Talk:Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty

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)

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

try reading the text of the treaty, look in paragraph 2:

http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/treaties/abm/abm2.html

this should do it unless you feel that the US Department of State is not reproducing the treaty correctly.

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.

Mild reaction
The 'mild reaction' statement in the 'US withdrawal' section can't be right. After all, it led to Russian abandoning START II, and the resulting SORT (which is praised in that sentence!) was a mere shadow of that START III would have been, had co-operation between the two powers been better! --Mtu (talk) 20:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I've now read this business about the USSR not knowing about/understanding MAD in several articles. None have given me a citation--and please don't let this information be from some dubious post-Soviet Russian source. Please either provide a solid citation--two would be best--or remove the reference and the conclusions you draw from it in all articles in which it has been inserted. I realize my language is strong, but this is history--not knitting. If you get the pattern wrong here...Jodye (talk) 08:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I think its fine as is, and the tag could be removed. Its reasonable as it is phrased now. Ottawakismet (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

NPOV tag
User:NPguy added a NPOV tag to the section 'US withdrawal' with the comment 'missing views of treaty supporters'. We already have a comment from treaty supporter John Rhinelander. Adding the tag without explaining what you believe needs to be modified is not constructive. As the NPOV notice says, 'Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page.' - but it isn't. What is it you want to see User:NPguy? - Crosbie 05:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * My NPOV tag was only about the claimed controversy over the status of the ABM treaty after 1991. I found that surprising as I do not recall any question raised at the time over its status.  Maybe i didn't travel in the right circles.  Furthermore, despite the stated controversy, the only views cited are those who raised such questions.  I had hoped to understand their claims, but the citation links are all dead. Perhaps someone could look at contemporaneous discussions in Arms Control Today. NPguy (talk) 02:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That looked like 'undue weight' to me, rather than NPOV.  Anyway, I have removed the material on controversy over the status of the ABM treaty, removed the NPOV tag, and replaced it with the State Department's unambiguous statement from 1997 that 'the ABM Treaty continues in force' - Crosbie 19:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Termination
Is a treaty "terminated"? Can it be terminated by the withdrawal of one party? Did all parties agree that with the withdrawal of the USA the treaty was at an end?Royalcourtier (talk) 03:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111003180126/http://msupress.msu.edu/journals/rpa/pdf/2_RP_11-3_Howell_389-415.pdf to http://msupress.msu.edu/journals/rpa/pdf/2_RP_11-3_Howell_389-415.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070529212930/http://www.gsinstitute.org:80/index.html to http://www.gsinstitute.org/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Daryal Radar a treaty violation?
I'd like to see some mention of radar and why https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryal_radar was considered a violation of the treaty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.64.141.114 (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Large phased-array radars were required to be located on the periphery of the country and facing outward. U.S. officials claimed that one of these radars (in Krasnoyarsk) didn't meet this requirement. NPguy (talk) 03:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)