America Could Lose a Real War Against Russia (WP)
World press
With Putin and Trump having torn up a Cold War pact that lowered the risk of nuclear war, America should build more conventional missiles to catch up with Russia and China.
After more than 30 years, the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (I.N.F.) Treaty ended last week, with an American withdrawal on Friday and a Russian withdrawal on Saturday. Although the United States abided by the terms of the treaty, Russia violated it by fielding more than 100 banned intermediate-range missiles, and China, which was never bound by it, fielded thousands. The United States has none.
To fix this gap, it is time for the Department of Defense to develop and field conventionally armed, ground-launched, intermediate-range missiles. The I.N.F. was a good treaty that reduced tensions and contributed to the peaceful end of the Cold War. After signing it in 1987, the Soviet Union and the United States eliminated ground-launched missiles with ranges of approximately 310 to 3,417 miles. Those missiles were problematic because, if they were armed with nuclear warheads, they could, given their short flight time, be used for devastating surprise attacks against allies in Europe and against the Soviet Union. The elimination of those missiles provided a greater sense of stability between the Soviet Union and the United States and its allies.
Unfortunately, for more than a decade Russia has been violating the treaty. In 2008, Russia breached it by testing an intermediate-range, ground-launched cruise missile known as the 9M729. Equipped with modern guidance systems, the 9M729 and other new Russian missiles can fly precisely to their targets. This precision enables Russia to use warheads with conventional explosives that have a much smaller destructive area than nuclear warheads, which in turn increases the likelihood that Russian forces will use these weapons in a conflict.
For six years, American diplomats patiently tried to persuade the Russians to honor the agreement, but Russia ignored the United States and NATO allies while building and deploying more than 100 of the banned missiles. Even more worrisome, China, which was never part of the bilateral treaty and repeatedly declined to join it, started in the 1990s to assemble a huge missile force explicitly designed to counter American strengths. China now has thousands of missiles armed with conventional and nuclear warheads. These precise and deadly missiles are capable of attacking ships at sea and bases ashore, not only throughout the territory of America’s allies in Asia, but also far out at sea and on American territory in Alaska, Guam and the Northern Marianas.
Sign up for David Leonhardt's newsletter
David Leonhardt helps you make sense of the news — and offers reading suggestions from around the web — with commentary every weekday morning.
SIGN UP
Lacking conventionally armed, ground-launched missiles with which to attack enemy forces, or sufficient defenses against China or Russia’s conventionally armed, ground-launched missiles, American forces routinely lose war game simulations involving China or Russia, and could lose a real war.
So the United States needs to acquire its own conventionally armed, ground-launched, intermediate-range missiles. These missiles could provide considerable operational benefits for United States forces and pose challenges to adversaries. If operated from American territory and the territory of allies, these weapons could quickly attack enemy targets once they are detected. Moreover, by using these missiles to strike heavily defended targets and the systems that protect them, the risks to manned aircraft and ships could be reduced.
This new capability would make American forces more effective and could deter Chinese, Russian or other adversary leaders from aggressive actions. Lastly, by arming these missiles with only conventional warheads, the United States could reduce the possibility that enemy forces would confuse these weapons with nuclear ones and mitigate the concerns that led to the original I.N.F. Treaty. It could also provide the United States with an opportunity to negotiate a treaty with China, Russia and other countries that would ban nuclear-armed, ground-launched, intermediate-range missiles.
Some observers in the arms control community think that leaving the I.N.F. Treaty is dangerous and could cause an arms race. The truly dangerous choice is to continue to watch China and Russia field missile arsenals while we do little more than protest and analyze our options. Thankfully, the United States now has effective options. With the treaty dead, the Army and Marine Corps can develop and field conventionally armed, ground-launched, intermediate-range missiles. As Congress finalizes the defense budget, it can make smart investments in this area not only to fund the development of new missiles, but also to repurpose existing designs like the Tomahawk cruise missile (which is currently fired from ships and submarines) or previous designs like the Pershing II ballistic missile (which was banned by the I.N.F. Treaty).
A mix of missiles based on new and repurposed designs should allow the Department of Defense to field significant numbers of missiles within a few years at moderate cost. China and Russia have been sprinting to build their missile forces; with the United States now out of the I.N.F. Treaty, it is time to level the playing field.
