US voids INF treaty

Joined
Apr 2, 2013
Messages
46,737
Can anyone explain the logic of this?

The US is withdrawing from the INF treaty, claiming "Russia is violating the terms." That may very well be true, but the fact is that Russia is the only one constrained by the terms, or who has ever been constrained by the terms. So rather than having Russia constrained by trying to at least maintain a pretense of compliance we eliminate the treaty and they aren't constrained at all. What exactly does that accomplish for anyone but Russia?

I would have thought this was more of Trump's "hey, thanks for the help with the election" paybacks, but it seems like there's a lot of support for this move from Europe as well. WTH?

For those who don't know the history, the INF is a limit on land based intermediate range nuclear weapons, ie cruise missiles. It was agreed to with the US quietly on the doorstep development of reliable sea launched nuclear payload cruise missiles, which allowed the US to effectively comply with the letter of the treaty without compromising their strategic arsenal at all. It was one of the great coups of the cold war as the Soviets agreed to abandon theirs in response to the US phasing theirs out...which they were going to do anyway. There is no indication that, treaty voided or not, the US is going to suddenly start production of a weapon system that we haven't had a strategic use for since shortly after the treaty was signed.

So what exactly is the point here? Russia is almost certain to respond by ramping up production and deployment of weapons that are an extremely valuable component of their strategic arsenal, because without the treaty there is no reason whatever that they shouldn't. There's not even a threat of an "arms race" since the US already has all that it can effectively use.
 
The fact that you're discussing this instead of other things is your answer.
 
The problem is of course China, since they are not bound by any such treaties. In nuclear war planning it's all about redundancy. Yes, we have the capability to oversaturate the defenses of one country. But what about two or three? What if X amount of our X-based platforms are disabled? Will there be anything left in reserve? And so on and so on...
 
The problem is of course China, since they are not bound by any such treaties. In nuclear war planning it's all about redundancy. Yes, we have the capability to oversaturate the defenses of one country. But what about two or three? What if X amount of our X-based platforms are disabled? Will there be anything left in reserve? And so on and so on...

I think you may have missed a point. Yes, Russia is extremely concerned that they were constrained by this treaty and China wasn't. The US could not care less, because our counter to China, or Russia, was not covered by the treaty anyway. The US has a massive need for ground based intermediate range nuclear weapons...if we are preparing to get in a nuclear exchange with CANADA. If we get in a nuclear exchange with Russia, or China, we are going to be using sea launched intermediate range weapons. We signed the INF knowing that we were about to phase out the land based weapons that we had in Europe anyway, because we were on the cusp of deploying sea launched replacements for them. Getting the Soviets to withdraw theirs at the same time when they really had no replacement for them was a dirty trick that we were quite proud of.
 
I'd guess it's because Trump hates any treaties he didn't impose or negotiate himself, and sees arms restrictions as "weak." But who knows? Maybe Putin told him to withdraw in one of their secret meetings.
 
I am not aware of any support for the US withdrawal from the INF treaty in Europe.

It would help Russia if the US deployed land based nuclear weapons in Europe because of the anti NATO sentiment that it would produce.
The cruise missiles that were deployed in the UK, in 80s, never could deploy on an exercise with out being followed.
It would be even harder now with mobile phones, the internet and webcams.
 
I think you may have missed a point. Yes, Russia is extremely concerned that they were constrained by this treaty and China wasn't. The US could not care less, because our counter to China, or Russia, was not covered by the treaty anyway. The US has a massive need for ground based intermediate range nuclear weapons...if we are preparing to get in a nuclear exchange with CANADA. If we get in a nuclear exchange with Russia, or China, we are going to be using sea launched intermediate range weapons. We signed the INF knowing that we were about to phase out the land based weapons that we had in Europe anyway, because we were on the cusp of deploying sea launched replacements for them. Getting the Soviets to withdraw theirs at the same time when they really had no replacement for them was a dirty trick that we were quite proud of.

No, actually even Obama administration felt the need for INF to include China or be rescinded wholly.

U.S. officials have so far relied on other capabilities as a counter-balance to China, like missiles fired from U.S. ships or aircraft. But advocates for a U.S. land-based missile response say that is the best way to deter Chinese use of its muscular land-based missile forces.

Kelly Magsamen, who helped craft the Pentagon’s Asian policy under the Obama administration, said China’s ability to work outside of the INF treaty had vexed policymakers in Washington, long before Trump came into office.

But she cautioned that any new U.S. policy guiding missile deployments in Asia would need to be carefully coordinated with allies, something that does not appear to have happened yet.

Mismanagement of expectations surrounding a U.S. treaty pullout could also unsettle security in the Asia-Pacific, she cautioned.

“It’s potentially destabilizing,” she said.

Experts warn that China would put pressure on countries in the region to refuse U.S. requests to position missiles there.

Abraham Denmark, a former senior Pentagon official under Obama, said Guam, Japan and even Australia were possible locations for U.S. missile deployments.

“But there are a lot of alliance questions that appear at first glance to be very tricky,” he cautioned.

Still, current and former U.S. officials say Washington is right to focus on China’s missile threat. Harry Harris, who led U.S. military forces in the Pacific before becoming U.S. ambassador to Seoul, said earlier this year that the United States was at a disadvantage.

“We have no ground-based (missile) capability that can threaten China because of, among other things, our rigid adherence ... to the treaty,” Harris told a Senate hearing in March, without calling for the treaty to be scrapped.

That was of course before Trump basically soiled the guest bedsheets of almost every major US ally.
 
From what I read, USA informed Russia in advance that they are going to withdraw from the treaty no matter what. Blaming Russia in violation and other ultimatums were just a fig leaf to cover decision which was already made.
About China deterrence, there's probably enough short range tactical nukes for that. And level of threat from China considered much lower compared to NATO.
 
Does this treaty interfere with Russia's deterrence toward China?

Yeah, probably. It also interferes with their deterrence towards NATO, while having no affect on NATO whatever. As was mentioned earlier, land based weapons in Europe mean protests, risk of attacks by terrorist groups, potential problems as governments change in the allied nation...all kinds of stuff we aren't interested in. That's why we developed sea based replacements for them, and that's why this treaty never restricted us at all.
 
No, actually even Obama administration felt the need for INF to include China or be rescinded wholly.
That was of course before Trump basically soiled the guest bedsheets of almost every major US ally.

Thanks Obama
Why dosnt the US just build a handful of long range cruise missles in response ? Russia is hardly in a position to throw large sums of money in any new arms race anyways.

As for China nuclear arsenal I believe they have around 100 and only about half are launchable nuclear weapons. South Korea and Japan can readily build nukes on short notice anyways if they ever feel the need.

US accusations seem to be based on an analysis of the “range capability” of the missile, which is not defined very precisely in the text
So far, reports suggest that Russia deployed two 9M729 battalions with the total of eight launchers in 2017
Taking all this together, Russia’s violation does not seem to reach the level that would justify destruction of a key disarmament agreement

09AFC335-D2E5-4454-941B-3DBF91ECD816_cx0_cy11_cw0_w1023_r1_s.jpg
 
Last edited:
Thanks Obama
Why dosnt the US just build a handful of long range cruise missles in response ? Russia is hardly in a position to throw large sums of money in any new arms race anyways.

As for China nuclear arsenal I believe they have around 100 and only about half are launchable nuclear weapons. South Korea and Japan can readily build nukes on short notice anyways if they ever feel the need.

The kind of missiles that are covered by the INF would be really useful to the US...if we wanted to launch a first strike against Canada. In any conflict with Russia or China they would be irrelevant.
 
The US withdrew Pershing Ia and II missiles from Europe and scrapped them. It also converted over a ton of cruise missiles to conventional duty on land. Just because the sea forces were taking on a more prominent role in the triad doesn't mean IRBMs and ground-launched cruise missiles were useless. The US also agreed to and permitted inspections and refrained from missile development - and there was definitely elements of the military that wanted new toys at the time.

It is not true that the US was not constrained by this treaty. I can agree with the notion that the US was less effected by the specific terms of the treaty. However, that's as much a product of the Soviet Union collapsing before they developed their own sea-launched cruise missile capabilities as anything else.

Anyways, this is bad, as are the reports that Russia was violating the treaty itself. I hope to avoid a renewed arms race even if it creates more jobs in my industry. I avoid jobs that require security clearance basically because I don't want to make weapons so I wouldn't benefit personally. Indirectly though, all the new jobs would pull people away from civilian projects thereby indirectly benefiting me by increasing my bargaining power. I still hate it.
 
Last edited:
The kind of missiles that are covered by the INF would be really useful to the US...if we wanted to launch a first strike against Canada. In any conflict with Russia or China they would be irrelevant.

I figured it was more of not wanting this tech to be widely sold and proliferation of mobile long range missiles
US can always deploy one mobile battery somewhere in the forests of the EU
 
Medium range missiles would be super helpful in intimidating or attacking Iran or North Korea. Both of those countries are in range of friendly US allies that would allow US nuclear weapons on their soil. South Korea already does if I'm not mistaken. IRBM's and land-launched cruise missiles are not useless to the US.

Coincidentally, IRBMs are about the only credible weapons that those two countries have against the US and are why the US has invested in anti-missile technology.

Additionally, the countermeasures against submarines and surface fleets are not the same as those against mobile or entrenched ground targets like IRBM's and cruise missiles. There's a ton of overlap - I mean at the end of the day you're blowing something up whether it's a bunker or a destroyer - but there are enough differences to really make defenders spend a ton of money coming up with credible counter forces for different threats.

Hell the US wouldn't even have to rely on allies allowing IRBMs on their soil to hit some targets in Russia from Alaska. These weapons are not useless, the INF shouldn't be portrayed as a completely lop-sided win for the US who craftily made the treaty a moot point with sea based technologies.
 
Last edited:
The kind of missiles that are covered by the INF would be really useful to the US...if we wanted to launch a first strike against Canada. In any conflict with Russia or China they would be irrelevant.

You keep bringing that up, but these missiles have shorter time to target which is why nobody likes having them on their doorstep. I'd wager this points that whatever hypersonic jazz the Russians cooked up actually has some credibility in the eyes of US intelligence. A new arms race is certainly under way unless China-USA-Russia make a new INF treaty when arms budgets start eating at the economy.
 
I‘d be more interested in a list of international treaties Trump hasn‘t gotten out of...

I‘m no security expert, so I hope this move more as the opening round of new negotiations in a typical Trump tactic of smashing things first and then asking rather than a new phase of escalation and arms building...
 
Thanks Obama
Why dosnt the US just build a handful of long range cruise missles in response ? Russia is hardly in a position to throw large sums of money in any new arms race anyways.


The US currently has long range cruise missiles that can be fired from ships, submarines, and aircraft. land based ones are kind of redundant redundancy.
 
The Russians have announced that they will withdraw as well in response to the US.

I figured it was more of not wanting this tech to be widely sold and proliferation of mobile long range missiles
US can always deploy one mobile battery somewhere in the forests of the EU

The convoy of cars tracking the missile battery would make it nearly impossible to hide. As soon as it starts to move on the public roads it would be followed.
 
Back
Top Bottom