What should we make of Russia’s Nuclear Treaty Violations and the Obama Administration’s Tepid Response?

2015-12-13T11:30:13-05:00

What should we make of Russia’s Nuclear Treaty Violations and the Obama Administration’s Tepid Response?

RP Members what should we be doing?

http://dailysignal.com/2015/12/11/russias-nuclear-treaty-violations-and-the-obama-administrations-tepid-response/

Russia continues to violate the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty by fielding a prohibited ground-launched cruise missile system.

Rose Gottemoeller and Brian McKeon, two high-level administration officials dealing with arms control issues, testified earlier this month before a joint hearing of the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committees on how the Obama administration is responding to Russia’s INF Treaty violations.

Despite extended questioning, committee members failed to elicit specifics from the administration officials on what they were doing beyond imploring Russia to return to compliance and stepping up a U.S. defense presence in Eastern Europe.

The administration’s actions, such as they are, have thus far proven ineffective. In the face of U.S. pleading, Russia refuses to even acknowledge the existence of the offending missile, let alone take steps to return to compliance with the treaty.

Russia’s Nuclear Treaty Violations and the Obama Administration’s Tepid Response

It’s time to take serious steps to counter Russia’s arms control violations and nuclear aggression.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 13 at 2015 11:31 AM

2015-12-13T11:31:50-05:00

That a lack of strong leadership leaves us vulnerable.

Response by SGT Robert Hawks made Dec 13 at 2015 11:41 AM

2015-12-13T11:41:09-05:00

Most of the treaties are not worth the paper they're written on we violate or they do. It has been happening since we started this country just ask Native Americans. If Russia does not honor the treaty then neither should we.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Dec 13 at 2015 11:50 AM

2015-12-13T11:50:00-05:00

No surprise here COL Mikel J. Burroughs about the tepid response from the Obama administration to Russia’s nuclear treaty violations.
In one sense I think it would be great if Russia launched Intermediate-Range Nuclear weapon(s) against ISIS in areas where ISIS dominates, with limited populations that side with ISIS and that the nukes would have a very short half life and a very focused blast.
Years ago the concept of nuclear weapons which only killed people and didn't destroy much else outside the blast area was discussed. I do not know what type of nuclear munitions the Russians are moving but I hope that ISIS leadership is terrified.

Response by MSgt Curtis Ellis made Dec 13 at 2015 11:58 AM

2015-12-13T11:58:54-05:00

At some point, we (US) will have to decide to show physical intent and force for compliance...
The question is, when will it be worth it, and will the rest of America agree to said action?

Response by Sgt Kelli Mays made Dec 13 at 2015 12:29 PM

2015-12-13T12:29:22-05:00

What good is a TREATY really? They are broken and disregarded all of the time. They don't mean squat.....but that being said....as long as we look the other way and not hold Russia accountable, then it's our bad.

Response by LTC John Shaw made Dec 13 at 2015 12:57 PM

2015-12-13T12:57:18-05:00

First step is to internationally recognize the importance of the issue and file UN and other security council violations. The Administration will have to decide what to do. I think improvements to middle protection for Poland and other Allies will send the message.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Dec 13 at 2015 12:59 PM

2015-12-13T12:59:35-05:00

We should have never removed the systems from Poland in the first place, and it is doubtful that this President who removed them will return them, but that's the first thing we should do.

Response by LTC Stephen C. made Dec 13 at 2015 1:35 PM

2015-12-13T13:35:49-05:00

Expected on both counts, COL Mikel J. Burroughs.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Dec 13 at 2015 2:40 PM

2015-12-13T14:40:34-05:00

Perhaps the POTUS should draw a red line with a strong letter to follow.

Response by CMSgt Dennis Heath made Dec 13 at 2015 3:19 PM

2015-12-13T15:19:54-05:00

The tragic imbalance practiced by the Obama administration in applying the three elements of national power make us a laughingstock. The only thing Putin respects is the use of a "big stick."

Response by PV2 Scott Goodpasture made Dec 13 at 2015 4:49 PM

2015-12-13T16:49:49-05:00

Response by PO1 John Miller made Dec 13 at 2015 8:49 PM

2015-12-13T20:49:04-05:00

What was it that suspended Fox news commentator called our President? ;)

Response by COL Korey Jackson made Dec 13 at 2015 9:43 PM

2015-12-13T21:43:51-05:00

I suggest reading the Congressional Research Service Report: “Russian Compliance with the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty: Background and Issues for Congress”, dated 13 October 2015. It is publicly available at https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R43832.pdf.

This report outlines two major associated aspects your news article highlights: US Options for Addressing Compliance Concerns; and US Options for addressing Russian deployment of new INF Missiles.

The Russians remain concerned with the US ballistic missile defense capabilities, including the stationing of interceptors in Europe. While intended to defend the US and our allies from potential threats from Iran and possibly even a bizarre future ISIL nation-state, the Russians find this, and the EUROPE-based ground interceptors in particular. destabilizing to their national defense capabilies.

If there is verification that the Russians have actually deployed new INF missiles, the US response depends on where they are deployed. Are they deployed to threaten China, or are they deployed to threaten NATO? Are they deployed to threaten NATO and US capabilities to support Ukraine?

Obviously all US diplomatic means should be used to address Russian noncompliance with the INF treaty, but it is very possible that the Russians will eventually withdraw from the INF treaty.

On the other hand, if the US withdraws from the INF treaty, what do we intend to do? Develop and station next-generation Pershing Ballistic Missiles and GLCM’s in Europe again? What allies will permit that?

The best thing the US can do at this time is multifaceted: continue all diplomatic measures, and direct (and fund) the Defense Department to develop appropriate plans with existing capabilities. Concurrently, the DoD should develop (and be funded for) improved options to counter developing Russian INF capabilities, to include offensive measures (including non-strategic nuclear weapons as well as conventional OTH capabilities), improved active defense measures (cruise and ballistic missile defenses), and improvements in resilience / passive defense capabilities which mitigate Russian capabilities in the near-to-mid term.

US offensive capabilities could well include improvements and extensions of the current ATACMS system, development of a land-based variant of Navy Vertical Launch System missiles, and improvement to the US B-61 with delivery by a variety of NATO aircraft.

In the meantime, the US should convene a meeting of the Special Verification Commission (SVC) under the INF treaty.

404 Not Found

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 14 at 2015 12:42 PM

2015-12-14T12:42:45-05:00

A treaty is just a piece of paper if it cannot or will not be enforced.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Dec 15 at 2015 12:02 AM

2015-12-15T00:02:14-05:00

"Daily Signal" by their own page "Conservative". I rack this up to Propaganda in the same category as FOX, Breitbart. Just what Conservatives want to hear. What access does the "Journalist" "Author" have access to Classified Material about Nuclear Weapons? Yeah this is Horsehockey.