Vi skal værne om de internationale aftaler som forhindre et yderligere våbenkapløb, modsat vil en afskaffelse af INF-aftalen bringe New START forhandlingerne i fare.
Verden har ikke brug for mindre våbenkontrol, men mere kontrol med våben.
Nu kun 22 dage tilbage
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, CND
D. 11/1 - 2019
Just 22 days left for our government to speak out to #SaveTheINF. And if the INF is scrapped, it is crucial that the Prime Minister guarantees that Britain will not play host to US nuclear missiles again.
Russia is ready to discuss mutual inspections with the United States in order to save the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty, RIA news agency cited Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs as saying on Friday.
MOSCOW (Reuters) d. 14/12 - 2018
“If the United States really wants to come to some kind of agreement with us, then we need to sit down at the negotiating table in an inter-agency format and agree on everything in detail. We are ready for this,” foreign ministry official Vladimir Yermakov was cited as saying.
Læs hele artiklen
The Peace Movement Won the INF Treaty. We Must Fight to Preserve It.
In the 1980s, millions of antinuclear activists took to the streets, forcing Western governments to respond to our demands. We can do the same now.
The Nation By David Cortright d. 4/11 2018
The White House proposal to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) has been widely criticized, for good reason. Former military officials and diplomats have described the agreement as a “bedrock” of arms control. The 1987 treaty eliminated thousands of deadly medium-range missiles in Europe and helped to end the Cold War. The Trump administration alleges that the agreement is flawed and that Moscow is cheating, but if there is a problem, the answer is to try to fix the treaty rather than walk away from it. Scrapping the agreement would undermine international security, the former officials warn, and could prompt a new arms race in Europe.
Progressives have also blasted the proposal. Win Without War director Stephen Miles said that abandoning the agreement could increase the risk of nuclear war and called upon Congress to deny funding for any weapons that violate the treaty.
The INF agreement occupies a special place in peace history. The treaty was a response to and result of the massive nuclear-disarmament movements that swept across Europe and the United States in the 1980s. In some respects the peace movement owns this agreement, and we must do what we can to ensure it is not taken away.
Let’s review the history. Beginning in 1979, as the Soviet Union deployed SS-20 missiles in Eastern Europe and NATO prepared to deploy new cruise and Pershing missiles in the West, millions of people took to the streets to demand an end to an accelerating arms race that put Europe in the nuclear crosshairs. In 1981 and again in 1983, massive protest marches occurred all across Western Europe—the largest rallies in postwar European history. In the United States, the nuclear-freeze movement spread like a populist prairie fire. Hundreds of cities and towns and nine states conducted public referendums calling for a halt to US and Soviet nuclear-weapons development. In June 1982 close to a million people converged on New York’s Central Park for the Rally to Freeze and Reverse the Arms Race, the largest peace rally in American history...
Læs hele artiklen
I SIPRIs årsrapport for 2018 er INF - aftalen problemmer belyst.
Russian and US policies on the INF Treaty endanger arms control
d. 15/6 - 2018 ved Dr Tytti Erästö and Dr Petr Topychkanov
The 1987 Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles (INF Treaty) is on the verge of collapse. The controversy surrounding the treaty, which mainly stems from the alleged development and testing of prohibited ground-launched cruise missiles (GLCMs) by Russia, has built up over several years and worsened in early 2017 following accusations by the United States that Russia had begun to deploy the missiles during 2016. Russia has rejected the accusations and countered with its own allegations of US non-compliance with the INF Treaty.
Under the INF Treaty, the original parties (the Soviet Union and the USA) agreed not to possess, produce or flight test a ballistic missile or GLCM with a range capability of 500 to 5500 kilometres, or to possess or produce launchers for such missiles. The treaty thereby helped to reduce the risk of war in Europe and set the stage for subsequent US–Russian strategic arms limitation talks. Consequently, the demise of the INF Treaty could endanger both the bilateral nuclear arms control process, including the arms reduction process under the 2010 Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (New START), and regional security.
Many arms control experts and commentators are pessimistic about the prospects of preserving the INF Treaty. As one commentator put it: ‘both the United States and Russia seem inclined to let the INF Treaty collapse.’ Attempts to resolve the dispute using the treaty’s dispute-resolution mechanism, known as the Special Verification Commission (SVC), have so far been unsuccessful. As a result of this and the more general deterioration of relations between Russia and the West in recent years, the USA’s focus has increasingly shifted from pursuing diplomatic options to punishing Russia, mainly through the use of sanctions. However, such responses not only might fail to have the desired effect of incentivizing Russia to return to compliance with the INF Treaty (if indeed there has been a violation), but also might aggravate the dispute and further heighten tensions. Arguably, a more desirable approach to preserving the INF Treaty would be through strengthening the bilateral arms control mechanisms and practices, and by moving from mutual recriminations to reciprocal efforts to address relevant concerns.
Accusations
According to a 2015 US intelligence assessment, Russia began tests of the prohibited GLCM about 10 years ago. The USA first raised the issue with Russia in 2013, and notified its North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies in 2015. On 8 March 2017 the Vice Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Paul Selva, confirmed that Russia had deployed a GLCM that violated ‘the spirit and intent’ of the INF Treaty. He believed that the purpose of the deployment was ‘to pose a threat to NATO and to facilities within the NATO area of responsibility’.
Apart from the US-designated code name ‘SSC-8’ (the Russian designation is 9M729), little is publicly known about the technical details of Russia’s new cruise missile. There nevertheless seems to be broad agreement that the SSC-8 resembles the intermediate-range Kalibr sea-launched cruise missile (SLCM), and that it might be a part of the Iskander system, used (in compliance with the INF Treaty) for short-range ballistic and cruise missiles. The latter assumption implies that the SSC-8 uses the same road-mobile launcher as short-range Iskander missiles, posing a problem for US satellite surveillance.
Russia has denied the allegations and has criticized the USA’s refusal to provide evidence. It argues that the USA is itself violating the INF Treaty—notably due to the USA’s deployment of Mk-41 launchers at the ballistic missile defence (BMD) site in Romania and the planned deployment of such launchers at the BMD site in Poland, after its completion by 2020.[1] More specifically, Russia argues that the launchers—which are essentially the same as those used for SLCMs—could be used as a delivery vehicle for intermediate-range Tomahawk cruise missiles, making them incompatible with the INF Treaty.
Læs hele analysen
Kozmetsky Center Brifin Series:
INF: The Path Forward
Link til artiklen - lang. |
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, CND
Background
President Trump has announced that he will withdraw the US from the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Force (INF) Treaty with Russia on February 2nd, unless Russia displays full compliance. While CND calls on both Russia and the US to fully comply with the terms of the INF, threatening to withdraw from the treaty in 60 days rather than proposing negotiations to resolve the outstanding issues is a risky decision.
The INF is a vital nuclear treaty which has ensured the destruction of nearly 2,700 short- and medium-range missiles and has played a crucial role in ensuring that US missiles are not situated in Europe.
This withdrawal from the INF treaty is part of a wider pattern of the US disengaging from essential international nuclear treaties. Earlier this year, the US withdrew from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, removing its support for a treaty which sought to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
Furthermore, the US withdrawal from the INF treaty also calls into question whether Washington will work with Moscow to renew the New START treaty in 2021, when it is due to expire. The New START treaty, signed in 2010, limits the number of nuclear warheads of both Russia and the US to no more than 700.
This treaty is therefore crucial for preventing a global arms race and ensuring nuclear de-escalation. However, given the US’ current attitude towards global agreements it is now uncertain whether Washington will continue to limit its nuclear weapons through engagement in the process of renewing New START.
Read more about why Trump is making the world a more dangerous place
Britain has an important role to play in this crisis. It should be encouraging a diplomatic solution to the crisis, rather than fanning the flames that can lead to nuclear war. Standing by and allowing crucial nuclear arms control agreements to be torn up places the whole world in great danger.
It’s important to act now. Together we can make sure that our calls for a safer world are heard.
Link til deres webside.
Save the INF treaty
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, CND
Offentliggjort den 7. jan. 2019
se video
Se CNDs aktion side.
Thousands of you wrote to the Foreign Minister to ask what the British government was doing to save the INF. The Foreign & Commonwealth Office has replied. Below is their reply.
We’re sure you’ll agree, this isn’t an adequate response. We were a preparing a new letter to highlight the concerns that haven’t been addressed. We’ll announce details of our new letter shortly.
Læs svaret her.
eller nedenfor:
Security Policy Department King Charles Street
London,
SW1A2AH,
www.gov.uk/fco
D. 21 December 2018
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Mordechai Vanunu House
162 Holloway Road
London
N78DQ
Our reference: CMP-31697-2018 and MOP-33044-2018
Dear Sir/ Madam,
I am writing in response to a series of !etters, prompted by your organisation, that we have received on nuclear treaties. I am also responding to your letter of 10 December to the Foreign Secretary about the lntermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.
Further to my letter of 29 November 2018 to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, I would like to reiterate that the UK Government supports effective international arms control agreements thai help control or reduce nuclear weapons around the world.
The INF Treaty has made an important contribution to Euro-Atlantic security for over 30
years. However, Russia has pursued new missiles in violation of the Treaty. The US, which is in full compliance, has raised concerns with Russia over a number of years, under both the Obama and Trump administrations. Russia has provided no credible response to this, only obfuscation and contradictions, designed to mislead. It is therefore Russia's consistent
failure to respect its Treaty obligations thai has led to the current situation, not any recent
announcements by the US. As stated in my previous letter, a situation where the US is
abiding by the Treaty, and Russia is not, is not sustainable.
The UK, along with our NATO Allies, has supported US efforts to bring Russia back to full and verifiable compliance, including through the NATO Summit Declaration in July, at the NATO-Russia Council in October and most recently at the NATO Foreign Ministers' on 4 December. At thai meeting, Allies released a statement which noted thai "We strongly support the finding of the United States that Russia is in material breach of its obligations under the INF Treaty" and "We call on Russia to return urgently to full and .verifiable compliance. It is now up to Russia to preserve the INF Treaty."
Since the NATO statement and the recent US announcement about suspension of the Treaty, we do not believe thai Russia has made any meaningful effort to engage constructively with the US to save the Treaty. Russia's development of treaty-violating
missiles has not only put the INF Treaty at risk, but it is also undermining the future prospects for other arms control. Neither the UK, nor any of our European Allies, are party to the INF Treaty, but we will work with all of our Allies to consider the security implications of Russia's destabilising behaviour. Moreover, we will continue to support a constructive dialogue between the· US and Russia.
On New START, we were pleased to see both sides meet the Treaty !imitations by the deadline earlier this year and believe thai continued implementation is important. The Treaty contributes to international stability, and we support early and active dialogue on ways to improve strategic stability.
Yours sincerely,
Adam Sambrook
Deputy Head, Security Policy Department
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|
