This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/01/inf-treaty-us-russia-arms-control-to-end

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
US-Russia arms control treaty poised to end on Friday Lapse of US-Russia arms treaty will heighten missile threat, says UN
(32 minutes later)
A cold war-era arms control treaty which has kept nuclear missiles off European soil for more than three decades will end on Friday, due to US and Russian failure to agree on how to keep it alive. The UN secretary general has warned that the world will lose “an invaluable brake on nuclear war” with the expiry of a cold war-era arms control treaty on Friday.
Even before the demise of the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, there have been signs of a rekindled arms race in the class of weapons that the treaty banned: ground-launched missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500km. The 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty has kept nuclear missiles off European soil for more than three decades, but the US and Russia have failed to agree on how to keep it alive.
“This will likely heighten, not reduce, the threat posed by ballistic missiles,” António Guterres told reporters, adding that he was concerned about rising tensions between nuclear-armed states.
There have already been signs of a rekindled arms race in the class of weapons that the treaty banned: ground-launched missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500km.
Nearly 2,700 of the cruise and ballistic nuclear missiles were destroyed under the treaty, removing a potent source of European insecurity. A targeted country would only have a few minutes warning of a launch, fueling paranoia and hair-trigger alerts on both sides of the Iron Curtain.Nearly 2,700 of the cruise and ballistic nuclear missiles were destroyed under the treaty, removing a potent source of European insecurity. A targeted country would only have a few minutes warning of a launch, fueling paranoia and hair-trigger alerts on both sides of the Iron Curtain.
These weapons are now beginning to return.These weapons are now beginning to return.
Death of the treaty that removed missiles from Greenham CommonDeath of the treaty that removed missiles from Greenham Common
“2 August marks the demise of the INF, which played a major role in enhancing stability in Europe,” said Laura Kennedy, former US permanent representative to the conference on disarmament in Geneva. “Its termination could be both unsettling in Europe and could lead to new arms competition in other areas, such as Asia.” “2 August marks the demise of the INF, which played a major role in enhancing stability in Europe,” said Laura Kennedy, the former US permanent representative to the conference on disarmament in Geneva. “Its termination could be both unsettling in Europe and could lead to new arms competition in other areas, such as Asia.”
The death of the INF comes amid aggressive nuclear weapon modernisation programmes being carried out by the US and Russia. Among the new weapons the US is contemplating is a nuclear bunker-buster, considered and then shelved under the George W Bush administration.The death of the INF comes amid aggressive nuclear weapon modernisation programmes being carried out by the US and Russia. Among the new weapons the US is contemplating is a nuclear bunker-buster, considered and then shelved under the George W Bush administration.
Russia has developed a land-based nuclear-capable cruise missile, which the US and its Nato allies say violates the INF range restrictions. Moscow initially denied the existence of the missile (known as the 9M729 or by its Nato designation, SSC-8) and then claimed its range was under 500km. It is thought likely to be a land-based version of the Russian navy Kalibr missile.Russia has developed a land-based nuclear-capable cruise missile, which the US and its Nato allies say violates the INF range restrictions. Moscow initially denied the existence of the missile (known as the 9M729 or by its Nato designation, SSC-8) and then claimed its range was under 500km. It is thought likely to be a land-based version of the Russian navy Kalibr missile.
“They are dual-capable, they can carry nuclear weapons, they can reach European cities within minutes, they are mobile, hard to detect and they also reduce the threshold of any potential use of nuclear weapons in armed conflict,” the Nato secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, said on Wednesday.“They are dual-capable, they can carry nuclear weapons, they can reach European cities within minutes, they are mobile, hard to detect and they also reduce the threshold of any potential use of nuclear weapons in armed conflict,” the Nato secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, said on Wednesday.
Russia refusal to scrap the weapon led Donald Trump to withdraw the US from the INF treaty, and the US is now developing at least three types of medium-range missiles, all of them designed for conventional warheads. Russia’s refusal to scrap the weapon led Donald Trump to withdraw the US from the INF treaty, and the US is now developing at least three types of medium-range missiles, all of them designed for conventional warheads.
The first of these, believed a land-based version of the Tomahawk cruise missile with a 1,000km range, is due to be tested later this month. A second option, a medium-range ballistic missile, is due to tested in November, with a range of up to 4,000km. Thirdly, the army is planning to develop a new missile to be mounted on a mobile launcher, either a ballistic weapon or a hypersonic glide vehicle. The first of these, believed to be a land-based version of the Tomahawk cruise missile with a 1,000km range, is due to be tested later this month. A second option, a medium-range ballistic missile, is due to be tested in November, with a range of up to 4,000km. Third, the army is planning to develop a new missile to be mounted on a mobile launcher, either a ballistic weapon or a hypersonic glide vehicle.
Pentagon officials have said the first weapon, the cruise missile, could be deployed within 18 months.Pentagon officials have said the first weapon, the cruise missile, could be deployed within 18 months.
The prospect of the INF’s demise on Friday is viewed with little enthusiasm among UK officials, not least because the country falls in the range of the previously banned intermediate-range surface-to-surface missiles.The prospect of the INF’s demise on Friday is viewed with little enthusiasm among UK officials, not least because the country falls in the range of the previously banned intermediate-range surface-to-surface missiles.
“It is a proper serious moment,” a Whitehall source observed, although there are no plans for the new administration of Boris Johnson to publicly mark the moment.“It is a proper serious moment,” a Whitehall source observed, although there are no plans for the new administration of Boris Johnson to publicly mark the moment.
European officials say there has been limited discussion with their US counterparts on Nato policy after INF, in part because European policy was focus on saving the treaty. European officials say there has been limited discussion with their US counterparts on Nato policy after INF, in part because European policy was focused on saving the treaty.
Now that that has failed, UK officials argued there was unlikely to be an immediate return to a nuclear standoff between rival missile systems in Europe, as witnessed in the 1980s when US cruise and Pershing missiles were ranged against Soviet SS-20s.Now that that has failed, UK officials argued there was unlikely to be an immediate return to a nuclear standoff between rival missile systems in Europe, as witnessed in the 1980s when US cruise and Pershing missiles were ranged against Soviet SS-20s.
The new Russian missile is nuclear capable, but not necessarily nuclear armed. They are presently believed to be four battalions, only one of which is west of the Urals, though they are mobile allowing for rapid redeployment. The new Russian missile is nuclear capable, but not necessarily nuclear armed. They are presently believed to be organised in four battalions, only one of which is west of the Urals, though they are mobile allowing for rapid redeployment.
The US missiles are, for now, strictly conventional and Nato has said it has no intention of deploying nuclear missiles in Europe.The US missiles are, for now, strictly conventional and Nato has said it has no intention of deploying nuclear missiles in Europe.
“We will not mirror what Russia is doing,” Stoltenberg said.“We will not mirror what Russia is doing,” Stoltenberg said.
US arms control office critically understaffed under Trump, experts sayUS arms control office critically understaffed under Trump, experts say
Furthermore, the Democratic majority leadership in the House of Representatives is opposed to the new US missiles, arguing there is no sign of a coherent strategy behind them, and has removed the $96m research and development budget for them from the the House 2020 budget. The fate of the programmes now depends on the reconciliation process between the House and Senate versions. Furthermore, the Democratic majority leadership in the House of Representatives is opposed to the new US missiles, arguing there is no sign of a coherent strategy behind them, and has removed the $96m research and development budget for them from the House 2020 budget. The fate of the programmes now depends on the reconciliation process between the House and Senate versions.
It is unclear where a US cruise missile would be based. They would have to be located in eastern Europe to be in range of Russian targets, but one of Washington’s closest allies in the region, Poland, has insisted there would have to be unanimous Nato support for their deployment, which is unlikely.It is unclear where a US cruise missile would be based. They would have to be located in eastern Europe to be in range of Russian targets, but one of Washington’s closest allies in the region, Poland, has insisted there would have to be unanimous Nato support for their deployment, which is unlikely.
“Any US attempt to force the alliance to accept the missiles or to go around Nato and try to negotiate a bilateral agreement with an individual Nato member would be a significant source of division within Nato and one Russia would be eager to try and exploit,” said Kingston Reif, director for disarmament and threat reduction policy at the Arms Control Association. “Any US attempt to force the alliance to accept the missiles or to go around Nato and try to negotiate a bilateral agreement with an individual Nato member would be a significant source of division within Nato and one Russia would be eager to try and exploit,” said Kingston Reif, the director for disarmament and threat reduction policy at the Arms Control Association.
Administration hawks led by John Bolton, the US national security adviser, are also eyeing a possible Pacific deployment as a counter to Chinese medium-range missiles. The fact that China was outside the INF was one of the reasons cited by Bolton and others in their opposition to the treaty. But basing problems would also be a serious obstacle in the Pacific, as any host nation would become a primary target for a preemptive attack. Administration hawks led by John Bolton, the US national security adviser, are also eyeing a possible Pacific deployment as a counter to Chinese medium-range missiles. The fact that China was outside the INF was one of the reasons cited by Bolton and others in their opposition to the treaty. But basing problems would also be a serious obstacle in the Pacific, as any host nation would become a primary target for a pre-emptive attack.
“Our east Asian allies aren’t exactly rushing to host these these missiles,” Reif said. They could be based on Guam, but that is 3,000 km from China, and expose the population on the tiny US Pacific territory. “Our east Asian allies aren’t exactly rushing to host these these missiles,” Reif said. They could be based on Guam, but that is 3,000km from China, and expose the population on the tiny US Pacific territory.
“There is no plan for what comes after INF,” said Pranay Vaddi, a former state department arms control official now at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “Not having a plan or not at least forecasting that you’re thinking of a plan of what to do for European security and Asian security after the treaty is what strikes me as irresponsible.”“There is no plan for what comes after INF,” said Pranay Vaddi, a former state department arms control official now at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “Not having a plan or not at least forecasting that you’re thinking of a plan of what to do for European security and Asian security after the treaty is what strikes me as irresponsible.”
After the collapse of the INF, the last remaining arms control treaty is the 2010 New Start agreement limiting US and Russian strategic warheads, but that is due to expire in 2021 and Bolton has said it is unlikely to be extended.After the collapse of the INF, the last remaining arms control treaty is the 2010 New Start agreement limiting US and Russian strategic warheads, but that is due to expire in 2021 and Bolton has said it is unlikely to be extended.
Nuclear weaponsNuclear weapons
RussiaRussia
newsnews
Share on FacebookShare on Facebook
Share on TwitterShare on Twitter
Share via EmailShare via Email
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn
Share on PinterestShare on Pinterest
Share on WhatsAppShare on WhatsApp
Share on MessengerShare on Messenger
Reuse this contentReuse this content