China could lose 95% of ballistic, cruise missiles under strategic arms control

[Get Ya Wig Split]

China could lose 95% of ballistic, cruise missiles under strategic arms control pact, says new analysis​

MELBOURNE, Australia — China could stand to lose almost all of its ballistic and cruise missiles if it were to sign a new strategic arms control treaty, according to a new regional security assessment.

The analysis, titled “The End of the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty: Implications for Asia,” is one of the chapters of the annual Asia-Pacific regional security assessment published by the International Institute for Strategic Studies think tank. IISS’ report was released June 5 and covered regional security topics such as Sino-U.S. relations, North Korea and Japanese policy.

China could lose 95 percent of its ballistic and cruise missile stockpile if it signs a treaty similar to the 1980s Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, according to the chapter’s co-authors Douglas Barrie, a senior fellow focused on military air power; Michael Elleman, the director of the Non-Proliferation and Nuclear Policy Program; and Meia Nouwens, a research fellow focused on Chinese defense policy and military modernization.

The treaty, signed between by the United States and the Soviet Union in 1987, banned all ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles systems with ranges between 310 and 3,420 miles (500-5,500 kilometres). The U.S. withdrew from the INF Treaty in August 2019, citing Russian violations of the agreement with its development and fielding of the 9M279 missile, although Russia denies that the missile violated range restrictions.

However, the IISS report suggested the U.S. withdrawal was done with an eye toward China’s missile arsenal, which has grown to what is believed to be the world’s largest inventory of short- and medium-range ballistic missiles. IISS’ own figures estimate China possesses more than 2,200 missiles that fall under the INF Treaty’s restrictions.

These short- and medium-range missiles are important assets in exerting pressure on Taiwan, which China sees as a rogue province and has vowed to reunite with the mainland, by force if necessary, although it continues to describe its fielding of ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles as solely for defensive purposes.

Given these missiles provide China with what Barrie described as a “comparative advantage” in the region, it’s unlikely the country would willingly sign a potential arms control treaty like the INF Treaty.

The U.S, for its part, has already started testing missiles previously prohibited by the treaty, and there have been suggestions that the country might deploy such missiles to the Asia-Pacific region to address an imbalance in such weapons between itself and its rivals without solely relying on air- and sea-launched cruise missiles. (Those cruise missiles existed under the INF Treaty, as they did not violate the pact.)

The report cautioned there is a two-fold risk in deploying such weapons to the Asia-Pacific. Chief among those: exacerbating Chinese concerns that the missiles will be positioned for use against it, increasing the potential for a response from China that could lead to an “action-reaction cycle of weapons development and deployment” and continued regional instability.

The U.S. is also faced with the quandary of basing any potential INF-busting systems, with regional allies and partners unlikely to accede to locating such missiles on their territory, partly because of the diplomatic and economic reprisals Beijing could inflict on them. And there’s precedent here: China targeted South Korea’s economy in response to and expressed its distaste at the deployment of a U.S. missile defense system on South Korean soil in 2017.

As for the U.S. territory of Guam, basing missiles there would limit their utility due to the distances involved.

The IISS report also raised questions about whether U.S. moves to develop and deploy weapons previously prohibited by the INF Treaty will bring China to the arms control negotiating table. However, the think tank conceded that not deploying such weapons is also unlikely to persuade China, noting that that Beijing has shown little appetite for participating in any form of strategic and regional arms control.

https://www.defensenews.com/global/...trategic-arms-control-pact-says-new-analysis/

 

[Aspen]

Most delusional thing I've seen all week

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

WTH. why would they sign this treaty.

 

[Oracle]

?And china will sign that treaty because Australia and other nations couldnt make such weapons? its China ... not Russia ... world economy is dependent on chinese economy

when West intervene killing 10-15 million chines in civil war , china struggles ... it lost taiwan

now china is roaring as economic and military power. and all allies of west are crying because if chine will start sanctioning imports then they are gone and they know USA might not come to rescue them for economic hurdles

 

[Enigma SIG]

US is tearing up all international commitments. Why would China castrate itself?

 

[PakFactor]

No one would be stupid enough to sign this sort of garbage especially the Chinese.

 

[truthseeker2010]

China could lose 95% of ballistic, cruise missiles under strategic arms control pact, says new analysis​

MELBOURNE, Australia — China could stand to lose almost all of its ballistic and cruise missiles if it were to sign a new strategic arms control treaty, according to a new regional security assessment.

The analysis, titled “The End of the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty: Implications for Asia,” is one of the chapters of the annual Asia-Pacific regional security assessment published by the International Institute for Strategic Studies think tank. IISS’ report was released June 5 and covered regional security topics such as Sino-U.S. relations, North Korea and Japanese policy.

China could lose 95 percent of its ballistic and cruise missile stockpile if it signs a treaty similar to the 1980s Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, according to the chapter’s co-authors Douglas Barrie, a senior fellow focused on military air power; Michael Elleman, the director of the Non-Proliferation and Nuclear Policy Program; and Meia Nouwens, a research fellow focused on Chinese defense policy and military modernization.

The treaty, signed between by the United States and the Soviet Union in 1987, banned all ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles systems with ranges between 310 and 3,420 miles (500-5,500 kilometres). The U.S. withdrew from the INF Treaty in August 2019, citing Russian violations of the agreement with its development and fielding of the 9M279 missile, although Russia denies that the missile violated range restrictions.

However, the IISS report suggested the U.S. withdrawal was done with an eye toward China’s missile arsenal, which has grown to what is believed to be the world’s largest inventory of short- and medium-range ballistic missiles. IISS’ own figures estimate China possesses more than 2,200 missiles that fall under the INF Treaty’s restrictions.

These short- and medium-range missiles are important assets in exerting pressure on Taiwan, which China sees as a rogue province and has vowed to reunite with the mainland, by force if necessary, although it continues to describe its fielding of ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles as solely for defensive purposes.

Given these missiles provide China with what Barrie described as a “comparative advantage” in the region, it’s unlikely the country would willingly sign a potential arms control treaty like the INF Treaty.

The U.S, for its part, has already started testing missiles previously prohibited by the treaty, and there have been suggestions that the country might deploy such missiles to the Asia-Pacific region to address an imbalance in such weapons between itself and its rivals without solely relying on air- and sea-launched cruise missiles. (Those cruise missiles existed under the INF Treaty, as they did not violate the pact.)

The report cautioned there is a two-fold risk in deploying such weapons to the Asia-Pacific. Chief among those: exacerbating Chinese concerns that the missiles will be positioned for use against it, increasing the potential for a response from China that could lead to an “action-reaction cycle of weapons development and deployment” and continued regional instability.

The U.S. is also faced with the quandary of basing any potential INF-busting systems, with regional allies and partners unlikely to accede to locating such missiles on their territory, partly because of the diplomatic and economic reprisals Beijing could inflict on them. And there’s precedent here: China targeted South Korea’s economy in response to and expressed its distaste at the deployment of a U.S. missile defense system on South Korean soil in 2017.

As for the U.S. territory of Guam, basing missiles there would limit their utility due to the distances involved.

The IISS report also raised questions about whether U.S. moves to develop and deploy weapons previously prohibited by the INF Treaty will bring China to the arms control negotiating table. However, the think tank conceded that not deploying such weapons is also unlikely to persuade China, noting that that Beijing has shown little appetite for participating in any form of strategic and regional arms control.

https://www.defensenews.com/global/...trategic-arms-control-pact-says-new-analysis/

I think you have w*** to much to halle berry! you should look for some other now!

 

[Oldman1]

WTH. why would they sign this treaty.

China won't sign it no matter what. However, China wanted us to stay in the INF Treaty. Should thank the Russians for giving us the excuse to pull out when they developed the new ground base cruise missile that exceeded the range limit. And don't think we lied about it because the U.S. was watching its development and saw its true range during the tests.

 

[zhxy]

China won't sign it no matter what. However, China wanted us to stay in the INF Treaty. Should thank the Russians for giving us the excuse to pull out when they developed the new ground base cruise missile that exceeded the range limit. And don't think we lied about it because the U.S. was watching its development and saw its true range during the tests.

I think the Chinese government doesn't care about that. But they did not say "I don't care" or "the United States should withdraw from the INF treaty". The treaty is just a piece of paper, and no one is serious about it. It is wrong to think that you can tie your opponent to a treaty. The INF treaty benefited the US, so they signed it, and now when they saw that it was not beneficial, they withdrew. The future, who knows.

 

[ChennaiDude]

WTH. why would they sign this treaty.

This is a check mate- This will give the US to also develop and exceed what China has- This is give the US the license to scrap the INF treaty.

 

[Oldman1]

I think the Chinese government doesn't care about that. But they did not say "I don't care" or "the United States should withdraw from the INF treaty". The treaty is just a piece of paper, and no one is serious about it. It is wrong to think that you can tie your opponent to a treaty. The INF treaty benefited the US, so they signed it, and now when they saw that it was not beneficial, they withdrew. The future, who knows.

Oh China does care. Believe me. With the INF treaty gone, it opens up to possibilities in Asia-Pacific region and balances out what China has. China knows that. Thats why they criticize the U.S. pullout of the treaty.

 

[zhxy]

Oh China does care. Believe me. With the INF treaty gone, it opens up to possibilities in Asia-Pacific region and balances out what China has. China knows that. Thats why they criticize the U.S. pullout of the treaty.

If China signs a new INF treaty, it will fall into the trap of the United States. But if they do not sign, the United States will have an excuse to blame China.

 

[Get Ya Wig Split]

I think the Chinese government doesn't care about that. But they did not say "I don't care" or "the United States should withdraw from the INF treaty". The treaty is just a piece of paper, and no one is serious about it. It is wrong to think that you can tie your opponent to a treaty. The INF treaty benefited the US, so they signed it, and now when they saw that it was not beneficial, they withdrew. The future, who knows.

Doesn't matter at all!

With INF Treaty dead, Esper seeks new missiles in the Pacific. Is Capitol Hill on board?
https://www.defensenews.com/congres...ific-based-missiles-is-capitol-hill-on-board/

US Military To Soon Deploy Mid-Range Missiles In Asia

 

[KeyBORED Warrior]

95% u say. And what do u intend to do about the 5%? Pray to dear God that they don't send 'em towards Washington? The Chinese can as well assemble a 100 such missiles in a short period of time as their work ethic is freakishly above normal human capabilities. They have build bridges, buildings, roads, weapons etc in record time. The US is knows its screwed and its almost at the brink but no superpower wants to accept a reality in which it isn't regarded as one. It'll take time for the US to adjust to this paradigm shift.

 

[Oldman1]

If China signs a new INF treaty, it will fall into the trap of the United States. But if they do not sign, the United States will have an excuse to blame China.

Exactly. Since China won't sign it, and they obviously wont, the U.S. pulls out of the treaty and balances it out.