Russia testing new cruise missile and not holding their end of the bargain

[chopper2004]

US says Russia may have violated nuclear arms control treaty - special-ops.org | special-ops.org (http://www.special-ops.org/us-says-russia-may-violated-nuclear-arms-control-treaty/)

I see a parallel with a Dale Brown novel here ..........

[Heathrow Harry]

talk about lacking any detail...................... :(:(

[Bushfiva]

The world is a very different shape now. US and Russia have a treaty forbidding intermediate-range weapons, while a bunch of nations now have that capabiity, including the miniaturization of nukes to go on such delivery vehicles. It's time for a renegotiation.

[500N]

"talk about lacking any detail...................... http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/sowee.gifhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/sowee.gif"

That was my thought,



"forbidding intermediate-range weapons"

Is that "intermediate-range weapons" or "intermediate-range NUCLEAR weapons" ?

[awblain]

The treaty bans intermediate-range GROUND-LAUNCHED weapons, cruise and ballistic, with ranges between 500 and 5500 km.

The treaty's also rather obsolete now, since the end of the cold war meant that nuclear forces in Europe aren't a concern anymore.

If Russia wants a longer range cruise missile, all it needs to do is fire it from a ship or an aircraft or a submarine like the US can and does.

[500N]

The treaty is obsolete now, for reasons you stated but more because
of the earlier poster, why have a treaty when a fair few others have
the exact weapons or are developing them.

[Just This Once...]

Does this mean the US can remove those pesky boxes from the Bone that stop cruise missiles from being installed?

[awblain]

500N, that's a valid point, although since both the US and Russia deploy many hundreds of air- and sea-launched intermediate-range cruise missiles, they're hardly in a position to complain about new entrants to the club.

Since Russia has a secure deterrent, if the current modernization plans succeed from ground and sea, then it's not clear what the problem is with them flying Topol-Ms at a minimum range. This isn't the first short-range test they've carried out, and Russia is keen to have the chance to maintain deterrence with a small number of missiles that can defeat current US ABM tools. Low-flying would allow that, to targets in Europe at least, although perhaps not accurately.

Israel and India probably currently use derated ICBMs to deter their adversaries that lie within IRBM treaty distances, and since most of India lies within the treaty distance from Pakistan, presumably Pakistan fields IRBMs directly.

[awblain]

JTO, Any limits to the number of aircraft able to carry air-launched cruise missiles must be associated with other treaties. All the US air-launched cruise missiles have ranges that lie in the intermediate-range treaty zone.

The IRT only applies to ground-launched weapons.

[Just This Once...]

Ah, a la carte.

[Heathrow Harry]

"The treaty bans intermediate-range GROUND-LAUNCHED weapons, cruise and ballistic, with ranges between 500 and 5500 km"

the idea being that the USSR would not be able to strike W Europe (excluding Germany) with IR missiles

After the collapse of the USSR the same restriction means the Russians can't hit anywere in the west (even Poland) (excluding them using that hole in Kalingrad)

Bit like the original French IRBM deterrent that could only just reach the USSR border......

[awblain]

HH, I agree.

I believe that the treaty was negotiated, from the West's perspective, to remove the SS20, especially since the intended accuracy of the Pershing II was never really demonstrated as any sort of counter.

That did surely set the boundaries of the ranges, but now that a large-scale war in Europe seems unlikely, and things have moved on 30 years, with the difficult-to-hit Topol-M particularly taking over deterrence, it doesn't seem that there's much to worry about.