3 ms·
I 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 r
by evrydayhustling 9y ago
I 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.