American assertion that its armed drones do not constitute a violation of the INF Treaty is, to be honest, hilarious. Armed drones are basically cruise missiles that can be flown as desired and that can be used to drop/fire conventional or atomic/nuclear weapons over the kind of distances that are of concern to the INF Treaty. Just because drones look like unmanned aircraft and are called 'drones' rather than 'cruise missiles' doesn't mean that they don't come within the scope of the INF Treaty. America shouldn't underestimate the common sense and intelligence of people of other countries - especially the brilliant people of Russia.
Update [25-Dec-17]: It's interesting that while the US refuses to accept Russia's [correct] conclusion that American armed unmanned drones are "effectively" equivalent to cruise missiles, the same US [correctly] sees and complains about China's artificial islands as "permanent aircraft carriers". Unsurprising double-standards from America.
Update [25-Dec-17]: It's interesting that while the US refuses to accept Russia's [correct] conclusion that American armed unmanned drones are "effectively" equivalent to cruise missiles, the same US [correctly] sees and complains about China's artificial islands as "permanent aircraft carriers". Unsurprising double-standards from America.
No comments:
Post a Comment