Trump Not Done Losing on Russia: Congress to require INF Treaty-breaking missile.

[Skroe]

Earlier this week, we discussed how Donald Trump is an untrusted loser, who was forced, by Act of Congress, to sanction his friends in Russia. And he had a nice big old cry about it.

Congress though, is just getting started.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...s-putin-241269

Congress readies Round 2 with Trump on Russia
Language in key defense bills would make the administration revive a type of missile banned by a 1987 treaty.
By BRYAN BENDER 08/02/2017 07:55 PM EDT

Congress is moving to force the Pentagon to violate a nuclear arms treaty with Russia — in yet another effort to box in President Donald Trump on relations with Moscow.

Language in key defense bills in both the House and Senate would require the military to begin developing medium-range missiles banned by a 1987 treaty that Ronald Reagan negotiated with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev during the twilight years of the Cold War.

Supporters say the move is necessary because Russian President Vladimir Putin has violated the pact. But opponents fear it could increase the chances of a nuclear confrontation at a time when relations between the two nations are at a post-Cold War low.

The legislation is also likely to stir up new friction between lawmakers and Trump, who has already accused Congress of illegally meddling in his dealings with Russia. Trump blasted Congress on Wednesday for including “clearly unconstitutional provisions” in a bipartisan bill imposing new sanctions on Putin’s regime — legislation he said he nonetheless signed "for the sake of national unity."

The Office of Management and Budget has slammed the House push for the new weapon, saying it “unhelpfully ties the Administration to a specific missile system, which would limit potential military response options."

The administration "is currently developing an integrated diplomatic, military, and economic response strategy that maximizes pressure on Russia,” OMB added in a recent statement.

Yes, the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act is going to order the US military to build a new Medium / Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile, banned under the 1987 INF Treaty, and only useful against Russia.

To understand why this is significant I need to explain some background.

Colloquially, we use the word "ICBM" as roughly interchangable with "nuclear missile" or "ballistic missile", but they refer specifically to Missiles, that fly a ballistic trajectory, intercontinentally. You cannot (accurately) use an ICBM to hit a nearby target. So for example, a Minuteman III ICBM launched from South Dakota can't be used to target Chicago. It's too close. To target at different ranges, there are different types of missiles.



So put simply, the further a missile has to go, the bigger it is and the higher (and faster) it flies. This is why intercepting short and medium range missiles has proven so much easier than actual ICBMs.


During the Cold War the US and USSR deployed IRBMs and MRBMs to Europe. This allowed both countries to strike each other's military facilities much faster than if the US used an ICBM or a bomber or vice versa... 5 minutes versus over 30 minutes. However both sides had significant incentive for destroying them, which is what the INF Treaty did. For Russia, it was the fact that with how Russia's military infrastructure was laid out, they're extremely vulnerable to IRBMs and MRBMs. For the US, it is that if Russia was ever going to nuke European cities, except for Bombs, it would be an IRBM or MRBM that would do it. Destroying that type of weapon removed perhaps the gravest security threat to Russia there was, while removing the gun Russia held to Europe's head.

The INF Treaty is also significant because it is the only class of Nuclear Weapons treaty that bans an entire class of weapon between the US and Russia/USSR. A Global Zero treaty... global nuclear disarmament, would look very very much like the INF Treaty in principle. However the fear with INF in 1987, along with Global Zero today, is "what happens in 30 years when after a change of government, a nuclear capable country decides the treaty isn't in its best interest and decides to start building weapons again?" Then, like now, there was no answer.

And we lived that reality. Russia has been violating the INF Treaty since 2006. It of kills the very notion of any arms control with the Russia... they cannot be trusted.

If you want to read the long version of this saga, read this, but the simple version of it is that the US and Russia for years have produced missiles (cruise and ballistic) whose capabilities were only treaty, not technology limited, and around 2006, Russia began taking one of it's Iskander missile designs and turned it into an IRBM-class weapon. Bush new about it and began the process of gathering information and pushing RUssia to come back into compliance. Obama did as well, with urgency ramping up the last few years. But here we are, 11 years later, and Russia has an operational IRBM, in violation of the INF Treaty, while the US does not.



Russia of course, has justified this with the usual B.S. "Drones violate the INF treaty", "missile defense violates the INF treaty". None of it is serious. They wanted an asymmetric advantage and they got it because we continued to observe a treaty they did not. Although we talk a lot about Ukraine or the election, the INF Treaty violation on their part is just as big a deal. Without an Intermediate range weapon of it's own all NATO forces and all European cities are held at risk by Russia.

Trump will sign the National Defense Authorization act, which has been passed every year for 55 consecutive years, with this in it, despite the White House's objections. The Sanctions bill hancuffed him when it came to Putin's finances. This act will handcuff him when it comes to Putin's security. He will again be forced to do something he does not want to do when it comes to Russia.

Sad!

[Dextroden]

Solomon Grundy wonders about the wisdom in playing one up with Russia on breaking treaties, rather than if we look bad for violating an already violated treaty.

[Skroe]

Solomon Grundy wonders about the wisdom in playing one up with Russia on breaking treaties, rather than if we look bad for violating an already violated treaty.

We could have violated it back when we discovered Russia's violation, over a decade ago. Bush and Obama both did everything they could to bring about their re-compliance and did what they could to get Congress not to do exactly thus. Ideally, yes, Russia re-observance of the INF Treaty would be ideal.

But the fact of the matter is, this country has tried to bring that about for years. During the "Russia Reset" period, pre-Ukraine, post-Ukraine, pre-2007, post-Georgia, post-Obama election. It tried it from every angle.

The Russians just don't want to give it up, so it's time, after a decade of unilaterally observing the treaty, to violate it and bring consequences to Russia.

[Breccia]

The Sanctions bill hancuffed him when it came to Putin's finances. This act will handcuff him when it comes to Putin's security. He will again be forced to do something he does not want to do when it comes to Russia.

Time frame til tiny hands grip the pen? Hours, days, weeks...

[Deletedaccount1]

Russia's not real

[Kasierith]

I had listened to a historian discuss how in the past forty years the balance of powers has drifted drastically, with Congress taking a back seat maintaining current systems while major initiatives have been directed by the president. This has resulted in the primary focus of the voting block being on the president, and the majority of congressional elections ultimately ending up being directed downstream from his support and making the primary focus of representatives in elections being the R or D with the most name recognition on the ballet.

Since Trump's election, however, the influence of the executive has been whittled down systematically. In immigration reform, he blew his political capital by setting a precedent established by courts that he does not have unilateral control over how his agents enforce immigration, when a previous president may have held his cards and used such a novel maneuver in a situation with a much more meaningful context (lets say a new Libyan president says that all Americans should be killed with bombs and so the president halts all immigration from Libya while they do a threat assessment, for example) and thus not have it set in legal precedent that his authority was limited working against him.

He's also been dismantling his own power base without any help from the judiciary or Congress. By neutering the EPA, he shifts the burden of environmental protection downstream to the states. His pushing the state department into chaos has gotten the Senate more heavily involved in foreign affairs as they work to assess and counter Tillerson's cuts. The reputation of the executive has been thoroughly trashed in so many ways, even among the Russians that he caters to because quite simply if you're trying to imitate Putin you can't let it be shown around the world that Congress can push you around on a whim (the resident Putin lovers spend days saying that no he wouldn't sign it that there was no way Congress could make him because the idea that the president could be forced this way is quite simply nonexistent in Russia). He's not going to be let in on the Republican's budget or tax reform, because they don't want his fingers on it after the skinny repeal failure. He's going to force Congress to get involved in the insurance marketplace as well before the year is out unless he goes back on his word. And he's essentially established that his word doesn't mean anything.

Congress and to a lesser extent the Judiciary is going to come out of this presidency stronger than it's been in decades, as more and more influence is put onto them as the executive shrivels in incompetence and zero funding. I'm very interested in seeing if this dynamic is continued through the next president's terms, whether Congress holds onto their newfound affluence or the executive works to pull it back. Either way, there is something beautiful about forcing Trump to sign off on bills that directly attack his only political friend.

[Skroe]

Time frame til tiny hands grip the pen? Hours, days, weeks...

Probably mid-September. The bill is McCain's baby in the Senate.

To be perfectly fair, I was talking about the INF Treaty stuff over two years ago, and as I recall I said during the primary season, no matter who is elected, the next President will have to deal with Russia's violation. It happened late in Bush's term. He was patient with Russia. I'd say Obama was overly patient (did we really need to go 8 years with the same response?)

But the fact that Trump is going to be the one to destabilize Russian security in a way that'll be very, very difficult to undo? That's hilarious.

And here's the best part: this is not going to be something hard. There are plenty of missiles in the military's inventory, particularly in the Navy, that with a modified first stage and warhead, and a mobile launcher, would do the trick.

[Deletedaccount1]

Congress and to a lesser extent the Judiciary is going to come out of this presidency stronger than it's been in decades, as more and more influence is put onto them as the executive shrivels in incompetence and zero funding. I'm very interested in seeing if this dynamic is continued through the next president's terms, whether Congress holds onto their newfound affluence or the executive works to pull it back. Either way, there is something beautiful about forcing Trump to sign off on bills that directly attack his only political friend.

That's a good thing though.

[Skroe]

I had listened to a historian discuss how in the past forty years the balance of powers has drifted drastically, with Congress taking a back seat maintaining current systems while major initiatives have been directed by the president. This has resulted in the primary focus of the voting block being on the president, and the majority of congressional elections ultimately ending up being directed downstream from his support and making the primary focus of representatives in elections being the R or D with the most name recognition on the ballet.

Since Trump's election, however, the influence of the executive has been whittled down systematically. In immigration reform, he blew his political capital by setting a precedent established by courts that he does not have unilateral control over how his agents enforce immigration, when a previous president may have held his cards and used such a novel maneuver in a situation with a much more meaningful context (lets say a new Libyan president says that all Americans should be killed with bombs and so the president halts all immigration from Libya while they do a threat assessment, for example) and thus not have it set in legal precedent that his authority was limited working against him.

He's also been dismantling his own power base without any help from the judiciary or Congress. By neutering the EPA, he shifts the burden of environmental protection downstream to the states. His pushing the state department into chaos has gotten the Senate more heavily involved in foreign affairs as they work to assess and counter Tillerson's cuts. The reputation of the executive has been thoroughly trashed in so many ways, even among the Russians that he caters to because quite simply if you're trying to imitate Putin you can't let it be shown around the world that Congress can push you around on a whim (the resident Putin lovers spend days saying that no he wouldn't sign it that there was no way Congress could make him). He's not going to be let in on the Republican's budget or tax reform, because they don't want his fingers on it after the skinny repeal failure. He's going to force Congress to get involved in the insurance marketplace as well before the year is out unless he goes back on his word. And he's essentially established that his word doesn't mean anything.

Congress and to a lesser extent the Judiciary is going to come out of this presidency stronger than it's been in decades, as more and more influence is put onto them as the executive shrivels in incompetence and zero funding. I'm very interested in seeing if this dynamic is continued through the next president's terms, whether Congress holds onto their newfound affluence or the executive works to pull it back. Either way, there is something beautiful about forcing Trump to sign off on bills that directly attack his only political friend.

I agree with your consensus, but would like to add some context. it's the culmination of several things that have gone on over the last 15 years.

I'm not sure if you've read my NASA threads over the years, but I've written about how (short version), the Bush administration had it's troubled Constellation Program... then Obama became President, pressed pause, and after a study proposed a 2011 NASA budget that was such a farce of a suggestion, that Democrats and Republicans joined together to obliterate it in both the House and Senate. They came up with their own plan, modified from Constellation (the SLS) + elements of Obama's commercial plan, and basically took control of NASA out of the executive's hands. Every year, Obama proposed a budget that was fanciful... pretty much pretended the prior year didn't happen and Congress will see things their way all of a sudden. Every year they actually laughed at it, and then just updated their own budget, that Obama signed. The relationship got so bad that Republicans and Democrats together made it required that the NASA Administrator report to them in person about the status of the program every 3 months. They didn't trust the Obama Administration to do as funded.

This is just an example, but little incident's like this have been playing in recent years. Committees holding their executive departments on much tighter leashes than they have in decades.

The reason for this is largely John Boehner's ban on earmarks when Republicans took over in January 2011. Because Earmarks - by far the easiest way to grease the wheels or "bring home the bacon" went away, Senators and Congressmen were forced to utilize their oversight of authorization and appropriations to try and steer money where those earmarks would have gone. This encouraged that far tighter leash.

It also had the effect of making a President's budget request a mostly worthless document. Bush generally had his priorities funded. Obama did for a few years as well. The Earmark ban plus the Budget Control Act has turned the Presidential Budget Request into something of a joke. Obama got basically nothing he wanted after 2012. Trump isn't likely to either. The 2018 budget will look very much like the 2016/2017 2 year budget deal with a moderate plus up for defense, which looks a lot like every budget going back to 2012. That basic budget model is the only thing that can pass Congress, and it's only done by center-right to center-left spectrum joining against the far right and far left who vote against it.

Since without money, nothing happens, if this continues, Presidential power will continue to dramatically ebb in our system, because Congress has literally no incentive to fund the President's priorities if it comes at their state or district's expense.

This is why with NASA for example, it is building the SLS despite Falcon Heavy / SpaceX. Because King Pork, Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, saw to it that NASA Huntsville is at the center of SLS activity, and has received tens of billions of dollars for it. How could Obama (or Trump) ever kill the SLS if Shelby can stop anything that threatens it?

The country has been very poorly served by it's post-Cold War Presidents who have entirely lacked any sort of strategic vision for this country. Pulling back power to Congress, which is better equipped to deal with issue son timescales longer than a few years, is by far in this country's best interests. Again, with NASA... remember it wasn't Kennedy, Johnson or Nixon who put man on the Moon. Kennedy made a speech then was shot. Johnson was mired in Vietnam and didn't run for re-election. Nixon was President for six months. It was powerful Senators and Congressmen who protected it through the 1960s (and they all either died or retired by 1973, sadly).

[Deleted]

Good. Very good. Republicans seem to be well prepared for the beasts they have to fight. With all the sh-t they get currently and will have to endure in the future (and rightly so - they embraced the brutes they are battling now), this is fine work.

On a related note: Senate unanimously blocks Trump from making recess appointments
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/893262754412347392

l

[mvaliz]

Not sure how I feel about this...

First off, do we really REALLY know Russia is breaking the treaty? I mean, do the feds and other countries have actual evidence of this? (I honestly asking purely out of self-admitted ignorance of the details of this particular situation, not from any place of doubt.) My only concern is that I really don't want another fear-based "Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction" nonsense reason to start another war - especially with one with such high stakes as these. Let alone giving Dumbass Donny Dump Nuclear-capable missiles.

Don't forget, Dumbass Don-Don has a short fuse! All it would take is Putin to release the Pee-Pee Tape and Dumpy would immediately hit the red button out of pure spite! >_<

Also, I'd rather we did this as a UN effort with other countries involved than us being "World Police" again. (which is one of the few times I opposed Obama, when he went rogue off the UN instead of working with them)

On the flipside, however, I do wish us to have counter-missile cappability to stop anything incomming our way. As the old saying goes: Trust in God, but lock your car! :P

[CostinR]

Trump will sign the National Defense Authorization act, which has been passed every year for 55 consecutive years, with this in it, despite the White House's objections. The Sanctions bill hancuffed him when it came to Putin's finances. This act will handcuff him when it comes to Putin's security. He will again be forced to do something he does not want to do when it comes to Russia.

Sad!

Except that the Trump administration was considering withdrawing from the INF long before this came up.

First off, do we really REALLY know Russia is breaking the treaty? I mean, do the feds and other countries have actual evidence of this?

Yes they are and we know they are. Look at the missiles on the Iskander-M platform.

Obama got basically nothing he wanted after 2012. Trump isn't likely to either.

He's likely to get exactly what they gave him in 2017: Higher defense spending and border security spending.

[Skroe]

Except that the Trump administration was considering withdrawing from the INF long before this came up.

Incorrect. The Trump Administration raised INF Concerns with Russia in two phonecalls with Putin and the meeting (evidently), but like Obama and Bush before him, is chosing a path of desiring to stay observing the treaty while "encouraging" (however that is to be done) Russia to re-observe it.

Except for perhaps an offhanded remark you may be misinterpreting, outright withdrawl from the treaty has never been part of the Trump Administration's policy.

Yes they are and we know they are. Look at the missiles on the Iskander-M platform.

Indeed, and the US could modify Tomahawk-E, SM-3, the new air launched cruise missile or perhaps even the Army Tactical Missile System, to do that.

The easiest route would be to essentially recreate the BGM-109G Gryphon system that was in service in the 1980s. It had a first generation Tomahawk in a mobile erector/launcher, pulled by a truck. The Pentagon could use a modern Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck, and recreate the launcher, which, considering the simplicity of the Mark-41 VLS, wouldn't be too complicated.

A more complicated route would involve recreating something like the Pershing II IRBM. That would probably involve modifying the SM-3, or stretching the first stage of the SM-6. It would be much more expensive, but also produce a much faster missile than a Tomahawk based cruise missile (subsonic turbofan vs Mach 3.5+ solid fueled rocket engine)

A third, more long term option is that the US is creating a new air launched cruise missile, the Long Range Stand Off Cruise missile, that will replace the 1970s-era AGM-86 Air Launched Cruise missile in both nuclear and non-nuclear roles for the B-52 and B-2. Attaching a first stage booster to get it flying has been done many times get cruise missiles (and other types of missiles) that are typically meant for aircraft delivery flying, and could be utilized. This may be the most attractive option, because the Navy is winding down Tomahawk acquisition (and thus slowly shutting down the production line) because they're preparing a successor missile system to replace it and SM-6 in the mid-2020s. As you may recall from our prior discussions, the Navy is very interesting in more "target agnostic" missiles that can shoot aircraft, land targets and ships, in order to give a bigger "clip" to ships at sea. Those 96 cells on a Destroyer are deceptively deep, because of the diversity of munitions they carry.

He's likely to get exactly what they gave him in 2017: Higher defense spending and border security spending.

Considering the amount we respond to each other, I'd think you'd keep hold of some basic facts.

First, the 2 year budget deal that the government is operating under until September was signed by President Obama in November 2015. It covered the budget for FY 2016 and FY 2017. Trump has not yet had any budget put in front of him to sign. So no, Trump hasn't "gotten anything" yet. He's gotten what legislators and Obama decided to give him, back in late 2015.

Secondly, as we've discussed on countless occasions, Higher Defense Spending has been the consensus of Congress for few years now, and aside from the far left and far right, the only person against it, and the only person able to stall it, was President Obama himself. Both Hillary and Trump were going to raise defense spending. Inf act, I explicitly said during the election season, that no matter who was elected, that was coming, because only Obama had his blinkers off when it came to defense spending. So Trump is just the guy who signs a defense budget that Congress has been writing for the past few years anyway. And Congress didn't even like Trump's budget in the first place for that.

Thirdly, Border Security spending? Good joke. Do you understand the US political system at all? There will be no continuing resolution, no budget deal, no debt limit increase, that goes through the Senate that pays money for the border wall. It needs 60 votes. It will not get 60 votes.

As we've discussed before, the House is putting it in to feed the far right base. The Senate will pass its bill. And then it'll magically disappear in conference between the two. It's like how Planned Parenthood continues to get federal funds despite Republicans controlling the Legislative branch since January 2015.

- - - Updated - - -

Not sure how I feel about this...

First off, do we really REALLY know Russia is breaking the treaty? I mean, do the feds and other countries have actual evidence of this? (I honestly asking purely out of self-admitted ignorance of the details of this particular situation, not from any place of doubt.) My only concern is that I really don't want another fear-based "Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction" nonsense reason to start another war - especially with one with such high stakes as these. Let alone giving Dumbass Donny Dump Nuclear-capable missiles.

They absolutely are. Public and private assessments of photographs of the system come to the same conclusion. Bush and Obama both came to the same conclusion. ANd neither rushed to judgement. This is something that's been a gross violation since 2006, and we've been more than patient with Russia over, trying to pull them back into observing the treaty.

I'm not sure what more diplomacy can do. Russia doesn't want to give it up. They've made that clear.

Don't forget, Dumbass Don-Don has a short fuse! All it would take is Putin to release the Pee-Pee Tape and Dumpy would immediately hit the red button out of pure spite! >_<

A new missile, if funded tomorrow, wouldn't be operational until around 2025. There is a key difference between US and Russian procurement. When the US buys a weapon or vehicle, it almost always aims to have it be trouble proof and in the arsenal for decades. Those Minuteman III ICBMs we have? Sure... nominally, it's a missile from the 1960s. But all 500 of them have been remanufactured, improved and taken care of so many times that scarcely few bits of the original missile remain (mostly the engine, which is "evergreen". Think of the ICBMs essentially as Rolls Royces.

Russia by contrast, always goes for quick and dirty procurement. Service life of 10 years, 80% solution, low costs. This, in theory, gets them new weapons into the arsenal quickly. But in practice, it saddles them with enormous recurring costs of ownership (similar to how for every car you own, you have to buy gas, pay for maintenence, and registration every year). As an example, in the 1990s when the US was bringing new, modern classes Ballistic Missile Submarines and Destroyers into service, it VERY rapidly retired it's 1960s and 1970s ships, even though some of them had over 20 years of life left to the ships. By contrast Russia's fleet is a hodgepodge of different families from different decades that will evidently serve forever.

Also, I'd rather we did this as a UN effort with other countries involved than us being "World Police" again. (which is one of the few times I opposed Obama, when he went rogue off the UN instead of working with them)

The INF Treaty is a bilateral treaty between the US and Russia (USSR). The UN plays no role in it. In fact, one of Russia's unstated by known "rationales" is that it's neighbor, China, which is not bound by the INF Treaty, positions an enormous number of IRBMs and MRBMs, pointed at Russia, on the Chinese-Russian borderlands. In a conflict between China and Russia, China could wipe out any Russian army and any approaching reinforcements, and Russia would have little ability to retaliate in kind. This puts Russia at a major strategic disadvantage in a region very far away from Moscow that China is known to lust over.

Furthermore the INF Treaty is very advantageous to the US, which is one of the reasons Russia has been trying to get out of it since the 1990s (frankly, it's amazing they signed it in the first place). It forswears developing and placing Medium Intermediate Range missiles on land in Eurasia. Russia is located in Eurasia. The US is not. It also said nothing about missiles at sea. Missiles with a range of 500–1,000 kilometers and 1,000–5,500 km (intermediate-range) cover every type of US missile longer ranged than the (treaty limited) Army Tactical Missile System and shorter ranged than a Minuteman-III. If it applied to the sea, Tomahawk and SM-6 would have to go, and the legal status of SM-3 would be questionable.

A lot of countries would argue specifically for that to clip the US's wings since, outside of Europe, nobody has missile technology anywhere close to ours. It wouldn't be in our interests to negotiate globally.

On the flipside, however, I do wish us to have counter-missile cappability to stop anything incomming our way. As the old saying goes: Trust in God, but lock your car! :P

Well, let's not forget: Obama basically put missile defense in stasis for the first four years of his administration on purely political grounds.

The fact there was even a political debate over Missile defense in the 1990s and 2000s is fucking ridiculous in retrospect. It's totally "Sweet Summer Child" mindset. And now? US missile defense is far beyond what it was, but won't be truly ready until the mid 2020s, again, because Groundbased Midcourse Missile defense needs a new kill vehicle, and we need to build East Coast Aegis Ashore facilities.

[CostinR]

Except for perhaps an offhanded remark you may be misinterpreting, outright withdrawl from the treaty has never been part of the Trump Administration's policy.

I'm basing it on this article on politico.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...a-trump-239923

So there was consideration for withdrawl a while ago and there was massive pushback against it. So instead you get the US moving to violate the treaty while staying in it.

Thirdly, Border Security spending? Good joke. Do you understand the US political system at all? There will be no continuing resolution, no budget deal, no debt limit increase, that goes through the Senate that pays money for the border wall. It needs 60 votes. It will not get 60 votes.

I said nothing about the wall. Trump did receive 1.5 billion dollars for border security in the 2017 while being expressly denied funds for the wall.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...or-border-wall

As we've discussed before on the forum I personally expect Trump will make a great deal of noise about it as will the far right crazies but at the end he'll sign the bill and blame it on the democrats, who will instead give him extra funding for border security but no wall so they can protect their hides from the far left crazies.

It's a similar thing with defense spending and budget cuts elsewhere. Everyone wants to protect their hide and maintain their credibility with their voters. So Republicans make a big show as if they are the ones largely responsible for defense spending increases with the democrats opposing them while democrats make a big show as if they were the ones that protected other departments from cuts by making a deal to increase defense spending.

The truth? Yeah Congress doesn't want to cut domestic spending and wants to increase defense spending, but the truth doesn't matter, perception does.

[Xeones]

This isn't even the same. That article indicates democrats aren't willing to give a veto proof vote. Even if the republicans pass this it can, hopefully, get vetoed.

[Deleted]

We could have violated it back when we discovered Russia's violation, over a decade ago. Bush and Obama both did everything they could to bring about their re-compliance and did what they could to get Congress not to do exactly thus. Ideally, yes, Russia re-observance of the INF Treaty would be ideal.

But the fact of the matter is, this country has tried to bring that about for years. During the "Russia Reset" period, pre-Ukraine, post-Ukraine, pre-2007, post-Georgia, post-Obama election. It tried it from every angle.

The Russians just don't want to give it up, so it's time, after a decade of unilaterally observing the treaty, to violate it and bring consequences to Russia.

Why don't you violate the 1550 limit instead? IRBMs are useless to a country so far away from its targets, but having 10000+ SLBMs/ICBMs would give you a far better advantage.

[Skroe]

Why don't you violate the 1550 limit instead? IRBMs are useless to a country so far away from its targets, but having 10000+ SLBMs/ICBMs would give you a far better advantage.

No. Strategic Weapons of that type would be covered under the NewSTART Treaty which does not expire until 2021. The US got an absolutely ridiculous deal out of NewSTART (it's rather incredible Russia signed it) due to the fact that the US got what it wanted on launcher limits and what counts as a "launcher" and it does not apply to Prompt Global Strike weapons / development. It serves our interests to observe it for the time being.

But it should not be extended beyond 2021. Russia's finances are projected to continue to decline at least over the next decade, while the US is ramping up a trillion dollar nuclear scheme and putting prompt global strike weapons into service sometime after 2020. If we do what we're doing we're in an excellent position to significantly deterioriate Russia's strategic security by leaving NewSTART and exceeding the launcher limits set by it (not even more warheads matter, but launchers do).

This is because with strategic nuclear weapons, the vast majority of the other sides weapons are aimed at your weapons (not your cities. Some are, but that's a miconception). The rationale is simple: shoot the other sides guns before it shoots your guns, so to speak. The US and Russia both have 1550 warheads. The US offers Russia about 700 Aim points, meaning Russia has the ability to launch 2 warheads at each aimpoint. Russia has about 400 Aim points (it MIRVs a lot more than the US does), meaning the US can launch 3 warheads at Russia's aim points. If the US can expand the number of aimpoints by hundreds, and then target Russia's aimpoints with Prompt Global Strike weapons (adding even more aim points), it'll effective collar Russia's nuclear arsenal. Historically if the US were to do this, it would lead to a positive feedback loop of armament: Russia would then build more missiles to aim at the more aimpoints and make the problem worse for the US, which would counter by building more, etc. But modern missiles and warheads are so expensive compared to their Cold War predecessors, and Russia so much poorer and more constrained than the USSR, that there is a hard cap on how far this can go.



Insofar as a new IRBM and MRBM, they have their own advantages. Again, US IRBMs and MRBMs based in Europe could hit Russian sites faster than either SLBMs or ICBMs, and with the bulk of Russia's arsenal and military power based in Western Russia, and the inability of Russia to put IRBMs anywhere in range of North America (outside of parts of Alaska in theory), it would again, dramatically erode Russia's security.

Basically I'm of the belief that we spent 25 years trying to make Russia feel safe. Now's the time to make them feel deathly afraid. If they want to see where this road leads, let's show them. They can make the first smart decision about their security in two decades by deciding to back down. Because the United States will not. And we're not even their worse problem. China is. The United States only aims to defend Europe from Russian aggression. China looks at the Russian Far East like an all you can eat buffet. It's the only Unequal Treaty (of China's) not yet redressed. I wouldn't count on that being a thing forever.