... the Russian Federation have a shared responsibility to work together along with other nations to clarify our differences and mitigate these risks. Progress can only be made through the engagement of leaders. Moreover, in every country that possesses nuclear weapons, anything relating to nuclear policy is inherently “presidential.”
The reality today is that we have entered a new era, in which a fateful error—triggered by an accident, miscalculation, or blunder—could trigger a nuclear catastrophe....
... Russian missile types). The U.S. periodically
describes
its nuclear-tipped SLCMs as a response to Russia’s breaches of the INF Treaty, allegedly through the continued deployment of a ground-based type of cruise missiles with a range of around 2,000 ... ... that in this particular context, Russia is merely a pretext, whereas the true reason that the U.S. re-admitted this class of nuclear weapons to its arsenal is China, with its rapidly developing naval force, which is being supported and reinforced by ground-based ...
... nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of 500–5,500km. The two sides eliminated 2,692 short-, medium- and intermediate-range nuclear-armed missiles by 1991 — the first time ever that an entire class of nuclear weapons has been
eliminated
. In July 2014, the US State Department officially
alleged
that the Russian Federation was violating the INF Treaty by conducting flight tests of a ground-launched cruise missile with a range that is prohibited by the treaty. Since then, Russia has repeatedly denied the accusations, and has accused the United States of deploying defense systems in Romania ...
... to Russia’s “transgressions” and in other theatres saturated with missiles of nations not bound by the treaty. Notionally, low-yield warheads for submarine-launched ballistic missiles are meant as a deterrent against attempted use of tactical nuclear weapons in conventional conflict.
Alexander Yermakov:
The INF Treaty Is Under Attack. Down a Road Paved with Good Intentions
The NPR authors believe the US president will thus be able to deliver a nuclear strike that would not result in a full-scale nuclear war. It remains unclear how Washington’s adversary ...
... Wednesday in comments on Russian-American relations.
"Our priority task is not to allow the Russian-American arms control regime break up completely. The most important task for today is to preserve the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty), extend the New START treaty. Of course, this is also cooperation of Russia and the US on non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, as well as efforts not to let the nuclear deal with Iran fail and to reduce tensions on the Korean peninsula to the extent possible," said Andrei Kortunov.
"I think we must try to extend the existing spheres of cooperation, ...
... the Obama Administration. Besides, should INF fall, New Start would be much more difficult to extend.
Alexander Yermakov:
The INF Treaty Is Under Attack. Down a Road Paved with Good Intentions
Within these overall ceilings, both Washington and Moscow would ... ... Richard Nixon and Leonid Brezhnev. Either treaty includes no points that would address problems of missile defense, tactical nuclear weapons, space-based weapons, cyber warfare, third nuclear countries, nuclear terrorism or prompt global strike capabilities....
.... Naturally, such dialogue should also cover non-nuclear but de-facto strategic arms, as well as cyberweapons.
The sides concerned acting within the framework of existing treaties or agreeing to amend them (which may happen to the obviously outdated INF Treaty) should have a right to modernize their nuclear arsenals or even change their configuration. But in doing so they should be guided by the philosophy of mutual stable deterrence rather than attempts to eliminate nuclear weapons (which will be impossible in the foreseeable future) or obtain first-strike disarming advantages.
Therefore, the purpose of the dialogue is not arms reduction as such but prevention of war through information exchange, clarification of ...
... transformation of the post-war system of international relations, with its main pillars being destroyed and new ones being erected. In this sense, the INF Treaty may no longer be necessary or relevant.
Cons
Dmitry Stefanovich:
Global Development and Nuclear Weapons
No matter how reasonable the abolition of the INF Treaty might seem, it may lead to some negative consequences.
First, it is unlikely that the U.S.A. will stay committed to the Treaty if Russia quits it. In this case, there will be no bars for the U.S.A. from developing and deploying new intermediate-range ...
It may be said that the future of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (the INF Treaty) is assured. Moreover, should a critical situation arise, the United States is more likely to withdraw from it than Russia. The INF Treaty is beneficial for the Kremlin, since without it, the United States could deploy major medium-range missile forces in Western Europe, creating a high level of danger for Russia’s strategic nuclear weapons deployed in the European part of Russia and for the command centres, particularly for Moscow. The threat stems from short flight time, which leaves little room for decision-making. Withdrawing from the INT Treaty is disadvantageous for ...
