Pentagon tests cruise missile with over 500km reach, so INF treaty is now definitely toast

I keep forgetting, are the Russian good guys or bad guys this week? Ditto with China and Upper Korea.

1 Like

This treaty was an amazing deal for the US and NATO.

No, really

We gave up something we didn’t need and the Soviet Union gave up something they could really use.

Putin has been wanting out of this treaty since he came to power, and ⊥rump has now delivered.

I wonder if he swallowed :thinking:

12 Likes

TrumpPutinBlow

3 Likes

Eh. The INF only covered ground-launched cruise missiles. When the INF was signed, the Tomahawk ground launchers were scrapped as the missile could exceed 500 km even back then.

All they’d have to do is build a new ground-based launcher to achieve this. The missiles themselves wouldn’t require much in the way of changes and as long as there were no ground-launch systems, it wasn’t in violation.

3 Likes

Da, but I think the salient point here it that the US isn’t even pretending to be the Good Guy™ any more.

7 Likes

Ooh, I’ve got an old post for this:

3 Likes

Huh. 500km actually sounds pretty short-range to me.

For cruise missiles. ICBMs do the heavy lifting.

1 Like

In my book progress is measured by making things safer. Violation and dismissal of a treaty that bans medium range nuked is bad.

I am proud of Russians and US citizens when we work together to rid the world of life snuffing nukes, not when we dismantle past progress then drive the point home with tests.

What a shame.

4 Likes

I’m sure the US proposed, bid, designed, planned, and built a missile that violated the INF treaty all in the span of a few months because that’s how efficient the Government is.

3 Likes

this decade is ending rather terrifying

climate change research/laws undone, endangered species protections undone, regulations on nasty industries undone, nuclear agreements undone

and people in general don’t seem to care as long as they can still browse the internet and shop at the mall

what really worries me in this day an age is that some general is going to want weapons connected through the internet for monitoring, you just know it’s happening somewhere beause drone feeds were un-encrypted for years through the iraq war, may still not be

Trying to decide whether you misspelled Ted “Cruz” or “missile.” Could go either way, or both.

2 Likes

Yup - for some reason the line “are they gonna drop the bomb or not” popped into my head…

And sweet, I can also revisit the anxiety dreams I had growing up among the missile fields of the High Plains. Good times.

On the other hand, dusting off a copy of Twilight 2000 and running a game might be appropriate.

1 Like

So this one is “duck and cover”, right? I need to brush up.

1 Like

Uggggh

Fixed it. Need. More. Bigger. Screen. (Ala Shatner)

Thx

1 Like

Long-range cruise missiles like these pose a different kind of threat than ICBMs because they can fly below effective radar altitude and thus take out enemy targets before the other side even knows there’s a war on.

2 Likes

Did it ever? I was under the impression we mostly did that in arrears, after the dust had settled and the recriminations started. Beforehand it was mostly used for coalition (“scapegoat”) building and for domestic consumption.

1 Like

Also, long-range last-gen cruise missiles are probably just a stopgap until the hypersonics start shipping.

2 Likes

wikipedia informs us that

The INF Treaty banned all of the two nations’ land-based ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and missile launchers with ranges of 500–1,000 kilometers (310–620 mi) (short medium-range) and 1,000–5,500 km (620–3,420 mi) (intermediate-range). The treaty did not apply to air- or sea-launched missiles.[4][5] By May 1991, the nations had eliminated 2,692 missiles, followed by 10 years of on-site verification inspections.[6]

Text of the Treaty: https://2009-2017.state.gov/t/avc/trty/102360.htm

4 Likes