Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
It is not my invention. Some guy on RT or so was using it.
+47
ult
ATLASCUB
nomadski
Firebird
Nibiru
Isos
Karl Haushofer
Hole
PapaDragon
LMFS
dino00
rrob
T-47
Singular_Transform
miketheterrible
Arrow
hoom
JohninMK
eehnie
Rmf
nastle77
sepheronx
GunshipDemocracy
kvs
Big_Gazza
max steel
flamming_python
Stealthflanker
Morpheus Eberhardt
Vann7
Werewolf
George1
Mike E
zg18
GarryB
Mindstorm
TR1
collegeboy16
navyfield
magnumcromagnon
AlfaT8
Admin
gaurav
SOC
Austin
Cyberspec
Viktor
51 posters
INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life
Hole- Posts : 11106
Points : 11084
Join date : 2018-03-25
Age : 48
Location : Scholzistan
GarryB- Posts : 40475
Points : 40975
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Well, now he can be promoted from Bush the lessor, to Bush the living... but I do look forward to that changing too...
LMFS- Posts : 5156
Points : 5152
Join date : 2018-03-04
Gerasimov addressed the INF before the foreign military attaches today:
Countries hosting US systems to become targets for Russia if US leaves INF — General Staff
More:
http://tass.com/defense/1034395
Interesting:
"Taking into consideration that official representatives of foreign military agencies are in the hall, I would like to send a message to your leadership that if the INF Treaty is violated, we won’t leave this unanswered,"
"As military professionals, you should understand that not the US territory, but the countries hosting US systems with intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles will become targets for Russia’s retaliatory steps,"
"We view this as a very dangerous step, which can negatively influence both European security and strategic stability in general,"
"The accusations against Russia are an attempt to disguise the true situation."
The real situation is that since 2000 Russia has been calling on Washington to stop the practice of using target-missiles, simulating ballistic missiles of intermediate and shorter range when testing the anti-ballistic missile system, what is prohibited by the treaty,"
The US MK 41 vertical launching systems deployed to Romania and Poland can launch intermediate-range cruise missiles, what is a "direct violation" of commitments under the INF Treaty, he said.
Countries hosting US systems to become targets for Russia if US leaves INF — General Staff
More:
http://tass.com/defense/1034395
Interesting:
"Taking into consideration that official representatives of foreign military agencies are in the hall, I would like to send a message to your leadership that if the INF Treaty is violated, we won’t leave this unanswered,"
"As military professionals, you should understand that not the US territory, but the countries hosting US systems with intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles will become targets for Russia’s retaliatory steps,"
"We view this as a very dangerous step, which can negatively influence both European security and strategic stability in general,"
"The accusations against Russia are an attempt to disguise the true situation."
The real situation is that since 2000 Russia has been calling on Washington to stop the practice of using target-missiles, simulating ballistic missiles of intermediate and shorter range when testing the anti-ballistic missile system, what is prohibited by the treaty,"
The US MK 41 vertical launching systems deployed to Romania and Poland can launch intermediate-range cruise missiles, what is a "direct violation" of commitments under the INF Treaty, he said.
PapaDragon- Posts : 13459
Points : 13499
Join date : 2015-04-26
Location : Fort Evil, Serbia
LMFS wrote:Gerasimov addressed the INF before the foreign military attaches today:
Countries hosting US systems to become targets for Russia if US leaves INF — General Staff
More:
http://tass.com/defense/1034395
...........
"As military professionals, you should understand that not the US territory, but the countries hosting US systems with intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles will become targets for Russia’s retaliatory steps,"
...................
Logical move: you park nukes in your country, you get roasted as a warning to Uncle Sam should SHTF
Only 2 more months until this pathetic charade is finally dead and buried, good riddance
GunshipDemocracy- Posts : 6163
Points : 6183
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada
PapaDragon wrote: Only 2 more months until this pathetic charade is finally dead and buried, good riddance
not good at all. Russia building up more and more weapons is taking resources from economy. Why do you think Putin tries to defend INF?
PapaDragon- Posts : 13459
Points : 13499
Join date : 2015-04-26
Location : Fort Evil, Serbia
GunshipDemocracy wrote:PapaDragon wrote: Only 2 more months until this pathetic charade is finally dead and buried, good riddance
not good at all. Russia building up more and more weapons is taking resources from economy. Why do you think Putin tries to defend INF?
They need 100 at most to completely eradicate population of entire East Europe + Scandinavia with just intermediate missiles alone
They will need far less in practice since only handful of countries will volunteer
And this also opens up many new avenues of weapons development, one that Russia actually needs
Low investment - massive payoff situation which, in time, will contribute to reduction of need for military spending in Russia down the road
magnumcromagnon- Posts : 8138
Points : 8273
Join date : 2013-12-05
Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan
GunshipDemocracy wrote:PapaDragon wrote: Only 2 more months until this pathetic charade is finally dead and buried, good riddance
not good at all. Russia building up more and more weapons is taking resources from economy. Why do you think Putin tries to defend INF?
Resources of the economy....are you serious? The Federation is one of the most fiscally conservative countries in the world, and among the biggest economies, it has some of the lowest debt/GDP ratio. Japan has debt 233% greater than their GDP, and no one talks about cutting their increasing military expenditure. BTW are you alluding to 'overspending-Soviet-demise' in a modern scenario? You do realize the USSR had $2 trillion debt and the Soviet Ruble had almost double the value of the US Dollar, and the Federation has a quarter of the debt, and the Ruble runs 1/60-1/70th (currently 66.63 Rubles per) to the US Dollar....you do realize what the means for a heavy industrial economy right?
Back in 1989 77.3 Billion Soviet Rubles translated to $128 Billion dollars.
https://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/31/world/soviet-military-budget-128-billion-bombshell.html
Also stop the charade, you've read enough of the thread to realize the INF treaty was rubbish, and has been virtually dead since mid-2000's (ABM shield).
miketheterrible- Posts : 7383
Points : 7341
Join date : 2016-11-07
Russia's defense budget over GDP is much smaller too. Yet they manage to get away with building a lot of quality goods with such a small budget.
Regardless, even if they need to spend an additional $1 - $5B per year on new IRBM's, it is a small price to pay. Actually, so small, still smaller than what they were supposed to pay this year on weapons procurement (they are still off by 400B Rubles). Seeing as they wouldn't have to start from scratch, it wouldn't be too expensive to come up with an IRBM rather quickly as they can dust off SS-20 or they can just increase range of Iskander.
Regardless, even if they need to spend an additional $1 - $5B per year on new IRBM's, it is a small price to pay. Actually, so small, still smaller than what they were supposed to pay this year on weapons procurement (they are still off by 400B Rubles). Seeing as they wouldn't have to start from scratch, it wouldn't be too expensive to come up with an IRBM rather quickly as they can dust off SS-20 or they can just increase range of Iskander.
GarryB- Posts : 40475
Points : 40975
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Don't think of it as saying they can't afford it... more they have other things they can spend it on that would offer real returns on investment rather than play who has the biggest missile.
Personally I would take it a step further and announce that all countries in Europe that have US forces on their territory will have nuclear weapons pointed at them irrespective of whether they put any IRBMs there because such systems are easy to hide so anywhere the US troops are there could easily be INF banned missiles there too.
I would also develop very powerful very dirty high radiation warheads for use on those missiles and make it clear that is the purpose... Russia does not want to invade your countries and steal your land... we have enough land. We do, however see US forces in Europe as a threat and we will remove that threat if we feel we are under attack, by destroying your countries.... it is up to you what happens.... we are happy to keep things the way they are but if the US drops out of the INF treaty then this is what we will do.
The US clearly wants to leave the INF treaty... there are mechanisms within the treaty to deal with suspected violations from either side and it does not include ultimatums on international TV making demands without proof.
There is no point in waiting until the US drops out of the INF treaty, because by then it will be too late and money for developing new weapons will need to be allocated and spent...
Personally I am happy the US is doing this... with new radar and improved SAMs Russia is better defended from IRBMs than ever before so it is in a much better position than Europe to have an arms race... I suspect the US is hoping to increase sales of the THAAD system in Europe.... overly expensive and not really up for the job for most threats.
Personally I would take it a step further and announce that all countries in Europe that have US forces on their territory will have nuclear weapons pointed at them irrespective of whether they put any IRBMs there because such systems are easy to hide so anywhere the US troops are there could easily be INF banned missiles there too.
I would also develop very powerful very dirty high radiation warheads for use on those missiles and make it clear that is the purpose... Russia does not want to invade your countries and steal your land... we have enough land. We do, however see US forces in Europe as a threat and we will remove that threat if we feel we are under attack, by destroying your countries.... it is up to you what happens.... we are happy to keep things the way they are but if the US drops out of the INF treaty then this is what we will do.
The US clearly wants to leave the INF treaty... there are mechanisms within the treaty to deal with suspected violations from either side and it does not include ultimatums on international TV making demands without proof.
There is no point in waiting until the US drops out of the INF treaty, because by then it will be too late and money for developing new weapons will need to be allocated and spent...
Personally I am happy the US is doing this... with new radar and improved SAMs Russia is better defended from IRBMs than ever before so it is in a much better position than Europe to have an arms race... I suspect the US is hoping to increase sales of the THAAD system in Europe.... overly expensive and not really up for the job for most threats.
miketheterrible- Posts : 7383
Points : 7341
Join date : 2016-11-07
It's the other way around. Russia can easily afford it. They are in Abundance of cash even right now. It's just they do not want to spend it.
GunshipDemocracy- Posts : 6163
Points : 6183
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada
magnumcromagnon wrote:
Also stop the charade, you've read enough of the thread to realize the INF treaty was rubbish, and has been virtually dead since mid-2000's (ABM shield).
well not sure if you understand that every billion to arms race is one billion less to R&D, education or health services. INF treaty is rubbish then why Russia is defending it?
GunshipDemocracy- Posts : 6163
Points : 6183
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada
miketheterrible wrote:It's the other way around. Russia can easily afford it. They are in Abundance of cash even right now. It's just they do not want to spend it.
well it it is abundance of cash why they dotn want to spend it?
miketheterrible- Posts : 7383
Points : 7341
Join date : 2016-11-07
GunshipDemocracy wrote:miketheterrible wrote:It's the other way around. Russia can easily afford it. They are in Abundance of cash even right now. It's just they do not want to spend it.
well it it is abundance of cash why they dotn want to spend it?
First off, you need to stop pretending to be ignorant/dumb. You also post the news of Russia's budget surplus.
Second, you are also familiar with Russias austerity program just as much as me since I believe you were also part of the conversation.
Unless you are two people and there is no communication between both yous.
GunshipDemocracy- Posts : 6163
Points : 6183
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada
GarryB wrote:Don't think of it as saying they can't afford it... more they have other things they can spend it on that would offer real returns on investment rather than play who has the biggest missile.
glad you can see this difference
GB wrote:Personally I would take it a step further and announce that all countries in Europe that have US forces on their territory will have nuclear weapons pointed at them irrespective of whether they put any IRBMs there because such systems are easy to hide so anywhere the US troops are there could easily be INF banned missiles there too.
well isnt it what is actually happening now?
I would also develop very powerful very dirty high radiation warheads for use on those missiles and make it clear that is the purpose...
IMHO neutron bombs better you have clean infrastructure and lands - people hostile to Russia
The US clearly wants to leave the INF treaty... there are mechanisms within the treaty to deal with suspected violations from either side and it does not include ultimatums on international TV making demands without proof.
at least that's not twitter but TV!
There is no point in waiting until the US drops out of the INF treaty, because by then it will be too late and money for developing new weapons will need to be allocated and spent...
they have been preparing for this for years. Why all those anti-ballistic capabilities form pantsir SM, buk-3? lasers EW weapons. Avangardc too can fly for sure 2000. PErhaps shorter too
Personally I am happy the US is doing this... with new radar and improved SAMs Russia is better defended from IRBMs than ever before so it is in a much better position than Europe to have an arms race... I suspect the US is hoping to increase sales of the THAAD system in Europe.... overly expensive and not really up for the job for most threats.[/quote]
GunshipDemocracy- Posts : 6163
Points : 6183
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada
miketheterrible wrote:
First off, you need to stop pretending to be ignorant/dumb. You also post the news of Russia's budget surplus.
Second, you are also familiar with Russias austerity program just as much as me since I believe you were also part of the conversation.
Unless you are two people and there is no communication between both yous.
try to focus - Russia (as anybody) has limited amount of resources. More limited than west. Both people and money. Investing in arms race will take those resources form elsewhere.
miketheterrible- Posts : 7383
Points : 7341
Join date : 2016-11-07
GunshipDemocracy wrote:miketheterrible wrote:
First off, you need to stop pretending to be ignorant/dumb. You also post the news of Russia's budget surplus.
Second, you are also familiar with Russias austerity program just as much as me since I believe you were also part of the conversation.
Unless you are two people and there is no communication between both yous.
try to focus - Russia (as anybody) has limited amount of resources. More limited than west. Both people and money. Investing in arms race will take those resources form elsewhere.
First off, figure out the cost of Iskander missile before commenting. Second, budget surplus this year of over 2 T Rubles
https://tass.ru/ekonomika/5663887
If they decide to pull half of what they put in yearly in reserve, they can fund development and still have money left over.
If a division of Iskander cost roughly $200M, then it's peanuts. If they bring SS-20 off the shelf, it will be peanuts.
These are all costs within easy range for Russia. Very easy range.
Arrow- Posts : 3435
Points : 3425
Join date : 2012-02-13
with new radar and improved SAMs Russia is better defended from IRBMs wrote:
SAM against modern IRBM with MaRV ??
miketheterrible- Posts : 7383
Points : 7341
Join date : 2016-11-07
Got the idiot on mute, why bother otherwise?
Edit: I'm thinking that other cheap alternative would possibly be Hypersonic glider used for Sarmat and be used for IRBM roll? Or simply just increasing Iskander range.
Last but not least, ground launcher for Kalibr.
Edit: I'm thinking that other cheap alternative would possibly be Hypersonic glider used for Sarmat and be used for IRBM roll? Or simply just increasing Iskander range.
Last but not least, ground launcher for Kalibr.
miketheterrible- Posts : 7383
Points : 7341
Join date : 2016-11-07
Anyway, this debate is pointless cause Putin already proved me right and others wrong. He stated yesterday (or day before) that if US abandons INF treaty and starts building IRBM's, so will Russia.
GunshipDemocracy- Posts : 6163
Points : 6183
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada
miketheterrible wrote:Anyway, this debate is pointless cause Putin already proved me right and others wrong. He stated yesterday (or day before) that if US abandons INF treaty and starts building IRBM's, so will Russia.
and where Putin proved you're right? did he say he wants to spend extra resources?
GunshipDemocracy- Posts : 6163
Points : 6183
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada
Arrow wrote:
SAM against modern IRBM with MaRV ??
so what is the problem? it was developed for pint defence already in 70s
Hole- Posts : 11106
Points : 11084
Join date : 2018-03-25
Age : 48
Location : Scholzistan
https://russia-insider.com/en/russias-economy-strong-and-stable-cold-war-arms-race-liberals-and-other-challenges/ri25508
Read this article from Hellevig. He points out that the west is no longer able to outspend Russia.
Bonus.
"Russia doesn´t comply with the INF treaty"
Read this article from Hellevig. He points out that the west is no longer able to outspend Russia.
Bonus.
"Russia doesn´t comply with the INF treaty"
miketheterrible- Posts : 7383
Points : 7341
Join date : 2016-11-07
GunshipDemocracy wrote:miketheterrible wrote:Anyway, this debate is pointless cause Putin already proved me right and others wrong. He stated yesterday (or day before) that if US abandons INF treaty and starts building IRBM's, so will Russia.
and where Putin proved you're right? did he say he wants to spend extra resources?
He said, and I quote "If US starts building IRBM's, so will we".
Provese me right in that they will purchase IRBM's. End of story.
You seem smart enough, so do the math. If procurement sits at 1.9T Rubles per year (19T for 10 years of agreemeed amount) and Russia only spent 1.5T Rubles for procurement this year, that means there is additional 400B Rubles not spent this year. If moved over to next year, that is now 2.3T Rubles for procurement. So not extra resources, existing.
Maybe they held back some purchases just because of the threat of INF being scrapped and possibly having to use funds to restart old projects or start new ones.
magnumcromagnon- Posts : 8138
Points : 8273
Join date : 2013-12-05
Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan
GunshipDemocracy wrote:magnumcromagnon wrote:
Also stop the charade, you've read enough of the thread to realize the INF treaty was rubbish, and has been virtually dead since mid-2000's (ABM shield).
well not sure if you understand that every billion to arms race is one billion less to R&D, education or health services. INF treaty is rubbish then why Russia is defending it?
Are you paying attention? The Ruble running at 1/60-1/70th the USD makes it several times cheaper to produce in a heavy-industrial economy than it was during the Soviet times, when the Ruble ran nearly double the value of the USD, and the USD back in the late 80's held significantly more value than the USD in the late 2010's. Easily several times cheaper to produce vastly superior equipment. You do realize the Federation isn't borrowing money, and debt/GDP ratio is shrinking right? You do realize the well-being of the post-Soviet citizen in the immediate aftermath of the breakup was vastly worse than the pre-breakup, during the years of heavy cuts to the defense budget? It was the very exact opposite of what your claiming.
The INF treaty was dead by the time Agent Ashore was created. "INF treaty is rubbish then why Russia is defending it?" It's called using diplomatic speech. If they say "They are our dialogue partners", do you actually believe it? There hasn't been dialogue or partnership in close to 30 years.
VVP just recently gave a speech about having the main defense industrial base focus on civilian industrial base in the 2020's. Instead of claiming "every billion to arms race is one billion less to R&D, education or health services", actually pay attention to the civil sector. All the recent moves easily outpaces the military space by 10-to-1:
https://sdelanounas.ru/
Your derailing the thread now, and hopefully GarryB or George1 can cut out the excess posts and place them elsewhere.
LMFS- Posts : 5156
Points : 5152
Join date : 2018-03-04
US wants to finish INF to free their hands and further harass Russia, it is their initiative. Then end of the path is a war, Russia can never be happy with this prospect. It does not mean necessarily they are going to be the ones that lose the most...
So yes, they can be both ready for a post-INF scenario and also wanting to keep the treaty in place, Putin is not a demented neocon after all.
BTW S-500 soon entering production and the new missile for A-235 ABM system also in advanced tests, plus best and most dense AD network and big landmass for small population, one would think Russia is in fact much more ready than the West (especially Europe) for ditching the treaty. But it is the ones who have more to lose that take the first step, says it all about Western decadence.
So yes, they can be both ready for a post-INF scenario and also wanting to keep the treaty in place, Putin is not a demented neocon after all.
BTW S-500 soon entering production and the new missile for A-235 ABM system also in advanced tests, plus best and most dense AD network and big landmass for small population, one would think Russia is in fact much more ready than the West (especially Europe) for ditching the treaty. But it is the ones who have more to lose that take the first step, says it all about Western decadence.
Last edited by LMFS on Thu Dec 06, 2018 11:33 pm; edited 1 time in total