Russians, released from treaty by Trump, promise newmissile system in next two years

#1
lawgator1

lawgator1

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
70,387
Likes
41,399
#1
Russia Says It Will Build New Missile Systems Within 2 Years

Russia's defense minister on Tuesday ordered work to begin on new land-based intermediate range missiles, to be ready within two years. The move comes in response to the U.S. decision to pull out of a key nuclear arms treaty that symbolized the end of the Cold War.


The U.S. said last week that because of Russian violations, it would no longer abide by the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty, which required the destruction of ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with a range of 500-5,500 kilometers (310-3,410 miles). Putin responded by suspending Russia's observation of the treaty, claiming the U.S. had violated the agreement long ago.


"Our response will be symmetrical," Putin said, as reported by NPR's Moscow Correspondent Lucian Kim. "If our American partners suspend their participation in the INF treaty, so will we. And if they start working on new weapons, so will we."


Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said he wants work to begin on long-range hypersonic missiles that travel at least five times the speed of sound, The Associated Press reported. He said the new hypersonic missile should be ready by 2021. Shoigu also called for new land-based launch systems for an existing cruise missile, the Kalibr, which currently can be launched only via ships.


Shoigu told a meeting of defense chiefs that the U.S. was "actively working to create a land-based missile" with a range of more than 500 kilometers, which is forbidden by the INF treaty. "President Putin has given the defense ministry the task of taking symmetrical measures," he said, according to Reuters.
Click to expand...


Trump%20and%20Putin.jpg



Well, I guess we can pretty much figure out what they talked about in their secret meetings, where
Trump seized the notes of the interpreter.
 
#8
#8
Should Trump have withdrawn from the treaty???? No. But Russia has been in violation of the treaty for a while now. We can’t place all the blame for this at Trumps feet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary and Carl Pickens
#10
#10
carlos86 said:
Should Trump have withdrawn from the treaty???? No. But Russia has been in violation of the treaty for a while now. We can’t place all the blame for this at Trumps feet.
Click to expand...
I do agree with this. Also, we have China to think about.
 
#11
#11
carlos86 said:
Should Trump have withdrawn from the treaty???? No. But Russia has been in violation of the treaty for a while now. We can’t place all the blame for this at Trumps feet.
Click to expand...

So, what good is a treaty if only one side is going to abide by it?

He did mention revising a treaty to include the Chinese as well. I'd dare say Russia might not mind that at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volfanhill, hog88 and NorthDallas40
#17
#17
tvolsfan said:
I do agree with this. Also, we have China to think about.
Click to expand...

The thing is, Russia should be more concerned with having China on board for such a thing since the types of systems outlawed by the INF Treaty would be more of a threat to Russia from China than from China to us. Well, maybe some Pacific bases would be under threat from China, but only one has a border with the other.
 
#18
#18
hog88 said:
Gorbachev tried to keep up also, wonder what happened to him?
Click to expand...

One of the main reason for the treaty was Russian technological superiority when it came to the field of intermediate ballistic missiles.

“In the 1970s, the Soviets (as usual) tried to get the upper hand in this competition and fielded a much more accurate, mobile version of these weapons, a strategically insane move that was even opposed by the Soviet diplomatic establishment. But Moscow's generals got their way. These Soviet weapons were so menacing that NATO came together in the late 70s - yes, at the behest of Carter, not Reagan - to field a responding system that could also drop a nuke down a rabbit hole (or on Moscow) almost immediately. This was an *immensely* dangerous time. By the 1980s, war in Europe could go to all-out nuclear war in minutes. But here's what was *different*: We put those weapons in Europe *in the path of a Soviet invasion.* We told the Soviets: "If you come in, we'll have no choice. It'll be your doing, not ours. In other words, deterrence relied on the Soviets triggering a "use or lose" crisis, rather than relying on some steely-eyed decision in Washington to unleash hell. That made a huge difference. Maybe a POTUS would lose his nerve...but what about the guys about to be overrun??? This was a good move, because it made the link from war in Europe to the end of the USSR a lot more credible. Deterrence was, in a way, taken out of our hands, and nuclear war would be the fault of the Soviets for invading, whether we wanted it or not, and they knew it. Today, there's no "Warsaw Pact" to fight this out on. If we use INF, we'll be hitting inside Russia. If you think that this is a good idea, well, te salud, Don Corleone, because there's no way the Russians will sit around and just take a nuke strike inside Russia. Or, put another way, the Russians and the Chinese will have to *assume* these are strategic strikes, especially if we do something ludicrous like put the new INF on submarines. "Oh, that launch? Just a theater strike. Don't overreact." Sure. Good luck with that. What will deter Russia? If they know they'd lose a conventional action of any size. But we don't like spending money on expensive troops and guns, so instead, we're letting the Russians bait us into a nuclear standoff that benefits *them*, because of the home turf advantage.”— Tom Nichols
 
  • Like
Reactions: Electric Orange
#19
#19
I'm not a war hawk and prefer to avoid conflict when possible, but history has proven time and time again that tremendous technological advances happen at times of conflict. I'm cautiously optimistic that the renewal of Cold War tensions may actually lead to some amazing new tech that ultimately benefits those of us not in the ranks of the warfighters.

(Edited... Gottdammed autocorrect)
 
Last edited:
#20
#20
carlos86 said:
Should Trump have withdrawn from the treaty???? No. But Russia has been in violation of the treaty for a while now. We can’t place all the blame for this at Trumps feet.
Click to expand...
If this is his justification for pulling out of INF, that's fine, but he needs to explain that. Trump wont do that because that would mean be publicly critical of Putin which he has always been reluctant to do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hunerwadel
#22
#22
Grand Vol said:
So, what good is a treaty if only one side is going to abide by it?

He did mention revising a treaty to include the Chinese as well. I'd dare say Russia might not mind that at all.
Click to expand...

Russia isn’t going to be in the treaty now because the playing field has changed. We would need to find a deterrence to Russian and Chinese missile use before we could bring anyone to the table.
 
#24
#24
Paragraphs, Carlos. They work well...

Anyway, the idea that the Russians had more "accurate and mobile" systems in the 70s may be correct, but when the GLCM and Pershing systems were deployed, they were far, far, far more accurate than anything the Soviets possessed and were far more mobile than older Mace and Matador missiles they replaced. I used to be stationed with a bunch of the old GLCM guys and pretty much had their choice of a dozen or more launch sites to pick from when deployed. Plus, being mobile, if the Red Army was bearing down on them, they could easily displace.

Anyway, the Pershing II and GLCM were the reasons the Soviets wanted the INF Treaty to go through in the first place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst
#25
#25
BowlBrother85 said:
If this is his justification for pulling out of INF, that's fine, but he needs to explain that. Trump wont do that because that would mean be publicly critical of Putin which he has always been reluctant to do.
Click to expand...

You mean other than saying it at the SOTU last night?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 37L1
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top