Russian Violations of the INF Treaty: After Detection - What? Hearing Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, Second Session, July 17, 2014 [open pdf - 3MB]
This testimony compilation is from the July 17, 2014 hearing on "Russian Violations of the INF Treaty: After Detection - What?" held before the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services. From the statement of Steven Pifer: "The 1987 INF [Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces] Treaty is a landmark arms control agreement, which banned an entire class of U.S. and Soviet land-based ballistic and cruise missiles. It enhanced U.S. security by prohibiting Soviet missiles, particularly the multiple-warhead SS-20, which threatened U.S. allies in Europe and Asia, while banning the U.S. Pershing II and ground-launched cruise missiles that Moscow feared. Recently, questions have arisen about Russia--a successor state to the Soviet Union--and its compliance with the treaty. Assertions that the RS-26 ballistic missile violates the treaty appear to have no basis. The reported R-500 cruise missile appears to be of more serious concern, but there is little hard information in open sources about it. A Russian violation of the INF Treaty would be a serious matter and should be treated as such, as should any treaty violation. If Russia is producing, testing and/or deploying new INF missiles, such weapons would--depending on range and deployment location--pose a threat to U.S. allies in Europe and Asia, as well as other states, such as China. They would also threaten U.S. forward-deployed forces. Unless deployed in northeastern Russia, such missiles would not have the range to threaten the United States. […] If Russia has violated the INF Treaty, the United States should continue to observe the treaty's terms, at least for the near term. U.S. withdrawal from the treaty would free Russia from any legal obligation to observe the treaty's limits, and would bring no apparent advantage for the United States." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Steven Pifer, Stephen Rademaker, and Jim Thomas.
U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services: http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/