4 ms·
We were not, these weapons (and medium range missiles) were banned under treaties, but Russia tore this up.
by fenk85 9y ago
We were not, these weapons (and medium range missiles) were banned under treaties, but Russia tore this up.
- evrydayhustling 9y agoI found a couple of recent articles with some of the details here. It looks like USA was known to have submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) but only recently announced adding cruise capabilities [1]... but I don't see a mention of a treaty there, although the other article [2] mentions these new developments as a way to pressure Russian compliance with existing treaties. Is INF the treaty you are mentioning being ignored? Is Russia's announcement a direct response to the USA's? Disappointed that recent history hasn't been even mentioned in most reporting around the announcement -- it's a pretty shocking headline to wake up to without context. [1] https://www.defensenews.com/space/2018/02/02/the-us-could-be-getting-2-new-nuclear-capabilities-here-are-the-details/ https://www.defensenews.com/space/2018/02/02/the-us-could-be... [2] https://www.defensenews.com/space/2018/02/06/will-the-us-trade-its-new-sub-launched-cruise-missile-for-russian-arms-treaty-compliance/ https://www.defensenews.com/space/2018/02/06/will-the-us-tra...
- dragonwriter 9y ago> It looks like USA was known to have submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) but only recently announced adding cruise capabilities No, the US had nuclear cruise missiles deployable on subs since the 1980s or possibly 1970s (I can't find a good date for introduction of the TLAM-N, only that development began 1972 and it was announced they would be transfered to storage in 1991 and they were retired between 2010 and 2013.) What your source reports is a recommendation to introduce a new nuclear cruise missiles replacing the retired TLAM-N.