Talk:Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mild reaction 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: NPOV tag

message: 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)
thread_title:  Termination 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Daryal Radar a treaty violation?