South Front, Say What!?

On the heels of my yesterday's piece on expertise, South Front decided to test the limits. I understand that everyone (not really) is upset about INF Treaty's death and are eager to capitalize on clickbait doom-spelling scenarios, but this is too much, when South Front and whoever are these guys states this:

Furthermore, with the release of Russia and the United States from the INF Treaty, the START-3 (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) loses its meaning, and as a result, the entire non-proliferation system starts to collapse. Europe and especially its eastern countries become hostage to the created situation. This fact will greatly complicate the already quite complex US relations with its European allies. As for the US, the consequences of the exit for them will not be as dire as they would be for Russia. In the event of a conflict, only the bases and locations of the US Armed Forces in Europe would be in range of intermediate and shorter range missiles. Russia on the other hand, cannot provide a reciprocal answer to the US withdrawal from the INF Treaty. Russia does not have military bases near US territory, where a large number of intermediate and shorter range missiles could be deployed.

Say what!? I'll have South Front know that they just insulted a truckload of people serving at extremely well-known to me Kamchatka Peninsula, as well as insulted people who in 1970s developed Intermediate-Range (5,500 kilometers) RSD-10 Pioner ballistic missile (currently displayed at Smithsonian) which was planned to deploy at Chukotka Peninsula which is extremely near the United States, the closest is 80 kilometers. It was the threat to deploy this missile there (drum roll--near the United States) which convinced the United States to seat at the negotiating table. It took only moron Gorbachev to fail at those negotiations but the impetus for the US was a threat of precisely Soviet/Russian military bases in the American backyard. This simple fact of geography somehow escaped "analysts" at South Front and I am wondering if it is done for a reason. 

Of course it is very easy to use Google Maps and measure distance, say from around Pevek to Washington State to figure out that from there, or from Anadyr, 5,000 kilometer range missile covers pretty much half of the Northern United States. What it would take Russia to deploy newest missiles there? Not that much, really, after all Anadyr, while an extreme place, is a perfectly operational port and arrival of serious missile forces there will greatly enliven this place. As I said, Russia has plenty of geographic and technological options to respond immediately to the attack from Europe on Russia and this response will be at US territory. I hope US military will explain to lawyers, political "scientists" and journos infesting D.C. corridors of power what it all does mean for them. But in general, I deplore sensationalism and panic-stricken "analysis" proclaiming an impending doom--we are not there yet, and we may never get there (hopefully) precisely for the reasons of Russia being ready and not having a traitor in Kremlin. Something tells me that there are still good chances to convince the US in its vulnerability. 

P.S. In a grimly ironic twist of fate, the inter-mediate range missile with the range of 5,000 kilometers launched from around Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky still can hit Seattle, isn't life a bitch--to die from own Russian missile;-) So, let's not allow this scenario to become a reality.   

UPDATE: There was some misunderstanding among people on Colonel Lang's discussion board about what's the deal with Kamchatka and, especially, Chukotka's possible deployment of intermediate range missiles. Since Earth has a spherical (ellipsoid really) shape, here is simplest use of Google Maps to demonstrate that Chukotka's sites cover all US West Coast, while Kamchatka deployment easily reaches Hawaii.