Stuart, they have their own Storm Shadow equivalent.
Shore-based AEGIS could be loaded with cruise missiles easily (it's strike length Mk 41 VLS), that would be a software change. That's irrelevant in practice because the USN could easily launch hundreds of SLCMs from European waters and doesn't need AEGIS ashore for that. This can very easily be interpreted as a violation of the INF treaty article VI(1)a and the U.S. could have avoided the issue by using ship-based BMD instead of AEGIS ashore.
It's also understandable that Russians pretend that drones are GLCMs, for adding a landing gear to GLCMs would otherwise be a legal way to cheat on the treaty. Yet again, Golabl Hawk et al are not practical alternatives to GLCMs against Russia. The stealthy jet-powered drone bomber prototypes are a different issue - it makes sense to think of them as a practical workaround for the GLCM ban and thus a violation of the spirit of the INF treaty.
Klahtinen, their talk about "small" nuke is not what that's really about. They have tiny, even portable nuke designs that work. They plan for a nuke that can resist extreme shocks, as needed in a bunker-piercing munition. Bunker-piercing bombs have a tiny mas and volume share of explosives. An underground nuke explosion with only a tiny opening above would supposedly contain almost all radiocactivity underground, but the FAS is skeptical about that.
They can replace old nuclear warheads that have deteriorated components (due to age and radioactivity) with rebuilts of the same design.
Edited by lastdingo, 05 February 2019 - 0433 AM.