US INF withdraw and possible new land-based missiles deployed in Asia.


styx

Junior Member
Registered Member
i'm glad to see a intermediate range version of iskander-m possibly armed with hypersonic glide vehicles. Russia has got for many years advanced irbm in the hoven disguised as mini icbm. Thank you Mr Trump
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited:

Anlsvrthng

Senior Member
Registered Member
Well this is a stupid move by the US.

The INF only limits ground based missile, it did nothing to limit ship based tomahawks, which is the US’s primary long range strike missile.

The missiles banned by the INF are only of use in a fight on your own doorstep; which the US does not expect to have to fight in the foreseeable feature.

As such the INF limited the Soviets/Russians far more than America.

Australia has already ruled out hosting any new intermediate ranged US missiles on its soil, and the same economic and military calculations apply to all other US leaning nations who might be potential hosts to such weapons, especially in Asia; which seems to be a main reason the US ripped up the INF as it wants a new similar treaty to also include China (good luck with that).
The USA empire is based on the same premises like the Roman Empire : highly mobile military units concentrated from the whole empire to the problematic place.

The Romans used very high quality road network and well trained legionaries with top range equipment ( I have a now 7 years old caligae, it is very durable even with regular use)

The USA use naval / air assets to move around the empire , but the recovery of China changed the calculations.

Too powerful, and China is in the middle of the most important trade junction.


Tearing up the IMF treaty is the last panic moment, if all military units of the USA from everywhere around the world can not defeat China ,then a few ballistic missile can lengthen the process of decline only by years.
 

Pika

Junior Member
Registered Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #13
First I'm surprised this thread has picked up some interest. After I made it, I honestly thought it was going to fade into the nether regions of this forum (especially considering it was made by a new user like moi)

Second, when I heard US was withdrawing from INF because of Russia, my immediate thought was this is about Asia and China. US feels it's bases will be at risks to function in the early phase of any war with China and ships might be pushed too far from Chinese coasts to render their strike payload useless, so these IRBMs were their best (and cheap) option in keeping China honest. It makes sense, but where would they be deployed.

Guam is too small and far. So that leaves Japan and Philippines. I don't think South Korea and Australia would host these missiles because of politics.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
The INF restrictions were based on the Cold War worries that at day zero of a conflict one side would use such a system to eliminate the near boarder forces of the other and launch operations.
To prevent this the idea was pushed for Russia and the US to remove GLCM and IRBMs nuclear tipped and otherwise. Eliminating Ground based missiles with a range from 500-5500km
However non ground launched systems were left untouched so ship and aircraft could still launch cruise missiles all they wanted.

In the post treaty era however this created an issue as upstart nuclear and potential nuclear powers have emerged post treaty and filled this class of system. Not just Nuclear but tactical.
Much like how the ABM was based on Bilateral threats the game shifted. Scud type missiles are common and proliferation continues. IRBMs are taking roles never thought as practical until now like Antiship leading to gaps in countermeasures.
As this trend continues it also is part of the ABM treaty failure. Again strict limits put in place based on Bilateral thinking that in the post treaty era proved questionable as other parties established both IRBM and ICBM types.

Many in the US have commented that the US withdraw was less to do with Russia and more with China. Who has used this class to fill out their forces.
Some want to smack President Trump for pulling out of the INF but both the US and Russia were building missile systems who’s range was “only restricted by the treaty” as is. Both the Russians and US we’re accusing each other of violations because compliance was almost a game.
Missiles had 499km ranges. The Islander M case in point how did Russia suddenly have a version ready to go with a longer range? Because some artificial range limit was put on it.
Drones were not something foreseen in the treaty, With Russia claiming them a violation yet air launched missiles were immune so systems like the Kinzhal and Zircon who have ranges that would have been open violations along with Tomahawk got a pass by being carried on a Ship or aircraft?

So the whole INF becomes more of a political instrument to bash each other. Back when it was signed it had a point it was supposed to be a first step to try and move at disarming the Cold War stockpiles and reduce tensions as Nuclear tipped Cruise and IRBM ground based system placed in Turkey or Ukraine could be easy first strike systems rendering the Warsaw Pact it NATO crippled in a surprise nuclear party. Removing those left it to the big players in theory... in practice though both sides had nuclear bombs to drop from manned fighters and bombers and similar missiles could be launched off fighters and bombers. So what was the point? Scary pick up trucks and train cars?
Post signature as more states deployed system of this class without being signatories the same risk was there just no restrictions.

Now the question where would they be deployed? The question should be based on what type. Nuclear tipped are in my opinion the least useful for the US. Nuclear tipped types run smack into the existing Nuclear forces Limitations.
But anti-ship types or tactical types seem more realistic and practical.
 

Brumby

Major
Current status of land based missiles post INF.

upload_2019-8-7_13-24-41.png

Currently Australia has ruled out the basing of any US land based missiles on Australian soil. However that can easily change should China move say the DF-26 to one of the artificial island. In such a scenario I am convince that Australia will have no choice but to respond.

upload_2019-8-7_13-25-17.png

More importantly, the Philippines is the centre of gravity in any basing consideration. If China sufficiently piss off the Philippines, then the equation will change significantly.

upload_2019-8-7_13-30-50.png


What does a post INF world mean for the US viz a viz China and Russia?

upload_2019-8-7_13-32-20.png

upload_2019-8-7_13-32-45.png
 

localizer

Senior Member
Registered Member
Might as well just scrap NPT and go 10000 warheads again if the US wants to get "even."

Hell, give everyone a nuke.
 

ZeEa5KPul

Junior Member
Registered Member
More importantly, the Philippines is the centre of gravity in any basing consideration. If China sufficiently piss off the Philippines, then the equation will change significantly.
Heh, heh. Yes, the Philippines is the centre of gravity, but not in the way you think. It'll be China establishing military bases in the Philippines. Before you protest that the Philippines is a US ally, understand that things change. China's power will is changing the equation significantly.
 

Hyperwarp

Captain
It is laughable how China with less than 300 active nuclear warheads is considered the bad guy by the US.

USA has around 1500 strategic warheads and over 6000 in total.
450 Minuteman ICBM. 18 Ohio class SSBN armed with Trident D5. A single Ohio class can carry 24x D5 SLBM. Just one Ohio class can lay waste to China.
67 Arleigh Burke-class, 22 Ticonderoga-class capable of firing Tomahawk cruise missiles
B-2, B-1B, B-52 capable of firing Air-Launched cruise missiles
And who knows what else...

US also has bases all over the world nearly 30 years after the end of the cold war and some how China with a medicore number of missiles is at fault? Huh? WTF?

China should never enter into any treaty especially with US unless they willing to cut down on their warheads and foreign bases.
 

Top