INF Treaty Violation?

Russia don't have biological weapon. But, in case of necesserity, it can be easily created.
I don’t doubt it. Your point was “and maybe biological strike” which infers you have BW
I think, your corrupted government, willing to distract your gullible population from the economic problems (and solve their own problems), will start the third season of 'Russian poisoners' with the higher rank victims and biological weapon. For example - strike of genetically modificated Kemerovo fewer in the Parliament. Most of survivers by a starnge councidence are May's supporters, but she blame Russians (baselessely, as usual).
You're certifiable. Seek help: WHO | Mental health reform in the Russian Federation: an integrated approach to achieve social inclusion and recovery
 

Grey Fox

On ROPS
On ROPs
As Pavel Klimkin, Ukrainian FA-minister said, after conversation with his Septic patron, Ukraine is going to leave INF-treaty, too.
"
Klimkin said that he discussed with Bolton a lot of issues.
“We started with the INF Treaty. Now this is one of the key issues,” the Minister said.
According to him, after the us and Russia's withdrawal from the missile Treaty, Ukraine should do everything for its own protection.
"Of course, we must use everything to protect ourselves. Russia's logic is not to protect Russia. It is to use security as a commodity on the relevant exchange. Therefore, this behavior of Russia has led to a new logic of the arms race. <...> In this situation, Ukraine will need to respond to new challenges, " the foreign Minister said.
Klimkin stressed that Ukraine has the potential in the field of missile weapons.
“What missiles we need in the future, we decide, " - the Minister added."

Климкин о ДРСМД: Украину ждут новые вызовы | Інша Україна

So, right now INF treaty is actual only for Belorussia and Qazakhstan.
 
Russia - we would be open to U.S. proposals for new nuclear pact | Reuters
Russia says they're open to a new international treaty encompassing more countries. Picking up on Trump saying he would like to hold talks aimed at creating a new arms control Treaty.

Whilst that is a good starting point, the contentions for me are who are the signatories and having an inspection process. For example 9M729 is said to breach the current treaty, yet Russia says it only has a 480km range. Who tests the assertions? Can you pick a TEL at random? Otherwise you're in exactly the same position as now:
Russia would be prepared to consider new proposals from the United States to replace a suspended Cold War-era nuclear pact with a broader treaty that includes more countries, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said on Thursday.

Russia suspended the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty at the weekend after Washington announced it would withdraw in six months unless Russia ends what it says are violations of the pact, allegations rejected by Moscow.

The 1987 treaty eliminated the medium-range missile arsenals of the world’s two biggest nuclear powers, but leaves other countries free to produce and deploy them.

U.S. President Donald Trump said last week he would like to hold talks aimed at creating a new arms control treaty.

“We of course saw the reference in president Trump’s statement to the possibility of a new treaty that could be signed in a beautiful room and that this treaty should also include other countries as its participants,” Ryabkov said.

“We look forward to this proposal being made concrete and put on paper or by other means...” Ryabkov said at a news conference in Moscow.

Ryabkov said the United States had not sent Moscow any concrete proposals for a new pact.
 
What the **** are you on about? I am supposed to be the incoherent drunk on this forum.
Russia - we would be open to U.S. proposals for new nuclear pact | Reuters
Russia says they're open to a new international treaty encompassing more countries. Picking up on Trump saying he would like to hold talks aimed at creating a new arms control Treaty.

Whilst that is a good starting point, the contentions for me are who are the signatories and having an inspection process. For example 9M729 is said to breach the current treaty, yet Russia says it only has a 480km range. Who tests the assertions? Can you pick a TEL at random? Otherwise you're in exactly the same position as now:
They are now afraid of the non nuclear long range weapons we would like to produce.
Which could hit parts of the motherland If fired from Eastern Europe or hell even Alaska.
 
Russia - we would be open to U.S. proposals for new nuclear pact | Reuters
Russia says they're open to a new international treaty encompassing more countries. Picking up on Trump saying he would like to hold talks aimed at creating a new arms control Treaty.

Whilst that is a good starting point, the contentions for me are who are the signatories and having an inspection process. For example 9M729 is said to breach the current treaty, yet Russia says it only has a 480km range. Who tests the assertions? Can you pick a TEL at random? Otherwise you're in exactly the same position as now:
What the World doesn't need is a proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, or for that matter a restart of the Cold War. For once I actually agree with the current President**, the treaty does need to be updated, the signatories should include all Nuclear States, U.S.A, Britain, France, Israel, Russia, China, RNK, India, Pakistan, followed by countries that have the capability to create nuclear weapons, (which includes Iran for example). The inspection process should be carried out by at least ONE member from the 'capability' states and whatever number they need from the Current Nuke holders.

** I am still a bit skeptical about the reasoning behind the withdrawal though. Maybe the Pentagon is pushing Trumps buttons for a bigger budget to counteract a conceived threat from Russia and China. it wouldn't be the 1st time the U.S has made up a few 'porkies' to justify some desperately needed 'upgrades'.
 
What the World doesn't need is a proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, or for that matter a restart of the Cold War.
I think we're a bit late for a variety of reasons for not wanting the start of a new Cold War. The question for me is more are we already in a war, without realising it?
For once I actually agree with the current President**, the treaty does need to be updated, the signatories should include all Nuclear States, U.S.A, Britain, France, Israel, Russia, China, RNK, India, Pakistan, followed by countries that have the capability to create nuclear weapons, (which includes Iran for example). The inspection process should be carried out by at least ONE member from the 'capability' states and whatever number they need from the Current Nuke holders.
I'm thinking more in terms of something like the CWC and OPCW, with inspection teams of experts who do the inspections and a convention signed up to by everybody that prohibits such weapons. You can expand it to include as many or as few weapons as you like, but the CWC, apart from some notable exceptions has been quite useful imo. Lose vetoes on its findings in the UNSC and it might actually work.
** I am still a bit skeptical about the reasoning behind the withdrawal though. Maybe the Pentagon is pushing Trumps buttons for a bigger budget to counteract a conceived threat from Russia and China. it wouldn't be the 1st time the U.S has made up a few 'porkies' to justify some desperately needed 'upgrades'.
I think nearly six years of negotiations on 9M729 with the US saying one thing and Russia saying its 20km short on range show how a more than thirty year old Treaty fails in this day and age. It suits both Russia and the US for the Treaty to fail as it doesn't affect any other countries which have or are producing the capability. Both will blame the other side, but it suits both.
 
What the World doesn't need is a proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, or for that matter a restart of the Cold War. For once I actually agree with the current President**, the treaty does need to be updated, the signatories should include all Nuclear States, U.S.A, Britain, France, Israel, Russia, China, RNK, India, Pakistan, followed by countries that have the capability to create nuclear weapons, (which includes Iran for example). The inspection process should be carried out by at least ONE member from the 'capability' states and whatever number they need from the Current Nuke holders.

** I am still a bit skeptical about the reasoning behind the withdrawal though. Maybe the Pentagon is pushing Trumps buttons for a bigger budget to counteract a conceived threat from Russia and China. it wouldn't be the 1st time the U.S has made up a few 'porkies' to justify some desperately needed 'upgrades'.
China is the problem. They have the ability to hurt us in the Pacific with conventional missiles that we can't match due to treaty limitations. If we could get the world to bin the cruise missiles armed with tactical nukes, I would support that.
 
What the World doesn't need is a proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, or for that matter a restart of the Cold War. For once I actually agree with the current President**, the treaty does need to be updated, the signatories should include all Nuclear States, U.S.A, Britain, France, Israel, Russia, China, RNK, India, Pakistan, followed by countries that have the capability to create nuclear weapons, (which includes Iran for example). The inspection process should be carried out by at least ONE member from the 'capability' states and whatever number they need from the Current Nuke holders.

** I am still a bit skeptical about the reasoning behind the withdrawal though. Maybe the Pentagon is pushing Trumps buttons for a bigger budget to counteract a conceived threat from Russia and China. it wouldn't be the 1st time the U.S has made up a few 'porkies' to justify some desperately needed 'upgrades'.
You're not going to get China into it without India, and you won't get India in without Pakistan. Both of the latter are also outside the NPT. In fact nearly half of the nuclear powers are outside the NPT, and one won't even admit to having nuclear weapons.

In the US, it's Bolton who is reportedly behind pulling out of the INF treaty, and he is widely reported as being opposed to any arms limitation treaties at all.

The whole thing is a big can of worms, and there is no obvious solution to it.
 
The stupid Septics continue to demonstrate their stupidity and the lack of competences in the nuclear industry.
Their NRC terminated licence of the Savannah-River MOX-fuel Plant building company at Feb, 08. No futher utilisation of plutonium, as was predicted. But anyway, it will not help them much.
 
China is the problem. They have the ability to hurt us in the Pacific with conventional missiles that we can't match due to treaty limitations. If we could get the world to bin the cruise missiles armed with tactical nukes, I would support that.
No surprises here. Why would China become signatory to a Treaty that limits Chinese capability? Nothing to do with us; only those treaty-breaking Russians and treaty-repudiating Americans. Trustworthy China was not involved.

'China rejected on Saturday German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s appeal to join a Cold War-era arms control treaty that the United States accuses Russia of breaching, saying it would place unfair limits on the Chinese military.'

China rebuffs Germany's call for U.S. missile deal with Russia | Reuters
 

Latest Threads

Top