INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

re importantly the withdrawal of the INF treaty means that arc can be covered by ground launched hypersonic anti ship missiles... the north pacific and the arctic ocean... the USN just got neutered... wrote:

And maritime VLS able to launch tomahawks in the middle of a country that has only small rivers isn't a breach ?

The US has no proof... tapes or video or satellite images showing that missile or any other Russian missile is in material breach of the treaty.

All their missiles comply and are factory fuelled so you can't top more up in the field to add range.

The launcher is designed to launch Tomahawk cruise missiles... it is a clear violation of the treaty even without missiles it is a Tomahawk launcher and both launchers and missiles are banned.

Nahh, Fuck them... Russia should aim for the bare minimum

PapaDragon wrote:
Alright guys, I used old RSD-10 Pioneer (SS-20 Saber) missile with 5500km range as example and all have to say is what the hell were Soviets thinking when they rubber-stamped INF?  

This is coverage you get when you comfortably park the missiles south of Anadyr on Chukotka peninsula (white dot).

JohninMK wrote:

Hole wrote:The new hypersonic space drone could be useful for such a task.

First version will be for recon, but later…    

The ultimate suicide drone! Makes the others look a bit mundane.

GarryB wrote:

Alright guys, I used old RSD-10 Pioneer (SS-20 Saber) missile with 5500km range as example and all have to say is what the hell were Soviets thinking when they rubber-stamped INF?

Actually that was why the US signed the deal.....

George1 wrote:

Romanian top diplomat opposes deployment of new missiles

I think Russia needs to be more assertive and say that they are complying with the INF treaty, while the US is not with its Mk-41 launchers in eastern europe and that even if the US decides this Russian missile does not break the treaty they will withdraw from the INF treaty until they are removed.

Big_Gazza wrote:

George1 wrote:

Romanian top diplomat opposes deployment of new missiles

Maybe these Romanian idiots should have thought about it before they agreed to be cock-holsters for the Monkey Empire and allow BMD base (aka covert Tomahawk LACM base) to be setup in their dungheap of a nation?

What did Russia ever do to deserve having retard neighbours who are as f_cked up as these clowns?  

"We do NOT intend to deploy new land-based nuclear missiles in Europe"

PapaDragon wrote:And another guy who doesn't get to have a say in the matter and over whose pay grade this issue is way over.

Same goes for that cheerleading club he represents...

LMFS wrote:

"We do NOT intend to deploy new land-based nuclear missiles in Europe"

Say the bastards that already have the Mk41 in place with no way for anybody of knowing what is inside, and with radars useless for their supposed ABM role. Get ready to see these systems pop up like mushrooms while they call for Russia to stop destroying the peace and the stability of Europe. You have to salute these MoFos' nerve

GunshipDemocracy wrote:didn't the Deep State Deportment syd tht Russian accusation are funny groundless thosecells  are not the same cells onships.  Thus  nobody is gonna verify it

GarryB wrote:

didn't the Deep State Deportment syd tht Russian accusation are funny groundless thosecells are not the same cells onships. Thus nobody is gonna verify it

In that case the Russians can just state that the particular missile the US claims is the issue is a modified UKSK launch tube so there is no problem....

The Russians have had a meeting to display the missile and explain its performance and characteristics and NATO and the US boycotted the whole thing... they are not interested in hearing Russias side or the truth... they have already made up their minds... so screw them.

miketheterrible wrote: Exactly.  No point on negotiations with US.

US congresswoman introduces bill to uphold INF Treaty
US Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard said that "we face a greater risk of nuclear catastrophe now than ever before in history"

GarryB wrote:

2) actually this is more important: fog of war . US withdrew with ABM nd in 15 years learned bout Poseidon, Avangard, Kinzhal, Burevestnik or Lasers. ...

I don't understand... are you suggesting Poseidon and Avangard and Kinzhal et al were already being developed so withdrawing from the ABM treaty was to the advantage of the US because it brought these secret programmes out into the open?

GB wrote:Withdrawing from the INF treaty will result in Russia developing new capabilities... many of which would actually be rather useful to Russia... a land based 5,000km range hypersonic missile that can engage point land or sea based targets would be very very useful... mostly because it is not an ICBM or SLBM and with a conventional warhead would not instantly and certainly start WWIII.

GB wrote:
The fact is that while the US ABM system in Europe started out as a bunch of missiles in one country it has expanded to the ocean... the use of land based AEGIS Ashore systems is no accident... the point is that this land based ABM system is replicated on every US and foreign owned AEGIS class cruiser... which pretty much opens up the ABM threat to Russian missiles to the entire arctic ocean and north pacific and med sea... and with the INF treaty in force that means they have to squander some SLBMs or ICBMs to target locations to improve the chances of their missiles getting past.