Talk:Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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)

In fact, it was the Soviets who first successfully tested an ABM missile (V-1000) and reached operational deployment. So much for "cheapest, easiest policy".

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)

Strange Fact, but no details

There is a section of text here describing the approved ABM sites for both the Soviets and the Americans:

"The 1974 Protocol reduced the number of sites to one per party, largely because neither countny had developped a second site. The sites were Moscow for USSR and Grand Forks, North Dakota for US."

Does anyone know why Grand Forks was selected as the American site? Claiming light 03:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The Safeguard system was already under construction in 1974 to protect Grand Forks and the USSR's Moscow facility (probably) was also under construction. See also http://srmsc.org/int2020.html Vice President Agnew broke the Senate tie in August 1969 to begin Safeguard construction, phase I, which, included the North Dakota site that was eventually completed. It may have also authorized the Montana site near Malmstrom. It was partially constructed, then demolished after the ABM treaty with the North Dakota site left as the only US ABM site.[1] There was supposed to be a 3rd site in Missouri for Whiteman AFB, but it was never constructed even though site selection was completed in the early 70s. --Dual Freq 04:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

40% of Soviet GDP?

"The competitive pressure of SDI added considerable additional strains to the already creaking Soviet economy. The Soviet economy was essentially still a war economy after World War II, with increase of civilian production disproportionally small compared to growth of defense industry. It was already slowly becoming clear that the Soviet economy could not continue as it was, with military spending absorbing 40% of GDP

Where does that data come from. I've read in some articles that it was somewhere between 12..16% of soviet GDP, 40% is quite much more and it doesn't have any reference. Can someone please find reference for it, or find article in JSTOR that states differently and remove above statement or change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I think it should be removed too. There isn't any proof that the USSR was a "war economy" after the war, or that its military spending was 40%. The USA spent more in terms of actual money AND GDP percentage. If anything, the USA should be listed as the one that continued to have a war economy (if relevant). It can also be argued that SDI and other ABM projects have added to the US debt, of which military spending is seen as a large contributor. XXVII (talk) 03:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Question regarding termination date

The termination dates in this article conflict with that in Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration. Here, I read, "On December 13, 2001, George W. Bush gave Russia notice of the United States' withdrawal from the treaty". The "Foreign Policy" article claims, "On December 14, 2001, Bush withdrew the United States from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty". I see two problems with this: First, there's the difference between December 13 and December 14. At least one of those dates is wrong or misleading. Second, there's a difference between "giving notice of withdrawal" and "withdrawing".

Could someone more knowledgeable than I about this fix both these articles? It's a small thing, but we don't need this kinds of discrepancies challenging the credibility of Wikipedia. DavidMCEddy (talk) 22:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks,