Military Review

US Congress proposes to withdraw from PRSMD

99
Edition Political reports that the American congressmen had another idea about how to pump up the already red-hot situation in the world to the boiling point. This is a proposal for the US withdrawal from the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles (INF). It is noteworthy that this initiative was categorically opposed even at the Pentagon, stating that such a step would lead to the negation of a whole complex of efforts undertaken earlier and yielding positive results.

US Congress proposes to withdraw from PRSMD


In the American edition called the name of the congressman, who took the initiative to withdraw the United States from the contract on the elimination of the INF. This is Republican Mike Rogers representing Alabama. It is recalled that earlier Arkansas senator Tom Cotton presented a bill proposing to fix the “violation” of the treaty by Russia. Cotton does not hide the fact that such a bill could be the reason for the United States to withdraw from the INF Treaty. Moreover, the Cotton bill involves the transfer of missile technology (INF) to the countries that are called US allies.

Against the initiative were in the US State Department. And it was precisely this that once again gave rise to a whole series of American mass media to announce that Kremlin agents "had dug in at the Pentagon and the State Department." In this regard, there is every reason to believe that the congressmen will again build a bill linked to certain additions (as a recent sanctions package against Russia was linked to sanctions against Iran) in order not to leave Trump a room for maneuver in terms of a possible rejection of the document by the US .
Photos used:
Fair.ru
99 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. svp67
    svp67 25 June 2017 07: 21
    +5
    Politico reports that American congressmen had another idea about how to pump the already hot situation in the world to a boiling point. This is a proposal for the United States to withdraw from the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles (INF).
    America has long and purposefully been moving towards this. The withdrawal from this treaty affects the US security very little, but very “hits” its NATO allies and Russia.
    1. karish
      karish 25 June 2017 07: 45
      +2
      Quote: svp67
      America has long and purposefully been moving towards this.

      This question arose in Congress for that reason. that the US is sure that it is Russia that does not comply with this treaty.
      Russia's withdrawal from the treaty will return the perching to the European countries of NATO.
      Now these are the Baltic countries, Bulgaria. Romania and in the future Georgia and Ukraine.
      with such flying time. that no missile defense will cope.
      How can Russia respond to this?
      A new arms race will begin in which NATO countries will initially be winning in terms of economy and location.
      I do not understand . Do you need it?
      dough probably not measured?
      already scared NATO once, scared.
      Want to try again?
      RMSD agreement is beneficial to Russia - is it really not clear?
      1. svp67
        svp67 25 June 2017 07: 58
        +1
        Quote: karish
        Russia's withdrawal from the treaty will return the perching to the European countries of NATO.

        Of course, these will be other missiles capable of using universal launchers.
      2. Alex_Rarog
        Alex_Rarog 25 June 2017 07: 58
        +7
        You still don’t pepevyvat we have something to answer)))
      3. like this
        like this 25 June 2017 08: 07
        +4
        what is our choice? become hohlastan?
      4. Lopatov
        Lopatov 25 June 2017 08: 09
        +5
        Quote: karish
        Russia's withdrawal from the treaty will return the perching to the European countries of NATO.

        How can "return" non-existent missiles? Or they did not destroy them in violation of the contract?
        “Pershing” is not particularly dangerous for us. But the danger to the United States and Europe will increase many times over. At the same time, billions invested in missile defense will be useless.

        Quote: karish
        A new arms race will begin in which NATO countries will initially be winning in terms of economy and location.

        In the initially losing.
        First, China is no longer on their side, but quite the opposite.
        Secondly, Europe is not ready to spend money, everything will have to drag the USA
        Thirdly, the cost of missile defense will be several orders of magnitude higher than the cost of overcoming it.
        Fourth, both Europe and the United States since the previous race reduced their production capacities by several orders of magnitude, bringing them to the "workshops of the world"

        Quote: karish
        RMSD agreement is beneficial to Russia - is it really not clear?

        It is absolutely not beneficial to Russia. As the USSR was not profitable at the time of its signing.
        So good luck to Mike Rogers.
        Well, at the same time, Tom Cotton - his idea to give a damn about the non-proliferation of rocket technologies is also incredibly beneficial for Russia.
        1. karish
          karish 25 June 2017 08: 22
          +2
          Quote: Spade
          How can "return" non-existent missiles? Or they did not destroy them in violation of the contract?

          No Pershing is so their counterparts.
          What is the problem is not clear?
          Quote: Spade
          "Pershing "is not particularly dangerous for us. But the danger to the United States and Europe will increase many times over.

          C'mon, how?
          Quote: Spade
          First, China is no longer on their side, but quite the opposite.

          China is on no side.
          Quote: Spade
          Secondly, Europe is not ready to spend money, everything will have to drag the USA

          why did you decide this? Europe is increasing military budgets, and the United States didn’t make any special problems before - it will not, and now
          Quote: Spade
          Thirdly, the cost of missile defense will be several orders of magnitude higher than the cost of overcoming it.

          They already have missile defense
          Quote: Spade
          Fourth, both Europe and the United States since the previous race reduced their production capacities by several orders of magnitude, bringing them to the "workshops of the world"

          well and 7
          In your entire detailed answer, did you somehow not mention Russia, or do you think that China will cover? Or rockets for Russia stamped?
          Quote: Spade
          It is absolutely not beneficial to Russia. As the USSR was not profitable at the time of its signing.

          Of course - the dough is not measured.
          The US will have to splurge. and Russia means no belay
          Quote: Spade
          Well, at the same time, Tom Cotton - his idea to give a damn about the non-proliferation of rocket technologies is also incredibly beneficial for Russia.

          What are you talking about?
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 25 June 2017 08: 43
            +2
            Quote: karish
            What is the problem is not clear?

            They will have to create rockets from scratch. Then create a production, then rivet the rockets themselves. And all this in the context of the need for large investments in the missile defense system, which, when a large number of Russian medium and small missiles appear, will prove ineffective in its current form.

            Quote: karish
            China is on no side.

            Really? In the Cold War, they actually sided with the United States; now the Americans themselves have designated them as enemies.

            Quote: karish
            why did you decide this? Europe is increasing military budgets, and the United States didn’t make any special problems before - it will not, and now

            Gee ....
            Let's take a closer look and about "Europe is increasing," and about "spending money is not a problem." Have a good laugh together.

            Quote: karish
            They already have missile defense

            With the advent of medium and small missiles in Russia, it is absolutely useless.

            Quote: karish
            In your entire detailed answer, did you somehow not mention Russia, or do you think that China will cover? Or rockets for Russia stamped?

            Do you think that the USA can stamp, for example, missile guidance systems somewhere in China ??? 8))))))))))))) Well ... 8)))))))))))))))

            Quote: karish
            Of course - the dough is not measured.
            The US will have to splurge. and Russia means no

            This will be the right arms race. Americans will have to invest a hundred for each of our rubles.
            In addition, leaving the INF Treaty will save us a lot of money. Short-range missiles are much cheaper than ICBMs.

            Quote: karish
            Quote: Spade
            Well, at the same time, Tom Cotton - his idea to give a damn about the non-proliferation of rocket technologies is also incredibly beneficial for Russia.
            What are you talking about?

            It's about our allies who need rocket technology.
            1. Alexander Abdrakhmanov
              Alexander Abdrakhmanov 25 June 2017 09: 35
              +1
              What are you fantasizing about here. After reduction, Russia has nuclear weapons that it is possible to destroy the United States several times. Prior to dyeing, it was possible to destroy each other 50 times. America blew us under the contract, we reduced as many units as it should be under the contract, and they canned us more. Russia does not have to chase - just fit the American quantity, then everything will be right, the agreement is preserved and not violated. Whoever saw a dead man buried several times, in my opinion, once is enough. It may be beneficial for America to bury several times. Americans only intercept everything with their tongues. They recently tested, and everything went under the tail of a bull. They flew to where these missiles themselves wanted to fly. They test and hide from their missiles in bunkers. Americans today work in piecework, quality is not important the main quantity. So you can take more money from the taxpayer, they are there all the hucksters from the high road.
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 25 June 2017 10: 06
                0
                Quote: Alexander Abdrakhmanov
                What are you fantasizing about here. After reduction, Russia has nuclear weapons that it is possible to destroy the USA several times.

                No, I’m not fantasizing. It's just that I'm fine with arithmetic, but you seem to have managed to forget it ...
            2. The comment was deleted.
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 25 June 2017 10: 12
                +2
                Quote: jonhr
                just them from scratch?

                Only to them. It is enough for us to increase the range of the “Iskanders” by reducing the weight of the warhead — there the “mass reserve” is very large. And reduce the maximum range for the RS-26.
                The backfill question: how many decades ago did the US Air Force receive the latest new ICBM?
                1. jonhr
                  jonhr 25 June 2017 12: 05
                  0
                  that is, they are wrong in speaking of a breach of contract?
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 25 June 2017 15: 47
                    0
                    Certainly wrong. Violating the letter of the contract, they try to talk about our violation of his spirit, since there is no violation of the letter.
      5. Vladimir 38
        Vladimir 38 25 June 2017 09: 53
        0
        We will have to demonstrate the capabilities of a hypersonic missile ..
      6. APASUS
        APASUS 25 June 2017 10: 15
        0
        Quote: karish
        This question arose in Congress for that reason. that the US is sure that it is Russia that does not comply with this treaty.

        And as all sane US people propose to discuss at the negotiating table the facts of Russian violation of the INF Treaty, but only the evil Putin is trying to avoid this and convince everyone that this is not so.
        Did I put your point correctly?
        Quote: karish
        A new arms race will begin in which NATO countries will initially be winning in terms of economy and location.

        This is purely in the style of the Americans, they hope that in a nuclear war they will have an advantage due to the fact that they are on the island
        Quote: karish
        RMSD agreement is beneficial to Russia - is it really not clear?

        We then just understand, but the initiator of the withdrawal from the agreement is Russia or maybe the USA?
      7. DEPARTMENT
        DEPARTMENT 25 June 2017 11: 14
        +2
        Quote: karish
        A new arms race will begin in which NATO countries will initially be winning in terms of economy and location.
        I do not understand . Do you need it?
        dough probably not measured?
        already scared NATO once, scared.
        Want to try again?
        RMSD agreement is beneficial to Russia - is it really not clear?

        There will be no arms race ... This time we have already been taught bitter experience and your "prayers" ..
        There are many other ways to cool the "hot heads of the west and .."
        Here is Syria, for example, if we place shock weapons there, next to you ... What will be the reaction on your part (except for screaming in the media by itself ..))) ??? You have a lobby in all countries, including the USA, etc. hi If we are touched, we will begin to wet you first .. (God forbid, of course, but still ..)
      8. ver_
        ver_ 25 June 2017 12: 14
        0
        ... * beat first, Freddy * - there was such a film ..
      9. Victor-M
        Victor-M 25 June 2017 15: 04
        0
        Quote: karish
        already scared NATO once, scared.
        Want to try again?

        What are you talking about, about Georgia?
      10. Servisinzhener
        Servisinzhener 25 June 2017 15: 44
        0
        It is very clear. But if they want to get out of it and henceforth do not comply in order to put pressure on us, then we will not observe it either.
      11. Lex.
        Lex. 25 June 2017 21: 20
        0
        karish -In general, the Poles bought air-based cruise missiles in the United States with a 1000 km radius, the action is that they are not medium-range missiles, what kind of United States is the right to sell such missiles to the Poles
    2. Spartanez300
      Spartanez300 25 June 2017 07: 45
      +1
      Because of such nonsense, the world is plunging deeper into chaos.
    3. siberalt
      siberalt 25 June 2017 08: 41
      +2
      In fact, the United States has long withdrawn from this treaty, and now they have begun to offer compliance in order to preserve their face and blame Russia for this. Yes, only the train left. You wave to him. hi
    4. maiman61
      maiman61 25 June 2017 09: 55
      +2
      Our foreign policy is absolutely wrong. Any attempt to normalize relations by the West is perceived as a weakness and tightening pressure on Russia for pressure! And this is the right policy for the West! And instead of wiping snot we should tighten the pressure on the West, and when the West realizes that the situation is getting out of control, only then will detente! The West is not afraid of Russia, as it fully calculates the reaction of Russia. And one step ahead knows what we will do. And when they see that they cannot calculate the reaction, they will stop their tricks!
    5. To be or not to be
      To be or not to be 25 June 2017 10: 14
      0
      They prepared another muck ..
      First, missile defense systems - missile defense systems in Poland and Romania - against non-existent Iranian missiles
      Now naturally the thought arises that they will put Earth missiles in these complexes - Medium-range Earth or something else in Europe
    6. askme
      askme 26 June 2017 04: 45
      +1
      It is a big mistake to think so. America's medium-range missiles are directly affected. And long-range land-based missile defense systems concern HOW TO MINIMUM half of the US territory. Especially if the Kh-101/102 is adapted for ground-based, and then the promising CD DB, which is now being developed for the Tu-160M2 "with a much greater" range than the Kh-101/102. From the coast of Chukotka, from Kamchatka, from Matua, from Primorye, from Novaya Zemlya, from Franz Josef Land, one could now shoot through adapted to the X-101/102 ground launch, hitting at least Alaska with all its air armies, NORAD, hubs like Anchorage + Canada. And with an increase in the range of the Kyrgyz Republic to 8000 km, this is already not less than half of the territory of the USA + Hawaii + Guam is shot through.

      That is, in a conventional war it would be a kirdyk if a salvo of at least 5000 missiles there ... You can neglect the price of ground launchers - it is small compared to underwater, with an air and surface launch. Especially in view of the fact that they do not have ground-based air defense systems capable of operating along the RC at very low altitudes of 10-50 meters. So let them go if the radishes are not far)))
    7. antivirus
      antivirus 26 June 2017 07: 50
      0
      Korea will also receive certain technologies
      both Cuba and Iran + in Latin America will introduce NVP in schools (on the quiet advice of retired Major Pupkin)
      Let them run in a circle db
  2. Orionvit
    Orionvit 25 June 2017 07: 22
    +6
    US Congress proposes to withdraw from INF Treaty
    In my opinion, the de facto US has already withdrawn from all agreements. And for a long time, it’s strange that they are only talking about it now.
    1. MPK105
      MPK105 25 June 2017 07: 28
      +7
      hi Neither add nor diminish ... good This has long been clear to everyone, what kind of agreements with them?
      1. Vladimir16
        Vladimir16 25 June 2017 07: 40
        +2
        Quote: MPK105
        This has long been clear to everyone, what kind of agreements with them?

        Your statements are as rabid as the paranoid in the United States who want to withdraw from the treaty. The only difference is that you are Russian (not a fact). But the blizzard is worse than McCain. He has at least some light in his head. And you, what except the media information?
        The whole world in ruin? fool
        1. MPK105
          MPK105 25 June 2017 08: 00
          +8
          Knock yourself on your head, maybe the only gyrus will fall into place ... The whole world in ruin is not for me, read carefully what people write, and do not invent ...
        2. Lopatov
          Lopatov 25 June 2017 08: 10
          +4
          Quote: Vladimir16
          And you, what except the media information?

          And you?
          The United States clearly already at least two times violated the INF Treaty, without even hiding it.
    2. svp67
      svp67 25 June 2017 07: 30
      +4
      Quote: Orionvit
      In my opinion, the de facto US has already withdrawn from all agreements.

      Well, this is exactly “according to yours”, in state relations this process is being carried out a little differently.
  3. iliitchitch
    iliitchitch 25 June 2017 07: 22
    +3
    Ek carries the ostap. In our State Duma, there’s just a flash of intellect in comparison with these (here they write in Yandex - the son of Verwolfich suggested that Zhirkov’s face be filled for the joint in the match with Mexico ... I’m smart, kid.).
  4. mamont5
    mamont5 25 June 2017 07: 25
    +4
    It seems that the Yankees have completely lost their fear and stubbornly want to bring the matter to war. In his own style, of course. They want to put the EU on the cutting edge, and they themselves, as always, hope to sit overseas. And then to reap all the fruits of the collapse of the EU and Russia. Well, they hope to cope with China themselves.
    1. Vita vko
      Vita vko 25 June 2017 07: 31
      +5
      Quote: mamont5
      the Yankees completely lost fear

      The worst thing is the illusion of impunity in the country of not frightened fools. "Monkey with a grenade" against this background is really worthy of a peace prize.
  5. Observer2014
    Observer2014 25 June 2017 07: 27
    +2
    once again gave rise to a number of American media to announce that the Kremlin’s agents have dug in the Pentagon and the State Department
    Rather, these Kremlin agents would begin to wet each other there.
    1. Voha_krim
      Voha_krim 25 June 2017 07: 46
      +2
      Quote: Observer2014
      (...) in the Pentagon and the State Department "entrenched Kremlin agents"
      1. Old military officer
        Old military officer 25 June 2017 07: 51
        +2
        Full arctic fox! As the saying goes: I saw fools myself, but to such an extent ..!
        Quote: Voha_krim
        Quote: Observer2014
        (...) in the Pentagon and the State Department "entrenched Kremlin agents"
  6. Yak28
    Yak28 25 June 2017 07: 32
    +3
    But I remember in the late 80s and early 90s, Russia was actively unloading, showing how they sawed off tails from planes, from strategic bombers to fighters, sawed up submarines and missiles. Did the US do the same? Or did they send equipment for conservation? I just got it the feeling that Russia always destroys more weapons than its sworn friends winked
  7. Bath
    Bath 25 June 2017 07: 35
    +1
    It's high time and we came up with a hunchback with partners
    1. karish
      karish 25 June 2017 07: 36
      +3
      Quote: Bath
      It's high time and we came up with a hunchback with partners

      A new arms race will begin.
      Are you sure that Russia needs this?
      1. like this
        like this 25 June 2017 08: 08
        +4
        Well, of course you better know what Russia needs
      2. Lopatov
        Lopatov 25 June 2017 08: 15
        +2
        Quote: karish
        A new arms race will begin.

        She has already begun. With the US withdrawing from the ABM Treaty.
        Now we need cheap means of destroying the missile defense infrastructure near our borders. And Mike Rogers kindly suggests letting us make them.
        1. donavi49
          donavi49 25 June 2017 08: 22
          +1
          The current missile defense is like that. There will be a hundred rockets in the future.

          However, the withdrawal from the treaty will enable Americans, for example, to apply the solutions that were developed in the construction of missile defense.

          Simple - standard shafts from availability in quick-mount blocks. This will allow very quickly (in a couple of years) to increase the ability to place Axes.

          With a replacement for Pershing is more difficult. But they are working in this direction now. In particular LRPF program.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 25 June 2017 08: 49
            +2
            Quote: donavi49
            In particular, the LRPF program.

            What a terrible program 8))))))))))))) "Helfer" with a flight range of 500 km. Definitely need to be scared.

            Quote: donavi49
            This will allow very quickly (in a couple of years) to increase the ability to place Axes.

            "Axes"? 8))))))))))))))))
            Dear, considering that the United States is the first to strike, and if there are a bunch of “airborne” axes, it doesn’t really matter to us. In conditions when even in Poland there are CDs capable of carrying a nuclear warhead and at the same time reach our territory, scaring us with ground “tomahawks” is a rather stupid idea, don’t you?
            1. donavi49
              donavi49 25 June 2017 09: 22
              +1
              What a terrible program 8))))))))))))) "Helfer" with a flight range of 500 km. Definitely need to be scared.


              499km - 500 is already a violation of the agreement RMNS !!! 111

              I just pointed out that they are working on it. This rocket will shoot in 19 year.

              Given how they stick to breaking the contract, they at least defended Pershing's new project. And as a maximum, he is ready for the first launch also in the 19-20 area.
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 25 June 2017 10: 15
                0
                Quote: donavi49
                Given how they stick to breaking the contract, they at least defended Pershing's new project. And as a maximum, he is ready for the first launch also in the 19-20 area.

                Yeah ... 19-20 ...
                And your question is backfill: how many decades ago did the USA receive the latest new ICBM?
                1. donavi49
                  donavi49 25 June 2017 11: 24
                  +1
                  So you think Americans are idiots? Which can not in planning? OK.
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 25 June 2017 16: 05
                    +1
                    Quote: donavi49
                    So you think Americans are idiots? Which can not in planning? OK.

                    Rather than "idiots", but "a state with legalized corruption, to which this corruption, called" lobbying, "is very hindered.

                    In most cases, the US Army does not receive what it really needs at this stage of development.
          2. Vadim237
            Vadim237 25 June 2017 19: 07
            +1
            In the European part of Russia, the Tomahawks are very vulnerable.
        2. To be or not to be
          To be or not to be 25 June 2017 10: 16
          +2
          The cheapest is Transnistria in the Russian Federation and there Iskander laughing
          1. donavi49
            donavi49 25 June 2017 11: 24
            0
            Only through space. Transnistria has no borders. And nobody will let me go. That is either a military operation or nothing.
            1. Zaurbek
              Zaurbek 27 June 2017 07: 31
              0
              Not necessary. There is Kaliningrad, there is a diesel-electric submarine with Caliber in the Black Sea (I hope there will be ships in the Mediterranean with Caliber. In terms of reach, it’s enough, you need the number of carriers. The RSDs are good because they reach everywhere with a range of 5-6 t km cheap but better in terms of application
      3. Vladimir 38
        Vladimir 38 25 June 2017 09: 56
        +1
        Quote: karish
        A new arms race will begin.

        Do not start, do not worry. We already have an answer))
      4. Servisinzhener
        Servisinzhener 25 June 2017 15: 54
        0
        So what to do. It remains to answer. Or offer to give up? Well, we can surrender to the United States, but only after Israel surrenders to the Arabs and its territory becomes a vilage of some kind of Islamic state with Sharia law and other amenities of life. Only after you ;-)
    2. donavi49
      donavi49 25 June 2017 08: 10
      0
      Well this is a simple layout.

      No agreement - a return to the old position in new colors, namely:
      Axes on stationary and mobile installations in Poland, Romania (Ukraine) and the Baltic states. In the future, what thread Pershing3 still add there. They shoot nukes over the entire European part + flight time to any Voronezh, St. Petersburg and other minor cities will be considered in minutes.

      The answer in the form of SD missiles - albeit significantly better. It will cover the European allies (the same Poland and Germany) - of course they are very sorry, the US bases in the region (they are under attack anyway), as well as missile bases (but this is effective only in the first strike from Russia).

      Total now - the USA and the Russian Federation have +/- the same strike forces on strategic offensive arms, plus the United States has several thousand deployed unregulated strike missiles in the sea and in the air (the Russian Federation has much less of these missiles).

      After the release, the US and the Russian Federation will have the same strike forces on strategic offensive arms + several thousand ground-based missiles covering the entire European part (and you can still place them in Japan and Korea after all) + several thousand deployed unregulated strike missiles in the sea and air.

      However, all this will threaten the Russian Federation. But the United States will essentially threaten only those forces that are in START + part of the missiles deployed in the sea and air.

      The layout is changing significantly. If you take the deployed warheads, then even in the long run 5 years - the United States can bring them to 4 to 1.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 25 June 2017 08: 25
        0
        Well, firstly, they’ll fly to the USA all ICBMs, they will not have to distract them with targets in Europe.
        Secondly, multi-billion dollar investments in missile defense will be useless.
        Thirdly, Russia will have an effective means of providing a retaliatory strike.
        1. donavi49
          donavi49 25 June 2017 08: 40
          0
          If you do not get out of the START and do not start the ICBM furnace like sausages, then this is a slight increase in shock capabilities.

          Again - why do they build missile defense bases for so long? Infrastructure. Expensive radar and combat center in the heart of each base.

          For bases with axes this is not necessary. Just put the MK-41 on the foundation with the supply of necessary communications and sheathe it. Everything. The main thing that Rateon Toporov has done. And the build speed quickly rests on this. For MK41 they can remove from decommissioned ships, marafet and install on a ground base. The technology has already been developed.


          Again, they already work and even appeared in the media - LRPF (499 km - yeah, they would have written 499.99 laughing ) And there is a mobile complex.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 25 June 2017 08: 56
            0
            Quote: donavi49
            If you do not get out of the START and do not start the ICBM furnace like sausages, then this is a slight increase in shock capabilities.

            Is it "insignificant" by about a third?

            Quote: donavi49
            For bases with axes this is not necessary. Just put the MK-41 on the foundation with the supply of the necessary communications and sheathe it. All. The main thing that Rateon Toporov has done.

            Question: why? To get more expensive?
            For the first strike, it makes no difference whether the missiles are on land launchers, or on planes, as they are now. Rather, aircraft are preferable.
            Ground PU - for retaliatory strike are necessary. That is to us.
            1. donavi49
              donavi49 25 June 2017 09: 10
              +1
              Not. Preferred are those media that can provide surprise.

              An exit to the sea of ​​the fleet - it will not work. And one-two-three, even five destroyers (the usual finding) and AUG (for example, cover exercises) - they won’t do anything.

              The rise of the armada B-52 into the air - it will not work. And this again will give time. Larger than necessary on the other side.

              That remains submarines and ground carriers ideal for a first strike. For they can shoot back at the command - giving the enemy time, exactly as much as the already launched missiles.
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 25 June 2017 09: 22
                0
                Quote: donavi49
                Not. Preferred are those media that can provide surprise.

                Exactly. When conducting a massive strike first, the greatest surprise can be provided precisely by aviation. We simply do not have the means to control airspace over Western Europe. But launches from ground launchers will be detected by satellites immediately.

                Quote: donavi49
                The rise of the armada B-52 into the air - it will not work.

                From whom?
                1. donavi49
                  donavi49 25 June 2017 09: 28
                  0
                  How much news was there about the flight of a pair of bombers to Europe?

                  If they start to rake up 60% of the park - dispersing them along the lines of attack, then the other side will understand the decision is made - the war. This will give days to prepare and answer.

                  Moreover, if the movement begins (and it is very difficult to hide) with the mass rise of aviation into the air, the other side will have hours to put its military plan into effect.

                  With bases, the question is different. If they were not destroyed during the construction, then they stand. Projecting a constant threat. Once a command comes from the center - and again. All bases come to life, for 5-10 minutes, firing at set targets. Moreover, the change of goals, the introduction of combat plans and synchronization of the second of attack is completely hidden for the other side.

                  The same is true for submarines.

                  And then, now the Americans do not have many air-launched cruise missiles (more than the Russian Federation).
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 25 June 2017 10: 25
                    0
                    Quote: donavi49
                    With bases, the question is different. If they were not destroyed during the construction, then they stand. Projecting a constant threat. Once a team comes from the center - and again. All bases come to life, firing at set targets in 5-10 minutes.

                    Shoot out. "Axes" from ground launchers. Our launch is discovered. From the border of Poland to the Russian airspace, they will fly 38 minutes. I am afraid that by the time they reach their goals, the USA, as a state, will cease to exist.
                    1. donavi49
                      donavi49 25 June 2017 11: 30
                      0
                      And from Estonia? I write that the Americans worked out the technology for the quick installation of full-time MK41 in ground-based performance. It is a fact.

                      What they now have - even in planning for missile defense, you might not even consider it as a serious threat even in a clumsy load. All mines = tanks of one Tiki.

                      Plus, an exit from the DRMSD - unties the hands of everyone. That is, it’s not only axes, but also the ballistic missile defense - the whole question is when ... For some reason I’m sure that they have already protected the ballistic missile defense project and the rocket is in practical implementation. It’s just that in the last year they have drilled a rod to exit the contract. It is unreasonable to do this without trump cards. To consider Americans idiots is utterly stupid. What trump cards? Therefore, I put that they are already developing a new BRDS. If so, they force the political component.

                      To calculate the flown from Poland or Estonia - BRDS and the alignment is already different. It is so?
                      1. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 25 June 2017 16: 13
                        0
                        Quote: donavi49
                        And from Estonia?

                        From Estonia there is also a sea of ​​time. Just placing missiles there will lead to the need to exclude a person from the decision-making process on the reciprocal-counter.
                        After this, any computer failure, a flock of birds or the launch of fireworks can lead to the destruction of the United States as a state. If they want to go for it, a flag in their hands and a drum around their neck. This is not our decision.
          2. Vadim237
            Vadim237 25 June 2017 19: 10
            0
            The next BRSD will be an air launch - the United States already has target missiles - that they will remake them for military ones.
      2. Victor-M
        Victor-M 25 June 2017 15: 08
        0
        Quote: donavi49
        However, all this will threaten the Russian Federation. But the United States will essentially threaten only those forces that are in START + part of the missiles deployed in the sea and air.

        What are you so worried about for Russia and the USA, in any negative situation, you will all be full of arctic fox on the part of American and Russian missiles. You should not forget that during the NATO aggression against Russia, they will destroy us anyway, so we will have no choice either to die to disappear from this planet or to die to live. As said in one movie: "We would have died long ago if we had not died!"
        Think about it, do you and your children need it?
  8. RED PARTISAN
    RED PARTISAN 25 June 2017 07: 39
    +5
    Russia will only have two options when the US withdraws from the treaty:
    1. The deployment of missiles in Cuba or Nicaragua, the launch of nuclear weapons into space (orbital missiles), the creation of underwater vehicles carrying nuclear weapons (Status-6).
    2. Delivering a preventive nuclear strike on the positions of American missiles in Europe, as well as on the stockpiles of nuclear munitions in Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Turkey.
    1. Großer feldherr
      Großer feldherr 25 June 2017 07: 52
      0
      Those. in case of termination of the INF Treaty, do you propose to launch a preventive strike?
      The whole world is in ruins?)) Maybe we don’t need it, you yourself then can’t watch a football on the couch with beer drinks
      1. RED PARTISAN
        RED PARTISAN 25 June 2017 08: 07
        +1
        And what remains for us? Do you propose to wait for Russia to be hit first? The INF Treaty allows the United States to strike, which is capable of destroying a significant part of our land-based launchers. A short flight time (5-6 minutes) will not allow a retaliatory strike, and the retaliatory strike will be significantly weakened.
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 25 June 2017 19: 11
          0
          So we will develop our missile defense system.
    2. karish
      karish 25 June 2017 08: 24
      +3
      Quote: RED PARTISAN
      Missile deployment in Cuba or Nicaragua,

      and why not in the DPR?
      Quote: RED PARTISAN
      Delivering a preventive nuclear strike on the positions of American missiles in Europe, as well as on the stockpiles of nuclear munitions in Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Turkey.

      Have you learned from zakharchenko?
      1. DenZ
        DenZ 25 June 2017 08: 42
        0
        Quote: karish
        and why not in the DPR?

        And this is how they decide. Can in the DNI. In Russia, everything is possible wink
      2. Lopatov
        Lopatov 25 June 2017 09: 23
        +2
        Quote: karish
        Have you learned from zakharchenko?

        The Israelites. This is you lovers of "preventive strikes"
      3. Victor-M
        Victor-M 25 June 2017 15: 17
        0
        Quote: karish
        Have you learned from zakharchenko?

        From you.
      4. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 27 June 2017 07: 33
        0
        It is unlikely that someone will allow to deploy on their territory RSD (threatening the United States) in our time. They will be eaten with giblets.
    3. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 25 June 2017 08: 36
      +2
      Quote: RED PARTISAN
      1. Missile deployment in Cuba or Nicaragua,

      Drive to Cuba and Nicaragua and negotiate.
      Quote: RED PARTISAN
      the withdrawal of nuclear weapons into space (orbital rockets)

      Better yet, tie with grass.
      Quote: RED PARTISAN
      2. Delivering a preventive nuclear strike on the positions of American missiles in Europe, as well as on the stockpiles of nuclear munitions in Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Turkey.

      Nichrome yourself, this is how to get stoned wassat
  9. jovanni
    jovanni 25 June 2017 07: 44
    0
    We must be friends with Cuba, and do not throw it anymore ...
  10. Banishing liberoids
    Banishing liberoids 25 June 2017 08: 25
    +2
    So all of these agreements exist only on paper, the United States essentially came out of them long ago, and now they will legally formalize this exit.
  11. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 25 June 2017 08: 35
    +3
    The abolition of the INF Treaty exposes the US European allies to a “disassembly”. In the event of a serious turmoil, a blow to the locations of these missiles is guaranteed. And probably, they will not save on tactical nuclear weapons. And the missiles will be Amer! But the blows will not be in the USA. Therefore, fair, IMHO, would be the following - the concept of Russia's response is as follows - with any serious mess, the blow to Matrasia is massive and overwhelming. By all means and means. So that there are no illusions - to kindle a war in Europe, sit out "behind a puddle", and then use the results, as in WWII ...
  12. Zomanus
    Zomanus 25 June 2017 08: 44
    +1
    Do they really want war?
    With the war between Europe and Russia,
    because precisely for Russia and Europe this agreement was made.
  13. bald
    bald 25 June 2017 08: 58
    0
    The INF Treaty was carried out unilaterally (at least recall the cut of launchers). And what both sides now have, so it already covers (circumvents) the INF. As the law says, and created to circumvent it.
  14. lance
    lance 25 June 2017 10: 03
    0
    The RSMD, both in the past and now, will not save the United States, which, even with the Reagan, received an answer: when the RSD starts, the United States receives an MBR response. in this case, the usa won’t win anything
    1. donavi49
      donavi49 25 June 2017 10: 08
      +1
      They win in quantity, and if there is Pershing's reincarnation, then also in the flying time.

      That is - roughly speaking, 800 carriers on strategic offensive arms flies to the United States, and 900 carriers on strategic offensive arms flies from the USA + thousands more carriers from Europe. Thousands of RMNDs also fly across Europe.

      However, they fly from Europe to the most developed part of the Russian Federation. And from Russia, the RMNDs fly across Europe, which everyone is very sorry for, but not across the USA.
  15. bratchanin3
    bratchanin3 25 June 2017 10: 18
    +1
    We must convince Congress that the United States will be destroyed in any case if a war with NATO begins. And in general, at the slightest threat to Russia, all nuclear weapons will be put into action.
  16. alexleony
    alexleony 25 June 2017 10: 24
    +2
    Instead of building submarines, you need to build 20 torpedoes of the Status 6 type and aim at both coasts of the United States, and at the central ones you can use ordinary nuclear weapons.
  17. Old26
    Old26 25 June 2017 10: 24
    0
    [quote = karish] [quote = svp67] .... Russia's withdrawal from the treaty will return the perching to European NATO countries.
    Now these are the Baltic countries, Bulgaria. Romania and in the future Georgia and Ukraine.
    with such flying time. that no missile defense will cope.
    How will Russia be able to answer this? .... The RMND agreement is beneficial for Russia - is it really not clear? [/ Quote]
    Well, the Pershing will certainly not return, but medium-range missiles - very quickly. And the agreement, yes, is beneficial to Russia. Alas, many believe exactly the opposite ...

    [quote = svp67] [quote = karish] Russia's withdrawal from the treaty will return the perching to the European countries of NATO. [/ quote]
    Of course, these will be other missiles capable of using universal launchers. [/ Quote]
    This does not mean at all that these missiles will use universal launchers. Those developments that they now have and which they, after Russia withdraws from the Treaty (or its withdrawal), will not immediately fit into production launchers. Launchers, about half as long as these missiles

    [quote = Alex_Rarog] You still don’t pepevy we will find something to answer))) [/ quote]
    There is an answer. The question is what it will cost for us ....

    [quote = Shovels] How can "return" non-existent missiles? Or they did not destroy them in violation of the contract?
    “Pershing” is not particularly dangerous for us. But the danger to the United States and Europe will increase many times over. At the same time, billions invested in missile defense will be useless. [/ Quote]
    "Pershing" or their ballistic counterparts, which may appear dangerous to Russia. For those who were in their time in Germany had a flight time of about 7 minutes to reach their goal and didn’t even reach Moscow, and those that they have now will be located not in the west of Germany, but in Estonia. And even those ranges that these missiles can now show in principle are sufficient to defeat the vast majority of targets in the European part of Russia. At the same time, the flight time will not be 7 minutes, but about 2-3. Is this not a threat?

    [quote = Lopatov] It is absolutely not profitable for Russia. As the USSR was not profitable at the time of its signing. [/ Quote]
    It was beneficial to the USSR, and beneficial to Russia. And at the time of signing the contract, and especially now. Such a threatening factor was filmed as the impossibility of making a decision due to the fact that time will be short. Another thing is that thanks to Gorbachev and his Foreign Minister, this agreement was not equal, we destroyed those complexes that were not subject to destruction - operational-tactical. For medium-range missiles, it was beneficial to us, despite the fact that we removed and destroyed a larger number of missiles. The threat was removed, and this was the most important thing at that time.

    [quote = Shovels] They will have to create rockets from scratch. Then create a production, then rivet the rockets themselves [/ quote]
    They will not have to rivet rockets from scratch. They created and tested them a long time ago, and absolutely within the framework of the INF Treaty. This is the HERA missile with a range of approximately 1,2 thousand kilometers, the LRALT missile with a range of more than 2200 km, the MTR-1 missile with a range of 1100 km. So there are missiles, and production is debugged, because these missiles, like the Pioneer at one time, are a couple of ICBM / SLBM stages. Respectively "Minuteman" and "Trident"

    [quote = sibiralt] In fact, the United States has long withdrawn from this treaty, and now they have begun to offer compliance in order to preserve their face and blame Russia for this. Yes, only the train left. You wave to him. hi[/ Quote]
    When and pok a fact? Do not come up with what is not.

    [quote = Orionvit] In my opinion, the de facto US has already withdrawn from all agreements. And for a long time, it is strange that they are only talking about it now. [/ Quote]
    And can you give specific examples of such outputs from all agreements?
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 25 June 2017 10: 28
      0
      Quote: Old26
      And can you give specific examples of such outputs from all agreements?

      It seems to you that they have already been brought to you.
  18. Old26
    Old26 25 June 2017 10: 28
    0
    Quote: MPK105
    This has long been clear to everyone, what kind of agreements with them?

    Well, of course. What kind of contracts. We have three in the country who, unlike some of those who write in VO, do not understand this and believe that the contracts are beneficial and that both parties comply with them. This is the Supreme Commander-in-Chief (aka the President), this is the Minister of Defense and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Well, they do not understand that these treaties cannot be concluded with the Americans. what they cheat anyway. And this trinity is so naive that they don’t think so

    Quote: Vladimir16
    Your statements are as rabid as the paranoid in the United States who want to withdraw from the treaty. The only difference is that you are Russian (not a fact). But the blizzard is worse than McCain. He has at least some light in his head. And you, what except the media information?

    good

    Quote: Spade
    The United States clearly already at least two times violated the INF Treaty, without even hiding it.

    Well, with launchers - this is a well-known trend (and nonsense at the same time). What’s the second?

    Quote: donavi49
    For bases with axes this is not necessary. Just put the MK-41 on the foundation with the supply of necessary communications and sheathe it. Everything. The main thing that Rateon Toporov has done. And the build speed quickly rests on this. For MK41 they can remove from decommissioned ships, marafet and install on a ground base. The technology has already been developed.

    Again, they already work and even appeared in the media - LRPF (499 km - yeah, they would have written 499.99 more laughing). And there is a mobile complex.

    Well, not so much and they write off ships with Mk-41 launchers. And you correctly noticed that radars (quite complex and expensive) for bases that were originally planned as bases and KLNB they are not needed. But what about the range of the LRPF rocket lit up at 499 km - so everything is clear. Illuminate the range of 500 km - it would be a violation of the contract. Well, +/- a dozen kilometers - nonsense

    Quote: Spade
    For the first strike, it makes no difference whether the missiles are on land launchers, or on planes, as they are now. Rather, aircraft are preferable.
    Ground PU - for retaliatory strike are necessary. That is to us.

    Then why do we with foam at the mouth claim that these are the launchers for the first, preventive strike, since there will be Axes?

    Quote: donavi49
    Not. Preferred are those media that can provide surprise.
    An exit to the sea of ​​the fleet - it will not work. And one-two-three, even five destroyers (the usual finding) and AUG (for example, cover exercises) - they won’t do anything.
    The rise of the armada B-52 into the air - it will not work. And this again will give time. Larger than necessary on the other side.
    That remains submarines and ground carriers ideal for a first strike. For they can shoot back at the command - giving the enemy time, exactly as much as the already launched missiles.

    I agree with many of your points. Except for the fact that ground carriers (in this case) are stationary launchers, which everyone means also will not do the weather. In total of, launchers, there will be 48

    Quote: Yak28
    But I remember in the late 80s and early 90s, Russia was actively unloading, showing how they sawed off tails from planes, from strategic bombers to fighters, sawed up submarines and missiles. Did the US do the same? Or did they send equipment for conservation? I just got it the feeling that Russia always destroys more weapons than its sworn friends

    Actively disarmed in the early 90's? And cut it? But nothing that the supply of "Topol" ended around 1994. And about the same time the supplies to the Voivode’s troops ended? They started cutting sooner towards the end of the 90s, the beginning of the 2000s. And they were cut mostly not in our country, but in Ukraine. It was there that the “tails” of TU-22M2 / 3, TU-160-m were chopped off. fighter is not affected. A large number of boats were launched, which is understandable. Leaving boats with a range of 3-6 thousand kilometers in service, monoblocks is stupid. But in the 2000s, it ended. But the reductions were on both our and the American side. Here it’s not necessary to invent stupid things. For example, B-52G bombers were displayed - they were brought into a non-flying state. As, in principle, our cars of Myasishchev (chopped off tails). Their missiles were also utilized. Just how they destroyed their own - we showed almost every day, How the Americans did - is extremely rare.
    Sometimes they destroyed more weapons because more Americans had riveted up to that, for example, deployed 108 Pershing launchers and 4,5 hundred Griffons. That is, about 600 in total, including spare ones. But we deployed only “Pioneers” of about 650, plus 100 more at that time were not deployed, plus 100 pieces remained in service, if not more than R-12 (I do not think of R-14, there were a couple of dozen of them left). And when they agreed to “Zero” - yes, we had to eliminate a lot more carriers and even more warheads than the Americans

    Quote: RED PARTISAN
    And what remains for us? Do you propose to wait for Russia to be hit first? The INF Treaty allows the United States to strike, which is capable of destroying a significant part of our land-based launchers. A short flight time (5-6 minutes) will not allow a retaliatory strike, and the retaliatory strike will be significantly weakened.

    A significant part? Strategists? Oh well. Especially ridiculed by the destruction of our ground launchers. I’m embarrassed to ask, but are they land-based? Yes, short flight time is not an ice, but according to our leaders, the term for completing a team is about 4 minutes. Even if the team didn’t get somewhere, there are Siren missile systems. They are just for such cases.
    missiles in Nicaragua and Cuba. And you asked the Cubans and Nicaraguans if they would like to have our missiles there in order to be the first to burn out in a nuclear war. After all, these missiles will be the primary goals that the enemy will try to destroy

    Quote: bald
    The INF Treaty was carried out unilaterally (at least recall the cut of launchers). And what both sides now have, so it already covers (circumvents) the INF. As the law says, and created to circumvent it.

    Too shy to ask. But did the Americans not launch their Pershing and Griffon launchers? Or did they cut it too? then why is it considered that the execution was one-sided?
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 25 June 2017 10: 45
      0
      Quote: Old26
      Well, with launchers - this is a well-known trend (and nonsense at the same time). What’s the second?

      Well, of course, nonsense. All allegations of violation of international treaties by Americans must be a priori declared nonsense. Because it's the Americans.
      The second is the shock UAV. They were so afraid of the Soviet that in the definition of “cruise missile” from the Treaty, shock UAVs fall entirely
  19. Lukich
    Lukich 25 June 2017 10: 56
    +1
    it’s necessary that the parliament and the Congress be swapped. no one will notice the difference
  20. Makarov
    Makarov 25 June 2017 11: 14
    0
    In Alabama, they are all religious fanatics and nuts ... not surprising
  21. Old26
    Old26 25 June 2017 12: 04
    0
    Quote: Spade
    Well, of course, nonsense. All allegations of violation of international treaties by Americans must be a priori declared nonsense. Because it's the Americans.
    The second is the shock UAV. They were so afraid of the Soviet that in the definition of “cruise missile” from the Treaty, shock UAVs fall entirely

    I have already answered you that all these US accusations of violating the treaty are of the type “violation of the spirit of the treaty”, and by no means a violation of the “Letter” of the treaty, that is, a specific article. And you and the Amernikans have been engaged in this struggle of the Nanai boys for 10 years, no less. We accuse them of violating the INF Treaty on the basis that their cruise missiles can be loaded into these launchers. MAY BE. But not loaded
    They accuse us of launching cruise missiles at the Iskander launcher, which range EXCEED permitted by agreement. Here we also have our media, together with deputies and Internet bloggers, adding fuel to the fire, claiming that the Iskander KR fly to a range of about 2500 km. But at the same time, WE cannot prove that the Americans are violating, because these launchers in Romania have NO cruise missiles, and they cannot prove that the ISkander has missiles with a range of 2500 km. For in the test, she flew to a range of up to 500 km. And all their talk that this is a copy of the "Pomegranate" is just talk. Now they are somewhat silent about the new Russian land-based cruise missile 9M729. Until.
    All this tyagomotin will continue for a very long time. We will accuse them of violating the "spirit" of the contract, they are us

    UAV. Well, do not once again repeat everything that we like to say on TV and print in the media.
    I think you have already cited the most characteristic differences between UAVs and KR. I will cite again.
    1. This is the one-time use (originally laid down) of the use of the RC and the reusability of the UAV (originally laid down)
    2. This is a cruise missile’s lack of rescue equipment in the form of a parachute or landing gear in the form of various types of chassis
    3. The combat unit of the Kyrgyz Republic is structurally a part of this missile itself. For shock UAVs, weapon systems are located either inside the weapons compartment or on the suspension units. This was discussed about 10 years ago at the level of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Defense of both countries, but our media continues to use this bugbear. And some, like Ragozin, too. But the fact remains. None of the agreements recorded that UAVs are cruise missiles.
    I have already quoted that:
    every cruise missile is an unmanned aerial vehicle, but not every unmanned aerial vehicle is a cruise missile
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 25 June 2017 16: 00
      0
      And so, again ...
      Here is a quote:
      2. The term "cruise missile" means an unmanned vehicle equipped with its own propulsion system, the flight of which over most of its trajectory is achieved through the use of aerodynamic lift. The term "ground-based cruise missile (CRNB)" means a ground-based cruise missile, which is a weapon delivery vehicle.

      Nothing else is there. Where did you manage to make out about this quote?
      Quote: Old26
      It is single use

      Quote: Old26
      the absence of a means of rescue in a cruise missile in the form of a parachute or landing means in the form of a chassis of various types

      Quote: Old26
      The warhead of the Kyrgyz Republic is structurally a part of this missile itself. For shock UAVs, weapon systems are located either inside the weapons compartment or on the suspension units.

      Point with your finger.

      And all because the Soviet Union had long-range supersonic unmanned Tu-123s, which could easily be converted into nuclear weapons delivery vehicles that replaced the ALCS. Therefore, the definition of "cruise missile" was included in the Treaty in this form.


      Quote: Old26
      I have already quoted that:
      every cruise missile is an unmanned aerial vehicle, but not every unmanned aerial vehicle is a cruise missile

      You better not quote yourself, but the Agreement. There is no reference to the fact that “parachute rescue equipment” removes the Kyrgyz Republic from the scope of the Treaty.
  22. ver_
    ver_ 25 June 2017 12: 29
    0
    Quote: Spade
    Quote: jonhr
    just them from scratch?

    Only to them. It is enough for us to increase the range of the “Iskanders” by reducing the weight of the warhead — there the “mass reserve” is very large. And reduce the maximum range for the RS-26.
    The backfill question: how many decades ago did the US Air Force receive the latest new ICBM?

    ... how far the Iskanders know only those who are supposed to be in the state, but some people thought about -600 km about the Caliber .. I believe that there are a lot of new things for Iskander, and the Caliber is not as * dead * as rockets for Iskander , which leads to some thoughts on the amount of fuel ...
  23. Swed
    Swed 25 June 2017 12: 46
    +1
    Practice has shown that treaties with the USA are not worth a penny, so finding a reason and getting out of the INF Treaty is a matter of time. Someone believes that this is primarily beneficial to Russia, and you need to be more flexible and do everything so that this treaty continues to exist, but forgets that in the modern world, miserable and miserable are destroyed in the first place.
  24. BOPOH50
    BOPOH50 25 June 2017 12: 57
    0
    The United States is once again substituting Europe, if it doesn’t swallow it, we don’t need to develop anything new either, the SS-20 is even nothing, and there is one at RTOs, and the Tu-22 will again become a missile carrier.
  25. 72jora72
    72jora72 25 June 2017 13: 09
    +1
    Quote: karish
    How can Russia respond to this?

    If such a steep batch begins, then Israel will certainly not live to the point when the winner will emerge in the World War .....
  26. ver_
    ver_ 25 June 2017 13: 41
    0
    Quote: here you go
    what is our choice? become hohlastan?

    ... shoot the alarmist .., or deprive him of sweets for a week ..
  27. Old26
    Old26 25 June 2017 19: 25
    0
    Quote: Spade
    Point with your finger.

    Look for it. EMNIP could be on the "arm control" or a similar resource