Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Share

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jul 30, 2014 11:51 am

    The INF treaty includes all ground launched missiles including ballistic and cruise missiles.

    the irony is that the US can base missiles in Europe while the Russians have no place to base intermediate range missiles that would be strategic if located close to its targets.


    _________________
    “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

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

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

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Wed Jul 30, 2014 2:16 pm

    GarryB wrote:The INF treaty includes all ground launched missiles including ballistic and cruise missiles.

    the irony is that the US can base missiles in Europe while the Russians have no place to base intermediate range missiles that would be strategic if located close to its targets.

    It's a testament to how much of imbecile Mikhail Gorbachev was...


    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

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

    Post  Mike E on Wed Jul 30, 2014 8:29 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    Mike E wrote:It's funny that the U.S. has been heckling Russia over the R-500 over the INF, because the U.S. has missiles that violate the same treaty...

    Yeah they're called cruise missiles, which the sanctimonious hypocrites in the U.S. State Dept./Pentagon has thousands of Tomahawks which have the range of 2600km. The R-500 is a cruise missile system, not a ballistic missile system but the jackasses in Congress are incapable of telling the difference!
    Not only that, but the U.S. has a "target ballistic missile" with a range of around 800 km. It is said that it could be used in combat, with real warheads. Russia made a fuss about a couple years ago, but nothing happened. (I totally forgot the name of this missile, so I'll try and find it.)  attack   Very Happy

    I found it, it is called the "Hera" missile with a range of 1,100 km.

    I hate to link Wiki, but it is one of the only sites with info on the missile. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hera_(rocket)

    AlfaT8
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1149
    Points : 1162
    Join date : 2013-02-02

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

    Post  AlfaT8 on Wed Jul 30, 2014 10:08 pm

    Russia: US claims on nuclear missiles treaty unfounded, we have questions too
    Moscow has slammed Washington’s allegations that Russia breached the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, calling the claims unsubstantiated. It added Russia also has complaints about the US’s fulfillment of their obligations under the treaty.

    US claims that Russia violated the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) are “just as unsubstantiated as everything that has recently been heard by Moscow coming from Washington, including other issues. There is absolutely no evidence provided to support [these allegations],” Russia’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement Wednesday.
    http://rt.com/news/176812-russia-missile-treaty-response/
    I'm hoping this treaty burns, fingers crossed.  Wink 

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

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

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Wed Jul 30, 2014 10:17 pm

    AlfaT8 wrote:
    Russia: US claims on nuclear missiles treaty unfounded, we have questions too
    Moscow has slammed Washington’s allegations that Russia breached the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, calling the claims unsubstantiated. It added Russia also has complaints about the US’s fulfillment of their obligations under the treaty.

    US claims that Russia violated the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) are “just as unsubstantiated as everything that has recently been heard by Moscow coming from Washington, including other issues. There is absolutely no evidence provided to support [these allegations],” Russia’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement Wednesday.
    http://rt.com/news/176812-russia-missile-treaty-response/
    I'm hoping this treaty burns, fingers crossed.  Wink 

    Me too... Twisted Evil 

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

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

    Post  Mike E on Wed Jul 30, 2014 10:55 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:
    Russia: US claims on nuclear missiles treaty unfounded, we have questions too
    Moscow has slammed Washington’s allegations that Russia breached the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, calling the claims unsubstantiated. It added Russia also has complaints about the US’s fulfillment of their obligations under the treaty.

    US claims that Russia violated the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) are “just as unsubstantiated as everything that has recently been heard by Moscow coming from Washington, including other issues. There is absolutely no evidence provided to support [these allegations],” Russia’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement Wednesday.
    http://rt.com/news/176812-russia-missile-treaty-response/
    I'm hoping this treaty burns, fingers crossed.  Wink 

    Me too... Twisted Evil 

    I think the U.S. is using this to get out of the treaty themselves, it would be a win-win situation.

    If this treaty does "burn", do you think Russia will reveal the "true range" of the Iskander? I sure hope so!

    AlfaT8
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1149
    Points : 1162
    Join date : 2013-02-02

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

    Post  AlfaT8 on Wed Jul 30, 2014 10:59 pm

    Wow, looks like i made a total ass of myself to Garry, i have only just found out that INF treaty wasn't the treaty that barred export of missiles and such that go over 300km, my bad  pwnd 
    The MTCR Treaty seeks to limit the risks of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by controlling exports of goods and technologies that could make a contribution to delivery systems (other than manned aircraft) for such weapons. In this context, the Regime places particular focus on rockets and unmanned aerial vehicles capable of delivering a payload of at least 500 kg to a range of at least 300 km and on equipment, software, and technology for such systems.
    Either way hoping both the INF and MTCR Treaties burn.  Wink

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

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

    Post  Mike E on Thu Jul 31, 2014 12:11 am

    AlfaT8 wrote:Wow, looks like i made a total ass of myself to Garry, i have only just found out that INF treaty wasn't the treaty that barred export of missiles and such that go over 300km, my bad  pwnd 
    The MTCR Treaty seeks to limit the risks of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by controlling exports of goods and technologies that could make a contribution to delivery systems (other than manned aircraft) for such weapons. In this context, the Regime places particular focus on rockets and unmanned aerial vehicles capable of delivering a payload of at least 500 kg to a range of at least 300 km and on equipment, software, and technology for such systems.
    Either way hoping both the INF and MTCR Treaties burn.  Wink

    The more the merrier!  Very Happy

    Treaties were one thing that lead to WW2, so in my opinion, they are worthless.

    AlfaT8
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1149
    Points : 1162
    Join date : 2013-02-02

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

    Post  AlfaT8 on Thu Jul 31, 2014 12:41 am

    Mike E wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:Wow, looks like i made a total ass of myself to Garry, i have only just found out that INF treaty wasn't the treaty that barred export of missiles and such that go over 300km, my bad  pwnd 
    The MTCR Treaty seeks to limit the risks of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by controlling exports of goods and technologies that could make a contribution to delivery systems (other than manned aircraft) for such weapons. In this context, the Regime places particular focus on rockets and unmanned aerial vehicles capable of delivering a payload of at least 500 kg to a range of at least 300 km and on equipment, software, and technology for such systems.
    Either way hoping both the INF and MTCR Treaties burn.  Wink

    The more the merrier!  Very Happy

    Treaties were one thing that lead to WW2, so in my opinion, they are worthless.
    I don't know Mike, to me the START treaty still holds some signifacance, but if the U.S keep pushing there luck like this then all treaties go out the fricking window, there's no point in restraining yourself when the enemy is at the flipping gates!!  Rolling Eyes 

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

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

    Post  Mike E on Thu Jul 31, 2014 12:45 am

    True, but you could say there was a reason U.S. never nuked the USSR (or vice-versa) in the 50's and 60's and it ain't treaties! MAD may not be a "dreamy solution", but is has worked so far. Besides, both parties already have enough ICBM's to decimate the other.

    AlfaT8
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1149
    Points : 1162
    Join date : 2013-02-02

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

    Post  AlfaT8 on Thu Jul 31, 2014 1:49 am

    Mike E wrote:True, but you could say there was a reason U.S. never nuked the USSR (or vice-versa) in the 50's and 60's and it ain't treaties! MAD may not be a "dreamy solution", but is has worked so far. Besides, both parties already have enough ICBM's to decimate the other.
    Yes, i agree MAD was the real reason why both sides didn't/couldn't kill each other, but the START Treaty did help cutting down both parties nuclear arsenal while maintaining MAD and also bringing greater control of both parties arsenal, by this i mean the chances of nukes getting lost or missing becomes less likely, i still recall from some cold war documentary about the U.S losing numerous nukes in accidents and then being called broken arrows.

    In short, less nukes mean less Broken Arrows.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

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

    Post  Mike E on Thu Jul 31, 2014 3:19 am

    You have a point...

    I think rather than having treaties, they should have ICBM "management" agreements. (A mutual agreement in which they guarantee safe transportation etc.) They could be overseen by the U.N, or something like that.

    AlfaT8
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1149
    Points : 1162
    Join date : 2013-02-02

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

    Post  AlfaT8 on Thu Jul 31, 2014 4:29 am

    Mike E wrote:You have a point...

    I think rather than having treaties, they should have ICBM "management" agreements. (A mutual agreement in which they guarantee safe transportation etc.) They could be overseen by the U.N, or something like that.
    I think you just described a transportation treaty, not sure. scratch 

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    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 Jul 31, 2014 4:41 am

    AlfaT8 wrote:
    Mike E wrote:True, but you could say there was a reason U.S. never nuked the USSR (or vice-versa) in the 50's and 60's and it ain't treaties! MAD may not be a "dreamy solution", but is has worked so far. Besides, both parties already have enough ICBM's to decimate the other.
    Yes, i agree MAD was the real reason why both sides didn't/couldn't kill each other, but the START Treaty did help cutting down both parties nuclear arsenal while maintaining MAD and also bringing greater control of both parties arsenal, by this i mean the chances of nukes getting lost or missing becomes less likely, i still recall from some cold war documentary about the U.S losing numerous nukes in accidents and then being called broken arrows.

    In short, less nukes mean less Broken Arrows.

    START does not maintain MAD whatsoever, it actually does the opposite! Unless NATO members like Britain and France signs on to START when they have nukes pointing at Russia, till otherwise it's a fools errand for Russia to be apart of it!

    AlfaT8
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1149
    Points : 1162
    Join date : 2013-02-02

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

    Post  AlfaT8 on Thu Jul 31, 2014 6:19 am

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:
    Mike E wrote:True, but you could say there was a reason U.S. never nuked the USSR (or vice-versa) in the 50's and 60's and it ain't treaties! MAD may not be a "dreamy solution", but is has worked so far. Besides, both parties already have enough ICBM's to decimate the other.
    Yes, i agree MAD was the real reason why both sides didn't/couldn't kill each other, but the START Treaty did help cutting down both parties nuclear arsenal while maintaining MAD and also bringing greater control of both parties arsenal, by this i mean the chances of nukes getting lost or missing becomes less likely, i still recall from some cold war documentary about the U.S losing numerous nukes in accidents and then being called broken arrows.

    In short, less nukes mean less Broken Arrows.

    START does not maintain MAD whatsoever, it actually does the opposite! Unless NATO members like Britain and France signs on to START when they have nukes pointing at Russia, till otherwise it's a fools errand for Russia to be apart of it!
    START was more a way to moderate both parties nuclear arsenal, while also maintaining there ability to destroy each other (what 6000 nukes ain't enough) and if i recall at the time the plan was too gradually reduce the arsenal of both parties with new START Treaties till there are non left (at least that was how it was presented too the public).

    As for Britain and France, according to Wiki there peak stockpiles was around 600 nukes respectively, so i don't think they exactly qualify for START.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_the_United_Kingdom
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

    And even less so now.

    http://www.ploughshares.org/world-nuclear-stockpile-report

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    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 Jul 31, 2014 6:51 am

    Are we really going to stake the future of mankind on wikipedia (to know reliable thermonuclear stockpile data)? Russia needs to demand France and Britain to join START, let's see some transparency and some legal binding we have to actually take everything in to consideration and not just rely on some talking-points from pro-NATO media.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

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

    Post  Werewolf on Thu Jul 31, 2014 7:15 am

    magnumcromagnon wrote:Are we really going to stake the future of mankind on wikipedia  (to know reliable thermonuclear stockpile data)? Russia needs to demand France and Britain to join START, let's see some transparency and some legal binding we have to actually take everything in to consideration and not just rely on some talking-points from pro-NATO media.

    Enforce Israel to hand over their missiles since they are all illegal or arm other countries with nukes to make a balance.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

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

    Post  Mike E on Thu Jul 31, 2014 7:42 am

    AlfaT8 wrote:
    Mike E wrote:You have a point...

    I think rather than having treaties, they should have ICBM "management" agreements. (A mutual agreement in which they guarantee safe transportation etc.) They could be overseen by the U.N, or something like that.
    I think you just described a transportation treaty, not sure. scratch 
    I meant that organizations should have watch over the missiles to prevent terrorists taking them etc. That way they can still "have the numbers" and be safe at the same time.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

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

    Post  Mike E on Thu Jul 31, 2014 7:43 am

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:
    Mike E wrote:True, but you could say there was a reason U.S. never nuked the USSR (or vice-versa) in the 50's and 60's and it ain't treaties! MAD may not be a "dreamy solution", but is has worked so far. Besides, both parties already have enough ICBM's to decimate the other.
    Yes, i agree MAD was the real reason why both sides didn't/couldn't kill each other, but the START Treaty did help cutting down both parties nuclear arsenal while maintaining MAD and also bringing greater control of both parties arsenal, by this i mean the chances of nukes getting lost or missing becomes less likely, i still recall from some cold war documentary about the U.S losing numerous nukes in accidents and then being called broken arrows.

    In short, less nukes mean less Broken Arrows.

    START does not maintain MAD whatsoever, it actually does the opposite! Unless NATO members like Britain and France signs on to START when they have nukes pointing at Russia, till otherwise it's a fools errand for Russia to be apart of it!
    Not to say I disagree with that, but I don't agree. In my opinion, countries should be able to have as many nukes and ABM systems as they like.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jul 31, 2014 11:37 am

    It's a testament to how much of imbecile Mikhail Gorbachev was...

    Not at all... in the 1980s most IRBMs were armed with nukes and the short flight time would be measured in minutes and seconds.

    This meant that Soviet retaliation capabilities had to be able to act in a few minutes otherwise an IRBM might destroy Moscow before a launch decision had been made leaving all of the Soviet weapons unlaunched as all the wests weapons were sent to the Soviet Union.

    Such a situation with such a hair trigger for a full retaliation was very dangerous so removing all such weapons made the world much safer.

    the Soviets had S-300P and S-300V which would have shot down the shorter range stuff but longer range missiles would have been a problem.

    These days however there are two important factors.

    First the accuracy of Russian guidance means conventional warheads can be as effective as nuclear warheads, and second Russian SAMs are entering service that can shoot down most IRBMs anyway and without the ABM treaty limiting radar location and direction Russia can set up a national ABM defence system of its own that will likely be quite effective and become more so over time.

    If this treaty does "burn", do you think Russia will reveal the "true range" of the Iskander? I sure hope so!

    Without the INF treaty the range of Iskander can be greatly increased very rapidly and with little effort.

    Either way hoping both the INF and MTCR Treaties burn.

    The MTCR treaty only effects exported weapons... and even then the US has violated this on several occasions selling long range weapons to allies.

    I don't know Mike, to me the START treaty still holds some signifacance, but if the U.S keep pushing there luck like this then all treaties go out the fricking window, there's no point in restraining yourself when the enemy is at the flipping gates!!

    START is useful, but if the US continues with its global ABM system then START becomes limiting for Russia... so...

    In short, less nukes mean less Broken Arrows.

    ICBMs are not related to broken arrows...

    And new IRBMs would not need nuclear warheads as guidance accuracy and performance means conventional warheads are sufficient.

    In my opinion, countries should be able to have as many nukes and ABM systems as they like.

    The problem with ABM systems is that some countries might think they make them safe... they do not.

    Having lots of ICBMs makes the world safer because of MAD. Having lots of ABMs makes the world less safe because the country with lots of ABM systems might think MAD no longer applies because it has ABMs and protect itself. Whether that is true or not it makes full scale nuclear war more likely rather than less likely... which is a bad thing IMHO.


    _________________
    “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

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9432
    Points : 9924
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

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

    Post  George1 on Thu Jul 31, 2014 2:57 pm

    Russia urges NATO chief to take care of making INF Treaty multipartite

    MOSCOW, July 31. /ITAR-TASS/. Russian Foreign Ministry urged NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen to take care of making the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty multipartite which Russia called for repeatedly.

    “Moscow has studied NATO general secretary’s statements on the issue of the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles with some surprise,” the diplomatic agency said.

    “We hope that the general secretary will not challenge this treaty was concluded in December 1987 between the Soviet Union and the United States, but not between the Soviet Union and NATO or Russia and NATO,” the ministry said.

    “If the essence of concerns voiced in the statement lies in the situation over observing provisions of this document, he should address not to us, but to the North Atlantic Alliance member state which is a signatory nation to the treaty,” the Foreign Ministry said.

    US statements that Russia breaks INF Treaty unfounded - FM
    “If the NATO general secretary would like to make a serious contribution in making the INF Treaty regime stronger, we would recommend to him to take care of making the agreement multipartite which Russia called for repeatedly,” the ministry added.

    On July 30, the NATO chief said “Russia should work constructively to resolve this critical Treaty issue and preserve the viability of the INF Treaty by returning to full compliance in a verifiable manner. Continuing to uphold the Treaty strengthens the security of all, including Russia.”

    Backing US accusations against Russia made at a media briefing of ambassadors from 28 NATO states Rasmussen recalled that the INF Treaty obligations envisage “not to possess, produce, or flight-test a ground-launched cruise missile with a range capability of 500 to 5,500 kilometers.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

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

    Post  Mike E on Thu Jul 31, 2014 8:21 pm

    Knew it! It just makes me wonder how long the range actually is. My guess would be around 700 km, but that may be over-optimistic.  russia

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5629
    Points : 6282
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

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

    Post  Viktor on Thu Jul 31, 2014 9:35 pm

    Mike E wrote:Knew it! It just makes me wonder how long the range actually is. My guess would be around 700 km, but that may be over-optimistic.  russia


    I have heard about 900-2500km range speculation but we can´t be sure.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

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

    Post  Mike E on Fri Aug 01, 2014 2:15 am

    That would be nice, to say the very least. I have a quote (that I made up) that fits here; "hope for the best, but expect the worst". Very Happy 

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 01, 2014 11:59 am

    The air launched Kh-101 and Kh-102 have flight ranges of 5,500km... it would not be that difficult to design a ground launched missile able to be launched from the Iskander TEL vehicle that is in the 2-3 ton range with a heavy rocket booster to get it airborne that has a flight range of 5,800km or more which would make it not an IRBM and therefore not limited by the INF 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

    Sponsored content

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

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 1:04 pm


      Current date/time is Tue Dec 06, 2016 1:04 pm