INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

Hole wrote:Include all NATO states. Otherwise Poland or Romania will receive such missiles.

Agreed.

This INF treaty was BS for Russia anyway. They need to start making the new missile now and not wait. USA is already making the missile and Russia knows this. I presume they are making excuses as to why they arent doing it now which is a security issue in itself. I also presume they are saying this while they already have a missile or are in the process of making one that would deal with this issue.

I still think the Kalibr mobile launcher with 6 ready to fire missiles is the best option. Or fit it somehow with Yakhont missiles

A proliferation of IRBMs and cruise missiles of intermediate range is no problem for Russia... they have already spent the money developing the sensors to detect such attacks and the missiles to deal with them... it is Europe that is in the shit over this... Russia should not sign anything.

MIRM medium-range ballistic missile development program to be discontinued in the US

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3936488.html

Don't tell me the Trump administration is this stupid? (mods please don't remove this post, it's indirectly relevant to the discussion)

Mexico's popular President AMLO, the nation's first left-wing leader in over 5 decades, has just exposed a right-wing plot to try to remove him from power

Documents show opposition groups are conspiring together, with foreign support, to try to unseat him

https://twitter.com/BenjaminNorton/status/1270513376159023104

It's relevant here because if Trump is trying to wage a coup in Mexico, and if it fails you know who Obrador will turn too to prevent any future coups. If he's smart he'll contact Russia/China to prevent this crisis. Trumps 1st term has been extremely hostile towards Mexico, and with the current Covid crisis border trade between US/MX suffered heavily, and Trump might really be pushing his luck if he decides to start sanctioning MX if they refuse to kowtow. Such a hostile response may see MX be driven in to strategic relationships with Russia in the military sphere (S-400's in Monterrey), and with the looming IRBM crisis, we can all understand securing the southern border is pivotal.

The trump method seems to be to blunder in and rip up all existing agreements blaming everyone else that they are not working... even though they were and then try to rewrite a new deal that is more favourable to the US.

He is great at ripping up agreements but poor at establishing new ones... after calling your enemy rocket man, how do you then sell an agreement with them?

Looking back at the treaty it's clear how much of a treasonous comprador Gorbachev was. He didn't just destroy missiles that fell under the INF Treaty, he ordered the destruction of ballistic missiles that DIDN'T fall underneath the new treaty, such as Oka which had a max range of 400km. It's quite embarrassing how the lap-dog behavior developed in to the mind of Mikhail Compradorchev, the order to destroy Oka was so outrageous that the legendary designer Sergey Nepobedimy was forced to resign in disgust. Gordochev probably grew in to being a insecure weasel who craves and begs for others acceptance (look what the whimpering faggot did to earn his Nobel prize), to compensate for his low self-esteem he developed by growing up with a bird shit-stain birthmark.

An interesting post-script: US is loosening up on its definitions of MTCR compliance so it can sell Predators to other countries.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-press-secretary-unmanned-aerial-systems-exports/

Currently it doesn't sell them because the US considers armed drones to be cruise-missile tech restricted by MTCR.

hoom wrote:An interesting post-script: US is loosening up on its definitions of MTCR compliance so it can sell Predators to other countries.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-press-secretary-unmanned-aerial-systems-exports/

Currently it doesn't sell them because the US considers armed drones to be cruise-missile tech restricted by MTCR.

Which means even they know they were violating the INF Treaty in a multitude of ways.

Exactly.

Yet more evidence of the US violating the INF Treaty:

U.S. Navy BC-M-109 Tomahawk cruise missile emerging from a Mark 41 vertical launcher cell is displayed during the National Victory Celebration honoring the coalition forces of Desert Storm


https://twitter.com/Casillic/status/1286822666209579015

The INF Treaty was signed in June 1988, and this celebration with a Mk.41 cell with a Tomahawk cruise missile (on land) was in August 1991. Such a blatant and brazen violation of the INF Treaty only 3 years after it was originally signed.

I seem to remember the Americans were a bit shitty in the 1990s about the SS-23... it was withdrawn from Russian service but I seem to remember that the East Germany, Czechoslovakia, and Bulgaria also had some. East Germany got rid of theirs pretty quick, but Bulgaria and Slovakia refused to scrap them because they were not bound by the INF treaty... plus they didn't actually violate the treaty anyway as their range was less than 500km... they were cold war Iskander manouvering missiles... their manouvering cost them range...

Such a blatant and brazen violation of the INF Treaty only 3 years after it was originally signed.

That I see no issue with.
Its clearly a non-functional parade float only there symbolising the use of Naval Tomahawks in Gulf War I.

hoom wrote:

Such a blatant and brazen violation of the INF Treaty only 3 years after it was originally signed.

That I see no issue with.
Its clearly a non-functional parade float only there symbolising the use of Naval Tomahawks in Gulf War I.

So your just completely oblivious to the other times they violated the INF Treaty? If I was caught countless times stealing cookies from the cookie jar, I could just stick my hand in the cookie jar and when I'm caught I could just claim that I'm 'pretending' to steal one lol?  I've violated your trust and lied to you countless times before, just trust me this time......honest, it'll be different...would I lie to you?  [/DoubleThink]

Not a problem now... the US can violate it but now Russia can too, so Russia is much better off with this restriction removed...

It now means that IRBMs and IRCMs need to be accounted for in START treaty negotiations.

Previously when they were banned then they didn't matter, but now they are not... US IRCM and IRBMs should now count towards their strategic missile allowance because the US can base them in Europe and Asia... effectively making them strategic nuclear weapons.

GarryB wrote:

Previously when they were banned then they didn't matter, but now they are not... US IRCM and IRBMs should now count towards their strategic missile allowance because the US can base them in Europe and Asia... effectively making them strategic nuclear weapons.

But Russia can easily defend against such weapons and does not have enough strategic nuclear nuclear weapons to wipe out all of nato.

Russia benefits from proliferation of IRCMs and IRBMs because in a war most of western ones will be stopped by Russia's IADS.

So your just completely oblivious to the other times they violated the INF Treaty?

Have you fucking seen my other posts in this thread?
I've been the one pointing out their breaches & quoting the Treaty showing how their breaches are breaches.

This is a dummy on a truck for a parade not in any way representing a possible or planned truck-based system.
Its a fucking parade float, its not a breach.

But Russia can easily defend against such weapons and does not have enough strategic nuclear nuclear weapons to wipe out all of nato.

Russia benefits from proliferation of IRCMs and IRBMs because in a war most of western ones will be stopped by Russia's IADS.

Even more so in fact, because IRBMs and IRCMs as well as MRBMs and MRCMs (intermediate and medium range weapons respectively) don't count as strategic weapons, so this essentially means all their strategic weapons, whether ICBM, air launched cruise missile or sub launched ballistic missiles only need to be fired at the US and they can use shorter ranged missiles not limited by the start treaty against targets in Europe, the middle east, and Asia (ie japan, australia etc).

This means they can target more of HATO with unlimited weapons and save the START limited weapons for the US.

This is a dummy on a truck for a parade not in any way representing a possible or planned truck-based system.
Its a fucking parade float, its not a breach.

For the last decade or so the US has been building or trying to build AEGIS ASHORE vertical launch missile systems in eastern europe and Japan as part of their ABM system.

The AEGIS Ashore system is their equivalent to the UKSK-M system in that it can launch SAMs, but also cruise missiles and therefore is in direct violation of the INF treaty... no matter where it is built it is a land based cruise missile launch platform which are completely banned under the INF treaty... whether made in Europe or Asia or the US... they are simply not allowed any.

16 days after the INF treaty expired they test launched a tomahawk missile in europe from a ground based AEGIS Ashore launcher... something they claimed when the INF treaty was in effect to be impossible.

Clear obvious violation of the treaty.... it is now better gone for Russia because they have iskander deployed widely so new 5,000km range cruise missiles could easily be added to the inventory very quickly along with Zircon missiles with perhaps solid rocket booster stages to double or triple their flight range...

Two years will be enough to create modifications of Iskander missiles of sufficient range to counterbalance American missiles, say a Vedomosti source in the Russian defense industry and an interlocutor close to the Russian Defense Ministry.

Adding an extra rocket stage would significantly boost range and performance... but would take more than 16 days...