The ending of The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty 8 December 1987

On 2 August 2019 America withdrew from the I-R missile non-development treaty, citing Russia as in breach for the deployment of new 9M729 missiles in Turkey.

Russia announced days later their exit from the treaty stating it is what America has been wanting. Data on the 9M729 [an advanced variant of RK55] is not easily accessible.

The original agreement of the treaty was effectively the beginning of the end of the cold war arms race between the U.S.A and the then Soviet Union.

Both sides have accused the other of breaches. Russia accused America of deploying missile defence launchers in Poland that were also capable of launching cruise missiles. Russia has previously pointed out that the treaty did not include naval launched [development] missiles with america having by far the larger navy. America has been concerned with the increasingly opaque nature of Russia [on banned weapons development] under Putin, although pots and kettles can be heard clanging. Also of concern are the countries that were formerly Soviet regions that were not individually listed in the treaty and play no part in subsequent meetings or inspections.

The upsides to the treaty were:

1. An end to the modern development of medium range missiles.

[Modern in the sense of the reduced cost and mass production of computer technology – Which would have turned expensive products and not very accurate missiles into a low cost mass producible and an accurate weapon for any country [or mad hatter dictator / regime] wanting ‘defence’.      

2. A reduced threat to American allies and interests in the range zone. Europe, Israel and American oil interests with U.S forces within range.

3. The Soviet Union would be freer to back off from their investment in weapons development and focus more on the reassessment of the suppression of its regions and think about a different future for the people living life under such a suppressed and austere existence. [Sadly it was too little of the wrong thing too late as Gorbachev’s Glasnost & Perestroika signalled a weakness that released a huge wave of pent up energy that turned into a physical statement of liberation and instantly brought an end of the Soviet Union, as the people divided by the Berlin wall smashed through it – A Russian military response would have been unthinkable given the international politics of the moment – Russia in the end plodded on under the crippled drunkard Yeltsin towards a slow emergence of something that resembled a Russia partly of a future and partly of the past.]

4. Europe would benefit from a release of the threat of a Soviet build up of missiles and optimism and positivity replaced the doom and gloom of the cold war. As a result, with the additional relief of a lesser need for [what would have been a huge increasing] a NATO budget, Europe bounced forward through the nineties and beyond mostly growing its single market [and therefore its economic size] and as a result [the U.S.A peace secured] U.S. European market share opportunity.

The end of the treaty was sadly inevitable.

1. China are becoming the largest military arsenal in the world [next to America] and have therefore, become of greater [equal] interest and concern to the U.S than Russia.

2. With the rise in action and ambition of Iran, the U.S concern is that Iran will become either a buyer of mid range Chinese missiles [a Chinese sold shore to ship missile was fired at a U.S military vesel from the Yemen coast destroying the ship] from China or from Russia via Syria or Turkey.   

3. Turkey has gone native [more native] and is allying with Russia and Iran. If Syria remains stable under Assad [that is the expectation] and add North Korea and that makes 6 openly hostile [weaponized] countries towards America [and therefore its ally’s]

4. With America free of the development limitation of the treaty, mid-range missiles can be produced to sell to Saudi Arabia to counter the probable Iran threats. Countermeasure [anti-missile missiles] can also be sold and redeveloped to counter the new smart mid-range developments. A whole new business and revenue lines future.

5. At some point in the future these low cost expendable modern V2 rockets are going to be sitting on the coast of Libya. Either in the hands of Islamic State or a Libyan government more reminiscent of Gaddafi. The current weak U.N supported government is being challenged by force by a Libyan general with the backing of Saudi Arabia. So the question is will there be American weapons in Libya protecting Europe or Chinese / Russian / Iranian / weapons pointing at Europe?   

The question [and the reason for my time*] is:

What is the U.K going to do?

Currently the U.K has absolutely no development programs for anything smart. If we look at the RAF we see the J-35 fighter replacing everything as a future planed [pitched and bought by ‘a’ British government] air fighter. Described as a donkey and a turkey that “cannot turn, cannot fight and cannot run away”. ["USAF"] "The J-35 is a master of no trades, a jackass of all!" [“Pentagon”] At 100million per unit, the 135 on order [135.5billion] and that has been stated / admitted "The air-frame is unlikely to last its expected life hours and they all will need ongoing expensive air frame repair maintenance." ["Lockhead Martin"]

All of the PR and hype will come crashing down as will British air capability if the aircraft are engaged in aerial warfare. [If the U.S are engaged by Iran with or without Turkey, RAF aircraft will most probably either be in the air from Cyprus or grounded [benched] by a wise U.S command. If up in combat they will be either be easily chased down [after firing their cabinet ‘load’ of missiles] or the RAF pilots will also succumb to unexpected bouts of ‘vertigo’. If it all kicks off, replacing lost J-35’s will not be cheap, quick or possible. Or Typhoons for that matter.

Britain talks about its engineering prowess [perhaps talking about Isambard] but has very little to show for it in today’s productions. What Britain needs apart from its own industry of anti-missile missiles and smart missiles and remote missile counter technology* [above and below the water*] is a clutch of fighters [not paying the U.S for its #second level failure] of her own.

Better by the design priorities of mass producible, a high manoeuvring in close defence fighter* [20-30million unit] A mid-range fighter bomber* [30million unit] and a longer-range larger fighter bomber* [50-60million unit] not to mention our second generation VTOL J-35 replacement* at a probable [30-40million a unit] for use, sale and Victory.