INF Treaty (wiki)
It was also reported that the United States' need to counter a Chinese arms buildup in the Pacific was another reason for their move to withdraw, because China is not a signatory to the treaty.[51][52][50] US officials extending back to Obama period have noted this. For example, Kelly Magsamen, who helped craft the Pentagon's Asian policy under the Obama administration, said China's ability to work outside of the INF treaty had vexed policymakers in Washington, long before Trump came into office.[54] A Politico article noted the different responses US officials gave to this issue: "either find ways to bring China into the treaty or develop new American weapons to counter it" or "negotiating a new treaty with that country."[55]
The Chinese Foreign Ministry said a unilateral U.S. withdrawal would have a negative impact and urged the United States to "think thrice before acting."[54] John R. Bolton said on Echo of Moscow that recent Chinese statements suggest it wanted Washington to stay in the treaty. Saying "Why not have the Americans bound, and the Chinese not bound?"[54]
Ongoing anti-missile tests by the US[edit]
On 11 December 2018, the US tested an SM-3 Block IIA missile against an intermediate-range ballistic missile target in space from its Hawaii-based Aegis Ashore facility. This was the second successful test, after two previous failures of the SM-3, meaning that at least four targets have been fired in the current test regime. While not nuclear weapons, the target missiles are of the type banned under the INF. The Missile Defense Agency said the missile was fired by a U.S. Air Force C-17 "thousands of miles southwest of the Aegis Ashore test site that launched the SM-3 Block IIA interceptor."[65]
also… Q has asked many times ‘why are the ports important?’ ID’s LB, who runs LB? who is suppling MX with the drugs coming over the boarder? about 04/18 a number of note(ables) on shipping con(tain)er launch.ers… and that EVER green name…