Anonymous expert compilation, analysis, and reporting.
POTUS put it very succinctly “U.S. Will ‘Build Up’ Nuclear Arsenal Until Other Nations ‘Come To Their Senses’” – being strategically patient and forgiving has only led to breaches in Russia, and in the PRC, growth in capability.
The US is saturated with weapons and doesn’t need a new nuclear build-up, former congressman Ron Paul has told RT, commenting on President Donald Trump’s threat to quit the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces in Europe (INF) treaty.
The Kremlin said on Tuesday that a nuclear arms treaty Washington says it wants to quit had its weak points, but that it did not welcome what it called the dangerous U.S. approach of talking of withdrawal without proposing a replacement.
The U.S. withdrawal from a nuclear arms treaty could make the world “more dangerous” and force Moscow to take steps to restore the balance of power.
“This is a question of strategic security,” Dmitry Peskov says. “Such measures can make the world more dangerous”
Russia warned that a U.S. pullout from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty “can make the world more dangerous.”
PBS NewsHour Published on Oct 22, 2018 President Trump announced over the weekend that the U.S. will quit the 1987 nuclear arms treaty with Russia. Trump claims that Russia has violated the terms. Russia is now warning of countermeasures if the U.S. follows through. Judy Woodruff speaks to Richard Burt, former U.S. ambassador to Germany, and Rebeccah Heinrichs, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.
The threat comes on the heels of Trump’s decision to pull the U.S. from a Cold War-era nuclear deal with Russia.
The US president says Russia has violated a key nuclear treaty, which he has threatened to abandon.
President Donald Trump told reporters Monday that the United States would increase its nuclear arsenal until other nations “come to their senses,” threatening an arms race days after he said he would withdraw the US from a Cold War nuclear treaty.
President Trump said Saturday he will pull the U.S. from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty because “Russia has violated the agreement.”
The 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty marked the end of the Cold War. The Kremlin may want to leave the agreement, too.
Trump wants to terminate the treaty, which helped end the Cold War with Russia.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Donald Trump warned on Monday that the United States intended to build up its arsenal of nuclear weapons to pressure Russia and China. Speaking to reporters, Trump repeated his contention that Russia was not abiding by the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty
President Donald Trump said Monday that his decision to withdraw from a decades-old atomic accord with Russia was also driven by a need to respond to China’s nuclear build-up. “Until people come to their senses, we will build it up,” Trump told reporters Monday at the White House, referring
Leaving the agreement clears the way for the U.S. to boost its conventional forces in the Pacific.
“They should be included,“ Trump told reporters Monday.
The 1987 INF Treaty banned land-based missiles with ranges of 500 to 5,500 kilometers.
The five things you need to know about the U.S. plan to withdraw from this 1987 weapons treaty.
The INF was designed to keep ground-based nuclear missiles out of Europe, but critics say tearing it up could spark an arms race there.
Representatives of the North Atlantic Alliance stated that Moscow is responsible for the unilateral denunciation of the Treaty on the …
The U.S. authorities demonstrate Russia that they will not tolerate its failure to fulfill its obligations under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin has said. The U.S. authorities demonstrate Russia that they will not tolerate its failure to fulfill its obligations under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin has said. “I understand the U.S. intention to withdraw from the INF Treaty. They demonstrate Russia that they will no longer tolerate its “hybrid” failure to fulfill its obligations. The architecture of strategic stability must be transparent, fair and efficient,” he wrote on his Twitter page on Monday.
Russia wasn’t honoring it, and China isn’t party to it.
Is the INF Treaty so important that the Russians should be allowed to cheat on it without consequence? That’s the implication of the criticisms of President…
The U.S. administration has signaled it will withdraw from a key 1987 nuclear-arms treaty with Russia, a dramatic move that many say could leave the world a far more dangerous place. What are U.S. …
Trump is right to nix a treaty that Putin has violated for a decade.
WASHINGTON: Unreleased Pentagon documents and Congressional demands for information reveal that Washington has long planned for the day when the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) with Russia would be ripped up. The report by the Joint Staff and Strategic Command, exclusively obtained by Breaking Defense, make clear that as far back as 2013 — a year before the Obama administration first publicly complained about Russian violations of the treaty — the Defense Department was considering which technologies the US could develop should Washington walk away from the INF. The report points to four ways the US could quickly develop and field missiles with a range between 300 and 3,400 miles, banned under the 30 year-old treaty. Specifically, it says that there could be: Modifications to existing short range or tactical weapon systems to extend range. Forward-based, ground-launched cruise missiles (GLCMs) Forward-based, ground-launched intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs) Forward-based, ground-launched intermediate-range missiles with trajectory shaping vehicles (TSVs). [Click here for our full analysis of these possible new weapons] “Without INF prohibitions,” the report said, the United States could develop ground-launched systems “capable of using any trajectory (ballistic, shaped, or non-ballistic). This would result in systems with the required timeliness, effects on target, and survivability needed to close the existing capability gap.” The restrictions in the treaty, written in 1987, don’t account for new advances in hypersonic boost-glide missiles. But “without INF, the key benefit would be the ability to field a ground-launched ballistic system, such as an IRBM with a TSV,” the report said. “This type of system could deliver the same or better capability as a boost-glide vehicle, with potentially less technological risk and cost.” Looking Beyond INF For months, Pentagon officials have publicly signaled they were considering a post-INF landscape. David Trachtenberg, deputy undersecretary of Defense for policy, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last month that, given Russia’s years-long violations, the Trump administration is “focused on preparing the United States for a world without the INF Treaty.” U.S. lawmakers have long taken an interest. The Hill is still waiting for an overdue report from the Pentagon mandated in the 2018 defense authorization bill that would lay out options for developing systems that would fill the capabilities gaps that have grown between the US and Russia and China. In April, the Pentagon’s chief weapons buyer Ellen Lord sent a letter to the heads of the defense committees asking for more time, saying the department was in the “early stages” of assessing cost, requirements and what systems might be best suited to fit the bill. It was unclear, she explained, what “existing missile systems could be modified for such a role.” Pentagon spokesperson Lt. Col. Michelle Baldanza confirmed to me today that the department continues to work on “a review of U.S. options for conventional, ground-launched, intermediate-range missile systems, which would enable the United States to defend ourselves and our allies, should Russia fail to return to compliance.” It is not clear if the report was ever delivered to lawmakers. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and U.S. Ambassador to NATO Kay Bailey Hutchison also slammed Russian violations of the pact during an alliance meeting in Brussels last month, with Hutchison warning the US might be forced to “take out a missile” that could hit NATO territory. Following an uproar over her comments, Hutchison later clarified in a Tweet, “I was not talking about preemptively striking Russia,” but Moscow “needs to return to INF Treaty compliance or we will need to match its capabilities to protect US & NATO interests.” But the focus on Russia is only part of the equation. China’s missile stockpiles have been a giant flashing red light to defense officials for years, and they estimate at least 90 percent of Beijing’s arsenal occupies the treaty’s 300 to 3,400 mile restriction.
Citing classified intelligence, President Donald Trump revealed the intention to withdraw from an arms control treaty with Russia.
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty eliminated an entire class of nuclear missiles that Moscow and Washington stationed across Europe.
Ditching a key 1987 nuclear accord with Russia could be another in a string of hasty decisions with big consequences.
Can John Bolton be stopped before he further undermines U.S. national security?
The integrated of the B61 Mod 12 nuclear weapon into the F-35 Lightning II fighter jet isturned aviation munitions from tactical weapons into strategic ones, analyst Victor Esin told in an interview to the ‘Armeyskiy standart’. Victor Esin is a leading Russian analyst and Researcher at the Institute for the US and Canadian Studies, Russian Academy of Science; First Vice-President, Academy of Security, Defense and Law and former Chief of Staff – First Deputy Commander-In-Chief, Strategic Missile Forces; Ph.D., Professor, Colonel-General. Russia analyst suggested that the possibility of the F-35 aircraft carrying nuclear B61 Mod 12 gravity bombs to be deployed on NATO bases in Lithuania or Latvia “actually changes the status of these nuclear weapons.” “In relation to Russia, it ceases to be tactical, as it is capable of reaching the objects of the central industrial region of the country, large cities, including Moscow,” – said Victor Esin in an interview. It is worth noting that the U.S. Air Force is integrating the B61 Mod 12 nuclear weapon into the F-35 this year as part of a long-range plan to deploy a nuclear-armed, dual-capable F-35 able to give commanders a wider envelope of precision nuclear attack options. The B61-12 consolidates and replaces four B61 variants in the U.S. nation’s nuclear arsenal. The first production unit in the weapon’s life extension program is scheduled to be completed in 2020. Maj. Emily Grabowski, Air Force Spokeswoman also said: “Detailed risk reduction activities have been completed ensuring the F-35A is fully compatible with the B61-12 weapon. Planning for Block 4 nuclear certification efforts have begun in anticipation of initial B61-12 integration on the F-35A this year.” According to a statement released by the U.S. Air Force, the main purpose of F-35 Lightning II carrying B61 Mod 12 nuclear weapons is for tactical deterrence. In case of the risk of a nuclear warfare, the F-35 fighter jets carrying B61 Mod 12 weapons will be spread out over the smallest airfields. Unlike most aircraft that carry the B61, the multi-role F-35 Lightning II is up to enable strike and anti-air attacks with enhanced lethality and survivability in hostile, anti-access airspace environments.