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

[sferrin]

"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]

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]

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 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[stealthflanker]

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.

Yes.

 

[_Del_]

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]

US to test new missile as arms treaty with Russia ends

WASHINGTON (AP) — With the scrapping of a landmark arms control agreement Friday, the U.S. announced plans to test a new missile amid growing concerns about emerging threats and new weapons.

apnews.com

U.S. withdraws from Soviet-era nuclear missile accord with Russia

The United States formally withdrew from a landmark 1987 nuclear missile pact with Russia on Friday after determining that Moscow was violating the treaty, an accusation the Kremlin has denied.

www.reuters.com

Long overdue.

 

[Grey Havoc]

INF nuclear treaty: Nato 'to avoid arms race' after US-Russia pact ends

Nato blames Russia after a key Cold War nuclear missile pact with the US broke down on Friday.

www.bbc.com

The race has already begun. And the United States and the rest of the West are way behind, at best.

 

[bobbymike]

SECDEF: US has withdrawn from INF, will ‘fully pursue’ development of new missile systems

A landmark arms control treaty that President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev signed three decades ago is dead, prompting fears of a new global arms race.

www.militarytimes.com

 

[sferrin]

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.

 

[bobbymike]

Janes | Latest defence and security news

Janes | The latest defence and security news from Janes - the trusted source for defence intelligence

www.janes.com

 

[marauder2048]

Depending on how ghetto you were willing to go

I saw what I think was a documentary on that.

 

[sferrin]

Not that ghetto. I was thinking more like this, where they basically bolted a naval launcher to a truck:

 

[Desertfox]

Isn't that exactly what they did in the latest test? It looked like just a Mk 41 strapped to a trailer.

 

[marauder2048]

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.

 

[sferrin]

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]

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.)

 

[marauder2048]

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.

 

[sferrin]

THAAD-ER used the 10x10 truck vs the 8x8 with fewer missiles.

 

[bobbymike]

Where Will the US Base Intermediate-Range Missiles in the Pacific?

Japan’s Ryukyu Islands and Palau are the most probable contenders for new U.S. intermediate-range missiles.

thediplomat.com

Should have kept all those islands we had after WWII space for a few hundred IRBMs.

 

[sferrin]

How 'bout they base them on this then they don't have to worry about islands:

 

[bobbymike]

How 'bout they base them on this then they don't have to worry about islands:

View attachment 618377

Fit a few on a converted one of these

 

[bobbymike]

Good Riddance to the INF Treaty

When it comes to balancing China, the INF Treaty was a straightjacket for the United States—and exiting the agreement the only sound option.

www.foreignaffairs.com

 

[Forest Green]

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.

 

[bobbymike]

What Happens After the INF Treaty?

Deterrence and arms control have long shaped U.S. national security policy. A negotiator of the 1987 agreement asks: What now?

www.defenseone.com

 

[bobbymike]

Post INF Great Power Arms Control

The end of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty (through which the United States and the Soviet Union agreed to eliminate all ground-launched missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,

www.realcleardefense.com

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]

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]

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/2...awsuit-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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.