First, the United States will get the blame for killing the treaty. Moscow has vigorously denied the U.S. charge and claims the United States is in fact the one in violation. U.S. evidence of the Russian violation is highly classified, so the public debate will devolve into an exchange of charges, counter-charges, and denials. Given the low credibility of the Trump administration, Washington will have a hard time winning that debate.
Second, once the United States withdraws from the treaty, there is no reason for Russia to even pretend it is observing the limits. Moscow will be free to deploy the 9M729 cruise missile, and an intermediate-range ballistic missile if it wants, without any restraint.
Third, the U.S. decision will prove controversial with European allies and others who continue to see value in the treaty. It’s hard to feel too much sympathy; no European leader has raised a public stink with the Kremlin about the Russian violation, and there’s little to suggest the violation was protested much in private at high levels. Still, this is the kind of question where the U.S. position would benefit from alliance solidarity.
Fourth, the United States currently has no missile that it could quickly deploy to match the Russians. The “integrated strategy” included a treaty-compliant research and development program for a U.S. intermediate-range missile (development is allowed short of flight-testing), but it provided little money.
Even if the Pentagon were to build the missile, however, a big question remains: Where could the United States put it? An intermediate-range missile based in the United States cannot reach Russia, so it will not cause much alarm in the Kremlin. And it is unlikely that the United States could persuade NATO, Japan or South Korea to deploy it.
Link: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/10/19/the-trump-administration-is-preparing-a-major-mistake-on-the-inf-treaty/
(no message)
(no message)
If it worries the Euros, then they'd let us deploy our own there. Or what am I missing?
I don't think it's wise. But that's the treaty.
They don’t even want to pay their agreed on amount of $$ for their own defense except for a few countries. They think if they ignore any Russian threat it will just go away. Who knows, maybe they are right. I would like to see the USA pay zero dollars to defend Europe (as long as the money saved is not gobbled up by the Pentagon). Maybe that would impact their social welfare policies that lots of politicians in the USA want us to mimic.
Almost
(no message)
(no message)
Absolutely no chance. Most didn’t even want THAAD. I would be very very surprised if Japan allowed it either.
In any event it is in Russia’s interest, not in the interest of the US or NATO to scrap the treaty.
Link: https://nationalinterest.org/feature/leaving-inf-treaty-gift-russia-34152
Not sure why you think intermediate-range missiles would be opposed.
would not allow them now. Their citizens do not want them. They barely allowed deployment of THAAD. Can you dispute that fact? No. In spite of what you may think, it is no longer 1975. Got it?
South Korean attitudes toward the deployment of US tactical nuclear weapons are complex. One of their two major parties is strongly in favor.
Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/09/13/most-south-koreans-dont-think-the-north-will-start-a-war-but-they-still-want-their-own-nuclear-weapons/?utm_term=.86f0f13151a1
(no message)
They want us to stay in the treaty.
Which is, of course, the primary reason they cheat on it.
Link: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/oct/12/russia.usa1
Pulling out of the treaty helps the US, but does not help Russia.
And, it is further evidence that other countries shouldn't fuck with the US. Russia was fucking with us. Call a spade a spade. Why should we hamstring ourselves by following the treaty while they cheat? They need to know we aren't pushovers...at least while Trump is president.
Answer- none.
(no message)
Not Japan- we have never deployed nuclear weapons on Japanese soil. From 1954 to 1972 we had nuclear weapons on Okinawa but they were removed in 1972 when Okinawa reverted to Japan. Is Japan going to reverse its policy of not allowing nuclear weapons on their soil? If so, which does not seem likely, they would probably develop and deploy their own systems since they have the technology to do so and enough plutonium for 5000 warheads.
Not South Korea- we removed our nuclear weapons from there in 1991. Some Korean “hawks” have discussed the possibility of allowing the US to again deploy tactical nukes on their soil but either the current government nor the preponderance of the South Korean people want them.
NATO countries? Not likely.
“Oliver Meier, the deputy head of the international security division at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, said: “Trump’s sudden decision to terminate INF puts Germans in a difficult spot. Most see Russia as being responsible for the INF crisis but do not understand what Trump hopes to achieve by withdrawing from the treaty.
“There is a fear that in a post-INF world, discussions among Nato allies about appropriate military responses to Russia’s actions would become more difficult,” Meier said. “There is little faith that deployment of additional ground-launched cruise missiles would convince Russia to come back to the table. All of this would play into Putin’s hand.”
“The decision to withdraw from the INF has been widely criticised as a mistake by US nuclear experts, who say it will benefit Russia more than the US, arguing that Russia will now be unshackled in its development of short- and medium-range ground-launched nuclear missiles, while the US is unlikely to find allies willing to host such missiles on their soil.”
They say the same goes for the Pacific, where China’s development of medium-range missiles has been cited as one justification for freeing the US from the INF’s constraints.
“Thirty-five years ago, the United Kingdom, West Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and Belgium agreed to deploy 572 nuclear-armed U.S. ‘Euro-missiles.’ None of them appear willing to accept them now,” Michael Krepon, co-founder of the Stimson Centre thinktank and a veteran writer on nuclear weapons issues, wrote on the ArmsControlWonk blog.
Link: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/22/eu-us-nuclear-arms-race-inf-treaty-bolton-moscow
I think the most important point is the 4th one, but maybe we have developed a weapon in secret, and it is ready for deployment??? Who knows.
As to where to put it (the 5th point), I don't think I buy that. First, intermediate range missiles may prove to be more accurate than ballistic missiles, and they can be forward deployed in a number of ways (land and sea). Plus, if they have to be used in-theater (e.g., against N.Korea), they provide a significant advantage in that they will be much less provocative than launching missiles from Kansas over the North Pole at N.Korea, which would much more likely cause a counterstrike from Russia. N.Korea might not think we would be willing to launch from mainland US, and we may not be willing to do that. We would probably have to use other delivery means.
Since Russia is already deploying its version, point 2 seems moot.
Points 1 and 3 are just global politics. If people want to blame the country calling attention to the cheating rather than the cheater, they will do that no matter what, and they have no real credibility on that point.