Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Share

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9451
    Points : 9943
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

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

    Post  George1 on Fri Aug 01, 2014 2:15 pm

    Russian Military Reaffirms Strict Adherence to INF Treaty

    MOSCOW, July 31 (RIA Novosti) – Chief of the Russian General Staff, Gen. Valery Gerasimov, said on Thursday that Russia is strictly implementing the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty with the United States.

    Gerasimov discussed the situation around the Soviet-era agreement in a phone call with US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey.

    “Gerasimov reaffirmed Russia’s adherence to strict implementation of the INF Treaty,” the Defense Ministry said in a statement.

    Washington has recently accused Moscow of violating its obligations under the treaty, but declined to provide any evidence.

    But now White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the United States has determined that Russia has violated provisions of the INF treaty.

    On Wednesday, the US administration released a report claiming that Russia “is in violation of its obligations under the INF Treaty not to possess, produce, or flight-test a ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM) with a range capability of 500 km to 5,500 km, or to possess or produce launchers of such missiles.”

    Josh Earnest said earlier US President Barack Obama conveyed his findings to Russian President Vladimir Putin in a letter, in addition to US previous attempts to raise the concern “with the Russians on a number of occasions through our standard diplomatic channels."

    The accusation prompted the Russian Foreign Ministry to dismiss the White House statement as “ungrounded,” citing the absence of evidence to support this claim. It also bashed Washington for its plan to deploy MK 41 VLS launching systems in Poland and Romania as part of the “phased adaptive approach” for missile defense.

    The INF is a 1987 agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union to eliminate the use of nuclear and conventional missiles with intermediate range, defined as 500 to 5,000 kilometers (310 to 3,100 miles).

    The pact has often been lauded as an example of successful arms control because it eliminated an entire class of nuclear weapons.

    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 6:57 pm

    Sounds like a good idea.

    Keep in mind that the Kh-10X also get a "push" off of the aircraft when they are launched (aircraft speed). That shouldn't reduce the Kh's range that much, but maybe it would travel 50 km less than the air-launched model.

    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 Sat Aug 02, 2014 12:38 am

    magnumcromagnon wrote:Are we really going to stake the future of mankind on wikipedia  (to know reliable thermonuclear stockpile data)?
    Fine here are some non-wiki links that say pretty much the same thing:
    http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datab19.asp
    http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/nucstock-6.html
    http://docs.nrdc.org/nuclear/files/nuc_11129601a_008.pdf
    http://www.nukewatch.org/media2/postData.php?id=2862
    And i don't believe stockpile number are classified the same way blackops operations are.

    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.
    I mostly agree, France and Britain should have indeed signed sought a treaty, but that treaty could not be the START treaty, because the biggest reason for the START treaty was to lessen the amount nuclear weapons, you cannot have nations with far less nukes then the treaty allowed (max), this would give these weaker nations permission not to decrease there stockpiles, but to increase them instead, which makes the entire point of the treaty (START) meaningless.  Neutral


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Sat Aug 02, 2014 11:36 am

    Keep in mind that the Kh-10X also get a "push" off of the aircraft when they are launched (aircraft speed). That shouldn't reduce the Kh's range that much, but maybe it would travel 50 km less than the air-launched model.

    When we are talking about such a long range cruise missile the solid rocket booster to get it airborne should equate to most of the energy given to a cruise missile launched in flight by the carrier aircraft.

    Very simply a slight increase in fuel tank size plus flying at medium altitude at a lower more efficient power setting should allow any loss of range from ground launch to be made up over air launched models.

    A larger more efficient wing giving better lift could easily raise performance too.

    In fact a much better idea would be to greatly enlarge the missile to say 4 tons with a heavy solid rocket booster for launch and a larger wing that is designed to be stealthy and fly at medium to high altitudes and carrying up to ten nuclear payloads that are ejected upwards in flight and fall by parachute onto the target while the missile flies a preprogrammed path all over europe...

    I mostly agree, France and Britain should have indeed signed sought a treaty, but that treaty could not be the START treaty, because the biggest reason for the START treaty was to lessen the amount nuclear weapons, you cannot have nations with far less nukes then the treaty allowed (max), this would give these weaker nations permission not to decrease there stockpiles, but to increase them instead, which makes the entire point of the treaty (START) meaningless.

    But you need to acknowledge that there are "sides" in Europe and it is basically NATO vs Russia so rather than allowing the UK and France to have the same number of strategic nuclear weapons as Russia or the US the weapons of Americas allies should be included with Americas weapon numbers.... otherwise it ends up like the farce that the CFE became where instead of balance as originally wanted it ended up with NATO having most of the Warsaw Pacts allocation of numbers with a resulting huge imbalance that became rather meaningless.


    _________________
    “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

    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 Sun Aug 03, 2014 4:16 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Keep in mind that the Kh-10X also get a "push" off of the aircraft when they are launched (aircraft speed). That shouldn't reduce the Kh's range that much, but maybe it would travel 50 km less than the air-launched model.

    When we are talking about such a long range cruise missile the solid rocket booster to get it airborne should equate to most of the energy given to a cruise missile launched in flight by the carrier aircraft.

    Very simply a slight increase in fuel tank size plus flying at medium altitude at a lower more efficient power setting should allow any loss of range from ground launch to be made up over air launched models.

    A larger more efficient wing giving better lift could easily raise performance too.

    In fact a much better idea would be to greatly enlarge the missile to say 4 tons with a heavy solid rocket booster for launch and a larger wing that is designed to be stealthy and fly at medium to high altitudes and carrying up to ten nuclear payloads that are ejected upwards in flight and fall by parachute onto the target while the missile flies a preprogrammed path all over europe...

    I mostly agree, France and Britain should have indeed signed sought a treaty, but that treaty could not be the START treaty, because the biggest reason for the START treaty was to lessen the amount nuclear weapons, you cannot have nations with far less nukes then the treaty allowed (max), this would give these weaker nations permission not to decrease there stockpiles, but to increase them instead, which makes the entire point of the treaty (START) meaningless.

    But you need to acknowledge that there are "sides" in Europe and it is basically NATO vs Russia so rather than allowing the UK and France to have the same number of strategic nuclear weapons as Russia or the US the weapons of Americas allies should be included with Americas weapon numbers.... otherwise it ends up like the farce that the CFE became where instead of balance as originally wanted it ended up with NATO having most of the Warsaw Pacts allocation of numbers with a resulting huge imbalance that became rather meaningless.

    True, I completely forgot about 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 Tue Aug 05, 2014 10:02 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    I mostly agree, France and Britain should have indeed signed sought a treaty, but that treaty could not be the START treaty, because the biggest reason for the START treaty was to lessen the amount nuclear weapons, you cannot have nations with far less nukes then the treaty allowed (max), this would give these weaker nations permission not to decrease there stockpiles, but to increase them instead, which makes the entire point of the treaty (START) meaningless.

    But you need to acknowledge that there are "sides" in Europe and it is basically NATO vs Russia so rather than allowing the UK and France to have the same number of strategic nuclear weapons as Russia or the US the weapons of Americas allies should be included with Americas weapon numbers.... otherwise it ends up like the farce that the CFE became where instead of balance as originally wanted it ended up with NATO having most of the Warsaw Pacts allocation of numbers with a resulting huge imbalance that became rather meaningless.
    Man, i am late, anyway:
    Wow, so that's how things went down, so basically at the time Russia not only had agreed too the CFE treaty, but also too START treaty which further handicapped its deterrence while NATO as a whole maintained somewhat of an edge.

    Is this what your telling me Garry??

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9451
    Points : 9943
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

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

    Post  George1 on Wed Aug 06, 2014 2:43 am

    Russia and the INF Treaty violation

    The 2014 Compliance Report released by the U.S. State Department last week officially declared that the United States believes that "the Russian Federation is in violation of its obligations under the INF Treaty." The report, however, provides no details about the specifics of the violation, leaving plenty of room for uncertainty. The story still have more questions than answers, so this post is an attempt to summarize what do we know about the alleged violation.

    The little information that is available suggests that it is not related to the RS-26 ballistic missile, even though it looks like it's an intermediate-range missile that was tested once at a range that would qualify it as an ICBM. The missile will therefore be counted against the New START limits, so an argument can be made that the future RS-26 deployment will be limited by arms control obligations (unless we note that the limit will disappear once New START expires in 2021).

    Instead, the current controversy seems to be centered at a "new ground-launched cruise missile." At least this is what the United States, according to a New York Times story, told its NATO allies at a briefing in January 2014.

    Most reports immediately focused on the ground-launched cruise missile that is part of the Iskander system that Russia has been developing for some time. Iskander is a somewhat unusual weapon system that includes ballistic missile as well as cruise missile launchers (these systems are known as Iskander-M and Iskander-K respectively). So, it appears the the cruise missile of Iskander-K, identified as R-500, is the one that is causing all the problems. At least this is what Jeffrey Lewis of Armscontrolwonk.com and Hand Kristensen of FAS said in their posts on Russia's INF (non-)compliance. It's became a popular theory that invites a fairly straightforward political solution -- confront Russia about the violation and don't let it go until it confesses and reverses the course, just as Reagan did with the Krasnoyarsk radar and the ABM Treaty in the 1980s. Unfortunately, things seem to be a bit more complicated and a simple strategy may not work.

    Let's start with the facts about R-500 and Iskander. The only reliable appearance made by a cruise missile named R-500 was the test on 29 May 2007. The missile was launched from the Kapustin Yar test site. MIlitaryrussia.ru has a nice collection of photos of the launch (which appear to be authentic - see a photo distributed by RIA Novosti). The photos are too grainy to provide any details, but we could tell that the missile is about 6 m in length and 0.5 m in diameter (The TEL truck, which is about 3 m high, provides a reference for the size of the missile):

    Since the missile is only 6 m long, it is not "very similar to the SS-N-21" as Hans Kristensen suggested in his post and the side-by-side comparison on the left is not entirely accurate. SS-N-21 SLCM and its ground-launched version, RK-55 Relief/SSC-X-4, are 8.09 m long. R-500 on the photo looks more like a different cruise missile, 3M14 Kalibr-M/Club-M, which is reported to be 6.2 m long (with the solid-propellant booster). The R-500 appears to have a slightly different TEL, but the launch containers of R-500 (top, shown as Iskander-K TEL in a 2009 photo) and Club-M (bottom) look very much alike, at least from the outside:

    Club-M is part of a family cruise missiles that could be deployed in a variety of ways (the Club-K could famously fit into a standard shipping container). The sea-launched version of the missile can be deployed in standard 533-mm torpedo tubes. It's a sort-range missile, though -- the 3M14 is reported to have a range of 300 km (the domestic version may have a range of 500 km).

    Since R-500 was touted as a new missile at the time of the May 2007 test, it would be reasonable to assume that it is somewhat different from 3M14, although it is not clear what's the difference is. One possibility is that it is integrated with the Iskander system that could include short-range ballistic missiles as well. It's tempting to suggest that R-500 has an extended range, but my guess is that it's unlikely - there is only so much one can do with a missile of a given size that has to carry a certain payload. Ted Postol and George Lewis at some point estimated that one can probably double the range in this case, but that would require significant advances in materials and propulsion. Given that 3M14 is a relatively new missile, it's somewhat unlikely that there is much room for improvement there. Also, if the big thing about R-500 is its integration with Iskander, then one would expect the ballistic and cruise missiles of the system to have a comparable range. On the other hand, older (but bigger and nuclear) RK-55 Relief/SSC-X-4 and SS-N-21 have a range of about 2500-3000 km, so one should not rule out that the R-500 has a range significantly over 500 km (although 2000 km is still unlikely). I'm very much open to suggestions and ideas on this point.

    [UPDATE: As I expected, the range issue is not that simple. At least one report from 2012 quoted the commander of the Caspian Flotilla as saying that the conventional ship-based Kalibr-NK has a range of 2600 km.]

    What's interesting is that the missile was eventually deployed with the Iskander-K system appears to be different from the R-500 tested in May 2007. At least it clearly has a different launch container:

    This is a photo taken in June 2013, when the industry delivered the first "complete set" of Iskander missiles to the military. It may not be obvious at a first glance, but the placement of outer rings on the Iskander-K container is different from the one on the 2009 version (see the photo above). This does not necessarily mean that the missile itself is different, but something has clearly changed since that 2007 launch. What is the same, though, is the size of the missile - the new container still appears to hold a missile that is about 6 m long - a longer container would not fit into the transporter bay.

    This one appears to be longer, but a closer look suggests that the difference between this container and the one from June 2013 is an attachment on top (the one with an orange cap). Since this thing would presumably still have to fit into the 7 meter-long transporter bay, this may be a temporary attachment that protects the container during the loading operation. Or maybe not - it's hard to tell from the photo.

    In fact, we don't really know if the cruise missile that allegedly violates the INF Treaty has anything to do with Iskander. Indeed, the little bits reported by the New York Times in January don't quite fit the Iskander theory. The NYT story said that "American officials believe Russia began conducting flight tests of the missile as early as 2008." Since the R-500 missile was tested in May 2007, it doesn't fit that description. It's possible, of course, that the missile in question is the modification of the missile that was eventually deployed with Iskander-K -- the different launch container would seem to point at this possibility. But the United States told NATO that in January 2014 the culprit GLCM had not been deployed yet -- this doesn't fit the fact that the first "complete set of Iskander" (with cruise missiles) was delivered to the military in June 2013. I wouldn't say that this information rules Iskander out, but in my view it strongly suggests that Iskander is the wrong place to look at.

    An alternative explanation, floated some time ago, is that the violation is largely a technicality having to do with the fact that the INF Treaty requires that any missile that is not a GLCM covered by the treaty should be test-launched from a "fixed land-based launcher which is used solely for test purposes and which is distinguishable from GLCM launchers." Strictly speaking, a test of a SLCM (with a range of more than 500 km) from a road-mobile launcher would mean that this SLCM would qualify as a GLCM and therefore will be a treaty violation. I have no direct evidence that would indicate that this explanation is correct, but it fits the facts much better than the Iskander/R-500 one.

    The evidence is very much circumstantial at this point, but the reluctance of the U.S. administration to charge Russia with a violation suggests that the case is not exactly clear-cut. It probably would not have taken the United States three years to go open with the case had Russia tested a 2000 km-range missile several times (even though, admittedly, determining the range of a cruise missile is a tricky business). Then, unless the case has something to do with the launcher, I don't see why the administration would include a specific reference to that INF Treaty clause in its 2014 Compliance Report.

    Also, even though Russia is hardly an exemplary law-abiding global citizen these days, I don't believe it would go ahead with a blatant and open violation of the INF Treaty conditions. Whatever complaints they may have about the treaty, the Russians are usually quite legalistic and would rather find a loophole than covertly break out of the treaty.

    I know that people would point out that the story of the ABM Treaty and Krasnoyarsk radar to say that the Soviet Union did just that in the past. However, that story is a bit more complicated than it may appear. Even though the radar was not exactly treaty-compliant, the Soviet Union was fully prepared to defend it and to work with the United States to clarify the ABM Treaty terms (like "located on the periphery" or "pointed outwards") to make it so. The Soviet Union had a good case in its claim that the U.S. PAVE PAWS early-warning radar in Fylingdales, U.K. was a technical violation as well (the treaty allowed an upgrade of existing radars, while PAVE PAWS was built next to the old radar, so it didn't really qualify as an upgrade). The hope in the Soviet defense ministry was that the United States would trade the violations, especially since the radar in Krasnoyarsk was clearly an early-warning rather than a treaty-prohibited battle-management radar. The politics of the moment worked against the Soviet Union, though, and the Reagan administration correctly judged that the Soviet Union was not in the position to press its case or to negotiate.

    This is not to say that the Obama administration was wrong in charging Russia with a violation, but its case may not be as impressive as the one that Reagan had in the 1980s -- it's one thing to point at a massive structure built in Siberia and quite another to debate fine points of interpretation of some obscure provisions of the treaty. My guess is that if it were not for the domestic pressure on Obama, he would much rather discuss this issue quietly.

    As for why Russia would do a test like that, I could certainly imagine a situation when it needed a launcher for one of its SLCMs and the mobile launcher seemed like a best available option - since the launch tubes are standard, it's not an implausible scenario. The alternative would be to build a new fixed one and for whatever reason that wasn't practical.

    As it often happens, the bottom line is that we don't have enough information to say anything definitive yet. I hope that as the story develops we will have more details. It well may be that the culprit is the Iskander cruise missile, but at this point my money is on a technicality.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Wed Aug 06, 2014 9:16 am

    Man, i am late, anyway:
    Wow, so that's how things went down, so basically at the time Russia not only had agreed too the CFE treaty, but also too START treaty which further handicapped its deterrence while NATO as a whole maintained somewhat of an edge.

    Is this what your telling me Garry??

    The initial agreement was intended to reduce the huge amount of hardware in the Soviet Union without it being transfered to allies in Europe... by setting limits they were able to get rid of a lot of old stuff and ensure limits of hardware in Europe on both sides.

    The main sticking points later on were deployments of Russian troops in disputed regions like Abkhazia and South Ossetia and of course in Nagarno Karabach.

    Even as countries changed from the Warsaw Pact to NATO and took their CFE levels with them and the whole concept of balance became ridiculous there were plenty of sticking points including limits put early on in areas of the Soviet Union. The so called flank areas of the north and south meant that the Ukraine and Russia were the only countries in the entire agreement that were restricted as to where they could deploy their forces in their north and south regions.

    the original intent was to prevent large amounts of material being moved from the west bases in former WP countries to the south or north of Russia or the Ukraine as it was seen as destabilising for those areas to now be confronted with large force numbers just on the other side of the border.

    Obviously during the conflicts of the 90s and 00s the Russians would have preferred to have been free to deploy any forces particularly to the south where and when they were needed... no other country in the agreement had limitiations within their borders on where they could or could not deploy their forces.

    Of course for a while when Russia had no money for its military having to scrap large amounts of material was a money saving measure and it also put limits on the production and deployment of NATO conventional forces so Russia found it useful if more and more absurd over time as the original concept of balance with 20K tanks each gradually changed as countries left the WP and joined NATO.

    The final straw was when Russia finally signed a new CFE treaty but pretty much no one else did in protest at Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia and Abkhazia and also NK.

    Russia was bound by the treaty and was getting criticism from the west which was not bound because it had not signed yet so Putin withdrew from the CFE treaty until everyone else had signed it... they didn't.

    Just as well Russia stuck to their guns and did not withdraw their forces from SO... who knows what might have happened if those forces were not present... 8 8 8.

    Once Russia has S-400 and S-500 and S-350 in full production then the INF treaty becomes less useful and more of a hinderance.

    As US ABM systems pop up everywhere the new START treaty also becomes less useful too.

    Russia and the INF Treaty violation

    Interesting article, but intrigued at the idea that the Krasnoyarsk radar... near the Soviet border with Mongolia violated the ABM treaty yet the US radars in the UK (fylingdales) and Greenland (Thule) did not violate the rules of the ABM treaty... The UK and Greenland are further from US borders than Krasnoyarsk is from the Soviet Mongolian border.


    _________________
    “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

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5630
    Points : 6283
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

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

    Post  Viktor on Mon Aug 11, 2014 12:19 am

    Nice article about the subject  thumbsup 

    Does Russia need the INF Treaty

    and the most interesting thing of all Very Happy

    Apparently, listening to such views, the Russian leadership does not hurry to make a decision to withdraw from the INF Treaty. Although, if you remember, last year, Russian President Vladimir Putin has already hinted the United States and NATO on the possibility of such a decision.


    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 Tue Aug 12, 2014 3:18 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Man, i am late, anyway:
    Wow, so that's how things went down, so basically at the time Russia not only had agreed too the CFE treaty, but also too START treaty which further handicapped its deterrence while NATO as a whole maintained somewhat of an edge.

    Is this what your telling me Garry??

    The initial agreement was intended to reduce the huge amount of hardware in the Soviet Union without it being transfered to allies in Europe... by setting limits they were able to get rid of a lot of old stuff and ensure limits of hardware in Europe on both sides.

    The main sticking points later on were deployments of Russian troops in disputed regions like Abkhazia and South Ossetia and of course in Nagarno Karabach.

    Even as countries changed from the Warsaw Pact to NATO and took their CFE levels with them and the whole concept of balance became ridiculous there were plenty of sticking points including limits put early on in areas of the Soviet Union. The so called flank areas of the north and south meant that the Ukraine and Russia were the only countries in the entire agreement that were restricted as to where they could deploy their forces in their north and south regions.

    the original intent was to prevent large amounts of material being moved from the west bases in former WP countries to the south or north of Russia or the Ukraine as it was seen as destabilising for those areas to now be confronted with large force numbers just on the other side of the border.

    Obviously during the conflicts of the 90s and 00s the Russians would have preferred to have been free to deploy any forces particularly to the south where and when they were needed... no other country in the agreement had limitiations within their borders on where they could or could not deploy their forces.

    Of course for a while when Russia had no money for its military having to scrap large amounts of material was a money saving measure and it also put limits on the production and deployment of NATO conventional forces so Russia found it useful if more and more absurd over time as the original concept of balance with 20K tanks each gradually changed as countries left the WP and joined NATO.

    The final straw was when Russia finally signed a new CFE treaty but pretty much no one else did in protest at Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia and Abkhazia and also NK.

    Russia was bound by the treaty and was getting criticism from the west which was not bound because it had not signed yet so Putin withdrew from the CFE treaty until everyone else had signed it... they didn't.

    Just as well Russia stuck to their guns and did not withdraw their forces from SO... who knows what might have happened if those forces were not present... 8 8 8.

    Once Russia has S-400 and S-500 and S-350 in full production then the INF treaty becomes less useful and more of a hinderance.

    As US ABM systems pop up everywhere the new START treaty also becomes less useful too.
    Damn, what a mess, and can you clarify what you mean about the START treaty becoming useless.

    Russia and the INF Treaty violation

    Interesting article, but intrigued at the idea that the Krasnoyarsk radar... near the Soviet border with Mongolia violated the ABM treaty yet the US radars in the UK (fylingdales) and Greenland (Thule) did not violate the rules of the ABM treaty... The UK and Greenland are further from US borders than Krasnoyarsk is from the Soviet Mongolian border.
    Western hypocrisy at it's best. Rolling Eyes

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Wed Aug 13, 2014 11:39 am

    START is not so much useless as a hinderance.

    The first agreement was SALT which set limitations on the number of missiles and platforms each side could deploy.... the L is for limitation.

    START is for reduction and is all about reducing strategic weapons to levels where they are still effective for defence but reduced in number to a bare minimum.

    The problem is that it made sense to limit the number of nuclear armed ICBMs and SLBMs and cruise missiles carried by strategic bomber when there was pretty much little the other side could do to stop such platforms. What was expected to happen was the ICBMs and SLBMs would arrive first and be unstoppable and destroy everything. Then a few hours later the cruise missiles would start arriving and destroy everything else.

    The ABM treaty of 1972 didn't ban ABM systems... it restricted their use to either protecting ICBM fields or the countries capital city. The Soviets built one to defend Moscow... the logic being that by stopping the first few nukes headed for Moscow the leadership will have more time to get commands out to mobilise and launch the Soviet response. The US built an ABM field near an ICBM field and closed it the day it was opened because ICBMs don't need protecting... if you detect an enemy attack just launching all your ICBMs will mean they will be in the air and on their way to the other country when the other countries missiles get to your ICBM fields.

    Who would sign an agreement limiting the size and power of small arms he is allowed when there is no agreement or restriction on armour?

    The US could put 20,000 nuclear tipped ABM missiles in Europe and Asia and the North Pole/Canada region and they would not be restricted by any agreement.

    More importantly unlike ICBM warheads having ABM missiles might delude the US into thinking they are safe from ICBM attack... whether it is true or not it is dangerous because MAD works and ABM systems undermine MAD.

    The US first said they would build only 10 ABMs in Poland. Now they say they will use one of their AEGIS class cruisers with huge numbers of missiles and mobility to allow them to be positioned all over the place... very destabilising.

    The fact that the Russians will have the naval version in the S-500 does not balance the situation.

    The best solution for Russia would be lots of warheads to overwhelm the system but START limits warheads and platforms...


    _________________
    “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

    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 Aug 21, 2014 7:38 pm

    Russia, US to Discuss Agreement on Mid, Short-Range Missiles in September - Source

    MOSCOW, August 21 (RIA Novosti) - Russian and US experts will meet in September to discuss a bilateral agreement on mid- and short-range missiles, a source in the Russian Foreign Ministry told RIA Novosti Thursday. “A meeting will be held on the expert level. This will be consultations on mutual concerns,” the source said in reference to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. Washington earlier accused Moscow of “breaching its INF obligations of not testing, producing or developing cruise missiles with a range between 500 and 5,500 kilometers.” The Russian Foreign Ministry said the accusations are unfounded and that the United States has not released any evidence of Russia breaching the agreement. The Russian authorities have expressed their own complaints about US compliance with the treaty in light of Washington’s plans to deploy Mark 41 Vertical Launching Systems to Poland and Romania. Last week, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel discussed the necessity of more meetings and open lines of communication on the treaty.The INF Treaty was signed by the United States and the Soviet Union in 1987 to prevent the use of nuclear and conventional missiles with an intermediate range, defined as 500 to 5,000 kilometers (310 to 3,100 miles).

    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 Sun Aug 24, 2014 7:11 pm

    Russia, US to Discuss Agreement on Mid, Short-Range Missiles in September - Source
    MOSCOW, August 21 (RIA Novosti) - Russian and US experts will meet in September to discuss a bilateral agreement on mid- and short-range missiles, a source in the Russian Foreign Ministry told RIA Novosti Thursday.

    “A meeting will be held on the expert level. This will be consultations on mutual concerns,” the source said in reference to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.

    Washington earlier accused Moscow of “breaching its INF obligations of not testing, producing or developing cruise missiles with a range between 500 and 5,500 kilometers.” The Russian Foreign Ministry said the accusations are unfounded and that the United States has not released any evidence of Russia breaching the agreement.

    The Russian authorities have expressed their own complaints about US compliance with the treaty in light of Washington’s plans to deploy Mark 41 Vertical Launching Systems to Poland and Romania.

    Last week, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel discussed the necessity of more meetings and open lines of communication on the treaty.

    The INF Treaty was signed by the United States and the Soviet Union in 1987 to prevent the use of nuclear and conventional missiles with an intermediate range, defined as 500 to 5,000 kilometers (310 to 3,100 miles).
    http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20140821/192212639/Russia-US-to-Discuss-Agreement-on-Mid-Short-Range-Missiles-in.html
    I can only hope that this meeting goes horribly, and Russia not only decides to leave the INF treaty, but also the MTCR, to further break NATOs military backbone. (one can dream, can't they?)

    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 Mon Aug 25, 2014 12:21 am

    I hope so too! MTCR was created just to keep US military "superiority" intact. INF is the same...

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Tue Aug 26, 2014 9:03 am

    The main purpose of the MTCR agreement is to stop the rest of the world from getting the long range precision weapons like cruise missiles and modern short and medium range ballistic missiles.

    There was a time when to hit a single factory located in another country you had to send hundreds of bombers over several weeks over and over and even then you might not even hit it directly.

    You could do it today easily with a tactical nuke, but obviously there are laws and systems in place to stop the proliferation of even small nuclear weapons, so there is no alternative but to use lots of aircraft in waves several times to ensure success.

    For the west that is fine because the countries they fight never have the capacity to mount multiple heavy raids on them because Washington is a long way from the locations of the fighting.

    Allow the widespread purchase of long range cruise missiles for instance and the US would have to start spending five or six times more than it already does for all those radars and air defence centres and heavy SAMs...

    the amusing thing is that the US breaks the MTCR every time it sells things like a new Trident to the UK, or the various long range weapons it exports.


    _________________
    “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

    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 Tue Aug 26, 2014 1:22 pm

    GarryB wrote:The main purpose of the MTCR agreement is to stop the rest of the world from getting the long range precision weapons like cruise missiles and modern short and medium range ballistic missiles.

    There was a time when to hit a single factory located in another country you had to send hundreds of bombers over several weeks over and over and even then you might not even hit it directly.

    You could do it today easily with a tactical nuke, but obviously there are laws and systems in place to stop the proliferation of even small nuclear weapons, so there is no alternative but to use lots of aircraft in waves several times to ensure success.

    For the west that is fine because the countries they fight never have the capacity to mount multiple heavy raids on them because Washington is a long way from the locations of the fighting.

    Allow the widespread purchase of long range cruise missiles for instance and the US would have to start spending five or six times more than it already does for all those radars and air defence centres and heavy SAMs...

    the amusing thing is that the US breaks the MTCR every time it sells things like a new Trident to the UK, or the various long range weapons it exports.
    Garry, any idea what China's story is, there not under the MCTR so why aren't they exporting long range cruise/ballistic missiles?? dunno

    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 Aug 27, 2014 12:22 am

    Your last point is the reason Russia should leave it... Both sides really don't have much to gain from it, and maybe they lose from it!

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Wed Aug 27, 2014 12:15 pm

    Garry, any idea what China's story is, there not under the MCTR so why aren't they exporting long range cruise/ballistic missiles??

    Because they don't have GLONASS or GPS to make long range weapons precise enough, and they don't have ballistic missiles accurate enough to give up that tactical nuclear warhead to be able to sell them in large numbers.


    _________________
    “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

    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 Tue Sep 09, 2014 6:03 am

    Russia, U.S. to discuss INF Treaty concerns in Moscow on Sept 11

    Source: Russia Beyond the Headlines - (http://rbth.com/news/2014/09/08/russia_us_to_discuss_inf_treaty_concerns_in_moscow_on_sept_11_39602.html)

    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 Tue Sep 09, 2014 7:32 am

    Mike E wrote:Russia, U.S. to discuss INF Treaty concerns in Moscow on Sept 11

    Source: Russia Beyond the Headlines - (http://rbth.com/news/2014/09/08/russia_us_to_discuss_inf_treaty_concerns_in_moscow_on_sept_11_39602.html)

    With NATO amassing on Russia's borders, now's the time to leave the INF treaty.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5391
    Points : 5640
    Join date : 2012-10-24

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

    Post  Werewolf on Tue Sep 09, 2014 4:20 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    Mike E wrote:Russia, U.S. to discuss INF Treaty concerns in Moscow on Sept 11

    Source: Russia Beyond the Headlines - (http://rbth.com/news/2014/09/08/russia_us_to_discuss_inf_treaty_concerns_in_moscow_on_sept_11_39602.html)

    With NATO amassing on Russia's borders, now's the time to leave the INF treaty.

    It is time to send nuclear missiles to central and south America since russia is already surrounded with NATO dogs willingly die for a terrorist country and the US has nukes right infront of Russia in Germany and builds ABM shields.

    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 Tue Sep 09, 2014 4:47 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    Mike E wrote:Russia, U.S. to discuss INF Treaty concerns in Moscow on Sept 11

    Source: Russia Beyond the Headlines - (http://rbth.com/news/2014/09/08/russia_us_to_discuss_inf_treaty_concerns_in_moscow_on_sept_11_39602.html)

    With NATO amassing on Russia's borders, now's the time to leave the INF treaty.

    You bet, and they would have a good explanation for doing so...

    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 Tue Sep 09, 2014 6:15 pm

    Mike E wrote:
    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    Mike E wrote:Russia, U.S. to discuss INF Treaty concerns in Moscow on Sept 11

    Source: Russia Beyond the Headlines - (http://rbth.com/news/2014/09/08/russia_us_to_discuss_inf_treaty_concerns_in_moscow_on_sept_11_39602.html)

    With NATO amassing on Russia's borders, now's the time to leave the INF treaty.

    You bet, and they would have a good explanation for doing so...

    The great thing about Iskander-M is that it has lots of unused internal space. leaving lots of room for modernization potential for larger warheads and or greater amounts of propellant.

    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 Tue Sep 09, 2014 8:33 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    Mike E wrote:
    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    Mike E wrote:Russia, U.S. to discuss INF Treaty concerns in Moscow on Sept 11

    Source: Russia Beyond the Headlines - (http://rbth.com/news/2014/09/08/russia_us_to_discuss_inf_treaty_concerns_in_moscow_on_sept_11_39602.html)

    With NATO amassing on Russia's borders, now's the time to leave the INF treaty.

    You bet, and they would have a good explanation for doing so...

    The great thing about Iskander-M is that it has lots of unused internal space. leaving lots of room for modernization potential for larger warheads and or greater amounts of propellant.
    More propellant would be the better option... More range, or they could have it burn faster and more powerfully, while achieving the same range. Either way the current model's range is unknown (domestic model), so it might not need an upgrade for all I care!

    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 Mon Sep 22, 2014 5:31 am

    Kremlin sees no reasons to withdraw from INF Treaty

    But it is possible in exceptional circumstances, Sergei Ivanov, the chief of the Kremlin administration, said

    MOSCOW, September 21. /ITAR-TASS/. The Kremlin sees no reasons to unilaterally quit the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, but it is possible in exceptional circumstances, Sergei Ivanov, the chief of the Kremlin administration, said on Sunday.
    “In principle, each of the parties may withdraw from the treaty in exceptional circumstances,” he said in an interview with the Rossiiskaya Gazeta daily. “So far, and I would like to stress it, I see no such circumstance.”
    “As a matter of fact, we adherents of the principle of implementing international liabilities,” he said. “Unless we see that our security interests are seriously threatened.”
    He said that prior to 2003 Russia and the United States had had regular consultations on the INF Treaty but later they had been stopped at the initiative of the U.S. side. “Now, the INF Treaty is in the focus of discussion, including in a regime of accusations and counteraccusation. The American side is loudly but groundlessly accusing us of actual violation of the treaty, but we have still more claims to the Americans,” Ivanov said, citing among them target missiles the United States used during tests of its missile system, offensive operations drones and the ongoing implementation of missile defence plans providing for the deployment of MK-41 launch platforms in Europe.
    Drawback of this treaty had become evident, he said, adding that the key one was its bilateral character. “It means that any other country of the world is free to do whatever it wants as concerns this type of weapons,” Ivanov noted. As an example, he cited such countries as North Korea, Israel, Pakistan, India, Iran, which did have such type of weapons and which were located near Russia. “By the way, over the time of the Bush administration, the American leaders were fully aware of that; different geographical location requires different approaches to defence,” he noted.
    He said that the first round of new Russia-U.S. consultations had been held and the sides had told each other what they thought about it. “Let us wait for the continuation,” he added.
     
    - I don't know what to make of this... He said that they have no interest in withdrawing, just to say that they *might* withdraw at a later time... (Depending on the situation, of course...)

    Sponsored content

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

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 2:07 am


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 10, 2016 2:07 am