The Hill: Pentagon official: No plans to develop new missile system amid end of Russian arms treaty
The head of Pentagon policy on Wednesday said the military is not yet planning to create or deploy an intermediate-range missile system in the light of the U.S. announcing it will no longer comply with a Soviet-era arms control pact with Russia.
Undersecretary of Defense for Policy John Rood said that because the U.S. has been in full compliance with the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty since it was signed in 1987, “we don’t have an intermediate range system or something like that that we would, that we’re talking about deploying at this time.”
“We’re going to look at our options in this regard,” Rood added.
Read more ....
Military And Intelligence News Briefs -- February 7, 2019
Russian official: Another nuclear pact with US in trouble -- AP
Russia bids farewell to INF Treaty with fresh nuclear development plans -- Defense News
Russia says it would be open to new nuclear pact with US -- The Hill
South China Sea: Trump military adviser calls for firmer rules to stop near misses -- SCMP
The US Navy just turned the future guns of its new Ford-class supercarriers on a drone in a landmark live-fire test -- Business Insider
US Navy Successfully Tests New Ship Self-Defense System for Ford-Class Carriers -- Sputnik
Navy Builds 2 New Large Surface Attack Drone Ships -- Warrior Maven
Who Will Lead This Navy in War? -- Kevin Eyer, RCD
The Air Force wants to buy more F-15X jets, and it's a huge mistake -- John Venable, Warrior Maven
Army aims for more combat-ready troops with new fitness test -- AP
General Atomics awarded $30.9M more for MQ-9 missile defense testing -- UPI
Recriminations fly over removal of Army commander -- Politico
DoD officials: Irregular warfare will no longer suffer a ‘boom-bust’ cycle in eras of great power competition -- Military Times
Stealth Suprise: The B-2 Stealth Bomber Is Getting Ready to Wage Nuclear War -- National Interest
For tech all-stars, working at the Pentagon can be a career killer -- Defense News
Lawmakers want full military honors at Arlington for MOH recipients, POWs -- Stars and Stripes
With another caravan approaching, DoD shifts forces along border -- Military Times
US cuts military aid to Cameroon over human rights concerns -- Military Times/AP
US lawmaker questions arms sales to Saudi-UAE coalition in Yemen -- Sputnik
US Admiral Says Military Ready to Protect US Personnel in Venezuela if Necessary -- Sputnik
Marines, Japanese forces storm Camp Pendleton's Red Beach in amphibious assault training -- Stars and Stripes/Orange County
Germany and France announce next-generation fighter jet project -- DW
Canadian military aims to have armed drones in the air in next six years -- Globe and Mail
NATO chief Stoltenberg bats for expanded INF treaty deal with more members -- DW
Russia may develop land-based Kalibr cruise missile by end of year — source -- TASS
US May Give President Right to Use Nuclear Warheads Against ICBM Silos - Moscow -- Sputnik
China races to equal US military might with 4 nuclear aircraft carriers by 2035 – experts -- RT
China Worries AI Development Could Lead to War Between Nations – Report -- Sputnik
Rafael test-launches precision-guided missile from light vehicle in Israel -- UPI
Forget Those F-35s and Nukes: Is Iran’s Military Stronger Than Israel’s? -- Michael Peck, National Interest
WWII munitions: Time bombs at the bottom of the Baltic Sea -- DW
1 comment:
Right the USA abided by the terms and has no missile to instantly place in Europe. Although obviously with the Tomahawk being upgraded right now, it could be fixed from land launch quite easily. That isn't the point.
Why would the USA place INF banned missiles in Europe? We don't have 300,000 troops over there like we did when the INF treaty went into force. We have 1/10 that. It is up to NATO to want those missiles and to control them. Germany's recent decision to not purchase the F-35, the only tactical jet on the market able to carry nuclear weapons, is an obvious indicator they don't want a nuclear NATO.
Post a Comment