Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Share
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4496
    Points : 4675
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Thu Oct 15, 2015 12:57 am

    The idea of ​​abolishing the INF Treaty should be thoroughly discussed
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10067
    Points : 10557
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  George1 on Thu Dec 03, 2015 9:04 am

    Russia Accuses US of Violating Nuclear Arms Treaty

    The Russian Foreign Ministry said that Russia believes that the United States violated their bilateral deal on intermediate-range nuclear forces when it installed Mk 41 vertical launching systems in Eastern Europe.

    MOSCOW (Sputnik) — Russia believes that the United States violated their bilateral deal on intermediate-range nuclear forces when it installed Mk 41 vertical launching systems in Eastern Europe, the Russian Foreign Ministry said Wednesday.

    The 1987 INF Treaty banned nuclear and conventional ground-based cruise and ballistic missiles with a range of 300 to 3,400 miles.

    "We have grounds to regard land-based Mk 41s as cruise missile launching systems and their deployment on the ground as a direct INF violation by the US side," the Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

    When installed on warships, Mk 41s can be used for launching both SM-3 interceptor missiles and medium to range Tomahawk cruise missiles. Several Mk 41s are currently stationed in Romania and will be later redeployed to Poland.

    This came in response to continued US accusations that Moscow is not fulfilling its INF Treaty obligations. Washington alleges that Moscow tested a ground-launched cruise missile in violation of the INF Treaty.

    The Russian Foreign Ministry reiterated on Wednesday that Moscow considered such accusations to be baseless and accused Washington of using these claims to justify its "response" measures.

    US Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Brian McKeon said earlier today that the Pentagon was developing a "comprehensive response" to Russia's alleged military actions irrespective of Moscow’s answer.

    "The aim of this deceptive move is obvious – it is to cast a shadow on our arms controls and to deflect attention from US actions," the Russian statement read.

    It accused the United States of piling military infrastructure at the Russian border and refusing to discuss the problem. "The situation with the treaty is shamelessly used to escalate the atmosphere of chronic military tension across the Euro-Atlantic space," the Ministry said.

    Speaking at the House Armed Services Committee, Brian McKeon said that the United States would increase its rotational forces and military exercises in NATO's eastern flank, and preposition military hardware in Europe.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20151202/1031149891/rusia-accuses-us-inf-violation.html#ixzz3tF7WueeI


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2979
    Points : 3011
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  max steel on Thu Dec 03, 2015 10:05 am




    Look like the US information is based on some "reliable sources" that they are not willing to disclose but would like Russia to fix this problem to be INF compliant. While the Russian deny they have a mobile system that breaches INF system.No one will buy argument based on Informed Sources which US is not willing to disclose , That kind of logic is same like Russian claiming VLS launcher for ABM can be used for launching Tomahawk or some other missile.
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2979
    Points : 3011
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  max steel on Tue Feb 09, 2016 6:35 pm

    US National Intelligence Claims Russia Violated INF Treaty

    According to the US National Intelligence director, Russia has violated the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty by allegedly creating a ground-launched cruise missile.

    NEW YORK (Sputnik) — Russia has allegedly developed a ground-launched cruise missile in violation of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), US National Intelligence Director James Clapper said in a testimony on Tuesday.

    “Russia has developed a ground-launched cruise missile that the United States has declared is in violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty,” Clapper said. “Russia has denied it is violating the INF Treaty.”



    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2979
    Points : 3011
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  max steel on Fri Feb 26, 2016 8:57 am

    Russia Developes INF Treaty-Breaking Cruise Missile - US Intelligence Chief

    Russia has developed a new ground-launched cruise missile that breaks the 1987 Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, US Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told the House of Representatives Permanent Select Intelligence Committee on Thursday.

    Clapper reiterated a claim he previously made in earlier testimony to Congress on February 9.In that earlier testimony, Clapper acknowledged that Russia had denied it was violating the INF Treaty.


    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1314
    Points : 1321
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  AlfaT8 on Fri Feb 26, 2016 3:24 pm

    max steel wrote:Russia Developes INF Treaty-Breaking Cruise Missile - US Intelligence Chief

    Russia has developed a new ground-launched cruise missile that breaks the 1987 Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, US Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told the House of Representatives Permanent Select Intelligence Committee on Thursday.

    Clapper reiterated a claim he previously made in earlier testimony to Congress on February 9.In that earlier testimony, Clapper acknowledged that Russia had denied it was violating the INF Treaty.

    Pray tell, what is this new missile he's referring to, Zircon is the only new one that i am aware of.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16172
    Points : 16803
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  GarryB on Sat Feb 27, 2016 5:37 am

    Probably thinking they are making a land based Kalibr with a range of 1,500 - 3,000km Plus for the land based launcher


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 2973
    Points : 3098
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  kvs on Mon Feb 29, 2016 11:26 pm

    Yankee turdlets better be careful trying to smear Russia with their retarded lies. A nuclear free for all does not
    guarantee Yankee turdlet success. In fact, they can find themselves f*cked six ways to Sunday.

    Really, Americans have too many delusions about the Cold War with the USSR. Military spending is not what "brought
    down the evil empire". America itself relies on GDP stimulus generated by military spending. The command economy GDP
    experiences a similar stimulus but does not require vast sums of money since money does not function the same
    way as in a capitalist economy. Negative impacts are diversion of resources away from consumer production, but
    this was not a serious problem for the USSR. Serious problems were cases such as whole trainloads of produce
    left to rot in marshalling yards (I know one such case from personal family experience). Clearly such negligence
    transcends any particular focus of the economy. The USSR imploded out of long term social processes that had
    zero to do with military production.

    So Yankee turdlets should not expect Russia to go under from a buildup of various classes of nuclear missiles and
    ABM systems. It is also cheaper to deploy nuclear ICBMs than it is to deploy a dozen tanks which have vastly less
    deterrent potency.

    Austin

    Posts : 6195
    Points : 6601
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  Austin on Wed Mar 02, 2016 5:58 am

    max steel wrote:Russia Developes INF Treaty-Breaking Cruise Missile - US Intelligence Chief

    Russia has developed a new ground-launched cruise missile that breaks the 1987 Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, US Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told the House of Representatives Permanent Select Intelligence Committee on Thursday.

    Clapper reiterated a claim he previously made in earlier testimony to Congress on February 9.In that earlier testimony, Clapper acknowledged that Russia had denied it was violating the INF Treaty.



    They are making this claim for long time and Russian POV is they are not doing that and US needs to back up its claim with evidence.

    US says its depending on some source/spy information inside the system and disclosing evidence would put him in danger

    Austin

    Posts : 6195
    Points : 6601
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  Austin on Sat Mar 26, 2016 7:04 am

    Good Read


    Kalibr: Savior of INF Treaty?

    http://fas.org/blogs/security/2015/12/kalibr/
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2979
    Points : 3011
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  max steel on Sat Apr 02, 2016 8:37 am

    America’s Working on Its Next Nuclear Deal


    The Obama Administration wants to alter a plutonium-disposal pact. What will Russia demand in return? Wink

    Fresh off last year’s deal to limit Iran’s nuclear development, the Obama administration is mulling another nuclear deal — this one with Russia. Washington wants to change course on a plan laid with Moscow 16 years ago to dispose of its share of 68 metric tons of plutonium.

    “Clearly, we do have some diplomatic work to be done in this area,” Rose Gottemoeller, undersecretary of State for arms control and international security, said Tuesday at a Defense Writers Group breakfast in Washington.

    In 2000, Washington and Moscow agreed to dispose of nuclear weapons waste through a process that mixes waste plutonium with uranium oxide. This creates mixed oxide fuel pellets, known as MOX, which can be burned in commercial nuclear power plants. The transformation of America’s 34 metric tons of plutonium to MOX was supposed to happen at the Savannah River Site, a multibillion-dollar facility in South Carolina. But after 16 years and $4 billion, the plant is only about 70 percent complete. (Russia is burning its own plutonium in a fast reactor.)

    So in 2013, the White House began to look at alternatives. Last month, as part of its 2017 budget proposal, the Energy Department announced it would “pursue a dilute and dispose approach as a faster, less expensive path to meeting the U.S. commitment to dispose of excess weapons grade plutonium.” This would involve storing the diluted plutonium in New Mexico.

    Some have cheered this search for alternatives to the expensive MOX plant. Others say that too much has already been spent to simply walk away. These include Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., whose state stands to get jobs and revenue from the plant.

    Still others point out the foreign-policy aspects to changing course. “The Russians have long opposed burying the plutonium because it doesn’t really destroy the material, as burning the MOX in a reactor does—it can be retrieved and reused for nuclear weapons purposes,” former Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., wrote in Politico last year. “Given current tensions with Russia, any renegotiation of the plutonium agreement could require us to make costly or damaging concessions.”

    Frank Klotz, head of the National Nuclear Security Administration, the arm of the Energy Department that oversees the MOX project, said at a March 16 Senate appropriations energy and water subcommittee hearing that once the U.S. government decides on a new plutonium disposal plan, it would be presented to the Russians. That did not sit well with Graham.

    “That is absolutely the dumbest frickin’ plan I could think of: to change course and hope the Russians would agree and not know what they’re going to charge you for it,” Graham said.

    Pentagon leaders have spent the past year labeling Russia as America’s top threat, in the wake of Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine and more recent support of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad.

    But even with Washington-Moscow relations at an ebb, Gottemoeller said the two superpowers still cooperate on projects to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, citing Russia’s role in Iran deal and another pact to remove chemical weapons from Syria.

    “I think … we do seem to be able to develop good cooperation in areas that are related to weapons of mass destruction,” she said. “I would think that this [plutonium disposal] matter could be one where we could have some good, solid cooperation, but I don’t want to talk further about diplomatic efforts.”
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 1502
    Points : 1542
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Death of INF

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon May 16, 2016 5:49 pm

    Death of INF?


    looks like Russians did not waste time when US was pushing for PGS and ABM. Rubezh seems to be modular, multiple MIRVs, two stages were also tested on 2000km range...

    Light version is between 36-20t depending on source. So +/- size of Pioneer IRBM...


    http://missilethreat.com/a-looming-crisis-of-the-intermediate-range-nuclear-force-treaty-sources-and-consequences/

    "
    Russian experts usually portray the “Rubezh” as a modernized version of the Yars ICBM. However, in March 2015 an anonymous source from the Russian Defense Ministry revealed that it has fewer stages and a shorter range than the Yars.[14] The Russian expert Pavel Podvig believes that “if true, this appears to confirm that [the] RS-26 is a two-stage missile based on [the] RS-24 (a three-stage missile – YF) very much in the way [that the] SS-20 was a two-stage version of [the] Temp-2S”.[15] Thus, since the maximum flight range of the “Rubezh” is 200–300 kilometers longer than 5500 kilometers it is not covered by the INF Treaty. However, as it is a two-stage version of the Yars ICBM and was tested mainly at distances of about 2000 kilometers, this missile is designed to be used mainly in the INF mode, including against targets in Europe. Or to put it differently, the development and deployment of the “Rubezh” missile is nothing but an effective circumventing of the INF Treaty.


    The crisis of the INF Treaty and security interests of the Central-Eastern European states

    Albeit at the moment of writing it would be too early to make any definite forecasts about Russia’s behavior there are grounds to believe that Moscow will deploy its new GLCMs and “Rubezh” missiles and aim them at targets in Europe. This will essentially strengthen Moscow’s ability to blackmail and threaten European states with a view to

    • undermine the unity of the Atlantic alliance;

    • deter NATO’s potential intervention in a possible war in the Southern Baltics that would be caused by Russian aggression against the three Baltic States, or in the war in Ukraine, if the Ukrainian crisis is nоt resolved in a reasonably short period of time;

    • defeat NATO troops by a limited use of nuclear weapons if an armed conflict between Russia and NATO in the Baltic region breaks out.

    In actual fact, Moscow wants to put NATO member-states in a grim position: they could either defend the three Baltic States, thus facing the risk of being the victims of a nuclear attack by Russia, or refrain from any involvement in such a conflict, thus undermining the very raison d’être of the North Atlantic alliance.

    russia russia russia

    hELL YEAH !!!

    welcome welcome welcome
    This, in many ways, replicates the strategic situation in Europe that emerged in the late 1970s, when the USSR deployed its highly effective SS-20 missiles with a view of decoupling the USA and the European NATO members in the security sphere. Then the NATO members were forced to make the “double-track decision” – to deploy American intermediate-range missiles in Europe to restore the nuclear balance on the continent and to offer negotiations aimed at banning the INF weapons from Europe. In the late 1980s, however, the Kremlin signed the INF Treaty, which banned the intermediate range nuclear missiles, since Soviet leaders and military commanders had realized the threat of a very short-warning attack on several critical strategic targets, including several national command and control centers that were started by the American INF forces.

    Thus if Russia deploys its intermediate-range missiles and aims them at Europe the prospect of American INF forces appearing in Europe becomes real. This may challenge the states of Central-Eastern Europe (CEE) with a dilemma: they could either support the deployment of US nuclear missiles in Europe, possibly on their soil, or face the risks caused by Russia’s aggression against the Baltic States. Public opinion and political establishments in CEE may then be deeply split into two camps – those of supporters and opponents of the new American missiles – just as a similar situation had sprung up in the 1980s, when mass anti-missile movements had arisen in Western Europe; and the Kremlin will no doubt capitalize on it. Yet if the USA and the European states refuse to deter the threat caused by the new Russian nuclear missiles Russia’s potential aggression against the three Baltic States may become real. Russia’s invasion of Georgia, its annexation of Crimea, its “hybrid” war in Donbas, its explicit threats to use nuclear weapons in case of the West’s involvement in the war in Ukraine and its regular war games and military drills near the borders of the three Baltic States prove that the Kremlin, if not deterred, is prone to realize the worst case scenarios.

    Conclusions and recommendations

    Development and testing of the new Russian intermediate range missiles GLCM P-500 and GLBM “Rubezh” is an element of Moscow’s strategy aimed at threatening European states with a nuclear attack or actual use of nuclear weapons with a view to disable NATO and deter it from supporting the three Baltic States and/or the countries of the north-western segment of the Black Sea region against probable Russian aggression.

    If Russia starts to deploy the missiles just mentioned, a deployment of new American intermediate range nuclear forces may become necessary, just as such a deployment was necessary in the 1980s. At the same time we may expect that this will engender hot political debates in the CEE countries.

    In view of this the CEE countries are to:

    • Develop, preferably within the NATO framework, a coherent strategy that would presume to send a clear and strong signal to Moscow saying that if it deploys its new intermediate-range missiles the USA and the European states will deploy the American intermediate-range systems;

    Reproduce the “double-track” policy, which led to the banning of intermediate-range nuclear missiles in the 1980s, if Moscow ignores this signal.

    "

    go Russia go!!!
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 1502
    Points : 1542
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Thu May 19, 2016 8:29 pm

    My educated guess is: suddenly Rubezh turns out to have lightweight version with intermediate range and Iskander around 1000km...

    what do you think?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16172
    Points : 16803
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  GarryB on Sun Aug 07, 2016 2:21 pm

    The INF treaty no longer makes any sense.

    During the cold war 500-5000km range missiles were massively destabilising as they could be fired at little to no warning and there was little defence against a 1,500km+ range missile with of course very short reaction times... which meant a reaction time of a minute or two practically made such decisions hair trigger decisions.

    Now ABM and air defence performance has greatly improved and an interception could be attempted before full nuclear retaliation is needed.

    As it stands the INF treaty only applies to Russia and the US, but the US has little to no need for intermediate range missiles... its home based missiles must be ICBMs to reach Russia anyway.

    For Russia the ability to make IRBMs would make its defence capability much cheaper.

    I would suspect the Russians will withdraw from the INF treaty before they withdraw from the new START treaty, though the latter might be threatened as a response to a europe based ABM system for the US.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1234
    Points : 1259
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  eehnie on Sun Aug 07, 2016 4:47 pm

    I do not think Russia will withdraw this treaty, that is obviously very Europe oriented.

    Actually the US can be more interested in the failure of this Treaty than Russia. This Treaty virtually protects almost all the European Russia from attacks with american Surface-Surface missiles from Europe and the Middle East. It almost means that the US only can attack the European Russia with Surface-Surface missiles from North America, Australia Japan and South Korea, and very difficult to do it, except from North America, without put the missiles flying over China or India.

    If the deployment of Surface-Air missiles of defensive nature make the tensions to raise, what would we see if american Surface-Surface attack missiles would be deployed. I'm sure the US wish it. Strategically this Treaty is still very interesting for Russia in the protection of the European Russia.

    It is necessary to note that Europe has not developed Surface-Surface missiles after the Treaty. This treaty is what almost kills the use of Surface-Surface missiles by the Nato.

    And also it is necessary to remember that European governments like Germany expressed support in 2009 to the withdrawal of the US nuclear weapons from Europe (all to be used from aerial platforms).
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16172
    Points : 16803
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  GarryB on Mon Aug 08, 2016 2:24 am

    I do not think Russia will withdraw this treaty, that is obviously very Europe oriented.

    In the 1980s it was very valuable to the Soviets because the short range missiles it banned were short range short flight time weapons that could deliver a nuclear warhead to western Russia in a few minutes which made decision making about retaliation a hair trigger event... very dangerous.

    Now such weapons can be shot down, so the hair trigger issue is removed... a small object moving from NATO territory to Russian airspace at mach 5-7 is not going to be a civilian airliner that has lost its way.


    Actually the US can be more interested in the failure of this Treaty than Russia. This Treaty virtually protects almost all the European Russia from attacks with american Surface-Surface missiles from Europe and the Middle East. It almost means that the US only can attack the European Russia with Surface-Surface missiles from North America, Australia Japan and South Korea, and very difficult to do it, except from North America, without put the missiles flying over China or India.

    The INF treaty only applies to the US and Russia so there is nothing to stop France or Germany from deploying cruise or ballistic missiles that would violate the INF treaty if they had signed it. In fact Poland is buying cruise missiles and the US it putting Standard missiles in two eastern european countries that already violates the INF treaty anyway.

    More importantly it only bans land based missiles so the thousands of land attack cruise missiles on US ships are not banned by the treaty... just like the new land attack missiles the Russian Navy are busy deploying are also not limited by the INF treaty.

    If the deployment of Surface-Air missiles of defensive nature make the tensions to raise, what would we see if american Surface-Surface attack missiles would be deployed. I'm sure the US wish it. Strategically this Treaty is still very interesting for Russia in the protection of the European Russia.

    Actually the removal of the treaty would allow the Russians to build much cheaper smaller missiles to deal with threats in the Middle East and Europe... threats they currently have to deal with using ICBMs or SLBMs.


    It is necessary to note that Europe has not developed Surface-Surface missiles after the Treaty. This treaty is what almost kills the use of Surface-Surface missiles by the Nato.

    Actually Britain, Italy and France has land attack cruise missiles in air launched versions and the French have a ship launched version.

    It really does not matter how it is launched... cruise missiles are a threat that the INF treaty does little about.

    And also it is necessary to remember that European governments like Germany expressed support in 2009 to the withdrawal of the US nuclear weapons from Europe (all to be used from aerial platforms).

    Who cares?

    The Soviets withdrew their troops from Eastern Europe and the US has now moved its troops into eastern europe. Being able to target those forces directly with small light weapons like Iskander with a range of 1,000-2,000km range would be useful and much cheaper than having to use ICBMs.

    It would also free up Russias strategic nuclear forces for strategic nuclear roles instead of tactical theatre roles.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1234
    Points : 1259
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  eehnie on Mon Aug 08, 2016 5:23 am

    GarryB wrote:
    eehnie wrote:And also it is necessary to remember that European governments like Germany expressed support in 2009 to the withdrawal of the US nuclear weapons from Europe (all to be used from aerial platforms).

    Who cares?

    With Germany being one of the only four European countries where US nuclear weapons are deployed (with Italy, Belgium and Netherlands), it seems pretty important to me.

    GarryB wrote:The INF treaty only applies to the US and Russia so there is nothing to stop France or Germany from deploying cruise or ballistic missiles that would violate the INF treaty if they had signed it. In fact Poland is buying cruise missiles and the US it putting Standard missiles in two eastern european countries that already violates the INF treaty anyway.

    More importantly it only bans land based missiles so the thousands of land attack cruise missiles on US ships are not banned by the treaty... just like the new land attack missiles the Russian Navy are busy deploying are also not limited by the INF treaty.

    Deploying the SS-26 Iskander missiles, that are not banned by the Treaty in Kaliningrad, Briansk, Crimea and in the borders of the Balitc countries, Findland and Georgia, Russia would have within 500Km:

    - All Estonia
    - All Latvia
    - All Lithuania
    - All Finland
    - Almost all Poland (including all the major cities)
    - Almost all Moldova (including all the major cities)
    - Almost all Ukraine except a portion in the South West of the country.
    - Almost all the Baltic Sea.
    - Almost all the Black Sea.
    - Important parts of Sweden (including Stockholm and Malmö)
    - The coast of Romania
    - Part of the coast of Bulgaria
    - The North of Norway
    - Small part of Denmark (including Copenhague)
    - Small part of NE Germany

    - All Georgia
    - Part of Turkey

    While at same time, Moskow and most of the European Russia would be out of range for potential US land weapons deployed in these countries in agreement with the Treaty.

    Some of these countries can buy some missile, but without nuclear warheads, because the US, UK or France will not sale or give them.

    Not a need to break the Treaty for Russia to deal with them.

    And I think it is necessary to remember again that while it was not banned by the Treaty, no-one of the European countries developed missiles (even of long range) to carry nuclear warheads. Like it is not in the interest of Europe to raise tensions with Russia, also it is not in the interest of Russia to raise tensions with Europe.

    To deal with soume problem with these countries, it would be far smarter since the point of Russia than to deploy the SS-26 Iskander in these areas than to break the Treaty.

    Other thing is to deal with the cruise missiles. For it Russia needs other things also allowed by this Treaty.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16172
    Points : 16803
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  GarryB on Tue Aug 09, 2016 6:27 am

    With Germany being one of the only four European countries where US nuclear weapons are deployed (with Italy, Belgium and Netherlands), it seems pretty important to me.

    Germany expressed support for... who cares?

    It is a decision made in Washington... Germans have no say.

    Their expressions or opinions are meaningless.


    Deploying the SS-26 Iskander missiles, that are not banned by the Treaty in Kaliningrad, Briansk, Crimea and in the borders of the Balitc countries, Findland and Georgia, Russia would have within 500Km:

    - All Estonia
    - All Latvia
    - All Lithuania
    - All Finland
    - Almost all Poland (including all the major cities)
    - Almost all Moldova (including all the major cities)
    - Almost all Ukraine except a portion in the South West of the country.
    - Almost all the Baltic Sea.
    - Almost all the Black Sea.
    - Important parts of Sweden (including Stockholm and Malmö)
    - The coast of Romania
    - Part of the coast of Bulgaria
    - The North of Norway
    - Small part of Denmark (including Copenhague)
    - Small part of NE Germany

    - All Georgia
    - Part of Turkey

    Again... nothing that Washington or Brussels or London give a crap about.

    For all the US cares you could fit dirty nukes to Iskanders and pummel those areas to your hearts content... they don't care.

    At worst Russia would be hitting some forward deployed US soldiers, but otherwise that is the role of the cannon fodder European countries...

    While at same time, Moskow and most of the European Russia would be out of range for potential US land weapons deployed in these countries in agreement with the Treaty.

    Land based weapons... is the US and most of NATO a land based force or do they have naval and air based components?

    Not a need to break the Treaty for Russia to deal with them.

    The Soviet Union signed the INF treaty because the threat of a mistake was very high and only having a few minutes between full nuclear retaliation or deciding it was a false reading made things very dangerous.

    Now it is not an issue and with aggressive NATO stationing of forces directed at Russia, Russia could use cheaper options for defence... 10,000 land based 4,000km range cruise missiles plus some ballistic missiles threatening all of Europe and the Middle East would be more valuable to Russia than the INF treaty that the US already violates anyway.

    Like it is not in the interest of Europe to raise tensions with Russia, also it is not in the interest of Russia to raise tensions with Europe.

    Military forces are being moved to Russias borders... tensions are already being raised by the US.

    To deal with soume problem with these countries, it would be far smarter since the point of Russia than to deploy the SS-26 Iskander in these areas than to break the Treaty.

    It would be easier and cheaper to introduce long range cruise missiles and longer range ballistic missiles than have to deploy Iskander all over the place... the former could already be deployed in standard shipping crates and pre deployed all over european Russia.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1234
    Points : 1259
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  eehnie on Wed Aug 10, 2016 9:14 am

    Sorry Garry, but you are not understanding the way most of the European countries see their own defense. While the US sees the NATO as an instrument to try to have more countries involved in the military support of their political goals, most of the European countries seen the NATO only as an instrument to assure their own defense. Europe follows the US but in a minimum degree in most of the cases.

    I'm sure that Russia is able to see how the US are trying to raise the tensions between Europe and Russia. And I'm sure that Russia understands how this Treaty affects not to the defense of the US in its own territory. To break this Treaty only would make that many European countries feel more endangered, raise their defense budgets, in most of the cases to buy American military equipment. Also would open the door to many more new nuclear weapons in Europe looking at Russia.

    Today Russia can hit every geographical point of Europe with land, sea and air based nuclear weapons. The inverse case is not a reality, and it shows the attitude of most of the European countries toward Russia. The alone effect for Russia about to break this Treaty would be to allow, to impulse, the inverse situation becoming real.

    Obviously to break this Treaty is the wrong direction for Russia, and I'm pretty sure Russia will not do it. In fact it is something that the US would like, and even can promote.

    Russia has some concrete concerns, but I'm sure they will find the right way to deal with them.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16172
    Points : 16803
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  GarryB on Wed Aug 10, 2016 11:35 am

    Sorry Garry, but you are not understanding the way most of the European countries see their own defense.

    I appreciate you are giving a European perspective on this, but I suggest that NATO is America.

    If the US didn't want NATO then it would not exist.

    Any number of European countries could decide to withdraw from NATO and it would make no difference at all, but if the US withdrew NATO would stop being what it is... an instrument to pressure the Soviet Union and now Russia.

    While the US sees the NATO as an instrument to try to have more countries involved in the military support of their political goals, most of the European countries seen the NATO only as an instrument to assure their own defense. Europe follows the US but in a minimum degree in most of the cases.

    I suspect the US sees NATO as a way of turning europeans against Russia to stop any integration of Russia with europe.

    It is not just Russia that threatens the hegemony of the US over the whole world... Europe with Russia or Europe with China or indeed Russia with China or just a lot of developed countries (ie BRICSA).... all have to be kept in the US camp or fighting each other.

    India or China or Russia or many other countries could become powerful... and serious rivals to the US... the best way to keep them down is to keep them fighting amongst themselves and preventing relations with the rest of the west.

    I'm sure that Russia is able to see how the US are trying to raise the tensions between Europe and Russia. And I'm sure that Russia understands how this Treaty affects not to the defense of the US in its own territory. To break this Treaty only would make that many European countries feel more endangered, raise their defense budgets, in most of the cases to buy American military equipment. Also would open the door to many more new nuclear weapons in Europe looking at Russia.

    Instead of having to destroy London or Brussels or Paris with a TOPOL ICBM being able to do it with a cheap land based 5,000km range cruise missile would make things much cheaper for Russia.

    Having to build a new integrated air defence network will cost NATO so much they will likely bankrupt themselves.

    Today Russia can hit every geographical point of Europe with land, sea and air based nuclear weapons. The inverse case is not a reality, and it shows the attitude of most of the European countries toward Russia. The alone effect for Russia about to break this Treaty would be to allow, to impulse, the inverse situation becoming real.

    Only by using the limited in number ICBMs can they hit any part of Europe with nuclear weapons from land based systems... Having IRBMs will overwhelm any ABM system the US introduces into europe and also having ground based cruise missiles will further expand their capability and ensure MAD.

    Obviously to break this Treaty is the wrong direction for Russia, and I'm pretty sure Russia will not do it. In fact it is something that the US would like, and even can promote.

    The US will not care really, except that there will be more ICBM warheads going to their shores in a future WWIII.

    I suspect they would prefer Putin tear up the INF treaty than the New START as anaemic and pathetic as the latter is.

    Russia has some concrete concerns, but I'm sure they will find the right way to deal with them.

    Russia hasn't got many effective buttons they can push to piss off the Americans, but New Start and the INF treaty are two of the easiest and most obvious.

    More importantly Russian technology has moved to the point where nuclear weapons on IRBMs in no longer critical to their effectiveness either.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1234
    Points : 1259
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  eehnie on Wed Aug 10, 2016 5:01 pm

    To talk about to destroy European capitals with cheap nuclear missiles really makes not sense. As complex as the missiles can be, the nuclear force is not expensive compared to the conventional force. Also the difference of costs between missiles of this nature is far more influenced by the technological level of the missiles than by the amount of fuel. The goal with nuclear missiles is not to make them cheap, is to make them as advanced as possible.

    The INF and the START III Treaties are of very different nature and their rupture would have very different consequences.

    While to cancel the INF Treaty makes not sense for Russia, because is a treaty very oriented to Europe, (Europe is clearly underdefended compared to Russia), to cancel the START III can be different. To have more nuclear warheads looking at the US can hurt more to them.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16172
    Points : 16803
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 12, 2016 1:08 pm

    To talk about to destroy European capitals with cheap nuclear missiles really makes not sense. As complex as the missiles can be, the nuclear force is not expensive compared to the conventional force. Also the difference of costs between missiles of this nature is far more influenced by the technological level of the missiles than by the amount of fuel. The goal with nuclear missiles is not to make them cheap, is to make them as advanced as possible.

    Actually the purpose is defensive... the idea is not to make thousands of IRBMs so they can be used to destroy europe or anyone else.

    The idea that any US ABM system in the US or Europe can only ever handle x number of threats at one time. Having thousands of targets for it means it will be overwhelmed and defeated so most of the missiles will get through.

    If the US or europe think their ABM system keeps them safe a WWIII become much more likely.

    If they know their ABM system wont stop even a fraction of the weapons directed at them then they wont be so aggressive and WWIII will become less likely because of the effect of MAD or the fear of MAD.

    The US ABM systems in the US and europe and plans for more in Asia make the new start treaty a joke and the easiest and cheapest way to defeat it is to have rather more warheads... both on each weapon and in terms of overall weapon numbers.

    In such a situation having IRBMs that can reach all of europe and no limit on the number of ICBMs and SLBMs is an advantage to Russia.

    talk of withdrawing from either treaty makes the US squeal... so it must be good for Russia. Smile


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1234
    Points : 1259
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  eehnie on Sat Aug 13, 2016 2:07 pm

    The military strategy of most, almost all, the European countries is defensive. Russia knows it well.

    The military strategy of the US is agressive, is offensive.

    Russia has it into account. And also Russia takes into account the different nature of the INF and START III Treaties.

    This is why, Russia has a different position on them:

    https://www.rt.com/politics/189904-russia-inf-treaty-ivanov/

    Russia won’t quit nuclear forces treaty unless it faces ‘serious threat’ – Kremlin

    Published time: 23 Sep, 2014 12:53

    Moscow won’t withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty unless it senses a “serious threat” to the country’s security, Kremlin chief of staff Sergey Ivanov has said.

    “Basically, in exceptional circumstances each of the sides can withdraw from the treaty,” Ivanov told the Rossiyskaya Gazeta newspaper. “I don’t see such exceptional circumstances so far. As a matter of fact we adhere to fulfilling international obligations. That is until we feel there’s a serious threat to the country’s security.”

    http://sputniknews.com/military/20160512/1039489776/russia-start-air-defense.html

    Russia Could Drop START Treaty Due to New Air Defense Systems in Europe

    13:49 12.05.2016

    Moscow could withdraw from the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty in response to new air defense systems being deployed in Eastern Europe, a senior Russian official said.

    MOSCOW (Sputnik) — Russia could exit the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) in response to the deployment of new air defense systems in Eastern Europe, the head of Russia's Arms Committee in the upper house of parliament said Thursday.

    “This is obviously an extreme measure and I hope this won’t go that far, but it’s no coincidence that the Russian Parliament in ratifying the new START included a clause that the deployment of air defense systems could be one of the reasons Russia leaves the agreement,” Viktor Ozerov said.

    On Thursday, the US Aegis Ashore air defense system is to be officially deployed in Romania, and on Friday the construction of a similar complex is to begin in Poland.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16172
    Points : 16803
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  GarryB on Sun Aug 14, 2016 8:44 am

    The military strategy of most, almost all, the European countries is defensive. Russia knows it well.

    Yeah... they are bombed Libya and Syria and invaded Afghanistan and Iraq to defend themselves... right...

    The Baltic states and Poland sending weapons to the Ukraine is pure defence of course... and US tanks in the Baltic states is all about peace and democracy...

    The military strategy of the US is agressive, is offensive.

    Offensive in both senses of the word... and by defacto becomes NATOs strategy... which Russia has to deal with. It does not matter if Greece or Italy or France means Russia no harm when the US drags them into a conflict with Russia they will have little choice or say in the matter.

    Russia has it into account. And also Russia takes into account the different nature of the INF and START III Treaties.

    Russia will continue to abide by the INF and new Start treaties but when it no longer suits Russias interests or gets in the way of things they will withdraw from those treaties when it suits.

    The US can continue to ignore Russias protests at its peril.

    Moscow won’t withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty unless it senses a “serious threat” to the country’s security, Kremlin chief of staff Sergey Ivanov has said.

    “Basically, in exceptional circumstances each of the sides can withdraw from the treaty,” Ivanov told the Rossiyskaya Gazeta newspaper. “I don’t see such exceptional circumstances so far. As a matter of fact we adhere to fulfilling international obligations. That is until we feel there’s a serious threat to the country’s security.”

    All Putin has to say is that the US controlled ABM system in Europe undermines Russias nuclear deterrent and to restore MAD they need to produce IRBMs meaning they need to withdraw from the INF treaty and also possibly the New Start treaty too.

    It could be an over night thing like the unilateral US withdrawal from the ABM treaty.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 2973
    Points : 3098
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  kvs on Sun Aug 14, 2016 2:54 pm

    Before quitting the INF and Start Russia needs to build up a stock pile of nuclear warheads like Uncle Scam.
    Apparently there is a technicality that allows storage of warheads as opposed to their immediate destruction after
    an ICBM is scrapped. The US has a vast pool of such warheads which is a serious concern for Russia.

    Sponsored content

    Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Jul 23, 2017 4:49 am