The INF treaty

realitykeeper

Back when the USSR and USA agree to the INF treaty, all seemed right with the world for a short period of time. The fear of possible annihilation was tempered with hope for the first time in decades. The Russians suddenly did not seem so scary and friendships between east and west replaced the fear and hatred of the cold war.

When the treaty was first signed, I recall thinking the US were making a mistake agreeing to give up their so called "star wars" project but afterwards when I saw how the relationship between east and west improved, I realized it was the right thing to do.

A couple of years later, the American`s changed their minds and George Bush senior asked Putin if it would be alright if the American`s continued to develop it`s anti ballistic technology (which would breach the INF treaty). Putin said no, not unless they share the technology with Russia. A few years later, Bill Clinton approached Putin with the same question and got the same answer.

Then it was George W`s and Obama`s turns and again, the answer was no. Meanwhile, relations with Russia had turned frosty again in tandem with America`s desire to renege on what it had agreed, - the treaty that had improved east west relations so much. In fact, in a jaw dropping act of "diplomacy" the Obama administration sent a red reset button to the Russians, as a gesture that they were attempting to wipe the slate clean and begin negotiations again. To me it seemed more like a threat, it was reminiscent of the nuclear button everyone feared during the cold war.

My question is, if the American`s decided to trust Russia again by abandoning it`s anti ballistic research and development, would that bring back the good relationship it had with Russia after the Cold war? Is trust valuable and does it bring its own rewards? Is trust necessary in a nuclear age? Can a nuclear war be won or is everyone a loser in that scenario. Is braveheart diplomacy suited to the nuclear age or will uncompromising attitudes ensure our annihilation?

Sooner or later, in every heated political argument, one of the participants will site the Nazi`s or Hitler to make their case. Hitler was a sick man and the German`s were a very angry people after the treaty of Versailles. To assume that trust is a bad thing because Hitler broke his word, is to set the standard rather low and it ignores the context by which a man like Hitler came to power in the first place.

So, should the US honour the INF treaty as it promised?