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
11,344
Reaction score
1
"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
2,972
Reaction score
0
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
11,344
Reaction score
1
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
513
Reaction score
0
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
11,344
Reaction score
1
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
1,775
Reaction score
1
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
8,526
Reaction score
1
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
0
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
8,684
Reaction score
0
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
252
Reaction score
0
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
11,344
Reaction score
1
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
348
Reaction score
0
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.
 
Top