NATO: Russia's new missile lowers bar for the use of nuclear arms

[Fledermaus]

Regarding INF, try reading the text yourself. It applies to launchers too. Simple fact.

What offensive missile do you imagine will be launched by this model launcher?

 

[Fledermaus]

I gave you the opportunity to be specific about my alleged 'ignorance'.


But there really is no debating anything with someone who is so shallow (and dare i suggest ignorant) that they can't substantiate their claim with anything except a banal generalisation. You really need to do better.

It is so hard to choose. So many choices.

Not that you actually want dialog. You want a bully pulpit where you can regurgitate Russian propaganda talking points.

 

[Oozlefinch]

The ABM Treaty has been dead for 20 years. Why you keep referring to it is beyond me.

No, actually it has been dead for 16 years.

And the reason I keep referring to it is that is the benchmark that we (and the Soviets-Russians) used in designing all of their anti-ballistic missile systems for over 3 decades.

And why the US until recently did not really care about ground based systems. Everything from the time the ink was dry on the ABM treaty was based on mobile systems (which are excluded). APTRIOT, THAAD, MEADS, even the SM-2 and SM-3 series. All are based on mobile launchers, where the ABM treaty was primarily about fixed missile sites that do not move.

And the SM3 is as I stated before a grey area. The missile itself is not in violation of anything, the fact that it can be launched now from a permanent ground system is where it gets fuzzy. And I find it interesting that you keep stating it is in violation of the INF treaty, even though it never was and will never be a nuclear delivery system.

And the reason that the US pulled out of the ABM treaty is twofold. First, it was impossible to conduct testing on our mid-course defense system with them in place. Secondly, they tried to claim that the US was violating that and the INF treaty with their target missiles. Even though such test missiles were excluded from the treaty, so long as certain rules were followed (the missile must exist before the treaty, they must be used to test missile defense systems and not the test missile itself, and they must all be launched from fixed above ground launchers from declared R&D facilities).

But since you still refuse to say how the SM-3 violates the INF and I have not found any reputable sites that say that it does I am just considering you as being unwilling to confirm your own claims.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Dont know anything about ww3? How old are you?

What was described was not WW3, but extinction of humanity and the end of the world - in other words doomsday.

 

[Mr Person]

Link?

If you need a link for the proposition that nuclear war would likely mean the end of humanity, but at the very least a complete collapse of civilization followed by a lingering death for all but a very few, you might not want to say anything about nuclear war. The luck ones would find themselves in one of the many ground zeroes.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

What was described was not WW3, but extinction of humanity and the end of the world - in other words doomsday.

It has long been assumed that ww3 equates doomsday.

 

[Rogue Valley]

No, actually it has been dead for 16 years.

And the reason I keep referring to it is that is the benchmark that we (and the Soviets-Russians) used in designing all of their anti-ballistic missile systems for over 3 decades.

And why the US until recently did not really care about ground based systems. Everything from the time the ink was dry on the ABM treaty was based on mobile systems (which are excluded). APTRIOT, THAAD, MEADS, even the SM-2 and SM-3 series. All are based on mobile launchers, where the ABM treaty was primarily about fixed missile sites that do not move.

And the SM3 is as I stated before a grey area. The missile itself is not in violation of anything, the fact that it can be launched now from a permanent ground system is where it gets fuzzy. And I find it interesting that you keep stating it is in violation of the INF treaty, even though it never was and will never be a nuclear delivery system.

And the reason that the US pulled out of the ABM treaty is twofold. First, it was impossible to conduct testing on our mid-course defense system with them in place. Secondly, they tried to claim that the US was violating that and the INF treaty with their target missiles. Even though such test missiles were excluded from the treaty, so long as certain rules were followed (the missile must exist before the treaty, they must be used to test missile defense systems and not the test missile itself, and they must all be launched from fixed above ground launchers from declared R&D facilities).

But since you still refuse to say how the SM-3 violates the INF and I have not found any reputable sites that say that it does I am just considering you as being unwilling to confirm your own claims.

I go through this debate ad-nauseum with Westphalian in the Europe forum. Be aware that he is Russian and a strong Putin supporter.

 

[Westphalian]

As I've repeatedly made clear, it's the SM-3s Mk-41 launchers which violate INF. Russia also argues that armed drones are another violation.

Here's a reputable specialist source:

More details on Russia and the INF violation - Blog - Russian strategic nuclear forces


One final point. In response to the non-compliance finding, Russia, of course, made some counter-accusation. What's interesting, these seem to have some merit.
First, Russia says that armed drones qualify as GLCM - a literal reading of the treaty seems to suggest that that's the case. Let me copy part of the discussion over at Armscontrolwonk.com, where Thomas Moore tried to rebuff Russia's claims (not very convincingly, as far as I'm concerned):
The INF treaty defines "ground-launched cruise missile" as follows (Article II.2):
The term "ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM)" means a ground-launched cruise missile that is a weapon-delivery vehicle.
It depends on the definition of cruise missile, but it is provided right there:
The term "cruise missile" means an unmanned, self-propelled vehicle that sustains flight through the use of aerodynamic lift over most of its flight path.
Thomas argued that Russia didn't provide a definition of the term "weapon-delivery vehicle," but it didn't have to - the United States provided one in a note exchange:
In this connection, it is also the position of the Government of the United States of America that the Parties share a common understanding that the term 'weapon-delivery vehicle' in the Treaty means any ground-launched ballistic or cruise missile in the 500 kilometer to 5500 kilometer range that has been flight-tested or deployed to carry or be used as a weapon -- that is, any warhead, mechanism or device, which, when directed against any target, is designed to damage or destroy it.
I don't see how one could make an argument that armed drones are not GLCMs. [UPDATE: Well, maybe there is a way - see the discussion in comments.]
Also, Russia is arguing that deployment of Mk-41 launchers as part of the missile defense sites in Poland and Romania would violate the treaty. This case is not quite clear cut, but Russia seems to have a point.
The Mk-41 Vertical Launch System is capable of launching a range of missiles, including Tomahawk SLCM. There is nothing wrong with that - the INF Treaty does not limit SLCMs and, indeed, allows testing SLCMs from a ground-based launcher as long as this launcher is fixed and located at a designated test site. Unless the United States tested a GLCM from an Mk-41, these launchers are not considered GLCM launchers for the purposes of the INF treaty and, strictly speaking, the treaty does not limit them in any way. But deploying these launchers on land does seem to go against the spirit of the treaty - deployment of a bunch of SLCM launchers on land would be a way to deploy a bunch of GLCMs. And yes, fixed launchers are GLCM launchers in the INF Treaty (Article II.4):
The term "GLCM launcher" means a fixed launcher or a mobile land-based transporter-erector-launcher mechanism for launching a GLCM.
One can argue (as Thomas Moore did) that since the particular launchers that will be deployed in Poland and Romania have not been used to launch SLCMs, they don't qualify as SLCM launchers, but that's not a strong argument. Even though the INF Treaty does not explicitly define SLCM launchers, the common practice in arms control treaties is that if you test a SLCM from a launcher (Mk-41 in this case), all launchers of this type would be considered SLCM launchers. So, I would say that it's reasonable to argue that deployment of Mk-41 anywhere on land outside of agreed test ranges would not be exactly treaty compliant. This would not be an issue if the missile-defense Mk-41 were "distinguishable" from those that were used in SLCM tests, but as I understand, they are not.

 

[Jack Hays]

​

U.S. to pull out of nuclear arms control treaty with Russia
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the Trump administration was withdrawing from the Cold War agreement on grounds that Russian violations render it moot.

• By Anne Gearan, Carol Morello and Paul Sonne
• 1 hour ago

 

[Fledermaus]

As I've repeatedly made clear, it's the SM-3s Mk-41 launchers which violate INF. Russia also argues that armed drones are another violation.

Here's a reputable specialist source:

More details on Russia and the INF violation - Blog - Russian strategic nuclear forces


One final point. In response to the non-compliance finding, Russia, of course, made some counter-accusation. What's interesting, these seem to have some merit.
First, Russia says that armed drones qualify as GLCM - a literal reading of the treaty seems to suggest that that's the case. Let me copy part of the discussion over at Armscontrolwonk.com, where Thomas Moore tried to rebuff Russia's claims (not very convincingly, as far as I'm concerned):
The INF treaty defines "ground-launched cruise missile" as follows (Article II.2):
The term "ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM)" means a ground-launched cruise missile that is a weapon-delivery vehicle.
It depends on the definition of cruise missile, but it is provided right there:
The term "cruise missile" means an unmanned, self-propelled vehicle that sustains flight through the use of aerodynamic lift over most of its flight path.
Thomas argued that Russia didn't provide a definition of the term "weapon-delivery vehicle," but it didn't have to - the United States provided one in a note exchange:
In this connection, it is also the position of the Government of the United States of America that the Parties share a common understanding that the term 'weapon-delivery vehicle' in the Treaty means any ground-launched ballistic or cruise missile in the 500 kilometer to 5500 kilometer range that has been flight-tested or deployed to carry or be used as a weapon -- that is, any warhead, mechanism or device, which, when directed against any target, is designed to damage or destroy it.
I don't see how one could make an argument that armed drones are not GLCMs. [UPDATE: Well, maybe there is a way - see the discussion in comments.]
Also, Russia is arguing that deployment of Mk-41 launchers as part of the missile defense sites in Poland and Romania would violate the treaty. This case is not quite clear cut, but Russia seems to have a point.
The Mk-41 Vertical Launch System is capable of launching a range of missiles, including Tomahawk SLCM. There is nothing wrong with that - the INF Treaty does not limit SLCMs and, indeed, allows testing SLCMs from a ground-based launcher as long as this launcher is fixed and located at a designated test site. Unless the United States tested a GLCM from an Mk-41, these launchers are not considered GLCM launchers for the purposes of the INF treaty and, strictly speaking, the treaty does not limit them in any way. But deploying these launchers on land does seem to go against the spirit of the treaty - deployment of a bunch of SLCM launchers on land would be a way to deploy a bunch of GLCMs. And yes, fixed launchers are GLCM launchers in the INF Treaty (Article II.4):
The term "GLCM launcher" means a fixed launcher or a mobile land-based transporter-erector-launcher mechanism for launching a GLCM.
One can argue (as Thomas Moore did) that since the particular launchers that will be deployed in Poland and Romania have not been used to launch SLCMs, they don't qualify as SLCM launchers, but that's not a strong argument. Even though the INF Treaty does not explicitly define SLCM launchers, the common practice in arms control treaties is that if you test a SLCM from a launcher (Mk-41 in this case), all launchers of this type would be considered SLCM launchers. So, I would say that it's reasonable to argue that deployment of Mk-41 anywhere on land outside of agreed test ranges would not be exactly treaty compliant. This would not be an issue if the missile-defense Mk-41 were "distinguishable" from those that were used in SLCM tests, but as I understand, they are not.

What GLCM in the inventory can be launched from that launcher?

 

[Westphalian]

What GLCM in the inventory can be launched from that launcher?

No - that question is irrelevant. As I've said before you need to understand INF and you don't.


Quoting Podvig:


So, I would say that it's reasonable to argue that deployment of Mk-41 anywhere on land outside of agreed test ranges would not be exactly treaty compliant.

 

[Dutch]

NATO: Russia's new missile lowers bar for the use of nuclear arms

SSC-8 (Novator 9M729)



From Kaliningrad, the mobile-launched SSC-8 (Novator 9M729) nuclear-capable cruise missile can target five NATO capitol cities at a minimum. The SSC-8 uses the same mobile launch vehicle as the Iskander cruise missile, another INF violation.

Moscow maintains that the US SM-3 Block IIA interceptor missiles stationed in Poland, Romania, and on ships in the Baltic Sea violate the INF Treaty.

Well, the German's don't seem to have a problem paying for it so what's the problem?

Behind Nord Stream 2: The Russia-to-Germany gas pipeline that fueled Trump's anger at NATO meeting

President Donald Trump on Wednesday blasted a planned natural gas pipeline link between Russia and Germany.

The Nord Stream 2 pipeline has split European nations, with some saying it increases Europe's dependence on Russia and poses national security threats.

Germany relied on Russia for 50 percent to 75 percent of its natural gas imports in 2017.

 

[Westphalian]

NATO: Russia's new missile lowers bar for the use of nuclear arms

SSC-8 (Novator 9M729)



From Kaliningrad, the mobile-launched SSC-8 (Novator 9M729) nuclear-capable cruise missile can target five NATO capitol cities at a minimum. The SSC-8 uses the same mobile launch vehicle as the Iskander cruise missile, another INF violation.

Moscow maintains that the US SM-3 Block IIA interceptor missiles stationed in Poland, Romania, and on ships in the Baltic Sea violate the INF Treaty.

Just notice this, and it's factually incorrect.


Sea based missiles are outside INF and Moscow has therefore never claimed a violation with these.

 

[Fledermaus]

No - that question is irrelevant. As I've said before you need to understand INF and you don't.


Quoting Podvig:


So, I would say that it's reasonable to argue that deployment of Mk-41 anywhere on land outside of agreed test ranges would not be exactly treaty compliant.

What weapons?

 

[Oozlefinch]

As I've repeatedly made clear, it's the SM-3s Mk-41 launchers which violate INF. Russia also argues that armed drones are another violation.

Here's a reputable specialist source:

More details on Russia and the INF violation - Blog - Russian strategic nuclear forces

OK, how in the hell does this validate your claim about the SM-3, when it does not even talk about the SM-3 in any way? It talks about GLCM and SLCM.

And the launcher itself does not violate anything. It is the missiles that comply with or violate a treaty, not the launching system.

Come on now, you are going to have to do much better than that. If the Mk-41 VLS is in violation of the INF, then why have neither the Soviets nor the Russians tried to outlaw it? Especially since the system was in use for over 2 years prior to the INF treaty being signed!

The Mark 41 and following VLS systems are now used by 11 navies around the world, on 19 ship classes and 186 individual ships. If it was in violation, that never would have happened.

Sorry, you have still failed. Especially since the very article that you try to use does not even talk about the SM-3 itself, but cruise missiles. And in case you did not know, the SM-3 is not a cruise missile. It is a ballistic intercept missile.

 

[Oozlefinch]

What GLCM in the inventory can be launched from that launcher?

Well, this is actually a confusion of the terminology used.

When talking about cruise missiles (and most missiles actually), they are generally divided into 3 categories. Air Launched (ALCM), Surface launched (GLCM), and Submarine launched (SLCM).

Because ships at sea are technically on the "surface", technically any such weapon is a GLCM, even if it is not actually on "the ground". It is for this and other reasons that these platforms were largely excluded from the INF and other treaties.

But technically, the RGM-109E land attack Tomahawk fired by the Mk-41 is a "ground launched cruise missile".

But if the treaty was still in effect it would not have been a problem to devise a lockout system to prevent them from using this class of missile. After all, both the US and Soviets-Russians have done that for decades in other launch platforms. Both the US and USSR did this for decades to their bomber fleets as new treaties went into effect.

 

[Oozlefinch]

I go through this debate ad-nauseum with Westphalian in the Europe forum. Be aware that he is Russian and a strong Putin supporter.

I really do not care where somebody is from, so long as their arguments have a basis in reality.

They can be a Sinophile, a hardcore Socialist, or a strong US First believer. All I ask is that their claims have a basis in reality and accurately reference the various treaties being talked about.

The entire claim he seems to be giving (that the Mk-41 launcher violates the treaty) is faulty, since this system existed before the INF treaty was drafted! If the launcher was in violation, than it would have been specifically addressed in the treaty. It is specifically a nonsensical argument since it is a naval system, which is specifically excluded in the INF treaty in the first place. The INF treaty was only intended to eliminate ground based systems, like the BGM-109G, the Pershing series, and various similar systems that the Soviets used.

He seems to be confusing the INF treaty with the START and New START treaties. Those 2 did indeed place some limits on other platforms, like air, naval, and submarine systems. START was primarily involved in removing and modifying classes of nuclear bombers. New START then went a step further, eliminating more bombers, and placing restrictions on the number of missile tubes in each submarine, and in limiting the number of SSBN submarines each side had. This is why 4 of our Ohio class submarines and the 6 Oscar class submarines are not part of that treaty.

But none of the various US-USSR/Russian treaties discussed naval launching systems, nor did they discuss ground based anti-missile systems. Once again, that was the ABM treaty, not the INF treaty. And even then, there is a question as for how it would even apply to systems the US places in other countries.

And this is simple, because under the actual treaty, each nation is allowed to posses 2 permanently emplaced ground based land ABM complexes. And while the wording states that they were allowed 1 for the capitol and another for protecting ICBM silos, it does not actually state at what distance they could be from their protected area. The US has 2 complexes with ground based ABM systems in active service. 1 in Poland, the other in Romania.

The 2 locations for the GMD mid-course systems are both recognized testing centers, with one at Fort Greely in Alaska and the other being at Vandenberg Air Force Base. And even after more than 20 years, the system is still nowhere near being deployable.

Nor are railroad mounted nuclear missile systems included, since neither side had them (nor was researching building them) at the time of the treaty.

 

[Rogue Valley]

I really do not care where somebody is from, so long as their arguments have a basis in reality.

No matter how many times it is explained to him, he insists that the SM-3 Interceptor system violates the INF Treaty.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Putin won't be upset. He spoke against the INF Treaty in 2007 and complaining that no other nations had joined.....

“We need to convince other (countries) to assume the same level of obligation as assumed by the Russian Federation and the United States,” Putin said. “If we are unable to obtain such a goal ... it will be difficult for us to keep within the framework of the treaty in a situation where other countries do develop such weapon systems, and among those are countries located in our near vicinity.”

Putin spoke out against it again in 2016 along the same lines.....

Q: Does Russia see any value in this treaty, and if yes, then what exactly? Is it even worthwhile to be part of this treaty?

Vladimir Putin: "It would be of great value to us, if other countries followed Russia and the United States. Here’s what we have: the naïve former Russian leadership went ahead and eliminated intermediate-range land-based missiles. The Americans eliminated their Pershing missiles, while we scrapped the SS-20 missiles. There was a tragic event associated with this when the chief designer of these systems committed suicide believing that it was a betrayal of national interests and unilateral disarmament. Why unilateral? Because under that treaty we eliminated our ground complex, but the treaty did not include medium-range sea- and air-based missiles. Air- and sea-based missiles were not affected by it. The Soviet Union simply did not have them, while the United States kept them in service."

"What we ultimately got was a clear imbalance: the United States has kept its medium-range missiles. It does not matter whether they are based at sea, in the air, or on land; however, the Soviet Union was simply left without this type of weapons. Almost all of our neighbors make such weapons, including the countries to the east of our borders, and Middle Eastern countries as well, whereas none of the countries sharing borders with the United States, neither Canada nor Mexico, manufacture such weapons. So, for us it is a special test, but nevertheless we believe it is necessary to honor this treaty. All the more so since, as you may be aware, we now also have medium-range sea- and air-based missiles."

Despite the garbage propaganda emanating from the Kremlin and its trolls, Putin is certainly not upset to have the INF Treaty disappear.

 

[Oozlefinch]

No matter how many times it is explained to him, he insists that the SM-3 Interceptor system violates the INF Treaty.

He might have a point, if he was able to actually give a reference that talks about that. Instead he brings up a reference that has nothing to do with what is being talked about, and claims he is right. Apparently he does not understand the difference between a ballistic intercept missile and a ballistic missile.