• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"Open Skies" Treaty Withdrawal...

upsideguy said:
Republicans getting even for Clinton's team removing 'W's from all of the keyboards as GW Bush assumed the presidency?
...
Click to expand...
That never happened, btw.
Here is another article.
www.airforcemag.com

The US is Out of the Open Skies Treaty. What’s Next? | Air & Space Forces Magazine

The United States is now officially out of the Open Skies Treaty, but questions remain about the road ahead.
www.airforcemag.com www.airforcemag.com
So, the exiting Trump Admin is abandoning the Open Skies treaty and to stop the incoming Biden Admin from nixing that exits, Trump is destroying the surveillance planes and the photos of Russian military deployment taken with the planes.

If we didn’t know better, we would suspect the heads of our government are Russian assets.

I don’t know if a judge can put a restraining order on this move, that only benefits Russia.
 
www.dw.com

US officially withdraws from Open Skies treaty – DW – 11/22/2020

The US has exited the Open Skies treaty, which allows countries to observe one another's militaries. Accusing Russia of violating some of its provisions, Trump announced in May that he would withdraw from the treaty.
www.dw.com www.dw.com

Even the Germans, who are certainly not Trump fans get this more factually correct than the progressives on this site. Russia has been violating the treaty almost since they entered it. Destruction of the planes also serves a purpose, the Russians cant accuse us of doing it anyway and they have to agree to newer aircraft in any future agreement.
 
Grand Mal said:
Why should America stay in NATO and complain constantly about how other NATO countries don't spend enough on defense? The US Army has 34 facilities in Germany alone, one country, one service branch. There's hundreds of US military facilities scattered around the world that, along with the corporate welfare scheme called a military-industrial complex have driven American defense spending sky-high. Just stop spending so much. Pull out of NATO, bring everyone home from Europe. The Evil Empire doesn't exist anymore. America's biggest potential threat is a long way from the north Atlantic.
Putin now has exactly as much significance as he's given by other world leaders. There's no advantage to anyone in giving him more importance than he merits. Leave NATO to the countries that can actually benefit from It's mutual defense policy. So far that's only been invoked once, when America was attacked in 2001.
Click to expand...

There are eight NATO countries that actually spend MORE per capita ON NATO than the US does.
 
Trump being Trump.

Horrible for America.
 
ModernDiogenes said:
I expect a short thread, because if you remove "whataboutism" from the Trump supporter's arsenal on this I don't see how they explain it, other than in terms that it is precisely what it looks like.
Click to expand...

You are very cynical...

ps. Those who do not get the joke should google Diogenes.
 
OpportunityCost said:
www.dw.com

US officially withdraws from Open Skies treaty – DW – 11/22/2020

The US has exited the Open Skies treaty, which allows countries to observe one another's militaries. Accusing Russia of violating some of its provisions, Trump announced in May that he would withdraw from the treaty.
www.dw.com www.dw.com

Even the Germans, who are certainly not Trump fans get this more factually correct than the progressives on this site. Russia has been violating the treaty almost since they entered it. Destruction of the planes also serves a purpose, the Russians cant accuse us of doing it anyway and they have to agree to newer aircraft in any future agreement.
Click to expand...

So you're of the belief that these aircraft cannot possibly be repurposed or sold off?
Sorry, I do not see the purpose of destroying them, especially since no one seems to know what make and model they are, at least not yet. Maybe someone out there knows.
 
Athanasius68 said:
They are old planes that no longer have any useful function.
Click to expand...

Why do you accept such claim (no longer have any usefu function) as a fact?
You can have modern sensors in an older airframe.
This should be a decision of the next administration.
 
OpportunityCost said:
www.dw.com

US officially withdraws from Open Skies treaty – DW – 11/22/2020

The US has exited the Open Skies treaty, which allows countries to observe one another's militaries. Accusing Russia of violating some of its provisions, Trump announced in May that he would withdraw from the treaty.
www.dw.com www.dw.com

Even the Germans, who are certainly not Trump fans get this more factually correct than the progressives on this site. Russia has been violating the treaty almost since they entered it. Destruction of the planes also serves a purpose, the Russians cant accuse us of doing it anyway and they have to agree to newer aircraft in any future agreement.
Click to expand...

Your link does not say what you are saying.

What it does say is that " In 2017, the Trump administration imposed certain restrictions on Russian observation flights above its territory, after which the Russian government announced similar measures for the US. "
 
Grand Mal said:
He should have pulled out of NATO two years ago.
But he should have offered the planes to someone who could use them.
This all just redemonstrates that America has no allies as long as Trumps lardass is parked in the Oval Office.
Click to expand...

the planes were for surveilling Russia and China, primarily.
 
pamak said:
Your link does not say what you are saying.

What it does say is that " In 2017, the Trump administration imposed certain restrictions on Russian observation flights above its territory, after which the Russian government announced similar measures for the US. "
Click to expand...

Cherry picking one phrase doesn't negate the Russians violating the treaty.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
So you're of the belief that these aircraft cannot possibly be repurposed or sold off?
Sorry, I do not see the purpose of destroying them, especially since no one seems to know what make and model they are, at least not yet. Maybe someone out there knows.
Click to expand...
OC-135, either you aren't curious or you aren't sincere about caring. It took me an entire 2 seconds to type in open skies airplane.
 
OpportunityCost said:
OC-135, either you aren't curious or you aren't sincere about caring. It took me an entire 2 seconds to type in open skies airplane.
Click to expand...

It's a reworked/modified version of the Stratolifter family of jets that have been designated for the boneyard years ago because they are too expensive to maintain
 
pamak said:
Why do you accept such claim (no longer have any usefu function) as a fact?
You can have modern sensors in an older airframe.
This should be a decision of the next administration.
Click to expand...

The purpose of the planes were for the flyovers.
No flyovers-- no need for the planes.
I get the argument that Trump should have let Biden make that determination.
But... that was kind of an argument made when Obama placed the sanctions on Russia in December 2016 that Flynn got caught all up in.
As was said then, one president at a time, he makes the decisions ect. ought to be applied now
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Please tell me what make and model those "old planes that no longer have any useful function" might be.
(second attempt)
Click to expand...

The purpose of the planes were for the flyovers.
No flyovers--- no need for the planes.
 
OpportunityCost said:
OC-135, either you aren't curious or you aren't sincere about caring. It took me an entire 2 seconds to type in open skies airplane.
Click to expand...

No, I just gave up on getting a response and moved to other topics. Thanks for the link.
It appears that the aircraft will not be destroyed, which is what I originally heard.
They will be offered to foreign government buyers.
That at least makes some sense.

I am not an aircraft expert but I do know that not all aircraft age out of service the same way.
We are still using B-52's, and it's expected that the venerable ships will continue in service for at least
another two or three decades.
And that is why I was skeptical about the notion that these OC-135's (again thanks for the reference) would be declared obsolute and unfit for service. It is possible to upgrade all kinds of hardware in all kinds of ways if "the bones are still good."

An old friend from way back has an A&P license and I recall him talking about airframe ratings and the age factor.
I understand that refurbishing does not always make sense for all crafts, but I made a guess that a unit as sophisticated as a spy-plane would possibly be something that isn't just casually torn up for scrap on a whim.

I welcome any education you may wish to share on the subject.
 
Grand Mal said:
Why should America stay in NATO and complain constantly about how other NATO countries don't spend enough on defense? The US Army has 34 facilities in Germany alone, one country, one service branch. There's hundreds of US military facilities scattered around the world that, along with the corporate welfare scheme called a military-industrial complex have driven American defense spending sky-high. Just stop spending so much. Pull out of NATO, bring everyone home from Europe. The Evil Empire doesn't exist anymore. America's biggest potential threat is a long way from the north Atlantic.
Putin now has exactly as much significance as he's given by other world leaders. There's no advantage to anyone in giving him more importance than he merits. Leave NATO to the countries that can actually benefit from It's mutual defense policy. So far that's only been invoked once, when America was attacked in 2001.
Click to expand...
By all means remove the US from NATO. They can then kiss goodbye to all the military assistance, intelligence gathering and other support they get from former allies.
 
Athanasius68 said:
I am sorry--- I don't think you understand the agreement.
The deal was that Russian could fly across the USA over military bases ect to take pictures to monitor USA armed forces, nuclear stockpiles and so on and so forth.
In exchange, the USA could do the same.
Russia has been winging across the country for years.
But they have been restricting the USA from doing so.
Those planes were the planes used to fly over Russia, not to keep Russia from sending planes over the USA.

The question became, does the USA need to send planes over Russia to monitor that country? The answer is "no" because satellites can fly over and gather same information. Russia doesn't have the same capacity.
So why give Russia an opportunity in the USA?
Click to expand...
Of course Russia has the capacity for satellite surveillance, and has had for decades; since 1961 in fact...

The Space Review: Upgrading Russia’s fleet of optical reconnaissance satellites

www.thespacereview.com
 
Athanasius68 said:
The purpose of the planes were for the flyovers.
No flyovers--- no need for the planes.
Click to expand...

I was just saying to @OpportunityCost that something as sophisticated as a spy-plane doesn't normally get torn up for scrap on a whim. The article referenced says that instead, they will be offered to other foreign governments.
That was what had me skeptical...selling off sounds like it makes more sense because these are some remarkable aircraft and it is likely that they still have "good bones".
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
I was just saying to @OpportunityCost that something as sophisticated as a spy-plane doesn't normally get torn up for scrap on a whim. The article referenced says that instead, they will be offered to other foreign governments.
That was what had me skeptical...selling off sounds like it makes more sense because these are some remarkable aircraft and it is likely that they still have "good bones".
Click to expand...

We couldn't sell off the 100's of KC-135's that we already have sitting in the desert bone yards right now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom