It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russia and US both accuse other of violating INF treaty

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Both Russia and the US have accused the other of violations of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty.

In 2014 the US formally published a non-compliance determination that Russia has been testing an unspecified cruise missile from a road mobile launcher. Under terms of the treaty, neither side is to possess or test ground launched cruise missiles, or launchers for GLCMs, that have a range of 500-5,500 km (310-3100 miles). According to the Russian response, it was a technical violation, as the missile in question is a sub launched cruise missile. Under terms of the treaty, SLCMs launched from the land, must be launched from a fixed launch position, not a mobile launcher.

www.armscontrol.org...

Now, Russia is accusing the US of violating the treaty with the Aegis Ashore missile defense system. The claimed violation is the Mk 41 vertical launch system used is capable of launching Tomahawk missiles when installed on ships.

sputniknews.com...




posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I think the US has violated the treaty from the start ... they used it, as an excuse to further their intentions in Europe, under the guise of NATO. I'm saying US here, it might just as well have been European nations doing it ... but using NATO as a guise, to put up missile systems in Europe, directed at Russia is a clear "offensive" action. It's a threat against Russia, which in return "prompts" Russia to further develop it's systems.

I put the blame on NATO here. Presuming (perhaps wrongly) that US is behind NATO's actions.

Who actually was "first" to literally break the treaty ... I see as irrelevant.

edit on 2/12/2015 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 10:42 PM
link   
a reply to: bjarneorn

With what? There are no ground launched cruise missiles in the US inventory. The INF treaty doesn't cover Europe, only the US and Russia. The European nations could develop all the ground launched missiles they want to, as they didn't sign the treaty.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Putin pretty much tossed this treaty aside in 2007 when he said it no longer met Russian interests. And the Russian's also had a problem with the fact China is not bound by the treaty. Frankly though if the treaty ends officially it gives the US a much more free hand which is likely the only reason Russian has not canceled it.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 10:59 PM
link   
So both sides violated the treaty. Did anyone here ever believe that either side was not going to violate it? Both countries have exceptional intelligence systems and spy on what the others do. Both were going to get caught.

I thought that they just signed treaties to satisfy their wives.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 11:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
So both sides violated the treaty. Did anyone here ever believe that either side was not going to violate it? Both countries have exceptional intelligence systems and spy on what the others do. Both were going to get caught.

I thought that they just signed treaties to satisfy their wives.


Your right there...

It's funny how this is just becoming news since there is a military-build happening right now in Syria from the Russians and NATO backed Turkey: here



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Ah ... so, I was right.

But then, this treaty is not in the interest of either Russia or the US.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: InnerPeace2012

The accusations against Russia were made several years ago, and finally sort of detailed last year. The Russian accusations were just made. That's the part that just became news.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 11:11 PM
link   
a reply to: bjarneorn

It doesn't matter if Europe develops them, or deploys them, as they aren't covered by any treaty. This treaty was used to reduce the arsenal of weapons available to both sides. It worked, and continues to work.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 11:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: InnerPeace2012

The accusations against Russia were made several years ago, and finally sort of detailed last year. The Russian accusations were just made. That's the part that just became news.


I remember back in the day, but I can understand the Russians backing on this deal. It's clear that NATO used it as an opportunity to move on Russia. Something that can be confirmed by NATO's Montenegro act. They are threatening Russia, and enacting it ...

Probably the only reason Russia didn't cancel the agreement, was to get a head start in the race they saw as inevitable.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 11:15 PM
link   
a reply to: bjarneorn

This treaty has nothing to do with NATO or NATO weapons. This is a treaty between the US and Russia, that's all. Not everything has to do with NATO or threatening Russia.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 11:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: InnerPeace2012

The accusations against Russia were made several years ago, and finally sort of detailed last year. The Russian accusations were just made. That's the part that just became news.


It doesn't matter about who breaks the treaties, this to me only adds to the mounting tensions and it is kind of worrying to see this happening.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 11:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: bjarneorn

This treaty has nothing to do with NATO or NATO weapons. This is a treaty between the US and Russia, that's all. Not everything has to do with NATO or threatening Russia.


Of course it does ... Russia sees US as the entity behind the threat of NATO.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 11:41 PM
link   
a reply to: bjarneorn

That's quite a leap in logic you're taking. This treaty is between the US and Russia, no one else. Just because the US is the largest member of NATO, not everything they do has to do with NATO. They're still a separate entity from NATO.



posted on Dec, 8 2015 @ 04:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: bjarneorn

Of course it does ... Russia sees US as the entity behind the threat of NATO.



Is NATO really a threat to Russia, or is it a constraining hand on Russian belligerence and ambition? That is the question, and for another thread.

To the issue in hand. The article from the Russian government-owned Sputnik news agency says very little. The objection is the siting of the Mk41 launch system in an unspecified European country, with, or without cruise missiles. It does seem to me that Russia are trying to discover a reason for their previous violations of the Treaty. I expect the Mk41 would be placed to hold anti missile rather than cruise missiles. Besides, if the units are held by a European nation then they are not US, so the arguments moot at that point.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join