NATO "seriously worried" about Russia's intermediate-range missiles!

Source (example):
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c87942208207

Taking the IMF treaty of 1987, intermediate range missiles have since been banned and neither the US, nor Russia, or anyone else in Europe may have and station them.

For some years, however, there is a dispute between the US and Russia in the matter, because allegedly or actually there are 2 batalions in Russia with the system 9M729 - SSC-8 which fell under this treaty.
The INF Treaty defines an intermediate-range missile as a ground-launched ballistic missile (GLBM) or GLCM having a range capability in excess of 1,000 km [about 540 nm] but not in excess of 5,500 km [2969.762 nm, but this is too precise, 3,000 nm is better]. The Treaty defines a shorter-range missile as a GLBM or GLCM having a range capability equal to or in excess of 500 km [270 nm] but not in excess of 1,000 km. A GLCM is defined as a ground-launched cruise missile that is a weapon delivery vehicle.
The missile’s assessed range is between 300 miles and 3,400 miles — the distance covered under the landmark INF treaty that banned an entire class of intermediate-range missiles. The missile is made by the normal aerodynamic scheme with wings folded in the fuselage of the missile in the transport position. The missile is equipped with a starting solid propellant, which fires after the launch. The control system and guidance of the cruise missile is presumably inertial control system (autopilot) with Doppler sensors drift angle correction according to satellite navigation systems GLONASS and GPS. At the final stage it may use active radar homing.

There is speculation that the missile is a surface option CBRC X-101 with a range of over 5,500 km [about 3,000 nm]. Creation and testing of such missiles in the ground form is recognized by Western observers in violation of the Treaty on the Reduction of INF, which was signed in 1987 between the Soviet Union and the United States.

The operational tactical or strategic rationale for a missile with a range of 3,000 nautuical miles is difficult to understand. If launched from Moscow, it would provide coverage of all Western Europe [but surely there is no lack of coverage of this area], and if fired from the Eastern extremity of Siberia, coverage would extend along the US West coast down to Los Angeles. Neither of these coverage areas seem particularly interesting, so the new missile may simply represent unbridled technological exuberance, or complete indifference to the musty INF Treaty.

Whatever it is with this Russian missile ... you should NEVER forget a fact about the whole issue!
The US began a renewed arms race still under George W. Bush Jr. because placing missile-defence systems in Poland and Romania.
Supposedly, this should serve as a defense against Iranian and North Korean missiles ... but who believes that, also believes that "Dumbo the Flying Elephant" and "Snow White and the 7 dwarfs" actually exist and ar eno fairy tale! In fact, it is directed against Russia and these Russian intermediate range missiles may be the answer to the US arms race? Who knows ...

 

Did you basically just say that the topic doesn’t matter and that we should blame the US?

Come on man, you can do better.

 

Short and medium range missile treaties were meant to protect you, the Europeans.
I personally don’t give a **** if Russia can nuke Germany with under 5 minute warning.
You just seem to lack the grey juice in your head to understand the issue.

 

The situation in Syria is disintegrating, and Poroshenko knows he can do anything he damn pleases in Ukraine - and he's doing it.

 

The United States doesn't want other countries to have the same weapons it already possesses or are superior to its own, funny.

 

Installation of anti missile systems in Poland and Romania broke the spirit of the agreement.

Russia announced what it's response to them would be. And they have followed through.

Mandelus seems to understand the issue just fine.


Like you however, I don't care.
I don't really care which flavour missile they use to nuke me. Not bothered.

 

OP

NATO is undergoing a period of irrational paranoia. In fact the entire Western world is.

 

Ehm ...
How about "cause and effect" ... or "action and reaction"?

The US is threatening nuclear power with an anti-missile system in Poland and Romania ... or do you really believe that it is only directed against Iran and North Korea, as it claims? ... and then you wonder why that does not please the Russian bear?

How about negotiations - theme deduction of the anti-missile system and abolition of intermediuate missiles?

Come on ... you can see it better than half the truth

 

Ehm ...
what the hack has this bastard of dictator Poroshenko to do with it please? Is he now Russian Defense minister and Putin makes what he wants or what?

 

The United States of America . . . the most dangerous threat to world peace. Whoever would have believed it?

 

In 1987, the withdrawal and annihilation of all intermdiate range missiles was decided - specifically at that time especially the Pershing 2 and the SS-20. Both sides will stick to it ... until then the US thinks to build up an anti-missile defense in Poland and Romania and then cheekily lie with the claim that it is directed against Iran and North Korea ... if to both have no system of corresponding range at this time!

So it was clear and undoubtedly directed against Russia. with the intention of containing the first and second strike capability of Russia. Only, Russia has been fully committed to the agreement and has had no intermediate range missiles, which put them at a disadvantage. And then you seriously suspect that Russia will put up with this for a long time?

No ... if you had some of the gray juice in your head then you would not write such a BS! As a European, I can only say "Thank you USA", because only thanks to you did the Russians break the contract!

 

Just that ...

but it is an exemplary example of something fundamental, what is wrong with the Americans in the head!
They are doing something that (knowingly) upset someone else, but they expect that other person to accept the thing and do nothing.
And if he does something, defends himself instead of whirring, then you play in the US the indignant and does not understand why the other does that ... and then starts to rant on the other.

Somehow not a few Americans seem to have a kind of "world law" in their heads:

§1 - The US are basically right and have the right to do anything they think is right ... but no one else has the same right!

§2 - Friends and allies are welcome to join, but decide nothing, because only the US!

§3 - "not friends" have basically to submit to the will of the US and no rights!

§4 - All forms of international agreements and treaties are in principle binding on all and they have without no exception to stick on them ... but for the USA only as far as they serve the US advantage. Are they rather disadvantageous, the US must not stick to it!

 

I'm just looking at the war situation in Ukraine as well as in Syria. Things do not look well. A French protection agent* who was going to be hired to protect Zacharchenko of Donetsk, said that the only nations that have the kind of explosives that killed him is the US and UK. He said that they were using these methods during the Chechnyan wars to help the terrorists.

Since Putin will not allow genocide in the Donbass, Poroshenko decided that instead of criminals and mercenaries, he will be conscripting women as well as men from the Donbas area still occupied by the junta in Kiev.

To be certain these Russian Ukrainians have no qualms about killing their own people, he will do what he did before. He will have the Right Sector Nationalists (Nazis) in the rear, with orders to shoot anyone that tries to retreat.

Most of the young men in Ukraine are working in Russia, and this will force the women to leave as well. Their lands can then be confiscated and sold to the multinational corporations, so that Poroshenko and the rest of the mafia families can make even more billions. It will also insure that Poroshenko will win the next election, since less people will be voting against him.

*(The part about the French protection agent was written up in Off Guardian, but it was removed shortly afterwards - probably under government orders so take it as you will).

 

The INF treaty had nothing to do with missile defense.

 

Not in letter.
Not that being a lawyer is going to get you anywhere.

The point of these treaties was to keep MAD without spending as much on missiles.
If you add missile defence, that balance of power is broken.

So the treaty was signed before missile defences existed.
Now they are installed, the spirit of the treaty has been broken.

They made clear how they would respond if it was installed.
It was installed and they made good on their promises.

Action. Reaction.

You can argue semantics, but the spirit of the treaty has been broken.
This isn't the kind of thing that is going to be settled with fancy lawyers.
Word games don't cut the mustard.

 

Yeah. That's why we totally don't make arms deals with allies.

 

You don't make nuclear arms deals with allies.
But sucky really since it was a joint development. Never mind.

 

I don't know the ins and outs of nuclear arms trade, but I expect we don't encourage other countries to develop or buy them because they're an existential threat to life all over the world. The Cold War was a nightmare of paranoid fear and arms buildup, and nukes were at the center of that.

 

You passed a law not to share the tech.

And then your boffins.... shared the tech. Lol.

 

Funny? No. National defense.

 

What?

 

Not particulary

NATO "seriously worried" about Russia's intermediate-range missiles!

 

I agree but NATO has recently seen that President Trump isnt afraid to stop writing checks. ( UN Aid cutoffs ) So all this is to me is transparent fear mongering to keep the checks coming in.

 

Trump will be a short term phenomenon, and the US will come right back to Europe's aid.

 

Well if you dont like how we are running things try to imagine how the Russians or the Chinese will do it when they are in charge. Because one of them is most likely next if we step aside.