I'm sorry, but the arguments in this thread make no sense. "While the wording differs, in both cases the underlying criterion is the missile’s tested capability". If the negotiators had wanted the same criterion for GLBMs and GLCMs, they could have easily written it that way. 1/5
The fact that GLBM range capability was determined by the range at which the missile was tested is an unfortunate aspect of the treaty, but understandable. Neither side was willing to accept the intrusive inspections that would have been required to verify the theoretical range of GLBMs. 2/5
For GLCMs, maximum range is much simpler to determine, as it is almost entirely a function of engine efficiency and fuel load. No intrusive testing is needed to establish this, as I, and others before me, have demonstrated. 3/5
So once more: we can absolutely determine who is right and wrong when it comes to the 9M729. While calculating the exact range is difficult, it is clear that Russia had explaining to do, and it simply could not or would not provide it. 4/5 bsky.app/profile/kady...
Would we be having the same discussion if the US had deployed Tomahawk CMs on a ground-mobile launcher in 2014, but claimed the range was magically below the theoretical maximum simply because it hadn’t tested them beyond 500 km? It would have been just as preposterous then as this is now. 5/5
💯 ‼️