Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Moscow may walk out of nuclear treaty after US accusations of breach
Guardian UK ^ | July 29, 2014 07:38 EDT | Alec Luhn in Moscow and Julian Borger

Posted on 07/30/2014 2:12:56 AM PDT by blueplum

Russia may be on the point of walking out of a major cold war era arms-control treaty, Russian analysts have said, after President Obama accused Moscow of violating the accord by testing a cruise missile.

There has been evidence at least since 2011 of Russian missile tests in violation of the 1987 intermediate range nuclear forces (INF) treaty, which banned US or Russian ground-launched cruise missiles with a 500 to 5,500-mile (805 to 8,851km) range. But the Obama administration has been hesitant until now of accusing Moscow of a violation in the hope that it could persuade Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, to stop the tests or at least not deploy the weapon in question, known as the Iskander, or R-500.

Washington has also been reticent because of the technical differences in definition of what constitutes the range of a missile under the INF treaty. That ambiguity now seems to have dropped away. According to Pavel Felgenhauer, a defence analyst and columnist for the independent Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta, Russia has indeed broken the treaty by testing the R-500 which has a range of more than 1,000km.

"Of course, this is in gross violation of the 1987 treaty, but Russian officials including Putin have said this treaty is unfair and not suitable for Russia," Felgenhauer said. "The United States doesn't have [medium-range missiles] but other countries do have them, such as China, Pakistan and Israel, so they say this is unfair and wrong."

(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Russia
KEYWORDS: iskandar; nucleartreaty; obama; obamaputin; putin; russia
little green missiles - to go with Putin's little green men
1 posted on 07/30/2014 2:12:57 AM PDT by blueplum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: blueplum

Yet another Obama foreign policy triumph.

This guy’s got the Reverse Midas Touch: everything the president touches turns to sh*t.


2 posted on 07/30/2014 2:18:03 AM PDT by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueplum
The United States doesn't have [medium-range missiles] but other countries do have them, such as China, Pakistan and Israel,

Huh?

3 posted on 07/30/2014 2:25:40 AM PDT by McGruff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueplum

Of course, the 1987 treaty was a major accomplishment of the Reagan administration. Everyone agreed that it made the world safer. Even the leftist group than publishes the “doomsday clock” had to move the clock backwards after the 1987 treaty.

Obama despises Reagan with every fiber of his leftist being. Obama will kill it, even if it makes the world a whole lot more dangerous.

Don’t expect Obama to defend Reagan’s work. He cannot and will not. This goes back to the “open mike” incident just before the 2012 election.


4 posted on 07/30/2014 2:29:49 AM PDT by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: McGruff
I think the point that could be made is in 1987 Russia and the US were the only two real "players". The world has changed since then and there are other players that are not part of that agreement. In this day and age it may not be in Russia's best interest to commit to the ban on medium range missiles.
5 posted on 07/30/2014 2:35:41 AM PDT by kjam22 (my music video "If My People" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74b20RjILy4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: blueplum

Pooty is getting pouty


6 posted on 07/30/2014 2:36:26 AM PDT by dennisw (The first principle is to find out who you are then you can achieve anything -- Buddhist monk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hammer

The Current Occupant handles these delicate negotiations so well....

It was easier when the negotiators for our side walked in with a determined attitude, that the Russians understood and expected. This mock-tough facade that the Current Regime displays, only invites contempt and even a little bit of bullying behavior by the Russians.

Imposing weak or irrelevant sanctions, and having unilaterally handicapped ourselves with giving up important supporting strategies (military and economic alternatives), may momentarily stun the Russians, but in only a short while, they will see this is not some unique means of bringing a new perspective to the negotiations, but a pre-emptive surrender.

Even Jimmy Carter did not fumble international relations this badly, and on such a broad front. Although, Carter did set a couple of precedents of his own (enabling the formation of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and giving up the Panama Canal).


7 posted on 07/30/2014 2:39:05 AM PDT by alloysteel (Most people become who they promised they would never be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All

So what if Putin puts some of these in Cuba. It will be like the 1960s all over again.


8 posted on 07/30/2014 2:56:36 AM PDT by McGruff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: blueplum

Another stellar example of Barry’s flexibility in his second term.


9 posted on 07/30/2014 3:03:10 AM PDT by Artie (We are surrounded by MORONS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

What would it take for Russia to launch a first strike?


10 posted on 07/30/2014 3:11:43 AM PDT by x_plus_one
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: blueplum

Russia has developed 2,maybe 3 new ICBMs in the past 10 yrs. one is the Topol M. Another just a yr. or two ago and IIRC another in between.
And they claim they are impervious to our Star Wars defense.
What have we developed? Nada.


11 posted on 07/30/2014 3:11:49 AM PDT by Vinnie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: x_plus_one
What would it take for Russia to launch a first strike?

Probably not nearly as much as it would take for the US Congress to proceed with imposing the rule of law on the Current Regime now squatting in the White Hut.

Putin, and Russia as a whole, see the governance of that territory once known as "the United States of America" as swimming in chaos and indecision. The Russians would consider it a act of mercy on their part if the Current Regime were taken down and humiliated sufficiently before the world so the Current Regime would resign and flee.

12 posted on 07/30/2014 3:22:38 AM PDT by alloysteel (Most people become who they promised they would never be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: blueplum

I see this “Wag the Dog” approach by our president is starting to pay dividends now...LOL.


13 posted on 07/30/2014 3:35:19 AM PDT by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueplum

Another Obama/Clinton/Kerry legacy. The INF was a hard won accomplishment of the Reagan administration, careless tossed aside by these bozos.


14 posted on 07/30/2014 3:38:19 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (This is known as "bad luck". - Robert A. Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vinnie

Topol-M: Impressive weapon. Sounds like a LOT OF FUN to be on the receiving end of its 800kT warhead.

But what the hell, half the people on this site sound ready to go to war with Russia, so WHY THE HELL NOT!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT-2UTTKh_Topol-M


15 posted on 07/30/2014 3:40:23 AM PDT by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: x_plus_one

Cresson Kearny mentioned in Nuclear War Survival Skills, 1989 edition, that a Russian first strike could easily be done with a submarine missile salvo. Russian ballistic missile subs could get a decent distance from the coast before firing. The missiles would then detonate at orbital altitudes, triggering EMP. The detonations would also trigger interference, making us blind in our detection systems. Durin the blackout, additional attacks would occur ranging from bombers to ICBMs, to sinking key naval vessels such as carriers. The first priority in nuclear war is to destroy the means of the enemy to use nuclear weapons against you. The Second is to cripple any military. Te third is to destroy te other side’s government so that the population will die out of chaos an panic.


16 posted on 07/30/2014 3:44:31 AM PDT by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BobL

We don’t have to go to war. The U.S. government is getting more and more incompetent. The real issue now is to simply develop self-sufficiency as much as possible, so that when the government officials commit the foolish war move, we can work o rebuild the nation out of he wreckage and save lives in the process.


17 posted on 07/30/2014 3:47:59 AM PDT by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Morpheus2009

“We don’t have to go to war. The U.S. government is getting more and more incompetent. The real issue now is to simply develop self-sufficiency as much as possible, so that when the government officials commit the foolish war move, we can work o rebuild the nation out of he wreckage and save lives in the process.”

Of course we don’t, but it certainly sounds like half (or more) of this site is ready to follow Obama right into Moscow, just like the Germans with Hitler in WW2.

DEFINITELY self-sufficiency is one step. Another step is to BEFF-UP our military. If the Russians are building up, then WE BUILD UP. Instead of taking 25 years to deploy the next strategic bomber, why not 5 years? Why one carrier every 10 years (while decommissioning 2 or 3 in that time period) - how about a new carrier ever 2 year, to get to a 600 ship navy? SDI anyone?

Back to self-sufficiency - how about drilling in ANWR, Keystone, securing our borders? Yea, we talk about stuff like that, sometimes, but once the war drums start beating we follow this sick president right into annihilation.

What angers me is that we sit here with an old, burnt-out, decaying military while Russia has been building brand new, STRATEGIC WEAPONS for the past two decades and NOW it’s time to go to war??? I don’t know about you, but I’d actually like to have a chance of winning, if we have to fight them.


18 posted on 07/30/2014 3:56:00 AM PDT by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Vinnie
Right you are, its well past time the the US develops a new series of short, medium and long range nuclear missiles. We also need to build up the stockpile to around 5,000 ready to go (and with a wide range of yields).

And at the same time build up SDI with more interceptor basses with more advance missiles (and prefect a laser shoot down capability).

19 posted on 07/30/2014 4:32:36 AM PDT by 2001convSVT (Going Galt as fast as I can.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: BobL

Same here, it’s just that the dolts in government are shortsighted enough to be proud of using UAVs (drones) which while efficient for reconnaissance and limited support roles, aren’t a win all especially against The Russian military.


20 posted on 07/30/2014 9:31:13 AM PDT by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: BobL

Russian missiles originally carried 5, 10, or even 20 megaton nuclear weapons as their payloads. The 500 or 800 kt warheads are still devastating given that they are part of MIRV. In which one missile gives a carpet bombing of smaller nukes over an area. The individual nukes are less powerful, but the area gets carpeted with them, making them for practical purposes as devastating as a single larger warhead.


21 posted on 07/30/2014 9:35:07 AM PDT by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Morpheus2009

Moscow is 30 percent moslem. IF there is a plan to save Russia from Islam it may include nukes, ours or theres.


22 posted on 08/01/2014 1:08:52 AM PDT by x_plus_one
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson