International security

Nothing About Trashing the INFTreaty Makes the US Safer


Walking away from treaties has adverse diplomatic and strategic consequences. When the George W. Bush administration announced its withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2001, the Kremlin responded by withdrawing from the second Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty and its prohibition on land-based missiles carrying multiple warheads. The Kremlin is now moving forward with deployments of new “heavy” land-based missiles that can carry ten or more warheads. Their purpose is to defeat U.S.missile defenses. Likewise, the demise of the INF Treaty would only reinforce the nuclear competition now underway.

The missing piece here is diplomacy. Shoring up nuclear deterrence is about clarifying threats. Diplomacy is about reassurance and reducing nuclear dangers. “Strengthening” deterrence without reassurance results in increased nuclear dangers.

The Trump administration’s decision to walk away from the INFTreaty also highlights the importance of congressional debates over defense budget allocations. In coming debates over steel vs. silicon — choices between familiar, costly instruments of warfare we can see vs. techniques that are invisible to the naked eye — Capitol Hill appears hopelessly behind the curve.