NATO country making silly steps against sense of treaty, undermining the agreement and forcing Russia out of it when the number and location of the ABM reach the critical point. Russia will be still good with it. They just deploy more un-deployed now nukes, that's all.Guided by the principle of indivisible security and
convinced that measures for the reduction and limitation of
strategic offensive arms and the other obligations set forth
in this Treaty will enhance predictability and stability, and
thus the security of both Parties
Recognizing the existence of the interrelationship between
strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms, that
this interrelationship will become more important as strategic
nuclear arms are reduced, and that current strategic defensive
arms do not undermine the viability and effectiveness of the
strategic offensive arms of the Parties,
Norway could just install the Aegis BMD software and SM-3 missiles on the sly. Hey, the ships LOOK the same from the outside installed or not.
I was surprised to hear that we could fit a BMD system on our Nansen ships -- I did not know that!
There are 3 types of MK41 and not all of them can fit SM-3 missiles.... My previous understanding was that the Nansen MK41 was too small to accept an SM-3. OTOH that may still be correct; they do have only 1 8-cell MK41 each but space to add some more cells. Perhaps there is sufficient space to add SM-3 capable MK41s?
Anyway this is all highly theoretical, it's not going to happen. The navy budget is extremely limited, we can barely afford to operate the current Nansen.
1- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Treaty - Never worked, check history.
2- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty B.S. Both countries worked in space based nuclear platforms betting on the treaty to buy time over the developments of the other. Also notice Iran did not ratify it thus they legally can deploy nuclear weapons in space, how good is that?
3- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ba...Missile_Treaty - Did not prevent Moscow from having ABM systems, the treaty is as useless as the Washington Naval Treaty.
4- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_...rces_in_Europe - One of the parties ceased to exist thus the treaty is null.
5- http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/pniglance Duh, Unilateral pledges.
And you forgot the best: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versaille - See point 1
Conclusion: One country can not tell another they can't have this or that unless they have leverage.
Looks like Nikolai Makarov is taking advice from Hector Timerman.
Last edited by archibald harry tuttle; 02-23-2012 at 03:00 AM. Reason: Damned typos.
So of course it didn't stop Moscow from having one given that well it was the designated City for the USSRIn the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems the United States and the Soviet Union agree that each may have only two ABM deployment areas, so restricted and so located that they cannot provide a nationwide ABM defense or become the basis for developing one
As to your point about treaties in general? I do not get it.... Are you trying to suggest that treaties only matter so far as one can enforce it? Arguebly this is true, if you're powerful enough to break every treaty when suited to you then sure you can likely do so, but what difference does that make to the fact that if one is part of a treaty they tend to be somewhat expected to stick by it?
Infact I am not sure at all what you were trying to say to Artjomh.. As I think he was simply suggesting that Treaties can and do exist which place restrictions on deployed weapon systems for the signitories...
If one doesn't follow their treaty obligations then obviously its damaging to their credibility but regardless, are you simply trying to suggest that Russia cannot legally expect Norway to place these Missiles on their ships? Because I don't think anyone was suggesting that...After the implementation of a treaty all they can do is ask the other parties to observe what was agreed upon and not more.
Russia can ask Norway to keep BMD systems off
Russia can TELL Norway to keep BMD systems off
Regardless which the choice is up to the Norwegians themselves to listen to, both have different ramifications for the parties involved..
As to it being 'lame' well what does it matter? It works or it doesn't.. If it doesn't work then well you do not need to worry about it as Russia will be inconsequential to you, if it does continue to work then well either work out how not to have to deal with it or overcome it.. (Tip the former is probably easier ) Its Economic Muscle has increased dramatically since those dark days, its just a question of taking the next leaps and bounds now
As to the world being much more multi polar? That tends to benefit Russia more I'd argue, given Russias limited population, the suspicions that can exist of other traditional powers and the slightly reduced power the US has as its traditional opposition of late..
Regardless, this is about these Aegis Systems, I'd be curious to hear more from actual Norwegians about their views on the issue seeing as its their ships etc
With misile shields popping up all around Russia isn't it obvious what the long term strategy behind it is?
Of course Russia is going to try and stop it.
With all the pushing and shoving these days we might end up much closer to a nuclear confrontation cold war style.
I think it's ridiculous how some seem to think having nukes (and paying for them) + having ABM (and paying for them) + new arms race resulting from it (and it's costs) are somehow preferable to good old MAD where nobody thinks of using nukes as long as he's not being pushed in a corner.
I mean, ok, interceptors in Poland, radar in Turkey and now interceptors in Norway? This is becoming more and more obvious that this is aimed as well at Russia. So Russia has every right to be cautious even if these interceptors may not be good enough for what Russia has, it still may give some people the idea that they have enough protection to do something stupid. More than likely, Russia will end up fielding more SSBN's in order to counterbalance the missile shields being placed around her.
The point is, when a Country A tells country B that it wants Condition C, that's an opening move in diplomacy. Country B might say No, Country B might say Yes, or Country B might say, Yes, but only under Condition D. Then Country A says, if you are going to say No, then we will introduce Condition E, but if you say yes and demand Condition D, then we also require Condition F. And so on...
Eventually this discussion leads to some kind of mutual agreement, which may be legal and written down as a treaty, or may be just an unspoken understanding.
That's how diplomacy works. To deny this is to deny 5000 years or human history. If you claim that nothIng should be achieved through diplomacy is to say that the only way that a country might conduct it's foreign policy is through war. How else would they let their wishes be known?