Jump to content


Photo

Inf Treaty


  • Please log in to reply
215 replies to this topic

#21 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,476 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 05 February 2019 - 0419 AM

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.

https://www.state.go...102360.htm#text

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.

https://fas.org/prog...sbnkrbstrs.html

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.

  • 0

#22 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,870 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 05 February 2019 - 0424 AM

Stuart, they have their own Storm Shadow equivalent.

 

Klahtinen, their talk about "small" nuke is not what that's really about. They have tiny 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.

https://fas.org/prog...sbnkrbstrs.html

They can replace old nuclear warheads that have deteriorated components (due to age and radioactivity) with rebuilts of the same design.

 

Perhaps, but im just thinking of a weapon that NATO can use. France and Britain are already plumbed to carry Stormshadow already. If they were looking at what ought to be an alliance Tactical nuclear weapon, it would be a better start than an American weapon nobody else can mount.


  • 0

#23 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nemui

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,163 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:doko da?!
  • Interests:Sleeping

Posted 06 February 2019 - 0741 AM

It was probably coming due to the non-involvement of China, which in fairness was a remote consideration in 1987 to hold off on an important step for decreasing tensions in Europe. The Russians have been chipping away at its foundations politically if not technologically for a long time for that reason, and rationally I can understand both their and the American concern about the Asian side; I'm just miffed that Trump made Putin a gift by needlessly assuming the role of the villain who killed the treaty in popular perception. I also have the faint suspicion that the move is collaterally designed to push the Europeans into greater US dependency or else spending more money on contributing to nuclear deterrence, which would be much better used for conventional means.

 

But since China is the actual focus, I agree that there will not be much practical change for Europe in the short term; in part due to the lack of technical necessity noted by RETAC, in part because the Western European countries are not hot to have more nukes based there while NATO's continuing nominal adherence to the NATO-Russia Founding Act prevents basing in Eastern Europe. Though that act is on shaky ground itself due to the practical lapse of the base it was agreed upon, sea-based cruise missiles and SLBMs can already counter any Russian systems; the biggest step might be developing a nuclear ATACMS variant as I have suggested before to balance Russian SRBMs in Kaliningrad.

 

The 80s kid inside me manically welcomes the prospect of returning to my childhood days of nuclear doom of course, and I'm not alone even if others have harder interests. German political parties on the Left are already dreaming of a new mass peace movement which lifted them up back then, particularly the Greens. I'm looking forward to seeing them march alongside the new pro-Russian Right, personally. :D

 

There was a part in his SOTA speech about the INF treaty which follow what would be an expected American position. Paraphrased as "the US has followed it, Russia has time and time violated it, so the US has to leave. Maybe a new one can be made to include China and others, but if not, the US will just out-do the others in competition." @58:25 https://www.youtube....h?v=XpY_KQTKHQQ

 

So perception will depend on how the media handles it. If the media ignores it, then it sort of reinforces whatever sloppy way Trump put it that made him look like the bad guy for pulling out of the IMF. If the media echoes what he said at the SOTA, then it retracts the perception gift to Putin.


  • 0

#24 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,870 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 06 February 2019 - 0749 AM

CNN tried to manipulate it to look like Trump was being hasty. They seem to have abandoned it when they realized how dumb they sounded.


  • 0

#25 Roman Alymov

Roman Alymov

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,154 posts
  • Location:Moscow, Russia
  • Interests:Tank recovery

Posted 07 February 2019 - 0206 AM


  • 0

#26 Roman Alymov

Roman Alymov

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,154 posts
  • Location:Moscow, Russia
  • Interests:Tank recovery

Posted 07 February 2019 - 0220 AM

Old maps   - RSD-10\SS-20 reach from Kostroma region

51022117_2429478713792606_12694947811054

 

and from Chukotka

51417509_2429478703792607_15362783540286


  • 0

#27 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,870 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 07 February 2019 - 0300 AM

They were forward deploying SS20 as far west as the Baltic states. Wouldnt surprise me if they could have reached Newfoundland from there.


  • 0

#28 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,065 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York City

Posted 08 February 2019 - 0051 AM

How Trump left the treaty was bad diplomacy. But that the Russians were breaking it goes back to Obama years. But the thing is, as a sea power, theres little The US has to gain. The only win I can see is if the US redeploys tomahawks, and the only country that would host them is Poland. Now Im all for that if the admin and poles are, but I dont think thats going to happen. End of the day, the INF treaty was much more limiting to a land power than a sea power, and Id rather have had it in place to make the Russians look like the obvious bad guy rather than preemptively leave.
  • 0

#29 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,870 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 08 February 2019 - 0304 AM

Trump left the treaty, less to free his hands, more to make a point. And whilst 90 percent of that point is basically saying 'Look at me, im the God Emperor!', when he says that the US has no reason to stay in a treaty the other side is breaking, I can put my hand on my heart and agree with him. He is right. Staying in it is just pretending Russia respects the treaty which it hasnt for years.

 

As for what can be done, well there is no reason to go back to land based cruise, I think its a waste of time. Im all for forward basing heavy bombers in England with cruise missiles as part of a INF force. Or happily basing those SSGN Ohio's out the UK. Or even revive the arsenal ship concept. That could be nice and cheap, and no reason why it has to be particularly vulnerable.

 

In one respect, INF is irrelevant. If the Russians felt like atomizing Europe, they could right now anyway. The only fly in the ointment is we are back to decoupling nuclear use from strategic use. Back in the 1980's that was a concern for Europeans that America may do it. Now its a concern Russia may do it.  But if Russia ever crosses the nuclear threshold, I dont really think we are going to give much of a damn how they do it anyway.


  • 0

#30 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,048 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 February 2019 - 0356 AM

But that the Russians were breaking it goes back to Obama years.

?


  • 0

#31 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,870 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 08 February 2019 - 0417 AM

When they were testing the new range of Cruise missiles that Russia says it is to put in service. INF banned even the testing of such weapons. One might dispute it, but it would probably be resolved in a detailed inspection to ensure they are in compliance, and not packing an ultra large warhead as Russia claims. This has been refused.

 

Now Russia threatens Romania.

https://www.rferl.or...s/29758623.html

Russia says the United States should destroy its MK-41 missile-defense launch system deployed in NATO-member Romania in order to return to compliance with a landmark Cold War-era nuclear treaty.

The Russian Defense Ministry also said on February 7 that Washington should destroy its unmanned aerial vehicles for the same reason.

The U.S. Embassy's military attache was handed a note containing Moscow's demand after being summoned to the ministry.

Russia suspended the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty on February 3, a day after the United States announced it would withdraw in six months unless Moscow ended what it says were violations of the pact. Moscow denies violating the treaty.

The missile-defense system located in Deveselu, in southern Romania, is technically known as Aegis Ashore. It was inaugurated in May 2016 and is tasked with shooting down rockets as part of a larger defense shield.

In response, Romanian Defense Minister Teodor Melescanu said on February 7 that Aegis Ashore is a strictly defensive system.

Russia's demand "is purely an excuse for its own military programs that directly violate the INF Treaty," Melescanu said, adding that Romania will hold consultations with its allies and will come up with a common position on the issue.

Valery Kuzmin, Russia's envoy to Romania, told a news conference in Bucharest on February 7 that Moscow was not planning any "hostile or unfriendly actions" toward Romania.

However, since Romania hosts the U.S. missile-defense system on its territory, "it cannot be overlooked by the Russian defense planning," Kuzmin said in response to an RFE/RL reporter's question.


  • 0

#32 Roman Alymov

Roman Alymov

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,154 posts
  • Location:Moscow, Russia
  • Interests:Tank recovery

Posted 08 February 2019 - 0426 AM

 

Now Russia threatens Romania.

................................


Valery Kuzmin, Russia's envoy to Romania, told a news conference in Bucharest on February 7 that Moscow was not planning any "hostile or unfriendly actions" toward Romania.

However, since Romania hosts the U.S. missile-defense system on its territory, "it cannot be overlooked by the Russian defense planning," Kuzmin said in response to an RFE/RL reporter's question.

I wonder how it amounts to "threatens". Let me remind you your own words: "I live 20 miles away from a Major USAF Base. About 25 from a major RAF Airforce Base. If there is ever a major war with Russia, im soot on a wall." ( http://www.tank-net....38972&p=1412908) Isn't it logical that Romanians living next to strategic US Base are in the same situation, and it is reasonable to remind them about it before it is too late?


  • 0

#33 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,870 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 08 February 2019 - 0451 AM

Since Romanians strike me as not particularly stupid people, I hardly think they need the reminder. It says more about how the Kremlin feels it needs to intimidate people along its borders, than it does about the utility about on shore Aegis or Russian Strike capabilities.


Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 08 February 2019 - 0451 AM.

  • 0

#34 Roman Alymov

Roman Alymov

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,154 posts
  • Location:Moscow, Russia
  • Interests:Tank recovery

Posted 08 February 2019 - 0500 AM

Since Romanians strike me as not particularly stupid people, I hardly think they need the reminder. It says more about how the Kremlin feels it needs to intimidate people along its borders, than it does about the utility about on shore Aegis or Russian Strike capabilities.

Let me quote last phrase from your post above: "Kuzmin said in response to an RFE/RL reporter's question." so as we see it is not Russia " intimidating people along its borders" but reporter of RFE/RL, United States government-funded organization, asking stupid questions. https://en.wikipedia...e/Radio_Liberty


  • 0

#35 Roman Alymov

Roman Alymov

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,154 posts
  • Location:Moscow, Russia
  • Interests:Tank recovery

Posted 08 February 2019 - 0902 AM

Israel expert talking about bases and other things


  • 0

#36 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,494 posts

Posted 08 February 2019 - 1109 AM

Ah, those Cold War days. NATO vs Warsaw Pact. I would almost prefer that era to the ISIS/Taliban/Islamic terrorism of today. 


  • 0

#37 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,870 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 08 February 2019 - 1143 AM

I remember one astute commentator saying in 1991 that we may soon miss the cold war. How smart that was. For all the terror of going to sleep at night in the early 1980's, at least the world was, compared to today, blessedly stable. Now we have islamic terrorism, and the Cold Wars mini me brother back as well.


  • 0

#38 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,532 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Badalona, Spain
  • Interests:Technology, History

Posted 08 February 2019 - 1154 AM

You forgot Communist/SJW/PETA trolls on the internet.


  • 0

#39 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,870 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 08 February 2019 - 1159 AM

That too.

 

About a million years ago I did a college course on Communication Theory, and they showed a model of disruption and how it affects information flow. I never realized quite how prescient it would be.


  • 0

#40 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,476 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 08 February 2019 - 1251 PM

I remember one astute commentator saying in 1991 that we may soon miss the cold war. How smart that was. For all the terror of going to sleep at night in the early 1980's, at least the world was, compared to today, blessedly stable. Now we have islamic terrorism, and the Cold Wars mini me brother back as well.

 

The 1990's were the golden decade - especially so the years between the coup attempt in Moscow and 9/11.

 

You can see this even in art; nowadays we have more post-apocalyptic TV shows and movies than even in the 1980's, the decade of thermonuclear sword of damocles in a lighted room. The 1990's were extremely fun.


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users