INF Treaty Violation?

Sadurian

LE
Book Reviewer
#1
Russia says US missile system breaches nuclear INF treaty - BBC News

Russia has complained that the plan to build a missile defence network in Europe breaches the INF Treaty.

The plan has a broadly similar intention to the old SDI anti-missile plans which, many observers believe, led to Russia spending too much on new technology to maintain parity and thus losing the Cold War, which consequently led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Is this a legitimate step given the rise of Russian aggressive rhetoric, or is it a provocation? Do we believe that Putin (or his successors) will really launch nuclear missiles against the West, or would any such move be a trigger for a Russian internal political 'reshuffle'.
 
#3
My friends, taking the pragmatic view the west has tolerated Putin's "willy waving" long enough. This move, I suggest, has the intention of sending this megalomaniac and despoiler of sovereign nations a warning shot across the bows. From what I understand of the Aegis system it is purely defensive therefore I cannot understand why this paranoid dictator is bleating about. unless of course he is having a tantrum as the West is preventing him from irreparably damaging more countries in his "near" abroad. This man does not seem to understand that every sovereign nation has the absolute right to defend itself which is what Romania is doing with the help of its allies.

As our good friend "Sadurian" has suggested: could this be the beginning of the end for Putin as my feeling is that Romania and its allies will NOT back down. My thought is that Putin thinks there are two sets of rules one for him and another for everyone else. He has the delusion that it is heads I win tails you lose. Something that has already been proven wrong in the Ukraine by what is nothing more than a "Dads Army assisted by the Boy Scouts". They battered his phenomenal army to a standstill. Hopefully this deployment of a defence system is another nail in this despot's coffin.
 
#4
The Iskanders have been a useful weapon to intimidate the locals in Central and Eastern Europe.
To get around the INF treaty, the Russians fit them with a pointless conventional warhead and declare them as battlefield artillery.
By strange con-incidence, a nuclear warhead that just happens fits on the nose of the Iskanders is never far away from the deployed TELs.
 
#5
Pot calling kettle, radio check over?

Russia accusing others of treaty violations when they are in regular and repeated breaches of almost every treaty they sign. What a surprise!
 

Sadurian

LE
Book Reviewer
#6
From what I understand of the Aegis system it is purely defensive therefore I cannot understand why this paranoid dictator is bleating about.
Yes... and no. The Aegis BMD system is an integrated radar and missile system designed to intercept ICBMs. The system relies on missiles that have the speed and range to reach ICBMs, and is based around the SY-1 radars and SM-3 missiles but the system is really in the software rather than the hardware.

However, such defensive systems alter the balance of power for potential nuclear exchanges. The theory is that the current nuclear situation is unwinnable, the notorious MAD (mutually assured destruction) scenario. However, should one side unilaterally field an effective missile defence network, it makes any potential nuclear exchange 'winnable' for the side that has that defence.

It is like two men standing facing each other with pistols at very short range. When both have equally capable pistols and an equal chance of killing their opponent (assuming the one shot first is still able to pull the trigger), the situation is likely to be bad for both of them. If one wears a bulletproof vest, however, he is going to be far more confident that he can kill his opponent without himself being killed.

So yes, it is a defensive weapon, but defensive capability may also be offensive.

The rest of the paragraph is very true. Any country should be able to defend themselves and it is likely that Putin sees an ABM shield as reducing his potential for threatening the rest of the world. After all, the only real influence that Russia has left is the threat of beginning a nuclear Armageddon. It has no significant financial or diplomatic power left, and its conventional military are over-stretched, poorly trained and have been shown to be ineffective.
 
#8
Kgb will be here shortly to explain how carpet bombing towns in Syria shows how mighty Russia is.
 

Sadurian

LE
Book Reviewer
#12
If it's going to be that powerful then we're back to the Tsar Bomb problem - it effectively destroys the world for everyone because it would probably ignite the atmosphere. Dr Strangelove eat your heart out.

Of course, building a 'stealth missile that can wipe out entire countries' is something anyone can claim. I have one in my shed. Of course, nobody is allowed to see it up close or run any tests on it because it is secret. But I've got it whatever you all say. And I'll set it off unless I receive £50 and free pizza.
 
#13
Washington and Moscow have been trading accusations of violations of the INF Treaty for years.
The root of the problem is in new weapons systems that from formal point of view don't violate the treaty but can be easily modified to become forbidden under it.
From my point of view Moscow's protests are intended to stimulate US spendings for useless, ineffective anti-missile 'schield' that is just waste of money and resources, instead of investments in high-end weapons systems that could really boost US military potential.
 
Last edited:
#14
Washington and Moscow have been trading accusations of violations of the INF Treaty for years.
The root of the problem is in new weapons systems that from formal point of view don't violate the treaty but can be easily modified to become forbidden under it.
From my point of view Moscow's protests are intended to stimulate US spendings for useless, ineffective anti-missile 'schield' that is just waste of money and resources, instead of investments in high-end weapons systems that could really boost US military potential.
I'm not following your logic. Moscow are protesting about NATO defensive systems, while Moscow are spending fortunes developing offensive strategic weapons that they claim will defeat any shield. Surely, the logical response of the US to that would be to develop more strategic weapons to balance rather than pointless defensive weapons?
 
#15
Washington and Moscow have been trading accusations of violations of the INF Treaty for years.
The root of the problem is in new weapons systems that from formal point of view don't violate the treaty but can be easily modified to become forbidden under it.
From my point of view Moscow's protests are intended to stimulate US spendings for useless, ineffective anti-missile 'schield' that is just waste of money and resources, instead of investments in high-end weapons systems that could really boost US military potential.
Only warmongering, paranoid schizophrenics waste money on high-end weapons systems when over 50% of their countrymen are living below subsistence levels. Your country is willing to spend 33.725 billion Euros per year on weapons of mass destruction yet can only provide its 40 million pensioners with an average of 175 Euros per calendar month - not enough to keep a cat alive!! Something seriously wrong with that, it's as if destroying the "near abroad" and destabilizing countries is more important than feeding its own people.

If Russia past attempts at advanced technology are as good as its nuclear expertise then it is safer to be the opposition than a Russian resident if the likes of Chernobyl, Mailuu-Suu, Dzerzhinsk, Ozersk and Norilsk are anything to go by...................... Yes Russia has created over 50% of the top ten most nuclear debris polluted places on earth.
 
#16
#18
The point of the new generation Russian ICBMs is that they use higher available energy to give them suppressed trajectories (they follow a lower, more flattened arc) and shorter flight times, making the design assumptions the ABM systems were based on obsolete. This is likely what @KGB_resident was talking about in terms of the US wasting its money.

The current PR line from Moscow is that newer ICBM technologies make ABM defences a losing game from a cost perspective, since ICBMs can keep ahead of ABM technology at a much lower cost than ABM systems can try to match them at. Ergo, ABM systems are a mug's game, and the US will piss away defence money that could have been spent more effectively on aircraft, tanks, submarines, or other weapons systems that are more likely to be used. In other words, its a form of asymmetric strategic warfare. Whether you agree with this view or not, it's what the Russians seem to be saying these days.

I suspect that the new generation of Russian missiles will cause protests from Washington and other capitals, to be responded to by the Russians saying "you started it", etc. The current news linked at the start of the thread is probably just Moscow making sure that they get their accusations in first.
 
#19
Ah they have finally caught up with Trident then?

Is this really new news?
Notionally, possibly surpassed it (and all other deployed Western systems)
Even when they were skint, they kept putting what money they had into the "Strategic Rocket Force".

I see it as a good thing in a way. MAD gets MADder.
 

Sadurian

LE
Book Reviewer
#20
The point of the new generation Russian ICBMs is that they use higher available energy to give them suppressed trajectories (they follow a lower, more flattened arc) and shorter flight times, making the design assumptions the ABM systems were based on obsolete. This is likely what @KGB_resident was talking about in terms of the US wasting its money.

The current PR line from Moscow is that newer ICBM technologies make ABM defences a losing game from a cost perspective, since ICBMs can keep ahead of ABM technology at a much lower cost than ABM systems can try to match them at. Ergo, ABM systems are a mug's game, and the US will piss away defence money that could have been spent more effectively on aircraft, tanks, submarines, or other weapons systems that are more likely to be used. In other words, its a form of asymmetric strategic warfare. Whether you agree with this view or not, it's what the Russians seem to be saying these days.

I suspect that the new generation of Russian missiles will cause protests from Washington and other capitals, to be responded to by the Russians saying "you started it", etc. The current news linked at the start of the thread is probably just Moscow making sure that they get their accusations in first.
RS-24's capability has probably been greatly exaggerated by Russian open sources. For example, they claim it has 10 MIRVs, but that would mean it was a development of the SS-18. but the Russians say that it is a modified SS-27. However, an SS-27 has only three or four MIRVs, and modifying it to take ten would mean either much smaller warheads and re-entry vehicles, or an enormous bulbous nose section with a huge lengthening of the body. The RS-24 launch canisters on vehicles displayed so far do not indicate either of these characteristics.

In any case, a modification of the extent suggested by Russian sources would be outside existing treaty agreements on permitted modification of ICBMs, which only allow much more limited changes.

All that said, a flatter trajectory simply means a different flight path for an ABM system to intercept on. Remember that Aegis was originally designed to counter non-ballistic missile threats and so is quite capable of dealing with flat trajectories. Software aside, it is down to the missiles and radar used, and the SM-3 is much improved over the SM-2, with a faster reaction and flight time.

I believe Aegis BM is up to the job, but weapons and their counters do not stand still. It is easier to design, build and deploy ABM systems than it is to design and build nuclear-capable ballistic missiles, at least if you want to stay within international treaties on nuclear weapons.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top