn into an expensive arms race,' Mr. Putin told his ministers. Money to build the new missiles, he said, will come from the existing defense budget." This is important because it illustrates how Russia is talking precaution and does not desire the situation of engaging in another arms race. Especially after already experiencing an instants in time when the world almost went into nuclear fallout, I think and hope greatly that our world leaders will do what they must to prevent the possibility from being present again.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/02/world/europe/russia-inf-treaty.html
I agree with Michael’s belief that the US must recognize the impact of their withdrawal, as the whole situation seems to be mirroring the missile crisis during the Cold War. However, I believe that both countries have a responsibility for restarting the arms race. Russia and the US will never stop pointing fingers, and there is no clear evidence as to who broke the rules first, as they both claim it was their opposer, yet in the end, both nations are responsible for individually making the final decision to withdraw from the INF Treaty. While both nations claim that they are building up nuclear weapons for defense purposes, this goal cannot be maintained without it tumbling into something much bigger. Take the idea of MAD, or mutually assured destruction, that we studied last semester- this idea illustrates that as long as both nations are equally as nuclearly powerful, they will not attack each other out of fear of the same destruction happening to them in return. Both Russia and the US are racing to create the newest, strongest version of nuclear weapons, as it is the only way to guarantee they will remain powerful and safe. If both nations are always trying to stay one step ahead of each other, the establishment of bigger, scarier, more destructive weapons will continue to occur. As innocent bystanders to this arms race, this is a terrifying threat to our own lives and world, yet it is also true that with MAD as a defense mechanism for both countries it is likely that a nuclear war could never occur. Yet, what is equally as terrifying and probable is the threat of nuclear disasters that can happen even if a nation never launches a missile. The implementation of more nuclear power plants is destined to occur as Russia and the US compete for the greatest nuclear power, yet these power plants threaten so much harm to the world and innocent people. Take the Chernobyl plant in Ukraine; when it exploded and later melted down in April 1986 the results claimed thousands of lives, caused birth defects, and unleashed a cancer epidemic, not to mention the pollution it created with its lethal radioactive cloud, alarmingly high radiation (higher than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings), and contamination of land. The Chernobyl plant is only one of many nuclear tragedies that have occurred at plants, some of which disasters even have occurred in the US. Even without the threat of bombings, the nuclear arms race still has potential to bring great harm to Earth and its people, and both Russia and the US must consider that encouraging this nuclear battle is harming their own home, more than their competitors.
Deletehttps://www.history.com/news/historys-worst-nuclear-disasters
This situation is very worrying for many people because what is occurring right now is pretty similar to what happened about 50 years ago. In my opinion, both the US and Russia at are fault for this occurring as they both withdrew from the INF Nuclear Treaty not just one of them. Both countries try to one up each other every chance they get. In other words, it takes two to tango. To address your second question I believe it is not right to create banned weapons behind each others backs but this is the real world. Both the US and Russia are paranoid with one another not knowing who will make the next move or if no move will be made at all. This way of thinking only creates paranoia which fuels both countries motivations to create more high tech and devastating weapons. This is the exact thought process of these two countries during the cold war. (https://www.historyonthenet.com/cold-war-causes-major-events-ended) The fact that both countries pulled out of the INF treaty can mean a lot of different things for the world as a whole. Many are worried about a nuclear war between the US and Russia but I believe this is very unlikely. The reason I feel this way is actually based on what we learned in class about the Cold War, that both countries know if they fire missiles, missiles will be sent back at them. And the fact that both countries value life at some extent, they would not want to jeopardize their lives and their country. Overall, I do believe that this situation is very scary but at the same time I think everything will work out just fine.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the US should have just stayed in the pact. There is no reason for the US or Russia to further develop their Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces. Even back in 2013, "Collectively, Russia, China, the United States and the world's other nuclear-armed countries possess enough fissile material to blow up the planet many times over." (https://www.nti.org/gsn/article/number-times-we-could-blow-earth-once-again-secret/) This leaves me to wonder why would we need any more. I believe that at this point mutually assured destruction is essentially guaranteed, and there is no reason to worry. There would be no benefit or upside to Russia trying to attack us and so we shouldn't worry. Overall, I think that nothing will come from this and that both sides are overreacting.
ReplyDeleteThis article is deeply troubling as it does show signs that America and Russia might be on the way to nuclear crisis. The US's exit of of the agreement sends a message to other countries, especially ones that the US is trying to create nuclear stability with, that the US only has goals of being the dominant nuclear power. The people making the decision to exit the nuclear treaty clearly do not remember the threat the Cuban Missile crisis brought to the US, and they are not taking future threats seriously. The US doesn't have the technology necessary to defend its citizens in the case of a nuclear missile strike; therefore, the subject should be considered with great caution, and our country should strive for peace above all else when it comes to weapons of mass destruction. I agree with the above comment in that the US and Russia are paranoid with one another, and I understand that it is risky to trust that ones opponent is following a pact; however, it is to risky to play chicken with nuclear weapons. Unless it is in true self defense, our countries goal should not be to hold the power of fear over other countries, but to maintain consistent and reliable relationships with all.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the U.S and Russia are both at fault here, for restarting the arms race. One of the reasons is that the U.S withdrew from the INF treaty, which is starting to raise concerns. But then Russia is staring to make missile that can range from 500 to 5,500 km. I think that it also very wrong for both of these countries to be developing banned weapons. On BBC article both the U.S and Russia are still making new weapons, which defeats the purpose of having a treaty in the first place. Without a question, both countries should just get rid of all the missiles that are being owned. With that being said all of the countries should get rid of all missiles and bombs for everyones well being. I think that the actions of this will cause an shift in trust throughout all countries. Other countries are seeing that its fine to leave and break treaties and I think that is going to happen.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47134028
I think that Russia and the US are equally as responsible for the resurgence of the arms race. Both were in the wrong by accusing the other side and for making weapons behind each other's backs in the first place. Like Josh mentioned, it causes paranoia. Because of this, it could also increase the number of spies. It's just a speculation. Also said before, pulling out of the treaties could potentially end up starting a whole new Cold War. It is rather irritating to me that neither side has learned from their past. I think the problem now is actually the infinite loop of the production of weapons. After all, money for all those extra weapons that could blow up the world, could be used for other problems. Instead of creating more weapons, they could use the money to enhance our lives.
ReplyDeleteI believe both US and Russia are liable for restarting the arms race. They're both accusing each other of developing nuclear weapons past the range of 500km and I have suspicions that both countries have been developing short - medium range missiles, even after the INF Treaty. It's definitely not morally right to straight up break a signed agreement. By signing the pact, you place your trust in the other country for them to honor the agreement, but developing banned technology breaks the trust. In result, tensions increase and the countries involved begin to never trust each other. It spirals into a loop of signing a pact but then later effortlessly breaking it. I feel like in result of the world's major superpowers pulling out of treaties, it could provide incentive for smaller countries to also start developing missiles. They may look at Russia and USA as examples and just follow their lead. Between Russia and USA, tensions are obviously going to rise and there may possibly be an escalation to one like in the Cuban Missile Crisis.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Russia is more responsible for restarting the arms race. Although it may be true we began developing nuclear missiles with large ranges, I also believe Russia did the same. The U.S. had no point of creating suspicions across its allies in the first place, while Russia already had many, as seen in an article about Russia's attacks on Ukraine, by the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/26/opinion/russia-ukraine-attack-ships-crimea.html ). I believe that Russia may have tried to cover up the fact they had been developing longer range missiles well before the U.S. by scapegoating the them. Either way, however, it is not justified by any means to create these weapons behind each country's back. Nuclear weapons are extremely dangerous and use of them to kill civilians is immoral. Creating these weapons behind other countries' backs will only increase tension and the likelihood that one country will eventually use them against the other, which neither party wants. Although many of my peers believe Russia and the U.S.'s pull out from the INF will lead to an ever escalating arms race, I see differently. I believe that at a certain point, both the U.S.and Russia will realize risking many lives is not worth it. In the end, there is no real initial cause other than the fact that the countries were hiding the missiles behind each other's back. I believe what will end up happening is a political settlement of both countries, restoring restrictions to nuclear missile use and range.
ReplyDeleteI think each country is equally responsible for restarting the arms race as both of them broke the INF treaty behind the others back and once that information got leaked increased the tensions between the two countries again. I believe both countries weren't right for developing the banned missiles behind each others back however tensions between the two countries have been getting tense in past years. Examples of this are Russia's invasion on Ukraine and Democrat claims that Russia meddled with the 2016 presidential election. I think some of the outcomes of both countries withdrawal from the INF treaty is that tensions will surely become similar to Cold War levels. U.S. allies in NATO are worried about what the future will be like with recent rumors that Russia is "deploying nuclear-capable missiles in Europe with very short warning times and they are also reducing the threshold for any potential use of nuclear weapons in armed conflict." (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/nato-plans-world-without-inf-treaty-stoltenberg-says-n970486) This raises many concerns for all western countries and what they're next move should be in preventing another arms war from starting.
ReplyDeleteBoth the BBC article and my source of the Washington post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-to-withdraw-from-nuclear-arms-control-treaty-with-russia-says-russian-violations-render-the-cold-war-agreement-moot/2019/02/01/84dc0db6-261f-11e9-ad53-824486280311_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f5464999f4c3) mention that both Russia and the U.S. still produced seemingly banned missiles under the INF treaty. The formal exit of both of these countries will most likely lead to more land-based missiles being placed throughout Europe and Asia. Although national defense should be a priority, directly violating a treaty can lead to questions regarding the trustworthiness and potential for alliances with both the United States and Russia. I believe that both countries are responsible for escalating the current arms race. The U.S. first realized that Russia was making banned missiles, which eventually led to the U.S. withdrawal from the treaty. This violation of the treaty may lead to problems, even though Russia is no longer the Soviet Union. Trump's reasoning behind leaving the INF treaty is so that the U.S. would no longer be threatened by China who was not under the treaty in the first place. The strategic placement of land based missiles would allow for some prevention of nuclear fallout and is an example of Mutually Assured Destruction, or MAD. Some people believe that Trump's withdrawal from the INF treaty, the Paris climate accord and the Iran nuclear deal may lead to more withdrawals to give the U.S. more power. Some speculation even says that Trump may leave NATO. All of these shows of power are threatening because they could possibly weaken international ties for the U.S.
ReplyDeleteI personally believe that both the US and Russia are equally responsible for starting the arms race because both countries began producing these nuclear weapons. However, according to the Wall Street Journal (https://www.wsj.com/articles/on-brink-of-arms-treaty-exit-u-s-finds-more-offending-russian-missiles-11548980645) the Russian 9M729 system has been tested within the area that violates the INF treaty. The range for this violation is missiles between 300-3,400 miles. It is unacceptable for these weapons to be being tested so close and simply further provokes the US to want to create similar weapons. I think that both countries are creating these weapons out of the fear of attack from each other. This is what has created the arms race and brought back the idea of mutually assured destruction between the US and Russia. It is extremely important that the crisis does not escalate because it could create a situation similar to the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. It is inhumane to attack innocent civilians while at war with another country and would obviously create devastating damage. A nuclear fallout could potentially end the war, so the US and Russia must be extremely careful about how this situation is handled.
ReplyDeleteWhile you and a lot of people are supporting the idea that both sides of the conflict are equally at fault, the point still stands that the US' claims are being much more heeded than Russia's (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46443672), specifically by NATO, a military alliance that includes 29 different countries from around the globe. It simply seems like a Russian threat is much more plausible and dangerous than a US threat could be, mostly because Russia far outpaces the US in terms of weapons technology that could "bypass missile defenses" (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/putin-claims-russia-has-nuclear-arsenal-capable-of-avoiding-missile-defenses/2018/03/01/d2dcf522-1d3b-11e8-b2d9-08e748f892c0_story.html?utm_term=.3f7af8eaf4d6). No matter who's at fault in this matter, the issue still stands that Russia is a potentially bigger threat. Mutually assured destruction is also an issue here because both sides believe that the other could blow them up any day now, so their solution, instead of trying to cut their losses and try to compromise, is to just build more weapons. This could definitely hasten our descent back into the Cold War era and will detract from any possible negotiation that could take place.
DeleteI think that both countries are responsible for restarting the arms race as the treaty doesn't seem like it was functioning as it states. According to the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/01/us/politics/trump-inf-nuclear-treaty.html), the US had already been developing new long range nuclear missiles in 1991, causing other countries to start developing their own nuclear weapons by using this as an excuse. I think the countries were wrong yet at the same time not wrong for developing banned weapons. The two countries were wrong for ignoring the treaty they recognized, but were also taking their country into account as they would have an advantage if they ignored it. They would have superior weapons to the other country and could use it as future deterrence. I think that due to the withdrawal from the INF treaty could lead to a possible second Cold War or create more tensions.
ReplyDeleteI believe that both countries are at fault in this conflict. both have been accused of violating the agreement that has been made so they are both untrustworthy and should then be both held accountable for their violation. There are no reasons to go behind each others back, if both sides would have abide to the rules of the treaty conflicts like these wouldn't arise. But because of this going behind each others back problem, it has stirred up some tension and possibly a Déjà Vu of the Cold War. By pulling out of the INF treaty it puts a whole new risk upon people of both Russia and the US. By entering an arms race the US is already behind and cost for both sides will build up, on top of that public views will be low by putting citizens at risk with an arms race. The only thing that kept an arms race of nuclear weaponry was the treaty and now that it is gone both countries have free reign on the creation of nuclear weapons. This a frightening sight because there is no telling what might come in the future from nuclear weapons being produced.
ReplyDeleteHenry Louie
DeleteHenry- please sign in to the blog. Top right corner will show if you are logged in or not.
DeleteLike most people here, I believe that both countries must be accountable for the start of an arms race. No race could start if only one withdrew but with that not being the case, and both withdrew instead, then both can be attributed to the plausible start of one. Both countries definitely were not in the right develope banned weapons behind each others backs as there in reality is zero reason. This is especially true when both countries definitely have enough firepower to severely damage each other because as of october 2017, both countries together had 88% of the world's stockpiled nukes (14,900). In reality I do not expect much to happen as a result of the I.M.F treaty withdrawals because M.A.D seems to be quite assured and therefore there would be absolutely nothing to gain for either side. Even if both sides had all the missiles in the world, neither would launch first as they'd be in the wrong no doubt.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/many-nukes-world-could-destroy/
I believe that both countries are responsible for the beginning of an arms race. This is because since 2007, Putin has been reluctant to withdraw from the program, indicating that he may not want to ruin these peaceful relations between the US and its allies. The withdraw of missiles does not effect Russia as it does the US, especially because Russia had already been developing so many missiles. On top of that, I believe that the removal of the treaty leaves the US at a higher superiority over North Korea, as supported by the article: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/05/russia-says-it-must-develop-new-nuclear-missiles-after-inf-end.html. Russia has constantly been manufacturing missiles that do not follow the treaty, so all in all I believe that the removal of the treaty does not give them more power over the US, but instead gives both countries conformation in their own safety, and the US especially superiority over North Korea as their threat slowly increases.
ReplyDeleteI think the U.S is responsible for re-starting the arms-race because according to NY times (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/01/us/politics/trump-inf-nuclear-treaty.html) "The United States has begun building it's first long-range nuclear weapons since 1991." This proves that the U.S has been working with these missiles behind Russia's back for years. But I also agree that the U.S were first to pull out of the treaty because they suspected Russia cheating with long-range missiles. Meaning that Russia had also made plans and were working on missiles that violated the INF treaty. I believe that the U.S and Russia are responsible for starting the new arms-race because they both made missiles behind each others back. But the concern is that they are both still making missiles and are threatening each other, making this situation hard to handle for people who may fear more things to come.
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting how this is technically the U.S's fault because they have experimenting with nuclear weapons and in a way sort of enabling the arms race despite the new hypersonic glide missile system ordered directly from Putin himself. According to (http://missiledefenseadvocacy.org) "The ballistic missiles are launched at steep trajectories that inhibit speed during the high friction of launch and reentry, hypersonic missiles glide atop the atmosphere while engaging specialized jet engines to perpetually accelerate up to hypersonic speeds." which would raise alarm for the U.S and therefore push us to try and create even stronger missiles. Therefore Russia is at fault as well. Eventually id this keeps going on we will once again reach M.A.D.
ReplyDeleteI believe that both countries are at fault for withdrawing from the INF treaty. Both of them have similar reasons and intentions. Their withdrawal is very worrying because two powerful countries are dangerously breaking an important agreement. It is very unethical for the countries to develop secret banned weapons technology since it just shows how difficult it is for two countries to stay in an trustworthy agreement. It is very unfortunate to see how countries cannot maintain peace, even after both experiencing the stressful arms race in the Cold War. Now, I feel that our world is once again returning to the old tactics from previous wars, but after our world’s huge advancements in technology, conflicts can only become more threatening to innocent citizens around the world. Additionally, the cost of creating missiles only worsens this. According to https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/01/us/politics/trump-inf-nuclear-treaty.html, "the cost of nuclear upgrades has increased to $494 billion, or 87 times the amount Mr. Trump is seeking for his border wall. Over the next 30 years, the estimate is $1.2 trillion”. This large expensive number startles me since it’s very frustrating to know how countries are spending so much money on such materials even during the midst of so many other problems in our world. Also, both powerful countries already possess a lot of dangerous nuclear missiles, so there is really no reason for them to create more. I understand that agreements may be very difficult to maintain, but both countries should be blamed for their immoral and aggressive actions.
ReplyDelete