Search Results
7/26/2025, 8:06:50 PM
>>64033268
The terms of the INF Treaty only applied to the United States and USSR/Russia, and the US' unilaterally removing its IRBMs and cruise missiles from Europe was a controversial decision to the rest of NATO.
The reasons why the rest of NATO lack longer-ranged ground-based missiles vary, but some of the more important ones are:
1. The UK and France switched to submarine-based nuclear deterrents decades ago
2. NATO countries with nuclear-sharing agreements with the US (Italy, Belgium, Turkey, and Germany) could buy American delivery systems which until the 1987 INF Treaty included intermediate range missiles (picrel is a West German Pershing 1, the RAF had the Thor) or allow American missiles on their territory (Turkey and Italy with the USAF's Jupiter IRBM)
3. Air-launched cruise missiles were more flexible, versatile, and cost-effective especially in the post-Cold War era where budgets were tight and any foreseeable conflict was going to be fought further afield
The terms of the INF Treaty only applied to the United States and USSR/Russia, and the US' unilaterally removing its IRBMs and cruise missiles from Europe was a controversial decision to the rest of NATO.
The reasons why the rest of NATO lack longer-ranged ground-based missiles vary, but some of the more important ones are:
1. The UK and France switched to submarine-based nuclear deterrents decades ago
2. NATO countries with nuclear-sharing agreements with the US (Italy, Belgium, Turkey, and Germany) could buy American delivery systems which until the 1987 INF Treaty included intermediate range missiles (picrel is a West German Pershing 1, the RAF had the Thor) or allow American missiles on their territory (Turkey and Italy with the USAF's Jupiter IRBM)
3. Air-launched cruise missiles were more flexible, versatile, and cost-effective especially in the post-Cold War era where budgets were tight and any foreseeable conflict was going to be fought further afield
Page 1