Talk:Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty

Defeat for the Soviets?
I am surprised the article describes the INF treaty as the first major defeat for Soviet diplomacy. Could one not argue to the contrary, that it was a major victory for Soviet diplomacy, in the sense of engaging the Reagan administration, dramatically improving Soviet-US relations, bringing the end to the Cold War?Radchenk (talk) 09:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree Radchenk. I think that the line was vandalism, because I can't imagine the Soviets agreeing to something that they didn't largely benefit from. Happyme22 (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you name the benefit then? Even Western sources (such as Global Double Zero by Rueckert, 1993'') calls it an asymmetrical agreement. It is difficult to justify calling the side forced onto the bad side of an asymetrical agreement anything but "defeated". --Kazuaki Shimazaki (talk) 09:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Prompt Naval Strike
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=6816900&c=AME&s=AIR

Seems to be a single source that the treaty bans sea-based IRBMs, in spite of sea-based cruise missiles continued deployment and USN studies of sub-based IRBMs. Should I use it? Hcobb (talk) 02:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit dubious about this one, something seems to be missing in either the article, how the people are being quoted, or whether they are even "correct" at all. James Acton is quoted as saying the naval deployed hypersonic system would violate the INF treaty, but then stipulates that the INF prohibits "intermediate-range ballistic missiles". As the article earlier points out, one of the major reasons for using the hypersonic delivery system is that it is a distinctly not ballistic profile. INF certainly applies to non-ballistic weapons, but mostly those that are land based. That's why we got rid of our ground launched cruise missiles back in the day. Neither we nor the Soviets made any great change or retirement of a naval system as a result of the treaty. I think putting it in here might constitute undue weight, promoting a single possibly misquoted or out of context statement flying in the face of, well, the treaty text itself among things. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, what's the treaty text on naval issues? I've searched through the materials and found ZERO naval keywords in them. Hcobb (talk) 02:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, because it isn't a treaty about naval issues. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160828104632/http://missilethreat.com/missiles/rsd-10-mod-1-mod-2-ss-20/ to http://missilethreat.com/missiles/rsd-10-mod-1-mod-2-ss-20/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161109101413/http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/nit0int-1 to http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/nit0int-1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

So I didn't see the reference
no need to be that nasty. Sammartinlai (talk) 06:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I was going to respond on your talk page for the ridiculous comment but better you respond here because I have feeling you would delete if i post on your talk page. No i was not "nasty" you are oversensitive and non factual and unreasonable about this. You are being picky you can see there was entire section with many cites for the termination decision. Very short and easy reading too. If you wanted you could easy just add citation there no need for a tag and provoke without reason. But no you decide you provoke even more by going on my talk page, going here, everywhere. I don't even know what you are trying to prove with this. It is non issue. Litearally Waskerton (talk) 06:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It is you who could be kinder. You delete your talk page I at least archive mine. I did not provoke. Sammartinlai (talk) 06:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * no do not try to vicgim blame. you start this stupid exchange with the tag when you can easy could have not done that. you do not respond to anything i say except for you should be kinder. why you did not just add the citation yourself? I think you are just doing this for sake of just arguing. please stop this it is helping no one. Waskerton (talk) 07:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no answer to your terrible spelling. End of story.
 * English not my first language but do not get smart like this I bet you cannot speak my native language. Or should i say no needs for you to be nasty. yes end of story now goodbye and do not talk anymore. Waskerton (talk) 08:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I think the statement on a Congressional vote just needed more to it
If you want to terminate my edits, feel free so long as you terminate that edit too.2601:447:4101:41F9:88C6:AAC6:5C4E:A9FC (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

presidential power to withdraw
The end of that section claims that "However, the scope of the US president's ability to withdraw from Senate-approved treaties without Congressional approval has been called into question.", however, both references concluded that the president indeed has that power. So should this claim be labled "reference needed"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palpatineli (talk • contribs) 20:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. I checked and you're right. Neither support the view that it's an open question. One is also from 2017 so including it in relation to this withdrawal is OR. So I've just removed that bit. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intermediate-Range_Nuclear_Forces_Treaty&diff=871966220&oldid=870793709] If anyone wants to add it back, other than finding sources which actually support the claim it was called into question, add it to the article and then decide if it belongs in the lead as well. Nil Einne (talk) 13:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Russian ICBMs a violation of the INF?
"In 2013, reports came out that Russia had tested and planned to continue testing two missiles in ways that could violate the terms of the treaty: the SS-25 road mobile intercontinental ballistic missile and the newer RS-26 ICBM"--why would ICBMs (which are not intermediate range missiles) be of a violation of the INF?

Sammartinlai (talk) 11:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Vote on the INF in the UN
All unsourced

Sammartinlai (talk) 07:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Per SecState Pompeo, US to withdraw tomorrow 2/2/19
Just announced via the State Dept via CBS News, NBC, and other outlets. Six month timeline post withdraw annoucement to full withdrawal 129.246.254.12 (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Content of the treaty?
This article needs a section summarizing the contents of the treaty. I believe it forbids testing and production of the covered weapons, but our article doesn't mention this. Are missile defense systems covered? What are the provisions for leaving the treaty? AxelBoldt (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * This is all here. Welcome to improve the page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Alleged violations
q =
 * [ Both countries allege the other has violated the treaty. The US accused Russia of violating treaty terms by testing the SSC-8 cruise missile in 2008. The accusation was brought up again in 2014 and 2017. In 2013, reports came out that Russia had tested and planned to continue testing two missiles in ways that could violate the terms of the treaty: the SS-25 road mobile intercontinental ballistic missile and the newer RS-26 ICBM, although neither missile is considered intermediate range.

Russia argues that the American decision to establish bases (Mk-412 VLS cells) capable of launching Tomahawk missiles in Poland and Romania is a violation of the treaty. Russia also states that the US prevalent usage of ballistic " target " test missiles and armed UAVs such as the MQ-9 Reaper and MQ-4 also violates the INF Treaty.

Chinese and israeli BMs CMs (both sea air ground submarine launched), ASAT ABM , HGV gliders MARV , hypersonic , UAVs UCAV , ASBM , other. Fifteen or more countries (like UK France Norway Sweden poland romania croatia South korea Japan Taiwan North korea brazil south africa China India Pakistan) have active systems. in development - research - testing or can produce those, which are in the INF ranges. ]


 * What do you suggest to change? My very best wishes (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I just corrected summary for this source. It tells: "Начальник российского Генштаба генерал армии Юрий Балуевский заявил, что Москва может в одностороннем порядке выйти из советско-американского Договора о ликвидации ракет средней и меньшей дальности " (bold letters/summary in the beginning of the article). My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Revert
There was nothing wrong (aside from advancing a view that an editor doesn't like) with the material that was removed and I have reverted the revert accordingly. Discuss this issue here first before making any further changes on the main article. Flaughtin (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I was born in 1946 and during my life especially in grade school high school we are always concerned about a nuclear holocaust and I was so relieved when when Russia and the United States really worked hard to get rid of that fear of the nuclear weapons and destruction of the world. My god if these major powers are going to re-introduce nuclear weapons as a deterrent then my grandchildren will have to live with the same fear we had to live with back in the 50s in the 60s. It would appear it that humankind are really hell-bent on destroying our planet Rick Fienhage (talk) 05:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Section moved over from Russian submarine Belgorod (K-329)
The Russian Ministry of Defence classifies the Belgorod and Khabarovsk classes of nuclear submarines as fifth generation. The main difference from the current fourth generation is that the future submarines will be able to operate unmanned underwater vehicles.

The K-329 submarine and the Status-6 Poseidon drone are jointly part of the new weapons systems designed by Russia to respond - among other things - to the United States's new nuclear capabilities, in the context of the abandonment of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty between these two countries. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)