This is pretty terrifying, but weren't we already living in a world where sub mounted cruise missiles could bypass most defense systems? Anybody know a lot about modern ICBM strategy?
With a SLAM spewing radiation as it goes, however, you're stuffed either way.
For the US, if a missile coming from the east is shot down over the Atlantic, radiation would probably hit Europe and Russia rather than the US.
Surely there are no private citizens buying ballistic missile defence weapons and if a nation state had enough resources to consider buying something like this, would they not also have enough resources that they wouldn't be searching for their defense armament online?
If you ride the DC Metro through the Pentagon stop, you’ll see a lot of ads for high-end weapons systems where other subway systems might have ads for lawyers and universities and such. It’s amusing and peculiar.
Is INF the treaty you are mentioning being ignored? Is Russia's announcement a direct response to the USA's? Disappointed that recent history hasn't been even mentioned in most reporting around the announcement -- it's a pretty shocking headline to wake up to without context.
[1] https://www.defensenews.com/space/2018/02/02/the-us-could-be... [2] https://www.defensenews.com/space/2018/02/06/will-the-us-tra...
No, the US had nuclear cruise missiles deployable on subs since the 1980s or possibly 1970s (I can't find a good date for introduction of the TLAM-N, only that development began 1972 and it was announced they would be transfered to storage in 1991 and they were retired between 2010 and 2013.)
What your source reports is a recommendation to introduce a new nuclear cruise missiles replacing the retired TLAM-N.