Talk:Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An event mentioned in this article is a May 26 selected anniversary.
Contents |
[edit] Additional link
Shouldn't the ABM treaty be linked to the "Fall of the USSR" in some fasion since the treaty became unilateral at that point? Being new, I'll watch to see how this gets integrated. MikeEd
No treaty can become "unilateral" when there is a change of government in one of the signatory countries. In response to that comment I would like to quote the article : “The Impact of National Missile Defense on Nonproliferation Regimes” by James Clay Moltz in The NonProliferation Review (Fall/Winter 2000), p.69.
"As Michael O’Hanlon has pointed out, “this is a poor argument; the same reasoning would absolve Russia from the Soviet Union’s other obligations, debts, and responsibilities in areas such as weapons nonproliferation.” (1) Similarly, as George Bunn as noted, the international community has unanimously accepted Russia as the successor to the Soviet Union according to « the UN Charter and its provision giving the Soviet Union a permanent seat and veto on the UN Security Council – as well as bilateral and multilateral arms control treaties. » (2) Thus, even if a case could be made on narrow legal grounds, this decision will be viewed as illegitimate by the rest of the international community."
(1)Michael O’Hanlon, “Star Wars Strikes Back,” Foreign Affairs 78 (November/December 1999), p.71 (2) George Bunn, « Does NMD Stand for ‘No More Disarmamaent’ as Well as ‘National Missile Defense?’” Disarmament Diplomacy, No. 42 (December 1999), p.11. eSSe —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.12.204.133 (talk • contribs) 22:41, November 13, 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Possible false statement
Can anyone point to where in the ABM treaty they establish a distance (1,300km) that the two ABM systems are supposed to be away from eachother? I looked over it, and I couldn't find where it says that. I don't want to make a correction to the article without further checking (perhaps another treaty established a distance), or perhaps I've gotten confused in the wordings of the treaty. Antwerp42
[edit] POV my ass!
I wrote: "In hindsight, the gaping void between Western perception of USSR military theory and actual military theory is quite chilling."
The West entirely misread Russian nuclear strategy - it was like ships, passing in the night. You're telling me that being chilled by this is POV? is there ANYONE who perceives this differently?
Toby Douglass 15:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- It's one thing to state that commentators find it 'chilling' (if you can source it); entirely another to present an opinion as fact. Radix 15:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- I assert that the significant likelyhood of nuclear armageddon caused by Western failed to understand Russian policy *is* chilling. I argue it is not an opinion, in the same way that if I commented that chicken tastes of meat, I'm not stating an opinion. Toby Douglass 22:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Let's pretend for a moment that there's some objective basis for 'chilling' as opposed to it being a wholly nationalistic POV. Unless you can source it, would still be original research. Radix 06:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- I think the sentence is overly emotional. I suggest finding a quote from a notable source who says so, or rewording in more neutral terms. Tom Harrison Talk 23:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Soviet Response
Can anyone cite the following regarding ABM systems: "in fact, the actual Soviet response would have been to develop its own ABM system and so return to strategic parity with the US." Is this a fact? Citation? If this can't be supported, could we change the wording to "alternatively, the Soviet response might have been ..." It seems to me that the Soviet response would have been to pursue the cheapest, easiest policy, which is probably not ABM developement.--Hanuman 15:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
yeah, I understood that some of the objections were that the soviets would simply increase the number of missles as the defence would never be 100% effective Murray.booth 19:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Seems a bit one-sided
Seems a bit one-sided stating things about Soviet motives which would seem to be still to be controversial. Roadrunner 21:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- I've started some cleanup. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 18:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Early History
This entire paragraph is over-simplified and neglects more important factors that went into the signing of the treaty (eg. US verus Soviet doctrines on both waging and avoiding nuclear war). I would do a full a re-write, but do not have the time. Could someone please look into this? I am correcting the sentence that states the Soviets would unleash nuclear war for the sole purpose of pre-empting the anti-ballistic missile system, an idea that would sound absurd to any contemporary strategists or policy-makers. Also, Sentinel was not the counter to the Soviet threat but rather against a Chinese-scaled attack; Defense Secretary Robert McNamara was pressured into creating the system even though he opposed ABM, the resulting Sentinel was much weaker and never expanded.
