 |
| Under the INF Treaty the U.S. destroyed 846 missiles, while the Soviets destroyed 1,846. |
On
February 1, the Trump administration took another step in the direction of
making the world a more dangerous place. By withdrawing from the Intermediate
Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, agreed to by Presidents Reagan and Gorbachev in
1987, Trump is setting the stage for a new, dangerous and expensive, nuclear
arms race.
The
INF Treaty was a major step forward in ratcheting down Cold War tensions. It is
the only arms control agreement that eliminated an entire class of weapons, land-based
missiles with a range of 500-5,500 km (310-3,420 miles). This led to the
elimination and destruction of 2,692 missiles.
This
class of weapons is especially dangerous and they have the ability to reach
their targets in just a handful of minutes, and thus are seen as first-strike
capable. This also means that an adversary might put their missiles in a
hair-trigger, launch-on-warning mode, and this increases the likelihood of
accidental or mistaken launches with disastrous consequences.
The
situation is further complicated by the fact that the INF Treaty was negotiated
in the context of the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. both abiding to the terms of the 1972
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Unfortunately, in 2002 George W. Bush withdrew
the U.S. from this treaty, and the U.S. began installing “missile defense”
systems in some of the new NATO countries of Eastern Europe.
While
“missile defense” sounds both harmless and difficult to accomplish, in fact it would
be most effective not for true defense, but as part of an offensive first
strike strategy. If a surprise attack on an adversary knocks out a significant
fraction of their nuclear arsenal, a defense system, that would likely be
overwhelmed by a full-blown attack, might be effective in handling an
attenuated and expected retaliatory strike.
The Nuanced Present Moment
The
U.S. has maintained for several years that Russia’s new missiles violate the
treaty. Russia disputes this and claims that the U.S. is out of compliance. In
our opinion the dispute should be resolved through negotiations. The INF Treaty
should not be scrapped.
But
this is part of a dangerous pattern. Since entering office, the Trump
administration has not only withdrawn from this important arms control
agreement. They also have pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal, heightening
tensions in the Middle East, despite the fact that the U.S. intelligence
community has verified that Iran is in compliance. And on another important
track, they are in the process of pulling the U.S. out of the Paris Climate
Accord.
It
seems that Trump thrives on creating international tension. This dovetails
nicely with increasing military budgets, which Trump has pushed since Day One.
More weapons procurement leads to fatter profits for military contractors, who,
in turn, lend support for his political agenda.
Russia
has now announced that it, too, is withdrawing from the INF Treaty. This is
really a no-brainer, as when the U.S. leaves there is no longer an agreement.
That said, it is unclear what, short of getting the U.S. to give up “missile
defense,” or the dissolution of NATO, would the Russians like to see.
It
is clear that they feel threatened by the eastward expansion of NATO right up
to their western border. And they certainly wouldn’t want the U.S. to base
offensive intermediate range missiles in Eastern Europe. It is also
questionable that any NATO country would agree to hosting such missiles, making
themselves a prime target in the process.
It
seems that it would be in both countries’ security interests to continue the
treaty, but this does not seem to fit Trump’s game-plan. What he really wants
is unclear, and relations between the U.S. and Russia are all suspect at this
point simply because Trump, accused of collusion with Russia regarding the 2016
election campaign, is seen by many as perhaps posturing with regard to any
conflicts—real or not—with the country that is defined by the mass media and many
in the political establishment as a primary adversary of the United States.
Further
complicating the equation is the rise of China. When the INF Treaty was put in
place, it was only between the two nuclear superpowers. Trump has, in recent
months, asserted that China should also be included in any future permutation
of an INF Treaty.
While
Peaceworks supports multilateral arms control and disarmament efforts,
dismantling the current bi-lateral agreements does not seem to point us in the
direction of eliminating very real threats. In fact, it seems to extend an
invitation to emerging and potential nuclear weapons states to aggressively
pursue their nuclear ambitions, as that’s exactly what the states with the vast
majority of all such weapons are, sadly enough, doing.
 |
| U.S.Pershing II Missiles being Dismantled Under the Terms of the Treaty. |
