RF Threatens Consequences If US Deploys Land-Based Missles in Europe (INF Violation)

[ArmyATC]

RF Threatens Consequences If US Deploys Land-Based Missles in Europe (INF Violation)

Moscow (AFP) - Russia on Thursday warned the United States of consequences if it moves to deploy land-based missiles in Europe in contravention of a key Cold-War era arms control treaty.

"It is clear that such actions would mean complete destruction by the American side of the regime of the treaty with all its attendant consequences," the Russian foreign ministry said, referring to the 1987 INF treaty on intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles.

"We urge the United States to ensure the full implementation of the INF, (and) not to threaten the feasibility of this document," the ministry said in a statement.

The two countries have accused each other of violating the treaty signed by US President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987.

The INF seems now obsolete. Both sides have new technologies that have already been deployed in Europe that violate the provisions of this 1987 treaty. So why are the US and Russia still going on about this? It seems as both are making accusations while both continue to deploy new technology that violate the INF..

http://news.yahoo.com/russia-threatens-consequences-us-deploys-missiles-europe-131425004.html

 

[ArmyATC]

The Definitions in the INF

Article II

For the purposes of this Treaty:

1. The term "ballistic missile" means a missile that has a ballistic trajectory over most of its flight path. The term "ground-launched ballistic missile (GLBM)" means a ground-launched ballistic missile that is a weapon-delivery vehicle.

2. The term "cruise missile" means an unmanned, self-propelled vehicle that sustains flight through the use of aerodynamic lift over most of its flight path. The term "ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM)" means a ground-launched cruise missile that is a weapon-delivery vehicle.

3. The term "GLBM launcher" means a fixed launcher or a mobile land-based transporter-

erector-launcher mechanism for launching a GLBM.

4. The term "GLCM launcher" means a fixed launcher or a mobile land-based transporter-erector-launcher mechanism for launching a GLCM.

5. The term "intermediate-range missile" means a GLBM or a GLCM having a range capability in excess of 1000 kilometers but not in excess of 5500 kilometers.

6. The term "shorter-range missile" means a GLBM or a GLCM having a range capability equal to or in excess of 500 kilometers but not in excess of 1000 kilometers.

7. The term "deployment area" means a designated area within which intermediate-range missiles and launchers of such missiles may operate and within which one or more missile operating bases are located.

8. The term "missile operating base" means:

(a) in the case of intermediate-range missiles, a complex of facilities, located within a deployment area, at which intermediate-range missiles and launchers of such missiles normally operate, in which support structures associated with such missiles and launchers are also located and in which support equipment associated with such missiles and launchers is normally located; and
(b) in the case of shorter-range missiles, a complex of facilities, located any place, at which shorter-range missiles and launchers of such missiles normally operate and in which support equipment associated with such missiles and launchers is normally located.

As we all can read, both have violated these definitions. So again, what is really going on?


http://fas.org/nuke/control/inf/text/inf.htm

 

[jayfeather31]

As we all can read, both have violated these definitions. So again, what is really going on?

Pure uncontrolled madness at its finest.

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

Both sides have new technologies that have already been deployed in Europe that violate the provisions of this 1987 treaty. So why are the US and Russia still going on about this? It seems as both are making accusations while both continue to deploy new technology that violate the INF.

It's a game. Each side attempting to blame the other of being the one to cause the collapse of the treaty and starting a new arms race. It doesn't matter who is actually to blame. All that matters is who they can get the world to believe is to blame.

 

[Remorazz]

It seems these arms control treaties are used more to make a country look good and peaceful on the PR side of things than actually controlling weapon use. No one really follows them to every detail anyway.

 

[ArmyATC]

Both sides have new technologies that have already been deployed in Europe that violate the provisions of this 1987 treaty. So why are the US and Russia still going on about this? It seems as both are making accusations while both continue to deploy new technology that violate the INF.

It's a game. Each side attempting to blame the other of being the one to cause the collapse of the treaty and starting a new arms race. It doesn't matter who is actually to blame. All that matters is who they can get the world to believe is to blame.

It seems these arms control treaties are used more to make a country look good and peaceful on the PR side of things than actually controlling weapon use. No one really follows them to every detail anyway.

Both are points that are logical. A new arms race would need popular support and international support. But, in my mind, that by definition, means that a new arms race is the definition of a new Cold War.

So,while I undertand the aversion to calling it that, it is what it is. If we accept this as a new 'undeclared' Cold War, doesn"t that for all practicality make the nuclear war threat now greater than before? And if we are going down this path, shouldn't we start calling a spade a spade and get on with modernization as Russia is doing?

Or are we at some 'in between' area that is guiding us all, a little at a time, towards a final 'snap in the twig' that would be a catastrophic failure?

 

[matty1053]

What's the point of the inf treaty? We all know it's nearly not existing. I wouldn't doubt if Russia had Nuclear Subs in our waters. Or US has nuclear subs in Russia water.



But I think America should. Really... would we launch them? Probably not. I think we have a better chance of a mass civil war in America than a nuclear war.