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


JsCh

Junior Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Duterte Pledges He Will ‘Never’ Allow US to Deploy Nukes in Philippines
© REUTERS / ELOISA LOPEZ
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

12:47 07.08.2019(updated 13:07 07.08.2019)

Earlier, Australia and South Korea stated that they have no plans to green-light the deployment of US medium-range missile on their respective territories after Washington’s withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty last week.

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has vowed that he will never allow Washington to deploy nukes on his country’s territory to tackle China’s growing regional clout.

“You cannot place nuclear arms in the Philippines. That will never happen because I will not allow it. I will never allow any foreign troops […] I don’t want to fight China,” Duterte said during a speech to an audience of Filipino-Chinese businessmen in the capital Manila on Tuesday.​

He also warned of fatal consequences from a possible conflict between nuclear powers.

“If you go to war and China would release all its nuclear missiles, and America and Russia […] and Britain and Italy and France, this will mean the end of all of us,” Duterte noted.​

He spoke after Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Fu Cong warned that Beijing would “take countermeasures” against the possible deployment of US ground-based intermediate-range missiles in the Asia-Pacific region.

He urged China’s neighbours “to exercise prudence and not allow” the deployment of such missiles on their territory. “That would not serve the national security interest of these countries,” Fu said, referring to South Korea, Japan and Australia.​

Earlier, South Korea and Australia announced that they don't currently plan to give the go-ahead to the deployment of US mid-range missiles on their countries’ soil.

Pentagon Seeking Deployment of Its Mid-Range Missiles in Asia-Pacific Region

This came after Pentagon chief Mark Esper made it clear that after the US’ withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty last week,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in order to grapple with China’s regional clout.

“We would like to deploy a capability sooner rather than later. I would prefer months […]. But these things tend to take longer than you expect,” he told reporters on a plane to Sydney at the start of his week-long tour to the Asia-Pacific region.​

Collapse of INF Treaty

On 2 August,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
as US Secretary of State confirmed Washington’s exit from the accord, claiming that Russia “bears sole responsibility” for the treaty’s collapse.

Moscow has repeatedly denied the allegations that its development of the 9M729 missile violates the INF Treaty, pointing out that the US missile defence systems deployed in Europe can be re-purposed for offensive capabilities and therefore themselves run counter to the accord.​

On 2 February, the US formally suspended its obligations under the INF Treaty and triggered the six-month withdrawal process. Washington said it would terminate this procedure if Russia agreed to be compliant with the pact. Moscow responded by suspending its participation in the treaty as well.

The INF Treaty, signed by the US and the USSR in 1987, banned both countries from using land-based ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and missile launchers with ranges of 500–5,500 kilometres (310 and 3,400 miles, respectively).
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
That’s fine as I keep pointing out INF blanket banned all ground based Missiles with a range of 500Km to 5,500Km. Nuclear or conventional. As such conventional warhead IRBMs are back on the table. Russia has stated they intend to build nuclear tipped if the US does. However the only reports I have heard on new nuclear tipped cruise missiles are for subs which was not banned by the INF.
 

Pika

Junior Member
Registered Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #33
For now it seems South Korea like Australia has no plans for US Intermediate range missiles. But I don't think US ever planned to deploy in those countries. South Korea would be too provocative.
Japan and Philippines are probably the places they want.

But Philippines will likely say no as well considering that countries close ties with China, which leaves Japan and Guam (the latter being an unsuitable option)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

SamuraiBlue

Captain
For now it seems South Korea like Australia has no plans for US Intermediate range missiles. But I don't think US ever planned to deploy in those countries. South Korea would be too provocative.
Japan and Philippines are probably the places they want.

But Philippines will likely say no as well considering that countries close ties with China, which leaves Japan and Guam (the latter being an unsuitable option)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Under Japan's present constitution it will be impossible for the Japanese government to develop an US missile site.
 

Pika

Junior Member
Registered Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #35
Under Japan's present constitution it will be impossible for the Japanese government to develop an US missile site.
You meant deploy right? But doesn't their pacifist constitution only covers Japanese forces and not US Forces?
 

SamuraiBlue

Captain
You meant deploy right? But doesn't their pacifist constitution only covers Japanese forces and not US Forces?
The land usage will also be covered by the constitution and any land provided to the US Military will be under the US-Japan bilateral defense treaty in which the Japanese government will need to be informed on the usage.
So the government can't say we didn't know and they will have to reject any request of that nature.
 

localizer

Senior Member
Registered Member
That’s fine as I keep pointing out INF blanket banned all ground based Missiles with a range of 500Km to 5,500Km. Nuclear or conventional. As such conventional warhead IRBMs are back on the table. Russia has stated they intend to build nuclear tipped if the US does. However the only reports I have heard on new nuclear tipped cruise missiles are for subs which was not banned by the INF.
What's the benefit of US land based IRBMs with conventional warheads in Asia. It seems there are so many better options available.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
It should be a case by case based on role and type. Again it banned both IRBM and Cruise missiles. This means things like anti ship missile systems had hard lines of how far they were allowed to go.
 

ZeEa5KPul

Junior Member
Registered Member
Maybe the US should have thought to get it allies' approval to host missiles before tearing up the INF treaty. Look at it now, all dressed up and nowhere to go.
 

Viktor Jav

Senior Member
Registered Member
The INF treaty was one of those treaty that does not age well with the passage of time. Because from a technological stand point it did be much easier to design a missile with a limited maximum range rather than one with so wide a minimum range like what the treaty prescribes. Barring land based cruise missiles, nearly every modern ICBM has a minimum range that falls well within the prohibited range of 500-5,000 km, like the Topol-M but are not in violation because that is not their maximum range.
 

Top