Dimwit Trump and John Bolton are withdrawing from the INF treaty with no apparent counter to Russian intermediate missiles like 9M729. cruise missile, except to waste more money in missile development. This follows the Trumpian policy to weaken US defense policy in deference to Russia, as well as potentially escalate long-run nuclear proliferation.
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.
www.brookings.edu/...
Trump’s Bolton-policy is a form of Reaganism driving up a trillion dollar deficit, and could escalate the arms race or at least reduce even further incentives to promote arms control. Considering his crippling the State department, diplomacy will continue to lag as an option in managing conflict.
“We’re going to terminate the agreement and we’re going to pull out,” Trump told reporters before a campaign rally in Nevada Saturday.
“We’ll have to develop those weapons,” he added.
The INF, which was signed between former President Reagan and Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987, allows the U.S. to counter Chinese efforts to accumulate arms in the Pacific but prevents Washington from deploying new weapons in response.
The New York Times reported Friday that the Pentagon has been developing nuclear weapons to counter Chinese weapons already deployed.
China is not a signatory to the deal, and the Trump administration has accused Russia of violating the deal.
The last president to withdraw from a major arms treaty was former President George W. Bush in 2002, when he pulled out of the nuclear Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
thehill.com/…
Like Trump’s trade policies(sic), screwing with the military situation for its own sake is destabilizing global agreements and regional stability to profit specific sectors and oligarchic actors.
“This is the most severe crisis in nuclear arms control since the 1980s,” said Malcolm Chalmers, the deputy director general of the Royal United Services Institute. “If the INF treaty collapses, and with the New Start treaty on strategic arms due to expire in 2021, the world could be left without any limits on the nuclear arsenals of nuclear states for the first time since 1972.”
www.theguardian.com/...
Brookings, has determined that the entire INF withdrawal policy is an all-around loser, making it another nubbin-waving exercise for the orange mushroom head. More interesting is intermediate nuclear missile development as a MIC profit-center, and heck why not eventually propose to base some in Israel, (even if they don’t even admit to having their own), it’s not like such missiles weren’t based in Turkey in the 1960s, oh wait.
Bolton’s position comes as no surprise. He views arms control with disdain. He has long called for withdrawal from the INF Treaty, was a driving force behind the U.S. decision in 2001 to leave the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and opposed the 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.
www.brookings.edu/...
It seems to be another Trump attempt to weaken NATO, because whose interest does that serve.
Allies welcome continued efforts by the United States to engage Russia in bilateral and multilateral formats, including the Special Verification Commission, to resolve concerns about Russia’s compliance with the INF Treaty. Allies emphasize that a situation whereby the United States and other parties were abiding by the treaty and Russia were not – would be a grave and urgent concern. The Alliance is united in its appreciation that effective arms control agreements remain an essential element to strategic stability and our collective security. In this spirit, our actions, including national measures taken by some Allies, seek to preserve the INF Treaty, strengthen the Alliance, and incentivize Russia to engage in good faith.