• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

U.S. Set to Suspend Obligations Regarding INF Treaty in Dispute with Russia

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,948
Reaction score
286
"WASHINGTON --- The United States is expected to announce it will suspend compliance with a key Cold War weapons treaty, most likely on February 1, over its accusations that Russia is not meeting its obligations.

A congressional staffer told RFE/RL on January 31 that the State Department is likely to make the announcement a day ahead of the U.S.-set deadline of February 2 for Russia to meet Washington's requirements as part of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF). "


http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/199570/us-set-to-suspend-inf-treaty-obligations-in-dispute-with-russia.html


In the US at least this is mostly symbolic given there is nothing in the arsenal, or even in development, that would exceed the limits of the Treaty. A W80-armed JASSM-ER would give a nice interim capability on relatively short notice though (while still not exceeding the Treaty limits).
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,208
Reaction score
125
I thought there were a bunch of things that pushed right up on the INF range limit. LRPF/PrSM was described with a max range of 499km; that seems likely to have been basically a software limit that can be "unlocked" now to exceed 500 km range. LRLASM, if it is adopted for ground use, might also push right up to or exceed the limits.

Whether there is a need to nuclearize any of those is an entirely separate question. Given the politics around nuclear weapon employment in sub-strategic situations, I don't see the point in pouring money down that particular hole.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,948
Reaction score
286
TomS said:
I thought there were a bunch of things that pushed right up on the INF range limit. LRPF/PrSM was described with a max range of 499km; that seems likely to have been basically a software limit that can be "unlocked" now to exceed 500 km range. LRLASM, if it is adopted for ground use, might also push right up to or exceed the limits.

Whether there is a need to nuclearize any of those is an entirely separate question. Given the politics around nuclear weapon employment in sub-strategic situations, I don't see the point in pouring money down that particular hole.
You're never going to get Russia back to the table on INF-banned nuclear weapons by ceding the field to them.
 

DrRansom

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
527
Reaction score
3
I have two thoughts about the INF treaty:

First - Russia is going to gain much more from quitting the INF than the US. Russia has and will deploy nuclear armed intermediate weapons; the US is not going to create a new nuclear weapon anytime soon. Russia has a greater need for intermediate conventional strike because if it's lower quality air force; the US doesn't have the same limitations.

Second - the US couldn't be party to the INF when China has a massive conventional intermediate ballistic missile force and the US couldn't allow a treaty to become worthless while still legally existing.

It'll be a wash, but I think Russia will still come out ahead.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,948
Reaction score
286
DrRansom said:
I have two thoughts about the INF treaty:

First - Russia is going to gain much more from quitting the INF than the US. Russia has and will deploy nuclear armed intermediate weapons; the US is not going to create a new nuclear weapon anytime soon. Russia has a greater need for intermediate conventional strike because if it's lower quality air force; the US doesn't have the same limitations.

Second - the US couldn't be party to the INF when China has a massive conventional intermediate ballistic missile force and the US couldn't allow a treaty to become worthless while still legally existing.

It'll be a wash, but I think Russia will still come out ahead.
At the very least it will allow the US to do something about countering the Chinese ballistic missile force. I don't honestly care about Russian INF nukes. Let Europe tackle that problem.
 

Flyaway

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
2,238
Reaction score
296
The death of the INF Treaty or the end of the post-Cold war era

With the contributions of: Antoine Bondaz, Stéphane Delory, Isabelle Facon, Emmanuelle Maitre, Valérie Niquet

This paper is translated from "La mort annoncée du Traité FNI et la fin de l’après-Guerre froide", Note n° 02/2019, published on February 1, and slightly updated to take into account the Russian suspension annoucement.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
146
https://breakingdefense.com/2019/02/pentagon-studies-post-inf-weapons-shooting-down-hypersonics/?fbclid=IwAR0aJ-ygqC5LKsdn3tDM1Ut6r9Z27AhZbGuzfmMMQ19iqsc8Te7kyaYUbqc

WASHINGTON: A Pentagon study on how to counter counter hypersonic missiles – which China, Russia, and the US are all developing – is in final review and will be out soon, the director of the Missile Defense Agency said today. The Analysis Of Alternatives (AOA) looks at both existing interceptors and new designs, as well as directed energy weapons such as lasers, Lt. Gen. Samuel Greaves said at the Center for Strategic & International Studies this afternoon.

Countering hypersonics is a high priority, but hardly the only one, in the administration’s recently concluded Missile Defense Review, which says increasingly dangerous and diverse threats will require the US to develop both new defenses and new offensive weapons. It’s an approach that holds up well now that the administration is withdrawing from the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty after years of Russian violations, the deputy undersecretary for policy, David Trachtenberg, said at CSIS.
 

Austin

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
194
Reaction score
1
This will also benefit Russia as well because now they can have IRBM class of missile targetting China , India , Pakistan and other countries in the region instead of relying just on ICBM .....granted these are not hostile countries but Chinese 95 % BM are IRBM class and India & Pakistan 100 % BM are in IRBM class and they can all reach some part of Russia.

Also Russia can use IRBM class of missile to target some parts of US and Canada as this blog writer has explained via Google Maps

http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2019/02/south-front-say-what.html

US too can target China with similar class of missile.

IF they want a new Treaty on INF then more number of countries must be added we are no longer in 87 any ways and things have changed a lot in 3 decades
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
205
https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xwfw_665399/s2510_665401/t1635268.shtml

Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Geng Shuang's Remarks on the US Suspending INF Treaty Obligations and Beginning Withdrawl Process

2019/02/02

Q: US Secretary of State Pompeo announced that the US was suspending its obligations under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty effective February 2, and would begin the withdrawl process. Does China have any comment on this?

A: China finds this move regrettable. We have repeatedly stated China's position regarding the INF Treaty. As an important bilateral treaty in arms control and disarmament, this treaty plays a significant role in easing major-country relations, promoting international and regional peace, and safeguarding global strategic balance and stability. China is opposed to the US withdrawal and urges the US and Russia to properly resolve differences through constructive dialogue.

The US unilateral withdrawal from the INF Treaty may trigger a series of adverse consequences. China will closely follow relevant developments.

Q: Will China agree to negotiate a new multilateral treaty on arms control to replace the INF Treaty?

A: The multilateralization of the INF Treaty involves a series of complex issues covering political, military and legal fields, which draws concerns from many countries. China opposes the multilateralization of this treaty. What is imperative at the moment is to uphold and implement the existing treaty instead of creating a new one.
 

stealthflanker

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
261
Reaction score
5
In fact tho i kinda share view with Carlo Kopp and Austin regarding why Russia wants or already scrapped INF. The emergence of China.

China's missile forces actually hurt Russia more as most if not all of its territory lies within range of China Intermediate missile forces. and this can be launched deep from Chinese territory. and naturally Russian wants something to balance that and thus reason why 9M729 born.

This view however is somewhat little discussed.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,948
Reaction score
286
flateric said:
Q: US Secretary of State Pompeo announced that the US was suspending its obligations under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty effective February 2, and would begin the withdrawl process. Does China have any comment on this?

A: China is opposed to the US withdrawal and urges the US and Russia to properly resolve differences through constructive dialogue.


Q: Will China agree to negotiate a new multilateral treaty on arms control to replace the INF Treaty?

A: China opposes the multilateralization of this treaty.
Let's trim the fat on that a bit. So basically China is whining because Russia and the US will have the same freedom China has.
 

_Del_

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
366
Reaction score
3
stealthflanker said:
China's missile forces actually hurt Russia more as most if not all of its territory lies within range of China Intermediate missile forces. and this can be launched deep from Chinese territory. and naturally Russian wants something to balance that and thus reason why 9M729 born.

This view however is somewhat little discussed.
Fair. Also, the existence of US weapons with the range that might encroach on the treaty limitations that have been "apparently" down-rated in range to avoid violation.

Though this perspective would inevitably get a better airing if Russia came out and said these things.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,991
Reaction score
194
Last edited:

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,948
Reaction score
286
Depending on how ghetto you were willing to go it could be pretty easy to get something in service in an, "emergency capability" status to get us by until the stuff in development is ready.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,948
Reaction score
286
Not that ghetto. :) I was thinking more like this, where they basically bolted a naval launcher to a truck:

 

Desertfox

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
105
Reaction score
16
Isn't that exactly what they did in the latest test? It looked like just a Mk 41 strapped to a trailer.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,325
Reaction score
69
The THAAD canister looks to be long enough to accommodate TLAM.
And the launcher could probably accommodate four canisters without exceeding the lift weight limit.
 
Last edited:

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,948
Reaction score
286
Isn't that exactly what they did in the latest test? It looked like just a Mk 41 strapped to a trailer.
Yeah I think that was even more cobbled together than the truck above.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,948
Reaction score
286
The THAAD canister looks to be long enough to accommodate TLAM.
And the launcher could probably accommodate four canisters without exceeding the lift weight limit.
THAAD is much skinnier than Tomahawk. (13.5 vs 21) Maybe one of these could fit on the back of a 10-wheel though. (Weight should be fine.)

1920px-BGM-109G_Gryphon_-_ID_DF-ST-84-09185.JPEG
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,325
Reaction score
69
The THAAD canister looks to be long enough to accommodate TLAM.
And the launcher could probably accommodate four canisters without exceeding the lift weight limit.
THAAD is much skinnier than Tomahawk. (13.5 vs 21) Maybe one of these could fit on the back of a 10-wheel though. (Weight should be fine.)
Which makes me wonder how far they got (if anywhere) with the THAAD-ER canister.

The palletized reloadability is attractive.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,948
Reaction score
286
THAAD-ER used the 10x10 truck vs the 8x8 with fewer missiles.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,948
Reaction score
286
How 'bout they base them on this then they don't have to worry about islands:

160421-N-YE579-005-800x533.jpg
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
146

The latest House version of the Defense budget contains no money for developing new ground-based intermediate-range missiles. In their refusal to provide funding, House Democrats are encouraged by the arms control community’s arguments that the U.S. can salvage some portion of the INF Treaty by showing restraint. This advice does not take into account that, over the last century, progress on limiting great power armaments has been directly related to the power and competitiveness of America’s military. If Congress wants to promote genuine progress on arms control with great power rivals like Russia and China, it should forget restraint and double down on superiority.
 

Forest Green

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
319
Reaction score
98
I honestly don't know what world they live in. China has poured tons of money into IRBM development and they're trying to salvage something that doesn't exist.
 

TsrJoe

CLEARANCE: Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
336
Reaction score
23
totally irrelevant and off topic as are many of the comments posted here, the US. is currently funding large scale landfill extension of a site in Okinawa so it's not just China who are playing the game (hmm, I know it's hard with such divided and indeed belligerent subjects but maybe we should look at such posts through others eyes ?) ... https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/08/07/national/okinawa-files-another-lawsuit-u-s-base-landfill-work-2/#.XYH_TDPTVkw
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artificial_islands
QUOTE="Forest Green, post: 361581, member: 13764"]
Should have kept all those islands we had after WWII space for a few hundred IRBMs.
Could just make some artificial islands in the South China Sea, it seems to be en vogue these days. It's international water, so no reason not to.
[/QUOTE]
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,948
Reaction score
286
I honestly don't know what world they live in. China has poured tons of money into IRBM development and they're trying to salvage something that doesn't exist.
The Democrats control the House. This was as predictable as the sun rising in the East. Hopefully that little problem will get fixed in 2020.
 

Desertfox

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
105
Reaction score
16
The issues are bipartisan, they are not party specific. I have seen firsthand Republican house members pushing for course of actions and programs without concern for the ramifications of their actions and with complete disregard for the intelligence community's assessments. There is blame to go all the way around.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,948
Reaction score
286
The issues are bipartisan, they are not party specific. I have seen firsthand Republican house members pushing for course of actions and programs without concern for the ramifications of their actions and with complete disregard for the intelligence community's assessments. There is blame to go all the way around.
That may be but at the moment the Democrats control the House so if they want something, or don't, that's what they get. (Obviously it still needs to go to the Senate and the Pres, but as far as the House goes that's Democrat controlled.) And it's not like this is the first incident. The democrats have been trying to short the DoD when it comes to Triad modernization or hypersonics since they took back control of the House.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
146
The issues are bipartisan, they are not party specific. I have seen firsthand Republican house members pushing for course of actions and programs without concern for the ramifications of their actions and with complete disregard for the intelligence community's assessments. There is blame to go all the way around.
That may be but at the moment the Democrats control the House so if they want something, or don't, that's what they get. (Obviously it still needs to go to the Senate and the Pres, but as far as the House goes that's Democrat controlled.) And it's not like this is the first incident. The democrats have been trying to short the DoD when it comes to Triad modernization or hypersonics since they took back control of the House.
I’ve criticized the GOP many times on this forum when warranted. Mainly in the immediate post Cold War years when the “peace dividend” eviscerated the Triad and nuclear enterprise and other conventional systems.

Also it was the GOP in the relevant House committee that voted to stop the “Land Based Strategic Deterrent”, the Reliable Replacement Warhead, the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator and the Advanced Concept Initiative (R&D of next generation nuclear warheads).
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,948
Reaction score
286
The issues are bipartisan, they are not party specific. I have seen firsthand Republican house members pushing for course of actions and programs without concern for the ramifications of their actions and with complete disregard for the intelligence community's assessments. There is blame to go all the way around.
That may be but at the moment the Democrats control the House so if they want something, or don't, that's what they get. (Obviously it still needs to go to the Senate and the Pres, but as far as the House goes that's Democrat controlled.) And it's not like this is the first incident. The democrats have been trying to short the DoD when it comes to Triad modernization or hypersonics since they took back control of the House.
I’ve criticized the GOP many times on this forum when warranted. Mainly in the immediate post Cold War years when the “peace dividend” eviscerated the Triad and nuclear enterprise and other conventional systems.

Also it was the GOP in the relevant House committee that voted to stop the “Land Based Strategic Deterrent”, the Reliable Replacement Warhead, the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator and the Advanced Concept Initiative (R&D of next generation nuclear warheads).

Yep.
 
Top