Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    nomadski
    nomadski

    Posts : 1001
    Points : 1007
    Join date : 2017-01-02

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 19 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  nomadski on Fri Feb 01, 2019 8:50 pm

    There are three possibilities . First that two opponets are equally  weak . In this case none will much damage the other in war . Second that they are equally powerful . In this case they will equally suffer , without a victor . And last that one side is stronger than other  . In this case one destroys the other . This last case makes it necessary to deter the more powerful side with asymmetric weapons . Nukes are perhaps the best of this type , yet made .

    That is why in some cases , I am pro- nuclear . Better to stop war , than to allow genocide . Nukes by nature are also self limiting.  That is , the greater the likelihood of use then proportionaly  , the greater likelihood of their non use . Until a point is reached , when they are at most and temporarily both used and not used .

    This means something like launch of tactical nukes by both sides . Followed by termination of launch  . Or limited exchange , followed by extinctions  of their immediate use for a longer time . Like dipping your toe in very hot water  . You don't want to do it again .

    This all depends on the level of hostility  . But the weaker side must always be ready to arm some tactical weapons with nukes . Or disarm them and put them on a shelf to collect dust .
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 5513
    Points : 5505
    Join date : 2015-11-07

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 19 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  Isos on Fri Feb 01, 2019 9:22 pm

    So mods can close this thread and open "New 3000km Iskander II" thread ? Very Happy
    avatar
    ATLASCUB

    Posts : 642
    Points : 652
    Join date : 2017-02-13

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 19 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  ATLASCUB on Fri Feb 01, 2019 9:57 pm

    Pulling out of the INF treaty is currently significantly advantageous for the U.S. Not only have they erased Russia's buffer zone (Eastern Europe) but they also have a huge network of allies and bases worldwide. With China rising, the Eastern part of Russia will also get stuffed and there is plenty of land in Japan and Australia to park them.

    Anyone that believes otherwise is smoking a big pipe full of kush.

    Yes Russia can respond but it's not in a comfortable position at all - to say the least. Which is why they've tried to do the upmost to save it. The U.S is simply consolidating its gains after the cold war. That the Soviets/Russians were stupid beyond belief, criminally so, is not America's fault.

    START is next.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 9121
    Points : 9203
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 19 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  PapaDragon on Fri Feb 01, 2019 11:06 pm

    ATLASCUB wrote:Pulling out of the INF treaty is currently significantly advantageous for the U.S. Not only have they erased Russia's buffer zone (Eastern Europe) but they also have a huge network of allies and bases worldwide. With China rising, the Eastern part of Russia will also get stuffed and there is plenty of land in Japan and Australia to park them............


    Billions of dollars saved, tactical and strategic advantage wasted by Gorbachov restored, expensive and time consuming naval ships replaced by cheap trucks, range of coastal defenses increased from 300km to 4000km, and entire European population on nuclear speed-dial...

    But sure, it's advantageous for US. Razz

    Nothing changed for US, they still have the ships only this time Russia gets to play too without wasting money on ships. To say nothing about massive increase in conventional warfare capabilities that will ensue.


    Read up on topic before making dumb claims:

    http://www.unz.com/article/the-sand-castle-inf-treaty/



    ATLASCUB wrote:.....START is next.

    Hopefully.

    And it's about damn time that someone finally breaks that nuclear taboo BS because humans have forgotten what is in play here so they are doing 1914 mentality all over again. Time for a reminder.

    McNamara may have been a psycho but that doesn't mean he was stupid.

    At least in Cold Was we had regular nuclear tests to slap sense into moronic population.

    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 1957
    Points : 1959
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 19 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  Big_Gazza on Sat Feb 02, 2019 12:13 am

    ATLASCUB wrote: and there is plenty of land in Japan and Australia to park them.

    Wut? You think us aussies want Murican nukes planted on our shores?  Or the Japs?  Suspect

    Aussie politicians may be the most useless servile bunch of pussy-whipped faggot cucks, but surely even they aren't going to allow us to be used as vassal state in Washingtons puerile pissing contest with Beijing?

    NOT going to happen... angry


    Which is why they've tried to do the upmost to save it

    Russian efforts in this regard are likely just kabuki. They are more interested in showing the Europeans, whose security is threatened by more unilateral Murican action, that the fault lies with Washington. Let the Muricans act like stupid retards and play fast n loose with other peoples security, as it will only expand the divide forming between Europe and Seppostan.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 24945
    Points : 25489
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 19 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  GarryB on Sat Feb 02, 2019 3:38 am

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 19 Donald11

    At least he is consistent...

    Pulling out of the INF treaty is currently significantly advantageous for the U.S. Not only have they erased Russia's buffer zone (Eastern Europe) but they also have a huge network of allies and bases worldwide. With China rising, the Eastern part of Russia will also get stuffed and there is plenty of land in Japan and Australia to park them.

    Actually I see it quite differently... it wasn't the west that wanted to sign the INF treaty for fun... the Americans didn't care about Soviet IRBMs because they could not reach the US territory... it was protests in the west about cruise missiles and how destabilising they were that brought them to the table... it was the risk that one side had at best 3-4 minutes at any time of the day any time of the year to decide was this a radar glitch or an attack that required a full response... such a hair trigger made things rather dangerous, so it made sense to sign a treaty to eliminate that type of weapon.

    Today the Europeans are going to see this as the US not giving a damn about them and I rather doubt any will accept US missiles on their territory when it is made clear that this will make them a target for Russian missiles...

    They will realise they have no organised integrated defences from IRBMs... and to create such a system will cost trillions of US dollars for a Europe wide system that is really only necessary because the US is pulling out of this agreement.

    That is why the US is dead set on blaming Russia so they can claim it is not their fault... they want to keep europe safe, but those damn cheating Russians have forced their hand... again.

    I seriously doubt any IRBMs located in Australia or Japan will bother Russia as they will be most likely sold as being aimed at China... which is clearly an issue for China... they might decide that instead of being a minor nuclear power with a few hundred IRBMs that they now need full ICBMs and thousands of them... they are not bound by any START agreements remember...

    Yes Russia can respond but it's not in a comfortable position at all - to say the least. Which is why they've tried to do the upmost to save it. The U.S is simply consolidating its gains after the cold war. That the Soviets/Russians were stupid beyond belief, criminally so, is not America's fault.

    START is next.

    I don't understand what you are trying to say... do you think the INF treaty stops NATO from moving to Russian borders... do you think it puts US troops in the Ukraine for "training" or Georgia for "training"... do you think NATO interceptor aircraft over the Black Sea or Baltic states will suddenly begin with the end of the INF treaty?

    This is just more of the same, but ironically, it actually frees the hands of the Russian military to develop a whole range of weapons that will be very useful... hypersonic semi ballistic IRBMs are a hell of a lot easier and cheaper to make than hypersonic penetrator strike aircraft... the US has just made Europe and Japan much easier and cheaper for Russia to obliterate if the US crosses that line and starts WWIII.

    Russia wanted to keep it... just like they wanted to keep the CFE agreement... any agreement that limits western weapons makes sense for Russia, but it is hardly the end of the world for Russia if the west rips them up... the west has never signed a treaty that didn't suit it... that penalised it in some way... aircraft and ship/sub launched weapons were not included in the INF treaty at the insistence of the US... the Soviets were happy to include all such weapons... which would have meant no air or ship launched long range cruise missiles today... but the US refused... lucky Russia...


    In 5 years time when Russia has a range of deployed IRBMs pointed at the west perhaps they will recognise their error...

    Billions of dollars saved, tactical and strategic advantage wasted by Gorbachov restored, expensive and time consuming naval ships replaced by cheap trucks, range of coastal defenses increased from 300km to 4000km, and entire European population on nuclear speed-dial...

    Agree, but would add that those ships can now be used for more useful purposes (from the navies perspective) than targeting ground based civilian targets in europe... they can focus on sinking NATO ships and subs instead of city busting.

    Hopefully.

    And it's about damn time that someone finally breaks that nuclear taboo BS because humans have forgotten what is in play here so they are doing 1914 mentality all over again. Time for a reminder.

    The Russians are good at ICBMs and nuke warheads... mass producing large numbers of them is much cheaper than trying to build up a conventional force big enough to take on the west.

    They have plenty of space they can exploit... actually I would like to see Russia move east literally... perhaps build a few cities to the east further away from the west further into the Russian hinterland...

    I remember a science magazine when I was a kid that showed houses that looked like spaceships that could be moved if needed, but they were the sort of thing that is being explored today with self sufficiency in terms of heating a cooling and solar power and all that sort of stuff... even human waste and food waste was processed and used for fertiliser and energy... what I am trying to say is that most people wont want to live in an old shack with primitive amenities... developing new housing structures that could be delivered to a place to allow low maintenance comfortable living even in extreme climates would be the sort of thing that you could sell... high tech luxury ones for the rich and simple easy to produce but still comfortable for the poor... and something in the middle for small outpost regions.

    They already have something like that for their military bases in the arctic...

    Give them radiation protection and they will be good to go... they could use something similar on Mars or the Moon.
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 2891
    Points : 2891
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 44
    Location : Merkelland

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 19 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  Hole on Sat Feb 02, 2019 11:57 am

    Isos wrote:So mods can close this thread and open "New 3000km Iskander II" thread ? Very Happy

    After that comes "Iskander III - eye of the Putin"! Very Happy
    avatar
    ult

    Posts : 764
    Points : 804
    Join date : 2015-02-20

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 19 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  ult on Sat Feb 02, 2019 12:12 pm

    ATLASCUB wrote:Pulling out of the INF treaty is currently significantly advantageous for the U.S. Not only have they erased Russia's buffer zone (Eastern Europe) but they also have a huge network of allies and bases worldwide. With China rising, the Eastern part of Russia will also get stuffed and there is plenty of land in Japan and Australia to park them.

    Anyone that believes otherwise is smoking a big pipe full of kush.

    Yes Russia can respond but it's not in a comfortable position at all - to say the least. Which is why they've tried to do the upmost to save it. The U.S is simply consolidating its gains after the cold war. That the Soviets/Russians were stupid beyond belief, criminally so, is not America's fault.

    START is next.

    You are the one who is smoking. The treaty did nothing against the sea and air launched missiles. Where US had a huge numerical advantage to begin with. Now with it gone Russia can quickly close the gap. Putin just announced the ground launched Tsirkon missiles. Laughing
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1432
    Points : 1426
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 19 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  LMFS on Sat Feb 02, 2019 2:02 pm

    So it is done. US officially ditches the treaty from today. Putin just announced that Russia considers themselves freed from their obligations towards INF and will renew development of the weapons prohibited by it, as a symmetrical measure to the US withdrawal. He ordered their ministers not to initiate talks with US regarding the salvaging of the treaty.
    dino00
    dino00

    Posts : 1332
    Points : 1373
    Join date : 2012-10-12
    Age : 32
    Location : portugal

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 19 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  dino00 on Sat Feb 02, 2019 2:13 pm

    Russia starts work on a medium-range hypersonic rocket

    Russian President Vladimir Putin instructed Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu to report on proposals on this issue.

    MOSCOW, February 2. / TASS /. Russian President Vladimir Putin announced the start of work on the creation of new weapons in the Russian Federation due to similar actions by the United States, in particular, the development of a medium-range hypersonic land-based missile will be started

    “I agree with the proposals of the Ministry of Defense about the start of work on the landing of the Caliber and the opening of a new direction - the creation of a medium-range hypersonic land-based rocket,” Putin said.

    The President instructed the Defense Minister to report on proposals due to the fact that the United States announced the start of scientific and design work on new weapons due to withdrawal from the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Short-Range Missiles (INF).

    As noted by Shoigu, despite the vagueness of the wording, it is obvious that in addition to research work on the production of medium-range and shorter-range missiles, Russia has been witnessing a real violation of the positions of the treaty for several years. "Simply put, the United States has begun to manufacture these rockets and the production of these rockets," he stated.

    The Minister announced two proposals for countermeasures in Russia: “The first. This is the opening of research and development in the coming months to re-link or use land-based launchers of the sea-based Caliber missiles. The second. This discovery is also research, turning into experimental design, on the creation of ground-based complexes of hypersonic medium-range and shorter-range ballistic missiles. "

    When asked by Shoigu to support these plans, the head of state replied: "I agree."

    https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/6071479

    Great!!
    Doubts: Will the calibr launcher be the one with 4 missile?
    I have doubts in the translation in the last sentence is medium-range hypersonic missiles and short range ballistic missiles? Is bigger Zirkon or bigger iskander, or both?
    If some Russian can help...
    dino00
    dino00

    Posts : 1332
    Points : 1373
    Join date : 2012-10-12
    Age : 32
    Location : portugal

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 19 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  dino00 on Sat Feb 02, 2019 3:24 pm

    This is from the Kremlin website

    Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu:

    In this connection, we have the following proposals regarding retaliatory measures.

    First, we propose launching in the coming months research and development, as well as development and engineering with a view to creating land-based modifications of the sea-based Kalibr launching systems.

    Second, we propose launching research and development, followed by development and engineering to create land-based launchers for hypersonic intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles.


    Vladimir Putin:

    I agree with the Defence Ministry’s proposals to create a land-based version of the Kalibr launchers and work on a new project to develop a land-based hypersonic intermediate-range missile.

    http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/59763

    ...So... No ballistic in the actual translation and intermediate-range instead of medium-range...
    Giant Zirkon if they mean real hypersonic, iskander 2 or rubzeh if its ballistic


    Last edited by dino00 on Sat Feb 02, 2019 3:34 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : More information)
    avatar
    ATLASCUB

    Posts : 642
    Points : 652
    Join date : 2017-02-13

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 19 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  ATLASCUB on Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:11 pm

    Didn't realize I ruffled so many feathers until I rechecked this thread.

    I guess some posters are willfully trying to be ignorant (if not dumb, stupid etc) to the fact that having IRBMs closely parked near Russia and pointed towards Russia increases the potential practicality of a decapitating nuclear first strike. Much more so than an IBM shield ever could (although they're meant to work together of course). In the same token, since Russia lacks strategic allies near or around the United States, it's incapable of exerting the same pressure and maintaining strategic parity in this regard by mirroring a response.

    That concept is unbreakable given the current geopolitical configuration of today - in which Russia is significantly worse off than the Soviet Union of the time (decimated abroad and in Europe down to Belorussia - not saying much really). For the U.S, parking the missiles in Europe won't be an issue. Plenty of countries within NATO to choose from - one or several will crack and host them voluntarily... whatever the reservations of some EU members (simple divide and conquer). The future placement of these missiles also constraints Russia's expansion, and ability to maneuver in the European theater in a short lived military confrontation - in essence, delimiting Russia's options substantially (aka freezing/taming and in effect containing). If we think Putin's a patient man....the patience of current and future Russian leaders will become infinite and not by choice. Given Russia's inability to prevent color revolution coups, or successfully create them and go on the offensive; this again places Russia at a significant disadvantage in shaping political currents in Europe and the world. Now to top it all off, the U.S has a significant advantage in its ability to acquire and field these weapons number$ wi$e (there i$ quality in number$), on top of the strategic areas it can place them, in effect, encircling and choking Russia. The Missile Shield was part of the strategy, now comes the offensive part (IRBMs), then comes the de-limiting factor (START pullout).

    Since China has become a serious target and a strategic threat to the U.S, militarizing Eastern Asia is a no brainer for them. China has been riding Russia's cocktails for years. The U.S has already started with the "ABM Shield" in Korea/Japan and eventually IRBMs will follow - pulling Australia is not in doubt - not in the least. They're already in line. I don't know what y'all are smoking - Australia ain't sovereign.

    The concept has not changed no matter how many fairy tales you all wish to suddenly digest to believe that things have "changed" because of this hyper/duper/super missile we got here... or this shiny object over there (as if they can't be mirrored)?  lol1 Like I said when Putin unveiled his new toys... he only bought time and he better make the most of it (and I have serious reservations about his performance in that regard).

    The only thing that can negate the strategic advantages the U.S has over its two major adversaries today is an economic collapse. So do pray for that. That's a much better tale to digest - an impending economic collapse. You can even ground it on several facts....but mostly as always -- the decadence and corruption of political life and the interdiction of economics and politics today in the U.S. Other than that, they're very well off. Or you can pray they negotiate some treaties down the line but we're way way off that...... unless other powers make an offer the hegemon can't refuse - unconditional surrender perhaps? At the very least, when and if they come back to the table, it will be for a simple reason only - to sign a treaty that furthers their interests.

    A last edit: We'll be needing a new term for the "IRBMs" of the future, since they won't stick necessarily to a ballistic flight path.... should be outdated tech in the not so far future.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1432
    Points : 1426
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 19 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  LMFS on Sat Feb 02, 2019 6:33 pm

    @ATLASCUB

    Of course the calculation of US is exactly that parking their missiles close to Russia counters their advantages in missile technology, the new strategic weapons able to overcome current and prospective US ABM means and the appearance of the S-500 (this is specially relevant in my opinion since it puts the strategic balance at risk), this has been commented before and may be the only realistic way US has to avoid a nuclear checkmate of the same type they tried to inflict on Russia by ditching ABM treaty. But in doing so they are losing a deal that was highly beneficial to them, because blocked Russia from using their advantage in nuclear and missile technology and huge land mass to deploy M/IRBM, benefiting US as a naval and air power. So Russia will be freed from having to boost their conventional forces and will substitute that with shorter range, cheaper missiles that will BTW put all US assets and vassals in Eurasia (ME and Far East included) under threat. So they may not achieve what they want in the end, but it is nevertheless understandable them trying
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 2891
    Points : 2891
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 44
    Location : Merkelland

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 19 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  Hole on Sat Feb 02, 2019 6:51 pm

    You are all overestimating the capabilities of western leaders to think ahead longer then a few month. This shenanigans with the INF treaty is just another sceme to funnel money from the taxpayer to the oligarchs = develop and produce overprized missiles in addition to shitty planes and other stuff.

    - like LMFS said, all bases in Europe, Asia and the middle east will be in range of russian missile systems. No need to send planes or ships.

    - Russia doesn´t need "friends" close to Amiland to target it, they already do it with Topol-M, Yars and Bulava, Kh-555 and Kh-101 missiles, soon to be joined by Sarmat, Poseidon, Burevestnik…

    - scrapping of the INF treaty frees russian ICBM´s and bombers that were supposed to hit targets in Europe (GB and France) and the bases with nuclear weapons in Germany, Belgium and so on. All this can soon be done with land-based missiles.

    - the only missile Amiland can deploy in the next years around its vassal states in Europe and Asia is the Tomahawk, which is easy prey for the russian air defence systems. On the other hand the western countries don´t have a ADMS capable of shooting down russian cruise missiles.

    - Amiland won´t be capable of fielding a lot of ballistic or other missiles. They spend 100+ Billion on ABM and got a system in Alaska with 40 silos (not all deployed) which doesn´t work, a handful batteries of the THAAD system (with less missiles then one S-400 regiment) and 6 or so ships capable of using ABM missiles.
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 14689
    Points : 15188
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 19 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  George1 on Sat Feb 02, 2019 7:54 pm

    Russia suspends participation in INF Treaty, says Putin

    More:
    http://tass.com/politics/1042971
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1432
    Points : 1426
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 19 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  LMFS on Sat Feb 02, 2019 8:28 pm

    The Russian military has released satellite images of Raytheon Corporation’s plant, where preparations for the production of missiles prohibited under the INF deal have been ongoing for two past years, according to the Russian Defence Ministry.

    https://sputniknews.com/us/201902021072066039-satellite-images-inf/
    avatar
    ATLASCUB

    Posts : 642
    Points : 652
    Join date : 2017-02-13

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 19 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  ATLASCUB on Sat Feb 02, 2019 9:11 pm

    U.S pulling out of the INF treaty is not a response to Russia's new toys. That's first and foremost a wrong assumption. Pulling out of INF treaty is simply the natural evolution of events after pulling out of the ABM treaty.

    Second, the assumption that Russia has some significant advantage over the U.S due to missile technology is false. If you look at it in a practical sense it's not true. The advantage Russia has in development time of hypersonic glide vehicles and rockets will sooner or later evaporate (hence why I've said Russia just bought time). One way or another the U.S will catch up...stealing secrets, brain drain, etc... they have the programs in the works, focusing the money and brain power into it as we speak (and this didn't just get off yesterday (the process of modernizing the U.S nuclear triad and building the next generation of offensive nuclear weapons)). The Soviets had a much more significant headstart in the space race and eventually they caught up. The areas we're talking about today are not even that research intensive, nor is the gap anywhere near as big. They'll be there sooner than you think - and when they get there, they'll be able to use that tech much more effectively and with significantly more impact than the Russians - not to mention the procurement numbers (it's a numbers game - always is).

    So the idea that the only threat Russia will see from the U.S will be a "few" "old" nuclear-tipped Tomahawks is not a serious assessment. The U.S may deploy some (their latest) as a stop-gap but that won't stay for long (and it will not be a few). Moreover, the idea that Russia's air defences and the S-500 (600 or 1000) will be able to stop or significantly reduce the destruction of a decapitating nuclear first strike (wherein a saturation attack will be in order on all of Russia's defenses at a shortened noticed and at a new shortened range) is a big fat joke. We can joke about U.S developments here and say their ABMs and air defenses at most will be able to deal with 5% of incoming fire (without notice) but Russia's won't be significantly better - both will be a colander. These defensive systems however are much more effective the less targets they need to engage, and the more so with anticipation (in defense of a second strike retaliation of the enemy), which is why a decapitating first strike is so crucial and so dangerous.

    Another fairy tale is the idea that due to Russia's great landmass these deals limit Russia greatly. I might have given some weight to this claim when over half of Europe and most of Central Asia was part of the Soviet Union. Today? Almost all of Europe is within NATO and the U.S hasn't lost a single ally in Asia (of worth). The U.S commands not only a peaceful region as its backyard (Latin America) but also has Eastern Asia and Europe as its beach heads against its strategic rivals. In effect it has the ability to encircle Russia within its borders, without even having to use U.S mainland to host a massive ICBM force (which they could if they wanted to). There is really no advantage at all today for Russia to speak off in my pov. That's an outdated cliche - of many espoused here on the daily.

    While we have fun discussing all of this we haven't discussed the economics. The assumptions have been running wild but little time is paid to the fact that Russia can't outspend the U.S in procurement numbers if START goes kaput (and that's on pace). All these arguments being made assume that Russia can keep parity in the procurement of this offensive arsenal. That's just fantasy and a big fat wrench on the fairy tales (even accounting for the wasteful and corrupt spending of today's American MIC) but lets continue for a while......

    Europe and their Asian partners are all expendable patches of land in such a scenario. So no one cares about what Russia can do to those countries. It's all about what Russia can do to the U.S and to a lesser extent the Five-eyes family of nations. The Americans will fight the Russians to the last European/Asian.

    As for our German friend. I'm not overestimating anyone's ability. When you say Western leaders you sound too ambiguous in your claim. The Euros don't matter - they're followers. The Japs don't matter. What matters is what the strategist in the U.S and to a lesser extent their helping brothers the Britts scheme. Their track record, for the most part, over the last 500 years has been, in essence, world class. That's why they are empires back2back...first the Britts now the Americans. The Russians and the Chinese have been embarrassments and abject failures. It would be foolish to underestimate them, like the many fools that have perished doing so and are now under their jock. You don't run Empires by being stupid - usually you run them because you outsmart others (aka they're the stupid ones). I do join the fun once in a while because they've become endemically corrupt but that's about it.

    The subsequent comment says little (it's a vice versa comment - except worse). For Russia's missile systems will not only be within reach of American ICBMS, SLBMS, and U.S nuclear bombers but they'll also be targeted by a significant missile force right at their borders (which will eventually be hypersonic, non-ballistic, and in overwhelming numbers for Russia's defenses to be capable of handling).

    In a vacuum, given today's geopolitical realities, Russia is at a significant disadvantage vis-a-vis the United States when its comes to the balance of power. If we run scenarios of all else being equal, the U.S will always come out on top.

    What Russia has is 1: hope, 2: room for maneuver while peace exist, 3: a chance to outsmart its opponent if it plays its cards right. Stumble, and they'll probably fall.... and who knows what comes out of it.
    dino00
    dino00

    Posts : 1332
    Points : 1373
    Join date : 2012-10-12
    Age : 32
    Location : portugal

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 19 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  dino00 on Sat Feb 02, 2019 10:09 pm

    There isnt one type of weapon(That Russia believes is relevant) that the US is ahead.
    Until this moment the Americans are behind in missile technology (ballistic and Cruise missiles), hypersonic, air defense, missile defense, artillery, armour, laser...etc.
    But by wishfull thinking they will get ahead of Russia! how exactly? Why That didnt hapenned years ago? They were spending 10 Times more than Russia, and not getting not even close the same high performance high parameters weapons. Why?

    Until the effort to overcome Russian Defense might are on the shoulders of Lockeed Martin, Raytheon and the pentagon no worries.
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 2891
    Points : 2891
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 44
    Location : Merkelland

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 19 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  Hole on Sat Feb 02, 2019 10:41 pm

    As the last arms race started, Amiland was 50% of the worlds economy because all its competitors were destroyed in the war. Half ot the world owed them money. Today there economy is in shatters. Small industrial capacity and they owe the world 250 Trill. This idiots think they can turn back time 30 or even 50 years with them braking international treaties but it won´t work. And ther masters (oligarchs) know that, that´s why they are so desperate in starting new wars and spending more and more taxpayer money on useless shit that didn´t even work against small third world countries. After the next financial crisis (which is near) the oligarchs will take "their" money and leave Amiland and settle elsewhere. Maybe in Australia.

    This encirclement of Russia works realy great. If there weren´t this gapping holes in it, like the whole Arctic, China, Korea, India, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, even Saudi-Arabia is working with Russia, Turkey, Greece, Italy, Hungary, Germany is buying more gas than ever. even Amiland is doing more business with Russia today than it did 10 years ago.

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 24945
    Points : 25489
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 19 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  GarryB on Sun Feb 03, 2019 8:48 am

    He ordered their ministers not to initiate talks with US regarding the salvaging of the treaty.

    But Arrow said the Russians were begging the Americans to keep this treaty... are you suggesting he was wrong?

    I have doubts in the translation in the last sentence is medium-range hypersonic missiles and short range ballistic missiles? Is bigger Zirkon or bigger iskander, or both?
    If some Russian can help...

    The problem is that the treaty actually covers intermediate and short range missiles... short range missiles are 0km to 1,000km range ballistic or cruise missiles, while medium/intermediate are 1,000km to 5,500km range missiles... missiles with ranges beyond 5,500km are considered intercontinental.

    High flying scramjet Zircon could easily have a range that fits inside the 500-5,500km range limit... its range could be 600-900km or so with a high altitude flight profile relying on speed and non ballistic trajectory over flying low and stealthy, so a land launched model could easily violate the INF treaty if it is in place... now it is not an issue...

    Land based Zircon and extended range Iskanders... ballistic and cruise missile models can go ahead...

    ...So... No ballistic in the actual translation and intermediate-range instead of medium-range...
    Giant Zirkon if they mean real hypersonic, iskander 2 or rubzeh if its ballistic

    The US is building ABM systems in Europe, which Russia opposes... it would make little sense for Russia to then build up a force that justifies having an ABM defence system...

    Iskander is not ballistic... it manouvers in flight and its flight speed make interception difficult.

    I guess some posters are willfully trying to be ignorant (if not dumb, stupid etc) to the fact that having IRBMs closely parked near Russia and pointed towards Russia increases the potential practicality of a decapitating nuclear first strike

    The US could use air launched and sea launched missiles to the same effect right now and a decapitating first strike has been their goal for the last 3-5 decades so it is not really a new development.

    Much more so than an IBM shield ever could (although they're meant to work together of course). In the same token, since Russia lacks strategic allies near or around the United States, it's incapable of exerting the same pressure and maintaining strategic parity in this regard by mirroring a response.

    The Ukraine could start making IRBMs right now without violating the INF treaty... so could France, Germany, and the UK, so any protection or safety offered by the INF treaty was purely based on trust... and in this environment I think Russia has less reason to trust than the US does.

    That concept is unbreakable given the current geopolitical configuration of today - in which Russia is significantly worse off than the Soviet Union of the time (decimated abroad and in Europe down to Belorussia - not saying much really).

    The US is clearly determined to end the INF treaty, much like it was determined to end the ABM treaty.... there is very little Russia could do to stop it... let alone stop it from being their fault... Rolling Eyes

    For the U.S, parking the missiles in Europe won't be an issue. Plenty of countries within NATO to choose from - one or several will crack and host them voluntarily... whatever the reservations of some EU members (simple divide and conquer).

    I would suggest even the most cowardly worm in europe would object to being made a nuclear missile target of the Russians, but either way Russia is better protected from the weapons the INF treaty bans than Europe ever could be...

    Even with the INF treaty in place, the US could base B-1Bs with air launched cruise missiles with any flight range they need to hit anything in Western Russia and the INF treaty would simply prevent Russia from using cheaper land based systems to target their airfields with similar weapons.

    The future placement of these missiles also constraints Russia's expansion, and ability to maneuver in the European theater in a short lived military confrontation - in essence, delimiting Russia's options substantially (aka freezing/taming and in effect containing).

    If you are saying that it limits Russias ability to invade and conquer European state... who cares... Europe is a threat to Russia... come a conflict Russia does not benefit from occupation... obliteration is quicker and easier and cheaper to achieve... and those in Europe that keep beating the drums of war claim it is because of the threat of Russian invasion and occupation of Europe... putting that little myth to an end would be a good way to stop those drums.

    If we think Putin's a patient man....the patience of current and future Russian leaders will become infinite and not by choice. Given Russia's inability to prevent color revolution coups, or successfully create them and go on the offensive; this again places Russia at a significant disadvantage in shaping political currents in Europe and the world.

    I don't understand your point... the INF treaty was in force during all the coloured revolutions the west experimented with these last 20-25 years... why do you think that has anything to do with this?

    Actually being able to station some long range cruise missiles in Russia that don't need to be located anywhere near its borders that can hit Kiev or Tiblisi without even moving out of their base with conventional warheads is a much more valuable thing to Russia than any negative.

    Now to top it all off, the U.S has a significant advantage in its ability to acquire and field these weapons number$ wi$e (there i$ quality in number$), on top of the strategic areas it can place them, in effect, encircling and choking Russia. The Missile Shield was part of the strategy, now comes the offensive part (IRBMs), then comes the de-limiting factor (START pullout).

    Actually as we have seen in Syria the quality of US attack cruise missiles has not really changed much since Desert Storm and against todays air defence systems are actually pretty ordinary.

    In comparison, the new hypersonic missiles with scramjet and solid fuelled rocket propulsion seem to be rather extraordinary... but at the moment are limited to aircraft and ship launch platforms... by moving them to ground based vehicles, those ships and aircraft are freed up for other roles like blunting any naval attack for instance...

    Since China has become a serious target and a strategic threat to the U.S, militarizing Eastern Asia is a no brainer for them. China has been riding Russia's cocktails for years. The U.S has already started with the "ABM Shield" in Korea/Japan and eventually IRBMs will follow - pulling Australia is not in doubt - not in the least. They're already in line. I don't know what y'all are smoking - Australia ain't sovereign.

    Australia isn't really close enough to be a serious threat to Russia, so why should Russia bother?

    If there was no Russian ground based cruise missile they could point to and suggest it breaks the rules, they would simply point at all the Chinese missiles that also break the rules as the reason to break the treaty.

    I think it is funny that you believe there is anything Russia could do to stop the US breaking the INF treaty...


    The concept has not changed no matter how many fairy tales you all wish to suddenly digest to believe that things have "changed" because of this hyper/duper/super missile we got here... or this shiny object over there (as if they can't be mirrored)? lol1 Like I said when Putin unveiled his new toys... he only bought time and he better make the most of it (and I have serious reservations about his performance in that regard).

    The simple fact is that Russia is up against the west and the INF treaty doesn't really mean a damn to Russia or to the US or the Chinese.

    The only ones who have anything to worry about is the Europeans, but they clearly don't care enough to put their foot down and tell the US to pull their heads in and are happy to go along with the line that Russia is breaking the treaty anyway... well boo hoo... if Europe does not have the balls to stand up to Trump and Bolten then fuck them... Russia has been building an Aerospace defence force whose job it is to secure Russian airspace from outside threats and they have made a lot of progress and are continuing to move forward with S-350 entering service this year on land and at sea and the S-400 production expanding and of course the S-500 to enter service soon too... it is the Europeans that will have hypersonic missiles pointed at them first with little to no effective defencive systems to protect them. Eventually NATO will have capable missiles to point at Moscow... but what is new? They already have SLBMs pointed there so nothing changes really... and the Russians know this is not about theatre war... this is all out war... so the idea of a quick first strike to take out NATO and force a surrender or talks on their terms is not an option, but they know that is something the US actually wants to strive for, so having hundreds of hypersonic missiles that can take down US ABM systems in Europe and over Japan will actually make things much much easier in the case of WWIII to ensure more of their conventional MIRVS make it through... remember IRBMs in the arctic bases on land in cheap truck or fixed silo type launchers would be ideal for clearing the arctic ocean of AEGIS cruisers with manouvering hypersonic missiles... so it ticks those boxes too.

    The only thing that can negate the strategic advantages the U.S has over its two major adversaries today is an economic collapse. So do pray for that. That's a much better tale to digest - an impending economic collapse. You can even ground it on several facts....but mostly as always -- the decadence and corruption of political life and the interdiction of economics and politics today in the U.S.

    I am sure the US MIC is just drooling at the idea they can reopen development and production of a range of weapons they have not been allowed to sell to the US military for over three decades... and of course the corresponding defence systems needed will also not be cheap...

    Other than that, they're very well off. Or you can pray they negotiate some treaties down the line but we're way way off that...... unless other powers make an offer the hegemon can't refuse - unconditional surrender perhaps? At the very least, when and if they come back to the table, it will be for a simple reason only - to sign a treaty that furthers their interests.

    Exactly... this is either a convoluted way of renegotiating an existing treaty to better suit the US, or an attempt to make things harder for Russia... but I don't see any real down side for Russia... US SLBMs from safe areas in the med and even the indian ocean represent IRBM levels of flight times to Moscow, so in effect the INF treaty just stopped the Americans putting Pershing IIs and cruise missiles all over Europe.

    Ironically that probably would have led to protests at being a target of Russian missiles that could have led to US forces getting kicked out of western europe faster than they have moved...

    Second, the assumption that Russia has some significant advantage over the U.S due to missile technology is false. If you look at it in a practical sense it's not true. The advantage Russia has in development time of hypersonic glide vehicles and rockets will sooner or later evaporate (hence why I've said Russia just bought time). One way or another the U.S will catch up...stealing secrets, brain drain, etc... they have the programs in the works, focusing the money and brain power into it as we speak (and this didn't just get off yesterday (the process of modernizing the U.S nuclear triad and building the next generation of offensive nuclear weapons)).

    So what?

    Do you think the INF treaty prevents this in any way?

    The US will eventually get hypersonic weapons... big deal.

    The point is that they are trying to achieve a first strike superiority and are trying to knock down what they think are impediments to them regaining superiority in technology and capability... getting rid of the INF treaty will just isolate them further from their western allies and make those western allies easier and cheaper to target for the Russians.

    More importantly as I mentioned.... having 5,000km range missiles is very useful because US bases are moving closer and closer to Russia so when you draw a 4,000km line around Russian territory including the Pacific Ocean and the Arctic Ocean you start including a lot of US bases and ships that were difficult to attack with conventional weapons... because all their ICBMs are nukes... but now they can have 5,000km range anti ship missiles to take out carriers and AEGIS ABM ships.

    If they are smart... and they are... they will make these new missiles compatible with the UKSK-M launcher so a sub like an ex SSBN like the Deltas could be sent to the southern Pacific and the southern atlantic oceans and launch a missile strike on the AEGIS cruisers they will have operating off their coasts as their ABM system... with a range of 5,000km they could base them in the Arctic to cover the entire arctic ocean and also hit targets like airfields and major radar bases and command and communication centres in Canada from land bases in the Russian far north...


    The Soviets had a much more significant headstart in the space race and eventually they caught up. The areas we're talking about today are not even that research intensive, nor is the gap anywhere near as big. They'll be there sooner than you think - and when they get there, they'll be able to use that tech much more effectively and with significantly more impact than the Russians - not to mention the procurement numbers (it's a numbers game - always is).

    What are you babbling about?

    What has any of this got to do with whether the INF treaty exists or not?

    So the idea that the only threat Russia will see from the U.S will be a "few" "old" nuclear-tipped Tomahawks is not a serious assessment. The U.S may deploy some (their latest) as a stop-gap but that won't stay for long (and it will not be a few).

    Hilarious... so it is all Russias fault again... who gives a fuck what the US deploy.... getting rid of the INF treaty means Russia can develop and deploy a wide range of very effective systems that can target anything the US puts in Europe, plus the ABM systems they are building as we speak with high speed weapons that can rapidly destroy these systems (radars and missiles) before they can do anything useful.

    Wasting avangard missiles to hit ABM sites in europe was going to be a waste... now they can be used against targets in the US and much cheaper and lighter systems can be used in Europe instead to ensure all of their ICBMs have a much better chance of getting through.

    Moreover, the idea that Russia's air defences and the S-500 (600 or 1000) will be able to stop or significantly reduce the destruction of a decapitating nuclear first strike (wherein a saturation attack will be in order on all of Russia's defenses at a shortened noticed and at a new shortened range) is a big fat joke.

    Components of their IADS seemed to work fine in Syria... add the OTH radars and a lot more ground and air based radars and defences including aircraft and I suspect it will work even better... but it does not have to be 100% effective... it will be enough to prevent a first strike decapitation move... strategic nuclear missiles will be launched... ground based missiles of intermediate range aimed at Brussels and Paris and Berlin and London will be nigh on impossible to target because they could be anywhere and there could be hundreds or thousands of them... it is Europe that should be worried because their IADS does not even exist... and their basic air patrolling and defence is based on fighter planes which would have little to no chance against hypersonic missiles at 40km altitude flying at mach 8 or faster.

    These defensive systems however are much more effective the less targets they need to engage, and the more so with anticipation (in defense of a second strike retaliation of the enemy), which is why a decapitating first strike is so crucial and so dangerous.

    They can barely hit an airfield in Syria and you think they will wipe out Russia?

    Even assuming a single nuke missile managed to get through and putin is killed... do you think that is it?

    Game over?

    The nuclear weapons of Russia would be automatically launched with a nuclear explosion over Russia... how many Russian ICBMs do you think these US weapons can take out before they are launched?

    This attack would be on an enormous scale... do you think all NATO members would stay quiet?

    Or would they send in Chuck Norris with some duct tape and a sharpened stick to take down the entire Russian nuclear weapon capacity...

    In effect it has the ability to encircle Russia within its borders, without even having to use U.S mainland to host a massive ICBM force (which they could if they wanted to). There is really no advantage at all today for Russia to speak off in my pov. That's an outdated cliche - of many espoused here on the daily.

    But if the INF treaty remains in effect everything is peachy right?

    The INF treaty ties Russian hands and limits Russian options... it makes things easier for Russia to not have it.

    For Europe the thought is terrifying... they will have to build an IADS that will cost trillions and take several decades... Russia has been through that and is probably close to being as safe as she could ever be... (no such thing as 100% effective air defence, but combined with the brutal ability to devastate your enemy it should be good enough).

    While we have fun discussing all of this we haven't discussed the economics. The assumptions have been running wild but little time is paid to the fact that Russia can't outspend the U.S in procurement numbers if START goes kaput (and that's on pace). All these arguments being made assume that Russia can keep parity in the procurement of this offensive arsenal. That's just fantasy and a big fat wrench on the fairy tales (even accounting for the wasteful and corrupt spending of today's American MIC) but lets continue for a while......

    Again you get the wrong end of the stick... it is America that wants superiority... Russia just needs enough weapons to ensure enough will get through and devastate the US and the west it doesn't matter if the US has more missiles or not... they are not expecting to survive anyway.

    Europe and their Asian partners are all expendable patches of land in such a scenario. So no one cares about what Russia can do to those countries. It's all about what Russia can do to the U.S and to a lesser extent the Five-eyes family of nations. The Americans will fight the Russians to the last European/Asian.

    Exactly, so getting rid of the INF treaty so Japan and Europe can be obliterated but save all those ICBMs and SLBMs for the US is a bonus for Russia... it means the US will get hit harder and with the early destruction of various radar sites in Europe (ABM sites and bases in Greenland and the UK) and Canada they will be less aware of what is coming... add to that anti satellite weapons and they could be blinded...

    ... perished doing so and are now under their jock.

    I think you mean yolk...

    You don't run Empires by being stupid - usually you run them because you outsmart others (aka they're the stupid ones). I do join the fun once in a while because they've become endemically corrupt but that's about it.

    If they were smart they wouldn't be fighting Russia and China still... the British have been fighting the Russians and Chinese for centuries and you claim they have been brilliant at it... yeah right...

    The subsequent comment says little (it's a vice versa comment - except worse). For Russia's missile systems will not only be within reach of American ICBMS, SLBMS, and U.S nuclear bombers but they'll also be targeted by a significant missile force right at their borders (which will eventually be hypersonic, non-ballistic, and in overwhelming numbers for Russia's defenses to be capable of handling).

    Russia is not going for a first strike capability... they are building their forces for defence... any full scale attack by NATO on Russia is the end... they don't expect to win or to even survive, but having the defences they do and an attack force they have getting rid of the INF treaty means they are in a much better position to strike forces in Europe and to attack the US than they are now... it wont make them any less safe because the US could base bombers with JSSSM or whatever they fuck they call them in the Ukraine right now if they wanted and that would not violate the INF treaty...

    In a vacuum, given today's geopolitical realities, Russia is at a significant disadvantage vis-a-vis the United States when its comes to the balance of power. If we run scenarios of all else being equal, the U.S will always come out on top.

    But the point is that Russia might not be in a super advantaged position but it has never aimed for that position... the position it wants and currently has is that the US can start anything they want but they wont come out on top... when there is six feet of dirt on your head you are not on top.

    Not to say Russia will win, but everyone will lose.

    What Russia has is 1: hope, 2: room for maneuver while peace exist, 3: a chance to outsmart its opponent if it plays its cards right. Stumble, and they'll probably fall.... and who knows what comes out of it.

    Russia has no choice on this issue... the INF treaty is dead and Europe is going to get missiles to point at Russia so they will feel really special, and in response Russia is going to build a lot of new missiles they can point at US bases and ABM systems and anything they like in Europe... and the European people will begin to realise that a nuclear war might happen and that they will be one of the first to die from it... perhaps that will make them grow some balls to tell the US to fuck off but they are such cowards and so easily brainwashed they will think that Britain and the US are all geniuses and know what they are doing and Russians are evil and it was all their fault anyway... so things will continue as normal.

    This encirclement of Russia works realy great. If there weren´t this gapping holes in it, like the whole Arctic, China, Korea, India, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, even Saudi-Arabia is working with Russia, Turkey, Greece, Italy, Hungary, Germany is buying more gas than ever. even Amiland is doing more business with Russia today than it did 10 years ago.

    Can just imagine when Germany takes its American IRBMs and it demands that none of them target gas pipes delivering gas from Russia to Germany... and the Americans targeting only the pipelines bringing Russian gas to europe from the north and the south so ukrainian pipes would need to be used again...
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1432
    Points : 1426
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 19 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  LMFS on Sun Feb 03, 2019 12:54 pm

    @ATLASCUB

    You made many points, most of which I can understand but not really share. For one main reason: you seem to imply an Empire cannot in good logic be defeated, due to its dominant position. Following your logic, Assyrians or whatever ancient empire would still rule the world, since they had such superiority above their rivals. Truth is empires rise and fall, despite all of them (including of course US) thinking History would come to an end with their rule. But forces of History cannot be stopped and empires simply rot from the inside. To come closer to the case, US has lost many of the fundamentals that gave them hegemony in first place. Long ago. And now they are not only not recovering them but rather squandering very fast what is left, which is essentially privileges and influence.

    Your logic would not support facts like US losing out in Syria, or having smaller real economy than China or being overtaken in hypersonics and other key military technologies by Russia. Though this happened somehow. So, despite their overwhelmingly dominant position, they are going south, really quick. You seem to imply they will recover, but with the current crop of narcissistic, demented nutcases at the helm, who is going to bring sanity, discipline and humility again to the government? Who is going to contain corruption once it rules the whole system?

    I could go on for a while listing the amazing number of recent US blunders, but I think it is not necessary. The same goes for UK and Israel leadership: as nefarious as always but less effective than ever.

    Back to INF:
    1) Of course the new Russian weapons and developments (not only those presented last March) have an influence in the strategic balance. As said US was trying to neutralize Russian nuclear threat but the current situation would (potentially, if left unanswered in the medium to long term) lead to exactly the opposite outcome.
    2) Russia as others have said has no hopes as of now of coming alive out of a nuclear exchange, though they are better prepared than the West. So with first strike or without, you can count West would be destroyed. Nobody seriously discusses this and it is the only thing that matters because it is what keeps us all alive. Russia just tries to keep MAD in place and by now they have succeed, through years of much more intense economic hardship and US superiority
    3) INF was ditched by the US because it was signed in the first place, so it should have been perceived as beneficial by US (in fact Russia did many more concessions than US). Why to withdraw? Ditching it now you say obeys to US wanting to exploit their superiority, only such is not present now, either in offensive (missile capability gap) nor defensive means (acknowledged ineffectiveness of US ABM systems against Russian weapons). This is evidenced by the obvious reaction in the US by financing modernisation of the nuclear arsenal, weaponization of space and other initiatives, which were not perceived as a priority until now. Hence my take is that they perceive an erosion of their might that they cannot tolerate and are trying to counter by placing weapons closer to Russia, among other initiatives

    There is a number of statements in your post that are not accurate IMO but please excuse I don't go into every detail.
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 14689
    Points : 15188
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 19 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  George1 on Sun Feb 03, 2019 3:34 pm

    Russian defense ministry says US started production of banned missiles two years ago


    The ministry noted that over the past two years the space of the rocket plant in the city of Tucson has increased by 44%


    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 19 1213682

    MOSCOW, February 2. /TASS/. The United States started preparations to production of missiles of intermediate and shorter range banned by the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) two years before it accused Russia of violating the agreement, Russia’s Defense Ministry reported on Saturday.

    "Two years before making public unfounded accusations against Russia of alleged INF Treaty violations, Washington not only took a decision, but also started preparations to production of missiles of intermediate and shorter range banned by the Treaty," the report said.

    "Starting already June 2017, the program of expansion and upgrade of production facilities with the aims of developing intermediate and shorter range missiles banned by the Treaty was launched at Raytheon’s plant in the city of Tucson, Arizona," the ministry said with reference to compulsive evidence it has obtained.

    "The plant is a major diversified enterprise of the US aerospace industry that produces almost all types of missile weapons," the report said.

    The ministry noted that "over the past two years the space of the plant has increased by 44% - from 55,000 to 79,000 square meters, while the number of employees is going to rise by almost 2,000 people, according to official statements."

    "Almost at the same time as production facilities expanded, on November 2017, Congress provided the first tranche amounting to $58 mln to Pentagon, directly pointing at the development of a land-based missile of intermediate range. Consequently, the nature and time of the works demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the US administration decided to withdraw from the INF Treaty several years before unfounded accusations against Russia of violating the Treaty were made public," the ministry concluded.

    More:
    http://tass.com/defense/1042995
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 14689
    Points : 15188
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 19 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  George1 on Sun Feb 03, 2019 3:36 pm

    US has violated INF Treaty since 1999, Lavrov tells Putin


    The minister emphasized that Moscow has tried "to do everything to save the INF Treaty

    MOSCOW, February 2. /TASS/. The United States that has announced suspension of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) due to Russia’s alleged violations, has breached the provisions of the agreement since 1999, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told President Vladimir Putin on Saturday.

    "According to our information, the United States started violating that undated treaty (INF, came into force in 1988 - TASS) in 1999 when it began trials of combat unmanned flying vehicles with specifications similar to those of ground-launched cruise missiles banned by the Treaty," he said. "Later it started using target missiles, ballistic target missiles, for testing its missile defense system, whereas starting 2014 it began deploying in Europe launching pads for its positioning areas of missile defense - Mk 41 launching pads, which may absolutely be used without any changes and to launch Tomahawk medium-range cruise missiles," Lavrov noted.

    "That is a direct violation of the Treaty," he said, adding that "such systems have already been deployed in Romania, are being prepared for deployment in Poland, as well as in Japan."

    The minister emphasized that Moscow has tried "to do everything to save the INF Treaty, considering its importance for preserving strategic stability in Europe and globally." He mentioned the fact that Russia had invited American representatives to the talks on that issue in Geneva on January 15.

    "We offered unprecedented transparency measures that go far beyond our liabilities on that Treaty to convince the Americans that we do not violate that important document," he said, adding that the US side "torpedoed those proposals and in response put forward another ultimatum."

    According to Lavrov, all further efforts to mediate strategic stability also failed.

    On Friday, US President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Michael Pompeo said that Washington would suspend its liabilities under the INF Treaty starting February 2 and would quit it within six months if Russia fails to comply with its demands. The US accused Russia of violating the treaty for the first time in July 2014. Since then, Washington has been repeating its claims on many occasions, while Moscow has been rejecting them and advancing counter-claims concerning the implementation of the treaty by the US side.

    The INF Treaty was signed between the former Soviet Union and the United States on December 8, 1987 and entered into force on June 1, 1988. It covered deployed and non-deployed ground-based short-range missiles (from 500 to 1,000 kilometers) and intermediate-range missiles (from 1,000 to 5,500 kilometers).


    More:
    http://tass.com/politics/1042978
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 9121
    Points : 9203
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 19 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  PapaDragon on Sun Feb 03, 2019 11:50 pm


    And they say Germans don't have sense of humor...lol1

    German MPs Claim Russia Should Move 9M729 Missiles to 'the Other Side of the Urals' to Preserve INF Treaty

    https://sputniknews.com/europe/201902031072083854-germany-russia-us-inf-treaty/
    avatar
    hoom

    Posts : 2078
    Points : 2068
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 19 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  hoom on Mon Feb 04, 2019 1:45 am

    Yay for 'independent balanced' local Western media: headline on main page "Russia to develop banned nukes" headline on article "Russia to push ahead with banned nuclear weapons"...
    The content includes the facts that US is pulling out, has already started development of non-compliant weapons, that Russia is only now starting development of non-compliant weapons in response to US pull out etc. but still puts the blame on Russia.
    And an audio interview of a DC thinktanker carefully using US talking points to blame Russia without addressing any counter-points or any kind of balance at all.

    Sponsored content

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 19 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Jul 10, 2020 9:50 am