Missile Technology Control Regime (MCTR)

www.mtcr.info

Trade - MTCR

MTCR and Trade. Export Licenses:. End-user Undertakings:. Inter-partner Trade:. Adherence to MTCR Guidelines & Annex by Non-Members:.
www.mtcr.info www.mtcr.info

en.m.wikipedia.org

Missile Technology Control Regime - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org

IF the report is true ? it could be seen as 'levelling up' in the region ?
SS-26 is already reported to be in service with Algeria ? Armenia, Belarus
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
Breach of MTCR?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1820514019259904363
View: https://x.com/NOELreports/status/1820514019259904363
Click to expand...

If so, MTCR would've been breached by Western countries many times over in the past. It does not forbid any and every sale of missiles over 300km/500kg, but only transfers of such technology to countries that could not already build an equivalent system with domestic resources. Quite apart from the vagueness inherent in this definition*, Iran demonstrably has that ability in spades. Conversely, Iranian transfer of long-range missiles and loitering munitions to the Houthis is a pretty clear-cut case of a breach.

* It is a difficult determination and thus open to dispute. Can the Netherlands really build a Tomahawk equivalent on their own? The airframe and guidance, sure - a suitable engine would not be available off-the-shelf, though. It's well within Dutch industrial capability to develop at short notice, but how short a time qualifies and how do you judge that objectively and reliably? I mean, ultimately it's only a matter of time until Burkina Faso could achieve the same, though obviously a much longer period than in the case of the Netherlands. Where do you draw the line, and who gets to decide?

And that's before we get into the problem that the provisions of the regime focus exclusively on ballistic and jet-powered cruise missiles. Things like MALE/HALE UAVs or loitering munitions are not foreseen in the regulations at all. Do these constitute a cruise missile capability? They are unmanned and can deliver similar explosive payloads over comparable ranges, after all. This is a point Russia has actually raised, albeit in bad faith (but that doesn't mean it's not a veritable loophole...), to accuse the US of violating INF. So do, for example, Turkish sales of Akinci UAVs all over the place breach MCTR?

Last but not least, before you come up with the argument that Iran is only able to achieve the results it gets thanks to foreign dual-use tech, think again. If we apply that sort of strict standard, the number of eligible customer countries positively implodes and only exacerbates the difficulties with justifying certain sales practices that Western suppliers have engaged in. For instance, would Australia still be able to build long-range missiles (and thus be an eligible recipient of Tomahawks) if they were cut off from access to US, German and Japanese machine tools and electronics?
 
So since Ukraine built the RT-23 and R-36 they would also be exempt when they receive LRHWs, correct?;)

KB Pivdenne - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

I'd also argue that Iran has not demonstrated accuracy with its missiles.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
One thing to remember is that MTCR isn't a binding treaty commitment. It was basically an attempt to create an international norm around missile transfers, and as mentioned above, it is basically a dead letter these days. Some countries codified it into internal legislation or policy, which is more restrictive, but for others, it's "more guidelines than actual rules," as they say.

Edit: I wrote my senior thesis about MTCR, back in more optimistic days when "norming" was an actual thing that people thought might work in international law. Not so much these days.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom